next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Debates of the Senate, May 26, 1998 6. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited 6.1 Nuclear Testing by India-Reassessment of Nuclear Policy-Government Position Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I should like to return to the question of nuclear testing by India. It has come to light in the last two weeks that a great deal of information was available to all countries around the world about the movement of arms and arms technology and expertise from certain countries to India, Pakistan, Iran, and other places. In light of the fact that the government still has a proactive position on selling nuclear equipment, is it considering putting a moratorium on any further sales until such time as the Canadian public can be reassured that these reactors will be used for useful purposes? In our present contracts, only voluntary scrutiny is available, and no mandatory scrutiny is provided for nuclear authorities from our country. (1440) Will the government undertake to reassess this policy, to change the voluntary nature of that inspection to a more mandatory partnership for inspection, before any further nuclear reactors are sold? Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, Senator Andreychuk has expressed a valid concern. As she knows, all countries purchasing CANDU reactors from this country are under the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards which prevent the diversion of nuclear material for clandestine purposes, through detailed and minute accounting procedures. With respect to more stringent requirements, I presume that, as a result of the most recent incidents in India and what has been called the potential that looms in Pakistan, the government and its agencies will be undertaking some stricter safeguards in that respect to ensure that all possible measures are taken to ensure that these incidents are not repeated. Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, my concern is not with the Atomic Energy Agency but with the Canadian government, which should insist that there be more stringent requirements. It is incumbent on the government to do so at this time, to re-evaluate its requirements and not to leave the matter to the agency. Also, Canada has sold a reactor to China, and we do not have stringent requirements there. We are still under the same lax requirements we had 20 years ago. Will the government, not the Atomic Energy Agency, reassess its position? Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I am sure the government will reassess its position. The non-nuclear weapon states, which includes India, must make binding commitments to nuclear non-proliferation. They must also agree to implement full International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all current and future nuclear activities. In addition, all the nuclear partners for Canada must sign a binding, bilateral nuclear-cooperation agreement with Canada that sets out certain commitments, including a commitment to peaceful non-explosive use in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and a commitment that any Canadian-supplied nuclear material such as uranium will not be reprocessed or highly enriched without Canada's consent. There is also a requirement for prior written consent before any transfers to a third country. May 27, 1998 2. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited 2.1 Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with China-Enforcement of International and Domestic Environmental Commitments-Government Position Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I wish to return to the subject about which I was asking questions of the Leader of the Government in the Senate yesterday. In light of the commissioner's findings that there is a dramatic failing of the scrutiny of our environmental system within Canada, how will we be able to enforce the contracts that we have signed with China for CANDU reactors? Our departments do not have scrutiny capabilities under those contracts. There are agencies which appear not to be scrutinized by the government. China has only a rudimentary rule of law. It has no commercial courts. How will we enforce the terms of the CANDU reactor agreement when there are no support systems in China? Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as I mentioned yesterday, the nuclear material which is produced in CANDU reactors supplied by Canada is subject to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. These safeguards are designed to verify that such nuclear material is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Oppsoition): Where is the proof? Senator Graham: We have full confidence in the international agency. Senator Lynch-Staunton: Do you have the same confidence in India, too? It was a CANDU that gave them plutonium. Senator Graham: There has to be an element of fairness here. Senator Lynch-Staunton: As well as accuracy. Senator Graham: The Leader of the Opposition is expressing a valid concern. Perhaps he will allow me to complete my answer. The international agency verification of non-explosive use commitments provides a high level of confidence to the international community that states are abiding by their nuclear non-proliferation commitments. However, there is no question that revelations following the 1991 Gulf War about Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program and growing concerns at the same time about North Korea's nuclear activities made clear that there was an urgent need to strengthen the international agency's safeguard systems. As a result, international efforts have now provided the agency with the authority and the means to improve its capability to detect nuclear material and nuclear activities that might not have been declared by a particular state. Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, that is precisely the problem. The agency has only been able to reinforce itself on a scrutiny and detection basis. However, there is no enforcement of the agreements. It is our agreement. We have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that the nuclear use is non-military. We are left with nothing but the Prime Minister's bilateral, back-room discussions with the leaders of these countries. We have no other mechanisms. Nor do we seem to be able to stand up and make these people accountable, at least in an international forum. Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I am not so sure that that is accurate. Countries interested in entering into nuclear trade with Canada must sign a nuclear cooperation agreement with Canada which meets the requirements of our policy. All bilateral nuclear partners which have purchased CANDU technology or which are seriously interested in purchasing CANDU technology must do so. The honourable senator has mentioned China. I would add countries such as Argentina, Romania, South Korea, Turkey, as well as others. They have nuclear cooperation agreements in place with Canada which meet the requirements of Canada's nuclear non-proliferation policy. Senator Lynch-Staunton: If they violate it, is the penalty to close down the reactor? Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, the problem is, as pointed out by the India situation, that there is no enforcement mechanism. If we find out there has been a failure, we can only appeal to their higher values, something which it is obvious they do not have. If they did have such values, they would not be exploding these devices and flaunting these rules. Will the government, at least, at this point put a moratorium on further sales to see how we can put more teeth into our own agreements as well as those which are of an international nature? Senator Graham: Honourable senators, non-nuclear weapons states must make a binding commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. They can do this by becoming a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or by making an equivalent legally binding commitment. As I said, they must also agree to implement full International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all current and future nuclear facilities. This means that all their nuclear facilities are inspected on a regular basis by the international agency. The basis of Senator Andrychuk's last question is whether or not Canada should put a moratorium on any further sales of nuclear technology. I point out that the India tests were unexpected and very shocking. Senator Lynch-Staunton: Thanks to the CANDU. Senator Graham: Thanks to the CANDU, which is the safest reactor in the world, and thanks to Canadian technology, which makes Canada a world leader in this field. Senator Lynch-Staunton: Ontario Hydro shut down its own reactors for God's sake. Senator Graham: Nuclear energy is a safe, reliable, environmentally sound and cost-effective source of electric energy. Canada remains prepared under adequate safeguards to cooperate with other countries which want to benefit from Canadian expertise in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Canada has stringent guidelines regarding the sale of Canadian nuclear technology. This country believes that the stringent requirements of its current nuclear non-proliferation policy provides strong assurances that Canadian nuclear technology is used solely for peaceful, non-explosive purposes. We are all concerned. The world is concerned. This is not the property of one particular party or one particular government. Prime Minister Chrétien, our foreign minister and all leaders are talking almost on a daily basis about this problem. They are giving it prime attention. I am sure it is a concern to all Canadians. It should be a concern to all citizens of the world. It is hoped that cooler heads will prevail in the future with respect to the explosion of nuclear devices. (1400) Senator Andreychuk: The Indian situation was significantly troubling to the world when viewed against the backdrop of the amount of equipment moving out of the former Soviet Union and being disseminated around the world. I am asking you to appeal to the Prime Minister to reassess this issue, and not to stand on our past record, because it has failed. This is a dramatic change of events that we now cannot ignore. I urge you to pass on this request to the Prime Minister to deal with it before another sale. Senator Graham: Senator Andreychuk has not only vast experience in this country but international experience as well. I am pleased to bring her personal concerns, as well as the concerns of all members of this chamber, to the attention of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as the Minister of National Defence. House of Commons Debates, February 11, 1999 * * * [Translation] 4.8 EXPORT OF CANDU REACTORS Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Minister for International Trade revealed here in the House that the federal government wishes to continue exporting CANDU reactors. My question is for the Prime Minister. Given the lack of scientific and social consensus on the safety of Canadian nuclear technology, can the Prime Minister guarantee that his government will not advance the billions of dollars required to purchase new CANDU reactors to Romania and Turkey? [English] Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously with respect to future transactions, no one can predict what might happen in terms of future business relationships. On the scientific point, the hon. member does this Canadian technology a grave disservice by implying that it is somehow inherently unsafe. In fact, the Candu has the safest track record in the world. [Translation] Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us whether he intends to follow up on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs calling upon Parliament to conduct `a separate and in-depth study on the domestic use, and foreign export of, Canada's civilian nuclear technology'? [English] Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are actively looking at the very interesting recommendations from the committee. We have 150 days to respond. I can assure the hon. member that we will be responding in a very comprehensive way within that time period. I am sure that we will be able to provide the kind of answers she is looking for. * * *
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects