Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

No, but that's not what I'm saying. Perhaps I can clarify.

I don't mean necessarily related to clause-by-clause, but related to some of the testimony we have heard with respect to, for example, risk assessment. On what basis was the $650,000 established? There was some conjecture that it was enough, that it was not enough, that not enough administrative due diligence was done, and so on.

Those are of a general nature. They're not specific to clause-by-clause, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

On a point of order, in order to be fair to the witnesses, they were called here under the understanding that we were doing clause-by-clause. That's why they're here.

A lot of the testimony we heard earlier didn't have to do specifically with the bill. I'm not sure it's fair to our witnesses who are here today to expect them to able to respond to that. I'm not sure they were even here for the testimony.

If we're going to deal directly with the bill, I think that's fair to them. Otherwise I don't think it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I've heard your concern, Mr. Anderson.

Ms. Bell and then Mr. Alghabra.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I want to thank my colleagues for the understanding with respect to the motions that we put forward. As I said, we had them in on time. I'm not sure what the issue is with the law clerks, but they wanted to discuss them further, and they haven't sent them back yet.

My initial feeling was that we should adjourn. After hearing Mr. Tonks' suggestion, I thought that it was actually plausible. We haven't really heard from the department and the officials. We've only heard from the minister.

I know that, with all due respect to them, they maybe weren't prepared to come and talk about that and were looking at clause-by-clause, but I don't know if that would be any different, because they would be prepared to talk about everything in the act anyway and to give us some information.

Mr. Chair, we might, because of what they might say and after having heard witnesses, have more questions for them and we might have more amendments we want to make based on all the testimony that we're heard. If we aren't able to hear from them as just witnesses as opposed to on clause-by-clause, then I'm really not comfortable proceeding with the clause-by-clause.

I'll wait for your ruling on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

This is very unusual. In 13 years I haven't heard of asking officials to stay and give general testimony when they've come for clause-by-clause.

There are others, however, who want to make some comments.

Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to echo what Mr.Tonks has said. I thought that was a great suggestion. I don't care if we still call it clause-by-clause. We are going to be examining the bill; we're just not going to be as specific about a particular clause.

We had the opportunity to hear witnesses, and I'm not just referring to the witnesses we had this morning, but the witnesses we had on Tuesday who were very specific about certain clauses of the bill. Perhaps we could come back to officials as part of the clause-by-clause for clarification to respond to some of the concerns that the witnesses had given us. Even though it may not be going in a particular order, I would still have no problem in calling it clause-by-clause in pursuing some clarification from the officials.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I understand the request of the NDP.

Our organization worked very hard yesterday in order to be able to table the amendments within the time limit. Our party has worked hard and people clocked a lot of overtime. Indeed, the deadline was very tight. I can understand if the NDP has difficulty bringing in its amendments on time.

I think you should ask what the members think and that we should grant Ms. Bell's request.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, I have asked, and I've had some response. There seems to be, certainly on the opposition side, a desire to have the witnesses give more of a technical briefing rather than proceed with clause-by-clause.

Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm also inclined to use the time to ask the witnesses here for their responses to some of the previous deputations. If that isn't acceptable, then I'd like to use the remaining time to set our priorities for the next three meetings that might happen after next Tuesday, then for the coming term, so we could at least use the time productively.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

It seems that the will on the opposition side, certainly, is to ask questions of the witnesses who are here, pertaining to this legislation.

I am here, of course, to serve the committee, so let's start with questioning the witnesses in the normal fashion. That means the official opposition for up to seven minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do want to reiterate my appreciation for the officials being here today.

There is a lot of feedback from the nuclear association and its members about the insurance aspect of the bill, whether the market itself, access to the market or insurers, or the type of security for the 50% self-insured, or any other type of insurance. Another 50% have actual insurance policies.

I'm one of those people who take a long time to understand things, so could you first explain to me how the insurance market works for nuclear producers? What is NIAC's role and what is the minister's role, etc., in deciding who's eligible to insure and who's not?

[Dave McCauley]

Certainly. Thanks very much.

The insurance market, under the existing legislation, is one in which we have a group of insurers who have been approved, first by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions as having the financial wherewithal to provide insurance to Canadian nuclear companies. These insurers are then approved by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, or Natural Resources Canada, to actually be insurers who are able to provide insurance under the existing Nuclear Liability Act in that they accept, basically, the principles and the requirements of the legislation, and they have entered into an agreement with the federal government on the sharing of risk under the policy that has been approved for operators under the legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have a point of order, Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think I did not quite understand the translation. In fact, I do not understand what we are doing. What is the committee's decision? Are we proceeding with clause-by-clause?

Our amendments were ready. I do not understand what is going on right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Maybe I misunderstood. As chair, of course, I carry out the will of the committee. The witnesses came to hear clause-by-clause, and I was hoping to proceed with clause-by-clause, but there seemed to be a desire to put it off. Maybe I should have asked for a motion—probably, appropriately, I should have—and made that decision. Maybe I was prejudging, having heard your comment right now.

I had made the ruling that we would, as seemed to be requested from all opposition, as I understood it—obviously incorrectly—go to just questioning on the bill, without formally going through clause-by-clause. But having heard your comment, I think we should actually have a motion on how to proceed here.

Yes, Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate what the Bloc is saying, but I thought she herself said that she doesn't mind postponing the clause-by-clause until Tuesday, because she said she appreciates how long it took for the amendments to be put together and be approved by the law clerk.

If she's changing her mind, then maybe.... But I certainly understand why you understood what you understood, because that's what I understood.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. It's not just a bad morning for me, then. Thank you.

Yes, go ahead.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chairman, there may be a translation problem.

I was sympathetic to the request of the NDP, however our amendments were tabled on time. The suggestion to deal with those clauses that have no amendments was fine with us.

You are going fast and I am lagging behind because of the translation and I am not clear about where you are taking us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Because of my obvious misunderstanding, then, I want to see from the committee what the will of the committee is.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'd just like to make the point that we would like to go ahead with clause-by-clause, with the provision that, if Ms. Bell wants to set aside certain clauses for now and come back to them, we would be willing to do that. That was our position.

I also understood Ms. DeBellefeuille to say that she didn't want to go directly to it, but if they would like to, we'd be glad to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The chair has erred here. I really did think it was a clear opinion right down the side of the opposition that we should not proceed with clause-by-clause now. Obviously that's not the case.

It will require a motion to change our agenda, then, from what it was. We will proceed with clause-by-clause, unless there's a motion brought before this committee and passed to change that agreed-to procedure.

Ms. Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I want to clarify something, because it's been said a couple of times—or inferred, possibly—that the NDP didn't have our amendments in on time. That is not the case. They were in on time, and they are still with the law clerk.

There was a short timeframe, and that was referred to by a couple of the other opposition members. I just feel that because of the short time period to get this in—and I haven't gotten them back—I'm not willing to proceed.

So I would move an adjournment at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I have to go directly to the question, of course. An adjournment motion is not debatable.

Those in favour of adjournment, show your hands, please.

(Motion negatived)