Evidence of meeting #6 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We'll go to the question on clause 26.
(Clauses 26 to 33 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 34—Interim financial assistance)
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Yes, we are looking for an amendment here:(2) The maximum amount paid under subsection (1) may not exceed 40% of the difference between
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Could we have clarification on what you're asking for on clause 34 again?
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
On subclause 34(2):
(2) The maximum amount paid under subsection (1) may not exceed 40% of the difference
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, may I suggest that would be out of order? It seems to me that requires a royal recommendation to change the obligation of the crown or of the government.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I am considering that. If I could have some input from the witnesses on that, I would appreciate it.
9:35 a.m.
Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources
The rationale for putting the 20% was to limit to 20% the amount of the $650 million fund that the minister could pay out before the tribunal was put in place. It's correct that of the $650 million, some of those funds would be private insurance and some would be federal moneys.
As to whether there's a royal....
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. St. Amand, you go ahead. I'm just going to take a further look at this, but your input may be helpful.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
I take it, folks, that you would concede that 20% is something of an arbitrary amount.
9:35 a.m.
Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, we would.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
Right. What is the downside, if any, if the amount were actually raised to 40%? What's the risk? I don't understand. The declaration's already been made.
9:35 a.m.
Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources
Our interest was, in the event of a very serious accident, to rely very heavily on the tribunal to provide effective, efficient, and equitable compensation of victims. So we wanted to hold onto as much of the fund as possible for, actually, the claims determination by the tribunal. Nevertheless, we recognized it might take a bit of time for the tribunal to get up and running, so we wanted to have some mechanism to have money out to victims when the insurers are no longer operating. So that's why we limited it to 20%.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
To be fair, and I know it's just a figure of speech, “a bit of time” is an extreme understatement. We're talking years.
9:40 a.m.
Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources
No, it would not be.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
Well, potentially we're talking years before final or ultimate payments would be made to the victims.
9:40 a.m.
Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources
Oh yes, but we're talking about the establishment of the tribunal, so this interim payment would only be made between the time that a declaration was made, saying, okay, stop the payments under insurance--
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
That's my understanding. I understand. But the ceiling is 40%. There's nothing mandatory about a full 40% being paid out. It would be that an interim payment up to 40% could be paid.
9:40 a.m.
Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources
That's correct.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
So again, I'm having difficulty knowing, with that discretion available to the minister, why the ceiling of 40% is so problematic.
9:40 a.m.
Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources
I'm not saying that it's necessarily problematic. What I'm saying is that the rationale for us to have the 20% was to seek to maintain as much of the moneys as possible for distribution by the tribunal. The 20% was chosen as minimizing the payout before the tribunal was in place.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. McCauley, could you explain a bit more what some practical implications might be in increasing that amount?