Evidence of meeting #35 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was proposed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Seeing no further discussion on PV-18, let's go to the vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on amendment NDP-9.
Ms. Moore, do you want to speak to NDP-9?
10:55 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
This amendment removes the $1 billion absolute liability cap and implements unlimited liability. This is in accordance with the polluter pays principle and demonstrates some fiscal responsibility in making sure that Canadian taxpayers do not have to pay should an accident happen. Of course, we heard a number of remarks in connection with this matter during the various testimonies. Ms. McClenaghan specifically said the following:
...the amount of $1 billion is far too low to provide assurance of the ability to adequately compensate victims of a severe accident in both the offshore oil and gas as well as the nuclear energy sectors.
During the study, we found out that, although the $1 billion amount could cover certain accident scenarios, in other cases it was possible that it would not cover the damages caused by an accident. The officials even admitted it. That is why I believe that it would be more prudent to remove the $1 billion absolute liability cap and make liability unlimited.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, can we ask the officials for an indication of what the impact of this would be?
11 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Part (a) of the amendment would essentially change the limit to the financial security section. Parts (b), (c), and (d) all sort of ripple through.
It says “not limited to”; it doesn't specify. Proposed section 27 specifies....
I'm not sure I quite fully follow it, but it replaces the $1 billion. It replaces the amount that is referred to in proposed subsection 24(1), which is the $1-billion limit on absolute liability.
11 a.m.
General Counsel and Executive Director, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources
It would also have the effect of changing the liability limit.
Proposed paragraph 24(2)(b) allows that the Governor in Council could prescribe a lower liability limit. As an example, that flexibility is in the bill for universities that have Slowpoke research reactors. The effect of this would be to impose unlimited liability on all classes of nuclear installations.
11 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, the essence of this amendment and a number of amendments coming forward relate to the concern expressed by a good number of the witnesses who appeared before the committee.
Mr. Kleinau said that Japan had a $1-billion package, which, after the Fukushima I meltdown, proved to be not even close to what the final costs were.
Mrs. McClenaghan expressed deep concern.
Professor Amos stated that the provision restricts the polluter pays principle, which the government is bound to whether they choose to put it in the legislation or not, which is reprehensible...by having an absolute liability of $1 billion and therefore is inappropriate, because what it does is it transfers the liability, then, from the operator to the Canadian public.
There was a brief provided by Dr. Gordon Edwards. He wasn't given the opportunity to appear. I understand the brief has been translated and distributed. Dr. Edwards shared with us that even by the most conservative estimates, the financial costs of off-site damages from Chernobyl are measured in the tens of billions. Some estimates of the off-site costs of Fukushima are measured in the hundreds of billions. It was his concern that to approve this limited liability is to agree in advance that the liability is passed over to the taxpayers of Canada. By imposing a liability of $1 billion we're, first of all, not even recognizing the reality of what the costs of these incidents have been in both Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the result is that Canadian taxpayers would have to pay.
Dr. Edwards also was concerned that there's no clear calculation provided by the officials on where the $1 billion comes from. It seems to be a figure pulled from a hat. There should not be any limitation whatsoever, given the significance of the potential damage from a nuclear incident. Why impose $1 billion? Why not just simply say absolute liability?
We are simply reiterating the concerns expressed by witnesses who came before the committee and the evidence of the scale of damage as a result of incidents that have occurred and that Canada could be susceptible to.
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Ms. Duncan, the explanation of how $1 billion was arrived at has been given many times. Perhaps some of it was at a meeting that you weren't at, but it has been given several times.
11 a.m.
NDP
11 a.m.
An hon. member
One witness—
11 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
A recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We are now on amendment PV-19.
I would just note that if PV-19 is adopted, NDP-10 can't be proceeded with, due to the line conflict.
Ms. May, go ahead, please.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Just a point of clarification on that.
If it's defeated, what happens to NDP-10?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
As members of the committee will know, PV-19 is an attempt to respond to some of the expert legal testimony that was put to the committee, particularly from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, about the nature of the liability. Ms. McClenaghan spoke to the concern that the limits that appear in clause 120 are too low.
As the bill reads now, it's “$650 million for a nuclear incident within one year after the day...”. This is for the compensation for those affected. In proposed paragraph 24(1)(a), it's $650 million. In (b) it's “$750 million for a nuclear incident arising within one year after the year referred to...”. In (c) it's $850 million, and in (d), it's $1 billion.
In relation to those liability limits, my amendment moves them all up in sequence. The lowest would move from being $650 million to being $1 billion. The next level would be $5 billion. The next level after that would be $10 billion. The level that now reads as a $1-billion nuclear incident absolute liability limit would be raised to $20 billion.
Given the experience with nuclear incidents, these are certainly much more realistic levels and reflect what we understand are the costs of real situations should we have, and we obviously hope we never will have, a nuclear incident that's catastrophic.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Seeing no further intervention on PV-19, we'll go to the vote.
(Amendment negatived)
We go to amendment NDP-10.
Madam Moore, would you like to speak to that?
11:05 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
This amends the bill to ensure that the fault placed on the operator cannot be reduced.
I would like to remind committee members of Mr. Edwards' remarks when he pointed out that taxpayers must also be considered.
He said, “While the act limits the ability of the operator, it does not limit the liability of the taxpayer. The exposure of the Canadian taxpayer is unavoidable under this legislation and it's unlimited”.
When a bill like this is passed, taxpayers must also be considered. If we reduce the operator's liability and simply send an invoice to the taxpayers, we are no further ahead. In my view, this in no way observes the polluter pays principle.
I would also like to make another comment.
We have had little time to study Bill C-22. As the transcripts of the meetings have not yet been translated, I can only quote the remarks in English. If I mangle some of the quotations sometimes, I apologize. It is more difficult for us francophone members to quote those remarks because we still do not have the official translation of previous meetings.
June 10th, 2014 / 11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Chair, I just wanted to point out that I believe the exemption that this bill would be removing was for those particular facilities which would be at our academic research institutions. I just want further clarification on this.
As a proud graduate of the University of Alberta, I believe the University of Alberta does have one of these facilities. It's located in Ms. Duncan's riding. If the liability amount was held the same for the University of Alberta, as well as McMaster or any of the other places where these particular facilities happen to be held, that would require those particular universities or the operators thereof, to do one of two things. One would be to shut down their facilities, because they wouldn't be able to afford the insurance that would come with the absolute liability of $1 billion. Given the magnitude and the scope of what those facilities are actually capable of doing, does it actually make sense to hold them in the same category or classification as a nuclear power generation facility?
I am wondering if department officials can confirm what I'm saying.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I think it's kind of been said, but go ahead, please, Mr. Labonté.
11:10 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Yes.
The removal of this would eliminate the possibility that the Governor in Council may recognize that university research reactors, called Slowpoke reactors, which have a different profile in terms of how they handle and deal with nuclear issues, would not be able to have a lower level of liability. Therefore, they would have a much higher cost structure and may not be able to operate. They are located, I think, at the University of Alberta, École Polytechnique de Montréal, and McMaster University. There's one in the military as well, and I believe I'm missing one...at the Saskatchewan Research Council. It provides for the different classes. Some classes might merit further attention and some examination of liability.