Okay.
Ms. Duncan.
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.
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.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Well, Mr. Chair, in truth, that is not what the provision says.
The cabinet could make that decision, in its wisdom, to exempt facilities. This would put my constituents at risk from an installation that was put in place with zero consultation with the adjacent neighbourhood. I don't think they would be happy that the cabinet is empowered to exempt the operator from liability even if it might be the University of Alberta or some federal agency.
The provision, in fact, gives cabinet full discretion, by regulation, to reduce the amount of liability from any nuclear installation or class of nuclear installations. What's been revealed is that it's going to be the intention of cabinet to exempt those facilities.
Where is the consultation on this? Where's the guarantee that people who are potentially impacted by these exemptions are going to be directly consulted?
Even in the review of this legislation there were people who were not allowed to come forward to speak to concerns about this bill. I have zero confidence that the current cabinet is going to bend over backwards to consult with communities who are potentially impacted by a lessening of liability.
This gives a very broad power to the cabinet to exempt any facility. It could be a reduction or exemption of liability for all kinds of nuclear installations or for the transportation of nuclear material. It is a very broad-brush exemption and reduction of liability and it's, frankly, reprehensible.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Before we go to Ms. Moore, Ms. Duncan, I resent the comment you made that certain individuals have not been allowed to come. In fact, each party gave its list, prioritized, and that's the way we proceeded to invite witnesses. That's the way it was handled. It was handled fairly. It's up to each party to prioritize its list in a way that's likely to have certain witnesses come. I do resent that comment. It's not the way it was handled and it's not an accurate reflection.
Ms. Moore—
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
—there should have been more extensive hearings on this important bill so that everybody who wanted to testify could testify.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Except, Ms. Duncan, we agreed to a certain number of meetings and that was widely supported.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
It was completely agreed and it was widely supported by the NDP.
Go ahead, please, Ms. Moore.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Although we agreed to hold a certain number of meetings, it must be noted that the last one was shortened because of activities going on in the House. That upset the schedule of committee work.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to point out that the meeting had to be shortened.
I will now speak to the proposed amendment.
Paragraph 24(2)(b) of the bill reads as follows:
reduce the amount of liability applicable to an operator of a nuclear installation, or operators of a class of nuclear installations, having regard to the nature of the installation and the nuclear material contained in it.
This in no way specifies the categories of nuclear installations that could benefit, so to speak, from a reduction of this kind. The wording of the sentence is very vague and anyone can benefit. I see that as a major problem.
If the government were in agreement, we could easily adopt my amendment and come up with something else that would specify the categories of installations. We would, of course, agree that educational institutions could benefit from a reduction of this kind.
If the government is open to that idea, we would have to correct this afterwards in order to make sure that only some categories of installations could benefit from a reduction of this kind. We must not leave this part of the paragraph as vague as it is at the moment. Specifically, it means that anyone could benefit from a reduction of this kind, which I see as a mistake.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Only for clarification, because it's being intimated at this table by some that this is some new provision, some new scheme by the government to have this exemption. Can the department officials confirm that this is actually widely what was done before this new piece of legislation that is being enacted...that it's consistent with what the current complement of legislation and regulations is in regard to governing these research reactors?
11:15 a.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Thank you very much.
Yes, under the current legislation low-risk facilities, such as the Slowpoke reactors or other research reactors at educational institutions, have a lower limit of liability under commercial insurance they're required to carry. Then the federal government covers the difference between the amount of commercial insurance they are required to carry and the full liability limit of the legislation.
The same will happen under the proposed bill. Proposed paragraph 24(2)(b) provides that that will be done by regulation, that there will be a regulation that will establish lower limits for certain low-risk facilities, and they would be required to only purchase a certain amount, a lower amount, of commercial insurance and the government would backstop that up to the full liability.
The issue is that these facilities would be incapable of ever creating an accident that would come close to a billion dollar liability.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Calkins.
We go to the vote now on NDP-10.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
A recorded vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:15 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment speaks to proposed subsection 26(1) that requires the minister to review the liability limits that will be passed in Bill C-22 at least once every five years. Then there are subsections as to what the minister should have under his or her consideration when reviewing at least once every five years whether the liability limits are keeping up with reality and keeping up with both the industry and the Canadian economy.
My amendment speaks to a very long-held experience of anyone who has observed the nuclear industry in this country, that it's certainly not transparent, not accountable, and there are very, very few opportunities—and I'm not speaking of any one administration or any one party—but historically for a very long time the nuclear industry operates in a fashion that is immune from most normal processes of public consultation and engagement.
In fact, in the preparation of this bill, witnesses who spoke before the committee said Natural Resources Canada had done very little in terms of outreach to civil society and to critics of the nuclear industry.
In this case what I'm proposing is that when the minister conducts the five-year review-—and I hope this is non-controversial and that there might be a chance of this amendment passing—the minister would undertake that review publicly and in consultation with non-industry stakeholders.
This is a critical piece to bringing the nuclear industry...to drag it kicking and screaming to some place of public accountability in this country. It's not for five years that the review would take place.
I urge all members in all parties to pass this amendment. It can do no damage whatsoever to the bill, but it does give a future minister the responsibility to make sure this review on the liability limits takes place in public with non-industry stakeholders having a right to be considered and consulted.
Thank you.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chair, I don't have a problem with the intent of this amendment, except that it appears to me to exclude industry stakeholders, and it seems to me we would want to include industry stakeholders as well.
If it were amended to say “with industry and non-industry stakeholders” I would have no problem supporting it.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You've heard the proposed subamendment by Mr. Regan. The discussion now is on the proposed subamendment.
11:20 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
For what it's worth, I would consider that a friendly amendment.