Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Thank you, Mr. Boshcoff.

Mr. Ouellet is next.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Good morning, minister.

Earlier you said that medicine also produced waste. I would simply like to remind you that a CANDU reactor produces 15 bundles of 37 active uranium rods a day when it operates, whereas, in medicine, Cobalt-60 can last 15 or 20 years and the pellets are very small. These types of waste are not comparable.

Minister, you said that the research confirmed that you were absolutely right. Committee members would like you to table the reference documents, the scientific documents and documents containing an evaluation of anticipated claims involving nuclear power stations. I imagine that's how you established the maximum compensation amount at $650 million. We don't know the logic behind that amount.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, we would be absolutely happy to provide that to the committee. The documentation, the international standards, and how we reached that number—that would be no problem at all.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Minister, as you are aware, no other industry in Canada is responsible for this kind of insurance. You say that nuclear energy is clean energy; so why did you deem it necessary to require nuclear energy companies to bear this kind of responsibility?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

What I am saying is that nuclear produces.... There are no greenhouse gases; there's no pollution; there are no SOx, VOCs, or particulate matter.

There are issues with the storage of the spent nuclear fuel, but this is to do with the unlikely event of an incident. We believe that the current act is outdated—it was passed in 1970—with an inadequate amount. As a government, we have the responsibility to ensure that it's meeting the standards of today and that we bring it up to international standards. That's exactly what we've done. The standing committee from the Senate has also recommended, I believe, that we do this, so we've had a look at this and we're acting.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

And yet some companies manufacture chemicals that can be hazardous, but you require nothing of them.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Virtually all countries that produce nuclear energy have a very similar regime in place. So with respect to the nuclear industry, we're bringing this up to international standards.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Minister, you're forcing nuclear energy companies to insure themselves. Why aren't you forcing insurance companies to issue residential insurance policies covering nuclear accidents?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Again I will only say that these are the international standards. We have a responsibility to ensure that the operator carries a certain amount of insurance. I will add that the operators themselves in the industry are supportive of this legislation. They know there will be an additional cost to bear, but we've worked with them and they are supportive of this legislation.

I can't answer your question. We're not going to be on a completely different regime. This is the most appropriate and correct way to ensure that the correct amount of insurance is there to ensure that in the unlikely event of an incident, an appropriate amount of insurance is being carried.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

If I clearly understand what you're saying, nuclear energy companies are happy that you're imposing this on them. Is that because, from one country to another, you want to put them on an equal footing so that they can invest in Canada?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I don't know if they're pleased, but they support the legislation. They recognize it has to be done. The current amount is woefully inadequate.

You ask me why we don't put this on people's household insurance. In fairness, I don't think they should be required to carry the insurance for nuclear operators. They wouldn't be the ones liable if there were an incident. Obviously the nuclear operators that cause the incidents should be carrying the insurance, not the consumers.

I'm not sure if you're asking why we would impose these costs on the operator, why we wouldn't let the consumer pay.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Precisely, minister, you're saying people don't want that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Thank you, Mr. Ouellet, the time is over.

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you very much for being here. With my five minutes I probably won't have a chance to ask Ms. Kirby a thing about the wild Atlantic salmon today.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

You're welcome to take that up with her.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I'll defer that for another day.

Having worked with New Brunswick Power, which does have a nuclear facility, I understand the safety and the safety mechanisms in these--a tremendous record.

In 2003, NRCan and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission contracted a firm to study the off-site impact of a worst-case scenario using Gentilly-2 and Darlington. What kind of output from that study went into some of the provisions in this bill? Were there any changes in the legislation based on that study?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'll let Sue answer this one.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I knew I could get her to answer somehow.

[Sue Kirby, Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources]

That was indeed one of the factors that went into our recommendation of the $650-million limit. There was quite a wide range in that study of what the potential impacts might be, even in a worst-case scenario. We took that into account in coming up with the $650 million.

There were really three key factors that went into that recommendation. One was best international practice, which the minister has already talked about, in terms of $500 million being the average internationally. Another was the study we asked for from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on worst-cost possibilities in Canada, which gave us quite a wide range, from $1 million to $300 million for worst-case scenarios. Finally was the availability we believe is out there of insurance coverage for the operators.

We took those three factors together and can include them in the material we've promised to the committee. They led us to the recommendation of $650 million.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you.

I'll go to my next question. A lot of the debate that was going on in the House before this bill was referred to committee talked about the Paris-Brussels regime and the Vienna convention. If I understood correctly from those debates, Canada is not a part of either of those conventions officially, but we do have a monitoring role.

What I'd like to ask is what have we learned out of that monitoring practice with them that may have gone into this bill? When you look at some of the things that are in here, in the changes, they've talked about things like expanding the coverage, greater flexibility, and all those kinds of things that are part of the bill.

So what did we learn from there that has formed part of this, and has there been any consideration for Canada to become part of that organization officially?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Obviously, one is the limitation period. It's obvious that ten years was inadequate. That's why it's being increased to thirty years. You're correct that we have an observer status, so we are engaged with our international partners in sharing best practices in how we move forward on many of these issues.

I don't know if Sue has more to add.

[Sue Kirby]

I don't know if Dave would.

[Dave McCauley, Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources]

Yes, we are an observer. We do have observer status with these conventions, and certainly they have influenced the development of legislation, as the minister indicated, in areas on the definition of nuclear damages and the liability limit. We would be interested in perhaps discussing with Department of Foreign Affairs membership in one of these conventions in the longer term should this bill proceed and enter into force.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Would you like to have another minute?

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Just as my last question, then, as we're doing clause-by-clause and as we have witnesses come in as we go through this bill, what I would be hearing from those two things is that we are aligning very well with other jurisdictions and that we shouldn't be surprised at all as we go through this testimony to hear that we would be completely consistent.