Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

[Dave McCauley]

It would apply, for example, to an installation on the border or that has the possibility of causing damage in the United States.

I believe the reciprocity agreement was entered into back in 1976 or thereabouts. Basically it ensured that U.S. victims would have access to the Canadian nuclear liability scheme, because otherwise they would not have access to this scheme. We wanted to make it available to them on the understanding that we would also have access to the American scheme in the event of an American accident that caused damage to Canadian citizens.

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

Was that reciprocity agreement updated, amended, or brought into this consideration during the discussions on this bill?

[Dave McCauley]

We acknowledge that it exists. I would suggest that perhaps we would use this bill as the basis for looking at our relations with other countries in terms of liability, but we understood as we are developing this legislation that the reciprocity agreement exists today and is still in operation.

Brenda, would you like to make a comment on that?

[Brenda MacKenzie]

Yes.

The current reciprocity agreement that you said was apparently entered into in 1976 was, of course, entered into in accordance with the existing legislation, the existing Nuclear Liability Act. Under the Interpretation Act, when the Nuclear Liability Act is repealed and replaced, as this would do, the instruments made under that old act continue, so that is still live and would not be cancelled by the passage of this act. Whether it ought to be updated would be a policy matter.

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

Okay. That was my question, whether any consideration had been given to looking at that reciprocity agreement and whether it was necessary to update it.

[Dave McCauley]

I think the position of officials is that it would probably be worthwhile to look at that reciprocity agreement to see if it needs to be updated, and perhaps to examine as well our international exposure on nuclear liability and whether we might be entering into other agreements.

Of course, this would have to be done in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs, and it would require the authorization of the government.

[Brenda MacKenzie]

It's a very good question.

I'm forcing you to jump ahead here—I shouldn't, I know—but you'll note that in clause 74, coming into force of this act is not on royal assent. It is on a day fixed by order of the Governor in Council, which allows the Governor in Council time to reconsider these important instruments made under the act prior to bringing this into force, because it is complex.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

Mr. Boshcoff.

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

Is there an appendix of the reciprocal agreements? Do we have a list of the countries?

[Dave McCauley]

There is only one, and it's with the United States. The reciprocal agreement was an exchange of notes between the United States government and the Canadian government. That was brought into force by regulation. So there's actually a regulation that brings that reciprocity agreement into force.

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

The notes seem very general, to make it sound like it could be almost any country. Should we not at least specify that it's the United States?

My concern that I raised earlier, a few days ago, was whether or not some country that fishes in proximity to Canada may find airborne or water contamination and sue us for loss of a fishery, or maybe if some vessel is registered for tourism purposes or something like that, loss of income or direct damages.

[Dave McCauley]

I think certainly, as I mentioned, the consideration of whether it would be worthwhile for us to have other reciprocity agreements or agreements of that nature is something that we would be looking at, following our consideration of this new legislation. It's our intent to look at the need for reciprocity agreements with other countries or perhaps look into joining international conventions in this area. So this is a further step. But we were cognizant of that as we developed the legislation.

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

I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud, but wouldn't this be the time to identify Portugal, or Great Britain, or Spain, or someone like that, or Monrovia, if they're the cruise vessel?

[Dave McCauley]

I think we are more concerned with getting our own legislation in place, getting the appropriate insurance and compensation regime in place domestically, and ensuring that potential Canadian victims, in the unlikely event of an incident, were addressed, or anyone in Canada.

Actually, the legislation doesn't discriminate between nationalities, and I think, given our proximity to the United States, of course, that was our most important consideration in terms of foreign exposure.

[Brenda MacKenzie]

I would just like to clarify that. If you look at the chapeau, or the opening words, of subclause 8(1), that is where it's saying that it applies in Canada and the EEZ. So we may be mixing questions a bit.

The reciprocity agreement is intended to deal with situations where the damage is outside of Canada—because of our proximity, most likely the United States. The legislation itself applies to Canada's territory out to the 200-mile economic zone. So that means the damage suffered by someone in that zone is compensable.

That might be the most relevant to your concern about foreign—

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

I presume that, as drafters of legislation, we're attempting to foresee the unforeseen. So my cause for concern, with no problem, is that when you say we'll take care of it later, I get a certain amount of angst. I'd sooner deal with it now if we're dealing with the legislation.

[Brenda MacKenzie]

I wonder if your question is not dealt with already in the legislation, though, because under subclause 8(1), anybody in the 200-mile zone who suffers damage can be compensated in accordance with the provisions in clauses 13 through to 20.

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

Okay. We'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Boshcoff.

Our time is up for today. Two more people have indicated already that they would like to speak to clause 8, so we'll have to leave that for the meeting on Tuesday.

Thank you very much to the officials for being here today, and thank you all for your cooperation and questions.

I see the chair of the next committee is waiting here. I know he's a mean son-of-a-gun, so we'll let him have the chair.

The meeting is adjourned.