Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

[Brenda MacKenzie]

Yes, this is something that was addressed at great length during the drafting process. It is our view that this is not at all ambiguous. I know we've skipped over clause 2, but if we start at the definition of a nuclear incident,

“nuclear incident“ means an occurrence or a series of occurrences having the same origin that causes damage for which an operator is liable under this act.

It says that the operator is liable for things that the act says the operator is liable for. Compensable damage is detailed in clauses 13 through to 20 under the heading “Compensable Damage”, “Dommages indemnisables”. The Gowling counsel is absolutely correct at common law. If you go to the courts, you might not always be certain what damage means. What we have done in this statute is everything in our power to clarify exactly what we mean by damage.

Every time you see a reference to the term “nuclear incident”, and it's mentioned throughout the act, it ties in the notion of damage for which an operator is liable under this act, which takes us back to clauses 13 to 20.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I'd like to make a comment. The letter that Mr. Alghabra is referring to was received by the clerk late last night. That's why everyone may not a copy.

Are there any other questions, Mr. Alghabra?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

No, Mr. Chair. I just wanted the record to show the official's response to the concern. I'm comfortable with that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

All right.

Ms. Bell, on clause 7.

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

This is on clause 7 and also with regard to the letter that Mr. Alghabra mentioned. I actually haven't had a chance to read it. I just got it when I came here this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

As long as it relates to clause 7, that's fine.

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

It was brought up under clause 7 that there are some issues. I'm concerned that there are more. I see a lot of numbers here. They're referring to a lot of clauses, and I haven't had time to really consider it.

I just feel that we're going to rush through, and in our haste we won't be able to reference these things back and forth. I urge you to take some time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

Is there anything else on clause 7?

(Clause 7 agreed to)

(On clause 8--Liability)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Are there any interventions on clause 8? I'll give you a bit of time. I see a couple of members are trying to get their information on that.

Yes, Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Cross-border damage potential was brought up a lot during the witnesses' testimony. What does the act say about that? What would happen, God forbid, if some of the damage was inflicted across the border?

[Dave McCauley]

The act applies to damage in Canada and the exclusive economic zone. It does not apply to damage outside of the country unless it's under an agreement of reciprocity with that country. There would have to be some form of agreement between the Government of Canada and the neighbouring country in which we would provide reciprocal benefits in the event of a nuclear incident that caused damage in the neighbouring country.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I'm assuming we have a deal with the United States.

[Dave McCauley]

Yes, we do.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

So what would happen? I know the act is silent about it, but what would happen under that agreement?

[Dave McCauley]

In the event of an incident of the United States that causes damage in Canada, we would have access to the United States' courts and their fund for third party damages. Similarly, in the event of a Canadian accident with damages in the United States, their citizens would have access to our compensation scheme.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

But who would they sue? Would they sue the power producer? Would they sue the government? Would they sue the insurance? Who would be held responsible?

[Dave McCauley]

If they were coming to Canada to make their claim, they would be claiming against the operator, because the courts are directed that.... Our legislation is the legislation that carries in this area, and the only liable entity is the operator.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Would it be up to the court to decide if the operator, given the claim, would be responsible to compensate?

[Dave McCauley]

Yes, it is the court's decision as to who gets compensation. They would look to the legislation and what that directs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. MacKenzie, would you like to add to that?

[Brenda MacKenzie]

Effectively, if there is a reciprocity agreement in place, which there is at this time, then an American victim—God forbid—would be treated like a Canadian; he would seek compensation under this act in the same way that a Canadian would.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay, so the cap and all the limitations of this act would apply?

[Brenda MacKenzie]

Yes. It would be just as if that person were a citizen. They have to establish that they really suffered damage as a result of the incident.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you for those questions, Mr. Alghabra.

Ms. Bell is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will follow up on Mr. Alghabra's questions because I have the same questions in mind.

Is this reciprocity agreement negotiated between the U.S. and Canada at the time, if there's transborder shipping or whatever, or would it be if we have a facility near a border where there might be an accident that impacted communities in the U.S.? If they are treated the same as if they were Canadian citizens, then the company's liability could well exceed the $650 million, or...?