Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will carry on as scheduled, with the clause-by-clause, then. We're back to that. We only have half an hour.

As I explained, then, we will go through, clause by clause. We will vote on each clause once the discussion and debate has ended.

It is normal to stay the first clause, which is the title.

Is it agreed that we stay the first clause and deal with that at the end? Usually, it's one of the last things we do in the process.

It is in the Standing Orders, actually, so we don't have to vote on it. I guess it is in the Standing Orders.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

Clause 2 is the section that deals with the definitions that are used throughout the bill. There is no standard procedure for this.

I'm suggesting that we stay this clause till after we've gone through the other clauses, because these definitions, of course, apply to those clauses, and there may be need for some change if something changes in some of the clauses. This is the way that seems to work fairly well on some occasions.

I'm suggesting that. Is it the will of the committee that we do that and proceed with clause 3?

Madame DeBellefeuille, you have a question or a point of order.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

No, but I want to be sure I understand. You say you are going to set aside the Bloc amendment dealing with the definitions clause. Am I right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, we would deal with that full clause, the definitions, after we dealt with the bill itself because some of those definitions may be required to change, or some you may want to change as a result of the debate or the changes in clauses, if there are in fact changes.

We will come back to it. There will be a chance for the Bloc amendment and any other amendment that may be brought before the committee to be dealt with.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I would just like to point out that some people are dealing with a bill for the first time. I would just point out that this is the regular process that happens with bills.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson, for that. In my comments I said there is no standard procedure for this definition section, but in most of the legislation I have dealt with over 14 years, it has been handled in this fashion. It seems to work best.

Is it agreed that we stay that clause until after we have dealt with the clauses other than the final ones that we deal with, such as the title and that type of thing?

It is agreed on division. There is a clear consensus. There is consent.

Is there consent to stay this clause with the interpretation until toward the end?

(Clause 2 allowed to stand on division)

(On clause 3—Minister)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Let's start with clause 3. I haven't seen any proposed amendments until clause 24, on which there are amendments. There are a whole group of clauses that don't seem to have been contentious. It is up to you entirely. Do you want to handle these one at a time, or do you want to group them in some fashion? Do you want to deal with all of these up to clause 24? And then we'll do them clause-by-clause after that. It's entirely up to the committee.

Do you want to go through them one at a time? Okay.

On clause 3, is there any debate?

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4—Limitation )

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there debate on clause 4?

Yes, Ms. Bell.

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

In clause 4 it says, “This Act does not apply”, referring to what it does not apply to, and I believe a terrorist attack is.... We heard from some of the witnesses about the pools that the nuclear waste is cooled in. They are open and they are not safe. That is basically what they said. There is potential for a terrorist attack or any type of natural disaster even.

If there is a possibility of a huge catastrophe from this and the industry is not liable—I just want to be clear on this clause that says the industry is not liable in the event of a terrorist attack—does that mean that the federal government is liable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I'll just leave it up to the three of you to decide who would like to answer, unless the question is directed to one of you.

Go ahead, please, Mr. McCauley.

[Dave McCauley]

No, in fact what the legislation says is that the act is applicable to damages relating to a terrorist activity, and to the extent this may be terrorist activity associated with a nuclear fuel waste management location, it would also apply to damages associated with that. Nuclear fuel waste is managed in a very secure manner on licensed sites today, in pools or in dry storage, and in fact it's subject to the same type of security as the installation itself, but if there were a terrorist attack and if the damages related to the nuclear fuel waste, it would be covered under this legislation. We made it very explicit that the operator would be liable if there were a terrorist activity, a terrorist action that resulted in nuclear damage. We made it very explicit that in fact that would be covered under the legislation and the operator would be absolutely liable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Are there any other questions?

Ms. Bell, on clause 4.

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

It's only that we need to go back and forth between—

[Brenda MacKenzie]

I'm sorry. So that you understand, you can read subclause 4(1) by itself. This is where the rule for terrorist activity is written. It's right here. It says the act does not apply to those emissions or damage that result from an act of war, other than terrorist activity as defined in the Criminal Code.

That brings it in. It doesn't apply to an act of war but it brings terrorist activity back in, relying on the definition of terrorist activity in the Criminal Code.

That's to your question about terrorist activity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. MacKenzie.

Mr. McCauley, do you have something to add to that?

[Dave McCauley]

No, I have nothing to add.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Bell, do you have any other questions on clause 4?

Are there any other comments or discussion on clause 4?

(Clause 4 agreed to on division)

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6—Designation of sites)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since you're here, witnesses, with respect to clause 6, I don't know if you caught any of the previous presentations by Dr. Edwards or Dr. Duguay, but there was a flavour, if I can say that, to their presentations that nuclear sites are handed out rather liberally—small “l” liberally.

It's clear that this act, in and of itself, has nothing to do with the designation of nuclear sites or the type of reactors that will be built on those nuclear sites. Those questions and issues are dealt with in the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Is my understanding correct?

[Dave McCauley]

That's correct.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you. Are there any other questions on clause 6?

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(On clause 7—Limitation)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Are there any comments or questions?

Yes, Mr. Alghabra.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want the officials to clarify or respond to the letter that we got on behalf of Westinghouse. They're raising concern about the ambiguity of the word “damage”. To put it on the record, could you please take a moment and respond to their concerns?

[Dave McCauley]

We haven't seen the letter that Westinghouse has provided to the committee.

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

I'll try to summarize it and I'll try to do it justice. It was written by Gowling on behalf of Westinghouse. Their concern is that the word damage is used in various sections in this act but meaning different things at times, sometimes injury, sometimes bodily injury or physical injury.

They are suggesting it's leaving a lot of ambiguity and a lot of room for interpretation, and they're asking that it be redrafted and revised as necessary to, as they put it, “eliminate any ambiguity as to the intended scope of liabilities for losses, and exclusions from liabilities for losses, under the Act”.