Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

[Dave McCauley]

The situation would be that these demands would be coming to the minister to pay out, as opposed to a tribunal that would be in place and would have the expertise to deal with payouts like this. Our view was that it would be best to try to minimize the amount of funds that was being spent by the minister acting in the capacity of providing interim insurance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So with a higher percentage paid out, it could increase the risk of someone having to pay some money back, that type of thing, because the tribunal hadn't been controlling more of the fund.

[Dave McCauley]

That's correct, and it would reduce the amount of funds available for the tribunal to pay out once it was in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It seems this is also a “may” clause: you may or may not.... So the point my colleague made, I think, is very valid. In some cases, this may be an evacuation where people's lives are completely upset and the minister would require more latitude in his ability to deal with the situation. So we're limiting the minister's authority here to deal with the situation. By increasing the amount, we're giving him more latitude, and to my mind, that's not a bad thing; it's a good thing.

Ministers of this government have responsibility for very large budgets and they deal with them in accordance with the good principles we have. In this case, he would have the ability to make those decisions. I don't see why fettering his ability to release dollars is a good idea; I don't see that at all. I see it in terms of ensuring that, in the end, other claims have an opportunity to come forward, which is quite correct, because the compensation that would come out of a nuclear accident would be ongoing for quite a while. So we do have to have some sense of that as well.

So I'm saying 40% would give the minister more ability to deal with the issues that may come up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any comment from witnesses?

[Dave McCauley]

Well, I guess my last comment would be that it's always open to the government to provide additional payments outside of the scheme entirely, in the event of an incident.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson.

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

Mr. Chair, I just need some clarification.

I want to know, does this affect the federal government's involvement in payment in any way, shape, or form? If this only involves the $650 million in insurance money, then there's no commitment or change in the federal's government's requirements. If it's outside of that, then it may require royal recommendation, in which case the amendment is out of order.

I don't know if I should be asking the clerk or the witnesses if they can clarify that for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We need maybe some more clarification, if the witnesses could help with answering Mr. Anderson's concern.

[Dave McCauley]

Within the $650 million, as I mentioned previously, there is an amount of federal funding that would be provided. For example, if the incident were caused by a terrorist action, then we understand, at this time, that 80% of all payouts would be covered by federal funds. So they would be within the $650 million, but they would be paid with federal funds.

So to that extent, there is an element of federal funding that would be provided, but it's limited to $650 million.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So to be more direct with the question, could that affect the royal recommendation? I guess I'm looking for more guidance on that.

[Dave McCauley]

The total amount is limited to $650 million, so even if it were all federal government moneys that were spent, the amount would not exceed $650 million. So moving the percentage from 20% to 40% would not increase the payout over $650 million.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We have Mr. Alghabra first. Then we'll go to Mr. Allen.

It seems to me there wouldn't be an issue with the royal recommendation on this. We'll just go ahead with discussion on this.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For clarification purposes, isn't this tribunal also for an unforseeable large accident that may even end up costing more than $650 million in a very improbable scenario?

[Dave McCauley]

Yes.

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

You kept repeating it's limited to $650 million, and the 20% here is applicable to the $650 million, but it's possible this tribunal could be considering greater liabilities. It may be improbable. I hope it will never happen, but it could. The tribunal could be asked to arbitrate on that matter.

[Dave McCauley]

Absolutely, but the interim payment would be based on the $650 million, and that's roughly just over $100 million. If Parliament should later decide to appropriate additional funds to cover the incident, the assumption would be that the tribunal would already be in place, so we're not dealing with interim payment anymore.

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

While increasing it to 40% may increase the pressure on the minister by giving him or her more discretion, that's really what it does. It gives the minister more discretion to spend the money as quickly as possible while the tribunal is considering the claims.

[Dave McCauley]

That's correct.

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

It is giving the minister more discretion—

[Dave McCauley]

While the tribunal is being set up, not while it is being--

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

I assume that once it's set up it will also take some time for the tribunal to consider the evidence and the claim and the testimonies for those claims.

[Dave McCauley]

No, once it is established, the minister would not be able to pay any--

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

Okay, I understand what you're saying. While the tribunal is examining the case, the minister has no more discretion.