Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2009

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, you made it clear last week and at the beginning of this meeting that everything was fair game. We had a discussion about these topics. We have officials here who can answer some of these questions. We've had discussions on two issues today. Right?

Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. This is on the point of order. This is on the point of order we're now considering.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

This is on the point of order.

Ms. Gallant--

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

We've had two sessions. This appears to be the third session. But the expectation of the members was that the officials could answer questions on general issues as well as narrow ones. I can't imagine why you wouldn't allow that to happen, unless it's a directive of the PMO.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Regan, there's a difference between what we ask the officials and what we might ask the minister. I have allowed great latitude in questioning the minister, as long as the questions dealt with proper committee business.

We have the officials here now. It would be appropriate if you would ask them questions on the issue they're here to talk about, which is Bill C-20.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I can use the time to make a statement about that as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I guess Ms. Gallant doesn't want to pursue this.

Go ahead, Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, throughout today's meeting you and the government side have tried to ensure that as little time as possible was spent holding the government to account. It's the responsibility of members of Parliament, in my view, to do that. You ensured that at least 20 minutes was taken up by the minister in making two separate statements.

Mr. Chairman, to Ms. Gallant, I'm entitled to try to make an objection and arrange things so that we have more time to ask questions and hold the government accountable. People are concerned about what's happening with medical isotopes and the production of those isotopes. It's shocking to me that you don't want me to ask questions about this. You don't want to hear the officials answer those questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Regan, do you have a question?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Tonks asked earlier about small operators. What's your position on that?

[Serge Dupont]

I think the minister indicated that there would be flexibility in the legislative construct to address special requirements for nuclear installations different from those prevalent in the Canadian industry today.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Do you mean that the government would support amendments to that effect? Are you suggesting that the present drafting would permit this?

[Serge Dupont]

Mr. McCauley can give you the answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. McCauley.

[David McCauley, Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources]

It's a matter of regulations. The government is able to set a lower limit of insurance for smaller facilities such as the reactor that Mr. Tonks discussed. This makes the insurance less difficult for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

We go now to the government side. Mr. Anderson

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

That's a good point, the last one that was made. As for Mr. Regan's, I'm not sure they are relevant. But the last point, which dealt with there being enough flexibility to allow smaller operators to go about their business, is important. That was part of the bill, the previous bill. It was passed by this committee earlier, when the minister referenced the Senate committee by saying they had recommended $650 million. I should point out that this committee made the same recommendation. It took the bill from last time, passed it through the committee, and sent it back to the House of Commons in its present state. So this committee supported those limits and the structure that's presented here.

I would like to ask about the ability of people and institutions to get compensation in the event of an incident, and I would like you to talk a bit about the role and responsibility of the tribunals. Tell us how this is an improvement over the present system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. McCauley, are you prepared to answer that?

[David McCauley]

Certainly. Thank you very much.

The issue is that under the existing legislation there was provision for what's known as an administrative means of dealing with claims in the event of an incident. That administrative system was known as the Nuclear Damage Claims Commission. The problem with the existing legislation, however, is that the system wasn't really elaborated on.

Under the new legislation the government has provided details on the operation of what is now known as a tribunal. This is a quasi-judicial body that will deal with the effects of an accident using administrative means. These means have generally been considered to be more efficient and equitable than judicial means in dealing with mass tort accidents. So we see this as a major improvement in the new bill versus the existing act.

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

There's also an opportunity to receive some compensation earlier in the process than there used to be. Is that correct?

[David McCauley]

Exactly. Under the new legislation, interim payments will be able to be made to victims prior to a complete assessment by the insurers. Those payments will be tracked and monitored so the $650 million limit is not exceeded. There is provision to ensure that victims in need get compensation quickly.

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

I wonder if you can you talk a little about the reciprocity provisions of the agreement as well. A lot of the installations are near the border. Just talk about the way the bill would be applied in terms of liability if there were an incident along the border. Talk about the U.S. system as well and how it works.

[David McCauley]

We currently have a reciprocity agreement with the United States. As a result, if any incident in Canada caused damage in the United States, American victims would be able to come to Canada to have access to compensation under our legislation. Similarly, under the United States' legislation, the Price-Anderson Act, they would avail themselves to claims from Canadian victims in the event of a U.S. incident that resulted in such victims.

The U.S. system is very much like the Canadian system. We have legal channelling in our legislation and say that the operator is absolutely and exclusively liable for damages resulting from the incident. In the American system they use what's known as economic channelling, but the bottom line is that the result is the same. Operators are liable for damages irrespective of any other parties. As Mr. Dupont explained, the American system includes higher limits in total. The individual operator has less of an onus to carry insurance than what would be the case under the new Canadian system.

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

If you take the premium system we're proposing and compare it to the American system, they would be paying less for individual installation. Is that correct? The direct cost to them would be less and they would have to contribute to the pool as well. Is that how it works?

[David McCauley]

I think Mr. Dupont covered this. Certainly the first tier of the American insurance is less than what Canadian companies would be carrying as their first tier of insurance. The question becomes what premiums are being paid by American operators versus Canadian operators? Second, what kinds of financial arrangements are in place to secure the second tier of funding that would be available in the event of an incident?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Thank you for your answers.

We'll go now to Monsieur Guimond from the Bloc Québécois for up to five minutes.