Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2009

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

No, not at all. Actually, as I've indicated, we have two abilities. One is to review the operator's liability limit on a regular basis, and that has to take place once every five years. We take into consideration both the consumer price index as well as international agreements. And as an overall catch-all, the minister can take anything else into consideration that he or she may think is relevant in reviewing the operator liability limits.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Trost. You can finish your time with the officials. The minister has completed her time here.

Thank you very much, Minister, for coming here today and giving us the information on the two subjects that we've dealt with today. We appreciate very much your presentation and your answers to the questions.

Thank you.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Just before you suspend for a minute, Mr. Chair, I gave the honourable member my undertaking that I would find the answer to a question he had. I have it.

It was with respect to the question number 323 on the order paper about possible bonuses paid to AECL executives. My staff were able to provide me a copy of the answer I gave, and I recall indicating that I thought the reason was privacy. And my memory, in fact, was correct on this. I think that comes from too many years of dealing with access to information requests. But it is very clearly indicated in this order paper that the information is withheld under the Privacy Act. Despite the suggestion of Mr. Cullen, I suggest the reason for this response is absolutely clear on the face of the answer itself, and I trust this satisfies any undertaking I may have given to the committee. I'm happy to leave this with the clerk.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Minister.

We will suspend for one minute while the minister leaves, and we'll come back with the minister's officials until 5:30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We have roughly 25 minutes left in the meeting, and we have three officials still at the table. Two may have been introduced, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Dupont, but could either of you just introduce the third official who has come to the table now, please?

Mr. Dupont.

[Serge Dupont]

This is Mr. Dave McCauley, from Natural Resources Canada, who is the expert on the matter of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good. Thank you very much.

Mr. Trost, you had some questions left. Do you want to go ahead with those?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

I'll use up my last two minutes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have three minutes.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

I basically have one question. It's been noted that other countries have different liability limits, etc., but Canada is compared with the United States particularly.

It's my understanding that we have structured our liability, or how we do it, differently from the United States. Having been on this committee before, I've had this explained to me once before, but could you again repeat and explain how Canada and the United States' numbers cannot be compared apples to apples, because it's a different comparison? Could you compare the two and note their differences and similarities?

[Serge Dupont]

The U.S. has two components—and Mr. McCauley may wish to add to this response. There is a limit on the liability of an operator in a range of $310 million. If damages exceed that amount, there can then be a call on the other reactors in the United States, up to an amount of $120 million per reactor. It's almost a self-insured pool. Given the large number of reactors in the U.S., this approach is more readily feasible than it would be in Canada, given the smaller pool of reactors here.

So that's how you get to a higher threshold. They don't need to buy the equivalent of the higher limit in the insurance market. It is basically a “tax” on the other reactors in the event of an incident.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Trost, you still have a minute and a half left.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Would that then be a cost advantage for Canadian operators in the Canadian system—albeit I'm not sure if this would be possible or even probable with provincial utilities? Would it be a cost advantage for the Americans? How would that affect people's decisions and the costs of production and running their plants?

[Serge Dupont]

I would suggest it's difficult to say, Mr. Chair. The original limit per operator may be lower in the U.S. than in Canada, but then they also have a contingent obligation, if you wish, to contribute to indemnify in the case of any other accidents. So one would have to work out those two components and their relative probabilities versus the one number in Canada.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

But as far as you know, there has been nothing the industry has stated one way or the other on whether there would be a cost advantage or disadvantage?

[Serge Dupont]

I think the one thing that's clear is that the higher limit in Canada will provide for a more balanced position vis-à-vis the U.S. and therefore I think a greater sense that the Canadian industry and operators have the same type of responsibility and potential liability as exists in the United States. It will certainly be more closely aligned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Trost.

We go now to the second round of questioning, starting with the official opposition, and Mr. Regan, for up to five minutes. Then it goes to the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois, and the Conservatives again for five minutes each.

Go ahead, Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What we've heard from the medical experts who have appeared before the committee is that the lack of isotope production is pushing them to the brink. We've heard, for example, that there are people who are actually leaving the study of this because of the problems existing now. We've heard there are doctors who are no longer referring patients.

Dr. Urbain, the president of the Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine, told us in fact that because people are not being referred for the tests using medical isotopes, what's effectively happening with some of them, obviously, is that the cancer is growing. And they've said—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Regan, you have strayed from the jurisdiction of this committee and department to the health department, I believe. If you could stick to the issues that properly should be dealt with by this committee, it would be appreciated.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sure this certainly relates to isotopes and isotope production, which is what I said in my statement. And we've had discussions in this committee before with the witnesses I'm speaking about. They appeared here, not in the health committee, and I'm talking about what they told us.

What I want to ask about is the fact that in June, the minister told us in this committee, Mr. Chairman, that the Chalk River reactor, the NRU, would be down for three months. Now we know it will be down for nine or ten months.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson has a point of order.

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

This section of the meeting was given over to the discussion of Bill C-20. I don't know if Mr. Regan understands that, but he's definitely not talking about Bill C-20.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, you made it clear last week—

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

The officials are here to discuss Bill C-20. That's what they've come prepared to discuss, not last June's meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

When the minister is here, there is a lot of latitude allowed in the questions asked, as long as they're questions that belong before this committee. We have the officials here now. They've come on Bill C-20, and I believe that any question outside the scope of Bill C-20 should be asked of the minister. There are ways. Of course, Mr. Regan, you can do that.