Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 16th, 2009

[Theresa McClenaghan]

Some countries have about that amount under the Brussels convention. Right now that would be, for instance, Sweden, until they make a change, Belgium, the U.K., Spain, and France.

Some countries run only research reactors. That would be Italy, Norway, and Denmark, and even they, with only research reactors, still have the $650 million.

The Netherlands, the U.S., Germany, and Japan all have approximately $12.6 billion and up. That's based on the 2005 report of the commissioner of sustainable development, when they were looking at the petition that Ziggy Kleinau had--

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So is the commissioner wrong in suggesting that these other jurisdictions have higher liability rates?

[Theresa McClenaghan]

No.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Is the minister wrong then when she says that--

[Theresa McClenaghan]

I assume the minister is referring to those countries that do have the $650 million amount.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Right, that are using research reactors--

[Theresa McClenaghan]

Some are using research reactors, some are in accord with the current Brussels convention. And some of those that are at that level now are considering increases, as Mr. Stensil noted--for example, Sweden.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Over to Mr. Stensil. Mr. Elston didn't know if other forms.... I'm wondering about wind and solar and tidal. Does the government come in and put a cap on potential mishaps or any insurance liabilities that other forms of electricity generation have in this country?

[Shawn-Patrick Stensil]

Not to my knowledge. As I mentioned, in this industry it began in the 1950s, when the American vendors started looking to export overseas and they were worried about being sued in other jurisdictions. That's when these liability regimes started to be imposed in other countries, because the suppliers who provide these reactors don't have confidence that their reactors won't undergo accidents. That's why we have this legislation.

I think one of the reasons we're starting to hear discussion about the Convention on Supplementary Compensation by the industry representatives today is that perhaps for the first time Canada is looking at buying reactors from other jurisdictions, suppliers such as Westinghouse; Areva, from France; and the Japanese. I think there may be a fear by vendors, if they were to build in Canada, that they may be open to litigation without a cap in the United States.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Mr. Cullen, I'm going to have to jump in. Time's up on that round.

We'll go to Mr. Trost, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, to start off, let me say, Mr. Elston, that some of us are very tired of seeing this bill as well, so hopefully this is it.

[Murray Elston]

You must be tired...[Inaudible--Editor]

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

Not the personalities, no.

One of the things that I found most interesting, listening to all the remarks, is that there doesn't seem to be anyone endorsing the current piece of legislation as something we need to.... I see heads nodding here.

So would it be fair to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, that we absolutely need to get rid of the current one, and that even if this one does not meet all of your particular interests--be it industry or environmental groups--it is still better to go forward with something akin to this bill and then try again later on if you don't get what you want than to continue to sit there with the $75 million limit? Is it not better to go forward with an imperfect piece of legislation rather than sit with what we currently have?

Am I stretching that one too far, or do I have general consensus on that?

[Theresa McClenaghan]

Almost the only difference between the current bill and Bill C-20 is the amount of insurance. So yes, while Canada has been out of compliance for a long time with what to this point has been some of the international practice, in our view the $650 million is still so inadequate that it won't make a meaningful difference to the public.

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

But it's better than $75 million.

[Theresa McClenaghan]

That's assuming that with a $650 million accident, you wouldn't have the federal government stepping in.

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

But if it's $650 million, you would have had it with $75 million. I think we can all agree on that.

[Theresa McClenaghan]

Yes.

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

I have a little question to the industry here. How has the delay in the legislation affected industry decisions, go-forward operations, etc.? As we've noted, it's taken a while. Have there been any effects due to the delay?

[Michael Lees]

Yes, we struggle very much with bringing any technology from other countries into Canada, either in a partnership arrangement or whatever, if they have a fear that there won't be the correct nuclear liability regime in place to protect them in the event of an incident.

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

Because Babcock & Wilcox, like Bruce or any of them, are a third party. You're not exactly operating reactors in Canada--

[Michael Lees]

Yes, that's correct.

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

--so this affects you, and other, smaller companies as well?

[Michael Lees]

Yes, it affects us. It makes the negotiation on any deal much more difficult because we have to deal with that issue on how we manage that risk. We have assets in the U.S. that would be vulnerable in any cross-border incident. For similar reasons, it also restricts us from doing business in certain other countries.

So there's no question, it has an impact on our ability to grow our business the way we'd like to.

[Murray Elston]

I cannot enumerate any large number of steps we have not taken because of it. But in the context of strengthening competition worldwide and the need to ensure that the Canadian industry itself is strong enough and capable of taking that on, we see this legislation as having the advantage of preparing us for that bigger competitive world. We think the only way we can do that is by ensuring we have the ability to move strongly internationally, both in and out of Canada.

In a sense, while Bruce itself doesn't operate outside of Canada, a number of our suppliers do. The strength of that supply chain is every bit as critical to us as the safety and security of our site and its productivity.