Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good afternoon, everyone. It's great to be here today dealing with clause-by-clause of Bill C-20, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.

We have today as witnesses, from the Department of Natural Resources, Dave McCauley, Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, and Jacques Hénault, Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness.

Welcome to both of you.

From the Department of Justice, we have Brenda MacKenzie, Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section.

Welcome.

Thanks to all of you for being here today.

We'll get directly to the bill. We're going through clause-by-clause consideration today, of course. As usual, pursuant to standing order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed, so the chair calls clause 2.

(On clause 2--Definitions)

I'll just take the time required, so indicate if you need a little more time at any point. I know that there are a lot of papers to follow.

Mr. Cullen.

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

You asked if we needed just a little more time. There's one clause I'm looking at that I wouldn't mind just another second with.

If I may, Chair...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

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

This is more a question to our witnesses. Just prior to line 13, I'm trying to understand.... I know this is legal terminology, but on “nuclear incident” itself, it doesn't become very transparent to me as to what a nuclear incident is. What I'm reading here is that a nuclear incident “means an occurrence or a series of occurrences having the same origin that causes damage for which an operator is liable under this Act”.

It seems almost too broad and not specific enough to the issue of it being connected to a nuclear reaction. We're not talking about a hammer falling off a scaffolding here. I'm wondering if our witnesses could tell us if this is a standard code definition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. MacKenzie, go ahead, please.

[Brenda MacKenzie, Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you.

What we've done in this bill is a modern style of drafting, which means that the substantive provisions are found throughout the act. The purpose of the definitions is really just as a shorthand that you refer to during the reading of the act.

You will find that in reading the act it becomes clear exactly what the operator is liable for and in what circumstances. You will not find it in the definitions, essentially; you'll find it in the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any further discussion on clause 2?

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to)

I hear no objections and a lot of positive reaction.

(On clause 4--Limitation)

Yes, Mr. Cullen. Take your time.

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

Again, if I may, I have a question for our witnesses, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

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

Subclause 4(2) states: “This Act does not apply to damage to the nuclear installation of an operator who is responsible for that damage or to any property at the installation that is used in connection with the installation”.

I'm trying to understand what we are seeking to exclude from this clause. What kind of damage or what kind of liability is it? Who is it that we're speaking of right now?

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

Thank you.

What we're trying to exclude are damages to the actual site of the facility or the installation, such as the property damage, for example, of the operator. For example, if it's a nuclear reactor, we would not want to be paying for damage to the actual reactor itself or to the actual site.

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

Can you tell me why not? Why are we seeking to not have liability for that covered? If there's damage done to a site, either through deliberate or non-deliberate action, why would we want to exclude that from the operator?

[Dave McCauley]

Because the focus of the legislation is on damage to other parties, so it's damage not to the owner, but rather to third parties.

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

So this is essentially excluding the operators from seeking any compensation from Parliament or from their own insurance companies.

[Dave McCauley]

Exactly.

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

I see. Thank you.

[Jacques Hénault, Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources]

If I may add to that, Mr. Chair, operators generally have property damage to cover that type of loss.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

(Clause 4 agreed to on division)

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6—Designation of sites)

Mr. Cullen.

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

We have some questions about existing versus new licensees. Subclause 6(3) says that the “regulation can be made before a licence has been issued but it may not come into force before the day on which the licence is issued”.

Where exactly in the bill does this address existing licensees? I'm trying to understand the sequence of contracts around a licence being issued for a new build reactor, for a green site versus a brownfield site. Does it make any difference in this bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. McCauley, go ahead.

[Dave McCauley]

Thank you.

The purpose of this provision is to ensure that when a new installation is brought into operation the operator has gone ahead and organized himself vis-à-vis third party liability. The provisions of his insurance, etc., would not come into force until such time as the facility in fact is operating.

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

I'm trying to just reference this to other commercial activities. In a sense, this like a homeowner getting insurance lined up before a mortgage is signed in terms of the licensing from the Canadian government.

[Dave McCauley]

That's it exactly.

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

Okay. Again, on the first part of my question on brownfield sites versus green sites, does the bill make any distinction between a new build on an existing nuclear reactor property versus a build on what is typically called a greenfield site? Does the insurance apply differently? Some of the witness testimony we heard talked about there being a strong difference in how nuclear operators look to attempting to build on a greenfield site versus a brownfield site.

[Dave McCauley]

No. The legislation wouldn't make any difference between those. For example, if you were building a new nuclear reactor at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, that site would have to be designated by the government in order for it to come under this legislation. I guess you would consider that a brownfield site, so it would still have to be designated.