Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, Mr. Cullen.

Please do ensure that that what's happening. Sometimes it's just a little tough to say.

Mr. Anderson, go ahead.

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

Maybe I can offer Mr. Cullen some help before the next committee meeting. In the previous Parliament we did pass this bill through committee, and there was a lot of testimony given there. Maybe he would want to read that. He would then see that some of these are been addressed here and he'd be educated on them when he comes to the next meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Continue, Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you.

I thank Mr. Anderson for his very wise and sage advice. We did look at the previous testimony of three and a half days.

In terms of the question about the economic loss incurred by a person, what does the bill imagine in clause 15 in terms of any cross-border disputes? Again, we're imagining contamination. I've heard what you've said about contamination being incurred only within site, but I can't see anywhere in this bill where it says that, where the liability regime imagined here will only happen within site.

So I, as a legislator, have to imagine some contamination going off-site. You talk about venting through the air, for example, and I only have Chalk River as the last current Canadian example of a reactor having a problem. It's vented through the air. It was also vented into the river--the Ottawa River, in fact. That's where some leaks happened. What happens with respect to the United States in particular with their citizens claiming some sort of compensation?

[Dave McCauley]

In the event that there was contamination that travelled to the United States and there was damage in the United States, U.S. victims would be able to make a claim against our legislation under our legislation.

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

Is Canada subject to any U.S. laws in that respect? I know that through the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and some others, sometimes we've had claims sought through U.S. courts. Canadians have done the same. Canadians have sought damages through Canadian courts of a point source that was actually in the U.S.

Are we aware of any of that in terms of this liability? I'm looking at economics again. I'm looking at somebody coming forward from New York state saying that he's been economically hurt but choosing to go through the American system where there's a much higher pool of funds. Is that imagined in this bill at all?

[Dave McCauley]

No.

What this legislation does is provide a means for Canadian victims to obtain compensation and any countries where we do have a reciprocal agreement.... We do have a reciprocal agreement with the United States now, such that American victims would be able, under the existing legislation, to come and make claims against our existing legislation. Similarly, we are able to make claims under U.S. legislation in this area.

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

So in the predecessor to Bill C-20, it's imagined both ways. While it's not mentioned in this bill, this bill just assumes that continuation?

[Dave McCauley]

This bill also provides for reciprocal arrangements.

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

Is it being referenced in this clause?

[Dave McCauley]

It is in clause 64.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Cullen, we can deal with clause 64 when we get to it.

It is 5:30, so we will adjourn the meeting for today.

Mr. Cullen, you can certainly continue at the next meeting if you'd like.

Thanks to all of you for waiting for the vote and for being here to answer the questions. We'll see you again on Wednesday to continue with clause-by-clause of Bill C-20.

The meeting is adjourned.