Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 25th, 2009

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

If Bill C-20 is not an act meant to address the event of a severe accident, and we're now on the compensable damage clauses, why is that not inferred in the act?

[Dave McCauley]

The act is meant to address severe accidents. It's meant to address every type of accident. In terms of the liability limit, however, we were seeing how the liability limit that had been recommended compared to what would be the impacts of a foreseeable nuclear incident, a design-basis incident.

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

This is where I'm losing you.

You suggest that Bill C-20 is meant to also cover severe accidents.

[Dave McCauley]

That's correct.

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

The analysis that you had done was only on limited accidents. The authors of that analysis said that you should also go ahead and analyze what the cost would be of a severe one. The government doesn't do it, and it doesn't affect the act, which is meant to also cover severe accidents. This is the disjoint I'm having.

The authors of a report that the government asked for have said, “By the way, here's what our liability limits would be under a controlled accident at these two sites”, and at the end the authors say, “But to be correct or comprehensive, you should study a severe accident.” The government doesn't look to understand what a severe accident might cost and presents the bill anyway.

What am I missing here in terms of why, when we get down to clause 15—and clauses 16 and 17 also address this—we're only dealing with limited accidents when experts in this field say to please also consider serious or severe accidents as well?

[Dave McCauley]

Well, the act addresses any form of accident, but the purpose of the study was to define how the impact of a likely or a foreseeable incident would stack up against the limit we had identified. It was considered inappropriate to be setting a limit on the operator liability that would address an incident that was quite unlikely, unforeseeable. It was considered that to set the liability limit of the operator would be inappropriate.

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

Maybe this is to my point. When you use words like “likely” and the government discusses them—that's the framing, “likely”—I assume the government has some sort of model they've looked at to say that it's in the one percentile of chances, or 99.9% not going to happen, and therefore they deem it unlikely.

Is that correct?

[Dave McCauley]

Not Natural Resources Canada, but the CNSC says that.

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

The CNSC says that the likelihood of this happening, and therefore the economic loss that we're talking about here in clause 15 is...

You use terms such as “foreseeable”. Isn't it the nature of accidents that they are sometimes unforeseeable; that they happen in such a way that, if they had been foreseen, they wouldn't happen? This is the reason Canadians get insurance for all sorts of things. It's in the event, however unlikely, of an unforeseen accident: “Thank goodness we have insurance on the home or the car so that we can get it repaired. I never thought this would happen.”

[Dave McCauley]

You're right, but we didn't think it was appropriate to set a liability limit at the most unforeseen, catastrophic loss that could happen. That's not where you set the liability limit; you set the liability limit on an incident that would be foreseeable, as opposed to truly unlikely.

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

This is what I need to understand in terms of “economic loss incurred”. We're trying to figure out where the parameters for economic loss should be measured.

Tell me the difference in this. I know I'm making comparisons between home and auto insurance, which might look very different from nuclear insurance. When somebody gets insurance for their automobile, they don't insure it for $100; they try to get insurance that might cover the replacement of the car. Isn't that correct?

[Dave McCauley]

Well, you choose an insurance level that you contemplate would address the likely risks. You don't choose a level of insurance that would include any foreseeable risk happening, regardless of how likely that risk is.

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

Does it not give the government any pause, though, that when the...? I don't know these two companies at all, but I assume they know what they're talking about. International Safety Research and Magellan, I assume, are good.

[Dave McCauley]

Yes, they do work in the industry. They were recommended by the CNSC.

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

So a group recommended by the CNSC, because obviously they're good at what they do, makes this recommendation that you should also look at severe accidents in drawing up this consideration. The government chooses to ignore that advice. These folks also understand—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

There is a point of order.

Mr. Anderson.

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

I know Mr. Cullen wants to delay the bill, but he's gone around on this same issue about four different times, and I think he has had three clear answers on it. We can spend a lot of time discussing the same thing, but he keeps going back to the same issue. Maybe he'd like to move on to something else. We could move on to the next clause, if he feels it's been dealt with.

He has made the same points to the same witnesses. This is the third or fourth time. I don't think we need to continue. I don't know whether it's called badgering the witness or not—I hope he wouldn't do that—but he should understand by now that the consequences... He's talking about unforeseen accidents. As the witness pointed out, most accidents are—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson, you'll have to deal with that when you have your chance to question, which I hope is fairly soon, because we have two others who have asked to question.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think it's time to move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

This is not a point of order.

Mr. Cullen, I've been listening to this, and you are beginning to go through a repetitive circle here. If you could, just get on with it. If you have any more questions, just ask them. We have two other people who have asked for the floor.

Oh, was there a point of order?

On a point of order, I'll hear Madame Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I have a point of order.

We received a document at Mr. Cullen's request. The document is in English only. I understand and respect Mr. Cullen's wish to learn, but the fact remains that this is against the rules of the committee. The two official languages must be respected. I therefore feel that I have to point out this omission.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's a good point. The document has been sent for translation; it was not distributed at committee, but it was sent to the committee and distributed through the committee. It should have been held until we had the French translation, actually. That was a mistake.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I don't have the document. Can I find out who distributed the document? I don't have one with me. I don't remember seeing the document or how big it is or what it is.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Patrick Artelle is the person who sent me the document. I gather that it comes from the committees directorate. Possibly, he is the clerk's assistant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, and I believe it was sent to everyone, but the translation apparently isn't finished. You're right about that, and I won't let it happen in the future. I gave the advice to go ahead and distribute it, but it should have been in both languages.

How do we take it back now? We just can't let it happen again.

Mr. Cullen, certainly repetitive questions going around in circles aren't going to help, but could you just continue? We have at least two others waiting, so go ahead, please.