Evidence of meeting #44 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand.
I suppose it's been offered essentially as a matter of faith, because there's no reference to any standard other than what the minister deems appropriate, if you follow my meaning. There's no reference we can find in the bill that says....
I understand there's the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, but that's a broad, sweeping group. We're talking about, what, three or four companies worldwide that do this, that currently hold insurance for nuclear facilities?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
No, no.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Actually, yes, there are many more.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Actually, in Canada the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada is an organization with many insurers who have pooled their assets to provide insurance capacity to the operators.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's an amendment we're not going to bring to this, but it sure would have been nice to reference such a group or reference an international standard or something. As it is written in black and white right now--and I understand terms change and groups and association names change--there must have been a way to better reassure the committee. With that much power given to the minister....
This whole thing is about proper insurance. Clause 25 reads that the minister simply has the power to designate whoever she'd like to be the insurer and to permit that insurance to go ahead. With the Government of Canada being the ultimate insurer of this whole thing in providing this limited liability, it's unfortunate, I suppose, that there isn't something given over.
I understand all you've said about this being that the minister will go forward and find a proper insurer, but it doesn't say so. When dealing with legislation, I always feel more reassured when it simply says what the actual intention is rather than give such powers away, if you follow me.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
If we read further on, into subsequent provisions, any agreement the minister makes with an approved insurer must be tabled in the House of Commons.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
I have three other questioners on this.
Mr. Tonks.
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
I have a very quick one.
Mr. McCauley, it's highly unlikely that a pool based on self-insurance would be set up by the nuclear industry, given the magnitude of possible liability. We did hear witnesses refer to self-insurance and entering into pools for portions of liability coverage. This doesn't preclude that happening, does it? It seems to formalize the insurers, but the minister could look at an application for self-insurance that would satisfy the act.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's right, yes.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
The preface has been to only allow the operators to use insurers in Canada--effectively, to use NIAC. One of the concerns we heard from the Canadian Nuclear Association was that they weren't able to go outside of Canada and consider.... Obviously, they'd have no competition, effectively, is what they're talking about. What's your reaction to that? Is it the department's view that you should do anything about that?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Right now, actually, there are three approved insurers: one is NIAC, one is Nuclear Risk Insurers from the United Kingdom, and the other one is the American Nuclear Insurers. Together, the three approved insurers provide the $75 million capacity. As we increase the limit, I think that less insurance will be available from Canadian insurers, and the operators will have to rely more and more on foreign insurers.
This legislation does nothing to preclude more competition in the industry or proposals from foreign insurers to become approved insurers under our legislation.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Chair.
I'd just like to ask the witnesses a question on clause 25. It was under subsection 15(2) in the old act, and the wording has changed just a little bit. Since I'm just a bit of an accountant and not a lawyer, I'd like to get some clarification to make sure that this wording is a little bit stronger.
It seems stronger, but in the old act the last sentence says “The Minister...in his opinion, are necessary for the proper performance of the obligations to be undertaken by an approved insurer.” That's been changed now to “is qualified to fulfill the obligations of an approved insurer under this Act”.
Can you comment on the wording? The minister always had this ability, but has this wording improved that, streamlined it? It seems a little bit tighter now. Can you comment on that?
Brenda MacKenzie Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Yes. It's fundamentally the same concept in clause 15, but the language is tighter. The minister has to be satisfied that the insurer is qualified to fulfill the obligations and then approved to insure under the act. And, yes, in the redrafting we were trying to make it clearer and a little stronger.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Yes, we're trying to improve it.
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Yes, just a short question.
Mr. McCauley, going back to the question I asked you, and I mentioned the magnitude, I was thinking about the excess side, in terms of $650 million worth of liability. But when we had the witnesses from the small nuclear applications with respect to, say, northern and more rural replacements of diesel with a small nuclear reactor, I think your answer was there could be exemptions made through regulation.
Now, if there was an application, would they have to seek a regulatory change first? Then I'm sure they could go to the insurance pool, NIAC, and so on. At that end of the spectrum, I don't see a problem, but would there have to be a regulatory application made before they could apply for their insurance? Or do they have to go with their insurance to the minister and say, “Look, we can get insured. We want to have this particular implementation in Fraserdale and we're seeking an exemption under the act by regulation.” Is that the way it would work?