Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2009

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

So just to follow your logic, Chair, you're saying that because you're ruling NDP-16 out of order, because it creates something that isn't imagined in the bill, it therefore precludes NDP-3. But subclause 24(1), which exists in the bill already, is the insurance component:

The financial security is to be in the form of insurance with an approved insurer, containing only the terms and conditions set out in a standard insurance policy approved by the Minister.

It also allows in subclause 24(2) essentially what we're asking for in NDP-16, which is alternative financial security:

The Minister may enter into an agreement with the operator that authorizes that a portion of the financial security be alternate financial security.

So NDP-16 is essentially saying what that alternative financial security could be. I wondered about this as we went through the bill the first time; if this were to stand, which I believe it did, it imagines alternative financial security. In NDP-16 we're saying one could imagine alternative financial security to look like this, thereby directly into the spirit of the bill, if you follow my meaning.

Hear me clearly: I'm not questioning the ruling, but I'm trying to understand what you're basing the ruling on. You're saying NDP-16 is out of order, but then it clearly goes in with subclause 24(2) in terms of this alternative financial security that we've already talked about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson, go ahead.

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

I have a couple of points I'd like to make. One is that there have been good reasons given why the $650 million was chosen. I think that's been explained by our witnesses. The NDP may not agree with that, but there's a good rationale in terms of the assessments that have been done and for the reality that it is an adequate figure.

The second thing I would like to point out is that there is actually a cost to the government should this limit be raised, because the government is reinsuring a number of these facilities. So every increase in the liability would certainly expose the government to higher costs than it has with the bill as it is. So I'd support your ruling that there needs to be a royal recommendation here, because it does expose the government to increased liability and the possibility of increased spending.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, I believe that is correct.

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

Just to be clear on the royal recommendation component, it's about the reinsurance costs that the government would have, the difference between $650 million and $1.2 billion? Is that what I'm hearing?

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

I'm pointing that out as one example where the government would end up possibly having to absorb liability that is higher than the amount given right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, and what I'm saying is that your amendment NDP-3 would depend on amendment NDP-16 passing, and amendment NDP-16 isn't in order.

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

I'm not sure if you heard my point about subclause 24(2)--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I did.

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

--talking about alternative financial security. Amendment NDP-16 talks about alternative financial security, so I don't understand how it's outside the purview of the bill if it's directly referenced in subclause 24(2).

Again, I don't claim expertise on how these financial systems work, but if the government's own bill said you can do this thing and we suggested a way to do it, I can understand the government maybe not liking it, but I don't see how it's out of order. That's my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Cullen, in the legislation as proposed, in subclause 24(2), this is permissible. Under what you're proposing, it's mandatory.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That makes a difference.

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

My understanding of what gets ruled out of order is when a member of a committee tries to put something into a bill that was never intended, was never imagined, was never a prescription. It is imagined here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It's imagined as something that is optional. The amendment would make it mandatory, which means it involves an extra obligation. Clearly, it is outside of what was intended.

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

Again, I'm trying to understand this so I don't move amendments that are deemed out of order without understanding them. If in new clause 27.1, in my amendment, I had suggested that the minister “may”--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, we're looking at a lot of different areas here now.

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

Sorry, it's amendment NDP-16. We've tied these two things together, so I have to move back and forth between them.

If, on the fifth line down, after “23(1)”, it said, “to be held by the nuclear installation, the Minister may require an additional contribution...every year”, in the way we craft amendments, that wouldn't have mandated the minister to do it. It doesn't say “shall”. Would that have allowed amendment NDP-16 to be in order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Are you referring to subclause 23(1) or to new clause 27.1?

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

Well, new clause 27.1 is the amendment, but as you read through new clause 27.1, it references subclause 23(1). I was just trying to take committee members to the actual line. About five or six lines down, the word “shall” appears. If the concern from your legislative advice is that it's mandating something that has only been imagined in the bill, if we don't mandate it in a sense but say that this is an option for the minister to issue that type of reinsurance...

I very much hear Mr. Anderson's point about government being on the hook. I guess what's part of our effort here is that we're reducing government's liability; we're not increasing it. By setting the liability limit higher, the liability of the government is decreased by an equal amount, unless I'm reading the whole purpose of the bill wrong.

Did you follow my point there, Chair, in terms of--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I did.

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

Does that help?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

No.

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

Oh gosh, I really thought it would.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

In fact, according to the clerk, that would mean, on another basis, amendment NDP-3 would be out of order.