Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2009

[Dave McCauley]

That's correct.

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

Where did this amount come from?

[Dave McCauley]

I believe that we looked at other legislation where fines were ordered against participants, particularly, I believe, in the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act. We looked at a host of acts, and that's where the dollar figure actually came from.

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

My only question is, is that sufficient, really? Because if a provider is operating without insurance, the liability for the country would be the $650 million, or some subscribed amount, would it not? I'm just wondering if it's in the ballpark of what a provider would have the government lose if it didn't have that insurance at the right time.

Is it severe enough? I know it's $300,000 a day, which seems like a dramatic amount, but the fact is if an accident were to happen at that moment, the compensation provided by the Canadian taxpayers would be all of it.

[Dave McCauley]

Yes, I think the $300,000 a day would be quite significant, but more importantly, without the coverage the operator would not be able to operate. The operator has to have the insurance as a condition of its operation.

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

It's just one of those things, that insurance sometimes goes lax for different reasons, right? It's not that someone starts up a plant without insurance. One can imagine that simply running out or not being there for a moment, it's not as if... Well, I'll leave it at that. I was just wondering if $300,000 a day was proportioned on something, or some percentage of what Canada might be on the hook for, but if you deem that on other nuclear acts, then that's fine.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Could we maybe have a clarification with respect to the process of summary conviction? How would that happen? I think I understand that there is a commission of an offence, the offence being that there isn't sufficient insurance, or there hasn't been sufficient proof that a decent attempt was made to acquire the prescribed insurance. I understand that, but how can that be adjudicated upon if the process is one of summary conviction?

My understanding of summary conviction is that there really isn't a hearing, there isn't required a hearing, that there is a fine and the normal litigation period is much more akin to a hanging than a judicial process. Maybe you could just give us an idea of what's involved in summary conviction hearing.

[Brenda MacKenzie]

If you think of the Criminal Code, normally a summary conviction involves lesser fines, and so forth. You see that the fine here is not a small fine at all.

What summary conviction entails is that the operator doesn't have the right to a judge-and-jury trial, but it's a judicial process all the same. They are entitled to all the procedural protections, just not a judge and jury.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Just as supplementary to that, would it be before the tribunal?

[Brenda MacKenzie]

Oh, no. This would be before a court of law. This is a trial, like—

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

All right. That's fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

(Clause 65 agreed to)

(Clause 66 allowed to stand)

(Clause 67 agreed to)

(Clause 68 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 69 to 74 inclusive agreed to)

Yes, Mr. Anderson.

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

I wonder whether the committee would consider taking a break for about five minutes. We may be able to speed some things up here. Mr. Cullen and I have a follow-up to the last meeting's—

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

You've proven yourself that the breaks work well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is it agreed by the committee that we suspend for approximately five minutes, as needed, to try to expedite the process?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It is agreed.

We will suspend for approximately five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will resume the meeting now.

We are now on clause 21, and there are some amendments that were brought forward for clause 21.

Mr. Cullen, do you want to move any of those amendments? If so, now is a good time.

(On clause 21—Limit of operator's liability)

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

Thank you, Chair.

As members on the committee know who have dealt with bills before, when you move one amendment, it has an effect on others. Amendment NDP-3 ends up combining with NDP-11 and NDP-16. This is getting at the heart of the matter.

When this bill was at second reading in the House, a number of members stood up to speak around the issue of the total compensation allowed. There was notice by some, particularly in the opposition, that we could effect the limit at committee: if the $650 million were deemed not to be enough, then we would change it at committee. Our concern is now that, in the amendments I'm attempting to move today—in NDP-3, NDP-11, and NDP-16—the attempt to move that limit upward is challenging, given the way the committee process works. The clerk will probably have something to say, or through you, Chair, about whether it's deemed outside the mandate of the bill or not. In my reading, the bill is to set up a liability limit for the nuclear industry; to say that above this limit, government may come in—or at least that the companies will not be on the hook.

From the testimony we heard at committee, the $650 million was thrown into some question, certainly by the international witnesses we had, who described liability limits in other countries that are very much higher. There was some argument made that the Canadian industry is just too small or is of such a scale that $650 million is as high as they can essentially go. But then we also heard from the Canadian insurers that $1 billion was actually foreseeable and manageable.

So through NDP-3, NDP-11, and NDP-16, we're having the combined effect of raising that limit, ensuring something similar to what the U.S. has in store and has designed already.

It seems that in order for the committee to do this work, in order for Parliament to make an informed vote, having $650 million as the prescribed limit is staring into the face of the evidence, which says that limits should be much higher.

As to the relevance of these three motions, which are combined, they seem well within the scope and intention of the bill designed by the government. All we're saying is that your study was too old—this was done up in 2002, based on the Magellan report that we've heard much about—and if you modernize this bill you'll probably end up somewhere around $1 billion or $1.2 billion for compensation as a liability limit.

I'm interested on your ruling on this or what you see, but this is the main sticking point for New Democrats around this legislation: it's eight years old in its design, the world has moved on, and when we compare ourselves with other countries and jurisdictions, we find that they all have higher liability limits. This in a sense makes this bill unsupportable, although we're trying to modify it where we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Cullen, we are dealing with clause 21. You have tied amendment NDP-3, which I'll talk about a little in a minute, to amendment NDP-16; however, amendment NDP-16, I believe, is outside the scope of this legislation, so it's not in order.

And amendment NDP-3, of course, as I think you know, Mr. Cullen, is not in order because it would require a royal recommendation. So amendment NDP-3, which is the one we're actually dealing with now, is out of order.

You also have two other amendments that you may choose to move or choose not to move, Mr. Cullen.

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

I do.

Chair, it's not that I'm questioning your decision as much as I'm trying to understand the rationales for consequential amendments that are coming.

We didn't propose this under the suspicion it was out of order, because the spirit and intention of what the government did is to try to create a liability regime for the nuclear industry. That's what this bill is meant to do, create a particularly unique insurance form for the nuclear industry.

In terms of where that number is, whether it's $650 million or more, we understand that as staying within the spirit and recommendation--as I've seen committees do before--of what the bill is trying to do. We're just arguing where that limit is and whether it should be higher or lower.

So I'm not challenging your ruling in a formal way, but I'm trying to understand it so when we look through future amendments that we've moved we can understand where you're seeing the limit of amendments to be for this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

In terms of amendment 3, you understand that it is not allowed because it would require additional spending through a royal recommendation.

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

Maybe that's my question right there, that there is no additional spending on behalf of the government. To go from a $650 million limit to a $1.2 billion limit, there isn't any more money that's coming from the taxpayers. That money is all about what the industry has to carry for insurance.

One could argue in fact that it's actually a reduction in the amount of money coming from the federal taxpayers in the event of an accident. So I guess I'm trying to understand your ruling, in that there's no additional money coming from the government, zero.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, Mr. Cullen, what you're arguing is that there wouldn't be additional money if amendment 16 were to pass. I've ruled that amendment 16 isn't in order because the introduction of additional security in the form of contributions is a new concept that's outside and beyond the scope of Bill C-20 and therefore is inadmissible.

So you're basing your argument for saying there wouldn't be any additional spending required on the condition that amendment 16 would pass, which isn't going to happen because it isn't in order.