Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2009

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

Right. That's fascinating. I know what you're saying in terms of what's available, but there's one limit and then there's another buy-in, essentially, that may or may not happen, and the judge would be giving a partial compensation, potentially, that may or may not be topped up later on, depending.

[Dave McCauley]

In this legislation, as opposed to the previous legislation, there is a requirement for the minister to table in Parliament an estimation of the costs of the incident. So we see that as being the opportunity for having a good quantification of the damages early in the process.

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

Last point: that seems difficult to purport to do on the personal level simply because the government would not have heard any of the claimants yet. That report is issued before Parliament saying we think it's going to be about $450 million, but the tribunal has yet to hear the claimants. The claims could come in much, much higher, could they not? Or much lower? A central piece of the evidence is not before Parliament when they're making... It's a broad estimation, right, saying “we think the damages are within this range”. That's fair and that's fine, but the tribunal has yet to hear anybody.

[Dave McCauley]

I think Parliament would have a lot more information at that time to determine the extent of the damages and the costs of the damages.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Shory, and then Mr. Allen.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I might have missed this point. Would there be any limitation act that will apply to this act as well? Is there any limitation time-wise to make claims?

[Dave McCauley]

No, there is no separate limit. The limitation is within the act, and I believe we've already covered that in one of the previous clauses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Allen.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Following Mr. Cullen's point, doesn't that actually go back to the set-up of the nuclear claims tribunal, which is in clause 31? Because it very expressly says that it stops all proceedings that would have happened under a court process at that point in time, and then under clause 33 there's a report to Parliament:

The Minister shall, without delay after a declaration is made under section 31, cause a report estimating the cost of the damage arising from a nuclear incident to be laid before each House of Parliament.

So before the tribunal even really gets started, there's going to actually be a report made to Parliament with the broad scope of what we think the damages might be anyway, and the tribunal, as you appropriately pointed out, is going to be the way for us and for the claimants to get action a little faster.

So technically we're not coming in cold, and technically we're not coming in two-step. We're going to have an estimate of that before you can start. Is that not correct?

[Dave McCauley]

That's correct.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. Shall clause 62 carry?

(Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to on division)

(On clause 64—Reciprocating countries)

Mr. Cullen.

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

This is a clause we've referred to a number of times in trying to understand nuclear facilities that are near the border where there might be some anticipated effect. Could you help the committee walk through the reciprocating agreements? This is all within clause 64. What is this attempting to do?

[Dave McCauley]

This legislation limits the compensation of damage to that which takes place within Canada. If there were a reciprocating agreement with another country, as we have with the United States, then compensation could also be made to victims in that country.

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

Through the Canadian tribunal.

[Dave McCauley]

Yes, that's correct.

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

Now, earlier we heard in testimony that there was a concern from the nuclear industry that because our liability limits are so low, a U.S. judge would hear a case of the effect of a Canadian accident on an American and say, “That's not proper coverage. We're going to hear your case and you can sue the nuclear provider north of the border.”

Is that what this clause is essentially getting at? Is it saying that under this new regime, a judge might not hear that case so we're going to allow American claimants to be heard at the Canadian tribunal?

[Dave McCauley]

A clause very similar to this exists in the existing act. We understand that this is a concern expressed by the industry, that U.S. victims may sue in U.S. courts because the liability limit is quite low now. However, under this legislation we believe that the courts would consider the $650 million limit to be a significant increase from the $75 million and they may avail themselves of the opportunity to bring their claims to Canada.

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

In the triage or in the ordering of claimants, is there any distinction made at the tribunal between an American citizen and a Canadian one in terms of damages? They're all seen as equal participants?

[Dave McCauley]

That's correct.

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

That's interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any further discussion on clause 64?

(Clause 64 agreed to on division)

(On clause 65--Failure to maintain financial security)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any discussion on clause 65?

Yes, Mr. Cullen.

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

There seems to be no warning to this, that as soon as they're in contravention... This is just not having sufficient insurance, essentially. That's $300,000 a day with no warning. It just comes on as soon as the moment the government deems a provider to not have sufficient insurance?