Evidence of meeting #45 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 tribunal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This took us a while. It wasn't really until the clause-by-clause stage where we could get into this as committee members, but on the assessment of risk, as we saw in the Magellan study, the way the risk is assessed is the whole exercise. If you limit the risk assessment to a certain reactor under a certain defined set of conditions, you come up with a number for liability and a number for compensation. That same study asked the government to expand its view and look at more severe accidents in denser populations.
I'll read for members what NDP-14 seeks to do: “When the Minister causes a copy of a reinsurance agreement to be laid before each House...the Minister shall also cause to be laid before each House a copy of all related risk assessment studies that were completed before the reinsurance agreement was entered into”.
I referred to the Magellan study. If this clause had existed previously, all members of this committee and the Canadian public would have had access to that research. So when the government says that it's building Bill C-20 “based upon this assessment”, all this amendment says is to put the assessment before us so we understand where the number comes from.
Instead, we've had to go through all these witness hearings, and it was in a seemingly casual way--I don't want to say that it was in a casual way, because I'm not knocking the witnesses at all--that we got to see the report. Also, the report was made available to committee members, but it wasn't translated. I think we need to formalize this part of the process because the rules you set out at the very beginning for the study will eventually determine the liability limit.
So we're simply asking the government, when it's setting any new liability limit, to tell Parliament and the Canadian people, “This is the study we used to set the liability limit”. It seems logical. The amendment is not asking for any state secrets or anything that would be a corruptive influence. It just says to tell us how you got to the number, show us the data, and allow us to have some conversation about it. That's what NDP-14 seeks to do.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The next amendment proposed is L-1, which is also to clause 26.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I will move this, but I propose changing “shall” to “may”. I expect to be withdrawing it shortly, after we hear from my colleague the parliamentary secretary.
I think that makes it in order. I gather it would not have been in order with “shall”.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
It's where it now says “by a degree-granting educational institution shall provide that Her Majesty in right of Canada”. I don't see another “shall”.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
A voice
There are too many “shalls”.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I believe it's in order with that change. It was out of order with the “shall”.
Is there any further discussion on this proposed amendment?
Mr. Anderson.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
If I understand this correctly, Mr. Regan's main concern was that the cost of insurance for the research reactors not increase with the passage of this bill. We've had a number of discussions about that. I can give you a long and convoluted explanation, or I can just say that at this time I would like to give my undertaking to the committee, on behalf of the minister and the government, that regulations providing for government reinsurance will be drafted that will maintain the amount of private insurance at current levels for these small operators for a period of time, assuming their activities remain substantially the same.
The government, in addition to the reinsurance it now provides to operators of small, non-power reactors used by educational institutions, will provide reinsurance for 100% of the new liability limit above $75 million, until the time of the conclusion of the minister's first review of the liability limit pursuant to clause 22.
So in effect we're saying that limit will stay in place. There will be no increases in the cost of their insurance until at least the end of the first review, which should be approximately three years. The regulations have to be posted prior to the act coming into force. Then we're talking about a 15-month review after that. So we expect it will take around 33 to 36 months before there is any impact on the educational institutions.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You have heard the commitment made by the parliament secretary.
Mr. Regan.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am concerned about any increase in cost to universities these days, as you can imagine. They have great difficulty with all kinds of costs, particularly deferred maintenance. I prefer to know that they won't have an increase for the five-year period, but I appreciate very much the work of the parliamentary secretary. On the basis of his commitment I withdraw my proposed amendment.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. We need to have unanimous consent to withdraw the proposed amendment.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We're out of time.
Can we just have the vote on clause 26 as amended?
Mr. Cullen.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative