Evidence of meeting #46 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.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Theoretically, if we had unlimited liability, the Government of Canada could be on the hook for an unlimited amount of money, as opposed to this, which would be a maximum of $9.1 billion in the event that all 14 reactors had accidents.
Thank you.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
With this $1 billion as it sits right now or the $9 billion that gets put forward, is everything underneath the limited liability? This is underneath the limit, the $75 million and then the $650 million. That's already covered under the insurance that the companies are forced to carry, correct?
3:45 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's correct.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
3:45 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, it is, because if there are exposures that the insurers do not cover, as I just indicated, such as personal injury that's not bodily, then the government must pay those amounts.
3:45 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Under the new legislation, it would be under $650 million per incident. That's correct.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
3:50 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
There's no commitment. There's no requirement. The limit will be $650 million. The only commitment is to table a report estimating the amount of damages.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand where the government is coming from, because this is the regime that has been set up. But again, for a future Parliament that may have to deal with this type of issue in terms of what goes beyond, the estimated value--what's being carried along potentially by the Canadian people in terms of liability--is not reported.
There may be more beyond the $650 million limit we've set. We've established that already, correct? There may be more money paid out under a nuclear accident than $650 million.
3:50 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Under the legislation, there isn't, but in an incident, one could contemplate the very unlikely situation that it could be in excess of $650 million.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll leave off with this, Chair. Certainly if the $650 million limit was set on a study that only looked at two small reactors as opposed to what the authors recommended, which is to go to larger reactors closer to population centres...the number is rigged. This has been the problem and it's our contention with the bill. If the $650 million limit was based on a study—and that's all we've been told so far, and that's all I know about—whose very author said you have to look elsewhere to get the accurate number, we're dealing in a fictional world.
What we're trying to establish in proposed clause 26.1 is to step outside of that and put all the liabilities we can on the table so that Canadians can understand what we might be on the hook for, as the Magellan author said we should.
3:50 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
I'm just verifying again that the amendment being put forward, the proposed clause 26.1, refers to the total liabilities assumed under the act, which is the total liability limit times the number of insured installations, and anything else is not referred to in this proposed amendment.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, we will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 1)
On clause 30--Limitation on bringing actions and claims
I had already ruled on amendment NDP-16 the last time with another amendment, so we're on clause 30, on which we have amendment NDP-17.
Mr. Cullen.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I don't have any direction about what this is about and how long our bells are.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
They are 30-minute bells. Should we go until 15 minutes?
Should we head over?
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Here's our challenge, Chair. Sometimes the whips have been walking up the aisles very quickly. We've had some votes where there have been the full 30-minute bells and some votes where they were not. I have no idea what the vote is on, frankly, but I also know that the government and the official opposition sometimes have been moving votes quickly and sometimes not.
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
3:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes. So it's a little difficult unless I get some guarantee from the parliamentary secretary that that's not going to happen, but I suspect that guarantee is not forthcoming.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. I think there are some who want to go for the vote. I think we have to do that. We will be back after that, so I will suspend the meeting until after the vote.