Evidence of meeting #35 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was proposed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Joan Crockatt Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Could we have the officials speak to this and give us some more information on that, please?
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
The first comment we would make would be that the backgrounder that described the introduction of the bill was perhaps a summary as opposed to a direct quoting of the bill. Any difference between the bill and the backgrounder would be the difference between a communications product generally describing the bill, versus the bill which is more precise.
I'll turn to my Justice colleague, who can probably explain a little bit better what the “nuclear installation” definition is and what we propose to do.
Joanne Kellerman General Counsel and Executive Director, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources
The definition of “nuclear installation” in line 10 links to designation under clause 7. To understand the extent of the definition, you have to consider the scope of clause 7.
Clause 7 is an authority for the Governor in Council to designate those installations by regulation. The criteria are set out in clause 7. Those two criteria are that there would be a licence issued by the Nuclear Safety Commission under the terms of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and that the site clearly contain nuclear material. Those are the two criteria that are set out that would be incorporated into this definition of “nuclear installation” that's in the bill you have before you.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
What you're saying, I guess, is that all of the specified facilities that are mentioned in this proposed amendment would be covered under that definition. Is that right?
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
What's proposed in the amendment will be spelled out in the regulations in addition, to a greater degree of precision. I think the witness suggested that there was some variation between the backgrounder and the bill, and that there were potentially some broader elements of the activities that occur in Canada that need to be captured, if you will, by the bill. We would be more specific in the regulations in spelling out all of the elements of what's in an installation.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Am I right to say that you would include all these installations and perhaps some others that I've missed? Is that fair?
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, that's correct. That's fair.
Conservative
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Through you, Chair, to the officials, it would seem to me that the proposed amendment by my colleague Mr. Regan would actually limit the definition and basically take away, in some aspect, the expertise of the Nuclear Safety Commission, which is responsible for those designations through regulation, through clause 7. Am I not reading that correctly?
If there were something that would be brought to bear, such as a new technology or whatever the case might be, we would want the Nuclear Safety Commission to make that determination as to what is a nuclear installation through a more nimble process, such as a regulatory process, rather than requiring a legislative change.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, Mr. Regan. I'm going to allow if you want to add to that, but I don't want to stray there too often. Then we'll go to the answer.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, having heard the comments of Ms. Kellerman and Mr. Labonté, I have come to the same conclusion as Mr. Calkins, and therefore I withdraw this amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Does the committee agree to have that proposed amendment withdrawn?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Regan.
Now we go to NDP-4, which is again a proposed amendment to clause 120. I want to note that if NDP-4 is adopted, PV-13 can't be proceeded with due to the line conflict. If amendment NDP-4 is defeated, then so is PV-13, because it's very similar. That was a determination by our legislative clerk.
We'll now go to NDP-4.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
In this amendment, we want to add the polluter pays principle to the part dealing with the nuclear industry. I feel that adding that principle could help the industry develop best practice safety standards and minimize risks. It would allow Canada to commit to the polluter pays principle. In our meetings, many witnesses proposed adding this principle in the part dealing with the nuclear industry. They included Mr. Stensil, Ms. McClenaghan, Mr. Amos and Mr. Edwards. I feel it would be particularly worthwhile to add it.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, as my colleague mentioned, at least three of the witnesses who appeared here—and we fast-tracked this review; there should have been many more witnesses—but of the witnesses that we did hear from, both Ms. McClenaghan and Mr. Stensil, and in the briefs from some other witnesses who were not able to appear because of the shortness of the review, pointed out the anomaly and the inconsistency that the government is requiring the polluter pays principle be applied to the oil and gas sector but not to the nuclear sector. For simple purposes of consistency in public policy, why would we be giving greater advantage to the nuclear industry over the oil and gas sector, or frankly other sectors, where the polluter pays principle is applied?
Clearly, the government has given recognition to the fact that Canada has ratified the polluter pays principle. Canada presumably applies the polluter pays principle because they have ratified this international convention but have chosen specifically to exempt the nuclear industry from the polluter pays principle.
The government in its wisdom has specifically amended this bill on page 2, in clause 3, to add “accountability in accordance with the 'polluter pays' principle” to apply to the oil and gas offshore sector, but has chosen in its wisdom or lack thereof to exempt the nuclear industry from the polluter pays principle.
We're giving the opportunity to the government. I'm sure it was simply missed in the drafting process. I think everyone here would agree that our nation is bound by the polluter pays principle. I don't think the government of the day would want to say that they think the nuclear industry should be exempt from this principle and given greater advantage than other sectors. Therefore, it is a very reasonable amendment that many of the witnesses pointed out was missing from this section of the bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Ms. Duncan.
Is there any further commentary on NDP-4?
Go ahead, please, Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand I'm not allowed to participate in other people's amendments but as you sketched, the fate of PV-13 hangs on what happens to NDP-4.
I want to reiterate that it is extremely important, given the government's commitment to the polluter pays principle, that part 1 of the bill, which embraces the polluter pays principle, must be reflected in part 2 of the bill. Under the purposes of the proposed act—and my amendment is slightly different from the approach taken by the NDP—I would amend the purpose of the nuclear liability and compensation act to make it crystal clear that the polluter pays principle applies equally to the nuclear industry as it does to the oil and gas industry. There's no rationale offered, nor has any commentary or witness suggested that there's an acceptable explanation for the failure to treat the nuclear industry exactly the same way that the government proposes to treat the oil and gas industry.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative