Natural Resources committee  Actually, may I clarify that?

Natural Resources committee  If we go on to the financial provisions--that's starting at clause 58--you'll see that payments made by the minister come out of the nuclear liability reinsurance account, which is a special account in the consolidated revenue fund. If excessive payments are made—if an error is made, for instance—if there are insufficient amounts in that account, then an amount sufficient to meet the deficit is to be paid from the consolidated revenue fund.

Natural Resources committee  There is a theoretical increase in liability. It's unlikely. If the amount were paid out, if the minister mistakenly paid out more than was available in that account, then the shortfall would come from the consolidated revenue fund.

Natural Resources committee  I just want to clarify that the security of the installation is dealt with under another piece of legislation, not this one—that is, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. It is the responsibility of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to ensure that nuclear installations are safe.

Natural Resources committee  I would just like to draw your attention to the bill. When a nuclear installation is defined, and if there is damage to that operator's nuclear installation, the compensation goes to victims and not to the operator. So you have to be concerned that if you split your installation into four, that means that damage from one operator's reactor to another of the operator's reactors, if it's not in the same installation, could be compensated under the act.

Natural Resources committee  The bill is drafted so that subclause 21(1) is the linchpin; that is, there are numerous provisions that refer to the amount in 21(1). Subclause 21(2) allows you to increase the amount by regulation. So in further references to subclause 21(1), which you see in subclauses 23(1), 24(3), 26(1), every time the reference is to subclause 24(1), it means $650 million, or such greater amount as is prescribed by regulation.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, the English term “nuclear incident” is in French “accident nucléaire”. The drafters inform me that the term “incident nucléaire” décrit un événement qui n'est pas aussi grave qu'un accident. On a donc choisi le mot “accident”.

Natural Resources committee  I would just like to clarify that. If you look at the chapeau, or the opening words, of subclause 8(1), that is where it's saying that it applies in Canada and the EEZ. So we may be mixing questions a bit. The reciprocity agreement is intended to deal with situations where the damage is outside of Canada—because of our proximity, most likely the United States.

Natural Resources committee  I wonder if your question is not dealt with already in the legislation, though, because under subclause 8(1), anybody in the 200-mile zone who suffers damage can be compensated in accordance with the provisions in clauses 13 through to 20.

Natural Resources committee  It's a very good question. I'm forcing you to jump ahead here—I shouldn't, I know—but you'll note that in clause 74, coming into force of this act is not on royal assent. It is on a day fixed by order of the Governor in Council, which allows the Governor in Council time to reconsider these important instruments made under the act prior to bringing this into force, because it is complex.

Natural Resources committee  Yes. The current reciprocity agreement that you said was apparently entered into in 1976 was, of course, entered into in accordance with the existing legislation, the existing Nuclear Liability Act. Under the Interpretation Act, when the Nuclear Liability Act is repealed and replaced, as this would do, the instruments made under that old act continue, so that is still live and would not be cancelled by the passage of this act.

Natural Resources committee  Effectively, if there is a reciprocity agreement in place, which there is at this time, then an American victim—God forbid—would be treated like a Canadian; he would seek compensation under this act in the same way that a Canadian would.

Natural Resources committee  Yes. It would be just as if that person were a citizen. They have to establish that they really suffered damage as a result of the incident.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, this is something that was addressed at great length during the drafting process. It is our view that this is not at all ambiguous. I know we've skipped over clause 2, but if we start at the definition of a nuclear incident, “nuclear incident“ means an occurrence or a series of occurrences having the same origin that causes damage for which an operator is liable under this act.

Natural Resources committee  Good morning, and thanks for this. My name is Brenda MacKenzie. I'm justice counsel and I was assisting the policy officers at Natural Resources Canada during the drafting of this bill. I'm now acting senior counsel at Environment Canada.