Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 301-315 of 369
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

November 25th, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

November 25th, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  What we did initially was a discussion paper on the issue. We consulted the stakeholders. Based on that, we moved forward and identified the limit of $650 million, but in assessing the limit and seeing whether it was appropriate, we also had the CNSC commission this study.

November 25th, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

November 25th, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  We're looking at the limits in the International Atomic Energy Agency convention. That's right.

November 25th, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  That's right.

November 25th, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  No, we didn't.

November 25th, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  I think the philosophy was that the limit would be addressing foreseeable risks associated with design-basis accidents as opposed to severe or catastrophic risks.

November 25th, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  I think our rationale was that we understood that the act would not address a severe accident in terms of the liability limit. The legislation addresses any kind of an accident that would happen, but in terms of the liability limit, we set an amount that was based on an international standard and reflected insurance capacity and other parameters.

November 25th, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  We had recommended the $650 million limit based on the international standard as well as the capacity of insurance that was available and the inflation associated with the liability limit in the existing act. Then we felt it was necessary to take a look at a design-basis accident to see what the results of it would be vis-Ă -vis the $650 million recommendation—how the two related.

November 25th, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  In the event that there was contamination that travelled to the United States and there was damage in the United States, U.S. victims would be able to make a claim against our legislation under our legislation.

November 23rd, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  No. What this legislation does is provide a means for Canadian victims to obtain compensation and any countries where we do have a reciprocal agreement.... We do have a reciprocal agreement with the United States now, such that American victims would be able, under the existing legislation, to come and make claims against our existing legislation.

November 23rd, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  This bill also provides for reciprocal arrangements.

November 23rd, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  It is in clause 64.

November 23rd, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  What the study described was a situation where there was controlled venting of radionuclides after an incident, but the contamination was controlled, contained.

November 23rd, 2009Committee meeting

Dave McCauley