Natural Resources committee  Certainly. The policy intention under this element of the act is that if there's an incident that exceeds the liability limit in Canada, the minister may call on the convention to draw supplemental funds from other countries. In the drafting, we referenced the domestic liability limit, which is a billion dollars, which is also the amount that will be registered in the convention.

Natural Resources committee  The law says now that we can—

Natural Resources committee  The bill now says that we can call on supplemental public funds to the convention when a billion dollars' worth of damage is exceeded. In the future, should we ever raise that domestic amount, we will not be able to make the call until we exceed the domestic amount, even though we ratified the convention at a billion dollars, which is the point at which we will make the call.

Natural Resources committee  The change will link our ability to make the call to the amount that we reference when we ratify.

Natural Resources committee  I think I'll turn to my colleague, but one element is certainly consistency with the international context, and another would be that the bill does propose 30 years, which is a change from the current 10-year provision in the existing legislation.

Natural Resources committee  Yes. The removal of this would eliminate the possibility that the Governor in Council may recognize that university research reactors, called Slowpoke reactors, which have a different profile in terms of how they handle and deal with nuclear issues, would not be able to have a lower level of liability.

Natural Resources committee  Part (a) of the amendment would essentially change the limit to the financial security section. Parts (b), (c), and (d) all sort of ripple through. It says “not limited to”; it doesn't specify. Proposed section 27 specifies.... I'm not sure I quite fully follow it, but it replaces the $1 billion.

Natural Resources committee  The bill does provide for exclusive absolute liability for the operator. It then, if you will, channels that liability such that the operator ensures that the contractors and the people working on the installation are accountable; since they are accountable for the billion dollars, they certainly recognize and manage that.

Natural Resources committee  I'll do my best. My colleagues from Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development have the responsibility, but I think we have formally signed the convention. We don't necessarily ratify the convention until the bill passes and comes into force. Then it's deposited, if you will, because the regime has to be in place as law before we can formally be members of the convention.

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

Natural Resources committee  Sure. At its simplest level, in the nuclear portion of the bill liability is exclusive to the operator of the installation and is not contained within the subcontracts or in the relationships between the operator and other parties. It maintains that exclusivity to ensure there's clarity in the bill on the accountability of who's liable in the instance of liability.

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

Natural Resources committee  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.

Natural Resources committee  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.