:
Welcome, everyone. It's good to be back here.
I'm a little leery of giving up my chair to the Liberal vice-chair, because since I've been back, he's found this beautiful room for us in Centre Block.
Thank you very much for filling in when I was gone. I appreciate that.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 30, 2007, we are dealing with , an act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, whose short title is the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act.
Today, for the first hour, we have as witnesses, from the Canadian Nuclear Association, Murray Elston, president and chief executive officer, and Pierre Guimond, director, regulatory affairs; from the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada, Dermot Murphy, manager, and Colleen DeMerchant, assistant manager; and from Walker Sorenson LLP, John Walker, legal counsel.
Each group will be allowed up to ten minutes for their presentation. We will take the witnesses in the order they are on the agenda. It's up to each group to decide who speaks for them.
We will start with the Canadian Nuclear Association. Go ahead, Mr. Elston, please.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to be here with my colleague Pierre Guimond, who is the association's director of regulatory affairs. I have a brief statement and will obviously be pleased to take questions afterwards.
The Canadian Nuclear Association is a non-profit organization established in 1960 to represent the nuclear industry in Canada and promote the development and growth of nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes. One of the things we do most is to provide information for public policy consideration. As an example of that, I've provided to the clerk today in English and in French a document that we prepared analyzing a report drawn up by Greenpeace on tritium. And the analysis of that report that we had conducted under the auspices of an internationally recognized authority on the subject, Dr. Osborne, is in fact an analysis of where the Greenpeace study came up short in its analysis of the effects of tritium.
That is an example of what we do to try to make sure that the information is all available for public consideration. It makes this particularly valuable at this time when the whole world is considering the expansion of nuclear industry assets for the purposes of generating electricity for solving medical problems and for dealing with other interesting issues.
We use that just as a piece of information for you. Please read it, because we want the record to be straight and we spent a lot of our resources and assets in a fashion to make sure that material is available to you.
Nuclear energy in Canada generates about 15% of Canada's electricity and over half of the electricity generated in Ontario, without polluting air. There are 22 reactors in Canada, with two undergoing refurbishment and 18 presently operating. Two units at Pickering A nuclear generating station are in safe storage mode at the moment.
The industry directly employs about 21,000 people and another 10,000 indirectly in other industries, government, and other organizations involved in the nuclear field, including uranium mining, mining and processing, developers and operators of nuclear plants and facilities, electrical utilities, nuclear medicine, and all the way to aerospace and automotive research, manufacturing, engineering, consulting, and education institutions. We're much more broadly spread than just the generation of electricity, which is at the moment probably the most spoken about part of our industry.
As Canada and in particular Ontario embark on making urgent and important decisions on our future electricity generation supply, it becomes even more important that the contributions of nuclear energy are well understood. Our society is grappling with the challenges of supplying its citizens with reliable, affordable electricity without harming the environment. Nuclear energy will be even more important in the future in helping us reach our economic and environmental goals. It has, for 45 years in Canada, enjoyed an excellent safety record, and we're proud of our accomplishments.
The industry is committed to continued better performance, more efficient and safe operation of its units, and an increased contribution to Canada's economic well-being. The commitment to a culture of safety throughout the industry is total. Quite frankly, we will not operate reactors, mine uranium, process nuclear fuel, develop medical isotopes, and manage used nuclear fuel without a full and total commitment to a culture of safety.
Statute law and the regulatory process help the industry fully implement what we are already committed to do on safety. Regulatory oversight is one of the vehicles by which we demonstrate to the public the extent of our safety-first commitment and actions. We do this day in and day out.
The members of the CNA have reviewed Bill , the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, presently before the standing committee. The CNA is generally supportive of the act and the improved and coherent liability regime that it brings about. The nuclear liability framework established under the 1976 legislation in Canada is based on principles of absolute and exclusive liability of the operator, mandatory financial security, and liability limitations in time and amount. These principles are standard features of nuclear legislation in the United States, as well as in Europe and other parts of the world. Bill upholds these important principles, while bringing the existing legislation up to date in some important respects.
Several of our member companies have written to the chair through the clerk and indicated their support of the bill, with a few changes. We have identified the need for a broader range of options in providing financial security. The small changes we wish to propose for Bill C-5 are consistent with this view. In short, more flexibility and options in providing financial security can be achieved by deleting clause 25 and subclause 24(3), and paragraph 66(a).
We are asking the committee to consider deleting clause 25, subclause 24(3), and paragraph 66(a) for the following reasons:
Concerning approved insurers in clause 25, it is not clear to us why the minister needs to designate as an approved insurer “any insurer or association of insurers”, given that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions already provides such approvals. The basic insurance functions—offering the right policies and providing a claims adjustment service—are now widely available under contractual arrangements, the same way that the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada, or NIAC, contracts to secure them. We therefore see this clause as unnecessary and propose that it be deleted from the bill.
Concerning the “Maximum amount of financial security” in subclause 24(3) and in paragraph (a) of clause 66, the CNA believes there ought to be more flexibility permitted in providing the financial security referred to in subclause 24(1). We believe that the portion of such financial security that may be provided in the form of an “alternate financial security” should not be limited. It should be determined by the minister on a case-by-case basis, as provided in subclauses 24(2) and 24(4), after considering the adequacy of the financial instruments proposed by each operator.
Similar flexibility already exists in the Canadian Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The 50% limitation specified in subclause 24(3) is confusing and unnecessary, and we ask that it be deleted from the bill, along with paragraph (a) of clause 66, which would then be redundant.
Further, as presently drafted this subclause will limit market flexibility and may also have a negative effect on the range of options operators can employ. For operators, subclause 24(3) may result in unjustifiable cost passed through to shareholders or to customers in the price of electricity. Nuclear operators want full access to these products and to the full range of options available in what is now a mature market.
Members of the CNA are of the view that on the whole the bill responds to society's needs and represents a balanced approach. The bill provides for protection of the public under a coherent, explicit, and stable framework, in which all liability is channelled through the operator and the operator's liability is absolute. These principles also give assurance to the public, the government, and contractors working alongside operators, and as a result, we support those elements.
The CNA would underscore the following considerations. While the CNA members support the increase in liability to $650 million, our support is given on the basis that there be adequate insurance available at competitive rates. The minister ought to have more flexibility to approve forms of alternative financial security on a case-by-case basis.
In addition to that, the members of CNA wish to urge the members of the committee to see these changes in the act as a prelude to the adoption of the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. In order to ensure capacity for conducting nuclear new build and to meet the supply chain needs, this is a priority for us at the CNA and is not to be seen as a “next step with priority” by this committee.
Finally, we are pleased to note Minister Lunn's commitment to consultation during the second reading debate of October 30. CNA members appreciate the minister's comment, because we believe that the regulations are an important component of the framework. Consultation with our industry on drafting the regulations will help to ensure that they are workable and resilient. The CNA wishes to offer technical expertise as appropriate. Similarly, we also hope to see the government's reinsurance agreement to ensure it covers any gaps.
We are pleased to be here this morning and pleased to answer your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is Dermot Murphy. I'm manager of the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada, known as NIAC. As Mr. Chairman pointed out, I'm joined by Colleen DeMerchant, the assistant manger, and John Walker of Walker Sorenson, our legal counsel.
Under the date of November 23, 2007, we did submit a written comment document to the committee, and I hope you have had, or will have very shortly, an opportunity to review the same. In order to provide the committee with some basic background information, I point out the following:
The Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada was established in June 1958 in response to the need to provide adequate insurance cover arising from the peaceful development of nuclear power in Canada. As an approved insurer of nuclear liability insurance in Canada, as provided by the Nuclear Liability Act, NIAC provides the statutory cover required by Canada's nuclear operators, which presently is $75 million. NIAC is a domestic pool representing approximately 20 property and casualty insurers, both primary and reinsurers, who operate in Canada. For those risks requiring more capacity than NIAC has available on the domestic front, two other international pools are considered to be approved insurers to assist with capacity, as well as other technical issues. I will identify those pools in a moment. It is through these pooling arrangements that NIAC has access to worldwide capacity that is available for the nuclear energy hazard.
NIAC is an unincorporated, not-for-profit association formed by the members of the Canadian nuclear insurance pool. It underwrites nuclear liability insurance. It issues nuclear liability policies and inspects nuclear facilities. All of this work is performed on behalf of its members.
NIAC also assists in making the capacity of the British and U.S. nuclear insurance pools available to Canadian nuclear operators. It works closely with these pools by providing engineering inspection reports on Canadian nuclear power plants and establishing insurance rates for these facilities.
Our members comprise both primary property and casualty insurance companies and reinsurers, such as Royal and SunAlliance; Dominion of Canada; Lombard; Zurich; Temple Insurance, part of Munich Re; and Scor Re. All of this is through the Canadian nuclear liability insurance pool. Any additional capacity needed is accessed through the pooling system via the British and U.S. insurance pools.
This completes my comments, Mr. Chairman.
:
Thank you for the question.
There are two observations to make. One is that the evolution of our safety systems has kept pace with the technology changes in our industry. Obviously we can now do more with computerized systems that permit us to do even heavier monitoring than we did in the past, and we have had to retrofit, as we should, some of our existing units with new redundant systems. So the next generation of units will, in a sense, be simpler than the first, as often happens when you go with a first-generation technology. There are improvements of understanding and knowledge of how they work. They have a better understanding of the material science that goes into constructing these units.
I think the one very valuable development in our society has been the addition of the computerized capacity to monitor extremely complex systems. Having gone through that, we will end up having redundancies. Also, if you take a look at the schematics for the proposed ACR, the advanced CANDU reactor, for instance, we will have a quad-type construction that lets individuals work, in a maintenance sense, on one quadrant of the plant in safety and security without shutting down the other pieces. You see that also in other types of generation options. You will see the redundancies maintained, and you will see people doing things more remotely than before.
You have also seen, when we went to Pickering, for instance, the containment around those units spread into what we would describe as conventional elements of the generating plant. That is, they stretch not only over the actual nuclear power plant, but also into pieces of the plant that are seen as part of the generation and turbine units. So making that simpler means that we'll end up also being much more simple and probably more cost-effective in doing the safety work that we require.
:
I guess we really don't understand the intent of the clause. If we're able to make an agreement otherwise for more than 50%, why would the minister prevent us from bringing forward to the minister a full package that covers our obligations up to the $650 million?
I know the department sees the 50% limit as permissive, but what it ultimately does is present a ceiling above which we cannot go. When you end up having any ceiling, people can trap you into a situation where they know they've got you for the rest.
What we're saying is, why not permit us to go even beyond that, because this really leaves the market wide open? I think for our purpose as well, the development of NIAC and other organizations in the early going was necessary, without any long experience in the business. We think the insurance market now is much more mature, much more capable of being accessed by individual players, commercial players.
As a result, we'd like to test that, but making sure that we can test it for the whole amount or for a lesser amount. Once you put in 50%, we simply don't understand why that is a threshold that has to be there as a prohibition for us.
It would be a great broadening of our opportunity, is really how I'd put it.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning.
I want to remain open-minded about this alternate financial security arrangement. On something of a flippant note, Einstein said, as probably you've heard, “The human mind is like a parachute--it functions better when it is open.” So I want to remain open-minded.
It's to the credit of the industry that it has had an error-free, incident-free record for some 45 years, as I understand it. It's to the credit of the leadership and the operators that you recognize that safety, first, foremost, and always, is the number-one concern, and of course it should be. However, I'm just not comfortable with this alternate financial security arrangement.
From my point of view, if anything untoward were to occur, the very best, the optimum guarantee for communities and individuals that they would be properly compensated, is a paid-up insurance policy. That is, to me, the best guarantee.
Can you let me know, then, what “alternate financial security” actually means on an on-the-ground basis and how secure you feel an alternate financial arrangement would be relative to insurance?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the standing committee.
My name is Linda Thompson. I'm the mayor of the Municipality of Port Hope. I'm also a member of the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities.
Our association chair is Mayor Ryan of the City of Pickering. Unfortunately, he cannot be here today. I'm therefore acting on behalf of Mayor Ryan, and in his capacity I appear before you today.
As noted, Mr. Wu is our association's secretary-treasurer and he is also the chief administrative officer with the Municipality of Clarington, Ontario. Mr. Wu will be assisting me, if you have any questions.
The Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities, also known as CANHC, is comprised of ten municipalities located in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and New Brunswick. These municipalities proudly host various nuclear-related facilities, such as power generation stations, research facilities, and nuclear industries, which are vital to Canada's continuing supply of electricity. As well, they contribute to the prosperity and economic development of our communities.
Our member municipalities are in the province of Ontario, the county of Bruce, the municipality of Clarington, the town of Deep River, the region of Durham, the municipality of Kincardine, the city of Pickering, and the municipality of Port Hope. In the province of Quebec, we have the town of Bécancour; in the province of New Brunswick, the city of Saint John; and in the province of Manitoba, the district of Pinawa.
First and foremost, CANHC welcomes and supports the general thrust of. Over the past few years, our association has continually urged the government to increase the liability insurance and compensation limits for nuclear facilities and it is most pleased that government is taking a very positive step in this direction.
Specifically, we're very encouraged to see that Bill C-5 provides for three very important elements, being the increase in the liability insurance to be carried by nuclear operators, the ability to establish a tribunal for the timely and orderly settlement of claims, and of course the regular review of the amount of insurance coverage that is required.
While our association generally endorses these provisions, we do feel these provisions can be strengthened in the following manner. Firstly, on the limit of the liability, our association is of the opinion that the $650 million is not sufficient insurance coverage, particularly in locations where a nuclear facility is located in a densely populated area, such as in the city of Pickering, where some 80,000 people live within ten kilometres of the Pickering nuclear facility.
The $650 million would work out to a little over $8,000 per person, a rather inadequate amount under the scenario of a nuclear disaster. We understand that there are compensation benchmarks established in European communities, but we would urge the committee to consider the unique challenges faced by nuclear host communities, with nuclear facilities installed in our backyards.
Secondly, the principle of establishing a tribunal to handle claims is a reasonable approach; however, we ask that such a tribunal be totally independent and that a timeframe be entrenched in the legislation or regulations to ensure that all claims are in fact processed in a timely manner, without causing further undue hardship.
Lastly, we would ask that Bill C-5 contemplates the regular review of the amount of insurance coverage at least once very five years. We understand and support the rationale for regular reviews; however, we would suggest that Bill C-5 should also provide for an automatic annual indexing of the coverage, with a more comprehensive review to be undertaken every five years.
In addition to the foregoing comments, our association wants to see clarity in the bill pertaining to compensation for the nuclear host communities. We all know that in the unlikely event of a major nuclear incident, these municipalities will be burdened with the need to repair or replace damage to municipal buildings and infrastructure, of course, such as roads, bridges, water and sewage plants, etc.; the huge cost of providing emergency services such as police, fire, paramedic services, as well as providing for evacuation, emergency shelters, and recovery efforts; and the very significant economic loss as residents and businesses are unlikely to return to the municipality after a nuclear incident, given the inevitable negative media coverage from any nuclear incident.
We believe that such an incident will significantly damage the image of the host municipality, and we do not believe this matter is addressed in Bill C-5. Bill C-5 should therefore clearly identify and provide compensation entitlements to all nuclear host communities and ensure that they be afforded every right to recoup financial and economic loss resulting from damages caused by a nuclear incident.
In summary, our association is supportive of Bill C-5 and strongly urges the committee to give serious consideration to our request to strengthen various provisions of the bill to ensure our residents, businesses, and host municipalities are fairly and quickly compensated for any losses, financial and otherwise, that we may incur as the result of a nuclear incident.
I thank you for the opportunity to come before you and express our views on Bill C-5. And we would be more than happy to answer any questions as they come forward, Mr. Chair.
:
Good morning. My name is Shawn-Patrick Stensil, and I am an energy and climate campaigner for Greenpeace Canada. I'll make my presentation in English, but I'll be pleased to hear your questions in French.
[English]
I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to present to you today.
In ten short minutes, I'm going to speak to you of three general issues of concern for Greenpeace regarding the proposed Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act.
First, the revisions to the act that have been put forward are indicative of how nuclear policy decisions are made in Canada. I would urge the committee to look further into this bill, as well as other nuclear policy decisions that are being made behind closed doors.
Second, I'd like to call into question the need for the Nuclear Liability Act and address specific issues of concern in the bill.
Third, I'd like to raise an issue of what I see as a policy gap between the Nuclear Liability Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in regard to nuclear terrorism.
First, in regard to the Nuclear Liability Act as an example of how policy decisions are made on nuclear issues in Canada, I would like to urge the committee to take a closer look at this bill and seek the opinion of many more non-industry stakeholders.
As background, in January 2006 Greenpeace Canada submitted a petition to the federal environment commissioner regarding the failure of Natural Resources Canada to bring revisions to the Nuclear Liability Act. This followed two previous petitions by a grassroots group called Citizens for Renewable Energy, to which Natural Resources Canada had said they would bring revisions by the end of 2005.
I have requested the clerk to provide the committee with copies of this petition.
In the petition, we cited numerous documents that Greenpeace had acquired through access to information showing that Natural Resources Canada had intentionally avoided consulting with non-industry stakeholders, such as the City of Toronto and environmental groups, regarding revisions to the Nuclear Liability Act, which is in front of you today, while it had “carried out extensive consultations with the nuclear industry”. Other correspondence showed that despite long-time public demands for revisions to the act, the nuclear industry was advising the government against renewing the act—probably for some reasons of political expedience; I'm not sure.
It is noteworthy that in 2003, Natural Resources Canada pushed through fairly quickly the passage of what was called Bill at the time, which amended the previous act, in order to meet the need of Bruce Power—a private nuclear company that had formed since 2000—to indemnify investors who were looking to invest in its project. So it quickly pushed through amendments to the act but was holding back on the wider revisions.
All this is to say that this act has been held up for many years seemingly to suit the desires of the nuclear industry. Natural Resources Canada has intentionally avoided consulting the public and non-industry stakeholders, probably because doing so raises a number of big issues for the nuclear industry: one, the threat of accidents, and two, the inherent subsidies that go along with this act.
As a recommendation to the committee, I would like to ask the committee to look at this bill more in depth and to seek the advice and perspectives of people outside the industry. It's the nuclear industry who are the risk-makers; we as Canadians are the risk-takers in this act implicitly, and we have the right to be consulted on that.
I'd like now to speak to the need for the Nuclear Liability Act and to specific concerns about the act.
I would like to say to the committee that the fact that we have this act in front of us should underline the fact that the nuclear industry has failed to develop into an independent and viable industry, despite years of trying and subsidies. Nuclear protection regimes began in the 1950s, and the idea at the time was to give the industry a running start to prove itself. The United States passed the Price-Anderson Act. We've been renewing these acts for 40 years, because the industry has never been able to gain the confidence of the insurance industry to be completely independent without these acts.
It has been estimated that in Canada the current limit on liability amounts to a subsidy of approximately 1¢ to 4¢ per kilowatt hour. As I mention in my petition to the auditor, Greenpeace also discovered that post-September 11 the federal government had begun assuming increased insurance costs for terrorist risk coverage for the industry. The government's stated intent was to avoid the adverse effects of high premium increases on nuclear power competitiveness in a deregulated electricity market. What was the cost of this? It was about $200,000.
The question why we are paying for it should furrow some eyebrows. Why should Canadians and the environment at large be subject to the risks that exceed the capacity of the insurance market? This goes against the principle of polluter pays which, I would remind the committee, Canada has ratified or signed onto in numerous international agreements. It is Canadians who will be forced to bear the expense and risks of a nuclear accident. This is an unacceptable subsidy to the industry.
I would now like now to address a number of specific concerns, because I think my time is running out.
First, regarding the increase to $650 million, that amount is a limit not based on the projected costs of a nuclear accident, but on what the global insurance industry has admitted it can handle. It is noteworthy that a 2006 federal government study of the costs of a dirty-bomb attack in downtown Toronto that released a small amount of radiation over four kilometres concluded that the costs of such a small accident would be $24 billion. That is way out of sync with what we're being told at the committee today for an accident releasing a small amount of radioactivity at a nuclear site. It is difficult to see, then, how even a small-scale release of radioactivity could be covered by the limits established in this bill, let alone a Chernobyl-scale event occurring in Canada—which the federal government has completely discounted.
As I mentioned in my petition to the environment commissioner, Greenpeace is concerned about the quality, rigour, and transparency of the risk studies carried out by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, studies that are used to claim that Chernobyl-style accidents wouldn't occur. I don't have time to discuss this in depth, but I would encourage the committee to investigate it.
It is Greenpeace's position that this cap on liability is inadequate, and nothing should stop this committee from recommending that the cap be taken off, as Germany has done. You could still insure up to $650 million, take the cap off, and then examine other options that have been mentioned this morning, such as industry pooling, so that we can internalize more of the costs of the nuclear industry.
A second issue I'd like to raise is the period for compensating victims, which has been extended from 10 to 30 years. The bill needs to address the nature of nuclear accidents. The impacts from radiation exposure, such as cancer and genetic damage, can take long periods to appear and then may be difficult to trace or attribute. Proving causation is obviously a cause for concern in regard to the proposed 30-year limitation period. For example, if it takes 10 years to prove the link between radioactive emissions and, say, an inter-generational effect, then a 30-year limit is clearly too short for claimants. We should extend this period.
Finally, I'd like to raise an issue I also raised in my petition regarding a gap in federal legislation between the Nuclear Liability Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This former act excludes the damages and the costs from a nuclear incident caused by terrorism. Implicitly, that means we Canadians are assuming the risks for a terrorist act such as that. If so, we should have the ability to evaluate and discuss in public what those potential impacts could be. A forum for this may be the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. During environmental assessment hearings on nuclear projects in the past, such as the current life extension of Pickering B, Greenpeace requested that terrorist attacks be addressed in the Environmental Assessment Act. The response from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was that this was not a requirement under CEAA and therefore they don't have to do it.
I would note for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that in the United States last year, a federal court, as well as the Supreme Court, directed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that in licensing decisions they had to consider the environmental impacts of a terrorist attack. We should be making those amendments to our legislation here in Canada, so that at least the people who are taking on the risks will be aware of the full costs.
With that, I believe my ten minutes may be up.
Thank you very much for your attention.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Thompson, the Government of Canada will pay approximately $520 million in the next five years to correct the mistakes of the past regarding radioactive contamination. Your municipality is probably concerned by this measure. This year, an extra $100 million was granted to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to develop the CANDU. Your municipality will host a nuclear power station, and you will have to increase safety by using firefighters or people who can administer first aid. A lot of expenses are incurred by a province or city that hosts a nuclear power station.
You gave us a very striking picture by saying that, for the City of Pickering, for example, $650 million would work out to compensation of $8,000 per person. You didn't provide a compensation figure, but, in your opinion, $650 million is not really enough.
Are you prepared to say that it is quite unfair that Canadians, through their taxes, pay the extra compensation in the event of a nuclear accident? What proposals do you have to make concerning the tribunal? That issue is a great concern for me, but we were unfortunately unable to take an in-depth look at the clauses of the bill with the officials.
If the municipality of Port Hope, for example, filed a claim for compensation with the tribunal for losses related to its water supply system or its public property, I don't know whether it would be allowed. Do you have any suggestions to make to the tribunal? You said it was independent, but do you think the municipalities might be entitled to compensation?
I would like to provide you with some information. The Municipality of Port Hope is one of the oldest nuclear communities in Canada, having had a facility--Cameco Corporation--which is a refinery, since the 1930s.
Currently, due to past business practices from the 1930s to the 1950s, we have material deposited throughout our urban area. In fact, my whole urban area is being decommissioned, so to speak. That process, which will also involve a small portion of the community of Clarington beside us, will cost the federal government $260 million, since it was originally a federal corporation.
Having said that, do I think $8,000 is not enough? As municipalities, we do not feel $650 million is sufficient in the unlikely event of an incident. Personally, I don't believe there should be a cap.
In regard to Canadians paying for that, I think the pool idea and the insurance are very important to the process so that it is not the responsibility of the federal, provincial, and municipal governments.
In regard to tribunal courts, my personal opinion would be that they should be at arm's length.
Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. This is a very important issue for our country.
You've raised some concerns, which I think a lot of Canadians have, with regard to the compensation. I don't know what house prices are in Pickering or any of the other communities. I would imagine they're similar to average prices across the country: very high. So $8,000 per person really isn't a lot when you have to vacate your home and lose all your possessions and everything. It's really not much.
We've negotiated trade deals with the Americas, and with the U.S. especially, that say that if we make a law that hinders your ability to make a profit, or hinders your business, then we're liable for compensation for future lost revenues.
I'm curious as to whether you think that should be built into a compensation law. You mentioned, Ms. Thompson, that the negative perception around a nuclear incident would scare away business for years to come, maybe forever. If you had a business and it was shut down, you lost your revenue, there's nothing to compensate you for that lost revenue for the future. I'm just wondering, if it's good enough for trade deals, why isn't it good enough for Canadian businesses?
:
I didn't state an opinion on that per se.
If my memory serves, there has been a change since 2001 in European conventions regarding responsibility for terrorist attacks. I'd have to confirm that.
My point was that under the Nuclear lLability Act as proposed, nuclear operators would not be responsible for the economic costs of such an incident. My point was to say that if Canadians are then going to assume those impacts, we need a forum under which we can evaluate them and have a discussion of whether they're socially acceptable and of other methods we could use to mitigate that risk.
What I proposed was that an amendment or a change in regulation should be made under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to require terrorist incidents and the environmental impacts to be evaluated, because that is not the case now in Canada. What I noted is that in the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that the NRC must require an evaluation of environmental impacts in licensing new facilities.
An example raised by Mr. Ouellet would be a terrorist attack at the dry storage site for waste, which right now is frankly not very well protected, because most of the facilities were built prior to September 11. In licensing a new facility in the United States, they've had to evaluate what those costs would be. That gives the public an understanding of what the hazard is and of whether it's socially acceptable. It also allows a forum for discussing what we could do to necessarily mitigate this environmental impact--do we make these buildings more robust?
That was what my comment was.
:
That's a great question, because it raises an issue I forgot to mention in my presentation.
As I mentioned, I filed a petition with the Environment Commissioner. There had been previous petitions, again, as a way of trying to push previous governments to table this legislation. The day I received my response from the Environment Commissioner—I think there's a three-month limit—I got a call from one of the opposition parties asking why the Nuclear Liability Act had been tabled that very day.
So what I would say on this point, for information for the committee, is it shows the need to have something, such as the Environment Commissioner, where we can push through things and get them out on the table.
One thing that I would note, in response to your question, as well, is I've got hold of the order papers. This act has been done for many years under previous governments, and one of the things that was noted was bringing this act up may require a broader public debate on the future of nuclear power in Canada. That is something that past governments and this government have not done and it's something, as I mentioned in my presentation, that this committee should probably dig into because there are other decisions, such as the privatization of AECL, which studies also began under past governments, that are being discussed again behind closed doors, and this committee could help keep NRCan accountable that way. I would hope the members see that as their role.
:
Thank you, Mr. Stensil.
And Mr. Harris, I've even allowed you a little extra because of the intervention.
Thank you very much to the witnesses.
I would ask the members of the committee not to stand to thank the witnesses because we have a lot of business to do in the next ten minutes. We do have a committee following us here in this room. We have to be done our committee meeting by eleven o'clock.
So thank you to all of you very much for your presentations and the answers to our questions.
We now will go to a motion, which has been given proper notice by Ms. Bell. Ms. Bell, just before we do go to that, I want to make a suggestion to committee.
We have a meeting for Thursday, which, as of right now, isn't planned. Is the committee open to going to clause-by-clause on Thursday?
Mr. Anderson.