Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 30th, 2009

[Dave McCauley]

I'm sorry, excuse me?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The authors of the study that the CNSC commissioned said that when you're looking at these issues of compensation, what the liability regime should be, the government should also go down and look at places like Pickering, with a much higher density—and not just much higher density right around the facility itself but a near proximity to a very large population like Toronto. The evacuation costs associated with Pickering and potentially, if it were a bad incident.... Again, this isn't me, these are the authors of the report who are saying you need to look at this. I don't understand why in clause 18, then, the government didn't try to limit the liability further.

[Dave McCauley]

We were comfortable with the costs coming out of the Magellan study vis-à-vis the limit that we had recommended. And it could well be that the evacuation costs associated with Pickering may be higher; nonetheless, based on international practice, the available capacity, etc., the $650 million figure seemed to be quite appropriate. For the costs associated in the Magellan study, the dollar value was $1 million to $100 million, so we felt there was sufficient buffer there between the $650 million that we understood.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Cullen, these questions are questions that you've asked before in going through other clauses of this bill, and I would encourage you to stay away from repeating the same questions.

If I could, to all committee members, I'll remind committee members that this committee has dealt with this legislation previously, and it would probably help limit the number of questions that would be asked if the members of the committee would go back and review the questions and answers that were given when this bill, as Bill C-5, went through the committee before. So a little bit of homework in terms of looking at the questions and how they were answered before could end or limit the amount of repetition. I would suggest that that happen; otherwise, at the rate we're going, at the rate of two clauses per meeting, we'll be here till the end of June.

If you have questions that haven't been asked before and answered before, if that were the case, then fine. But that isn't the case, and Mr. Cullen, you are starting to repeat even this time exactly the same questions you've asked before. So I'd ask you to stay away from that. Go ahead and continue on clause 18, and hopefully for the next meeting you and all members will review what happened when this legislation was dealt with previously.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's good advice. I appreciate the advice.

You referenced $1 million to $100 million, Mr. Hénault. You didn't give a context to it. Was it for evacuation? What's the reference of the figure? I'm sorry. I haven't heard it before.

[Jacques Hénault, Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources]

Yes, that's right. The report says that the range for an evacuation, depending on the incident, weather conditions, and a bunch of other factors, could range from $1 million to $100 million, and the $100 million reflects the worst-case design-basis accident.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So this is important. The $1 million to $100 million reflects the worst case of a design-based accident at the two sites that were studied. Is that correct?

[Jacques Hénault]

That is correct.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So when the government tried to estimate in terms of costs under clause 18, one of the figures given to you by the study was, ballpark, somewhere between $1 million and $100 million for a foreseeable accident—I think that's the term we used—at those two sites. There was no estimation given for a site at Pickering. Does the government have any work on what the lost wages would be in evacuation of any other sites other than the two studied? Did the study include lost wages as a part of that $1 million to $100 million component?

[Jacques Hénault]

Yes, that's right, the lost wages, economic loss.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It's economic loss...so businesses, etc.

Did the government study any of the other sites in the meantime, since the report came out and the authors recommended further study, in terms of lost wages, evacuation costs, or anything like that?

[Dave McCauley]

No.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm trying to get a sense of what is captured in the economic loss regime. We've talked about evacuation, lost wages, and people being unable to go to work. There has been much research done since this bill was written, because an incident came after this bill was written, and the members from Toronto will remember this well--the SARS effect. Various elements of the government attempted to assess what the economic impact was of SARS in the Greater Toronto Area and the economic region.

Here's my question. You've undertaken a study to look at the impacts of moving people out of the site, putting them in hotel rooms, and compensating them for any lost wages under clause 18. Is that correct?

[Dave McCauley]

That's correct.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

If I were sitting on a city council or a regional authority, under clause 18 would I have the ability to seek any compensation over the loss of something larger than that, the economic loss of an area that's had a nuclear accident? I'm assuming that if we can have an incident like SARS and lose many tens of millions of dollars of economic activity, as the government reported, is that a viable compensation stream? Is that something the government considers under clause 18?

[Dave McCauley]

Clause 18 provides compensation for:

costs and losses of persons who live in, carry on business in, work in or are present in the area

That includes:

(b) the costs and economic loss...arising from the loss of use of property as a result of the measures.

That is, if you were evacuated and you couldn't use your business, you could be compensated for that economic loss.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

If I'm an owner of a hotel operating in the immediate vicinity; I'm compensated for my hotel having been evacuated and for the week the evacuation order remained in effect. But it's not difficult to imagine that the number of bookings going into that hotel would be greatly reduced in the months following a nuclear accident, as they were after an incident like SARS. Is that imagined under this clause, that someone would come forward to the tribunal and say, my hotel typically experienced 60% higher...or my restaurant, or whatever business in the affected vicinity? I'm not talking about somebody 100 miles down the road saying they feel they've been damage by this, but somebody in the immediate area.

I just want to know what the government is liable for. I want to know what the nuclear providers are liable for. Are they liable for something like that?

[Dave McCauley]

For a hotel owner, if no one could visit his hotel because people were evacuated or he was in an evacuation zone--

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We understand that is compensable.

[Dave McCauley]

--he would be able to be compensated.

What was the second example?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

If in the aftermath my business fell by 50% to 80%, and I attribute that directly...and I have an economic study from the Province of Ontario saying that economic activity in the area dropped 70% in the two years following the incident, I want to know if clause 18 allows for that loss to be compensated or not.

[Dave McCauley]

It would be for a judge to determine if that was to be compensated, but there is a concern of remoteness as well. Certainly there has to be some rationale as to why people are not going to the hotel, either because there is contamination associated with it or there is damage, but--

[Brenda MacKenzie]

Just for clarification, your question is specifically about clause 18, which relates to damages arising from preventive measures--for example, if the owner had to put a barrier around his hotel and people couldn't come for another six months to stay there. That's a preventive measure.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm sorry, that's the part I don't understand. Why is that considered a preventive measure? It's a preventive measure to what? It's not to the accident happening or to contamination flowing out of the site....

I understand the necessity in terms of naming authorities that have a certain amount of openness and vagueness, but it concerns me when we say that a judge will have to decide. When you say a preventive measure is putting up a barrier across the road, it is a preventive measures to what? It is preventive to somebody driving down the road, but certainly not to the extent of containment of the accident. Is it?

[Brenda MacKenzie]

It's to keep people from going somewhere they shouldn't. It's a preventive measure in the sense of preventing damage to people. That would be also be encompassed by preventive measures. It is preventing people from being harmed by--