Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 30th, 2009

[Dave McCauley]

If a competent authority requires that barricades, etc., have to be put in place to prevent individuals from gaining access to the area, then those preventive measures would be compensable.

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

So the city or whoever slaps up a barrier could never be seen as being liable for any damages somebody sought, because they were doing it under authority. Any claim for damages would have to go further up the pipe. Is that correct?

[Dave McCauley]

All the damages associated with the incident would go to the operator. No one else would be held liable.

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

All the damages would go to the operator.

[Dave McCauley]

The operator is absolutely and exclusively liable.

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

In the consultation process leading up to Bill C-20 and clause 18, aside from sitting down with the nuclear providers themselves, the operators, and the CNSC—we're talking about communities being affected in evacuations and such—did the government sit down with any of the communities that host these nuclear facilities?

[Dave McCauley]

We did not sit down with the communities that host the facilities, but we have had representations in support of the bill from those communities.

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

I'm sorry, I don't understand the second part that you said.

[Dave McCauley]

The Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities has passed resolutions in favour of the bill. It is supportive of the bill.

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

So measures in clause 18 that deal with a community's capacity and the costs of evacuation, which we describe as measures taken to prevent damage—and evacuations are considered a measure to prevent damage, and the same with stores getting rid of produce, anything that can be seen as somebody's initiative to try to prevent it—can only be compensated if they were ordered. Is that right?

Ms. MacKenzie might—

[Brenda MacKenzie]

By way of clarification, it's if the order has been recommended.

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

What is the difference from what I said?

[Brenda MacKenzie]

In clause 17 the measure is ordered. That's more formal.

In section 18 the measure is recommended, and that takes into consideration that this is happening very quickly. If an authority acting under an emergency scheme has recommended to the people that they get out, then this is covered.

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

This goes back to the concerns I had around mitigation and speed. There are two levels of speed that can be offered under this legislation. The difference between clauses 17 and 18 is that your definition for what can be compensated is based upon something that can happen much more easily. Is that right? You've made a distinction between a recommendation and an ordering of a thing to go forth.

[Brenda MacKenzie]

Yes, there is a difference. The preventive measures are preventive. You have an emergency unfolding and you want people to be compensated if they are following a recommendation from a competent authority to do what they have to do on the spur of the moment.

[Jacques Hénault]

If I could add to that, with respect to the choices recommended in some of these nuclear emergency plans, whether it be New Brunswick, Quebec, or Ontario, sometimes the word “recommended” is used rather than “a direct order”.

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

Can you tell me why?

[Jacques Hénault]

That's the way it was set up. Sometimes it's indicated that way in these plans.

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

I can't go back to a clause, but.... The ordering was done in terms of the actual cleanup component, because you deem that a more formalized process. Here, the competent authorities.... We went through this to try to understand what that meant, who gets to say go ahead and do it and who can't. Under a recommendation, is it the same authorities but their trigger is lighter, if you follow my meaning? Does it still have to be the competent authorities? I guess that's the heart of the question.

[Brenda MacKenzie]

It is a competent authority acting under a nuclear emergency scheme emergency. So the sense in clause 18 is that there's some sense of urgency that something has to be done right now. So if that authority acting under a nuclear emergency scheme recommends, for instance, that women of child-bearing age leave now--just in case--then the cost of those measures are compensable.

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

There are buffer zones created around these sites, is that correct? I want to understand, when we're seeking out compensation for a potential evacuation, if there's a zone where you simply can't build near the site. Is that your understanding, Mr. McCauley?

[Dave McCauley]

I believe so.

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

There have been concerns raised. The reason this is relevant is around the ability and immediacy of being able to get folks out in an evacuation order and the compensation sought for it. Does the department have the authority to prevent cities from getting too much closer, thereby making clauses like 18 easier to do in the event of a nuclear accident?

[Dave McCauley]

The department does not have authority in that regard.

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

Is that under CNSC? Who determines what the buffer zone is like?