Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 30th, 2009

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

I see. They have also been given the power to say they think an accident is coming or an accident has happened, maybe. That's more likely the scenario. It's not predicting an accident. They've seen something that causes a concern. They think an accident may have happened. They order an evacuation. They order a whole bunch of work to be done. This is what clause 18 is for.

[Dave McCauley]

Typically, it is the operator who would notify the emergency measures organization or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission of an incident, and then there would be a decision taken to order an evacuation.

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

Then this is the moment. The scenario is that an operator says something has gone wrong and they are showing increased levels.

Bruce is going to take me on a tour in a little while and I'll finally understand what the buttons all mean, but they see trouble at the site--not them, someone unnamed. I don't want to get sued for libel. I'm not sure it happens here. A nuclear operator says there is a problem and thinks some sort of accident has happened or is about to happen and they are going to notify the relevant authority, whatever it is. Again, you haven't defined it, because those can move around in new agreements. Understood. They order an evacuation. They also tell the operator to do what needs to be done to stop this from happening or to contain it if it is thought to have already happened. If there has been an accident, shore it up and try to keep as much of the stuff inside as possible. Those contractors and those residents who were ordered to do something can seek compensation.

[Dave McCauley]

That's correct. I simply want to make sure you aren't under the assumption that what we're compensating here is reparations to the installation. Rather, these are preventive measures taken by someone other than the operator.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

I'll go to Madame Brunelle, who has some questions.

Madame Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I live close to the Gentilly Nuclear Power Station. I own a beautiful house in the country, by the river, and I think it is great. The Quebec Ministry of Public Security gave us iodine pills and evacuation plans. Every year or so, the small municipality of Champlain, where I live, has an emergency measures drill and checks its communication system and so on with the help of many volunteers.

If I understand this clause, it means that in case of an evacuation ordered and administered by an emergency preparedness organization, there would be compensation. For example, if I have to leave my home and spend several days in a hotel or if I lose some property, I would be able to access a compensation process. Is that right?

[Dave McCauley]

Yes.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

This is clear, Mr. McCauley.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is that all, Madame Brunelle?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Are there any further questions on clause 18?

Mr. Cullen.

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

Mr. Chair, you don't say that with enough enthusiasm. “Any other questions” is all in a high tone and then drops at the end.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I lack a certain amount of enthusiasm, I will admit.

Go ahead.

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

The parliamentary process is a wondrous thing.

The question I have we referenced earlier. At first, folks weren't entirely certain. We got into the notion of workers at the site. I think this was back in clause 15. We weren't sure about collective agreements. That was put aside. I don't know if you have any further research on that. We also found that the nuclear operator itself—I think you have clarified it again in clause 18—can't be compensated for anything they were doing to the site itself, so if an order is issued and there is an accident, for damages that are repaired or shored up, the nuclear operator can't seek compensation under Bill C-20. That would be counterintuitive.

For the workers working at the plant who are also ordered out, under one of these instances--I imagine it wouldn't be a day necessarily, it could be quite a long time--are they able to seek compensation? For instance, their neighbours are evacuated, and these folks are also evacuated but are also out of work. Under clause 18, is this a place for that authority...? I think you actually referenced clause 18 a bit when we were talking about clause 15, and you said there was something further down the line in terms of whether an authority had issued an accident.

Could you help me out?

[Dave McCauley]

What would happen is that there would probably be more involvement of workers as opposed to less involvement of workers. If workers' families in the immediate vicinity were to be evacuated, certainly there would be compensation available to them. But I don't foresee workers not being engaged in addressing the situation.

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

So in the plans you've looked at, from.... I don't want to make an assumption. Has the department looked at the emergency plans we referenced back in clause 17? We identified that every site has one of these emergency plans in the event of an accident. I assume that when drawing up Bill C-20, the department looked at them. We talked about competent authorities, who's in line to do what, and who can say what. Is it true that the plans also imagine that the workers at the site are the ones doing the repair and cleanup in the event of an accident?

[Dave McCauley]

I wouldn't want to comment on that issue.

There would be a lot of activity at the plant in the event of a nuclear incident, and it's not entirely a certainty that all the workers would be evacuated. In fact, I think it would be just the opposite. They would have to be there in order to ensure that the incident was dealt with.

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

We talked about the work being done to the site. I'm not sure how clause 18 delineates or makes the distinction between work done that was meant to contain the accident.... I assume that under clause 18 the mitigatory action would be compensable.

[Dave McCauley]

No. Work that was done by the operator to control the incident or to respond to the incident would not be compensable under the legislation.

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

Would it make any difference if it were a contractor to the operator? Would it be the same thing?

[Dave McCauley]

If it were a contractor, the operator would be paying the costs of having the contractor do the work. It wouldn't be the legislation; it would be the operator.

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

In terms of the public, we've identified that if there's an accident in an area, if the community is under an evacuation order and folks leave, they can be compensated for lost wages. We also know that there are significant transportation routes around some of these plants--Highway 401, the VIA Rail line, and CN Rail. What does clause 18 say about those matters?

I'm just talking about the public here for a moment. You said that if folks were evacuated for a week and they lost a week's worth of wages and had to pay for hotels and what not, clause 18 seeks to compensate them.

[Dave McCauley]

That's correct.

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

In the case of a serious nuclear accident, I could imagine Highway 401 being closed for many hours, until it was secure.

[Dave McCauley]

That's correct.