Evidence of meeting #6 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We're talking about clause 47, and the amendment is reference number 3176971.
10:10 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Environment Canada, Department of Justice Canada
If I understand correctly then, the amendment was to insert the word “not” and say “The Tribunal may not refuse to hear any claim”.
This particular provision is quite a standard provision in the rules concerning quasi-judicial tribunals. The tribunal would have received the claim and would have received the documents, and therefore it is quite normal for a tribunal to be given the power not to hear things that on their face are frivolous or vexatious.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I'm just going to be very short.
Obviously the tribunal will read the claim before it decides if it's frivolous or not, just like any court or any proceedings. They will examine the claim and then decide if it's frivolous or not, and then decide not to hear it, or to hear it. I think this is normal and standard. I will be—sorry—opposing the amendment.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I'd just say that in many cases the people who will be making claims against nuclear accidents are not necessarily ones who have access to lawyers, and they may not be able to put their claims in a fashion that would appeal to the kind of tribunal we're setting up here.
I would think there needs to be some protection for Canadian citizens who would be under some.... What we're saying here is that this tribunal has to be open to hearing the claims that people have. A tribunal could refuse to hear a claim and then that would be the end of it. If a tribunal has to hear the claim, they might get the claimants to put it in a format that would be more acceptable.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Just for clarity here, would any of the officials like to respond to that?
10:15 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Environment Canada, Department of Justice Canada
There are processes for rehearing and appeals of any decision. Also, if the tribunal makes a decision that is inappropriate, it's always subject to judicial review by the courts. There is a normal process for dealing with claims. This is a normal rule for a quasi-judicial tribunal.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
I was going to make the same points as Ms. MacKenzie, not as well likely, but I was going to make the same points.
10:15 a.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Speaking to our experts, I wonder whether a clause such as this one isn't more for businesses in general, people who have ready access to the courts and a lawyer. I feel this clause is inappropriate for the purpose of protecting the ordinary person who might be affected by a nuclear incident.
It forces people who have little knowledge, means or money to hire a lawyer not to institute proceedings because, if the claim is poorly written or poorly prepared, it will be said that it is frivolous and will be dropped. If the purpose of this clause is to protect the population as a whole, I don't think it is appropriate. You'll tell me if I'm straying very far from the truth, but it seems to me the purpose of this clause is precisely to protect businesses or, more generally, people who can gain access to the courts.
10:15 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Environment Canada, Department of Justice Canada
The expression frivolous or vexatious has a well-known meaning; it's a kind of bad faith.
It's not the idea of somebody who just doesn't know how to fill out a form. In fact, the whole purpose of the tribunal, as set up, is to ensure that claims are heard expeditiously and that it isn't necessary, although you have the right, for people to be represented by lawyers.
10:15 a.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Can you give me an example of a frivolous or vexatious claim in the case of a nuclear incident?
December 6th, 2007 / 10:15 a.m.
Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources
It could be a person from Alberta who files a claim for compensation for headaches or something like that after seeing on television that an incident has occurred in New Brunswick. It's weird and it's not—
10:15 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Environment Canada, Department of Justice Canada
Perhaps a person.
10:15 a.m.
Bloc
10:15 a.m.
Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources
We thought of a lot of examples relating to incidents—
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't want to make this discussion longer, but I feel that I have to respond, because this is, again, very standard in any quasi-judicial—in fact, even in court—proceedings. The fact of the matter is that we have a minimum of five judges or adjudicators. the majority of them will be judges, and everybody will be allowed to submit their claim and they will examine the claim based on its merits. I'm going to have confidence in the fact that the tribunal will do everything they can in studying that claim and then make a decision as to whether it's frivolous or not. This is in fact to protect the public interest, because there has to be a balance between what the tribunal should focus on and how to distinguish or differentiate between a frivolous claim and a legitimate claim that must be focused on, and save public money and public interest in looking after these claims.
So again, I will oppose this amendment.
Thank you.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
10:20 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Clearly there's no definition of “frivolous or vexatious” in this document.
I guess my feeling about this goes back to my particular experience with nuclear contamination problems. In my own community, we've had two of them. There's always a line drawn between what is appropriate and what is not appropriate.
For instance, when the Atomic Energy people came down my driveway and sorted out the dirt in my driveway to find pieces of radioactive material, they didn't bother to take a look around the rest of the yard; they focused only on the driveway. Would that be a frivolous or vexatious claim if I went back to the tribunal and said, “I don't think the cleanup you've done is appropriate”? For a homeowner to come forward with a legal document, I think, is difficult.
I don't think this field has been completely understood in terms of how nuclear contamination exercises should be conducted; and certainly, to give the tribunal the ability to simply ignore claims because they consider them frivolous or vexatious, I don't agree with that. I think the jury is still out on the nature of nuclear contamination, and I think any law that we put forward should give protection to the citizen first, in the case of any kind of action that comes out of accidents that occur with this particular material.
Thank you.
