Evidence of meeting #41 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was operator.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
It would be in a court of law.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is a question I've had for a while. What kind of court does that? What level of court is it? Where does it happen? Who sues whom?
4 p.m.
A voice
It would start in the superior court.
4 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible--Editor]
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. Let's let the witnesses answer the questions, please.
Order, please. Let's have the witnesses answer the question.
Ms. MacKenzie, were you indicating that you wanted to speak?
4 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Actually, the answer that has been given is in fact correct. It would be in the normal way that any tort law is settled in Canada, except in the case of a nuclear claims tribunal being established, in which case that would be the court that would decide.
4 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Yes, if one were established. But if one is not established, then it's the just ordinary courts, in the way any other dispute of that sort is settled.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you.
(Clause 11 agreed to)
(On clause 12--No recourse)
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Again, I have a question. Going back to clause 11, referring to this individual who was found, why put this exclusion back in of no operator “other than an individual described in section 11...”? What is this clause about?
4 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Clause 12 is part of the notion that the operator is absolutely and exclusively liable. It's logically part of that notion. We are simply clarifying, by saying “other than an individual described in section 11”, that we're not overwriting section 11. It's only for clarity.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I simply want to understand. In clause 11, it's in case somebody intentionally causes an accident at a nuclear site. You're writing in clause 12 to prevent any misconception that this could be extended to anybody...? I'm trying to understand why you put the clause in.
4:05 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
If you look at clause 11 again, you'll see that it's saying that the operator doesn't have to pay somebody who deliberately sabotaged a plant. Clause 12 is saying that the operator can't go after anybody else to pay for third party liability, except the guy who may have done something deliberately to damage things.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So this is a question I had, because this was raised by others at the committee. In terms of other contractors, other operators who work within the facility, does this prevent the operator from going after those individuals if it is proved that somebody was negligent, if it is proved that somebody gave faulty equipment? Does it limit the liability in terms of those operators and contractors?
4:05 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Yes. Here you're speaking of the part of clause 12 that says, “No operator has a right of recourse against any person...in respect of damage caused by a nuclear incident”. That is the part that stops the operator from going after a supplier, for instance.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Again, if I may ask, is this standard liability legislation? After hearing the testimony and trying to understand all the moving parts within a nuclear operator.... If a contractor is proven to be negligent or a part is proven to be faulty, the operator is not able to seek compensation from that contractor or supplier, except in a case of intentional negligence, even if in a particular case that contractor or supplier may have directly caused the accident to take place. Is that right?
It seems strange. I'm trying to understand why we would limit the operator's ability to go after a parts supplier, of which there are many in the construction of a nuclear facility, when they are facing many hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits.
In the normal course of business, if a company gets sued because a car accident happened and the car's brakes were proven to be faulty, in some cases the individual will go after the car company and the parts supplier. But sometimes the car company will go after that parts supplier themselves to offset their compensation, saying that it wasn't really their fault. Why is that not true here?
4:05 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Mr. Chair, as we've already discussed, absolute and exclusive liability is a fundamental principle of the bill. Indeed, it's not a constitutional principle, actually. It is a common law principle that's overwritten in here.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
4:05 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
As for the policy reasons behind it, perhaps Dave would like to answer the question.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative