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.
4:15 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
From a liability perspective, it's very tough. The quid pro quo, I guess, is--
4:15 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
--that it's very tough on the operator. They are liable if there's an incident. If the victim says there was an incident, and the victim was damaged, they are liable. The quid pro quo is that their liability is limited.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, to whatever is set within the limit of this bill, which is $650 million, and in other regimes, to whatever it happens to be.
4:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's right.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is there anything else on clause 12, Mr. McCauley? Sorry, I mean Mr. Cullen.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm going to start to develop a complex or at least a split personality.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you.
We will have a recorded division on clause 12.
(Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)
I think we should leave for the vote now. Let's suspend the meeting until after the vote. When most of us arrive back after the vote--or all of us, hopefully--we will resume the meeting.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Let's resume the meeting.
We had just passed clause 12, so we'll move to clause 13.
(Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to)
(On clause 15--Liability for economic loss)
5 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a question about this. Economic loss doesn't necessarily go as far as the environmental damages are concerned. We're wondering about this. Potentially I'm looking at a nuclear accident that takes place near a water source and the extension of environmental damages to a region, thereby incurring economic losses. Would such a thing be contemplated here?
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The extent of environmental damage that would be included would be those environmental damages for which a competent authority requires cleanup or requires reparations. So to the extent that it affected a water body, for example, if a competent authority would suggest that there had to be reparations associated with the water body, then that would be a compensable head of damage.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
On my question, though, I'm imagining Lake Ontario getting contaminated after an accident, and in my reading of this, I don't know who would be seeking the economic loss. Would it be the municipalities and the residents who are unable to drink the water?
Do you see what I mean? In all of my reading through this, it doesn't come through clearly in terms of compensation for environmental damage and environmental cleanup if a person loses their drinking-water supply.
You mentioned cleanup. How long would it take for the cleanup of the nuclear contamination of a water body like Lake Ontario?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
In terms of the compensable damages, if there were an issue associated with contamination of a water supply, for example, there would be an associated damage in that there would have to be expenditures to bring in fresh water.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We're going to get to the limits of the bill in terms of what can be sued for. I don't know of any cleanup scenario that allows for the cleanup of a nuclear-contaminated body of water. I'm getting back to this.
I'm reading from clause 15, which says, “Economic loss incurred by a person as a result of their bodily injury or damage to their property caused by a nuclear incident...”. To compensate the loss to the communities that rely on Lake Ontario for their water supply would immediately be in the billions, and we're taking that sentence to mean that, if I'm hearing your interpretation right.
The department said that $650 million would cover off clause 15 if it were applied. I'm confused. If this does in fact capture something like drinking-water contamination, which is what I'm hearing, then I'm not sure how the department arrived at the figure of $650 million, at that kind of a figure.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Would anyone like to respond to Mr. Cullen's comment or question?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Yes, I'll allow you to make a comment. I've also recognized Madame Brunelle.
Would anybody like to respond to Mr. Cullen's comment?
Go ahead, Mr. McCauley.
5:05 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The bill provides that if there is contamination to the property and economic loss associated with their livelihood, for example, they will be compensated for it.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
