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.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Then again, the insurance would have to be all in order before the government could issue the licence.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's right. That's the intent. It's so that everything is in order.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just to be explicit, is the bill insistent that the insurance be in place prior to licensing? I'm just reading the language here, and I know that with legal language, the “mays”, the “shalls”, and the “cans” sometimes can mean different things. Must a nuclear operator have the insurance in hand under this act in order to receive their licensing from the government?
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Those requirements would be actually under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, under which the CNSC operates, because they are responsible for ensuring that all requirements of any legislation, on whatever subject, are met in issuing a licence.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is essentially a referential act, so it relies on the CNSC act in order to make this apply in every case. I just want to make sure that there are not any unintentional loopholes being created about the sequence of licensing for a new build reactor.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
No. That is a very important question and it's a good one to ask. In fact, this provision in subclause 6(3) was put in as a result of our discussions with the CNSC to ensure that there would be no gaps.
Conservative
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We're not even close to Robbie Burns Day or anything like that.
(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to on division)
(On clause 8—Liability)
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes. We have an amendment to this.
I'm not sure how you'd like to proceed through this, Chair. Would you like me to explain the amendment. Do you want committee members to read the clause first?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Actually, this amendment, I believe, on advice from the legislative clerk, is not in order.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Can I get some explanation for that? We didn't receive that advice.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Yes. The reason is that Bill C-20 establishes a liability regime that makes nuclear operators absolutely and exclusively liable in the event of a nuclear incident. This amendment proposes to extend liability to persons other than nuclear operators, so what it does is really contrary to the principles laid out in the bill.
Mr. Cullen.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If I may just comment on this, I think the confusion we have is that, in fact, in the law that's being proposed, in making it exclusive, in the event of a nuclear accident Canadians can only sue a certain group--the operator of the facility and potentially eventually the government--but a Canadian individual is excluded from suing other folks who may be party to the accident.
For example, if a nuclear accident happens and it is shown that there is a part within the facility that was in effect the cause of the accident or that a contractor was negligent in their duties when fulfilling a contract in regard to an accident, they are by this act excluded, which goes against the tradition of Canadian law.
You simply can't make it illegal to sue a certain individual if they're shown to be liable. I'd like some clarification on why actually conforming to constitutional law is deemed out of order at committee. It seems a strange moment, if you will.
I don't know if our witnesses can answer my question. What we're trying to do is say that if something goes wrong and, in the aftermath, the investigation proves that it was right here at this moment, that it was a contractor or that it was a part made by a specific supplier who wasn't the operator, why would a Canadian be prevented from also seeking damages and compensation from the person who caused the accident? It seems counterintuitive, and if not that, then unconstitutional at the very least.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Cullen, I've made the ruling. I think you've heard the arguments on it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
As I explained, I think it does inappropriately amend the bill. I've explained why, so if you have a problem with the chair's ruling, you should raise that as an issue.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. I'm not at that point of wanting to challenge the chair, but I guess I would ask committee members to understand what in effect we're doing, then. I know of no other place in Canadian text or law that you can do this: that you can give exclusive liability over one source or another and just exempt everybody else who happened to be involved because they're not written into an act in Parliament. That's a little odd. It creates an environment that I'm concerned about, in which a contractor says, “I'll never be liable”. A parts manufacturer will never be liable under this act.
I don't know if committee members or the witnesses can explain that. I understand the ruling in terms of the principle of the act, but what a strange precedent it is to create under law and to exclude a whole bunch of people who in the end might be the ones proven to be the cause of the accident, if you follow me.
Conservative
November 23rd, 2009 / 3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm very curious about this as well. With the explanation as you read it, it wasn't really clear.
I didn't understand or follow quite what the objection is, precisely, and I would like to know from the department what the situation is in relation to a parts manufacturer, or whatever, and why they wouldn't be... Is this partly because of the strict liability that applies to the operator? What's the idea here?
I would like to have the answer to that, but I understand that you may make a ruling that--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Again, the intent of this legislation is to make nuclear operators absolutely and exclusively liable. The change that Mr. Cullen has made could, I believe, change the intent of the legislation,and of course, you're not allowed to make amendments to legislation that change the fundamental intent.