Evidence of meeting #42 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 accident.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Where in the bill does a tribunal get triggered, or is that in other standing legislation?
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
No. It's triggered later on in the bill. It's at clause 31, under the heading “Nuclear Claims Tribunal”. It's clause 31 and on.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right. This is what sets up when and where a nuclear claims tribunal will happen. Subclause 16(2).... Sorry.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
But the types of damages that are covered under the heading “Compensable Damage” are the same whether it's a tribunal or a court.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Does subclause 16(1) anticipate lost wages for those actually working at the facility itself, who just simply can't go to work for a certain amount of time?
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
People who are working at the nuclear facility?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes.
This is my question. Earlier in testimony, you talked about the fact that because it's limited liability, operators are not able to seek damages from parts suppliers, from contractors, in the event of an accident. We established that already, right?
Some of these plants employ quite a few people.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
May I come back to you later with that one? I don't want to mislead you.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I'm thinking it might be covered in another section, actually.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
One reading of subclause 16(1) would allow for that type of compensation to be imagined. We talk about wage losses. Now the operator itself, especially if the employees are represented by a union...I'm not sure why, under this subclause, they would be....
I'm not imagining a one-week shutdown here, right? If we're talking about a nuclear accident, we're talking about something rather prolonged, in terms of when those folks can get back to work.
You've said that the operators themselves are excluded from seeking any damages under Bill C-20. They can't say the soil around Pickering is now contaminated and they want cleanup money under this compensation. That makes no sense, and the bill excludes it, but I don't understand....
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
They would have to argue under clause 16 that despite the fact that damage to the operator's own installation is not covered, their employees can be compensated.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is what I'm trying to seek out. When the government thought to draft this bill—and I very much appreciate that you folks might not have been involved in that process because it's been a few years—again, the numbers can be quite significant. Looking at my friend from Bruce here, I can't remember how many employees—I can't ask you any questions—but there are quite a few folks working there. They're generally high-paying jobs. Again, a nuclear accident would anticipate a shutdown of some time. We're not anticipating a small glitch here. This is something significant. These folks are out of a job and they're awfully specialized. They have homes, etc. Are they able to seek compensation?
My reading of subclause 16(1) says yes, especially the second part, “and the resulting wage loss by that person's employees may be compensated”. But subclause 16(1) seems to take the vantage point or the viewpoint of the persons who own the property themselves. If that's what subclause 16(1) does, it's through the eyes of the operators and their employees. If their employees can't get wages compensated for it, it seems like an extra burden on them, certainly.
Again, I'm imagining an incident in Darlington or a place where the plant is a significant—if not the largest—part of the local economy. There's an accident, and there are ramifications from that, but also losing all of the wages from those folks at the same time is something I think this committee should consider.
This is what I'm asking for. I know you folks can't draft an amendment, but if there's a way the committee can consider protecting those folks in particular who work at the plant, I think that's an amendment the committee should consider in terms of compensable damages, lost wages. If you're working there and there's an accident, you're out of a job. Is there a way to make it more explicit? If you folks don't know, I want us to know before we vote on this thing, to be clear that we know what we're voting on, and we can turn to the folks who are working at those plants and say they're covered if something goes wrong.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
We would probably, in that scenario, be looking more at clause 28, which is a system of insurance that is not in the system of workers' compensation. Insurance you have for any other kind of work interruption is not limited or restricted.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay.
Chair, I'm just not sure in terms of.... The witnesses have referred my question to a future portion of the bill, but the question is that I've raised a concern about this certain group of stakeholders. The witnesses have suggested that maybe clause 28 covers it, but I'm not sure that it does.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I have other questions on this clause. Maybe we can go to Mr. Allen.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Chair.
Just to comment on this and to get some clarity from the witnesses, to me, this clause is very similar to subclause 4(2) in application, where it “does not apply to damage to the nuclear installation”. To me, these two clauses are very similar, because if a nuclear incident occurs, it doesn't matter whether it's a nuclear plant, a coal plant, or a hydro plant. It doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that if that plant goes down, the operator of that plant, under whatever other contract they would have, would be responsible for that replacement energy.
It is quite likely, if they were smart, that they would have insured themselves against that loss if that were the case. The concern I have is that you could end up with a plant, a nuclear plant, for example, that is actually selling power a thousand miles away into the U.S. They have a contract. No one knows how that energy is flowing and where they get it from, but that is the contractual relationship. If that business cannot get their power, that load is still going to be there, and then somehow, in some way, someone is still going to have to make it up.
This bill is specifically related to something that happens and damages people in some way, in that form, but the energy supply is a completely separate issue. It would be a separate contract and there would be a separate insurance contract. Am I not right?
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
That is correct. The point of the bill is that the operator not be able to make a claim against this insurance to compensate himself for his own damage. So damage to the operator's own installation is carved out of the bill, which means, since it's completely out, that normal contract and tort law applies to that installation, and that's out of the consideration of this bill altogether.
Then, when we get to the question of compensating that operator's employees, we have a future provision of the bill, clause 28, which clarifies that for whatever arrangements he has going, workers' compensation or insurance arrangements or whatever, they are not cancelled by anything else in the bill. Clause 16 is intending to and does cover losses of somebody other than the operator and covers the losses of somebody other than the operator's employees.
I'm sorry. I was confused about that. It's been a while since I thought about it.