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.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I think the liability limits are well represented internationally in terms of the international conventions. The limit is $300 million SDRs, which is somewhere around $500 million Canadian. I think it has stood the test of time.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
On the definition that's used, I know oftentimes--especially in legislation that has an international effect or relationship--the wording or phrasing is in legalistic language because this stuff eventually ends up in court if there's an accident. Was the definition that's used in “Liability for economic loss” here in clause 15 predicated upon the previous legislation? Did the government look to other national governments and their legislation to get the text and wording?
In particular, I'm looking at psychological trauma, which Madame Brunelle raised earlier. Is that the origin of this text or is it from the previous bill?
Brenda MacKenzie Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Department of Justice has drafted this legislation to be consistent with domestic terminology. We did in fact consider psychological trauma very carefully. We chose wording that is intelligible within the Canadian domestic system because this is domestic legislation.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just to be clear, it's the Canadian domestic legal system that you're referring to?
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Yes, the Canadian legislation, statutes and regulations and so forth. We looked at that very carefully and in consultation with experts within Justice.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Here's a concern that I raise in terms of the definitions around psychological trauma. In this bill, in this section, I'm wondering, through this legislation does the government make nuclear reactors and the owners of those reactors potentially liable to someone coming forward with a petition claim saying, “I live in Toronto”—you studied Darlington—“it had an accident; I'm feeling psychological trauma and I will seek to prove that in court”? Does this clause in this bill allow that to happen?
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
We considered that during the drafting of the bill. That is why, you will see, it doesn't just stop; you have to read the whole thing in context: “psychological trauma resulting from...bodily injury or property damage”. So it's linked to something you actually lost. If you're hurt psychologically as a result of you actually personally losing something, that is clearly compensable under clause 15.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I read the rest of that sentence. Say somebody is living in the Darlington area, an accident happens, and they consider it, in their terms and for their family, no longer safe to live in because they say “Maybe the next one will be worse and we'll be affected”. No nuclear material landed on their front lawn. They weren't at the plant. They didn't get hit by a.... Nothing physically happened to them, but they deemed that they had to move because they no longer felt.... Would that stretch to the physical limitations? I would imagine that government would be very concerned with this clause.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Clause 15, in fact, states “Economic loss incurred by a person as a result of their bodily injury or damage to their property”, so we're looking at some kind of a causal link to something that actually happened to them, not just general disturbance.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. Interesting.
Again, in the scenario I talked about, even for somebody living beside a plant that has a nuclear accident—it's in the news, the accident happened, everybody's concerned—and they say they feel like they're forced to move or they're moving for the safety of their family, they wouldn't be compensable under this act. Is that right?
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Under clause 15, they would have to persuade a court that they had somehow been injured, actually injured, or suffered damage to....
There are other provisions as well, but—
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
That's right, there are other provisions that deal with psychological trauma, but we're just talking about clause 15 right now, and clause 15 is limited to actual psychological trauma, which is linked to a loss that you can identify.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The reason I'm asking about this is I'm wondering, did the government look at all at Three Mile Island in terms of the results that happened within the community surrounding that facility? Many moved out. I've read a number of reports on that accident, and when you read the reports and the testimony from citizens who were in the vicinity, although they were never physically harmed by the radiation, it was serious. From my recollection, there was compensation that was made available to families to leave.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
I think, again, Mr. Cullen, by his own admission here, has gotten off clause 15. As was just pointed out to him, it does talk specifically about bodily injury or property damage. He just acknowledged that there wasn't any at Three Mile Island.
So if he could maybe get back on track here, we'd appreciate it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I think he still is asking questions that are within clause 15. He's related it enough to the clause that it's relevant, I believe.
Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.
Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
I'll respond to that one. Yes, you're absolutely right. Under Three Mile Island there was an extensive lawsuit and finally the insurers did settle. It was a class action, and there was a settlement for psychological... I don't think it was called psychological trauma, but in that area. There were a lot of spurious claims with Three Mile Island, and they were settled, I think, not in a court judgment. I think it was settled out of court.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So my question is that under this clause of this bill, such a similar settlement is exempted because the government, when drawing this up, tried to make a tighter loop around who could make claim for psychological damage. In the Three Mile Island incident the class action that went ahead—and I forget the figure, but it was quite significant in the end—was to help people move, primarily. That is not foreseeable in this bill. Am I right?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The total loss on Three Mile Island was shocking.
Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
The total loss was $40 million, and most of that I think was economic loss. I think the actual psychological trauma component of it was small.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But regardless of its size, this clause 15 exempts that from taking place at a Canadian site. Is that right?
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Under section 15 that would not be covered. We do have other provisions that deal with psychological trauma, but under section 15 it is tied clearly to bodily injury or damage to that person's property. So the psychological trauma would have to be linked.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you.
What section is that, so I can make note of it? Clause 16? Okay.
Mr. Allen put a question to you, and I wasn't sure of the answer coming forward, Mr. McCauley. He said that the government assumes the risk is nil....