Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 25th, 2009

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

This is important. I'm a little concerned when you say you don't know.

We're trying our best here because we have to go forward in imagined scenarios. I'm imagining an owner of a company whose business can't operate. We talked about this before for individuals, where they had to truck in water and the government might cover the cost of that for consumption. I'm talking about a business requiring water to do their business. Their water is contaminated. They're a brewery, they're unable to put toxic water in their product, so then they will have to ship water in or shut down.

[Brenda MacKenzie]

You're not in clause 15; you're in clause 16.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Clause 16 is meant to anticipate that?

[Brenda MacKenzie]

We're on clause 15 right now.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

No, I understand that, but you're suggesting clause 15 doesn't address that issue at all?

[Brenda MacKenzie]

Clause 15 is tied to you showing that you have damage to your property.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So a business owner could actually apply in clauses 15 and 16--if they say, my plant is contaminated or the water came in and it's lowered the value of my property and I seek damages.

[Brenda MacKenzie]

Yes, that's right. Each provision relates to a particular scenario.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you. And those are the scenarios I'm looking to understand.

I'll leave it at that, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

A recorded vote on clause 15.

(Clause 15 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(On clause 16--Costs and wages)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any discussion on clause 16?

Mr. Cullen has asked for a little bit of time.

I would encourage you, Mr. Cullen, to prepare as much as you can before the meetings so that we can move through them a little quicker.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm sorry, Chair. Is there someplace else you'd...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Are you finished?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Not at all. I've got a question on 16.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, go ahead then.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Getting into the proximity question.... We were just dealing with this in terms of compensable damages to businesses. Earlier on we heard that the bill imagines the contamination of water or soil--that is, under the definitions we've established so far in a design accident or a non-severe accident. I'm not sure how to term the accident that's anticipated, but anything--

[Dave McCauley]

Any accident.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

In any accident, severe or otherwise, one can anticipate the contamination of soil and water.

Clause 16 talks about the loss of property. If I'm looking at a site like Pickering, some 30 kilometres outside of Toronto, I'm looking again to understand why $650 million is going to cover off the contamination of a major body of water like Lake Ontario and how the department came up with the confidence to say that that's okay. I mean, just the property value alone....

You talked earlier about a contamination that is...are both controlled and uncontrolled releases anticipated here as well?

I know Chalk River is different. You've made mention that it's different--maybe not different, but it's a scenario you're not familiar with; you're dealing with electricity production.

[Dave McCauley]

No. This deals with Chalk River as well.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay. If Chalk River is on the table then, there have been several controlled releases at Chalk River over the last couple of years--what the nuclear industry calls controlled releases, which is that there was a hole in the reactor. This committee heard that the contaminated water leaked out, was held in containers, and was eventually released into the Ottawa River. Right?

The anticipated compensation, if anyone were able to prove damages from an incident like that, is meant to cover off potential contamination of a body of water like Lake Ontario. I don't understand how clause 16 gives the government confidence. It seems very broad and it seems to catch a lot of different things, but then it arrives at a figure like $650 million.

[Dave McCauley]

The $650 million is the limit of liability of the operator. It was set recognizing the design-basis incident. It was evaluated according to that, but these provisions would also address an incident, however unlikely, that had damages in excess of $650 million.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Where's the excess picked up?

[Dave McCauley]

Under this legislation there would be a report and then there would have to be a decision as to whether additional funds would be appropriated to compensate individuals.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Ms. MacKenzie.

[Brenda MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was just to point out that the act, in other provisions, definitely provides for additional compensation to be paid in certain circumstances, and it provides how that money would be paid out. But clause 16 is merely identifying which kind of victim is eligible for whatever compensation is available elsewhere in the act. So once again the $650 million limit is not here in clause 16.