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
Okay, so collective agreements are not dealt with.
I don't know what that means in terms of law. When you don't mention a group, is it then up to the courts to decide whether the legislation would incorporate collective agreements or not?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I imagine it would be, I suppose.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
The collective agreements are not dealt with under this legislation at all. So what happens on the plant is carved out of the legislation. All contracts, collective agreements, or whatever are in place and remain in place because we're outside of the scope of the Nuclear Liability Act for damaging problems that the operator has himself. So for people outside the site, I have difficulty seeing the relevance.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
That's right, but to this scheme.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The only reason I raise this is because we identified that other industries or other forms of power generation exist under different insurance schemes. Most collective agreements would acknowledge general tort law, general law. Government, in order to assist the nuclear industry or to allow it to function--as one of the witnesses said--has created a special limited liability law.
The question I put forward is, in terms of this special regime that has been designed by government, the application of something like a collective agreement doesn't anticipate these types of limited liabilities or workers' compensation formats. We have to recognize that we're addressing certain compensation for groups--understanding the unusual circumstances, the unpredictable circumstances of a nuclear accident--and we identified a whole pot of money that the government is insisting that the provider provide. It's saying they must cover $650 million. It also anticipates that if it's worse than that, Parliament will be able to provide more money.
The collective agreement scenario can't possibly imagine those types of things. I don't know how long EI lasts these days, but it would be some number of months; whereas for a shutdown at a plant that's had a nuclear accident, it's not months that we're usually talking about to get it back online.
I want to understand the court versus tribunal section. You said the tribunal is dealt with later on in terms of its establishment. The reason that's relevant to subclause 16(1) is that as we seek compensation, the decision about setting up a tribunal or just dealing with it through the court will be informative as to how the compensation eventually rolls out. Who makes the choice about setting up a tribunal versus staying with the court?
I want to clarify that you mentioned both of them can happen simultaneously. Is that true?
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
No. Once the tribunal is established, that's it. The court procedure is stopped. It's one or the other, and it's established under clause 31 later on. But the actual types of damages that are compensable, whether it's an ordinary court or a special tribunal, that's the same.
Conservative
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We'd be glad to discuss clause 31. We'd like to move along. If there's any interest in doing that, and improving the clauses, we'd be willing to do that--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Absolutely, we can rush directly to that and just pass the clauses as we go.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm always thankful for good advice from my friend, the parliamentary secretary.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm wondering if the committee is prepared to do that.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
My question with respect to subclause 16(1) is that as the paths diverge between a court and a tribunal.... You said it's one or the other. If a tribunal is established, then 16(1) would apply in a tribunal. If not, it would go into the court. I think there are differences in the way they are viewed in our conversation so far.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Sorry, did you say that subclause 16(1) would go to the court?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The application of 16(1) would end up in a court, right? We talked about compensable damages to people who are affected. We talked about a judge making that decision as to whether you or your property were directly impacted, right?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Initially all claims would go to the court unless the tribunal was established. So if a tribunal was never established, this would remain under the insurance company and court regime. If a tribunal is established, all court actions are stopped and everything goes into the tribunal.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
And the tribunal is established by government? Government makes that call?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's correct.
NDP
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The Governor in Council makes the decision.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's the decision to say that we're going to go to the actual tribunal?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Yes.