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.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, and the person who makes a decision on whether it was an incident or not is the judge?
4:45 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Absolutely.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I want to clarify that, simply because there seem to be places in the nuclear industry, as it's a different type of business from other businesses, where decisions about what's an accident, what's a controlled release, or what's not a controlled release often aren't settled by a court but by the CNSC or by the government itself. I'm referring back again to what we saw at Chalk River. It took us weeks to figure out whether anything had escaped the plant or not.
I want to get into the question of nuclear installation. Can the definition that you use here in subclause 16(2) refer to a whole set of reactors, or is it just one reactor? The situation we have here, particularly in Ontario, is a little unusual in that we have so many reactors sharing the same safety systems. Pickering has eight reactors. Is the definition used in subclause 16(2) inclusive of that?
4:45 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
A nuclear installation is defined in clause 2 as being one that's designated under clause 6. The definition in clause 2 says:
“nuclear installation” means any site or means of transport that is designated under section 6 as a nuclear installation.
Being designated under clause 6 is what makes it a nuclear installation. Every time you see the words “nuclear installation” throughout, you're actually referring back to clause 6.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Cullen, Mr. Regan has a question.
I'm going to go to Mr. Regan. If you have more, we'll go back to you.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
On the question of subclause 16(2), I want to compare the situations that would exist, and I think this is what Mr. Cullen was doing.
I want to compare the situation that would exist with this provision--this act in law and this provision in law--to the situation in tort law at the moment with other power providers, such as a coal plant that shuts down by accident. I know there are cases in which the courts will find that the damage suffered by someone as an indirect consequence of something is too remote to be compensated. How would a situation that exists now in tort law if a coal plant or a hydroelectric plant shut down because of negligence compare to what would exist under this provision?
4:45 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Mr. Chair, I would say that in fact concepts of remoteness--for example, the one that you're mentioning here and that we understand in common tort law--are not displaced by this legislation. Just as in tort law, if damage is too remote, it would not be compensable. In any of the provisions under compensable damage, remoteness would be a factor.
Is that your question? It's not different.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Doesn't this mean that if it's at all remote--if it's a result of the failure to provide electricity, as opposed to the actual nuclear damage--you can't get compensated for it? Will a person still be able to sue the company, but not be affected by this act? I don't understand.
4:45 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
I see your question now. You're referring specifically to subclause 16(2).
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
This in fact excludes this type of claim altogether, so if it is a nuclear incident and it occurs at a power generating plant, then costs resulting from the failure of the plant to provide electricity are not compensable.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Would they be compensable if it were a coal-fired plant and it shut down by accident?
4:45 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Possibly.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
It's not a situation in which it would be considered too remote by the courts in that case, and you're just doing the same thing by statute here.
4:45 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
This is different. That's right; this is something that's different from tort law. It precludes the payment for this type of claim altogether.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
What's the policy case for excluding losses from a failure to provide electricity in a case like this?
4:50 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The intent is to ensure that the funds are preserved for those who have suffered more direct types of damage--physical damage, or damage as defined elsewhere--as opposed to what you described as more of an indirect loss associated with the fact that the reactor is no longer producing power. The intent was to preserve the funds for other forms of compensation.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
So you basically want to focus on those who are more catastrophically affected, so to speak.
4:50 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's right. That's your word, but it would be those who have really suffered the damage in terms of bodily injury, property damage--
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
That's not an ideal word, because obviously a person could feel that other effects were catastrophic, but I suppose I mean the injury, so to speak.
4:50 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The concern, though, is that the ramifications of a sudden loss of power might extend quite far, and that would be significant.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
That's why I was asking about remoteness as a concept that might be related to this, but.... Anyway, thank you.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Regan.
Is there anything further on clause 16?
Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm confused by part of your response to Mr. Regan's question. We started getting into a conversation about tort law and the notion of being too remote. I assume this whole thing exists outside traditional tort law.