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.
5:15 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
In either situation. If it was a contract of insurance, it would stay in place, and if it was a contractual obligation under which he is able to sue, then that doesn't do anything about that.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is very helpful. I appreciate Mr. Allen's and Mr. Regan's questions here. We haven't heard this before. I'm curious as to why. Do all nuclear facilities have this private insurance for the potential loss of power to their customers?
5:15 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I think the issue here is a utility-based contract between maybe a large user or another utility. I think that's what Mr. Allen was referring to. Maybe he should clarify.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm misunderstanding Mr. Allen's point then. Is this the contractual arrangement between the nuclear energy provider and the utility, or the contract between the utility and its final end customer? I'm confused as to who we're talking about. You've said both in response to both questions. Mr. Allen might know.
5:15 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I thought what Mr. Allen was referring to was if the owner of the facility was providing electricity to an end user—maybe that's a large industrial customer—or another utility, for example. There may be contracts in there, under which there are certain obligations, and there would be nothing in this legislation that would do anything to preclude any actions under those contracts to continue.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It would be the supply contract to the actual generator.
Ms. MacKenzie, you said something very interesting—I think it was from reference to subclause 16(1)—about binding future parliaments. You said the legislation doesn't anticipate binding future parliaments to not go above and beyond and provide more money.
5:15 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
We can't. Constitutionally, we cannot bind future parliaments in whatever they may choose to do.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Or the present one, if this law were to exist under the present one.
5:15 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
No legislation can.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The reason I'm confused by the comment is simply because the legislation anticipates Parliament's addressing claims above and beyond the $650 million. We've asked the question about employees. I'm not totally sure about the answer yet. Maybe it will be clarified. We're not sure if the employees at the actual facility are covered for damages under subclause 16(1).
5:20 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
In my view, they are not, because then the operator's own facility is excluded. And we also have clause 28, a future provision, that says contracts of insurance still stand, workers' compensation still stands, employment insurance stands, and all those things. The purpose of the bill is to make sure the $650 million is preserved for third-party victims.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Sure. That's not the contention about those other forms of insurance, employment insurance. While we can foresee under subclause 16(1) a compensation for the resulting wage loss by somebody who is directly impacted, my question was about somebody who was also directly impacted, somebody who happened to work at the plant. Are they also on the list? It's got nothing to do with EI, regardless, because if somebody loses their job through no fault of their own, they collect EI for so many months. It didn't matter if they worked in the plant or out of the plant. My question was about those folks actually working at the facility.
I'm sorry, I don't know if I heard a direct answer that, yes, they're covered or, no, they're not.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
They would be covered by workers' compensation.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So they would be different from an employee of somebody working just down the road. Employees who are working within the plant are not covered under subsection 16(1).
5:20 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
The system of workers' compensation would continue to apply to workers at the plant, yes.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
As it would to workers off-site.
The other insurance schemes we have are irrelevant to the conversation. The bill says those schemes will still apply. It doesn't matter where they work.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's right. By virtue of the fact that the legislation does not apply to damage associated with the facility, the workers at the site—
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
—would only be able to access.... Right.
Again, it's just a very specific question. Subclause 16(1) does not apply. Workers who work at the site would not be able to seek damages under Bill C-20.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Not under subclause 16(1), but they would under clause 28.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I totally understand.
You mentioned that collective agreements are addressed later in the legislation. I can't find it.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I was thinking of clause 28, about the workers' compensation.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll go back to my question around collective agreements. Are those foreseen in subclauses 16(1) or (2) at all?
I'll make my question more open. What does the bill speak to in terms of agreements between...? I'm not talking about on-site now, just to be clear; I'm talking about off-site. Are they mentioned or referred to? Usually in compensation legislation there's some modification or some effect on the collective agreement, whether it will continue to be honoured or not.
5:20 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
We have not dealt with collective agreements in this legislation.
