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.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Can that even be studied? That was one question I had for you today.
4:15 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I don't know. There was a recommendation to look at a different kind of study, but I don't know.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
What we're driving at here is that when we look at economic losses and the different amounts of compensation people living in different countries with nuclear facilities can gain access to, the economic loss compensation that Canadians can get access to under clause 15 is predicated upon a certain set of assumptions. Isn't that right? That's what we're going through today.
4:15 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The compensation for economic loss that they have access to is based on the definition here. This is the direction we give to the courts.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, exactly. And this entire section of compensable damages is based upon an assumption, we've already established, of a non-severe accident. That's the assumption I'm assuming we're going forward on here.
4:15 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
No.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I thought we just went through that.
Did we not just go through that? I thought I was being even redundant in going through it. I thought we established that this is not covering severe accidents.
4:15 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we are mixing up two concepts.
4:15 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
A lot of what my colleague here is explaining is the rationale behind the $650 million limit, which is not in clause 15. Clause 15 covers economic loss by a person who has been physically injured or has had property damage, and clause 15 doesn't discuss whether it's a design-basis accident or a catastrophic incident. So when we are talking about the distinction between a design-basis accident and a catastrophic incident, we're actually out of the scope of clause 15. Clause 15 is providing that somebody who's injured in this way gets compensated under the act.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right, but this is the connection point. When you say they're injured “in this way”, you mean that the whole thing is based on the idea of a non-severe accident or a controlled accident—the whole bill. Is it not?
4:20 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
The $650 million limit—the number, which might change over time. But clause 15 just talks about the causation: you're injured in this way, so you're entitled to compensation under the act, whatever the limit on that day happens to be.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So in looking at the economic loss incurred by a person, the government had its notions at least informed if not directed by a study that said you should also look at higher-density sites, such as Pickering. You told me earlier that this has not been considered. My question then was why not.
When I'm trying to understand economic loss, which then flows into our next conversation, which is around where that loss limit comes to, why not consider what the authors of this report have said, which is to look at Pickering, for example, to make sure that you were setting the bill up in the right direction?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
It would have made no difference in our definition of compensable economic loss. Whether we had looked at Pickering or Darlington or Bruce or Gentilly, it would have made no difference. We defined economic loss as we've defined it here, and it is without respect to the type of accident; it's the injury that we were concerned about.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
And the notion of the types of losses—we talked about this in clause 13 around potential contamination of water....
Is clause 15 imagining a company or an individual...? Well, let me distinguish those. If a company, as part of its operations, requires clean water in order to operate and that water were contaminated by nuclear waste, I'm assuming that's imagined in clause 15. But I don't want to make the assumption; I want to make sure it's clear.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm not sure whether Mr. Cullen has run out of content for clause 15, but he's back to Monday's discussion now. I think he talked about this quite a bit on Monday. Maybe he'd like to let clause 15 pass; then he could go on to clause 16 and could bring in a whole new series of discussions.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm maybe keeping my good friend from something important.
You heard my question, I think, Mr. McCauley, about economic loss incurred by a person. I'm imagining that the owner of a company that has its water contaminated by an accident and requires water to do its business.... Would they also fall under this? All I'm seeing here is “person”. Person, I'm assuming, is also a business. Could it also be in the docket?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's correct.
November 25th, 2009 / 4:20 p.m.
Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, I would assume that's a property loss.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So an owner of a company wouldn't fall under the economic part but would fall under the property damage component of this?
4:20 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
It would be a question of fact. On the scenario that presents itself, they would have to establish that there was damage to their property, and we don't know that. Is the water their property? I don't know. It would depend on whether there was damage to their property. If there's damage to their property, then they're entitled to compensation for economic loss.
