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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Dave McCauley  Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Jacques Hénault  Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
Brenda MacKenzie  Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice

4:20 p.m.

NDP

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.

4:20 p.m.

Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice

Brenda MacKenzie

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

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Clause 16 is meant to anticipate that?

4:20 p.m.

Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice

Brenda MacKenzie

We're on clause 15 right now.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

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

4:20 p.m.

Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice

Brenda MacKenzie

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

4:20 p.m.

NDP

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.

4:20 p.m.

Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice

Brenda MacKenzie

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

4:20 p.m.

NDP

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.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

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)

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

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.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

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

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Are you finished?

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

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

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Okay, go ahead then.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

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--

4:25 p.m.

Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources

Dave McCauley

Any accident.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

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.

4:25 p.m.

Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources

Dave McCauley

No. This deals with Chalk River as well.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

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.

4:25 p.m.

Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources

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.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Where's the excess picked up?

4:30 p.m.

Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources

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.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Ms. MacKenzie.

4:30 p.m.

Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice

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.