Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 30th, 2009

Evidence of meeting #43 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 cleanup.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Bill C-20, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee Mrs. Carol Chafe

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

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

Jacques Hénault Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Is there a question of time? We established that there was a three-year and then a ten-year period in terms of seeking damages on the environmental side of things. Does clause 18 restrict itself in terms of the loss of use of property only while under the evacuation order, or can the loss of use of property be deemed to go under that three-year and ten-year compensatory time limit?

5:25 p.m.

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

Dave McCauley

The limitation period is applied to every head of damage under the legislation. You must make your claim within three years of understanding that you've suffered the damage. If you were evacuated, you would have to make your claim within three years of the evacuation.

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

The point I was getting at was the loss of use of property. That doesn't necessarily only apply to the evacuation timeline, does it? Mostly the context we've been talking about is when folks are forced out, when they've been asked or told to leave under a recommendation, not an order. Does it--

5:25 p.m.

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

Dave McCauley

No. I think that otherwise you might be looking for an economic loss, and that might be under a different head of damage. This is for preventive measures. If you are evacuated and therefore cannot go to your place of work, for example, you therefore receive economic loss associated with it.

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

That was done in a preventive manner, rather than something where we said we deem we can't go back to the site. Once the evacuation order is lifted, that's when the clock stops and you might be able to seek compensation for the loss of your business site.

5:25 p.m.

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

Brenda MacKenzie

Under clause 18.

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Other clauses will deal with other things, but under this clause that's where it's at.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Okay, Mr. Cullen, we're out of time for today's meeting.

We actually only passed one clause at this meeting, so it will be about a year at this rate, if we continue at this pace. I would encourage members of the committee to go over the questions and answers from the last time this was at committee, so we can expedite this. It's part of the role of the chair to try to ensure the business of the committee is dealt with in an expeditious way.

Time being finished for today, I again thank the witnesses, Ms. MacKenzie, Mr. McCauley, and Mr. Hénault, for coming. We'll see you again on Wednesday.

This meeting is adjourned.