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.
3:35 p.m.
Brenda MacKenzie Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Yes, the answer was thorough, thank you.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
It was given. That's the information you were going to give.
Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
This is what I'm trying to get at. I'm trying to follow the sequences that clause 17 would describe in the event of a nuclear incident. An accident happens. Which act is it, just for our own sake, in terms of where the competent authorities are defined? Or is there a whole suite and series of acts?
What we've known in emergency response is that we have eventually gotten good at it when all the lines are clearly delineated up front and you don't have to make it up as you go.
Ms. MacKenzie.
3:35 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
The purpose of this provision is to ensure that whatever the affected province or the federal level has determined to be appropriate legislation relating to environmental protection, that is the trigger. So we haven't defined it here because we've not limited it in that way.
The actual amount of damage, of course, and a determination of what is compensable is under the federal legislation. What we have here in clause 17 is a trigger that would allow a person to claim compensation, and that trigger would be legislation passed by a province or passed by the federal level under which measures are ordered by an authority identified in that legislation.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay, that's helpful. The reason I'm trying to understand this is that in certain aspects of law, this whole bill is taking a special case. These types of limited liabilities don't happen with other industries. In terms of environmental damage, there's no special case given to nuclear in the event of an accident. The only special aspect of it is the liability limit that gets hit, which brings me to my next question.
We talked previously in clause 16--I used the word “triage”, I don't think you did--in terms of not allowing folks within the industry to seek compensation. The government wanted more compensation to be available to victims outside the facility. We got into the discussion as to whether workers could be compensated. Is there any level of priority given between the environment and other aspects of compensation in terms of economics? You said that the government's intention in the $650 million limit was to get the most money they could out into the hands of those most immediately affected by health, psychological...and income. We're now talking about the environment. Do they all sit on the same tiered level and the government has to wade its way through to find the $650 million most appropriately given over?
3:35 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
There is provision elsewhere in the legislation for damages to be prioritized, but without that it would be for a court to determine compensation. So there's no defined priority here.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You said that something later in the act starts to seek to do that, or is it in the hands of the court? I want to be clear as to which that is.
3:40 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Later in the legislation there is the possibility to identify priorities.
3:40 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
That is absolutely correct, but just to clarify, that's in the event that a nuclear claims tribunal is established. Then if all claims are going through a nuclear claims tribunal, there is a possibility to make regulations setting priorities, but that will work only if you have all the claims being funnelled through one body.
3:40 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
I mean at a nuclear claims tribunal.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In the case of clause 17, if a tribunal were created, the tribunal could set priorities. It could say, we're going to put environment third; we're going to put all health matters and concerns first, economic losses second, and then we'll get to environmental cleanup damages.
Just so I have this right, this is paying compensation to folks who have already gone forward and done cleanup? You referenced earlier, Mr. McCauley, people getting compensated for the cleanup that they had done. I'm paraphrasing what you said. Is that what clause 17 deals with?
3:40 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's right.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Clause 17 can't be applied in such a way that a province or...I'm trying to think of what other authority might be doing a cleanup, but maybe you folks have considered that, on the environmental side. A province has come forward and said it estimated the further cleanup to be such-and-such over so many years. Does clause 17 also capture forward going, or is it only what has already been done that can be compensated for?
3:40 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
When I read this, it speaks about “Reasonable costs...taken to repair, reduce or mitigate”. Let me just look at the French: “des mesures prises pour atténuer ou réparer les dommages”. The provision would require a certain amount of objective proof, and the objective facts are that a federal or provincial authority acting under legislation would have actually ordered measures to be taken. Then you would have to show what the reasonable costs of the remedial measures that were taken were.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just to be clear on the point, clause 17 applies only to work already done.
3:40 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
It would seem that way.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay, then with the nature of a nuclear contamination incident on soils or in water or on the environment in general, the length of time around cleanup could be quite extensive, if previous experience is a teacher. If not in clause 17, is there a measure within the bill that deals with environmental cleanup? I'm imagining that in either a court or a tribunal, perhaps that happens within a year or two years and a province or a cleanup agency comes forward and says “We've done $1 million or $100 million so far, but we haven't fixed it yet. We're still remediating. We estimate another $100 million to come.” If clause 17 deals only with the costs that have already been incurred, and you can't go to court twice on the same matter--or could you? I'm trying to imagine what the act would say if we had what would be a 20-year process but we wanted to get remediation money out the door to the folks who had already spent money. That has to be somewhat timely, I would imagine. I don't think the act imagines that timing. That is for courts and the tribunal. But what happens to cleanups after the court and tribunal decisions?
3:40 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
As claims are brought forward to the tribunal or to the court, they will be dealt with, and if it is a tribunal and if they have established priorities, then they will be dealt with from that perspective.
3:40 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
In addition to that, it would be a new claim if you had to do something else to remediate the environment at a later date. That would be a new claim. It would be a different claim.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Maybe this is part of my lack of understanding in terms of the tribunal process. How long do these things last? Can they be put in abeyance and then restarted, or do they have to be struck again?
What I am trying to understand is this. You don't want anyone involved in the cleanup process after a nuclear accident to have any concerns that they are not going to be remediated in a timely manner. That's not what you want a municipality or a province to be concerned with in those immediate days and then the days to follow.
I would imagine a tribunal has a fixed time. Does it go forever until the job is done?
3:45 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
There is no fixed time for the tribunal. Once the tribunal is established, there's no limit on the time for dealing with the compensation.