Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 30th, 2009

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

These are CNSC-ordered operations? These are plans that every nuclear operator has in hand? In the event of an accident, this is the plan that unfolds, and here are all the competent authorities that are referenced. That's what exists in the plan that would reference the CNSC?

[Dave McCauley]

There are various authorities that have responsibilities under these nuclear emergency plans, going right from the operator of the facility up to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. There are also various levels, agencies, that all have specific responsibilities.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We talked earlier about what an incident was—whether it was contained, on-site or off-site, severe or not. These plans also take off-site contamination into account?

[Dave McCauley]

Yes, that's correct.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Are certain expectations and timelines associated with these plans? This is what we're getting back to. Many of the folks surrounding such a facility work there and might have some knowledge about mitigating techniques, but they're at home and not on shift. Are there schedules for the roll-out of efforts at mitigation of environmental contamination?

[Dave McCauley]

I'm not certain of the timelines. I imagine that there are time objectives. The intent would be to order mitigation and to take whatever measures are necessary as soon as possible. So I imagine there are time objectives, but I can't competently say yes or no.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

In our second amendment, we've attempted to find a way to ensure that people who had gone forward, in emergency conditions, to mitigate damage would not be excluded from the compensation line.

What I'm hearing from government is that they feel confident with the plans that are in place. The expediency will happen, the competent authorities will be dispensed, the cleanup will happen in a timely manner, and there will be no individuals or other contractors trying to get some work done. My friend in the Bloc raised a concern about the provincial authority. We were also concerned about who was running the show, who was making the decisions about what gets cleaned up. You don't want a turf war when something like this happens. I think we're all in agreement on that.

I'll withdraw NDP-2 out of respect for that consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there consent from the committee to withdraw that motion?

(Amendment withdrawn)

Are we ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, a recorded vote.

[Clause 17 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1]

(On clause 18--Preventive measures)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Shall we go to the vote on clause 18?

Yes, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Maybe I'll allow the witnesses to first present the argument for this, but my assumption is that it's allowing for folks to be compensated for preventive actions that they do. Is that correct?

[Dave McCauley]

That's correct.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Why is there the need for this to exist? Is this in the event of an accident happening? Or is this work that was done that was later deemed to be helpful in mitigating the damage of an accident?

I want to get the timeline right as to when clause 18 is invoked.

[Dave McCauley]

This provision provides compensation, for example, in the event of a preventive evacuation. So there may not have been any damage, or there may have been damage, but the idea is that a victim could bring forward a claim for compensation, for example, if they were evacuated from the area because there was a consideration that there may be a release of radiation, for example, or there may be an incident.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Is that the exclusive scenario imagined under clause 18? When the local nuclear power station thinks there might be an accident coming or there's a problem, they evacuate a community. Folks seek some hardship damages because they were evacuated and nothing actually happens, and they seek compensation. I'm trying to understand. That seems like an awfully particular thing to seek out in a whole clause.

[Dave McCauley]

No, it also could be in the situation where there was no release of contamination; for example, a precautionary evacuation. There had been an incident at the plant, so there was a precautionary evacuation. Alternatively, there may be an actual incident, and these are preventive measures that an authority orders as a result of that incident. Therefore, victims would be compensated for taking those preventive measures to ensure that no damage took place.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay, I want to stay on the residents for a moment. If only those ordered out would be compensable.... I'll get that word eventually. Is that the word?

[Dave McCauley]

Compensated?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

But there's a term as well. Only those who are given a direct order and then come back and seek compensation.... You ordered me out because of this type of hardship. I'm seeking money from the government or from the nuclear provider. Does it also apply to a contractor or somebody who's on-site, let's say, and the company says, we think there might be an accident coming; we need to do this, this, and this, and build up a whole bunch of protection here. Is that what's imagined? You talked about other works done to mitigate the potential of an accident, but whether an accident happens or not, they can seek compensation. I'm confused by that.

[Dave McCauley]

I don't think I'm following your question.

If there's an order to take a preventive measure, then that is compensable. We were getting back to clause 17, almost. It's somewhat similar. If an authority acting under a nuclear emergency scheme that's established under federal-provincial legislation--so it's a competent authority--orders that certain measures be taken, if it's recommended, then those measures will be compensated for. For example, if there is an evacuation of the local community, then people who were evacuated--businesses, residents--do have a legitimate claim for compensation.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

If a nuclear authority were to order a contractor to do a series of work in that crisis moment, is this also contingent?

[Dave McCauley]

Yes. If one can imagine that there were a preventive measure that required that, yes, they would be able to receive compensation.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Again, does the trigger for this whole thing opening up have to come from the CNSC? Who is it that decides? What it reminds me of is when governments issue states of emergency, only by that statement is the funding then ordered up so people can be compensated retroactively and all of that. On that legislation, that's what the trigger is. On this legislation, what is the trigger?

[Dave McCauley]

It is a recommendation under federal or provincial legislation. It's not necessarily the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. It could be an emergency measures organization in a province as well.