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.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I'm not certain, but I believe it would be the CNSC.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Let's go back to the notion of lost wages.
You concentrated around this question a little bit because you said you felt the workers who were at the site would be involved, more so in the event of a nuclear accident. Legislation can't go one way or the other on that assumption. If a worker is not involved in that cleanup and is out of work for a number of months, extended beyond EI.... I think we established earlier that a worker from the plant couldn't receive compensation. If a worker is ordered out and is not involved in the cleanup, can they receive compensation under clause 18?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The act does not preclude compensation under any other existing right or obligation under a scheme of employee compensation. So if there was an arrangement for the employee to be able to receive unemployment insurance, etc., then those kinds of schemes--worker's compensation, insurance, etc.--stay in place regardless. This act does not move those out.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That wasn't my question, and that's not what I'm raising, because we've been there. It was more beyond those schemes, because these things can be shut down for a couple of years. Those schemes don't last a couple of years. I want to know if the government, if the operator, is liable under Bill C-20, clause 18, for any compensation to a worker, showing no prejudice towards the other schemes that are available?
The last time I recall, we couldn't get to an answer on this question.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I think the last time we clarified that the worker would not be compensated as a result of clause 16.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Is that also true in clause 18? I guess that's my question.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Cullen is quite a way off of the topic here, clause 18. If we wanted to move to some of the topics that deal directly with that, we could do that, but I think he's talking about remedial measures and things that are proposed. I think he needs to come back to that, rather than going where he's going right now. This isn't about remedial measures; clause 17 was. This is the recommendation that measures are taken ahead of time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Cullen, do make sure your questions apply to the clause we're dealing with. If you look ahead in the bill, you can see what is coming down the road in terms of clauses. You could ask the questions at the appropriate time.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Chair, as someone who has dealt with legislation before, you know there are moments where the passing of one clause then affects a further one. I've been very cautious with witnesses, and I think you've heard me when the witnesses have said that it's dealt with further on or it's a reference later on. I've kept my questions as tight as I could to the clause we're dealing with. I think I've referenced back to clause 18 as many times as humanly possible in this, but I'll be diligent in staying directly on point.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
If that is in fact true and he's speaking accurately, we could probably move on to clause 19 then.
Conservative
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is there an answer to the question? Does someone have an answer to the question Mr. Cullen has asked?
Ms. MacKenzie.
November 30th, 2009 / 5:20 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Just to clarify, clause 18 says that lost wages “arising from the loss of use of property as a result of” preventive measures are compensated. So clause 18 is clearly talking about an emergency situation, because it is an authority acting under a nuclear emergency scheme.
Later on, we see in clause 28 that certain rights and obligations are preserved—that is employment insurance, worker's compensation, and all that. We're trying to say that preventive measures are compensated for anybody working in the area, but considering the fact that it is an emergency measure and the employee will be covered by employment insurance and the like, it's likely that the employee of the nuclear power plant is under clause 28 rather than clause 18.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's very helpful, because it gives us a sense of where some of these matters would happen.
I want the committee and witnesses to be assured that the overlap question of compensation to workers in terms of existing government programs is not and never was my concern. I know those programs exist. My concern is that the shutdown of a nuclear plant in the event of an accident will greatly outlast, in most cases, the programs that do exist.
There have been some concerns raised about whether compensation could be sought through Bill C-20. That's why it has come up twice now. We can't simply say EI and worker's compensation are going to handle this. Worker's compensation would only apply if they were hurt, and I'm not even sure how EI would take effect. If a business went out of business because there was an accident, could they seek EI and what would the extent of their EI be?
My question was never whether it now distinguishes and makes those things no longer applicable. That's not the point. The point has simply been whether they are on the list. Are workers on the list along with other people when an accident happens? That's the core I've been trying to get at. It's not seeking anything beyond that. I think Mr. McCauley and Ms. MacKenzie understood that, in terms of where the questions lay.
The last sentence before paragraph (a) says “carry on business in, work in or are present in the area may be compensated”. Is there a previous point in the legislation where “in the area” is defined? Who decides it? Is it a judge or the tribunal?
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
This is again a factual determination. It is the authority recommending that measures be taken in a specified area. Where it says “the following costs and losses of persons who live in, carry on business in, work in or are present in the area”, that is the specified area that the authority acting under a nuclear emergency scheme has identified. That's what we're referring to.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
When they've taken in a specified area, that is first designated by--
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
That is a factual matter. The authority has to be acting under a nuclear emergency scheme and say, in this area, these are the measures that are going to be taken to prevent damage. Then, provided that this recommendation has been made, the people who live within that specified area, carry on business there, or have a presence there can seek compensation for the reasonable costs of the measures.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you. Because clause 18 is at that lower threshold...I don't want to call it a lower threshold, but it's the term that comes to mind in terms of being recommended rather than ordered. The specified area...this is in the immediate moments afterwards; we're talking about mitigated measures. In the immediate moments after a nuclear incident, does the operator, in conjunction with the authority, designate where they think the specified area will be?
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Under clause 18 it is exclusively the responsibility of the authority acting under a nuclear emergency scheme to say they recommend that these actions be taken by these people within this mapped area.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
People, of course, are going to comply. They'll want to, since it is relating to an emergency scheme. That is why we felt it important to choose this terminology.
NDP
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
That's correct. It's an authority acting under a nuclear emergency scheme established under federal or provincial legislation.