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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Good afternoon, everyone.
Welcome back again, to our witnesses from the last two committee meetings.
We are starting today with our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-20.
(On clause 17—Environmental damage)
Is there any debate on clause 17?
Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Regan.
November 30th, 2009 / 3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Before we go on, you'll recall that we passed a motion to hear from the minister before we rise, and obviously preferably before the date on which the estimates are deemed to be returned to the House. I wonder if there is any information on that. Have we had a response from the minister?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Yes, I'll have the clerk comment on that. I haven't heard of any response yet.
The Clerk of the Committee Mrs. Carol Chafe
The request has been put in to the minister's office. They're waiting to see if they can get her schedule cleared.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Directly to Mr. Anderson, because I know he oftentimes is the liaison for the minister, at the last meeting it was in discussion to see if the minister had time available. It's been another four days. Has there been any update in terms of the minister's availability?
Conservative
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Sure.
I think the expectation was that when we saw the end of this bill, we would deal with that seriously. So far it doesn't look like there will be an end to the bill, so I guess we'll continue working on it.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just so I can understand what Mr. Anderson is saying, is it the suggestion that when Bill C-20 passes, the minister is planning to be at the next committee meeting following that? I just want to make sure I understood what he said.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
So the request has gone to the minister and the minister's office is trying to make this work and is considering this. And when the office responds, then we'll know.
Let's get on to clause 17. Is there any discussion on clause 17?
Mr. Cullen.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
May I have just a moment to read it through, Chair?
I have a question, Chair.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Through you to our witnesses, with respect to the determination of what will constitute remedial measures, in clause 17 we're talking about damage to the environment. Clause 17 reads:
Reasonable costs of remedial measures taken to repair, reduce or mitigate environmental damage caused by a nuclear incident may be compensated
—and it goes on.
We've had some conversations about contamination of soils and water. Later on I believe we'll talk about other damages. But if I were to just take those two scenarios to start with, because those sit within the provincial jurisdiction, does that then mean the provinces would determine the level of damage caused or the extent of damage? Is there something in this act or within the federal powers that says the federal government will come forward and determine the extent of it and the provinces will sit to the side in a more observational role?
Dave McCauley Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Thank you.
It would be up to the competent authority. It could be a federal authority or a provincial authority, depending on the particular issue. If it were radiation contamination, it is the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that would order a cleanup, for example.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But to my specific questions around water contamination—all water testing sits within provincial mandate and authority—I want to just check whether, in the event of a nuclear accident, those authorities are overridden by the investigators from the various departments that determine damage.
What I'm trying to foresee is whether there is a potential created within clause 17 to create, in a sense, a territorial concern as to who gets to say what the actual damage of a leak was on a body of water. If the point source is here and the provinces make a claim that it affected an entire watershed system, and the feds say no, it's just contained within that river system.... Again, I'm trying to find analogies to describe the clause.
Who has ultimate say as to what the damage is? Is it the province or is it the feds?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The provision provides for whichever authority is determined to be the competent authority in the situation. So it doesn't define, for example, that a particular type of damage would be the responsibility of a province or the federal government. It leaves it open to whoever is the competent authority to order remediation, etc.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's my question, then. If an accident happens, I would have assumed that in a bill that is dealing with potential liabilities and insurance claims, the definition of those competent authorities would be referenced in another act or it would be set forth in this act.
When an accident happens, in any kind of accident, and I would imagine in a nuclear accident in particular, the initial hours are most critical. You don't want any jurisdictional battles going on as to who gets to say what gets priority or what has actually been damaged. I can't find any reference in the act that says this is the process we are going to use to define “competent authority” or that we're referencing another statute.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Those authorities would be defined in other pieces of legislation that identify who has the responsibility in the event of an emergency. What this legislation says is that if a victim is to come forward with a claim for damages, that this is one of the heads of damage that would be compensable. So if the victim were able to say, “Yes, I undertook a cleanup because I was ordered to by a competent authority”, that is what the victim would have to show to the court or to the tribunal, and then it would be compensated.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Ms. MacKenzie, did you want to respond to that as well, or was the answer--