Evidence of meeting #44 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 clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
Anyone else?
(Clause 28 agreed to on division)
(On clause 29--Where action is to be brought)
Any discussion on clause 29?
Mr. Cullen.
5 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's a question back to this tribunal in court. I want to understand whether subclauses 29(1) and (2) affect this at all. It doesn't bring any clarity to the notion, but I want to understand the language in this, and forgive me for not being a lawyer. It reads:
An action involving damage caused by a nuclear incident is to be brought in the court that has jurisdiction in the place where the incident occurs.
What happens with respect to a tribunal being named? Does it also wipe this out in terms of clause 29?
5 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
This is for judicial proceedings before a Federal Court and does not refer to the establishment of a tribunal. Actually, it would apply, I guess. The action is to be brought where the accident actually occurs. The legislation is designed to avoid confusion and time wasting when you're trying to figure out exactly who has jurisdiction. You know where you line up to take your claim. So the point of this is that the action is to be brought in the place where the incident occurs.
The second clarification is that, okay, if there is some interprovincial question, if it occurs, say, at sea--we were trying to think of everything--if you're not sure, we're providing the clarity that it's the Federal Court. So you know where to go.
5 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is my last question on that. When it says “the place where the incident occurs”, does that just simply mean in the province where it occurs, or does it mean right in the actual town where the thing happens? It's a small question, but it could be important in terms of having that lack of confusion and as much clarity as possible.
5:05 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
It's in the court with jurisdiction where the incident occurs. It would be who had jurisdiction, so it would be the province.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It would be the provincial court that most made sense, but it would have to be in that province under this stipulation. Correct?
5:05 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
That's right. So people aren't going to have to go too far. And as far as the tribunal goes, that's later.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Clause 30 will be stood. There is an amendment proposed by the NDP.
(On clause 31--Declaration)
Is there anything on clause 31?
Yes, Mr. Cullen.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just to understand this, is this simply saying that once the claims have all been made, the government may or shall make the claims public? I'm misunderstanding this, perhaps.
Please help me to understand, Ms. MacKenzie.
5:05 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Subclause 31(1) allows the Governor in Council to declare that claims shall be dealt with, from that point on, from the moment they made the declaration, by a tribunal instead of the court, again following through with the idea that everybody should know where they have to go to make their complaint. And in the event that it's something the Governor in Council feels should be dealt with by a centralized tribunal, if it's in the public interest, then the government makes the declaration that claims will be brought there from that moment on.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right. I'm trying to understand what would trigger that. We had a bit of this discussion before, but I was still left unclear as to where the trigger point is for the government to say that the courts are not actually a good place to have this happen and that a tribunal goes ahead. Are there criteria that are imagined in this act?
I looked for it in the bill, and it doesn't necessarily say what shall a tribunal make or when does it stay in court. It seems like a tribunal is somehow more important, is more all-encompassing or something. I'm not sure even what the real differences will be to the public, but why would the government decide one way or the other? I don't know if this criteria applied or is suggested.
5:05 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The rationale for the tribunal is that an administrative means of addressing the claims is probably more efficient and more equitable than the court system in dealing with a large number of claims. So the criteria are provided in 31(1), where they say that the Governor in Council believes it's in the public interest to establish a claim, having regard to the extent and the estimated cost of the damage--so a large incident--and the advantages of having the claims dealt with by an administrative tribunal.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I read that line about public interest, but I don't have any working definition of what the public interest is. That's a moving target, for sure, is it not? I don't think there's any codified notion of public interest when it comes to something like this.
5:05 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I think if we look at the experience in what are called mass torts, governments have reacted by establishing administrative claims tribunals because they're efficient and they're equitable in terms of their ability to bring claims together and deal with them as a group as opposed to a court, which may deal with claims on a first come, first served basis.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Do they also have a lower standard of evidence required than a court might?
5:05 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
In fact, yes, because they're an administrative tribunal, they can proceed expeditiously.
The point of having a tribunal--there are a number of advantages--is that it's cheaper for the claimant. It's cheaper and it's faster because they're specialized in dealing with this particular problem. So they're not dealing with whoever is coming in the door first and just dealing with them one-off, which is the only way a court can deal with anything. So it's to establish a coherent system of dealing with groups of claims, categories of claims.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The reason I ask this is, in imagining a future scenario that we don't want to imagine, if there's a nuclear accident, it would be upon members of Parliament, who are the ones who would likely be insisting on this because this would take place as a parliamentary procedure. If I've got this right, the minister would go before Parliament and say he's creating this tribunal.
So for us, as members of Parliament, realizing the things you've just said--that this is quicker, it requires a lower threshold of evidence, and doesn't do things one by one by one--it's good for us to know what those criteria are because those notions of public interest, serving the greater public interest, can mean almost anything.
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
That's probably a fair comment, but by giving a public interest criterion we make it possible for the Governor in Council to make the declaration when it's appropriate to do so. And because the minister--in clause 33, you'll see--must, as you say, report to Parliament on this, then it is something that's transparent and in the public domain and something that parliamentarians can debate, which we freely admit is your role.
