Mr. Cullen.
Evidence of meeting #45 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 tribunal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #45 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 tribunal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I just want to get some sort of direction from our witnesses as to what will constitute the need to go into private. The hearing is in private “if it is of the opinion that a person’s privacy interest outweighs the principle that hearings be open to the public”. Is there a working definition of where that line is? Because it's a pretty broad definition, as it's written.
3:45 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
This is the concept that we find in numerous places in federal legislation, for instance in the Privacy Act and other places. And one can imagine, for instance, that in hearing a claim some sensitive medical information might be divulged and need to be divulged in order for the claim to be adequately assessed, but it would, however, be embarrassing for the person involved in making the claim. So that would be a clear example where their right to privacy would outweigh the benefits of a public hearing for that type of information.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a question. We're hearing this a few times, that certain definitions or concepts are defined in other places. Is this part of modern drafting, that it's not referenced directly? Because when one reads this, and if I were the tribunal chairperson reading this, as written it could be left open to some interpretation. Why not just reference the Privacy Act or the statute that this definition is based upon, to offer more clarity to those who go ahead and do this?
3:45 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
That's an interesting question. In a sense, to get into legal theory, all of the statutes of Canada are really one big law, and there's a presumption that they are meant to be understood in the context of the entire legislative text, in the context of the entire body of the law.
Therefore when we use concepts such as privacy and wording that is very similar to what one finds in numerous other statutes, including the Privacy Act, one imports the sense of those words, and judges, when they interpret them, understand that that's the spirit and the tone with which we intend them to be applied.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Sometimes when we've been going through the witnesses and trying to get information about how certain aspects of the nuclear industry work, there have been claims of competitiveness in order to protect some of the information. Could that be applied in clause 52? It's to protect not so much a claimant being embarrassed but a company coming forward and saying that the part of the tribunal they're hearing right now starts to cross over and they're concerned about giving away corporate secrets. Is clause 52 open to that type of interpretation by the chairperson?
3:45 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It would be a stretch. Privacy is a personal concept, so people have privacy. So this provision was drafted and would be understood to refer to things such as medical issues.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a last question on that. Is there potential for an individual, as part of the testimony that's brought forward, somebody from the nuclear supplier themselves, who claims the need for a private hearing on the tribunal because of personal implications that may be then later used in a court case? I'm just trying to ensure that privacy is used as little as possible under the definition that we have in clause 52. I don't want there to be any understanding that there is room out for the provider, for the electricity purchaser, for anybody to start to put some of these tribunals into a level of secrecy that's not intended by this notion of harming the individual. Do you follow my meaning?
I hear it's a stretch for a company to come forward. Is it a stretch for an individual from the company to say they want anything to do with issue X to be done in private at this tribunal level because their personal privacy interest outweighs that of the general public?
3:50 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
The term “privacy” connotes personal information, and personal information is anything that can, under the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act, serve to identify an individual or something about themselves personally or privately.
In fact the concepts that you are referring to, confidential business information, for instance, is another important concept of law, but that is described as confidential business information. It's not described as a privacy interest.
It's certainly up to a judge, but I personally would be surprised if this were construed as going beyond what we normally refer to as personal information or privacy interests.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is there anything else?
(Clause 52 agreed to)
(On clause 53--Interim award of compensation)
Mr. Cullen.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This just allows the judge, the ex-judge, to award a certain amount. Are there any limitations, in the previous act or anywhere else, on how much of the total compensatory limit can go out immediately? Sometimes I've seen similar instances like this. The chairperson is directed to, but it's never more than 50% of the maximum or 50% of what is anticipated. It's just to get some money flowing. There's no type of clause like that in here. There's no guidance at all for the chairperson. Can they free up as much interim money as they want?
3:50 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
What we've done, as we discussed earlier, is limit what the minister can hand out by way of interim compensation prior to the formation of the tribunal. When we get to the establishment of the tribunal of retired judges, we have drafted it to be respectful of their expertise. The tribunal's limitation is that it “may award interim compensation in respect of a claim heard by it before making a decision with respect to the entirety of the claim”. Their only direction here is that they're not supposed to be giving it all out. They can give some.
We drafted this because we're mindful that some of these claims could be very complex, and it might take some time to sort out everything. If there's some part of it that's clear, and the tribunal has a good idea of what it's likely to do, then the tribunal is able to award interim compensation. As we read further, we see that those amounts awarded are taken into account in the final determination of the claim.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is there anything further?
(Clauses 53 to 55 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 56--Appeal)
Mr. Cullen.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm just trying to understand how clauses 56 and 55 come together. “If a claim has been heard by a panel that consists of less than three members, the claimant or operator may, within 30 days after receiving notification of the decision”, apply to appeal in writing.
Can you help me understand this process? This is somebody who's dissatisfied with the claim they have received when heard by a panel of fewer than three members. I thought there was a notion earlier that there had to be a minimum, and it couldn't be done individually.
3:55 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The situation is that the chair of the tribunal would ask for certain cases to be considered either by a claims officer or by a panel of one. A case may be heard by a claims officer who is not a retired judge but is someone who is used to dealing with claims for compensation. In the event that a victim is dissatisfied with the decision of the claims officer, there's an automatic right to appeal or to have a rehearing by a panel of one.
In the event that you have the claim heard by a panel of one, there is the possibility that the dissatisfied victim could make an appeal to a panel of three members.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I guess my question is whether there is any test for that. Or can anybody who's dissatisfied simply make that secondary claim, and the tribunal must hear that appeal?
3:55 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Go ahead, Brenda.