Evidence of meeting #46 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.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We are resuming our meeting and we are going to NDP-17, which is not on your agenda. That was a clerical error.
Any discussion on NDP-17?
Mr. Cullen.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
NDP-17 seeks to amend the legislation.
Just in terms of the time allotted in terms of somebody's ability to come back and file for compensation, under C-20 we have a number of limitations. One of them is around the actual liability limit, but it also imposes a ultimate period of 30 years. A number of witnesses who came before us said that the 30-year limit is artificially low and that some cancers that are caused by exposure to nuclear pollution can manifest over a much longer period of time.
There's a corresponding piece of legislation in the U.S. called the Price-Anderson Act that no longer has this limitation period of 30 years, or any such limitation. Where they modify the act in the U.S. is they say it's three years after the moment of first recognized harm. So once the cancer is identified, if cancer is the case, you have three years to report it. That seems reasonable.
But the 30-year limit on discovery often.... Unfortunately, we know as individuals, people in our family often have cancer that goes undiscovered for a number of years. Something happens consequentially and then they go in for a test and they find out they have cancer. But it manifested maybe many years before. That's also true with the types of cancer caused by exposure to nuclear radiation.
The Canadian Environmental Law Association brought this evidence forward to committee, and the committee has also received a number of letters from folks across Canada, some of them in the medical profession.
So that's essentially the amendment, Chair. It seeks to modify C-20 exactly that way. I would be curious as to the committee's opinions about the need to remove that one stipulation within the act.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
Anything further on NDP-17?
Madame Brunelle.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
I have a question for our witnesses.
On that issue, I think that in the Civil Code of Quebec, it is something like 10 years in the case of bodily injury. That is why I thought 30 years was a long time.
Mr. Cullen gave us the American example, but are there others? What was the basis for stopping at the 30-year mark, when the legislation was drafted?
4:45 p.m.
Jacques Hénault Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
Ultimately, the 30-year mark was chosen because that is the absolute limit that we see in international conventions.
Furthermore, I think that Ontario and British Columbia—I should check that—also have such an absolute limit. But, in most of the other provinces, as you mentioned in Quebec, for instance, the limit is 10 years. In many provinces, the maximum limit is 6 years.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a question to our witnesses just in terms of international agreements. I am assuming you mean excluding what the U.S. has brought forward. But the international agreement cites 30 years as a minimum, if you will, for years to look at before a case of harm has been shown.
4:45 p.m.
Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
I'm not in agreement with that. I believe the limit under the international conventions for the absolute liability for injury or death is 30 years.
4:45 p.m.
Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
The U.S. limit, you correctly mentioned, has no provision for an absolute limit in the Price-Anderson Act because it's left to state law.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So the situation you would have under Bill C-20 as it currently stands is that where a victim of a nuclear accident is given no limit south of the border, a similar person with the exact same case is given a 30-year limit afterwards.
I don't see any reason not to have the unlimited limit, I suppose, at the end of the day, if it can be directly shown as causal, and we have evidence that says particular forms of cancer can show up many years later, especially in young people and especially intergenerationally. It seems that the type of contamination we're talking about is one that can pass through the generations, so we have to be wary of that.
Again, I point to the committee's good judgment, but I think this is a reasonable clause and it's certainly one that our friends in the United States felt was reasonable as well.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The question is on amendment NDP-17. We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
(Clause 30 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Amendment NDP-18, which would amend clause 34, is not in order. It was declared out of order the last time it was before the committee. It would alter the terms and conditions of a royal recommendation and is therefore out of order.
(Clause 34 agreed to on division)
On clause 37--Public notice
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think it's critical that information gets out quickly and is available to all potential claimants. What we're seeking to do under amendment NDP-19 is to have the circulation go through newspapers to notify people who might be affected by an accident, because as we've seen in the bill already, there are limitations on time as to when folks can actually file. We've seen other cases before where people simply didn't know, and simply didn't know the process. There's also the question of folks having moved in the interim, away from the location, which one could imagine if there were the unfortunate event of a nuclear accident, so the local posting may not be sufficient.
There's other legislation that we have in Canada that requires posting in major newspapers. This is in line with that. Certainly when we're talking about the amounts of money that are involved in this, in the $650 million range, this is not exorbitant, particularly with a government fond of spending money in newspapers and on TV and such. So we move amendment NDP-19.
That was below the belt, I know. I'm sorry.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, I have to say, given what's happening in the media, in newspapers, and in forestry in terms of the impact of people not reading newspapers and getting more of their information online or elsewhere, I wonder whether this really makes sense looking forward into the future.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm not sure if Mr. Regan is suggesting that we move an amendment to include the Internet or some other forms of dispersal, but this is just more information. I don't suspect all newspapers are going out of business in the next little while. It's just simply more information.
The government still uses newspaper advertisements to get the message out, so the government obviously finds that acceptable. It doesn't seem all that extraordinary or out of the realm to post the process in newspapers. If Mr. Regan would like to include other forms of communication, we're absolutely open.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But this is an instruction. That's what's important about it. It says government must seek to widely distribute. We've noted two more forms of distribution. It's just more clarity, more transparency. If the government wants to seek more, there's nothing in our motion that prevents it from doing something online or in other forms. It's just more information about something very important.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Regan has made a good point in saying that there may be some other forms that have become more important.
Actually, the wording in the bill says they shall notify the public “in a manner it considers appropriate”. I'm sure that's going to include newspapers and the electronic media, so I think the amendment is basically irrelevant. It could be in there or not; it doesn't really matter. Given the exposure that it's going to be presented with, the tribunal is going to be notifying the public in appropriate ways, I think.