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.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, it's NDP-6.
As it is written right now there is a change under paragraph 22(2)(a) to make a subparagraph (a.1) that would say:
changes in the nuclear liability standards in other jurisdictions.
I will seek from the government perhaps clearer language to allow that same thing to be accomplished in other places in clause 22.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, we think we have something that would simplify and clarify that a bit.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Go ahead, Mr. Anderson. There has been agreement to do that, so go ahead.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We're a bit concerned that we're extending the discussion from limited liability here, as Mr. Cullen's words say, to nuclear liability standards. We would like to limit it to a discussion of nuclear liability limits. So rather than insert that clause, we are suggesting a change to paragraph 22(2)(b), which is just a small insertion that would read:
(b) financial security requirements and nuclear liability limits in other countries and under international agreements respecting nuclear liability;
We would bring in the other countries and any discussion of liability limits there in that clause.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Sure, it's “financial security requirements”, and then the insertion is “and nuclear liability limits in other countries and under international agreements respecting nuclear liability”. So:
financial security requirements and nuclear liability limits in other countries and under international agreements respecting nuclear liability.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
And it keeps that section focused on the idea of limits of liability.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Does everyone understand the amendment to (b), which would in effect replace NDP-6?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I can make it simpler, I think, Mr. Chairman, to help my colleagues and others, perhaps.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
This amendment would insert on line 16, after the word “requirements”, the words “and nuclear liability limits”.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I did catch it. I think the wording is right. All I would add to it is “and other countries”.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to know what big difference that makes.
In fact, two things will be examined: changes in the consumer price index and nuclear liability limits in other countries.
I understand that the NDP agrees with keeping paragraph (a) as it was before.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
They are independent, for us. Here, we want to consider the liability limits in other countries. So paragraph (a) and the new paragraph (b) are separate, in this context.
I am not sure if that's clear or not.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Ha, ha.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc