Can you repeat the subamendment?
Evidence of meeting #35 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was proposed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #35 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was proposed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
The subamendment reads: “The review must be conducted publicly in consultation with industry and non-industry stakeholders.”
So we would be adding the words “industry and”.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
My impression is that this subamendment is very similar to amendment NDP-11. Our amendment reads: “…with stakeholders, including stakeholders that are not linked with the nuclear industry.”
We need to check that.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I agree with...
I agree that the effect would be similar, but it would not be expressed in the same way. My subamendment does not preclude amendment NDP-11.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
So we go to the vote on the Liberal subamendment to amendment PV-20.
Go ahead, Mr. Trost.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Chair, it's a friendly subamendment, so are friendly subamendments not automatically accepted?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We hadn't agreed to that, and we had further discussion, so we'll go to a vote on it.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We go now to amendment PV-20 unamended.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now go to amendment NDP-11.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
This amendment is similar to the one we have just voted on. Its wording is just more open. It is about consulting with stakeholders linked to the nuclear industry and publicly consulting with people who are not directly linked to it. The wording of this amendment is a little more open than the one we have just voted on.
In the event of a review, it is important to hold open public consultations. It is important to consult both people linked to the industry and those who are not directly linked to it.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Joan Crockatt Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I should have raised this on the last point as well, Mr. Chair, but I think it's really important to raise it here. There's nothing in this legislation that prevents the inclusion of non-industry stakeholders, so they are, by virtue of not being excluded, included.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, the reason these amendments are necessary is that the practice has been not to confer widely with the public in consultation on regulations.
If you look to modern environmental statutes at the provincial level and at the federal level, the governments in their wisdom have now been specific in saying that when the government is contemplating regulations or guidelines or new standards, there will be public consultation. In this circumstance with the nuclear industry I think it's important to follow suit and specify that when the government is promulgating regulations, they will consult with impacted persons.
If the government wishes to expand the parameters of who might be consulted, that would be excellent, but this is simply showing the government's intent. Why would we treat the nuclear industry differently than we do, for example, in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and so forth, where there is very specific provision that the public will be consulted? There seems to be, by omission here, the intent is not that there will be an obligation to consult.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
An hon. member
A recorded vote, please.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go to amendment NDP-12.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
The object of this amendment is to increase, to 50 years after a disaster, the amount of time in which someone may submit claims regarding bodily injury, or illnesses that may have taken some time to develop.
As we know, diseases like cancer can, in some cases, take some time before they develop or are detected. That is the reason why I think it is reasonable to establish a 50-year limit.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm wondering Mr. Chair, if the officials could give the rationale for why they've limited it to 30 years. Do they have medical evidence showing that any impacts would be found within 30 years?
11:25 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
I think I'll turn to my colleague, but one element is certainly consistency with the international context, and another would be that the bill does propose 30 years, which is a change from the current 10-year provision in the existing legislation.