Natural Resources Committee on June 10th, 2014

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

This registers the same concern with different English and French drafting. I had suggested an amendment. I would suggest the same amendment for this one, which can be considered maybe at the end. The amendment would be that it be revised to say “clause 2.1” and then say “it includes any physical activity” and so forth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

Shall we go to the vote on G-2?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 87 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 88 to 117 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 118)

We go to clause 118. We have proposed amendments to clause 118. The first one would be PV-11.

Go ahead, please, Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, in the interest of the committee's time, since both PV-11 and PV-12 are consequential amendments to other efforts that have already been defeated, I'm not going to speak to them at this time. I think we know the substance of them. Consequential amendments to things that have already been defeated are, I think, fairly moot at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will go to the votes.

All in favour of amendment PV-11?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

All in favour of amendment PV-12?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 118 agreed to on division)

(Clause 119 agreed to on division)

(On clause 120—Enactment)

There are several proposed amendments, the first one being G-3.

Ms. Block, would you like to speak to amendment G-3?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's a fairly lengthy amendment.

This amendment is required to ensure that the bill fully aligns with the international Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. The drafting instructions for the nuclear liability and compensation act specifically require that the operator of a nuclear installation be absolutely liable for nuclear damage that has been caused by a nuclear incident involving nuclear material coming from or being sent to that operator's nuclear installation.

This amendment clarifies the rules regarding transporting goods between member countries. It clarifies the operator's liability for nuclear damage in Canada and its exclusive economic zone that has been caused by a nuclear incident involving material coming from or sent to that operator's nuclear installation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Mr. Trost, and then Ms. Duncan.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Chair, while I appreciate what Mrs. Block said, I would like to ask the departmental officials if they have anything they'd like to clarify or add with regard to her remarks. It would be helpful for some of us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, please, Mr. Labonté.

[Jeff Labonté]

The proposed amendment, as was referenced, spells out a number of what would be some inconsistencies and some clarifications and some omissions in the drafting. The review of the bill, and the continued assessment of the elements, identified that there was a requirement for us to propose to the government that they clarify elements of how nuclear materials would be transported and how liability exists.

It is a fairly technical and complicated part of the bill. It's trying to describe the movement of goods between a member country of the convention and another member country of the convention, as well as the movement between, if you will, where there are non-member countries. It's trying to describe how liability happens and manages within that framework of moving something from one place to another place when both places are parties to the convention.

It attempts to do this in more clear language. Most of the amendments included here are of that nature: language changes.

My colleague from Justice could speak to more specific questions, should the committee have those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Duncan, go ahead.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have a procedural question. It's my understanding that changes to definitions can only occur after we've reviewed all the substantive provisions of a bill. You go back to the definitions after you've gone through the substantive provisions to see if there are any necessary amendments to the definitions to make sense of the bill. That's my understanding of what's necessary.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily for or against the amendment, but it's my understanding that you don't amend definitions in the bill until you've completed the review of the bill. Then you go back to see if you need to amend any of the definitions to clarify the changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Actually, I should have mentioned that clause 120 is the start of part 2 of this legislation, which is a new—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Definitions section.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It's a new bill, actually; it's considered a new bill.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Right, and I'm simply saying that to my understanding, those are the procedural rules in the review of a bill.

Could we have clarification from the clerk?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Sure.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We could just visit it at the end.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The legislative clerk will respond to that.

[Philippe Méla, Procedural Clerk]

I'll provide some information, if I may.

What you're stating is exactly right in the case of a regular bill. If it were clause 2, let's say, of a regular bill amending an act, then that would be the case.

Here, however, clause 120 of this bill is a new act. It's considered a clause, and you can amend any part of a clause. That's why we can amend the definitions in it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's only if it's a completely new bill.

[Philippe Méla]

That's correct.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's what I was trying to say, but not very clearly, I guess.

We are now on the nuclear liability and compensation act, which is clause 120.

Is there any further discussion of amendment G-3?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now have LIB-2, which is a proposed amendment to clause 120 as well.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, this flows from the comments of Mr. John Barrett, president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, who said at committee, or perhaps in a follow-up:

...we seek clarification of the term “nuclear installation”. We detect a difference between the interpretation provided in the bill and that provided in the backgrounder that accompanies the bill. In the backgrounder, nuclear installations are defined as “Canadian nuclear facilities such as nuclear power plants, nuclear research reactors, fuel processing plants and facilities for managing used nuclear fuel”. In the bill however, the definition of nuclear installation is potentially much broader. If the backgrounder is correct in identifying only these four types of installations, then the legislation should be made equally clear.

This is what I'm attempting to do with this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Is there any further discussion on LIB-2?

Ms. Crockatt.