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.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Now there's a quote, Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you.
May I ask the officials if they could tell us why this section is different from how it is in the oil and gas part of the bill?
10:20 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Sure. At its simplest level, in the nuclear portion of the bill liability is exclusive to the operator of the installation and is not contained within the subcontracts or in the relationships between the operator and other parties. It maintains that exclusivity to ensure there's clarity in the bill on the accountability of who's liable in the instance of liability.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
10:20 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It doesn't give us an explanation for why you're treating the nuclear industry differently from the oil and gas sector. You've told us what the implications are of doing this, but why was there the decision to treat the nuclear industry differently from the oil and gas sector? Do we not care? Do we not think that suppliers and subcontractors should be made accountable by potential liability?
10:20 a.m.
General Counsel and Executive Director, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources
My response to this would be that in the principles that are included in the bill you have before you, liability on an operator is exclusive. It is correct to say what that means is that contractors to that operator are not liable.
This is consistent with the international conventions in this area and it's consistent with the legislative framework, for example, in the United States, where liability is also channelled economically to the operator. So this is consistent with international comparison.
10:20 a.m.
NDP
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
For further explanation then, it doesn't mean that any contractor for whom there might be the responsibility of an incident should it occur, it just means it will be captured through the operator. Is that correct? There is no gap here; there is no hole in the legislation where somebody could—
10:20 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
That's correct.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
—potentially get away with or be off the hook for something. It's just putting the exclusive liability through proposed section 10, which subsequently follows here, on the operator for the ease of identifying who is responsible through the legislative process.
10:20 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
That's correct.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
10:20 a.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
A recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Amendment NDP-5 is defeated. Therefore, so is amendment PV-14. Amendments PV-15 and PV-16 were not submitted.
We go to amendment NDP-6.
Ms. Moore, go ahead.
10:25 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Basically, a part of the amendment would include the supply chain in the liability process. This is along the same lines as the previous amendment.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is there any further debate or discussion on amendment NDP-6? Seeing none, we go to the vote.
10:25 a.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
A recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
10:25 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
This is another amendment that seeks to extend liability to anyone at fault, including people in the supply chain, in the case of negligence.
This also means the suppliers of services, and not only the operator. It must be understood that it applies in cases when anyone providing a service would have demonstrated real negligence. We want to make it possible for liability to be extended to anyone in that situation.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
10:25 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could ask the officials if they could provide to the committee the international convention—if they can't right now, then at a later date—and the section that Canada presumably.... Has Canada ratified that convention? If Canada has ratified that convention, can they provide the provision wherein the officials have advised that suppliers cannot be held liable? It goes to this provision as well. I wonder if they can tell us if Canada has ratified that convention.
June 10th, 2014 / 10:25 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
I'll do my best. My colleagues from Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development have the responsibility, but I think we have formally signed the convention. We don't necessarily ratify the convention until the bill passes and comes into force. Then it's deposited, if you will, because the regime has to be in place as law before we can formally be members of the convention. We've signed it, which says we're on the path to get there, if you will. Excuse me for being a little bit vernacular, but....