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.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
What is the damage that is suffered? You deleted.... It is confusing.
11:35 a.m.
General Counsel and Executive Director, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources
Then the paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) continue as they are in the document before you.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Ms. Block, do you want to make your proposed amendment with the “if” out as it was written?
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay.
The amendment, if agreed, we'd remove the “if” as it was written originally.
Mr. Regan.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I just want to make sure I understand this. I'm trying to see what we're doing, because we're taking out lines 30 to 32 and putting this in so it would read, if I'm not mistaken, “If in the minister's opinion, a nuclear incident for which the tribunal or any other Canadian court has jurisdiction will result...or is the damage that is suffered necessary to compensate the damages that are caused...”.
I don't see how that makes sense. I'll go over that again. I'm just waiting for Ms. Kellerman. It doesn't seem logical.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We should wait, Ms. Block, until the discussion at the back is ended.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Except that it's my amendment.
It doesn't make sense because I believed that we needed to remove the word “if” and we don't.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
It says, “or is the damage that is suffered necessary to compensate the damages that are caused.”
That doesn't make any sense.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
No, we're removing lines 30, 31, and 32. When you do that and put this in, that's what you get. You get, “or is the damage that is suffered necessary to compensate the damages that are caused.”
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Well, if you remove the lines that start with the words, “likely”, “exceeds”, and “subsection,” which are lines 30, 31, and 32, which is what this says, then you're left with, “or is the damage that is suffered” and then on to line 33, “necessary to compensate the damages.”
It doesn't make any sense.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
First, it doesn't say, “remove”, it says, “replace.”
We are replacing lines 30 to 32. Line 29 stays, “those funds are to be used to compensate...”. We're replacing lines 30, 31, and 32 with the words, “if the damage that is suffered.”
It's already there, but we're saying we're replacing all those lines with the single line, “if the damage that is suffered”, and then you go into (a) “occurs in the territory of a Contracting State”.
June 10th, 2014 / 11:40 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Maybe we could aid the committee or at least try to fix what we started.
This is on page 156. It turns out that page 157 has a paragraph with almost the same language, so I think we were on different....
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I wonder if we could have clarification of why these changes are made and what the implications are.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
I read the rationale, but I'm going to ask the officials to give a further explanation.
11:40 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Certainly.
The policy intention under this element of the act is that if there's an incident that exceeds the liability limit in Canada, the minister may call on the convention to draw supplemental funds from other countries. In the drafting, we referenced the domestic liability limit, which is a billion dollars, which is also the amount that will be registered in the convention. It makes perfect sense and is reasonable today. Should we ever increase that limit in the future, for example, after the five-year review by the government of the day determines that the limit should be a billion and a half dollars, we will be inconsistent with the international convention when we can call on it, because the call is made when we exceed our domestic amount. Because we are referencing the domestic amount, not the amount that we ratified, we will have a gap.
It's to avoid a future problem should the liability limit increase, which is part of the review process of the bill.