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.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
That has not answered my question.
Can you simplify for us what the law as tabled right now says, and what changes this will make to that?
June 10th, 2014 / 11:40 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
The law says now that we can—
11:40 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
The bill now says that we can call on supplemental public funds to the convention when a billion dollars' worth of damage is exceeded.
In the future, should we ever raise that domestic amount, we will not be able to make the call until we exceed the domestic amount, even though we ratified the convention at a billion dollars, which is the point at which we will make the call.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay, that's what the bill says, but what does the change do?
11:40 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
The change will link our ability to make the call to the amount that we reference when we ratify.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, to achieve what you're trying to achieve here, it seems to me that what you ought to be saying is those funds are to be used to compensate for the damage that is suffered if (a), (b), or (c) occurs, because without that it simply says those funds are to be used to compensate for the damage that is suffered if (a) occurs in the territory of a contracting state, or (b) occurs, or (c) occurs.
You've gone right down, and you know what you've done in terms of replacing lines 30 to 32, so unless you add the comment “if it” at the end of what you've got here in the proposed amendment, I don't see how this works with (a), (b), and (c).
Am I wrong? I certainly was last time, so....
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Perhaps I could what the amendment would say again.
It's proposed subsection 72(1).
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
That's where I am, proposed subsection 72(1). No, we're on subsection 71(1).
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
We're on proposed subsection 71(1). Okay, just a second.
We're dealing with lines 30 to 32, so that's actually proposed subsection 72(1).
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
No, what you mean is it refers in proposed subsection 71(1) to 72(1), but—
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Yes, but what is actually being changed is lines 30 to 32—
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
—which falls under proposed subsection 72(1).
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Yes, but the point is that this proposed subsection 71(1) would now say, “When the damage exceeds the operator’s liability set out in subsection 24(1)—
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Can I finish? Your amendment says “replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 156, with the following”.
I'm on the right page now, page 156, and you're deleting the words “the damage that is caused and the circumstances”—and I say deleting, because if you replace, that means you remove what's there and put this in place—“set out in subsection 9(1), (4) or (6), if the damage that is suffered...”.
That comes out, and instead it reads “a call for public funds is made under subsection 72(1), those funds are to be used to compensate the damage that is suffered”.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
No, I said we needed to put the word “if” back in.
