Natural Resources Committee on June 10th, 2014

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Do we have any medical evidence that all health impacts would be identified within 30 years? The impacts from other incidents have turned up much later. Was the number just pulled from a hat? You can always exceed an international convention; you simply can't be “less than”. The convention says that it's at least 30 years. There's no reason that you can't say 50.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. McCauley.

[Dave McCauley]

In the current legislation, the limit is 10 years for a bodily injury. We recognize, because of the scientific evidence, that certain cancers are only experienced or are latent until some 20 to 23 years after radiation exposure. That is why we have moved, similar to the international conventions, to the 30-year limit. The problem with extending it even further is that it becomes very difficult to prove causation at much longer periods, and you'll find that the insurers certainly don't insure beyond the 10 years because of the problems of proving causation.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's pretty weak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Moore.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

In terms of—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Protect the insurance companies—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Order, please.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

In terms of the physical damage that can be detected only after a number of years, we might think of damage affecting reproductive functions.

Take, for example, a person who might have been the victim of an accident at a very young age. It could be that they would be only aware of a problem with their reproductive system 30 or 40 years later when they tried to have children. Some damage does not reveal itself immediately because life situations mean that one does not recognize it immediately.

In my view, including a 50-year period would cover the totality of physical damage that might take some time before it becomes known or recognized.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll go to the vote on amendment NDP-12.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

A recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We go now to government amendment G-4.

Go ahead, please, Ms. Block.

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

Mr. Chair, before I speak to amendment G-4, I'm wondering when I might have an opportunity to clarify something in regard to amendments G-1 and G-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You could do that now. It's a translation issue, I understand, so perhaps you could just mention that now.

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

I did have an opportunity during the health break to speak with our legislative clerks to find out if in fact the French and English versions mirror one another. I was told that they don't mirror one another, but that they essentially say the same thing. I do have a statement written in French that I believe would actually more closely mirror what the English version says.

I have been taking French for about four years, but I will not attempt to read it into the record at this meeting. I might ask my colleague to read it in, if that's appropriate, or I could hand it to the legislative clerks, whatever you would prefer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Either way; if you have a copy here, it might be a good idea anyway.

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

I do have a copy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, if we could do that, and then....

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

Do you want Mr. Trost to read it and then give you the hard copy?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We do have an issue here. We've adopted the clause. We'll have to have agreement to go back to that.

I didn't realize it. Maybe we should wait until we finish with this clause and then we'll go back to that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Didn't we defer a vote on those clauses, or is this a different one?

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

No, this is the one that we were referring to.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We deferred the vote. We didn't vote. We were going to have the vote at the end, as we do with all the others.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

No, all we've deferred is the title. We had finished with the others.

Go ahead, please, Ms. Block.

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

Before I speak to amendment G-4, I have to note that there is one word missing in the text that's been circulated, and it's under (b). The following line should say, “if the damage that is suffered”. The word that should be there is the word “if”.