Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.
Natural Resources committee Linguistically, it doesn't come out exactly the same in French, but the reason “may” was chosen in English is because we say that no loss is compensable except in accordance with the act. So then we come along in clauses 13 to 20 and say these things “may” be compensable. It is “may” in the grammatical sense, “may” in the sense that they are allowed to be compensated, which, unless it was stated in clauses 13 to 20, they could not be.
December 4th, 2007Committee meeting
Brenda MacKenzie
Natural Resources committee Linguistically, the two versions come down to the same thing. It means that it is permitted for these types of damage to be compensated, and in both versions, obviously, the chain of causation would have to be proven. So linguistically it comes to the same thing.
December 4th, 2007Committee meeting
Brenda MacKenzie
Natural Resources committee Certainly, and I could provide the committee with that information.
December 4th, 2007Committee meeting
Brenda MacKenzie
Natural Resources committee I would just simply say that the words were carefully chosen by the drafters. The word “may” was chosen again in the sense that it “may” be compensated. Unless we had said so right here, there would be no possibility of compensation. It allows the compensation; it permits.
December 4th, 2007Committee meeting
Brenda MacKenzie
Natural Resources committee Correct. It means they will be compensated if these facts are proven.
December 4th, 2007Committee meeting
Brenda MacKenzie
Natural Resources committee Generally, throughout clauses 13 to 20, the word “may” has been chosen. That is the choice of words throughout.
December 4th, 2007Committee meeting
Brenda MacKenzie
Natural Resources committee Just to clarify, the word “may” is used because one would have to prove causation, that in fact the psychological damage resulted as a result of other loss. So “may” is used in the sense that it would have to be proved to the court that the facts existed.
December 4th, 2007Committee meeting
Brenda MacKenzie
Natural Resources committee Legally, the two versions are identical, and they were compared. The effect of the English and French versions is the same. But it is correct. As you say, it simply says that "s'il découle de telle ou de telle situation, le préjudice est indemnisable." In English, the fact that it “may” be compensated legally amounts to the same thing.
December 4th, 2007Committee meeting
Brenda MacKenzie
Natural Resources committee "Incident nucléaire" no longer exists in the French text.
December 4th, 2007Committee meeting
Brenda MacKenzie
Natural Resources committee It is "accident nucléaire".
December 4th, 2007Committee meeting
Brenda MacKenzie