Natural Resources committee  Yes. This letter suggests that in order for this federal legislation to match the provincial legislation, some adjustments to the terms are necessary. Actually, we were aware of provincial emergency legislation during the drafting of this legislation, and we were careful to draft the terms in clauses 18 and 17, or the two provisions that they refer to, in a broad enough manner that the provincial law would be encompassed.

Natural Resources committee  I agree that regulations are extremely important, and that is why it is important that they go through a full consultation process. As provided for in this piece of legislation, it would go through the full consultation process, publication in Canada Gazette, Part I and Part II, and the various requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act, which are extremely onerous.

Natural Resources committee  I agree that the regulations are extremely important. The purpose of delegated legislation in any act--and there is a lot of it; the statutes of Canada are like this and the regulations are like this--is to spare Parliament, just because there is so very much work to be done. Certainly you're correct, it is possible nevertheless to require that the regulations be brought before the House.

Natural Resources committee  This would be a unique process in the nuclear area. I've been involved in many regulation-making exercises, and I actually haven't gone through such a process in which the regulations would have to be introduced first in the House. Just to clarify, the regulation-making process is quite complex, and the policy followed is that proposed regulations are published in Canada Gazette, Part I, with an extensive regulatory impact analysis statement.

Natural Resources committee  Yes. I can't comment on what the appropriate choice would be; I'm just explaining this was drafted to be consistent with related statutes, in particular the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, which similarly imposes strict liability on the operator and imposes similar penalty amounts.

Natural Resources committee  May I respond?

Natural Resources committee  This establishes the failure to maintain financial security as a strict liability offence, and it was thought necessary to make this clear that it's not an absolute liability offence, because that is what we talk about in the rest of the bill, that the operator's absolutely liable.

Natural Resources committee  In the case of the failure to maintain the financial security, we've clarified that is a strict liability offence for which the defence of due diligence is always available, and in the example that you gave, that would not meet the common law test of due diligence.

Natural Resources committee  It is far more normal in the statute book for offences to be strict liability. You see very few absolute liability offences. And so in this context the absolute liability of the operator, in the event of an accident, is quite exceptional in the rest of the bill, and it was thought necessary to make it clear that when we get to clause 65, we're back in the normal world of due diligence and strict liability.

Natural Resources committee  May I simply explain the purpose behind clause 52? For example, in the case of a medical claim it is quite likely that sensitive medical information could be divulged, and that would most likely be the situation in which a tribunal would not want that person's identity or the nature of their personal troubles to be disclosed in public.

Natural Resources committee  The purpose of the words “at the request of the Minister” are to require the tribunal to submit a report at any point that the minister considers it necessary. For example, if the minister is concerned about emerging information about the size or the quantum of the damages that are coming forward, the minister can then require the tribunal to provide this information to the House.

Natural Resources committee  There are processes for rehearing and appeals of any decision. Also, if the tribunal makes a decision that is inappropriate, it's always subject to judicial review by the courts. There is a normal process for dealing with claims. This is a normal rule for a quasi-judicial tribunal.

Natural Resources committee  The expression frivolous or vexatious has a well-known meaning; it's a kind of bad faith. It's not the idea of somebody who just doesn't know how to fill out a form. In fact, the whole purpose of the tribunal, as set up, is to ensure that claims are heard expeditiously and that it isn't necessary, although you have the right, for people to be represented by lawyers.

Natural Resources committee  Perhaps a person.

Natural Resources committee  If I understand correctly then, the amendment was to insert the word “not” and say “The Tribunal may not refuse to hear any claim”. This particular provision is quite a standard provision in the rules concerning quasi-judicial tribunals. The tribunal would have received the claim and would have received the documents, and therefore it is quite normal for a tribunal to be given the power not to hear things that on their face are frivolous or vexatious.