Natural Resources committee  Yes, that's correct. That's fair.

Natural Resources committee  The proposed amendment, as was referenced, spells out a number of what would be some inconsistencies and some clarifications and some omissions in the drafting. The review of the bill, and the continued assessment of the elements, identified that there was a requirement for us to

Natural Resources committee  There are two things. I appreciate the attempt to clarify. Adding an (e) would actually make it separate so it's not what would be intended. We just referenced CEAA 2012, and this actually mirrors CEAA 2012, so the language in the bill here is identical to what's in CEAA 2012 i

Natural Resources committee  I'll ask my Justice colleagues to answer that one.

Natural Resources committee  I think you're proposing that we mirror the French perhaps in the English opening. Is that what the proposal is?

Natural Resources committee  Perhaps while—

Natural Resources committee  —committee continues, we can do some caucusing here among our Justice colleagues and perhaps reference CEAA 2012 to make sure there's a consistency. The aim here is to be consistent with CEAA 2012 and what's being provided for in the future for the board, so perhaps we could do

Natural Resources committee  This is a drafting omission, so it's ours in terms of missing something that we wanted to ensure. It is an “all of the above”. To the honourable member's question, proposed subsection 138.01(2) describes the physical activity in question and lays out four elements. The insertio

Natural Resources committee  I think I would say that I, like you and hopefully most Canadians, believe that the board, with their expertise and their reviews, is in the business of ensuring that risky projects don't go forward. So should and when a project proposal come forward for drilling in the Arctic, w

Natural Resources committee  I think we've testified on this point before. With regard to the $1-billion absolute liability amount, again, liability remains unlimited when a company is at fault or negligent. The difference between the two things is the amount of liability a company is responsible for if it i

Natural Resources committee  Our understanding of this particular provision is that proposed subsection 26(2.3) provides the Governor in Council with the ability to raise the absolute liability amounts. This is the clausing that perhaps ought to have been in the legislation when it was passed in the 1980s. I

Natural Resources committee  I'll start, and my colleague will find the exact numbers while I speak.

Natural Resources committee  We did a fair bit of work establishing and evaluating them, and I know that the committee heard us speak to this, but certainly the $1-billion absolute liability cap is really only the absolute without fault or negligence. Of course the damages that are due from any company who i

Natural Resources committee  Recognizing that does not necessarily mean there isn't the potential. The potential always exists, and that's the reason the cap is established and that there is an absolute liability amount. That amount is quite significant, and we expect that it motivates operators to be extrem

Natural Resources committee  I think the belief was that there would be the opportunity for the board and for members of the offshore Atlantic boards, because the bill does cover the offshore and the NEB's responsibilities beyond Atlantic Canada, to work with the community, to work with interested parties, a