I'm going to suggest a friendly amendment, but I'm going to suggest the amendment only after hearing from the government lawyers.
I understand what you're doing, and having heard from the marine folk, I think it's really important that we clearly recognize the international regime and the other compensation funds.
The part of the language that troubles me, and I'm open to being convinced that it's not an issue, is where it says that the other person “may make a claim”. Anybody can make a claim at any time, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to make a claim. I think it's incumbent upon the court to be assured by the crown that in fact the person to whom the court would have otherwise awarded damages is “entitled“ to make a claim.
In other words, I'm presuming there are criteria under those regimes for who is entitled to seek damages and who isn't. I'm wondering if it might be more appropriate to say “is entitled to make a claim”, as opposed to “may make a claim”. I'm a bit worried that it's so wide open. Anybody can make a claim, but they might not have any hope of ever having damages paid.
It worries me a bit. Perhaps I can be convinced that it's enough to give assurance, but it worries me, given what we heard from the witnesses two meetings ago.