Evidence of meeting #19 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Quite simply, Mr. Bigras, you want the word “notamment” to be inserted. Correct?
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
It's not that complicated. I'm suggesting the word “notamment” be inserted between “d'argent” and “destinée”. How would “notamment” be translated?
Liberal
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Can I make the recommendation to our committee that we vote on proposed new paragraphs 27(1)(q) and (r) separately? There was considerable debate on Tuesday about (r). It would be my preference that we deal with one and then the other, if that's acceptable to the government, in the hopes of not losing both.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
My intention was to move the whole government G-2 amendment, which is, I hope, what I have been recorded to do.
I apologize for misapprehending the wording that Mr. Bigras was proposing. If it's “including” rather than “among other things”, I still accept that as a friendly amendment.
I propose that we vote on this as a whole, although I do recognize that the issue we discussed in relation to G-1 also applies in relation to G-2.
Liberal
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
If I understood it correctly, that it adds the word “including” after the words “educational institutional”, then yes.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
And if I understand correctly, we're voting on G-2 in its entirety.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
As amended.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 27 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 28)
We now have amendment G-3.1, which is on page 10.1.
Mr. Woodworth.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I will move that. I assume I'm not required to read the entire amendment, but I will move the amendment as it appears before us as G-3.1 on page 10.1.
I will speak in support of it to explain that what we are doing is adding a provision, which is now necessary because in Bill C-16 we have allowed the court to order an offender to compensate any person for the cost of remedial actions that are necessary as result of an offence, and also to pay an aggrieved person an amount by way of compensation or satisfaction for loss or damaged property, suffered by the person as a result of the offence.
In other words, we've imposed a kind of liability on the offenders and, as was discussed somewhat extensively with the shipping industry witnesses, when there are liabilities of that nature that are governed by international conventions, we have the Marine Liability Act or the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act to deal with those international conventions and to impose a specific code of liability on shippers to which those conventions apply.
What we are doing here is to say, in effect, that when a judge or court would be considering an order imposing such liability, where the international convention is applied through the Marine Liability Act or the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, we will exempt the offender and let those regimes apply instead.
In other words, we want to avoid any conflict between Bill C-16 and Canada's international obligations as enacted in the Marine Liability Act and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
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.
Liberal
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chairman, we have Gillian Grant here. She is legal counsel with the Department of Justice in Transport Canada and probably has the most expertise in relation to the Marine Liability Act. She may be able to help the member.
Gillian Grant Legal Counsel, Transport Canada, Department of Justice
The intent of the amendment here is to ensure that claims that can be made under the Marine Liability Act are excluded.
Legal Counsel, Transport Canada, Department of Justice
So your concern is that you feel that the word “may” is a little bit weak.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Anybody can file anything all the time, but they might not have a hope in heck because they don't meet the criteria. I'm not sure that's requiring the officers of the court to give sufficient information to the court in order to make a proper determination on whether or not these persons may or may not make a valid claim. Simply anybody can apply. In other words, what it's saying is there are these other damage funds, but it's not putting that together with the person who suffered the damage. I'm just wondering if it might make more sense to say “is entitled to make a claim”. It doesn't say that they actually have to have their claim paid, but at least it says they're entitled to make a claim. I'm presuming that under those conventions there are criteria for who can make application to have damages compensated.
I'm not trying to cause trouble. I'm just trying to make sure that the intent is covered by what the government is intending to do.
Legal Counsel, Transport Canada, Department of Justice
I think there are certainly criteria in the Marine Liability Act and in the convention about who can claim. I think what you suggest is acceptable.
