Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[Dave McCauley]

It would be the same as an incident anywhere in Canada, whether it was in a factory near Toronto, or in Alberta in a ...

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

The oil companies could claim...

[Dave McCauley]

If an incident happened, and the $650 million amount were exceeded, the government would set up a tribunal to determine compensation. However, the government would also have to report to Parliament which would decide if additional funds were needed to compensate the victims.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

That could be the oil companies, the companies working in...

[Dave McCauley]

All the victims.

But the specific facility, the power station, for example, is not covered. The costs of damages would not be covered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

I think we're finished the list on clause 21.

(Clause 21 agreed to)

(On clause 22--Review by the Minister)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I have a question with respect to the role of the tribunal. Is it anticipated in subclause 22(2) that the tribunal would have any role whatsoever in making recommendations to the government, based on experience, during the process of the implementation of this bill?

[Dave McCauley]

No, the tribunal comes into force only in the event of a serious accident if it's considered to be in the public interest to establish the tribunal. In the situation described in clause 22, when it would be the minister making a decision on whether to recommend that the liability amount be increased, the tribunal probably would not exist at that time. This is a five-year review that the minister has to carry out.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I see.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I was looking at a deletion here. Delete “on a regular basis, and at least once”, between “21(1)” and “every five years”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So in subclause 22(1) you would delete everything in the second line after the number 21(1)?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It would be everything between “21(1)” and “every five years”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

You'd delete “on a regular basis, and at least once”. So it would end up being “every five years”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Very good.

Does everyone understand? We're taking out the words in subclause 22(1) starting in the second line, “on a regular basis, and at least once”. Those are the words we would be removing.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I'm sorry, I just want to clarify that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

In subclause 22(1), Mr. Bevington's proposed amendment would remove all the words “on a regular basis, and at least once”. Those words would be removed.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

So it would be every five years. What would the clause say?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It would say, “The Minister shall review the limit of liability, referred to in subsection 21(1), every five years.”

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

But in fact that reduces the number of reviews.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's the proposal.

Mr. Harris, go ahead.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'm surprised, actually, at Mr. Bevington's suggestion, because on the one hand he has concern that possibly we should be watching this and paying more attention to it and being concerned about the safety. This would limit us to looking at it only every five years, notwithstanding the fact that it might be the opinion of the authorities that we should have a look at it in a particular case two years from now or three years or four years. I don't understand your reasoning behind this.

I think “at least once every five years” gives the government authorities the option to look at it on a more frequent basis than that, and I think that's kind of good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Madame DeBellefeuille.