Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[Dave McCauley]

Yes. The concern about leaving the clause open-ended was that some could put forward any kind of proposal to remediate environmental damage when perhaps it was a question of degrees and might be something that a competent authority, such as a ministry of the environment, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, etc., would not require. Remediation measures would not be significant, and that's why this provision was added into the clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Are there any further comments on the proposed amendment?

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Once again, we feel this closes down the opportunities for compensation. As this act is designed to protect citizens from incidents, we think this amendment would open it up to a point where it gives greater protection to the citizens in the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll go to Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

My concern, and perhaps the officials can alleviate the concern, is the potential time lag. If measures have to be taken immediately by an individual or a corporation prior to any authority sanctioning the measures, and if the measures are appropriate, then from my reading of it, as it's now phrased, the individual could not be compensated because the remedial measures would not have been authorized or sanctioned by an authority.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Do we have any comments from the officials?

Go ahead, Mr. McCauley.

[Dave McCauley]

If there was damage to property, certainly, that damage would be compensated for. We're talking about damage to the environment here, for example, perhaps to provincial or national parks, and so on. Our view was that it would be left to a competent authority to determine the extent of the damage and whether that damage had to be mitigated or remediated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll go to Mr. Harris.

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

Actually, that's the explanation I was going to be looking for. It's very clear that it is the authorities, as described, that would best be able to determine the extent of the remediation needed to comply with environmental and other safety rules. Is that correct?

[Dave McCauley]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Are we ready for the question on Mr. Bevington's proposed amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clauses 17 to 20 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 21--Limit of operator’s liability)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We do have at least one amendment to clause 21, I believe.

Go ahead, Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

On a point of order, Mr. Tonks.

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

Can I get a clarification, or could the committee get a clarification, should it require it? I think the committee should be aware of what the procedural issues are here. Are we procedurally in order making additions to these clauses? I just don't know whether the Speaker had ruled at some point that if the committee reports out and there's an addition to an item, the terms of reference would preclude the committee from making that recommendation. Could we get clarification on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

On what, specifically, do you want clarification?

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

I want it on the bulk amount. If, for example, the committee decided that $650 million wasn't the indemnification that was appropriate--say we said it had to be $2 billion--first of all, can we do that? And second, what are the implications for some of the clauses if we increase indemnification, either personal or institutional?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's a good question, Mr. Tonks. I just want to confer here.

Mr. Tonks, before we get into this discussion, we haven't had a motion to amend. It hasn't been made yet. Can we have the motion before the committee? If the New Democrat member, Mr. Bevington, wishes to move it, then we'll have the discussion on it.

Go ahead, Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes, I'll go ahead and move that Bill C-5 in clause 21 be amended by adding, after line 39 on page 6, the following:

(1.1) If an operator fails to prove that a nuclear incident was not caused by the operator's negligence, the liability limit referred to subsection (1) is increased to three times that amount.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I have had a discussion with the clerk on this. She is of the opinion, and I agree with it, that because this could involve an increase in spending where a royal recommendation is involved--it would alter the amounts--this motion is out of order.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

If I could just speak to that, the crown is not under any obligation for expenditures here. This is increasing the liability on the company. There's no requirement for royal recommendation on this particular item. I'd like an explanation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I've made a ruling on this. Do we really want to get into a discussion on the ruling?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

On a point of order, Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'd like to point out that the chair's rulings are not debatable. You can challenge the chair or not, but they're not debatable, as I understand it.