Evidence of meeting #5 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nuclear.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Let me try to understand. In the French version of the bill, it says that that cannot take more than five years to do, and that it may be done prior. That is reassuring to know.
I am not understanding correctly. The French says "au moins tous les cinq ans", which means that the minister could change the amount after two years. If it says "à tous les cinq ans", the minister is limited.
I do not understand. I was pleased to see that the limit of liability could be reviewed, every year even.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I would make the same point, and I'll leave it at that. It seems strange to me that we would limit it to every five years. Mr. Boshcoff made a good point about the insurance conditions changing and being able to provide better conditions. Certainly I think it leaves the Governor in Council able to deal with that if we leave it the way it is now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Shall we go to the vote?
Mr. Bevington, do you have a final comment?
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I would just like to clarify my position on this. Sometimes we're not always so difficult to deal with in terms of the industry base. This gives surety to everyone that this is the process we're going to follow. It also puts weight on parliamentarians to ensure that when you do review it, you put it to a point where it would be appropriate for the next five years. I don't think any industry can feel comfortable with the liability limit constantly being changed through this process. If we can't set a liability limit for five years, where are we falling off in our work? I'd say this puts the onus on parliamentarians to ensure that every five years they set a limit that is rational and reasonable and that can carry forward.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I still don't know where Mr. Bevington is going on it, but I'm kind of comforted that any changes to limit liability wouldn't be made in an arbitrary fashion. There would certainly have to be good justification, good reason, to do such a thing. I see nothing wrong with having the option of more frequent reviews.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We've heard the discussion.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 22 agreed to)
(On clause 23--Obligation of operator)
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I have an amendment. I would insert the phrase, “or for each reactor, if in the case of a nuclear installation that generates electricity” between the words “nuclear material” and “financial security”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The clerk will read that back with the proposed amendment included.
December 4th, 2007 / 10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Go ahead. Read the whole clause with your proposed amendment in it, slowly, so that the translation can catch it.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
The amendment would read:
An operator shall maintain, for each of the operator’s nuclear installations that contains nuclear material, or for each reactor, if in the case of a nuclear installation that generates electricity, financial security in the amount referred to in subsection 21(1)
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We'll allow him to speak to it, as long as you understand what the proposed amendment is.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I'll have the clerk read it with the proposed amendment in there.
Yes, Madame.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Does the clerk know where she is going to put the proposed amendment? I cannot find the right place.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We're going to take a minute to discuss this, because we'll have to make sure we get that correct. I understand your concern.
We're having these amendments brought before us now without translation, so the best we can do is read this one again slowly and count on the interpreter's translation.
Joann Garbig Procedural Clerk
This is subclause 23(1). It would read:
An operator shall maintain, for each of the operator’s nuclear installations that contains nuclear material, or for each reactor, if in the case of a nuclear installation that generates electricity, financial security in the amount referred to in subsection 21(1)
Then it would continue.
Conservative
