Evidence of meeting #6 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 clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is reference 3176594, which is to amend clause 62 by replacing lines 21 to 26 on page 17.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Bevington, could we have that up here, as well? We don't have it. Go ahead.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I've been told by my assistant that this has been ruled out of order, so I'll pass that one over.
(Clauses 62 to 64 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 65--Failure to maintain financial security )
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I believe everybody has that in front of them in both official languages.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thank you very much.
This would replace line 34 on page 18 with the following:
$1 million for each day in which the offence is
It increases the summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1 million from $300,000.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You have heard the amendment. Is there any discussion on the amendment?
(Amendment negatived)
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
May I be permitted to ask the officials a question about subclause 65(2). It's not an amendment. I'm just seeking clarification.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
If I could draw your attention, folks, to subclause 65(2), it is mandatory that the operator have insurance. That's clearly mandatory, but I'm a little concerned about the potential for wriggling out of that mandatory obligation: “No operator is to be found guilty of the offence” of not having insurance “if it is established that the operator exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.”
Surely we're not going to go down that slippery slope of the operator saying he got notice too late that his premium wasn't paid or that he did his best to maintain insurance or the notice was sent to the wrong address, or something weak and lame like that. I don't quite get subclause 65(2). If it's absolutely mandatory on the operator, why are we giving the operator a potential out by saying if you've done due diligence then you'll be absolved?
10:35 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Environment Canada, Department of Justice Canada
May I respond?
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Environment Canada, Department of Justice Canada
This establishes the failure to maintain financial security as a strict liability offence, and it was thought necessary to make this clear that it's not an absolute liability offence, because that is what we talk about in the rest of the bill, that the operator's absolutely liable.
10:35 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Environment Canada, Department of Justice Canada
In the case of the failure to maintain the financial security, we've clarified that is a strict liability offence for which the defence of due diligence is always available, and in the example that you gave, that would not meet the common law test of due diligence.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
But why isn't failing to maintain insurance an absolute liability offence?
10:35 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Environment Canada, Department of Justice Canada
It is far more normal in the statute book for offences to be strict liability. You see very few absolute liability offences. And so in this context the absolute liability of the operator, in the event of an accident, is quite exceptional in the rest of the bill, and it was thought necessary to make it clear that when we get to clause 65, we're back in the normal world of due diligence and strict liability.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
I don't want to debate it with you at length, but to me it rather dilutes the purpose of the bill, which is to impose the highest possible standard on operators of potentially dangerous sites, and we're diluting our emphasis on that point if we establish their non-failure as strict liability rather than absolute liability.
10:35 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Environment Canada, Department of Justice Canada
Yes. I can't comment on what the appropriate choice would be; I'm just explaining this was drafted to be consistent with related statutes, in particular the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, which similarly imposes strict liability on the operator and imposes similar penalty amounts.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, Mr. St. Amand? All right.
(Clauses 65 to 68 inclusive agreed to)
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We will now deal with clause 68.1, a new proposed clause.
Madame DeBellefeuille.
10:35 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When we read the bill, we were surprised at the content and scope of the regulations. We thought that, if the regulations were examined by parliamentarians, the decision-making process concerning the regulations would be more open, more transparent. It would also be possible to hear from witnesses who would appear on the subject. Other committees have done this in relation to other legislation. These regulations are very important. We see that, in the present circumstances, they are not minor.
The Bloc Québécois believes that it would be appropriate and good practice to take part in the debate and to examine the regulations under this bill together. There is an organization whose purpose is to draft regulations, but its role is more to see to the drafting than to the content of regulations.
I don't know what you think, Mr. McCauley, but it seems to me it would be reassuring for Quebeckers and Canadians to take part in the debate through their parliamentarians, their elected members, and to examine the regulations.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I'm not sure a response on that from the officials would be in line. While any comments you could make would certainly be welcome, it's more of a political decision, I think.
Go ahead. Do you have any comments on that?