Evidence of meeting #44 for Natural Resources 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.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The minister may enter into an agreement with insurers, for example, to deal with claims as they come in.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's correct. It gives the power to the minister to enter an agreement with an association, an insurer, or a person to carry out any of the functions associated with the payment of interim financial assistance. If the minister wants to pay financial assistance before the tribunal is up and running, then the minister can do so through an association of insurers.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I am trying to understand why the minister would want to do that. If the whole point of the tribunal is expediency and being able to get money out the door from the insurers, why is there this extra clause?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The tribunal isn't operating yet. There is a declaration, under clause 31, that the claims are to be dealt with by a tribunal, but before the tribunal is established, the minister wants to continue to make payments to victims. This provides that the minister can enter into an agreement with any association or person to pay those claims.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So I guess what's a little unusual is that the whole point of the tribunal is to establish some sort of fact and to hand out compensation, but this says that even before the tribunal has ruled on that compensation, the minister can also start handing out money.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The issue here is that there may be some who have suffered damage or hardship and you want to ensure that they are provided with compensation immediately. This allows that kind of interim financial assistance to be provided to victims.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So it might not be the total claim of that victim; it'll be some partial payment. The minister can issue the payment cheques.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
It could be. The point is, though, that—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay.
Is there anything further?
(Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to)
Clauses 37 and 38 will stand.
(On clause 39—Term of office)
Mr. Cullen.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I just worry about any political interference with this. The notion is that the tribunal will be set by the government, but then they can remove folks from the tribunal at their own discretion. The wording used in clause 39 is “may be removed for cause”.
How do we prevent the scenario that if the government just doesn't like the types of decisions a tribunal officer is making, they can simply say, “You're out, buddy”, and put somebody else in?
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
If I may, Mr. Chair...?
December 2nd, 2009 / 5:20 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
This language actually is the language that one uses in statutes to give maximum protection to tribunal members. In a sense, it's redundant, because it says that each member holds office “during good behaviour”, which means they can be removed only if they do something contrary, which would have to be established at a fair hearing and all of that. They could be removed only if they were to do something contrary to good behaviour, which would be that they were in a conflict-of-interest situation, or they did something wrong, or they did something unethical, something like that. It's a high standard, and it would have to be proved in any hearing. Then, the remainder of the sentence, “and may be removed for cause”, is actually the same thing. There has to be real cause.
Actually, it's saying it twice to be absolutely 100% clear: the people are appointed on “good behaviour”, not at pleasure, for instance, which would allow them to be removed for any reason at all. It's on “good behaviour” and only “removed for cause”.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So this is traditional language around the idea that the government has to make a very strong case to remove somebody from a tribunal.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
That's right. You can't get them out with a crowbar unless you can prove they really did something wrong.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You understand my concern. Because as it reads, if you're not a lawyer, it says, “Well, goodness, who decides what good behaviour is?” If the government chooses to deem somebody as not having good behaviour, they're gone.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Yes.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
This is the strongest language we have in legislation.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Is it? All right.
Thank you.
(Clause 39 agreed to)
(On clause 40—Immunity)
Conservative
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This essentially says that no member of the tribunal can be sued while there or after the fact, after the tribunal.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Again, this is standard language that you'll see in many statutes. It is to prevent them from being sued “for anything done or said in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of a power or in the performance or purported performance of a duty or function of the Tribunal”.
The only way they can be sued is if they're acting outside the scope of their duties, and that also brings in the notion of doing something that is really not appropriate. They can't be sued as long they're in “good behaviour”.