It's okay.
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.
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.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
For us, if I understand Madame Brunelle's question correctly, there's a notion around any changes in the CPI, the consumer price index for Canada, and paragraph (b) is trying to understand...as we've heard from witnesses around the nuclear liability limit in other jurisdictions, there has been confusion and different numbers have been quoted to the committee as to what other countries hold. This is trying to say that that liability limit should be part of what we understand is happening when we set our own limits for our industry, essentially.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
When you look at the last part of this subclause (b), which says “under international agreements respecting nuclear liability”, that would now apply to the words “and nuclear liability limits in other countries”. I guess I want to make sure Mr. Anderson hears this. It would say “and nuclear liability limits in other countries under international agreements respecting nuclear liability”.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
But the point is this. Isn't it right after “requirements”, or is it at the end of paragraph (b)? Is it after the word “liability”? I thought it was inserted after the word “requirements”.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, “and nuclear liability limits in other countries and under”—
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Could you please reread paragraph (b), as it has just been amended?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. I'll read it:
financial security and nuclear liability limits in other countries and under international agreements
Or is it “in”?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
You left out the word “requirements”, Mr. Chairman. Did you want to try that again? I think you left out the word “requirements”.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
December 2nd, 2009 / 4:15 p.m.
Wayne Cole Procedural Clerk
Just to be sure, for the report, it would be:
financial security requirements and nuclear liability limits in other countries and under international agreements respecting nuclear liability; and
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You've all heard the amendment proposed. Is it agreed?
(Amendment agreed to)
Okay, paragraph 22(2)(b) has been amended.
Yes, Mr. Anderson.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I would suggest we set aside clause 22 and go on to the clauses that do not have amendments on them, with the caveats Mr. Cullen mentioned.
(Clause 22 allowed to stand)
(Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to)
(On clause 20—Damage to means of transport)
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a question to our witnesses about clause 20. Clause 20 deals with a nuclear accident that happens during the transportation of radioactive material. The question is around whether there is any consideration given to who is transporting the material. If it's the actual provider—the industry itself—doing the transportation, does it affect clause 20 at all?
