Evidence of meeting #45 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 tribunal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
A recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
(Clause 21 agreed to on division)
(On Clause 22--Review by the Minister)
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
December 7th, 2009 / 5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We dealt with NDP-6 before.
Mr. Cullen, would you like to move the amendment?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes. There's been some discussion between us and the government about a modified version of this. I wonder if Mr. Anderson wants to read it into the record for committee members.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I can read it into the record. We have copies for everyone and we'll hand them out.
We're suggesting that Mr. Cullen withdraw his amendment on clause 22. We instead suggest clause 68.1, which reads:
The first review under section 22 must be completed within 15 months after the day on which this act comes into force.
I think your text may say 18 months, but we've negotiated it to 15 months. There are a couple of reasons why we suggest this. One is that the redraft here really clears up any ambiguity. If you look at the original amendment, I think you'll find it's a bit confusing. The redraft gives more time to get this done. It needs to be done at the end of 18 months, but the original one seemed to indicate that you could take three months to do it. If we're going to do one, we'd like to do a proper review.
Second, putting it at the end of the bill is typical of what's going on with legislation now. It's done for technical considerations. The provision will be spent at the completion of the first review. I'm told that the modern drafting practice is to draft transitional provisions and place them at the end of the bill. When the provision is spent after the first review, the transitional provision no longer appears in the electronic version. So once the review is carried out it is deleted from the bill and doesn't show up there.
That's what we're suggesting. I think we have agreement from Mr. Cullen to consider this and support it.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
So you are withdrawing NDP-7 in favour of this amendment.
We will then go to any further discussion on this proposed amendment.
Mr. Cullen.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thanks to the parliamentary secretary for working on this amendment.
Just so folks have an understanding of what this is about before we get to a vote, as I indicated in my previous comments, this bill has some age on it and there's a need to have a review of where we're setting these limits and the exposure to Canadians. The question is also that the sale or reorganization--whatever you want to call it--of AECL is in the mix.
We believe that if this bill were to come into law, just under a year and a half later it would get reviewed. You'll see in a subsequent amendment the direction of that review. But with so much moving in the nuclear industry, in Canada in particular, but also globally, it seems necessary to have a first review quite expediently and make sure the assumptions that were made by committee members here and in the House eventually still hold correct. As you've noted, I have some doubts about liability regimes, limits, and compensation.
Again, I appreciate the work of the parliamentary secretary to make this amendment clearer and more precise for the committee.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I believe that Mr. Cullen has withdrawn his amendment, so I don't know if we need to vote on this amendment. He has a second amendment for clause 22, right?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Are we in the right place to vote on this, since this is clause 68.1? We're voting on amendments to clause 22. We could probably agree unanimously to adopt clause 68.1.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Can we go that way to make it easier? Can we agree unanimously to adopt clause 68.1?
5:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
(Clause 68.1 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It is adopted. The amendment carries.
Thank you, that was great advice...every now and again.
Now we will vote on amendment NDP-8 on clause 22.
Do you want to move this amendment, Mr. Cullen?
Madame Brunelle.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think we have a similar circumstance to the previous amendment. I'll maybe pass to Mr. Anderson for an explanation.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are going to make a suggested amendment to clause 22 here as well. Has everyone been handed the copies?
5:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Okay. We do have copies, and we can hand them out.
There are a couple of reasons for this. One reason is that we're talking about the review. We are making the assumption that the redraft provision will allow the public consultation to consider any matters discussed in the review that have an impact on setting liability limits.
Secondly, Mr. Cullen's original amendment only referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources. There are committees in the other house that may be interested in this, so our changes will take that into consideration. I'll read it in.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Does everyone has the proposed amendment in front of them now?
Go ahead, Mr. Anderson. I think everyone has one.
