On another basis?
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.
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Yes, because in new clause 27.1, you're...
Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, I wonder about the rules of debate once a motion has been ruled out of order. We seem to be focused here on one or two of these things. I wonder if we could move on.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Yes. I was giving latitude because he was asking in terms of other amendments in the future.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
It has been ruled out of order. Can we move along?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I do think we should move along. Amendment NDP-3 is out of order.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Of course, that has the same problem. It's raising the liability level to $1 billion from $650 million. There are the same arguments.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Yes, amendment NDP-4 is out of order.
Amendment NDP-5, though, is in order, Mr. Cullen, if you would like to go there.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm taking you there, Alan.
I'm just so overwhelmed with a motion that is in order. This is exciting.
Conservative
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is an amendment to clause 21. It would add a new subsection reading:
(1.1) If a nuclear incident occurs and the operator fails to prove that the incident was not caused by its negligence, the liability limit referred to in subsection (1) is increased to three times that amount, and any compensation that is payable as a result of the incident shall not be provided for out of the Nuclear Liability Reinsurance Account.
This came from some of the testimony we heard, particularly from John Walker, counsel with the NIAC, that liability for accidents caused by negligence is normally unlimited. We got into this in some of the testimony with our witnesses, that if negligence is proven... Having limited liability always seems like a strange phenomenon in Canadian law. If it is proven that someone made a grave error that caused the accident, also affording them limited liability is a special provision that exists nowhere else.
This is very much like when we first moved—and allow the stretch here—to allow workers' compensation to exist. Up until the moment that companies could feel on their balance sheets the effects of having unsafe work environments, it was very difficult for them to change practices. When owners of companies were able to identity that there was a cost to having unsafe work places, they started to have regulations and improvements in the way their facilities were set up.
This is similar, to say that there must be some cognizance that if negligence occurs—and this only says if it's “proven”, not speculation—then certainly affording a limited liability gives protection to a company when it might not be deserved.
This is all about the negligence component, and I think it is one of those things that we have to build into the cost of doing the work. So I move amendment NDP-5.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Anderson, you have some comments on this.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Yes, I have just a quick comment.
The first thing that strikes me is that this actually assumes negligence and forces the operator, if an incident takes place, to prove it is not negligent. I don't think we can assume negligence. The other point of the bill, its basic principle, is that the operator is absolutely liable for damages. That's the point of the entire bill, and I would say that this works against the basic principle of the bill and against the purpose of the act as it stands.
So we have to oppose this. I appreciate Mr. Cullen's efforts here; however, the amendment works against the basic principle of the bill.
Conservative
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
I would like to know what Mr. Cullen thinks about this. If the liability limit referred to in subsection (1) goes to three times the amount specified there, is there not a danger that the operator will just declare bankruptcy and pay absolutely nothing because we cannot take the money from the Nuclear Liability Reinsurance Account? I suppose that it is hypothetical.
