Natural Resources Committee on June 10th, 2014

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

The point is that the officials have said that you shouldn't have the word “if” there. Also, in my view, it doesn't make sense to have the “if” at the beginning of that phrase. It makes sense if you say.... I'll read it again. If you put it the way you're suggesting, it would read, “Those funds are to be used to compensate if the damage that is suffered occurs in the territory of a contracting state.”

That's not bad, but I think it would be better to say, “Those funds are to be used to compensate the damage that is suffered, if it occurs...”. I think that's a clearer wording.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

You want “if in (a) and if in (b)”?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

No. I'm simply saying that it would be better wording if your amendment said you were replacing line 32 on page 156 with the following, “the damage that is suffered, if it...”.

I wonder if the officials agree with me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Block—

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

No, I'm asking if the officials agree with me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

Go ahead and respond.

[Joanne Kellerman]

It would be grammatically correct in the English version.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is it agreed that we handle it like that, or shall we proceed with discussion on government amendment G-4 as it is?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

To say, “Those funds are to be used to compensate if the damage is suffered...”, the point is it's what they're compensating, right? The point is those funds are to be used to compensate the damage that is suffered. That's much better, much clearer. That's why you leave the “if it” until the end of that phrase, because you're compensating the damage that is suffered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We could have the clerk read this.

Go ahead and read it as Ms. Block has presented.

[Philippe Méla]

I could read the two versions from Ms. Block and Mr. Regan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Sure, let's do it that way, but read the way Ms. Block has it first.

[Philippe Méla]

I'm going to remove the first part as well, the “When”. It would read, “71.(1) When a call for public funds is made under subsection 72(1), those funds are to be used to compensate...if the damage that is suffered (a) occurs in the territory...”, and and then (b), (c), (d).

The second option would be, “71.(1) When a call for public funds is made under subsection 72(1), those funds are to be used to compensate...the damage that is suffered, if it” and then (a), (b), (c).

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

I like Mr. Regan's version.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. Is it agreed that we go with the second proposal read by the clerk, which was proposed by Mr. Regan?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Great. So amendment G-4 as modified by Mr. Regan's friendly amendment, passes.

We'll have a vote on G-4 as amended.

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

We now have amendment NDP-13.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

This amendment would give the minister the authority to review and if necessary repeal set liability limits in a timely manner.

This would allow a process involving an independent review in order to assess whether the limits of liability should be adjusted. We need a body independent of the department to consider whether it is appropriate to adjust those limits.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan, you have the floor.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, again, this is consistent with the majority of environmental statutes that have been passed by the federal government. Clearly this legislation deals with potential massive environmental and human impacts. It's only reasonable. The government, since first coming forward with these bills, each time has raised the liability, but in many people's perspective not high enough. We still don't know what the costs of Fukushima will ultimately be. Anything could happen in the next five to ten years. We think that it's reasonable, similar to other environmental statutes, that the minister be required to undertake an independent review of the statute and to cause a report to be tabled in the House based on whether or not we think that the changes as they're made suit public interest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will go to the vote on amendment NDP-13.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It will be a recorded division on amendment NDP-13.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That is defeated.

I will just note before we go to the vote on clause 120 as amended, that we will come back to government amendments G-1 and G-2 after we deal with schedule 4, which is coming up soon.

(Clause 120 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 121 to 128 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 129—Order in council)

On clause 129, there is a government amendment G-5.

Go ahead, please, Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

You have the amendment in front of you. I do not propose any changes to what has been circulated to you. We are amending clause 129. The reason would be that the wording in the bill ties Canada's contribution to supplemental compensation when the minister has determined that compensation exceeds the amount made available by the member country. This is incorrect as it should reference the amount made available by the member country when it ratifies the convention. This is similar to the discussion we've had.

This motion will reference Canada's contribution to supplemental compensation when the minister has determined that compensation exceeds the amount made available by the member country when it ratifies the convention.