Mr. Chair, yes, I would like to speak to PV-10.
Again, this is consistent with earlier efforts to amend the act, in this case returning to the discussion we had earlier of non-use values. In subclause 20(3) of C-22, in determining the amount of liability and proof of financial wherewithal to deal with potential damage, the National Energy Board is specifically directed:
When the National Energy Board determines an amount under subsection (1) or (2), the Board is not required to consider any potential loss of non-use value relating to a public resource that is affected by a spill or the authorized discharge....
My amendment is very straightforward. It alters the paragraph 180 degrees to say that as an affirmative responsibility, the National Energy Board is required to consider any potential loss of non-use value. This amendment also comes from the brief by Ecojustice and was presented as their fourth recommendation.
Under Bill C-22, we're asking that the industries that operate within these new liability limits have proof of financial resources to pay for damages up to the absolute liability. We're not requiring them to show that they have financial resources to deal with the potential for unlimited at-fault liability, which of course remains, as we've heard from the officials.
When you don't have to consider potential costs associated with environmental losses, or so-called non-use losses, damaged ecological systems, and so on, when determining whether they have the financial wherewithal to pay, you've left out a significant part of what the ultimate damages may be.
I think the effect of my amendment is clear. If the act is to be serious about suggesting there will be liability for non-use values, environmental values, and loss of cultural and traditional rights within the act, then we really should be removing the “not” that appears in subclause 3.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.