Evidence of meeting #35 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was proposed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I understand that process. Canada has expressed its intent to ratify—
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
That's correct.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
—and it is doing that by legislating. Just so we are well informed when we're voting on it, I wonder if we could be provided the provisions wherein we're told that once we sign onto that international convention, we have agreed that we will not legislate a liability by suppliers and contractors.
General Counsel and Executive Director, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources
May I speak to that now, Mr. Chair?
General Counsel and Executive Director, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources
The convention that I am referring to is the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, which is the convention referred to in the definition section of the bill that is before the committee. I am referring to article 3, which is in the annex. It makes clear that the “operator of the nuclear installation shall be liable for nuclear damage upon proof that such damage has been caused by a nuclear incident...”. It's article 3 of the annex to the convention.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, that doesn't exclude suppliers. That simply imposes liability on the operator.
General Counsel and Executive Director, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources
Perhaps as a point of clarification, in the reference I made to international principles, I was also referring to the Vienna convention and the Paris convention, which are defined in the supplementary compensation convention.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you for that explanation.
Mr. Calkins, do you have further discussion on NDP-7?
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Perhaps Ms. Kellerman would be best posed to answer this question.
If we were to accept these amendments that have been proposed by the NDP to include suppliers, notwithstanding the fact that it would add a layer of potential confusion as to who would ultimately be responsible, which seems to be contrary to the bill.... If we actually signed on to these amendments and passed them, that would put our bill potentially in a conflict with the ratification of the convention. Would I have that correct?
General Counsel and Executive Director, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, that's correct.
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
A recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, this deals with two things. One is non-use value, as you can see in our proposed subparagraph 11.1(1)(iii), and it also deals with the issue of suppliers and contractors. I want to quote Ms. McClenaghan:
Both aspects of the bill channel supplier and contractor liability to the operator or the licence holder for that absolute liability portion, but only on the oil and gas side is liability ever possible against suppliers and contractors in their negligence. On the nuclear side, that's never possible.
The nuclear suppliers to that entire supply chain never have to consider the consequences of the decisions they are making around risk. On the nuclear side, as well as the oil and gas side, decisions are made every day around risk. In spite of the international conventions, I find that a persuasive argument, and therefore I have offered this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Regan, for that explanation.
Is there any further discussion on amendment LIB-4?
Then we go to the vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We go now to amendment PV-17.
Ms. May, go ahead, please.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment PV-17 inserts an entirely new and somewhat lengthy proposed subsection 11.1(1), which would extend the liability beyond operators to contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers.
Having been privileged to sit at this table as you've been going through clause-by-clause study, and having heard the explanations given by officials, I would echo what Linda Duncan has pointed out. The rationale has been that this is what other people do under international law. We didn't have that as evidence so far. We really have only been told that the current legislative framework leaves out operators. We're currently amending the legislative framework. No reason has been given to exclude suppliers and contractors in the nuclear sector when suppliers and contractors in the oil and gas sector are given the same treatment in terms of unlimited liability for fault or negligence.
My proposed amendment PV-17 would be:
11.1(1) Where damage...is caused by a nuclear incident...
(a) the operators or persons to whose fault or negligence the nuclear incident is attributable or who are by law responsible for others to whose fault or negligence the nuclear incident is attributable are jointly and severally liable, to the extent determined according to the degree of the fault or negligence proved against them, for
(i) the compensable damages described in sections 14 to 23 of the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, (ii) the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by....
The crown is also covered. The amendment continues:
(iii) all loss of non-use value related to a public resource...affected by a nuclear incident.
These are sensible amendments that carry through the thrust and purpose of the act as found in other parts of Bill C-22. I hope the committee will consider that this is where we set the legislative framework. With all due respect to our expert civil service representatives here at the table, I find the response to why subcontractors and suppliers in the nuclear industry are treated differently from those in the oil and gas sector essentially a tautology—they're not included because they're not included—but I don't find it persuasive as an explanation.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, it has occurred to me that for all these amendments we've dealt with—the NDP, the Liberal, and now Ms. May's, and going forward to the next amendment that you'll deal with from the NDP—we've had circumstances in which people have intentionally taken aircraft into installations, which has increased investment by government agencies around the world in electrical installations, nuclear installations, and so on. I find it incredible that under this bill there isn't any thought given to other persons who may cause, through intent or negligence.... We could simply have somebody flying an aircraft and not paying attention or whatever, or running out of gas and ramming into a nuclear installation. These various amendments allow for persons other than the operator to be held liable.
It seems logical that there would be some kind of broader provision in the bill to hold persons other than the operator of a nuclear facility...whether it's a waste management facility, a refining facility, or so on. You could have people breaking into a nuclear waste facility and stealing nuclear material. It just seems logical that if we can't specifically say “suppliers or contractors”, there should be some kind of mechanism to allow for the liability of other persons who cause harm through damage to nuclear facilities.
Conservative
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Chair, as was noted, this amendment is fairly similar to the one that was just defeated. Reference has been made to the one we will be looking at.
I would like to give the officials another opportunity to confirm for us again why we have chosen to draft the bill the way we have.