Evidence of meeting #54 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was may.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I want to point out that certainly municipalities are recognized in the Constitution. They're an entity that's recognized in section 92 as being under the jurisdiction of provincial governments. The meaning of them is quite clear in this country, so I don't see a problem in terms of the meaning of what a municipality is.
It's not 100% clear to me that a province could recover under this legislation a loss to a municipality and I don't see how it would hurt to add that word to this provision.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes, Mr. Chair.
In the testimony we had in the written submission from Martin Olszynski from the University of Calgary Law School, he raised this issue of not including municipalities and gave a number of very cogent arguments.
First, he stated that even though this ability exists in a lot of legislation, there's never been a case in which the federal government has actually sought this reimbursement. He raised the case of Lac-Mégantic. That, of course, was an explosion of a rail car, but it could have been an explosion of a pipeline. It was Mégantic that was having to deal with reparations to its town. They can, of course, turn to the federal or provincial government hoping they might help to meet those expenses, but municipalities face their own expenses. So the case was made by that legal scholar that it would be appropriate to add “municipalities”.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Perkins Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON
I'm sorry to interject, but this is a very conflicted area when you get into municipal politics. Who they have to ask for things sometimes appears muddy, but when you have a disaster of any kind—there was the ice storm, for example, and so on—there's usually a formula that comes down from the federal government to the provincial government, and the municipalities then apply through that fund.
I'd just like some clarity. Is that how this would be applied, if there were a situation in which there was some sort of issue whereby the municipalities needed to find a way to make themselves whole again? Is what we're talking about that the federal government would provide an avenue through the provincial government and the municipality would apply, similar to the case after the ice storm?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
So for clarity, you're asking how it would apply before Ms. Duncan's subamendment?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
She can only speak to the subamendment because we're debating the subamendment right now.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Perkins Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON
—what you're asking and what exists. That's what I need the clarity on.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
This is the beginning of the liability section of the bill. Essentially, this section sets out that the polluter pays. Those who are at fault or are negligent for a release, an unintended release, would be responsible for actual loss and economic loss, if you will, the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by Her Majesty and by the province and the aboriginal governing body, which was the amendment. The inclusion of the new amendment would extend that to municipalities, and then there's loss of non-use value. This would be the avenue by which a claimant would pursue a loss or damages—in this case, expenses—and a court would determine the applicability of those things.
I don't believe, in my understanding—and again, it's a policy understanding as opposed to a legal understanding, so my deficiencies are here before you—that it would preclude a province from recognizing this, as I think was the case with Lac-Mégantic, where the province and the federal government worked together to establish how to deal with the impacts and costs associated with not only the cleanup but also those things that were going on. Then, of course, there were civil and other aspects that were pursued. I don't believe that, as proposed, without “municipality“ it precludes.... I'm not certain about adding it and what that might mean in the broader context.
This is the broadest aspect of the liability aspect, and then it kind of narrows in the different sub-provisions that follow and spells out other specific details, whether they're absolute liability or whether there are any limitations to that liability.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It's my understanding in the rules of legislative interpretation—and perhaps the government lawyers at the table and the legislative clerk could speak to that—that when you become specific in a provision, you then take away the general. The government has chosen to be specific and say “Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province” and then “or any other person”.
I think then it could be argued that you would be excluding a municipality because of the way that is drafted. If it simply said “any person may”, that would include the governments. By nature, the way the government has chosen to draft this, I think it then necessitates that you have to add in “others orders of government”, which would include municipalities and aboriginal authorities.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm in a sort of limbo situation as I'm not a member of the committee, but this is my amendment, so I just wanted to put on the record that I find Linda Duncan's amendment friendly. I think she's also further fortified the argument for why the main amendment should carry, which is that when you list the province, list the federal government, and list a person, you could be excluding a first nation and a municipality. I appreciate the amendment.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. We'll go to the vote, then, on Ms. Duncan's subamendment.
(Subamendment negatived)
Now we we go to the amendment, to PV-7, to be specific.
Are we ready for the vote on that?
4:10 p.m.
NDP
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:10 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
In four years of putting forward amendments, Mr. Chair, this is a first. Thank you very much to my friends across the way. Thank you.
