Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-15 of 120
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Natural Resources committee  We were relying on the federal government's regulation-making provisions being open and transparent.

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  It could be a person from Alberta who files a claim for compensation for headaches or something like that after seeing on television that an incident has occurred in New Brunswick. It's weird and it's not—

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  We thought of a lot of examples relating to incidents—

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  Is it clause 47 we're talking about?

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  If an incident occurred in the United States and damage was suffered in Canada, we wouldn't have a tribunal to handle the question. Only cases concerning incidents occurring in Canada are heard.

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  No, it's not 20%—

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  Just a second. Yes, you're correct.

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  That's correct. There is no increase in the liability. There's no increase. The liability is fixed at a maximum of $650 million. In effect, the government would not pay out $650 million because the private insurance would be covering an element of that--we would expect the majori

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  No, not really.

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  Within the $650 million, as I mentioned previously, there is an amount of federal funding that would be provided. For example, if the incident were caused by a terrorist action, then we understand, at this time, that 80% of all payouts would be covered by federal funds. So they w

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  The total amount is limited to $650 million, so even if it were all federal government moneys that were spent, the amount would not exceed $650 million. So moving the percentage from 20% to 40% would not increase the payout over $650 million.

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  Absolutely, but the interim payment would be based on the $650 million, and that's roughly just over $100 million. If Parliament should later decide to appropriate additional funds to cover the incident, the assumption would be that the tribunal would already be in place, so we'r

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

December 6th, 2007Committee meeting

Dave McCauley