Evidence of meeting #26 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sgro.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay, there doesn't seem to be any more discussion.
(Motion negatived)
Okay, I've done a little bit of math, and it looks like we'll go four minutes, with the opposition starting first, and the government may get some time after that, so share it as you wish.
Mr. Côté, you have four minutes.
You may ask questions of those who have already given their opening remarks.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We really do not have a lot of time.
My thanks to the witnesses for their participation.
Mr. Chair, I am going to try to focus my time so that I can make some available to my colleague, Mr. Atamanenko, so that he can ask a question.
My question goes to the representative from the National Research Council.
I gather that you conduct research into the safety and the quality of materials. Could studying work and safety protocols be part of your mandate? With some spills, especially major ones, like the serious one into the Kalamazoo River, we were able to see that the human element played a significant role.
Is that something you could consider?
3:40 p.m.
John R. McDougall President, National Research Council of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Côté.
The NRC's responsibility is to undertake research largely of a technical nature.
In the case of issues where there has been a spill and we're trying to assess the nature of the material spilled, the mechanisms that might be used for environmental remediation and cleanup or containment, even for identifying the possibilities, and so on, we would develop technology to do it.
Our job would not include the particular protocols that the companies might apply in terms of using technology. They would more likely relate to organizations like the Transportation Safety Board or others to sort out whether their approaches are rational and appropriate for the safety level that's desired.
June 11th, 2014 / 3:45 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you very much.
I give the rest of my time to Mr. Atamanenko.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Thank you, Mr. Côté.
Thanks, gentlemen, for being here.
I'm not sure who would be best to address this question. When I was in northwestern British Columbia a couple of years ago, and of course talking about a northern gateway pipeline—and the debate on the tanker traffic, but that's another day and another place—people had concerns about the pipeline going through the mountain terrain. Would it withstand avalanches? Would it withstand landslides? Would a pipeline like this be above ground? It probably would be because it would be kind of hard to put it underground.
Are there similar areas in North America where pipelines go through, and if so, what are we looking at as far as accident rates are concerned? I know there were 11 pipeline accidents in 2013. That's the concern of those people who don't want that pipeline going through that area. I'm just wondering how justified that is.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Jean Laporte Chief Operating Officer, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
From the TSB perspective, we are not responsible to look into the design and construction of new pipelines. The National Energy Board would have to approve the design and construction of any new pipelines. That would include the specifications that apply for mountainous terrain and the environmental considerations and geotechnical considerations are all factored in.
The companies would have to present their designs, and get those approved. The construction would be inspected and approved by the NEB before they would be allowed to operate any pipeline.
The National Energy Board would be the best organization to provide you with details of how they would do that, and the extent of their review and approvals.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you very much to the witnesses.
Colleagues, I apologize. My math wasn't all that good. I looked when the notice came out and anyway, the bells are ringing now, and we're at a remote location. Regrettably, that means that by the time we vote, etc., and try to get back here, I think it calls for the meeting to be adjourned. We'll try to make up some time again.
I know that our witnesses are very busy. We've already had them twice. I would hope that if there is any flexibility in your schedule, we might be able to have you back once more.
We are adjourned.