Natural Resources committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all of the members. I appreciate the opportunity again. This is an important issue, and I'm very happy that we have legislation on the floor of the House. This is long overdue, but I'm very glad that we've reached this stage. I'm with Ecojusti

Natural Resources committee  There are other jurisdictions with unlimited absolute liability. Norway offers the prime example. I think, to be fair, that there is a distinction to be drawn, because Norway's oil and gas industry is a crown corporation, with Statoil engaged. There are distinctions to be drawn.

Natural Resources committee  For me, what isn't commensurate is the notion that the foundation of the legislation would be the polluter pays principle, but then on the other hand, the only guaranteed payment pursuant to this legislation would be the absolute liability of one billion dollars. Thereafter, faul

Natural Resources committee  I'll give you four. First, remove the $1 billion cap on absolute liability in accordance with the polluter pays principle. That's proposed subsection 26(2.2). Second, and I haven't mentioned this so I'll put special emphasis on it, eliminate the discretion of the Minister of

Natural Resources committee  I think the critical point to make here is that there is a certain kind of drilling where it's better for companies to be self-insured, and where the only way Canadians can trust that we should move forward with any drilling is if they're able to pay themselves. If there are smal

Natural Resources committee  My understanding is that with shallower water drilling, which is less dangerous, less technical, those are circumstances where smaller companies or mid-size companies are more easily able to participate because the challenges are less serious. However, as many of us know, Chevron

Natural Resources committee  Whether they pursue it or not would be a business decision. However, I think they would be less constrained by the question of affordability of insurance because they would simply be looking to their own resources. I think it's simply a matter of looking at whether or not a compa

Natural Resources committee  Ecojustice was consulted by Natural Resources Canada, and was invited, along with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, to a closed-door session, in October 2012, if I recall, along with representatives of the regulators and the offshore industry, including contractors, not

Natural Resources committee  Yes, we provided a number of recommendations that are consistent with those we've provided today.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, for example, the inclusion of the polluter pays principle. That's an important inclusion. It was included in the preamble. It could have been included in the purpose or objectives of the act. That would have been preferable. Also, the issue of non-use damages or non-use va

Natural Resources committee  The new limit is better than it was previously. Obviously $1 billion is more than $40 million, but in light of recent catastrophic incidents and in light of the fact that the government now acknowledges that non-use damages can be claimed, that is an insignificant amount in the g

Natural Resources committee  The liability regime for offshore spills has always been characterized by having unlimited at-fault or unlimited fault-based liability. That's nothing new. That wasn't the issue before and nor is it the issue now. I'm struggling to find the appropriate analogy. I'll simply say t

Natural Resources committee  The goal of any extracontractual liability regime is to make sure that an operator’s actions in terms of prevention are at the highest possible level and to make sure that the company itself, not the Crown or the taxpayers, assumes the clear risks. Certainly, when a regime is bas

Natural Resources committee  If you're asking me, should the Canadian taxpayer welcome the shouldering of some burden of a catastrophic spill as a form of thank you for many years of royalties and jobs created, I'd say no.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, I think that is a reasonable conclusion. I imagine that Mr. Barnes would also like to comment on that. When absolute liability limits increase, the costs of insurance increase too. The government has clearly chosen to limit absolute liability, reasoning that the costs for t