Natural Resources committee  I'm aware that Canada has not suffered the same catastrophic type of spill that Australia and the United States or Mexico have. However, it is not a stretch for anybody to anticipate that one could occur, especially if we're drilling in the deep water off the coast of Newfoundlan

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

Natural Resources committee  That is the same question that officials from Mr. Oliver’s office and Prime Minister Harper’s office asked us a year ago. There is no good answer to that question. In our opinion, the only way to apply the polluter pays principle is to have no limit. If you pick a number, it coul

Natural Resources committee  Low probability, high consequence, and I think it's interesting to note that, yes—

Natural Resources committee  I don't think it's fair to attach a number to it, and industry typically does try to do this, one in x number of thousand wells drilled, etc.

Natural Resources committee  I don't know them offhand here. What is reality is back in 2009, when the offshore industry was seeking to have the National Energy Board dispense with the same-season relief well requirement, at that very time the Deepwater Horizon incident occurred and the Montara incident occ

Natural Resources committee  The risk of an offshore spill in Canada would be calculated looking at all different.... It's a global industry and it would be best done by looking across jurisdictions, as industry does itself.

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  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  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  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