Shall we vote on it anyway?
Evidence of meeting #35 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was proposed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #35 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was proposed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It's fun for me to watch my amendments go down to ritual slaughter. I enjoy the process enormously.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Shall proposed amendment PV-5 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 16 carry?
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Avec dissidence.
(Clauses 16 to 18 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 19)
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We have proposed amendment PV-6 by Ms. May.
Ms. May, you can speak to that, if you'd like.
9:20 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're moving to a different set of concerns.
I think a number of witnesses appeared before the committee who spoke to the fact that the $1-billion cap on absolute liability is too low, that we can look at a number of recent disasters in the oil and gas sector with such things as Deepwater Horizon and its catastrophic costs to the U.S. economy, what it cost them to pay for the cleanup. It was far above $1 billion.
In terms of nuclear liability and nuclear accidents, we know that $1 billion wouldn't begin to cover the Canadian equivalent of something like Fukushima, should we ever have the misfortune of having it occur here. With the principle of polluter pays, which is stronger in this bill on the oil and gas side than it is on the nuclear side, what we're attempting to do in amendment PV-6 through replacing the lines as outlined in the amendment is to remove the $1-billion cap on absolute liability so the polluter will be dealing with what the costs really are, and not putting the costs of cleanup from these accidents onto the general revenues of the Government of Canada, and therefore the taxpayer. The industry itself would bear the cost of an accident.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on that?
Ms. Crockatt.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Joan Crockatt Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, it's regrettable that Ms. May wasn't here for some of the testimony that we heard, but I'm hoping that the officials could recap the average spill so we understand the kind of risk management we're looking at in Canada.
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
I'll start, and my colleague will find the exact numbers while I speak.
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
We did a fair bit of work establishing and evaluating them, and I know that the committee heard us speak to this, but certainly the $1-billion absolute liability cap is really only the absolute without fault or negligence. Of course the damages that are due from any company who is at fault or negligent are unlimited and continue to be unlimited, consistent with the polluter pay principle.
The focus on the absolute liability is really for the amount that's considered without fault or negligence. In that particular instance the $1-billion amount for Canada would be quite consistent with, if not among, the highest in the world. The other countries that are of a similar nature and have a similar offshore regime have much smaller amounts and use strict liability. Some, like Australia, have neither.
In the instance of our offshore, thankfully we only have a number of projects. The projects have been developed by fairly large operators that have safe and very effective regimes in which they operate. We've only had a limited number of incidents in which there's been a release of oil into the environment. I think the largest one was—
June 10th, 2014 / 9:20 a.m.
Tyler Cummings Deputy Director, Frontier Lands Management Division, Petroleum Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The largest spill in Canadian history was 1,000 barrels of oil.
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Recognizing that does not necessarily mean there isn't the potential. The potential always exists, and that's the reason the cap is established and that there is an absolute liability amount. That amount is quite significant, and we expect that it motivates operators to be extremely safe and to continue to drive at ensuring that their operations are appropriate for the environment and for the safety of the workers. I think that's the context of how we've established the amount. It's one in which we recognize that Canada operates within a global context, and it's one in which we have to be consistent. It's one in which we have a rigorous regime, and it's benchmarked among the best in the world.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you.
If there's no further discussion on that, we'll go to the vote on PV-6.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We also have amendment NDP-2 under clause 19, proposed subsections (2.31) and (2.32).
Ms. Moore, would you like to speak to that, please?
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
If I can summarize this amendment, it gives the National Energy Board the power to conduct risk assessment with every authorization, and if it's determined to be necessary, it can raise the liability limit for specific projects.
As we have seen, some projects may well have higher risks and costs. This could be the case for projects in the Arctic, for example. That is why I believe we have to keep the door open for some projects. We have to be able to increase this liability limit. I feel that it is perfectly appropriate to keep the door open. In the future, we may receive proposals for projects that involve major risks and I feel that we must be able to adjust the liability limit to a reasonable amount.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, merci.
You've heard the proposal, and I believe Ms. Duncan would be next.
Go ahead, please, Ms. Duncan.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, I listened to the officials' arguments about the previous amendment. I think it's important that we understand it's not just the volume of the spill that is of significance in the capability of recovery or the potential damage—
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Conservative