Evidence of meeting #51 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pipelines.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jeff Labonté  Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Joseph McHattie  Legal Counsel, Department of Natural Resources
Terence Hubbard  Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Rémi Bourgault

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Good afternoon, everyone. It's good to be here today.

We're here today to start our study on the pipeline safety act, which is Bill C-46, officially called an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act.

We had agreed to have three meetings plus the clause-by-clause consideration on this piece of legislation. Our first meeting today is with officials. Our second meeting will be with members of the National Energy Board. Our third meeting, an extended meeting, will be with witnesses from the industry as presented by our members. After that we will go to clause-by-clause.

Before I get to that, there are a couple of things that I really should deal with. The first is the budget for this study. You've all received a copy of it. The amount requested in $6,700. Of course, we only spend that if it's required.

I'd just ask the committee for their agreement to approve that budget. Is it agreed?

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Second, you all received an invitation to a meeting at noon today. It was an informal meeting of the Turkish delegation from the natural resources sector, including some business people—

3:30 p.m.

An hon. member

I didn't get that.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Yes, you should have. I know it went to all members of the committee.

At any rate, I chatted with some of you earlier about this, two weeks or a week and a half ago, when I found out about it. We did have the meeting, and it was a very good meeting with a large group of Turkish officials and business people discussing natural resources. The meeting was at noon today, so we did provide a lunch. The lunch was about $600.

I'd just like to get approval from this committee to pay for that lunch.

Go ahead, please, Monsieur Caron.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

I don't have any problems with it, but I just checked with my colleagues, and we didn't receive an invitation. You might want to check the original email just to ensure that you have the correct addresses.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

We actually have it right here. It has you all listed on it.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Can I take a look?

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Yes.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Joan Crockatt Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

[Inaudible--Editor]...he was hunting for players.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

I was really trying to get people to come out, too, so that we had a good contingent of members of Parliament.

Probably discussing it with your staff would be in line. I know how it is; we get to be so busy, and there's so much coming at us at once.

Is it agreed that we pay for that lunch from our budget as well?

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Ms. Block, did you have something else?

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

No. Judging by the opposition's reaction, I just thought maybe you would want to confirm that you did in fact send the email.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Yes.

Very good. Let's get to the meeting.

Today we have officials from the Department of Natural Resources who are no strangers to this committee: Jeff Labonté, director general, energy safety and security branch, energy sector; Terence Hubbard, director general, petroleum resources branch, energy sector; Joseph McHattie, legal counsel; and Christine Siminowski, director, energy safety and security branch, energy sector.

Welcome to all of you. We are looking forward to the presentation, after which, as usual, we'll go immediately to questions or comments from the members on this legislation.

Please go ahead with your presentation as you see fit.

3:35 p.m.

Jeff Labonté Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, committee members, for the opportunity to come to speak to you about this particular piece of legislation which is in the House and which I think has received a fair degree of good debate and discussion. We welcome the chance to hopefully address any questions and comments you might have, and if we're not able to do so today in person, we'll do so in writing if we have to afterwards.

I have a brief set of remarks that will probably take about two minutes to run through, and then there's a PowerPoint presentation. I think it's in all of the binders, and we've had extra copies distributed. I'll probably just focus on a few highlights to leave as much time as possible for comments and questions. I recognize that some of you participated in the briefing that we had earlier in the year in anticipation of today.

First of all, I'd like to welcome my colleagues and acknowledge their participation and expertise.

Through the recent introduction of the pipeline safety act, the government is taking some action to demonstrate its commitment to both the safety of Canadians and the environment. This ongoing commitment is part of the government's plan for responsible resource development, and this particular piece of legislation builds on other pieces of legislation that have been tabled in the House and several that have passed.

I will perhaps do a quick survol of where we situate ourselves with federal pipelines.

Pipelines are an area that is managed by both the provincial governments and the federal government. Canada has about 825,000 kilometres of pipelines throughout the country. The federal government has responsibility for some 72,000 to 73,000 kilometres that cross both international boundaries and provincial boundaries, which therefore make them federal jurisdiction. The regulator for the federal government is the National Energy Board.

Through those pipelines, on an annual basis some 1.3 billion barrels of oil and petroleum products are shipped between producers and warehousers, refineries and consumers. At the same time, about five trillion cubic feet of gas are piped across the country to different hubs, different distribution points, and then ultimately to consumers, both in industry and to Canadians as individuals.

The NEB pipelines have a fairly strong safety record. The government will regularly point out that 99.999% of crude oil and products arrive safely to their destination, and that's on a regular running basis over the last five-year period. While the safety record is strong, we must, of course, continue to strive to have as few and possibly zero incidents as possible to ensure that Canadians are protected and the environment is protected as well.

Bill C-46 implements a number of measures focused on world-class pipeline safety under the pillars of prevention, preparedness and response, liability and compensation. Prevention focuses on trying to ensure that incidents don't occur. Preparedness and response means ensuring that companies are ready and that Canadians are confident and assured that companies and the regulator are prepared to respond should incidents occur. Liability and compensation means ensuring that Canadians are protected from the costs and damages that might flow from an incident, should one occur.

Bill C-46 focuses on and strives to ensure that our pipeline safety system remains world-class and is consistent with Canadians' expectation for energy transportation and protection of the environment.

I'd like to take a few moments just quickly looking at the deck to illustrate a number of specific elements, and then, of course, we'll turn it over to the chair and welcome questions from committee members.

There are two aspects to our presentation. First, we would like to see amendments to the bill concerning the

National Energy Board Act as well as consequential amendments to the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act.

To give some background, the Minister of Natural Resources is responsible for the National Energy Board Act and shares responsibility for the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, as there's a separation between north of 60 degrees and south of 60 degrees vis-à-vis energy development activities.

I will move on to slide 4, emphasizing a number of key prevention elements included in this particular bill. New sentencing provisions are in place for damages to the environment. There's an authority for the Governor in Council to implement consistent standards for pipeline monitoring and emergency response. There are amendments to damage prevention regimes to seek to have alignment and harmony with the provinces' damage prevention regimes. At the same time, there is clarification of audit and inspection powers for the National Energy Board. Those are for pipelines, and at the same time, since the board's act also provides for power lines, they extend to include power lines under their jurisdiction.

In terms of preparedness and response, slide 5, companies operating pipelines will be required under the new legislation to hold sufficient financial resources to cover any potential costs associated with an incident. Set in the act is that it would be $1 billion for major oil pipelines and regulations, at lower levels for other classes of pipelines to be developed under regulation. Companies will also be required to hold a minimum level of accessible financial resources to ensure an immediate response. This is sometimes referred to as cash on hand or cash available for a response, should it be necessary.

At the same time, the act will provide authority for the board to take control of spill response in exceptional circumstances where a company may be unwilling or unable to do so.

Finally, the act provides the NEB the authority to compel reimbursement of costs for spills incurred by governments, individuals, or communities.

In terms of liability and compensation, slide 6 in our deck, there is explicit reference in the act to the polluter pays principle. There is an inclusion of a new measure to provide no fault or absolute liability to a prescribed amount in addition to the existing unlimited liability when companies are at fault or negligent in the event of an incident. Again, the absolute liability amount is set at $1 billion commensurate with the financial responsibility requirements for major oil pipelines and will be set at a lower level for classes of pipelines to be established in regulations.

There is authority to establish a tribunal should the government ever need to authorize the NEB to take control. The tribunal will be provided as a quasi-judicial body to assess and award damages in exceptional circumstances for those who may be impacted by an event, and of course, in the end, the NEB would be provided the authority to recover said costs from the industry as a whole in an exceptional circumstance to ensure that taxpayers are not responsible for the costs.

On slide 7, I would draw attention to some additional amendments that are being made to the act for purposes of administrative efficiency, as well as transparency, including things such as: legislated timelines for Governor in Council decisions on export licences; elimination of Governor in Council approval for the name changes in pipeline certificates and transfers; and a number of things such as eliminating the mandatory retirement age for NEB members to be consistent with the Canadian charter.

We're certainly delighted to be here today and look forward to addressing your questions and comments, and certainly listening to the discussion, and would welcome that at this point, Chair.

Thank you very much, everyone, for your attention.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll go directly now to questions and comments.

In the first round we have Mr. Trost, followed by Monsieur Caron, and Ms. Freeland, if you would like, we'll go to you then for seven minutes, and welcome to our committee today.

We're starting with Mr. Trost for up to seven minutes.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

When you talk to the general public often the first thing they ask about is abandoned pipelines. Could you clarify for this committee the current situation when pipelines are abandoned, not just for companies that currently exist, but for companies that go bankrupt? Mines have been abandoned by bankrupt companies.

Does this legislation affect that situation in any way?

3:40 p.m.

Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources

Jeff Labonté

Thank you for the question.

Currently, under the National Energy Board Act, a pipeline certificate holder can apply to abandon a pipeline and the board will hold a hearing process and determine whether or not a pipeline may be abandoned and will issue a certificate for abandonment. At that point the federal government and the National Energy Board's responsibility would end and the pipeline would be abandoned in place.

Typically, industry may pursue options as to how to deal with abandonment. They may take the pipeline out of the ground, but more often than not, pipelines are filled with sand or cement or some other inert substance that would simply leave the pipeline in place.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

The question from the general public often is if a company is bankrupt, who is there to do any of the necessary back work?

3:45 p.m.

Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources

Jeff Labonté

In this particular circumstance it falls into a mix of things. My colleague from Justice might contribute to my answer more fully from a legal perspective.

From a practical perspective, it depends on the nature of what issue might come about. If a company were bankrupt and no longer existed, and its pipeline had been abandoned, it would become a situation of provincial jurisdiction, perhaps as a disturbance of an environmental nature, for example, if something had caused damage. There might be a disturbance of a different nature.

The National Energy Board at this point in time has been pursuing a fund to look at how to manage the abandonment that might occur, which may provide some protection against what you are explaining could potentially happen.

Bill C-46 provides clarity that, under the National Energy Board Act, pipeline companies will be responsible for their pipelines even after they're abandoned, up to the point at which they're removed from the ground. Should a pipeline be abandoned and left in place, the company will be responsible for it in perpetuity until the pipeline is removed, and it must give provisions to the board to ensure there's adequate and appropriate funding to accommodate that should the pipeline company cease to exist in the longer term.

It makes explicit and clear that abandoned pipelines remain under federal jurisdiction, and that companies remain responsible and liable for those pipelines.

March 24th, 2015 / 3:45 p.m.

Joseph McHattie Legal Counsel, Department of Natural Resources

Thank you very much for the question.

Indeed, this act clarifies that abandoned pipelines stay within federal jurisdiction until they're completely dealt with.

There was also a question about what happens when a company goes bankrupt. In those cases, because there's no backstop, there's a chance that none of the costs of taking out the pipelines or dealing with them will be able to be recovered.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

In that case the cost would ultimately be borne by federal or provincial authorities.

3:45 p.m.

Legal Counsel, Department of Natural Resources

Joseph McHattie

That could well be the case.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Looking at the $1-billion limit—and I'm going to get the limited versus unlimited wrong here because I'm not a lawyer, but you understand what I'm saying—how is that number arrived at, first of all? Second, how does that compare to other countries that we might be competing with? We're not directly competing, but I know we always want first-in-line world safety standards. We're also competitive and we don't want to put our oil producers at a disadvantage if we don't have to.

How is that number picked? What are the costs associated with that? How will that advantage or disadvantage our industry in comparison with industry in other jurisdictions?