Natural Resources Committee on March 26th, 2015

[Jonathan Timlin]

Well, just for the edification of the committee, if the company is unable to respond financially, if it doesn't have the resources necessary to respond, or if it is unwilling to respond to board orders, in that case it is the decision of the minister to recommend to the GIC that the company be designated. The bill doesn't specifically refer to the board being a part of that process.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay. I misunderstood. I thought you also—

[Jonathan Timlin]

No, but I would add that during the implementation of this, we would want to ensure that the procedures are in place to make sure that it is very clear how the process would work, and we would work with the government as necessary to do that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay. But the law doesn't provide any criteria, so my question is.... That is why we're waiting for the regulations to tell us how the minister is going to decide, and based on what criteria, if the company doesn't have the money to clean up the spill.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Guy Caron]

Give a brief reply, please.

[Jonathan Timlin]

As I said.... I don't want to deflect, but I can speak to what is in the bill, and the bill says that the minister will make the recommendation to the Governor in Council, and the board will assist in any way possible during that one year of implementation to help clarify any processes that need to be clarified.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So you agree that there's no specific criteria in the bill.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Guy Caron]

Merci.

Madam Perkins.

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to some of the comments that were made here, you talked about the aging infrastructure and said that most of it was put in the ground more than 30 years ago. When we speak about how this act is going to be implemented, how does it give you teeth to suggest to them that 40 years might the maximum on the age of a pipeline? How do you determine that? Or do you? What is the process that you would undertake?

[Josée Touchette]

Let me start with a couple of general principles. Then I'll pass the parole to Mr. Timlin.

Regardless of the age, the same level of safety is required for all pipelines. Any damage or deterioration of protection systems has to be monitored and remediated to provide the required continued level of reliability. We know that there are pipelines that are 60 years old and doing very well, because we're monitoring and making sure that they're performing as well as a pipeline that would have been installed last year. Realistically, however, we also know that aging infrastructure will appropriately require more attention than newer pipelines, so our measures take that into account.

I'll turn it to Mr. Timlin for greater detail.

[Jonathan Timlin]

I'm not even sure how much I can add to Madam Touchette's comprehensive answer. As we say, we're responsible for monitoring, inspecting, and making sure the companies are complying with the requirements set out in law. Companies are ultimately responsible for—

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

So you haven't really found a particular age of pipeline in use that is end-of-life? You haven't found that yet?

[Jonathan Timlin]

Companies need to keep their pipeline up to a state that meets the requirements.

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

That's great.

The other part of the question is that there's a really relevant topic, and it's the Keystone XL. It's been approved but not yet built, as I understand it. Is that correct? They haven't started construction.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

They've done the south leg but not the north leg.

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Right. So will this new regulation have an effect on the Keystone XL?

[Jonathan Timlin]

Perhaps I can start by answering that question. I think Dr. Steedman would be able to agree with me that I think some elements of Keystone have begun. There has been some construction that has begun.

In addition, to your specific question, Ms. Perkins, the bill has a number of financial measures that are in place, so should the project be built before it's in operation, it will need to comply with all the different financial requirements that are in this bill.

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

That's awesome.

Particularly, how would the legislation itself ensure that those who are adversely affected by a spill are adequately compensated in the event that one happened? Who figures out that compensation piece? What would be adequate?

[Jonathan Timlin]

Absolutely, that's a very important part of this bill. Let me speak to that just briefly, although it is a fairly long answer that I'm probably going to give.

Right now, section 75 of the National Energy Board Act requires that the companies do as little damage as possible and compensate those who are impacted by their operations. Currently there's a procedure in place in sections 84 to 88 of the act. There's a procedure for a pipeline arbitrations committee that can be established by NRCan, whereby individuals who are impacted by a spill can seek compensation. The secretariat of that committee is NRCan. It's run by NRCan, and decisions are taken there.

The bill contemplates some additional measures where a pipeline company is unable or unwilling to respond to an incident and the company is in fact designated. The bill provides for the establishment of a pipeline claims tribunal, and this again would be a decision taken by a recommendation from the minister to the GIC in regard to actually establishing this pipelines claim tribunal.

The members of that claims tribunal would be retired judges who have a minimum of 10 years of experience as superior court judges. They would take decisions based on compensation claims brought forward by people who have incurred loss or damages as a result of the incident.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Guy Caron]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Perkins. Your five minutes are up.

If the committee agrees, we have the time for a last round of questions with our three speakers. We would start with Mrs. Block, followed by Ms. Charlton and, lastly, Mr. Regan.

Mrs. Block, you have five minutes.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank members of the opposition for asking to lengthen the meeting to ask questions of the NEB.

You play a very important role in the work we do as legislators when it comes to responsible resource development. I appreciate the fact that we've had you here for two hours.

I also was remiss in not introducing a young student who is shadowing me today, and that's Caroline Wu.

I recall that you had announced the potential opening of two new offices, one in Montreal and one in Vancouver. I want to give you the opportunity to let us know why you've chosen to do that and what you're hoping to accomplish by having offices in Montreal and Vancouver.

[Josée Touchette]

Thank you very much for that question.

The opening of the new offices is part of that greater engagement we are seeking with Canadians to make sure that people understand the role of the board, and to make sure that our operations are also conducted right in the field. We're opening an office in Montreal, Quebec, and we are opening an office in Vancouver, B.C. The person who's going to be opening the office in Vancouver, B.C., is Mr. Timlin.

[An hon. member]

Congratulations.

[Jonathan Timlin]

Thank you.

[Josée Touchette]

Part of what he'll be doing is engaging and making sure people understand what the board does and why.

Perhaps you would like to describe how you envisage your first few weeks.