Evidence of meeting #53 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 pipeline.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Perkins Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON
You're not seeing that fulsome opportunity in the way things are worded now.
4:05 p.m.
Canadian Operating Officer, Canada's Building Trades Unions
If you make everything mandatory, there is no fulsomeness in that. You need to have discretion, and the discretion needs to be discretion that the NEB is capable of delivering.
4:05 p.m.
Canadian Operating Officer, Canada's Building Trades Unions
You can give them all the discretion in the world, but if give them 46¢, they won't be able to do anything.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Perkins Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON
Okay, I think I have that now. Thank you very much.
With respect to the technology, you were speaking to always using the best technology portion, and what you're saying is, don't tell us what the best technology is.
4:05 p.m.
Canadian Operating Officer, Canada's Building Trades Unions
Require someone to use it, but don't prescribe it.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Canadian Operating Officer, Canada's Building Trades Unions
Yes.
If they use the best technology, they have to use it appropriately, but let the operator decide what the best technology is.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Guy Caron
Thank you very much.
I have to interrupt you because your seven minutes are up.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you very much.
I'd like to thank all four of you for appearing before us. I know you're all busy people, and it's always nice to see Mr. Blakely on the plane between Edmonton and Ottawa.
I really appreciate your comment, Mr. Blakely, on clarifying the exercise of discretion. I think that's a really good, broad comment and I appreciated it—within bounds, of course.
Mr. Miron, if I understood you correctly, you expressed concern about proposed subsection 48.12(5). It allows for more than $1 billion in compensation if prescribed by regulations. I'm wondering if you agree that the criteria for this, the further extension beyond a $1 billion, should be specified in regulations and that this regulatory process be open, transparent, and inclusive.
Would you agree that, absent those regulations, we lack legal certainty on if and when the obligation for compensation might exceed $1 billion?
4:10 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Ecojustice Canada
In proposed paragraph 48.12(5)(a), which I believe is what you're referring to, it just says that a greater amount can be prescribed by regulation. There's no clarification of that; there's no explanation on when such an amount might be required by regulation or prescribed by regulation.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Right, I'm actually looking at proposed subsection 48.13(5).
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes. It's on page 10 of the bill. It's close to what you're saying.
4:10 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Ecojustice Canada
Under the financial responsibility requirements?
4:10 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Ecojustice Canada
Essentially, the bill as drafted requires a company to maintain the amount of financial resources necessary to pay their absolute liability limit, which is $1 billion for a large pipeline company.
Proposed subsection 48.13(5) gives the NEB.... I'm not sure I understand your question.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm probably leading you astray; you were correct the first time.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I have a second question that goes to that proposed section.
I think you made a really valid point at the beginning, where, yes, supposedly it's polluter pays. They're saying a billion dollars will be the compensation limit unless, by regulation, the government determines it should be greater, but until those regulations are promulgated we don't know what the criteria will be for that and that leaves legal uncertainty.
4:10 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Ecojustice Canada
I think that's fair.
I would comment that it is positive that there's no ability to decrease the liability limit by regulation unlike in some previous bills we've seen.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Now, on proposed subsection 48.12(9), it deals with recovery of non-use losses.