I'd like to comment.
Evidence of meeting #54 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 may.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #54 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 may.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I think it's a very good recommendation as it came from the Assembly of First Nations. When you are building or maintaining pipelines, or abandoning them, there are a lot of implications for first nation rights and title, which include the movement of game such as caribou. I think we should definitely include this, as recommended by the Assembly of First Nations.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We will be opposing this motion, because we believe that by introducing it we are introducing an unnecessary redundancy. Ordinary legislation is interpreted to protect, recognize, and implement S-35, Constitution Act 1982 rights, and as such this proposal is redundant.
Thank you.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
NDP
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, you want a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We go to PV-4.
Go ahead, please, Ms. May.
3:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, this is a real life situation where I think the drafters weren't sufficiently cognizant of the ways in which the language could offend first nations. While that was not the intent of the language, what they've forgotten is that when you're on that territory and you're dealing with an abandoned pipeline, the authorities that are being exercised under proposed subsection 48(1.2) down to the end of that subsection end up creating a situation in which first nations could find themselves prohibited from doing things on their territory that would otherwise make sense, such as if they found themselves making contact with an abandoned pipeline. The authorities that would then be exercised against a first nation would actually be contrary to the constitution as well as numerous other potential treaty laws, depending on where the pipeline is found and what the status of that first nations territory is, whether under treaty, recognition of title, or still in the process of a recognition of title.
So, since the current subsections 48(1.1) and 48(1.2) authorize a company or any third party to “take any action or measure that they consider necessary” to protect an abandoned pipeline, it could set up a situation of conflict which is completely unnecessary.
Therefore, the effect of this amendment, PV-4, would be to eliminate the three clauses that would have that unintended effect.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Ms. May.
Are there any further comments on this?
Yes, Ms. Duncan.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'd have to say I'm puzzled by this one because I think the measures are important. We have to remember too that for reserve lands I think it's the Indian Oil and Gas Act that applies, and in the north it's the COGLA law.
I think I'll just hold off on it. I would hate to lose these powers of the board and the delegated officials. Maybe it needs to be rewritten, but I'm concerned about losing the powers.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Again, we will be opposing it for very similar reasons that Ms. Duncan raised. We believe these authorities are very important and they do provide clarity around how the NEB may take action.
We also believe it would remove a number of actions or measures the NEB may take that it considers necessary for the safety and security of the public, its employees, pipelines, and the protection of property and the environment.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Those in favour of the proposed amendment PV-4? Opposed?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On NDP-3, a proposed amendment to clause 15, on page 6, Mr. Caron.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Our amendment seeks to make available to the public the outlines of monitoring plans and minimal emergency measures that companies must follow, particularly in the case of abandoned pipelines. We view this as important and feel that it would raise the level of liability around pipelines.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Any further comments on NDP-3?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
There are no more proposed amendments to clause 15.
(Clause 15 agreed to on division)
(On clause 16)
Clause 16 has most of the amendments. It could get a little bit confusing here at times, even for those who have been over this a few times because, as you'll see, we go through many pages in this clause, and then we go back again to deal with other amendments. We'll be going back and forth. That's the way it works.
Let's start at the beginning with PV-5, the first proposed amendment to clause 16.
Go ahead, please, Ms. May.
3:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
We're on to PV-5. Sorry about that, Mr. Chair. I got caught.
This is to page 6, and I hope it doesn't get too confusing. This is again the same point of unintended consequences. And I agree, it is difficult when we are concerned about an issue for unintended consequences for first nations. I think this one may be sufficiently narrow that some of my colleagues in other parties can support it because what we're suggesting is that the references to “make contact with” should be referred to as “substantially interfere with”, because at this point, on page 6, when you get to clause 16 what it suggests is that:
No person shall, without the Board’s leave, make contact with, alter or remove an abandoned pipeline.
Given the proximity of abandoned pipelines to first nations territory, “make contact with” might not be something that was really intended by the drafters. So I'm suggesting language that's more to the point, which is to replace the words “make contact with” with “substantially interfere with”. That's Green Party amendment five.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Ms. May.
Ms. Block, I see you want to comment on this.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We will be opposing this amendment for the very fact that I would beg to differ with my colleague that “have no contact” and “substantially interfere” are two very different things. “Have no contact” is very clear on what we mean. “Substantially interfere” is vague and suggestive, and it almost suggests that any interference with a pipeline not considered as substantial would be acceptable, so we will not be supporting this amendment.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
My argument would be exactly the opposite. I think the government should be thinking twice about the fact that somebody can be out in the wilderness. In fact, right at Lake Wabamun there are abandoned pipelines and abandoned well sites. Anybody out for a walk could “make contact with” by not even knowing what it is.
As Ms. May says, out on the land, first nations who are going.... Many times these pipelines cross their traplines, so what does “make contact with” mean? Does it mean to touch it as you go under? I think this is going to end up being challenged, if anybody is ever charged with it.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Are there any further comments on this proposed amendment PV-5?
(Amendment PV-5 negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
The amendment PV-6 is defeated. Pardon me, it was PV-5 that was defeated. Now we'll in fact go to amendment PV-6.
This is very long, with several parts to the amendment. It carries through several pages.
Go ahead please, Ms. May, with your comments on this.
3:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
What I'll do, Mr. Chair, is try to make it succinct.
You may in fact be given to psychic powers, since you've announced that amendment PV-6 was already defeated before I started, but I'll plow into it as if there's some opportunity for it to pass. I will make it as succinct as possible, because it is complicated.
The effect of these various changes, found through pages 6 to 13, is to change proposed new section 48.12 so as to remove the liability limit for no fault and instead institute unlimited absolute liability. It removes all later references to a limit on liability and removes the minimum of 250,000 barrels a day.
As amended, after all the separate little changes that you see on the page for Green Party amendment PV-6, proposed subsection 48.12(1) would read:
If an unintended or uncontrolled release from a pipeline of oil, gas or any other commodity occurs, the company that is authorized under this act to construct or operate that pipeline is liable for
—and at that point you go straight to resuming the text as found at the top of page 7 of the bill—
(a) all actual loss or damage
etc.