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.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I actually appreciate the fact that the member raised this. I think what he's doing is ensuring that there is consistency within the legislation. As it's troubling, I would look forward to what the government officials have to say.
My question would be, how are you defining “acquired”? Maybe the member could...?
Conservative
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Well, section 86 applies to when the lands are “acquired”. I'm not really sure but is that just a fancy word for “purchased” or “leased” or...?
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
That's the obvious meaning of the word. I don't know what other meaning you might give to it.
Conservative
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I suppose I could just answer the question, if I may, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
There are other ways of acquiring property besides purchasing it. You could receive it in a will. There are a number of ways. I think “acquire” is a good word in that sense. It's a broader word.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Regan.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We go now to amendment NDP-6.
All of these amendments are to clause 16. There are many more.
Monsieur Caron.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you.
I'll be quick. The provision establishes the limit of liability at $1 billion. The amendment seeks to remove that limit to make the company wholly liable for any damage that may result from a pipeline incident. That's what amendment NDP-6 would do.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Merci, Mr. Caron.
Is there any further discussion on NDP-6?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We go now to amendment PV-9.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is found on page 8 of the bill. This amendment deals with a section that actually removes access to Fisheries Act measurements of damages. Currently, proposed subsection 48.12(8) says:
The costs and expenses that are recovered by Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province under this section are not recoverable under subsection 42(1) of the Fisheries Act.
The question is, why would we limit liability under this bill? They would be otherwise recoverable under the Fisheries Act. The recommendation is to delete this section and to allow the recovery of damages under the Fisheries Act, leaving them recoverable under subsection 42(1).
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Ms. May.
Is there any further discussion on PV-9?
Ms. Duncan.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes.
For the record I find it very disturbing that we would be reducing liability that is set forth in the statute already and has been relied on for probably 50 years.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Could we hear from the officials on their reaction to this and their interpretation?
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Proposed subsection 48.12(8) addresses Her Majesty's costs and expenses as incurred. So a finite amount of costs and expenses would be removed from the government's ability to pursue it under the Fisheries Act.
It would be important to start with the Fisheries Act. It only applies where there is fish bearing water. Not all pipelines traverse or even are near fish bearing water. So the liability regime and the pipeline safety act's purpose is to set out a common, consistent liability regime for the entire country where all federal pipelines are found.
In terms of the Fisheries Act's application for government costs, it would only be appropriate in the event of an incident where that Fisheries Act would apply.
The second bit would be that the proposed subsection before this preserves the right to continue unlimited absolute liability under any other act where that act has a higher amount. So the amendments's suggested removal of proposed subsection 48.12(8) would remove the government's abilities to avoid a conflict of government for pursuing things between the Fisheries Act and the pipeline safety act, but it does preserve unlimited absolute liability where it applies in another act, and that does apply in the Fisheries Act. My understanding is that it applies for commercial fishers who receive their livelihood from commercial fishing in areas where the Fisheries Act applies.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Linda Duncan can help me with this too, because in my understanding of the Fisheries Act damages are recoverable for more than commercial fisherman and damages are recoverable for damage under section 42.1.
It's not in conflict. We don't create a conflict for proposed subsection 48.12(7) by deleting proposed subsection 48.12(8). Rather, by continuing with the latter, it doesn't seem to me that there's any reason why damages should not be recoverable under subsection 42.1 under the Fisheries Act. Deleting proposed subsection 48.12(8) doesn't create any statutory interpretation problems with proposed subsection 48.12(7). The fact that they're also liable under any other act is no reason to remove access to section 42.1 of the Fisheries Act; it doesn't create a conflict, if you see what I'm saying.
So why take away the access to damages under section 42.1 of the Fisheries Act, which has been used as, Ms. Duncan says, for a very long time and as a pretty meaningful measure for environmental protection?
Conservative
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask Mr. Labonté if the department is suggesting that removing this proposed subsection 48.12(8) would lead to duplication of damages, because my impression is it would not.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Removing proposed subsection 48.12(8) would remove the government's ability to pursue damages under either act. It provides that a pipeline incident would be pursued under the pipeline safety act, or the National Energy Board Act, I think, is is where it will ultimately end up.