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.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I'd like to ask the officials what the implications, the impact, of this proposed amendment would be?
Conservative
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
The general premise behind the financial requirements aspect of the bill is to provide some assurance that the particular operator of the pipeline who is seeking the certificate has the financial wherewithal, and that those things are listed. Here we are following other federal statutes, which list, for illustrative purposes, what might be considered. We would expect that there will be a regulatory step that will spell out in greater detail and greater precision those requirements that will be sought from operators to ensure that they maintain the fiscal prudence that's expected to comply with the legislation.
Conservative
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Consistent with the comment I made previously, Mr. Chair, my concern here is that this provision specifies information which the board may consider. By the nature of statutory interpretation, that means they couldn't include other matters. That, I understand, is the rule of statutory interpretation, and I think Mr. Caron has raised a concern that there may be other matters that should be considered, but because they are not included in that exclusive list the board could not consider them, whereas if it were left wide open, the board could consider all matters in this discretion including those matters.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I'd like to know how Ms. Duncan interprets the words “among other things”, because to me when it says, “The Board may consider, among other things, the company's financial statements”, etc., it is in fact doing the opposite of what Ms. Duncan is saying. It is leaving it open to the board to consider other things.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Regan.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We go now to amendment NDP-12.
Monsieur Caron.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Our twelfth amendment also seeks to make changes to clause 16. It amends section 48.13(6) of the act, with respect to pipeline abandonment, to require the company to obtain leave from the board to abandon the operation of a pipeline before doing so, as well as leave from the board to stop maintaining the necessary funds or security.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the requirement to maintain funds or security doesn't automatically end as soon as the company abandons the pipeline, making it necessary to obtain the board's authorization for both of those things beforehand.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Caron
Is there any further discussion on amendment NDP-12?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we're on amendment PV-12.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This may be the most important of the amendments I have the honour of tabling before you today, and it's on proposed section 48.15 on “Reimbursement by Company”. It currently reads,
If an unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or any other commodity from a pipeline occurs, the Board may order the company that is authorized under this Act to...reimburse
and so on.
As one of the witnesses before this committee, Ian Miron of Ecojustice, pointed out, “as currently drafted, the bill can best be described as 'polluter might pay'”. So, in order to ensure the polluter pays, I have a straightforward amendment. It changes the language from discretionary to mandatory: “the Board shall order” the company responsible to pay for and reimburse any federal, provincial or municipal government institution, any aboriginal governing body, and so on.
Conservative
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
You'll see that in the next amendment, I've amended it in a different way.
My concern here is, frankly, with the way it's drafted. Usually the procedural rules will be ancillary to the statute, and they will specify the parties who can apply for costs to be reimbursed and they will give criteria regarding the costs that can be reimbursed.
The problem here is that if you make it mandatory, they may not even have asked for a reimbursement.
I'm not opposed to the direction Ms. May is going in, but it's—
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Well, I'm not sure they'll like either of them, but I understand where you're going. I don't know how the courts would hold that to being mandatory, but I think they might do that for a board as opposed to for the cabinet.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
I would like the officials to comment on this amendment.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
In this particular instance, it is the orders of the board to reimburse for costs that fall within the category of expenses incurred. The board may require the company in question to do so, and in doing so, it would take into account the “polluter pays” principle and the components that are consistent with the particular incident that may be dealt with.
In this particular case, it doesn't necessarily mean the board wouldn't need to examine what those costs and circumstances might be, but certainly the way it's constructed it in no way limits the board's ability to do so, and it would be typical and normal in legislation to see it that way.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We will now vote on amendment PV-12.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now on amendment NDP-13.
Ms. Duncan.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, I've taken a different approach here to the previous amendment. Certainly in my jurisdiction of Alberta the energy boards deal with claims where it's specified in law, and usually it's under regulation where you can make a claim.
I simply amended the provision to provide that where a claim for cost recovery is made by one of those parties—and again I note it includes municipalities as well as aboriginal governing bodies—that “the Board shall order” the company to pay. It's clarifying that the board can't out of the air say, “Oh, I think you should compensate this aboriginal body, who, by the way, didn't intervene and didn't even seek recovery”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion?
Those in favour of amendment NDP-13?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
It's gone. It was defeated on division.
We'll start again. Amendment NDP-13.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We go now to amendment NDP-14.
Ms. Duncan.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
As I mentioned during the hearings, and in the dialogue on the testimony before our committee, this legislation in some cases will provide for reimbursement after the fact where people suffer damage or incur costs when they're dealing with the cleanup of the spill.
Unlike provincial legislation, it does not provide for any advance payment of costs. This has caused unfairness to a number of community members, including aboriginal communities, as I've mentioned in the case of Wrigley in the Northwest Territories . It wasn't until the NEB came to a Dené gathering where the Wrigley chief was, who stated his frustration.... They were trying to deal with with damage of a spill and to understand what the government was doing, what the company was doing, and what they were required to do. The NEB then said that they would come up with some money somewhere.
This amendment would put greater fairness in the process and make it a more constructive process. The board would then have the power only in the application by an aboriginal governing body or a person affected by a release. It would be up to the board to decide if they had been affected, which would allow them to make an advance payment. The board could then order the company to reimburse to pay those costs.