Natural Resources committee  There are two components. The board has the authority in this piece of legislation to order payment for costs incurred for cleanup. That provision doesn't exist today. If you as a landowner were impacted and had costs associated with dealing with an incident or that aspect, the board would order the company to do so.

Natural Resources committee  I could answer the question maybe at a very basic level, which is to suggest that the purpose of this piece of legislation is to focus on pipelines, but it recognizes that there are other ways of moving energy around the country, and the government is looking at those ways. My colleagues from Transport would be able to talk to rail, but I don't actually have an expertise in that area.

Natural Resources committee  I guess it's always good to have questions, and the hypothetical ones are always, for officials, very challenging because they're speaking to something that may or may not occur.

Natural Resources committee  Indeed. The billion-dollar threshold is for major oil pipelines. In the scenario you've laid out, you've suggested that it was a major oil pipeline that would have had an incident, and you've suggested that there's a three-year limitation as to the kind of activity that would take place.

Natural Resources committee  In my view as a federal official, I think the goal of the government would be to ensure that we have a safe, functioning, well-designed, clear legal framework for our pipeline system that Canadians can be assured takes into account what's required and what's expected of companies, and that they operate good businesses and strive to not have incidents.

Natural Resources committee  I think the purpose behind the notion of the tribunal is to provide for in the circumstance that a company is not accepting its responsibility or is unwilling to do so. In the case of the incidents that exist as in the record I pointed out—whatever it was, 6.7 or 7 incidents—companies have cleaned up the damage and have dealt with damages with individuals who were impacted and there is no requirement for a tribunal to exist.

Natural Resources committee  Thanks for the question. You've laid it out quite clearly. When the board currently evaluates a project and a proposal for a pipeline and its operation, it will look at the financial viability of the company and its ability to construct, build, and operate the pipeline. Part of that is their asset base, their balance sheet, what kind of insurance they have, what their credit rating is, what kinds of bonds they might have, and all of the elements, and so we're providing for here that the board will have the authority and the ability to establish and understand—

Natural Resources committee  Correct, and we're giving the board the ability to recognize different forms of financial security, because different companies will use different ways, and we don't want to prescribe that they must have insurance and it's the only thing that will be acceptable.

Natural Resources committee  We're here talking to you and Parliament is debating the bill, so it's an open question. I think that irrespective of the price environment that the oil and gas industry receives for the product that they're offering to the market, there's an expectation that safety is a priority, that we have safe systems, and that companies are prepared for what costs might come from moving those goods and ensuring that we have adequate prevention, preparedness, and liability regimes to protect those.

Natural Resources committee  I think the statements made by different industry members about the bill when it was tabled were supportive of the direction that the bill lays out vis-à-vis safety and what's expected of companies. The majority of the companies that we communicate with and that have communicated with us about the bill, and Canadians more generally, have felt and have expressed to us that they feel they have safe operations, run good companies, and have safe pipelines.

Natural Resources committee  I'd say we have not included the analysis at the degree of precision that would allow us to say per barrel. The reason for that is the circumstances are quite varied. Different companies today operate with different insurance provisions. Our discussion with industry has had a wide range of answers.

Natural Resources committee  That is correct, exactly. We did meet, consult, work with, and had queries with some of the different companies in the insurance industry, with some of the financial industry in the oil and gas sector, and asked them about the circumstances without explaining what we were proposing, just in the purview of—

Natural Resources committee  From what we can understand, what we have here is manageable in the business costs of the pipeline industry as we see them. There will be some that have increased costs and some that have very similar costs to what they have today. The part that we're a little more focused on right now is the smaller companies that won't fall under the billion-dollar, 250,000 barrel element.

Natural Resources committee  It's not done by Natural Resources. They're an independent regulatory body, so we don't get to encourage them, tell them, or ask them anything beyond what technical considerations they take into account. They decide what they look at and how they look at it, doing it in that quasi-judicial fashion and then determining the conditions under which the pipeline operates.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you for this very important question. The act provides for the ability of the Governor in Council to establish a tribunal to adjudicate claims for damages. The first condition that would need to be met would be that the company responsible that operates the pipeline would be designated as unwilling or unable to respond.