Energy Safety and Security   in the Atlantic offshore and $40 million in the Arctic. With these measures, the energy safety and security act would reinforce, in unprecedented fashion, the polluter pays principle, which would protect Canadian taxpayers. As hon. members know, on our east coast there are two independent

Business of Supply   and updating regulations to further enhance pipeline safety. We intend to enshrine the polluter pays principle in law, so that polluters, not taxpayers, will be held financially responsible for the costs and the damages they cause. We will introduce no-fault liability. We will require

Rail Transportation   the national aerial surveillance program and adopting area response planning, as the member mentioned, which is to ensure that risks and environmental sensitivities are included in all response planning. Most importantly, consistent with the polluter pays principle, we have removed

Rail Transportation  Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first question from the hon. member, CN is responsible for the cleanup and any costs associated with it, so that is a question he should take up with CN. However, we fully expect a polluter-pay principle in this country. In fact

Energy Safety and Security Act  Mr. Speaker, in a previous answer, the minister talked about alignment when it comes to polluter pays. I wonder if he could speak to the proposed nuclear regime in Bill C-22 and how it aligns with that in other countries.

Energy Safety and Security Act   with respect to the principle of polluter pays. On the more specific point of nuclear liability, I would just point out to my colleague that the current stage of the legislation is unacceptable. It is time for change. This was set in 1976 and has never changed. This piece of legislation

Energy Safety and Security Act   would be covered when it comes to the polluter pays principle. That would mean damages to people, damages to property, and damages to the environment. All of it would be covered under absolute liability. That is what the word “absolute” means. It is unfortunate that the hon. member

Energy Safety and Security Act  , such as in the United Kingdom, Norway, and Denmark. As hon. members are aware, Canada's liability regime was founded on the polluter pay principle. With Bill C-22, we are fulfilling our commitment in the Speech from the Throne to enshrine this principle in law. This means that Canadian taxpayers

The Environment  Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes that the current liability limits for accidents in offshore oil and gas developments need to be reviewed. In Canada, the fundamental principle of our government today is that the polluter pay. Our government is committed to periodically

Rail Transportation   the number of inspectors we have, to ensure that these goods can move safely. We believe in preventing derailments. We want to respond to them quickly, and we want to make sure the polluter pays at the end of the day.

Energy Safety and Security Act   treating agents where there is a net environmental benefit. As far as accountability is concerned, our government is delivering on its promise to enshrine the polluter pays principle in law. Further, we are also clarifying jurisdictional responsibilities for occupational health

Energy Safety and Security Act  -treating agents when they can be expected to achieve a net environmental benefit. This would create a new tool for operators to use in the response to an offshore spill, should one ever occur. The legislation would enshrine the principle of polluter pays. This means

Energy Safety and Security Act   is the right balance between providing adequate compensation for citizens if there is a nuclear incident and also holding companies to account. We are moving to the polluter pays model. This limit is well above the liability limits that are being imposed on nuclear operators in many

Energy Safety and Security Act   relevance, among other changes. This new legislation would enshrine in the statute of the principal polluter pays. Oil and gas companies operating in the Atlantic and Arctic offshore would be subject to the strictest liability in the world. Liability for the environmental costs and third

Natural Resources committee   announcement I made—and I hope it will garner the support of our colleagues from across the floor—is new powers for the National Energy Board to enforce activities, and not make taxpayers pay, but rather focus on polluters paying, in the event that, as rare as it might be, a spill should