Safe and Accountable Rail Act   that fund back up to the amount it needs to be in order to ensure that taxpayers are not ultimately on the hook for the costs and that it truly is the polluter pays principle. There is a limit on the capitalization of the fund, but beyond that there is the ability for us to go back

Safe and Accountable Rail Act   compensation fund would cover remaining costs. Shippers are part of the polluter pays equation, requiring them to share in the liabilities associated with the transport of their goods, and reflects the fact that the qualities of their product contribute to the risks and costs associated

Safe and Accountable Rail Act   in a special account in the consolidated revenue fund. Together these measures would ensure adequate resources were available to cover the liabilities associated with a disaster of the magnitude of Lac-Mégantic. Through this, the bill before us would establish the polluter pays principle

Safe and Accountable Rail Act   transportation of dangerous goods. First, it would apply the polluter pays principle to rail freight transportation through mandatory minimum insurance levels. This insurance would cover third-party liabilities resulting from any type of rail incident. In addition, it would establish a fund

Safe and Accountable Rail Act   up with what is in the bill. I think it would be naive to say that everyone agreed on exactly what to do and at what level, but that is why we have consultations. We think that the polluter pay principle should be put forward as the number one tenet of the accountability portion

Business of Supply   marine safety through the addition of improved technology. Suggestions otherwise are simply ill-informed. I encourage opposition members to focus their attention instead on our government's support of the polluter pays principle, which requires the polluter to pay the full cost

Business of Supply   environment, our tourism and our very identity as British Columbians. Thanks to our Conservative government, we saw polluter pays law that the company and its insurer will pick up the tab, not Canadian taxpayers. Contrary to much of the speculative comments made by opposition and others

Business of Supply   Canada's regulatory regime, the Marine Liability Act requires vessels to have insurance to cover pollution damage arising from an oil spill. In Canada, our liability and compensation regime for ship-source oil spills is based on the polluter pay principle. This means that the polluter

Business of Supply   and navigators and also because of the effective prevention measures in place. Our government has made significant investments in the world-class safety system for tanker ships in order to prevent spills, quickly clean up any spills that occur and enforce the polluter pays principle. Canada

Business of Supply   pollution is contained and removed. I want Canadians to understand that they are not on the hook for the costs to clean up marine pollution. In Canada, polluters pay. Let me reiterate that the response is not on the taxpayer's dime but squarely on the polluter's. A key component

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, as I stressed in my remarks, what is most important to Canadians is that prevention is the first response of the Government of Canada. We are initiating steps to make sure that accidents do not happen in the first place. The polluter pay principle in fact kicks

Business of Supply   government believes in and strongly supports the polluter pays principle and that taxpayers are not going to be on the hook for this marine response operation. The owners of the Marathassa were responsible to take action to mitigate any damage caused by their ship, and they will be held

Business of Supply  , and ensuring that polluters pay. Our government is taking action to increase tanker inspections so that each and every foreign tanker that enters Canadian waters is inspected the first time and annually afterward; expand aerial patrols under the national aerial surveillance program

Transport committee  Sure. As we indicated, the objective of our reviewing of the liability and compensation regime first was to make sure that we have “polluter pay”. That's where we started with this whole piece. We also wanted to make sure that there would be adequate resources available

Transport committee   that: to make sure that we set it at a level that is between the 91st and the 99th percentile, which is a good analysis. From there, we do have the ability to ensure that the polluter pays and that taxpayers are not on the hook.