Natural Resources committee  [Technical difficulty—Editor]...the sooner the better, to fill in these gaps, including with respect to environmental damages. I would also urge public consultation in the development of those regulations.

Natural Resources committee  I would just comment that I agree with those comments.

Natural Resources committee  I can't disagree with any of those comments. Cutting funding and then expecting more just seems counterintuitive.

Natural Resources committee  I don't see a whole lot of consultation within this bill itself. I am aware that there are some extra efforts outside of the legislation that have been proposed by the government with respect to consultation with first nations. This bill isn't an environmental assessment bill. Th

Natural Resources committee  I would echo that need for some clarity around the environmental damages or the loss of non-use value relating to a public resource. As I mentioned in my presentation, I think some of these new tools the NEB can use to recover costs in the event of a spill should be made mandator

Natural Resources committee  I would have to confirm that, but I think that is cleanup, and not compensation. I could be wrong, though. I would have to confirm that.

Natural Resources committee  I actually do not have those numbers off the top of my head. I'm sorry.

Natural Resources committee  I think that in some ways it's fortuitous that it was such a large company that had that spill in Kalamazoo, because they do have the financial wherewithal. Similarly, in the offshore context, in the Gulf of Mexico, we've seen that BP has the financial wherewithal, although now t

Natural Resources committee  Yes, I agree with Mr. Blakely that it not only preserves but also codifies the common-law right to sue in cases of fault or negligence. What this means is that it could take us 20 years to see any payment come out, as we saw in the Exxon Valdez situation, where the company was ab

Natural Resources committee  As I mentioned earlier, we know that Kalamazoo is over a billion dollars now and still going. A recent study out of Simon Fraser University estimated the potential cost of a worst-case scenario for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion at over $5 billion and, for a bad case,

Natural Resources committee  Certainly. If a pipeline spill got into waters containing fish and caused a deleterious effect on those fish, subsection 42(1) of the Fisheries Act could have come into play to make companies absolutely liable for an unlimited amount of spill response costs. Bill C-46 basically

Natural Resources committee  In proposed paragraph 48.12(5)(a), which I believe is what you're referring to, it just says that a greater amount can be prescribed by regulation. There's no clarification of that; there's no explanation on when such an amount might be required by regulation or prescribed by reg

Natural Resources committee  At 48.13(5)?

Natural Resources committee  Okay. Sorry.

Natural Resources committee  I think that's fair. I would comment that it is positive that there's no ability to decrease the liability limit by regulation unlike in some previous bills we've seen.