Bill C-22 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Energy Safety and Security Act
An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJan. 30, 2014
- Debated in principleMay 29, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 7, 2014
- Passed the second chamberFeb. 25, 2015
- Became lawFeb. 25, 2015
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 30 January 2014, the Minister of Natural Resources introduced Bill C-22, An Act respecting Canada’s offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts (Energy Safety and Security Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Sco71tia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act (the “Acts”) primarily to update, strengthen and increase the level of transparency of the liability regime that is applicable to spills and debris in the offshore areas. More specifically, Part 1, among other things, (a) expressly includes the “polluter pays” principle, which is consistent with the notion that the liability of at-fault operators is unlimited; (b) increases to $1 billion the limit of liability, without proof of fault or negligence, to which certain operators are subject in the event of a spill or damages caused by debris; (c) provides that an applicant for an au…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
67% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (54,435 words introduced, 53,426 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core liability and polluter-pays provisions remained intact, but Parliament added new timing rules, participant funding, and public-hearing powers while extending the bill’s passage into 2015. Roughly two-thirds of the introduced wording was altered or replaced before royal assent.
- Added explicit public-hearing authority for the National Energy Board.
After: “5.331 The National Energy Board may conduct a public hearing in relation to the exercise of any of its powers or the performance of any of its duties and functions under this Act.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill sets some fixed dollar amounts and joint-and-several liability rules but repeatedly uses subjective phrases such as 'likely to achieve a net environmental benefit' and 'considers appropriate'. These leave outcomes dependent on official opinion rather than objective criteria.
Open to argument
“unless the Board determines that the use of the spill-treating agent is likely to achieve a net environmental benefit”
Relies on a predictive and evaluative judgment rather than a measurable standard.“taking into account any prescribed factors and any factors the Board considers appropriate”
Grants open-ended discretion to add unlisted factors at the decision-maker's choice.“in any manner the Board considers appropriate”
Leaves the method of publication or guideline issuance entirely to the Board's preference.
Clear-cut
“in the amount of $100 million or, if the Board considers it necessary, in a greater amount that it determines”
States a concrete dollar figure even though the Board may increase it.
Discretion. Extensive power is left to the National Energy Board, the Minister of the Environment, the Chief Conservation Officer and the Governor in Council to set amounts, approve agents, issue guidelines, adjust limits and decide confidentiality on a case-by-case basis.
Challenging the law itself. Repeated use of 'likely', 'appropriate' and 'satisfied' language could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter in enforcement or penalty proceedings.
Disputing a charge under it. Because many obligations hinge on the Board's or officer's discretionary findings of net benefit or appropriateness, an accused would face difficulty proving compliance or disproving breach.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.