Bill C-46 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Pipeline Safety Act
An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDec. 8, 2014
- Debated in principleMarch 9, 2015
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 6, 2015
- Passed the second chamberJune 9, 2015
- Became lawJune 17, 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
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 8 December 2014, the Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario introduced Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act (Pipeline Safety Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-46 amends the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act in order to strengthen the safety and security of pipelines regulated by those Acts. More specifically, the enactment, among other things, (a) reinforces the “polluter pays” principle; (b) confirms that the liability of companies that operate pipelines is unlimited if an unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or any other commodity from a pipeline that they operate is the result of their fault or negligence; (c) establishes the limit of liability without proof of fault or neg…
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
73% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (17,175 words introduced, 13,788 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core liability rules and polluter-pays framework remained in place from introduction to royal assent. The only notable expansion added Aboriginal governing bodies to the list of entities whose response costs can be recovered.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The text repeatedly conditions powers and duties on what the Board or Tribunal 'considers necessary' or 'in the opinion of' officials, creating open-ended discretion. Fixed numbers appear only for liability caps and penalties, while most operative rules stay subjective.
Open to argument
“any action or measure that the National Energy Board considers necessary”
Subjective standard lets officials decide scope after the fact rather than stating clear triggers.“the Governor in Council is of the opinion that the company does not have or is not likely to have the financial resources”
Opinion-based test with predictive 'likely' element invites prolonged argument.“examinations that are, in the Tribunal's opinion, reasonably necessary”
Combines official opinion with a reasonableness qualifier, leaving both elements contestable.
Clear-cut
“liable, without proof of fault or negligence, up to the applicable limit of liability that is set out in subsection (5)”
Strict liability paired with a numeric cap produces a clear, objective ceiling.“on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than one million dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years”
Specific maximum penalties supply black-and-white sentencing boundaries.
Discretion. Nearly every operative power (abandonment measures, release response, Tribunal staffing, pooled-fund withdrawals, and rule-making) is left to the Board, Governor in Council, or Tribunal to decide what is necessary or appropriate.
Challenging the law itself. Broad grants of power tied to subjective necessity and opinion standards engage section 7 liberty interests and could be attacked for vagueness or overbreadth under the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Because most duties turn on what an official 'considers necessary' or 'reasonably' required, a company or third party can readily dispute whether the chosen action met that standard.
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?
partly effective
The Pipeline Safety Act (2015, in force 2016) lacks comprehensive official post-implementation evaluations from the Auditor General, PBO, or parliamentary reviews on its overall effectiveness in strengthening pipeline safety and security. A 2021 peer-reviewed study found its absolute liability provisions significantly reduced pipeline incidents, supporting partial achievement of safety goals.
- Office of the Auditor General of Canada - Report 2—Oversight of Federally Regulated Pipelines (2016)auditThe audit noted the National Energy Board was preparing for new responsibilities under the Pipeline Safety Act but identified needs for better risk consolidation and compliance tracking, with no post-implementation effectiveness assessment.
- Environmental regulation and safety outcomes: Evidence from energy pipelines in Canada (Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2021)studyAbsolute liability provisions from the Pipeline Safety Act were associated with an 80% reduction in quarterly events for major oil pipelines and 20% for smaller pipelines.
- Natural Resources Canada - Pipeline safety regimes in CanadaevaluationDescribes the Act's implementation of polluter-pays principle, absolute liability, and CER powers but provides no outcome evaluation or incident data analysis.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.