As a follow-up to Ms. Crockatt's question, it is my understanding that the purpose of this legislation is several-fold. One is in the mind of the government to clarify where they're imposing liability. Two, it provides clarity for the industry to know what they're going to be liable for and at what point in time and who is going to determine their liability from time to time. I would hope the third purpose would be to clarify the process for those who are damaged by spills. That is a lead-in to my question.
Before I was elected I spent 40 years in my legal career working particularly with communities around the world to make sure we have user-friendly environmental laws so that everybody who is involved in this understands it. I have to tell you that this is a complex area you're trying to cover off here, but I find it unbelievably confusing.
I tried to find the time to go back and look at the laws in Alberta, for example, that deal with pipelines, but we have a number of laws and I didn't have a chance to look at it clearly.
I'm puzzled as to why the decision was not made simply to establish a claims tribunal and have all claims simply go to the tribunal and then have regulations thereunder on the different categories of claims. Of course, you have to have the first part, imposing the liability and what the limits are, but I can't imagine that anybody who suffers the impact of a pipeline spill going to this bill is going to understand how their claim is going to be processed.
Can you explain to me how the government will deal with the two factors of the indigence of the company owning and operating the pipeline and the factor of whether the tribunal is in the public interest? Why would there be the factor of “in the public interest” when it can't be a claim about impact to the environment, and it's only a claim to your property or your person? What does “in the public interest” have to do with the consideration by the tribunal of a claim for damage from a pipeline?