Debates of March 25th, 2014

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Ottawa South for his excellent speech.

He touched on the extremely important issue of how to manage water, a resource that is essential to human life and that the oil and nuclear industries use in massive quantities. From the start, the Conservatives have been ignoring environmental protection rules, including rules to protect water. If the oil and nuclear industries are to be made accountable, there has to be a water management plan.

The Fukushima incident in Japan, for example, contaminated water for miles around, affecting hundreds of thousands of people.

Can my colleague comment on the importance of managing water and the need to make the oil and nuclear industries that use this resource more accountable?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right; it is a question of accountability. Water management plans should be mandatory and more prevalent in these economic sectors.

However, we must not forget the incredible opportunities that exist for Canada when it comes to the future use of water, especially drinking water, around the world. Canada is well positioned, since we have one of the world's largest supplies of water. People regard Canada as an efficient country in that area, but we are much less efficient than we should be.

The opportunities around the globe are incredible. Over the next 20, 30 or 50 years, the world will need all kinds of new technologies, so we will have to start using water, energy and materials more efficiently. Canada could be a world leader in these areas.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to debate Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, and to share my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

This bill would modernize and increase accountability in Canada's offshore and nuclear industries. As hon. members know, it is no exaggeration to say that the offshore petroleum industry has literally transformed economies in Atlantic Canada. Over the past few years, this vital industry has created thousands of high-paying jobs and spinoff industries. It has also generated billions in revenues for provincial governments to invest in social programs that are essential to Canadians.

Over the past 15 years, Nova Scotia offshore production has generated over $2.3 billion in government revenues. Today, the industry generates close to $190 million of expenditures and supports approximately 770 direct jobs. On an annual basis, over the period between 2003 and 2007, the offshore petroleum sector's contribution to Nova Scotia's GDP was 3%.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, over the same 15-year period, offshore production has generated over $9.2 billion in government revenues. Today, the offshore oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador contributes approximately 28% of the provincial GDP, spending over $3.2 billion annually and providing 7,374 direct jobs. In 2010, through direct and indirect and spinoff effects, the industry accounted for over 12,800 jobs. That is 5.8% of provincial employment through responsible offshore resource development.

It is clear that exploration and development of the offshore is translating into tangible benefits for the people of these provinces, and these benefits will continue to grow.

Our regulatory and safety regime in the Atlantic offshore area is already strong. Over the past year, our Conservative government has introduced a number of measures to ensure the safe development of our natural resources under our responsible resource development plan. We have initiated new enforcement mechanisms, which include fines for non-compliance, with stated environmental requirements. This includes inspections for oil and gas pipelines, which have been increased by 50% annually. We have also doubled the number of comprehensive audits of pipelines.

Another example is the new mandated measures for oil tankers, which will ensure the safe transportation of energy resources through our waterways. These measures include the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, as well as the creation of an expert panel to review Canada's current tanker safety regime, which will propose ways to improve safe transportation.

Building on these measures, our Conservative government is taking steps today to strengthen its robust offshore liability regime and make it even stronger. As I have said many times, our Conservative government will ensure that no development proceeds unless it is safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. We have been working closely with the Governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to update and expand both accord acts to ensure that Canada's offshore regime for oil and gas exploration remains world class.

Companies operating in Canada's offshore have an excellent track record. Every stage of offshore petroleum activity, from exploration to production, is subject to stringent regulatory obligations and oversight by either the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board or the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. Companies must have regulator approved safety, emergency response and contingency plans, and regulators will not allow any offshore activity unless they have determined that the environment and the safety of workers will be protected.

Bill C-22 focuses on protecting the environment and taxpayers in the highly unlikely event of a spill.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has found that the offshore boards are operating with due diligence. However, he has recommended enhanced financial assurance for environmental risk. Our government has committed to study his report and make the necessary changes. The changes contained within Bill C-22 build on the commissioner's advice as well as lessons from international best practices. Our overall objective is to have a world-class offshore regime.

As the House knows, Canada's liability regime is founded on the polluter pays principle.

First, we are proposing to enshrine the polluter pays principle in legislation and to maintain unlimited liability when an operator is found to be at fault.

Second, our government will also increase the absolute liability to $1 billion, from $30 million in the Atlantic offshore and $40 million in the Arctic offshore. This means that fault or negligence does not have to be proven for that amount.

Third, we will require that operators demonstrate at least a $1 billion financial capacity to ensure they have sufficient funds if an incident were to occur. Currently the regulators require proof of an operator's financial capacity in an amount between $250 million and $500 million. We intend to raise the minimum financial capacity to $1 billion, in line with operators' absolute liability. Regulators may require higher amounts if deemed necessary. This increase will bring our country in line with comparable regimes, such as Norway, Denmark, the U.S., and the U.K. We are ensuring that companies have the financial wherewithal to meet their liabilities if needed.

Finally, we will require that operators provide regulators with rapid and unfettered access to at least $100 million that may be used if needed.

These are just some of the ways we are ensuring Canada is among the strongest liability regimes in the world.

We are also creating the ability for regulators to impose administrative and monetary fines as an additional tool in ensuring industry's compliance.

We are increasing transparency by allowing the boards to make emergency environmental and other documents public.

We are creating the ability to use spill-treating agents.

We are creating the basis for boards to recover costs from industry.

Our government is committed to ensuring the safe extraction of Canada's offshore resources, while at the same time protecting our environment. Raising the absolute liability for companies operating in the offshore will go a long way towards achieving that goal.

As the offshore industry continues to grow and develop, we must ensure it is done in a responsible manner. That is why I urge all hon. members in the House to support Bill C-22.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's speech.

It is all a matter of perspective when it comes to the numbers. One billion is a huge number that really hits home. However, the Fukushima decontamination has cost $250 billion so far, and the cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico has cost over $40 billion. If companies have a limit of $1 billion, this means that 34 million Canadians would have to absorb the other $41 billion in the case of a spill similar to the one in the Gulf of Mexico, or the other $249 billion.

Before we talk about that, could my colleague tell us about any measures in the bill that would allow us to be proactive and avoid such a disaster? We have heard only about the compensation companies would have to pay after the fact, after the disaster has happened.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, our government, as I said, is committed to protecting the safety of Canadians and the safety of our environment. We already have a robust marine oil spill preparedness and response regime. Regulators, such as the offshore boards, the NEB, and Transport Canada, inspect the pollution response capability of oil handling facilities, and the government reviews the plans and equipment through exercises.

Raising the minimum financial requirements to $1 billion and the authority of regulators to levy administrative and monetary penalties would incentivize companies to further improve their preventative safety measures.

These proposed amendments would also increase transparency, giving Canadians a better understanding of how these companies are performing in the offshore.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, coming from an oil-producing province as I do, we know full well when tragedy strikes in the offshore oil and gas field. We need look no further than the Cougar flight of a few years ago, just shortly after I was elected.

When is the government going to fully implement all the recommendations of Justice Wells' inquiry into the offshore oil; in particular, recommendation 29, which calls for an independent safety review board that would oversee the offshore oil, and other recommendations like the run-dry on helicopters? This was a serious inquiry, it had a number of recommendations, and it is time that government implements all the recommendations in the Wells Inquiry.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague may well know, we just finished a study and are now looking at Bill C-4, which is the offshore health and safety act. We certainly did hear from Mr. Wells, and our government takes the recommendations of the Wells Inquiry very seriously. We are satisfied with the improvements to offshore helicopter safety made by the C-NLOPB since the accident occurred. We continue to work with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the offshore area is as safe as possible.

When Commissioner Wells appeared at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in December, he was clear when he said he was pleased with our offshore health and safety legislation. He was also very clear that good has come out of the government's adoption of his recommendations.

I would advise my colleague opposite to read the transcript of the meeting and inform himself of Commissioner Wells' position on what our government has done in dealing with the recommendations he made.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to deal with legislation that is affecting the natural resources committee.

When approaching this legislation—and in Natural Resources we do not often get to quote Yogi Berra, the Yankees' catcher who was known for his pithy summaries of situations—a certain portion of it is déjà vu all over again.

I have been on the natural resources committee for a considerable number of years, and the portion of this legislation that deals with nuclear liability has been before this committee before. As my friend, the member for Ottawa South, pointed out earlier in his remarks, the Liberal government, going back now eight, nine years, the era of the Martin administration, was beginning to deal with the issue of nuclear liability.

While the bill has one basic purpose, it has two different emphases: One, as was predominantly dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, deals with the liability for offshore, oil rigs, gas, industrial complexes such as those. As we saw in the issue of the Gulf of Mexico and BP and the disaster it had down there, this is something that needs to be looked at in Canada.

The second emphasis of the bill deals with the nuclear industry, and that is where I will concentrate my remarks today. It is very important that we deal with this. It has taken a long time. It has, in some ways, not been the most urgent piece of legislation, but that is largely because, in many ways, we have if not the safest, one of the safest nuclear industries in the world.

The history of nuclear energy in Canada dates back some 75 years, and for many decades it has been a part of our energy mix, more so in some areas of the country than in others. Western Canada, where I am from, there is not so much. Here in Ontario, it is a considerable part of the electricity generating capacity and, in fact, now generates 15% of all electricity in Canada. It brings forth both economic and environmental benefits.

Our nuclear power industry is an engine of economic growth. It generates $5 billion a year in revenues and provides jobs for more than 30,000 Canadians.

We need to deal with this industry to make sure the regulatory and legislative elements are in place, to make sure it can prosper, people can be secure, and that it continues to generate jobs.

One reason why the government has introduced this legislation is that the industry is asking for certainty. While not having this legislation in place will not stop all nuclear development in the country, the industry has been calling for it so they know both what they are required to spend on their yearly insurance costs and what the legal framework would be should there be an accident. Thankfully, there has not been an accident in Canada to this point. Without this certainty, insurers would not provide coverage to nuclear facilities and no one would, to some degree, participate in further nuclear development.

The federal government has responsibilities, and as I said, our safety record is second to none, but we always want to make it better. We have a robust technology, a well-trained workforce, and stringent and increasingly clear regulatory requirements.

At this time, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act are the two pieces of legislation that provide a basis for regulating the industry. However, we must be ready for the possibility of an incident that could result in civil damages.

The responsibility for providing an insurance framework, one that protects all Canadians, is a federal responsibility. Therefore, the government has a duty to assume its responsibilities in this area, and the government takes this seriously.

The original act was first introduced in 1976. It needs to be modernized.

The particular thing that I think is going to stick with most people in the public when they read this debate or when they see a news story is the difference in liability in the 1976 legislation as compared with what the government is currently proposing. When we think that as drivers nowadays, it is not uncommon to have $1 million or $2 million liability insurance on our cars, to have only $75 million or $76 million insurance for a nuclear power plant seems a bit strange. That is why we are moving ahead to update the legislation that is nearly 40 years old.

The legislation would increase the amount of compensation to address civil damages from $75 million to $1 billion. This new liability amount would be in line with current international standards.

Let me take a small detour from my speech to remind colleagues who are listening and the general public that they are going to sometimes hear comparisons between what different countries have for their liability requirements. Be careful when using those numbers. Different countries have different legal setups and different mechanisms, so it is very difficult to directly compare country to country.

However, the government, and I know this from when we have previously looked at this legislation, has consulted and looked around to find out roughly what is in the international standard, roughly what is approximately redone in other parts of the world, both to have adequate coverage and, of course, to be competitive industry-wise.

The legislation would maintain the existing strengths of the old legislation in that it would maintain the key principle of absolute liability. This would make the operator of a nuclear facility responsible for any civil injury or damage, whether or not the operator was at fault.

I think that is very important to understand: whether or not the operator was at fault.

This would mean that even if an incident is the result of vandalism or negligence on the part of a supplier, the operator remains exclusively liable for compensating civil damages.

What has been said in previous legislation and is being restated in this legislation is that because this technology has such a large potential hazard dealing with it, owner/operators are required not only to provide basic safety standards, not only to be responsible for their actions, but also they need to think ahead and to do things that would cause their reactor, their nuclear facility, to be safe from the actions of others. These can be actions of nature or actions by people who seek to cause them harm. It is a very important point to think of because when we have car insurance, we are not always concerned about other people's actions when they damage our car. We do not get sued and are not held liable for someone who crashes into our car because of their reckless driving.

This is somewhat different.

These principles are common to nuclear legislation in other countries, such as the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, and these principles would be enshrined in this legislation.

To summarize, this legislation is necessary because the old legislation is outdated and the limits for liability are too low. We need to update the legislation to move the absolute liability from $75 million to $1 billion for a couple of reasons: first, to protect the public, to ensure funds are available and in place to provide in the event of an incident—and it does not have to be a Chernobyl incident; it can be a much smaller incident; and, second, to provide the industry with certainty.

This is an industry that wants to grow, that wants to develop in Canada, that wants to provide good high-tech jobs for Canadians from all across the country.

Therefore, for both the economic benefits and because of our duty to protect the safety of Canadians, we need to pass this legislation as soon as possible.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I would also like to thank him for pointing out that this legislation is more than necessary and long overdue. This is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough.

Does my colleague believe, as the NDP does, in the polluter pays principle? If so, we must ensure that companies that pollute pay a defined amount in compensation for the pollution. Some risks are associated with certain businesses and others are associated with oil exploration. We have to implement environmental protection measures. Unfortunately, as my colleague opposite knows full well, the government has gutted environmental safeguards such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. That is his problem.

Does my colleague believe in the polluter pays principle or does he want taxpayers to pick up the tab for the oil companies that cause the spills? Does he believe in this principle?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think I can agree with the hon. member's statements. In fact, the parliamentary secretary stated that the polluter pay principle is embedded in this legislation. That is one reason that we are asking that all hon. members support this legislation. While they may not think it is perfect, it is better than what is currently in place. It would provide more protection and certainty.

I would again say to the hon. member that, yes, we support that principle, and it is embedded in the legislation; and yes, this legislation needs to be better, even if members do not think it is the perfect piece of legislation to deal with all of the issues of these industries.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my former colleague on the natural resources committee, where we worked together for several years.

I want to get a better sense, as I mentioned earlier, of where Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is now with respect to its opportunities internationally. I mentioned that there are some 120-plus requests for proposal right now for nuclear power plants. That would be number one. Where are we in terms of access or bidding for that market?

Number two, what is the status of AECL in terms of its next generation of CANDU technology? The government has oft repeated that there is a university somewhere that is picking up a lot of the slack on isotope production, but that is not at all what we are talking about in terms of the international marketplace for nuclear power.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, since I have not been following AECL closely, I will not deal directly with what specifically it is bidding on. However, I can respond more generally to what the member is asking about.

I had some meetings a few weeks ago with other contractors who deal with AECL and who are looking at partnering with it in some of their facilities here in eastern Ontario. They were quite optimistic about where they see themselves going business-wise in Canada and where they see AECL fitting into the world. As has been noted, AECL has to adapt and make some changes as it is being reorganized and going through a new process.

The gentlemen I spoke with were very optimistic that AECL would grow and were looking to do business with it. This is a company that they were looking to do business with for the long term and thought that they could partner with, make a profit, and grow the Canadian economy.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I will address a number of issues in my speech. First, I will summarize the legislation. Those who have been listening to CPAC for a few minutes or a few hours already have a general idea of Bill C-22, which we are debating at present.

This bill proposes a more thorough review of nuclear liability and liability in offshore oil and gas exploration. The amount of absolute liability must increase from $75 million to $1 billion for the nuclear sector and from $40 million to $1 billion for the offshore oil and gas sector.

It is a step in the right direction and a good start. We will obviously support this bill at second reading so that it can be referred to committee, where we can make some improvements to it. I was pleased to hear my colleague who spoke before me say that this bill is not perfect. At least he agrees with me and there will be improvements to make in committee. What is more, I hope he will sit on the committee and make some improvements. It would be truly appreciated. He seems to be very familiar with this issue. If he does not sit on the committee, perhaps he could give his colleagues a short briefing on this.

The first thing people need to realize is that we would not have such a problem with this bill if the Conservatives had passed the sustainable development bill introduced by my hon. colleague from Brome—Missisquoi. I do not know what the Conservatives have against sustainable development, but they voted against the excellent bill introduced by the member for Brome—Missisquoi, under which all new bills would be subject to the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

Sustainable development encompasses the economy and social and environmental considerations. Bill C-22 is a step in that direction. Unfortunately, it still does not fully respect the spirit of sustainable development. That is why we must refer to a speech that will go down in history, the speech the leader of the opposition and member for Outremont delivered to the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa on a prosperous and sustainable energy future for Canada.

In this plan, he mentions the three key components of sustainable development, in other words the economic, social and environmental aspects. It is important for people to understand.

Three aspects need to be considered in Bill C-22, including sustainability. Sustainability means the polluter pays the bill for pollution instead of handing the bill to the next generation. The problem here is that the Conservatives are saying that this bill is based on the polluter pays principle, but that is not true. It is true that the polluter will have to pay a little more, but not much. Again, the taxpayers will be paying the lion's share.

I will provide some examples a little later. Members might fall off their chairs when they see the huge costs a nuclear or oil-related disaster can rack up. They will be shocked. They seem to be comfortably seated in their chairs, so it should be alright.

The other element that depends on our energy future strategy is the partnership with the first nations, the provinces and environmental groups. It is what we call social licence. The important thing is having social acceptability for value-added jobs here. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are exporting most of our jobs. Long-term prosperity is also important.

What I mean is that the government introduced a bill that looked good at first glance. However, we are quickly realizing everything it entails. In reality, the bill masks a lot of other things that the government has done that harm our economy. That is right: they harm our economy.

What have the Conservatives done to harm our economy? They have scuttled environmental legislation, such as the famous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. There are now bills that will be passed and challenged and that will not have social acceptability.

For example, the Enbridge line 9 project was approved without social acceptability. This will pose significant problems because there is no reliable, safe and strong environmental legislation. This is important. The NDP will ensure that there is better legislation that will allow us to know where we are going.

I will now provide some figures. My colleagues should brace themselves. I am not kidding.

In 2010, a major oil spill occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. So far, the cleanup costs have been estimated at $42 billion. Under Bill C-22, BP would pay $1 billion. Who would pay the remaining $41 billion? Taxpayers. That is not in line with the polluter pays principle. It is a gross injustice if the polluter pays $1 billion and the people pay $41 billion. There is no way we can accept that.

Take, for example, nuclear accidents. There was one at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011. The Government of Japan currently estimates the cleanup and repair costs at $250 billion.

Under this bill, the polluter would pay $1 billion. Who would pay the remaining $249 billion? Canadians. Payments would be spread over several generations, because that amount cannot be paid today, just like that.

In 2012, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development published a report on environmental liabilities. I actually asked the Minister of the Environment a question when she testified on the issue before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. At the time, she was new to the field, but she has now done her homework. I will see her again soon at a meeting of the same committee, and I will be able to ask her the same question again.

Environmental liabilities now amount to several million dollars. Who is supposed to pay for environmental liabilities? The public purse. In other words, Canadians, the people of Drummond. In Saint-Edmond, a municipality close to Drummondville, many people are concerned because of the contaminated site there. The government is not getting the cleanup done.

In a nutshell, this is a good bill at first glance, but the polluter pays principle has not been applied in the slightest. In addition, I did not even get to say that the responsibility of the minister must be removed from the bill. I will talk about that during questions and comments.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will help out my hon. colleague over a bit of a misunderstanding that he perhaps may have. The billion dollar limit in the legislation is only if a company has not been negligent. If a company is negligent, as it is assumed BP was in the Gulf, it can be sued and can end up paying more than $1 billion.

With that in mind, I would like to also ask my hon. colleague what he thinks about the provisions in the legislation that would protect Canadians from international incidents, that would provide greater compensation for Canadians should an incident happen south of the border.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I respond to my colleague's question, I would like to talk about something I did not have time to address.

I think this is a very important point because it is causing a great deal of concern. I am talking about the minister's responsibility. This bill gives the minister discretionary power. I believe the Conservatives are giving themselves far too much discretionary power. Discretionary power means that the minister can do whatever he wants, when and how he wants, simply because he decided to do so. In this case, we are talking about $1 billion, unless the minister decides not to enforce that limit and sets whatever limit he wants, such as $500 million, for example.

The question is about the $1 billion in a situation where the company is not responsible. One day there might be oil exploration in the Arctic. As everyone knows, the Arctic is an unknown and dangerous place. Some companies have even backed away from Arctic oil exploration because they believed it was too risky. This does not mean that companies would be negligent in their approach. It is a risky place, even if one is not negligent. There is a risk of oil spills that could cost tens of billions of dollars, so $1 billion is not enough. Even if companies are not negligent, the risk is still there. Who will cover that risk? Taxpayers will; the people of Drummond will.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He just spoke about ministerial discretion, which is in the bill. However, he did not really have an opportunity to say why we should perhaps be concerned about these types of discretionary powers.

Could taxpayers in the ridings of Drummond and Scarborough Southwest be obliged to pay more if the minister decided that $1 billion was too much in a given situation?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Scarborough Southwest for his excellent question and the remarkable job he does in the House representing his community.

It is very worrisome because there is a growing number of these small measures that increase discretionary power in Conservative legislation. There is a $1 billion cap, as was mentioned earlier. However, even if the company is not negligent, the risks are high. The risks are high in the Arctic offshore. If there is a spill, it will not cost $1 billion. It will cost many billions of dollars over many decades. For that reason, it is important to our ridings and the people we represent that we oppose this bill and the minister's discretionary power.

I am pleased that my Conservative colleague said earlier that this bill has some flaws and that it must be improved. I hope he will be one of the first to fight for improvements in committee. I am going to follow the committee's discussions to make sure that my Conservative colleague does his job, because clearly the bill has flaws.

As for the minister's discretionary power, it serves no purpose. It is not necessary. Why would he have this power? It is completely useless. I hope that the committee will take away this discretionary power and that the bill will be improved because, fundamentally, it is necessary.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Drummond on his excellent speech. He is a great source of information on the environment, and he works very hard on this issue. I want to commend his work, and I tip my hat to him.

I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-22, which would amend the law concerning Canada’s oil and nuclear operations. We are supporting this bill at second reading so that it will be sent to committee for in-depth study. We hope that the government will agree to work on improving the bill, as it desperately needs it. Clearly, our support at third reading will depend on the government's willingness to make much-needed improvements to the bill.

Bill C-22 references the polluter pays principle explicitly to establish that polluters will be held accountable. However, after researching this principle, I came to the realization that the bill does not adequately enforce it. For example, the nuclear liability limit is being increased from $75 million, which is quite insufficient, to $1 billion. It is a small step in the right direction, but it is not enough.

The polluter pays principle is based on the idea that the polluter pays. It is not complicated. Creating a $1-billion cap means that if a disaster were to happen, taxpayers would foot the rest of the bill, through no fault of their own. They will have to pay for that, in addition to suffering the health and environmental consequences. A bit later, I will share some statistics on that.

Another thing that bothers me about liability is the minister's discretionary power. I am sick and tired of seeing that in bills. MPs have a responsibility, but they can and should get help from experts in every field. We are talking about the environment and natural resources. These experts have dedicated their lives to researching the subject, so I do not see how the minister can set a cap without taking their opinions into account. That bothers me.

I do not understand why the government is always trying to grab more power. This is not the first time the government has tried to give a minister discretionary power in a bill. When will this stop? This is something we need to talk about because it is a real problem.

There is one positive aspect to the bill in terms of liability in the nuclear industry: it extends the limitation period for submitting compensation claims from 10 to 30 years. That is good for people who develop the kind of latent illnesses that are frequently linked to the nuclear industry. It is about time the government did this, but is it retroactive? Perhaps one of my colleagues opposite can answer that question during the time for questions.

As for liability in the oil and gas sector, this bill updates the Canadian liability regime for offshore oil and gas development to prevent incidents and ensure rapid response should a spill occur. Once again, it is about time the government took this important step.

This is all very nice on paper, but enforcement has to be strict. That is what the minister should be responsible for, not exercising a discretionary power to decide the extent of a company's liability for an incident.

That would be worthwhile, it seems to me.

The limit of liability for oil development goes from $40 million in the Arctic and $30 million in the Atlantic to $1 billion. That is a very small step in the right direction, and it is still clearly insufficient.

As I mentioned earlier, taxpayers should not be footing the bill. When I say taxpayers, I mean those who make financial contributions to society, but I also mean all citizens of all ages and in all situations. They should not be footing the financial bill, nor paying the price in terms of the environment, their health and their integrity. They should not be paying for incidents related to this kind of energy. We know full well that other sources of energy exist, renewable ones, in which greater investments could be made. For the nuclear industry and the oil industry, the polluter pays principle could apply.

I am thinking about biomethanization, for example. It provides an incredible source of green energy. If my colleagues opposite would like to come to my riding to visit the biomethanization plant in Sainte-Hyacinthe, I would be happy to welcome them. It is very interesting. Wind energy can also be used, as Quebec is doing. These are sources of energy that we can also embrace.

Now I would like to go back to the subject of financial liability. A billion dollars may seem like a spectacular amount, but it is very little. In Germany, for example, absolute liability is currently $3.3 billion per plant. With the paltry $1 billion that appears in this bill, Canada is far behind that. In the United States, the figure is $12.6 billion U.S. In Japan, there was a tragic nuclear disaster in 2011. The cost has been estimated at $250 billion. If a similar disaster happened in Canada, taxpayers would therefore have to pay $249 billion. Personally, I do not see the logic in that. In 2010, there was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The costs of the disaster are constantly rising, as they are in Japan too. The costs could exceed $250 billion. Mexico has already spent $42 billion, but it is not over yet.

I feel that we have to ask ourselves some serious questions. What do we want as a society? To what extent do we want to protect our citizens? To what extent do we want taxpayers to pay and keep on paying?

I also think it is important to point out that Canada is not immune to disasters. The thing I find particularly worrisome about this bill is that there is no mention of prevention. There is just what I call harm reduction or amortization of costs. That is all we find in the bill. It says that if x happens then we will do y. Nonetheless, the bill does not include specific measures for adequate prevention. What should we be doing every day to avoid a similar disaster and to make sure that people will not have to pay the financial, health and environmental costs?

This week marked a very sad anniversary. Today is the 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill along the Alaskan coast. It has been 25 years and the repercussions are still being felt. Nature still has not recovered.

Under the circumstances, I do not understand how the government can introduce bills that contain only half-measures to oversee activities that have catastrophic consequences for our environment and our health. It is worrisome.

I wonder when we will have a real bill that promotes green energy, truly advocates and enforces the polluter pays principle, focuses on prevention and actually protects people and our environment. I think that will come sometime after 2015.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech demonstrated that she has not really looked at the bill and that she certainly does not understand it.

The member talked about liability. The reality is that this legislation proposes $1 billion absolute liability, which means whether companies were at fault or not they would have to pay up to $1 billion for cleanup. However, there is also unlimited liability. It is still there, unlimited liability for companies, so if they are found to have been negligent in any fashion, any costs would have to be covered by the company, and those costs could go well above and beyond $1 billion. The member certainly did not indicate that she understood that. Maybe the member had not got to that part of her speech, or maybe she just decided not to include that in her speech. Does she understand that is the situation?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the bill. I do not understand anything. I am a nitwit.

Let us be serious. We are talking about the environment and about potential disasters. This is a matter of protecting Canadians and their health, and the accountability of nuclear energy and oil development companies. Now is not the time for playing politics, but for deciding what we really want. We want green energy, yes, but we also want to protect Canadians from possible disasters.

I think my colleague quite simply does not want to hear what we are trying to criticize.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech carefully, and I would like to ask her a question directly related to the statement we heard in a previous question having to do with a minimum of $1 billion. That amount is a joke when we consider the magnitude of disasters that occur worldwide.

How can the hon. member explain this approach by the Conservatives, who are trying to tell us that there is $1 billion in protection, while the same bill gives the minister the power to lower the cap for that protection, if necessary, for vague, unknown circumstances?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is actually a problem. In wanting to pass the buck to taxpayers, by giving discretionary authority to the minister and by imposing such a cap, the government is showing that it is unable to make companies truly accountable.

I do not understand where these figures came from. What really happened elsewhere has not been properly considered. I do not understand why the government is trying to tell us that there is $1 billion in protection, when the minister could decide to reduce it.

I do not know why we are in this situation, when incidents are occurring. We should be passing a responsible bill that makes companies accountable.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to speak to Bill C-22. In my presentation I will answer some of the questions that I have asked of the members across the floor and that they have completely avoided answering; the first one being that, under this legislation, companies would have absolutely unlimited liability. If the cost of cleanup, for example, is $10 billion and if the company is found to have been negligent in some fashion, it would be responsible not only for the $1 billion absolute liability but also for the unlimited liability of $10 billion. The member across the floor, and in fact the last two members, completely refused to acknowledge that, even when questioned on it. I do not mind criticism on legislation, and in fact I appreciate it, if it is fair criticism based on reality. However, that is not what has happened and I am somewhat concerned by that. So in my presentation I will answer some of those questions.

I would like to speak to the offshore aspect of this bill. It does of course cover nuclear liability as well.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, and I look forward to hearing her presentation.

As most hon. members know, the importance of the natural resources industry in Canada's economy cannot be overstated; it is extremely important. When we take the direct and indirect impacts into account, the natural resources sectors represent nearly 20% of Canada's GDP and employ 1.8 million Canadians. Together, the energy, mining, and forestry industries produce an average of $32 billion a year in government revenue to fund things like education, health care, and other social programs, including seniors' pensions.

These numbers suggest one thing, that the development of our natural resources sectors is central to the goal of improving the lives of Canadians right across this country. The critical social programs that benefit Canadians—including health, education, and public pensions, as I mentioned—are all partly funded and sustained by government revenues gained from our natural resources sectors. Our willingness to invest in our natural resources sectors provides continued opportunities for Canadians to live a high quality of life.

We are discovering more opportunities to invest in natural resources, specifically in the energy sector, particularly in Atlantic Canada where there are more than 8,000 people working directly in the offshore sector. As we continue to expand the offshore industry, we will open up even more opportunities for employment. This means more Canadians will be able to provide for their families and invest in their future.

“Future” is the key word here. In fact, at our natural resources committee just today, we are carrying out a study on the cross-country benefits of the oil and gas sector, and in our committee today we had the mayor of Saint John, as an example, expressing the importance in Saint John, New Brunswick, of the oil and gas sector. We had the head of the economic development group there, who expressed very clearly the importance in New Brunswick of the oil and gas sector. They also expressed the potential future if resources in Atlantic Canada and in Newfoundland and Labrador are developed completely. There are many real positives coming from this study, and it is exciting to hear the benefits across the country and the potential benefits into the future.

We cannot do that without also considering the future of our environment, and we all agree with that. That is why, under our plan for responsible resource development, our government intends to ensure that the expansion of offshore resources is done safely and responsibly. It is why we are introducing Bill C-22, new legislation to increase the safety and accountability of Canada's offshore regime. We can say with confidence that our offshore regime is already extremely strong. Companies operating in the offshore are strictly monitored today, even before this legislation.

In the two offshore areas in Atlantic Canada, both the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board ensure that no offshore development proceeds unless rigorous environmental protections are in place. It is already there.

Our government believes that industry must be accountable in the event of an accident. We have been working together with our two partners, our provincial governments in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, to establish an offshore regime that is not only strong but truly world class and world leading. When I speak about holding industry accountable, I am referring to the polluter pays principle, which has already been acknowledged by members in the House as being something they support. I think we all do. This principle holds industry liable for environmental damages incurred in the unlikely event of an incident offshore.

The industry is already subject to unlimited liability, which is what I was talking about, if the parties are found at fault or negligent in the case of an incident. We would not be changing that legal fact with this legislation. What we would be entrenching with Bill C-22 is the principle of increasing the amounts of absolute liability. Absolute liability ensures that operators have the resources for the cleanup costs of an accident or damages to others, regardless of fault or negligence. Right now absolute liability is set at $30 million for the industry operating on either of the two Atlantic offshore areas. That applies to the nuclear sector as well. It is set at $40 million elsewhere in Canada's offshore. Under Bill C-22, the minimum would be set at $1 billion for all areas of the offshore, bringing us in line with international standards, and in most cases exceeding them. That is absolute liability. Some members who have spoken to this legislation have not differentiated or understood that there is the $1 billion absolute liability and also unlimited liability, which would go beyond that in the case of negligence and that type of thing.

With the passing of this legislation, companies operating in the offshore would be subject to among the highest absolute liability thresholds in the world. To ensure compliance with this new standard of liability, companies wishing to operate in these areas must show proof of financial capability equivalent to their absolute liability. It is not some airy-fairy thing; rather, it is based on a careful review of the companies involved.

As part of the assessment, the regulator must be assured that the company has the financial assets to cover the $1 billion absolute liability requirement. We would also require the operators to provide regulators with rapid and unfettered access to at least $100 million that may be used in the rare case of an incident.

Industry would also have the option of setting up a minimum $250 million pooled fund. Operators could choose to use membership in such a fund to serve as their financial responsibility. This would ensure that all companies have the capacity to respond quickly in the unlikely event of an incident. Bill C-22 would also provide the offshore boards, which regulate these operators, with the increased authority and infrastructure to ensure the standards are upheld.

I would like to close by saying that our offshore industry is expanding rapidly, providing Canada with more opportunities than ever before. Canada is well placed to benefit from these opportunities. However, our government is committed to doing so in a responsible and safe fashion. That is the way we are approaching the development of all natural resources. Because of that, Canada is viewed as a country that has the regulatory regime that could be a standard that other countries strive to meet.

I welcome any comments or questions from members across the floor.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member say that unlimited liability is a good situation in the case of negligence sort of begs this question. What is his definition of negligence? If there is a huge oil spill and an agent or employee of the company caused that problem, does that mean the company is negligent, or is negligence, in his definition, simply the case where a company does something on purpose that is wrong or goes bad?

I wonder if he could expand on what he means by negligence.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is second reading of the bill, which is a general look at the legislation, but the situation is such that the company itself is liable for the actions of the contractors. So the $1 billion absolute liability and the unlimited liability actually do apply to contractors working for the companies, and the companies themselves are held accountable. I think that issue is covered. It was a good question.