Debates of March 25th, 2014

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question. I have had the great pleasure of working with him on the industry committee in recent years, although not these days, as I am on the natural resources committee. I always enjoyed his chairmanship of our committee and I appreciate the point he has raised.

At committee we ought to have some evidence about the differences we are talking about. A reactor like the research reactor at McMaster would be much smaller than the major reactors that produce electricity in this country, and we could get an idea of what risks there are and how they compare. I would expect the risk to be smaller if the reactor is smaller. What does that mean in terms of what the limits ought to be? Should there be discretion in that case? Again, are there ways to indicate in the bill that if that discretion should exist, it would be limited only to certain kinds of cases?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to speak to us about something that is always dismissed out of hand and that is the precautionary principle.

I have an example. I visited the region of Japan where the tsunami occurred. There was a nuclear power plant there. The local authorities insisted that it be built on a hill. Doing so practically doubled the cost of the power plant. However, when the tsunami hit, the water ripped out the trees on the hillside without causing any damage to the power plant.

I wonder who made the better investment: those who invested in the Fukushima power plant, which was built by the sea and whose pumps stopped working when the tsunami cut out the engines, or those who were smart enough to spend twice as much on building a safe power plant?

If there is a risk that a potential disaster could cost the equivalent of twice our national debt, then I think we should start thinking about a different approach.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from my hon. colleague and the example he gave us.

We must always take measures to prevent problems from happening. The same is true for our criminal laws. We must stop closing the door after the problem has been created. Yes, we need criminal legislation and criminal penalties, but we must focus more on prevention.

What I am trying to say is that it is important to have more prevention in our criminal law system.

The company that built a reactor in Japan took major precautions, even though this was more expensive. I get the impression that there is a movement in Japan that supports building another reactor. That may seem surprising, but I read that recently. The recently elected mayor of Tokyo is in favour of nuclear energy. I imagine that they will take more precautions, which is very important.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl, who is an excellent speaker.

I rise today in the House to speak to 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. I have read the full title of the bill for those few brave souls listening to us on CPAC.

We are going to talk about this bill in a little more detail because, for the vast majority of Canadians, the title may be confusing. This is the fifth time that a similar bill has been introduced in the House. Previous versions were about nuclear safety. This version also deals with the liability of offshore oil and gas companies. Consequently, entire sectors of the oil industry are not covered by this bill. I will come back to this later, at the end of my ten minutes allocated for today.

The NDP is the only party that opposed the previous version of this bill, which dealt with nuclear liability, because the liability of nuclear companies was capped at $650 million, which was clearly not enough. We have heard ad nauseam from members opposite that we vote against this and that. Yes, we often oppose bills because what is suggested is outrageously inadequate. This is another fine example.

The NDP's current position on Bill C-22 is that we are going to support the bill in principle at second reading, because, even if it is inadequate, it is a step in the right direction.

For the brave souls listening to us on CPAC, I would like to take a few seconds to explain exactly what second reading is. It means that we support the bill and that it is going to go to committee. Committees are going to study the bill. If the government of the day shows good faith, because committees always have a majority of Conservative members, we can try to improve the bill and perhaps we will be in a position to support it on third reading. That is why we are supporting it at second reading. Our yes depends greatly on subsequent events. Canadians can therefore rest absolutely assured of this aspect of our approach.

Let us start with the few steps in the right direction that Bill C-22 takes in the specific case of the nuclear industry, even though they are still inadequate.

First, there is a clearer process through which the victims of a nuclear accident are compensated by the operators. Basically, that is a valid approach. The limit of absolute liability goes from $75 million to $1 billion. That may seem like a major step, but, in the light of current realities and compared to other measures in place around the world, it is quite inadequate.

The limit of liability for the operators of nuclear installations has remained unchanged at $75 million for 38 years. So it is urgent to move on that. This justifies our efforts, in committee, to try to make this bill provide Canadians with genuine protection, along the same lines as measures taken by other major legislative bodies.

Since the last time the obligations of nuclear industry operators were considered, the inflation rate has increased more than 300%. That tells us that we absolutely have to move on this. The limit of $75 million, that may possibly change with this bill, is so low that international courts, where victims would seek recourse in the event of a nuclear disaster, do not even recognize it. Even the suggestion of a billion dollars is much lower than what has been set by most other countries with a nuclear industry.

The bill extends the limitation period for submitting compensation claims for bodily injury from 10 years to 30 years to address latent illnesses. This is another step in the right direction. It is overdue.

Here is a disturbing example to illustrate just how overdue it is.

The Chernobyl nuclear disaster took place on April 26, 1986. In 2011—or 25 years after the tragedy—the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation counted 7,000 cases of cancer in the most exposed areas of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. These cancers have a very particular profile. They affect only adults. The epidemic primarily affects a population that was under the age of 18 at the time of the accident, due to the important role the thyroid plays during childhood and the teenage years.

Someone could be exposed to a nuclear disaster at the age of 18 or younger and not develop cancer until they are in their thirties. The 10-year period that was previously applied for the limitation period for submitting compensation claims for bodily injury was not enough. We are starting to see that a 30-year period is more reasonable for dealing with the reality of the effects of a nuclear disaster.

Bill C-22 will enable Canada to ratify the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. This convention gives the party states an additional $500 million in compensation, drawn from an international fund financed by the various signatories to the agreement. Until recently, our requirements were so low that we were not even worthy of being considered by other countries that had signed international agreements. Bill C-22 will help improve somewhat that aspect of the problem.

What steps in the right direction does Bill C-22 take when it comes to offshore oil and gas development? It updates Canada’s offshore liability regime to prevent incidents and ensure a swift response in the event of a spill. We agree with the bill's premise. Bill C-22 increases the absolute liability limit for offshore oil and gas projects in Atlantic waters from $30 million to $1 billion. All the limits are $1 billion. The figure was chosen somewhat at random. Very little consultation took place. Someone on the other side thinks that $1 billion is a good number. Why not $4 billion or $3.9 billion? For oil and nuclear energy, it is $1 billion. This number really shows that there was a lack of consultation with experts, since they certainly would not all have come up with a nice round number like $1 billion when asked how much would be required to deal with a nuclear disaster or an offshore oil spill. The bill also contains the polluter pays principle. It is a good principle that we are prepared to support.

Now, let us look at the problems with Bill C-22, which is insufficient, particularly when compared with international best practices. The basic question is this: why do Canadians not deserve to be just as well protected as people in other countries where there is major legislation governing their natural resource production?

Bill C-22 ignores best practices when it comes to recognizing the dangers of inadequate liability regimes. However, on June 2, 2010, all members of the House adopted a motion moved by the NDP member for Edmonton—Strathcona. To everyone's surprise, the Conservatives voted in favour of that motion. The motion called on the government to ensure that Canada has the strongest environmental and safety rules in the world and to report to the House for appropriate action.

We need look no further than this for an example of the government's complete failure to support a motion. Since the Conservatives voted in favour of this motion, Canada has collected booby prizes from the Climate Action Network, a coalition of 400 competent non-governmental organizations. These prizes are awarded at United Nations climate change conferences, no less.

Let us look at some specific examples of what might protect Canadians. For instance, offshore operations in the North Sea are regulated. Companies have no choice. Relief wells must be in good working order before the main well can be drilled. The moment the main well does not work, the relief well is already in place, ready to take over. If this system had been in place in the Gulf of Mexico, the oil spill could have lasted 30 minutes instead of weeks.

Also, if the Conservatives had meant it when they supported my colleague's motion, this is the kind of regulation we would have found in a document seeking to regulate offshore operations.

In Germany, nuclear liability is absolute and unlimited, regardless of fault, and financial guarantees are as high as $3.3 billion Canadian per nuclear plant. In the United States, that figure is $12.6 billion. Clearly, there are several pieces of legislation with a much stricter framework.

I have one last thing to say to our colleagues opposite. To my knowledge, the capital of the nuclear industry in the United States or the offshore oil and gas industry in the North Sea has not vanished into space. There is still activity. We can do much better.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cardigan, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Québec, Finance; and the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, Veterans Affairs.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Ottawa South has been trying to get a better understanding, as I am sure many viewers want a better understanding, of the New Democratic Party's position in regard to nuclear energy.

It is somewhat frustrating to see the NDP members skate all over the ice to avoid answering the question. In fairness to those who are interested in what the NDP position might be on nuclear energy, maybe the member could provide some clarity on the issue.

We have the status quo going forward. There is a great deal of expertise that builds on nuclear energy outside of Canada. Obviously it is a fairly significant issue for us to deal with. I wonder if the member might provide some clarity, in some murky water, as to the NDP position.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that my Liberal colleague is setting the stage to say that a $1 billion liability limit is acceptable.

Let us consider the opinion of Joel Wood, an economist and researcher with the Fraser Institute, which is not exactly a radical left-wing think tank, on the subject of raising the absolute liability limit:

Increasing the cap only decreases the subsidy; it does not eliminate it. The Government of Canada should proceed with legislation that removes the liability cap entirely rather than legislation that maintains it, or increases it to be harmonious with other jurisdictions.

This principle is rather simple. At the Fukushima plant, for example, it is going to cost over $200 billion to clean up the huge mess caused by the environmental tragedy that happened there. Therefore, a $1 billion cap is really not enough.

When the Fraser Institute says that this is practically an indirect form of financial support for the industry, we have a serious problem. In committee, these people will tell us how far we should go. It will certainly be more than $1 billion.

We will be paying close attention and will be ready to suggest amendments to better protect Canadians.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. Nothing the Conservatives have done so far suggests that they really care about international standards.

This bill does not allow us to catch up to our international partners. The United States has established an absolute liability limit of $12.6 billion. Meanwhile, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and even Austria and Switzerland have all introduced unlimited liability for nuclear facilities.

Why, in my colleague's opinion, is the Conservative government refusing to do anything? Is the nuclear lobby that strong?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are our colleagues opposite extremely sensitive about major lobbies? Yes. Should we be concerned? Yes. Is it likely part of the current problem? Yes.

I want to come back to an argument that is important to me. Norway has no cap when it comes to liability and has much higher requirements for nuclear liability and everything related to offshore development.

Investments are currently comparable to ours. Investments are not disappearing because maximum protection is required. However, the industry understands the message and is making every effort possible to avoid any tragedy stemming from its economic activities. It is a strong message that incidentally ensures that there are very few development-related spills in the North Sea, which borders Norway.

The idea is to require the maximum to protect our environment, our population, our fishers and our children's future. In this way, industries will behave better and we might be able to avoid any kind of environmental tragedy. No, capital will not disappear into space, because the resource is on earth.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. It is measured support. The act deals with both offshore oil and gas operations and the nuclear liability and compensation act, but I am only prepared to speak on oil and gas.

My riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador is not exactly known for its nuclear industry, although the word “nuclear” could be used to describe my province's dislike of the Conservative government, a nuclear dislike that will redline in 2015. I could not pass that up, Mr. Speaker.

The issues surrounding oil and gas development are paramount in Newfoundland and Labrador. Oil and gas have made us a rich province, a have province. For too long, Newfoundland and Labrador was seen as a drain on Confederation, although that was never the case. The contribution of our ore, our fish, our hydro, our forestry, and our people to the rest of Canada and the world are practically immeasurable.

Today, officially on paper, we are a net contributor to Confederation and are proud of it. That is due, in large part, to offshore oil fields such as Hibernia, Terra Nova, and White Rose. The $14-billion Hebron development is due to come on stream in 2017.

Then there is the potential, the incredible, massive potential. This past September, the news broke of a major oil find off Newfoundland, a reservoir of light crude believed to hold as much as 600 million barrels of recoverable oil, the 12th largest oil discovery in the world in the past four years. That discovery, which happened in August, is the third recent find in the Flemish Pass basin in the North Atlantic in recent years.

The potential for oil off Labrador, which is practically frontier, virgin territory, is through the roof, and the exploration is not nearly what it is in the North Sea.

I had a meeting just a couple of weeks ago with the head of Nalcor, the crown corporation in Newfoundland and Labrador responsible for energy development. The member for St. John's East and I met with the head of Nalcor, and I can tell the House that the future of oil and gas in my province is incredibly exciting. Ed Martin, the CEO of Nalcor, had a hard time containing his excitement, and it was good to see on his face.

As parliamentarians, we must ensure that worker health and safety and the environment are first and foremost, front and centre, and protected at all costs. Bill C-22 maintains unlimited operator liability for fault or negligence. In other words, if there is an oil spill and a company is found negligent and responsible, the blame is 100% theirs. There is no limit on the liability, no cap on the liability, and that is the way it should be.

In the case of no fault, the bill increases absolute liability in the Atlantic to $1 billion from $30 million. That is an increase of $970 million. That may sound huge, and there is no doubt that it is huge, but is it enough? That is the question. Is a $1-billion cap on no fault enough to cover the damage from an environmental catastrophe?

The United States has an absolute liability cap of $12.6 billion U.S. versus, again, our absolute liability cap of $1 billion Canadian. That is a difference of more than $12 billion Canadian. I would say that the absolute liability amount is not enough, certainly not compared to the United States. Do Canadians, do Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, deserve at least the same amount of liability protection as the United States? Yes, we do. The answer is obvious. Of course we do.

The 2010 British Petroleum spill in the Gulf Mexico was expected to cost as much as $42 billion for total cleanup, criminal penalties, and civil claims. British Petroleum is reported to have already spent $25 billion on cleanup and compensation.

In addition, it faces hundreds of new lawsuits that were launched this spring, along with penalties under the Clean Water Act that could reach $17 billion. Therefore, how far would our absolute liability cap of $1 billion go? It would not go very far. It would be a drop in the oil barrel. A $1 billion liability cap is not enough. It is a start, but it is not enough. It is not nearly enough.

This bill references the polluter pay principle explicitly in legislation, to establish clearly and formally that polluters will be held accountable. This bill is most definitely an improvement upon the current liability regime, but it is not enough to protect Canadians or the environment. In fact, it continues to put Canadians at risk. More specifically, it continues to put Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at risk.

The reality is that the $1 billion cap is not enough. It is not sufficient. The artificial cap actually acts as a subsidy to energy companies by reducing the cost of insuring the risks that they create. Energy companies make a fortune. They make billions of dollars a year, and yet we would be subsidizing them and increasing the risks to ourselves. That does not make sense. If this were truly polluter pay, the polluter would be responsible, period.

Norway and Greenland have unlimited absolute financial liability for oil spills. To point out the irony, Norway has unlimited liability for a spill in its own waters, but as the owner of Statoil, the company that made the recent oil discovery off Newfoundland, it would have a cap in our waters. Does everyone see the difference?

What is most scary about Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, is that it provides for ministerial discretion to reduce absolute liability levels to below the legislated level of $1 billion. That discretionary provision could undercut the advantages of the legislated cap. It leaves the door open for reduction of absolute liability levels for certain projects as a form of economic incentive for oil and gas development that the government wants to encourage. Therefore, if the government of the day wants to lower the $1 billion cap, it can. That is where the word “scary” comes in, especially when the $1 billion liability cap is not nearly enough to deal with a massive spill.

To conclude, New Democrats support this bill at second reading, but we would also push for expanded liability and the implementation of global best practices. Worker health and safety and the environment should be first and foremost in our oil and gas industry, and certainly not left to ministerial discretion to potentially lower what is already inadequate liability. Why can this country not lead the way in environmental protection? Why are the Conservatives accepting anything less?

This is a step forward; make no mistake, this is a step forward. However, why should we expect anything less than elite?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague because every time he speaks, his love and deep devotion for his constituents is apparent, and that is truly incredible.

That is why I would like to ask my dear colleague the following question. Your pragmatic approach to jobs and the quality of life of the people in your riding is legendary. I wonder what you think your chances really are when this bill goes to committee.

Do you think that our friends opposite will be able to be as pragmatic as you are and resist pressure from an industrial lobby?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would like to remind all hon. members to direct their comments and questions to the Chair rather than directly to other members.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. “Live in hope, die in despair” is a saying that we have back home.

Again, it is a good thing the absolute liability is being raised to $1 billion. However, I would like to think that when we bring up good points, like the fact that the absolute liability in the United States is $12.6 billion U.S. versus $1 billion in Canada, the Conservatives would see how far below the global standards we are. I would like to think the Conservatives would see how sensible that is and how far below the world standards we are. Again, we live in hope, die in despair.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. Certainly we can see his passion for Newfoundland and Labrador when he speaks. I had the honour, when I was sailing on HMCS St. John's, to land on Hibernia as part of a Sea King helicopter crew in order to analyze the rig on a search and rescue aspect. It was great to see. In fact, it was the Conservative Mulroney government that ensured that the benefits from those developments and the development of the offshore came to Newfoundland.

The member addressed some of his concerns with respect to the legislation, but started off his remarks by suggesting he was in general support of portions of the agreement. As an opposition member, he focused his speech on his opposition. As a government member, I would like him to bring out the positive aspects he was referring to at the outset and talk about how he thinks this would be potentially good for the resource sector in Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across the way for the question. The hon. member is a lucky man to have landed on the Hibernia platform. I have not done that myself, but it is on my bucket list. The name “Hibernia”, by the way, means “Ireland”. The hon. member for St. John's East would know that as well. It means Ireland, in Gaelic.

What I do like about this bill is that it would raise the absolute liability from $30 million to $1 billion. That is an increase of $970 million. That is a great thing. However, when we look at environmental catastrophes, like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, we are talking compensation, so far, that is $42 billion U.S. Unfortunately, it is possible that we could have that kind of catastrophe off the east coast. That is possible.

If we look at $42 billion and rising to clean up that mess in the United States versus $1 billion that has been set aside for unlimited liability in Canada, we can see that it is not nearly enough. Again, I say that there are some good things and that this is a step. However, to reference the last line in my speech, this is a step, but we should be taking a leap.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for St. John's East.

Bill C-22, introduced by the Minister of Natural Resources, develops measures for sharing the financial burden of an industrial incident between industry players and taxpayers.

As far as principles go, I support the merits of these measures. However, after a detailed look at Bill C-22, I must express my reservations and criticisms about liability levels and other provisions in the bill.

Companies working in the nuclear and oil industries have the potential to cause health and environmental damage and, unfortunately, they do not assume all of the social, health and ecological costs associated with their high-risk activities.

This issue adversely affects the world outside the industry because taxpayers will take on the majority of the financial, health and moral problems of a high-risk activity, yet they will not take part in the business deal or benefit from the resulting monetary profits. In the end, taxpayers will suffer the consequences of these activities without directly reaping the financial benefits.

It is important that we have responsible, effective legislation that encourages technical and technological advances without shifting the majority of the costs of an industrial incident onto taxpayers.

A responsible legislator must pass measures that require the entity responsible for a disaster to absorb the various costs related to an industrial incident. This is straightforward. In other words, the company responsible must ensure that its production costs include a major part of the potential social, ecological and health care compensation paid out if an accident occurs.

I support the idea of the polluter pays principle. It is a founding principle of environmental law. However, it is clear that the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth when it claims to ensure that the polluter is morally and financially responsible and then puts a limit on that responsibility.

The liability limit set by the government does not embody the spirit of the polluter pays principle. A nuclear incident has long-term negative consequences. From a health standpoint, it can result in bodily harm that is sometimes only discovered years after the incident.

Since the federal and provincial governments are involved in nuclear plants, we can assume that they will be directly affected by any potential consequences. Therefore, it makes sense to ensure that these accidents do not happen. Nuclear plants are often owned by the government. If an accident were to take place, the government would likely be footing the bill and will therefore ensure that there is no accident, since it knows that it will end up paying. Operational safety automatically becomes cost-effective and logical.

An industrial accident has a negative effect on economic growth, and especially tourism.

For example, if we had an oil spill, the region affected would certainly see fewer tourists. There would also be less foreign investment if an area were to become radioactive.

Bill C-22 provides for limited liability by setting the cap at $1 billion. Furthermore, it does not allow for indexing the amount of compensation, for example, with inflation. The government could have chosen to automatically index this amount, but it would rather let 15, 20 or 30 years go by before it realizes that this amount still has not changed and that it does not reflect the new reality. It would have been a good idea to insert provisions for this, since the effects of a disaster can last many years, and during that time the value of money fluctuates.

Bill C-22 provides a rather narrow definition of the polluter pays principle, in that the polluter would be more encouraged to pollute than to adopt best practices and standards to prevent industrial disasters.

The NDP is the only party that has credibility when it comes to environmental protection. The other political parties are not doing anything about the outdated shared liability regime. Outdated protections cost Canadian taxpayers a lot of money, since the taxpayer could be the victim of an accident and end up being taxed on that very same accident.

Unfortunately, we had a specific example in Lac-Mégantic. The insurance coverage the company was asked for was totally inadequate to cover the damage that the incident caused. The insurance was clearly inadequate to cover accidents.

In the event of an incident, the government should not expect taxpayers to act as potential contributors to its subsidies for these various forms of energy. If the government assumes that, at the end of the day, taxpayers will pick up any shortfall, it is indirectly subsidizing those two sectors by playing on the potential risks and playing with those who are going to pay the bills.

I also have to stress that other countries are planning to adopt the principle of unlimited liability, because it really is not such a good idea to set the compensation at a fixed amount. I do not believe that the negative consequences for public health and for economic activity can be reduced to a fixed amount. The responsibility comes with grave consequences for the community.

That is why it is necessary to look at a compensation plan in which liability is unlimited. Besides the effectiveness of the compensation mechanisms, public authorities must also establish safe and effective ways of reducing industrial accidents. In that context, Bill C-22 must be marked by a proactive approach.

Since I had the opportunity to attend a briefing on this bill given by the Department of Natural Resources, I asked how the limit of $1 billion was arrived at. I expected that they would have looked at accident scenarios in order to assess the cost, but that was unfortunately not the case. I received no precise answer.

To me, it would have been logical to have simulated various reasonable accident scenarios in an attempt to say how much it would cost today, and then set the amount. That step seems logical and appropriate to me.

However, the only answer I have received to date is that the amount of $1 billion is enough. I have received no technical or logical explanation that would allow me to understand why the $1 billion figure was arrived at.

I repeat that I support the principle of the bill. However, there are a number of unanswered questions, including the one dealing with the fixed amount, which seems strange to me. Since I am fortunate enough to be a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I will be asking departmental officials more questions about this bill.

I feel that they need to be asked, because we must not limit ourselves to partial liability in this case.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her comments and recognize the good work she does on the committee for natural resources.

All day I have been asking the members opposite about their support for the nuclear industry and I have yet to get a clear answer from someone on that side. Did the member for Winnipeg Centre, for example, speak for his party when he attacked jobs in Ontario and said, “We do not want to see Darlington nuclear plant doubled in size. We want to see it shut down”.

On this side of the House we stand behind the 30,000 Canadians working in the nuclear industry. Therefore, I ask the member, what is the NDP's position on clean nuclear power?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say to my colleague that I believe that Canada has a very good nuclear regulatory system. To date, we have shown that we can maintain a certain level of safe production.

We also have to take the provinces into account when discussing nuclear power. Some provinces have chosen to go with other sources of energy because the risks associated with nuclear power are difficult to manage. For those provinces that have access to a fair amount of hydroelectric power—Quebec, for example—it may be advantageous to choose that type of power.

Apart from the NDP's position, every province has its own position, which is articulated in their energy management plan and how they see their own future. No matter what direction the different provinces take, the NDP will be happy to talk to them and discuss the future of nuclear power in the context of their position.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for her excellent presentation.

I would like to go back to something that was discussed by one of our colleagues in a previous speech and that is the discretionary power that this bill would grant the minister to reduce the absolute liability to below the $1 billion limit in the event of an oil spill, accident involving pipelines that transport gas, and so forth.

I would like my colleague to tell us about the negative effects that this kind of provision could have on the objective of this bill. I believe that this is another way for the Conservative government to please its friends in the oil and gas industry, to keep from scaring them too much and to avoid making lobbyists nervous. I would like to hear more from my colleague about this.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when ministers are granted such discretionary powers, the danger is that companies will choose to invest in lobbying instead of safety. The companies will invest the millions they have in lobbying and in the lobbyists who will put pressure on the ministers and who will manage to lower the industry's standards in general, rather than investing it to make practical improvements to the safety of their business and ensure that the heath of Canadians is less threatened and that environmental risks are reduced. That is the danger.

If the opportunity is there, some people may unfortunately choose to invest in lobbying, rather than choosing to improve the safety of their facilities. Proceeding that way is very dangerous. Unfortunately, we have seen some business models based on this principle that have led to disaster. I do not want that to happen again.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, for graciously sharing her time with me in this important debate about Bill C-22, an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations that would also enact a nuclear liability and compensation act and make consequential amendments, including repealing the existing Nuclear Liability Act.

I also want to congratulate my colleague, the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, for his very forthright and passionate speech on this issue and on the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, which has been so important to the fiscal position of the province and has provided opportunities for legions of workers, both in the offshore field itself and in engineering and related matters, bringing about great prosperity for Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am pleased to speak to this bill because it is an opportunity to talk about this issue and its importance within the Canadian context.

We hear a lot about western Canada. I went to law school in Alberta. I am very aware of the importance of that industry there and the oil sands, as well, but I think sometimes it overshadows the role that east coast oil and gas plays in total production and its importance to the overall Canadian scene.

We are concerned, of course, as is every country and anyone else aware of the consequences of potential oil and gas spills, both on land and at sea, about the danger of pollution and the danger of a spill that could have a catastrophic effect. We saw that in the most recent Macondo case in the Gulf of Mexico, which had huge consequences for Gulf, for the fishers in the area, for the communities, for the environment, and for all of the sea life affected by this particular spill. As as result, the need to take a close look at the liability regimes has been brought into sharp focus.

We support the bill at second reading. We want it to go to committee. We think that significant improvements have been made here. I do not know if it has been mentioned before, but the words “polluter pay” actually appear in the bill. I think that is the first time they have ever appeared in a bill in Canada. It is something that our leader has spoken about as a basic principle of our party when it comes to sustainable development. One of the hallmarks of sustainable development is that to make it sustainable, it is the polluter that should pay if there are any consequences of its economic activity, and not the public.

Here, we have a significant rise in liability from what has to be considered a ludicrous amount of $30 million, to $1 billion in the case of offshore oil and gas, and generally from $40 million to $1 billion in the case of the Arctic, for no-fault risk.

Some people might say, “Well, if it is not our fault, why should we have to pay at all?”

The reason is that they are the author of the activity they are engaging in to obtain profit and they have to pay the consequences if something goes wrong.

It is not as simple as “no fault” or “your fault”. As a lawyer, I know that deciding who is at fault and what the fault is, is often a very long, tortuous, and expensive process. In case of the kind of activity we are talking about here, we need to know that the initial responsibility rests with the person who causes the damage, that the damage is going to be fixed, and that people who need compensation are going to be compensated. A no-fault system allows that to happen.

The at-fault position is that there is not a limit on liability. The limit, I guess, is the ability of the operator to pay. That also comes into effect and we need to know that people who are engaged in this kind of activity, which is dangerous to the environment and to life and limb, are responsible and capable operators and companies that can actually carry out this work.

I say life and limb; it is often overlooked that the Deepwater Horizon project that blew up and caused this big damage also cost 11 workers their lives in that explosion. It is still a very dangerous activity, as we know from the Ocean Ranger disaster in 1982 and the Cougar helicopter crash recently and another crash a couple of decades ago. It is a dangerous activity that requires serious and responsible actors in the business, and so we would want to make sure that they are responsible for the damage they cause.

The act itself has some significant limitations. I am still puzzling over why one would say we are going to raise the liability from $40 million to $1 billion and then say the minister can waive that requirement. There does not seem to be any particular conditions as to when he or she might do that, and so one wonders why it should be there at all.

I can see the lineup now. Everyone would want an exemption because they would say they cannot really afford that or would not be able to get insurance or not be able to operate. Everything would supposedly come to a standstill if that were enforced. The minister is going to have a lot of people at the doorstep, looking for the exemption.

In the United States, the limit is $12.6 billion. In Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, and in numerous countries, there is no liability limit. In those countries, Norway and the United States being good examples, this has not prevented the development of robust and successful offshore oil and gas developments. We need to know why Conservatives are asking for that, but we would have a great deal of difficulty supporting that kind of exemption unless they convince someone that it was limited to one or two particular circumstances that may make sense. I do not know what they are. We have not heard the case for that yet.

However, we do see some progress here. The $1 billion, in fact, was an amendment suggested by the NDP in the last Parliament when a piece of legislation was brought forward, never really seriously, because it was left on the order paper for a year before the last election, but $650 million was proposed. The NDP recommended it be put at $1 billion at that time, which of course did not happen and the bill died on the order paper. This is a step forward, but there is a very strong case for unlimited liability and certainly a number more than $1 billion, and that is something to discuss at committee.

When we are talking about oil and gas development and pollution problems, there is the issue of spill response and what the capability is of dealing with an oil spill if it occurs. There is significant concern about that in the Atlantic and the existing regime right now. In fact, in a 2012 report, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was critical of the industry and critical of the regulators, both in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador, for not being in a position to take over responsibility for oil spills if they occurred. In the case of Newfoundland, a study started in 2008, just to define and determine what the operator's capability was regarding oil spill containment and activity, has not been completed.

Officials tried to determine what the capability was. They had to review the spill response capability of operators. They said they were going to do it, but they have not done it. They said they were going to do it by March 31, 2013, after five years in the making. As my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl pointed out about a month ago, officials still have not produced that report.

The member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, and I met recently with the C-NLOPB, which promised to have this report out very shortly. We look forward to that. We do need to know that if there is any kind of a spill, the oil companies have the capability to respond to it, to give the public confidence that this industry can be operated in safety and that the environmental concerns are taken into account.

I see that my time is up and I look forward to any questions and comments members may have.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about one specific aspect.

We now know that the energy sector is under incredible pressure. We need only look at how the Europeans tremble before Russia, which could shut off the gas at any time. There are immense profits to be made. I understand that my government colleagues on the other side of the House are in a hurry to develop our resources and turn a profit. We see that they are trying to speed up the process, minimize consultations and facilitate the implementation of energy projects. That is already a big gift to the sector.

I have difficulty understanding why the Conservatives would impose a limit on the liability of businesses when they mess up. Would it not be fair to privatize the profit and de-privatize the expenses once again?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the effect of a limit and a cap on liability, both in the nuclear and in the oil and gas industries, is effectively a subsidy on the operator because if there is no limit on the liability for even a no-fault, the taxpayer ultimately subsidizes the damage done to the environment. This is something the current government has been doing with the oil and gas industry generally. It is making it easier for the industry to proceed with developments without proper consultation and environmental hearings and consideration. It is doing a lot of things to effectively subsidize that industry.

I suppose it is a Conservative principle, and we hear it from the Fraser Institute and others, that the person undertaking the activity should pay the costs, not the taxpayer. We think it should apply to the oil and gas industry as well. Undue government support for that industry, in leaving the regulations slack to the point of affecting the environment and trampling the rights of people, is not the way to go.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. member for St. John's East will have about two minutes of questions and comments when this debate resumes.

Divorce Act

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

moved that Bill C-560, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this private member's bill, a very non-partisan one, whose time has come in this country for the sake of families and for the benefit of children.

Throughout my time as a member of Parliament, next year my 19th year, I have fought for legislation and public policy that recognizes and protects the role of the family as the foundational unit of society. That is pretty important, and we pay a price when we do not support it, and try to deal with some of the fallout that happens occasionally and try to mitigate that as well in respect to family.

With Bill C-560 I am continuing my commitment to stand up for the Canadian family by seeking an amendment to our Divorce Act. These amendments would keep both parents in the lives of more children in those cases where marriage breaks down.

The amendments in Bill C-560 would direct the courts in regard to divorce to make equal shared parenting, and I will talk later of the range being 35% to 50% roughly, but making it the presumptive arrangement in the best interests of the child, except in proven cases of abuse or neglect.

I introduced a similar bill, Bill C-422, in June 2009, but it was never debated due to an election call.

Previous to that, in 2008, I introduced Motion No. 483, expressing support for the principle of equal shared parenting. At that time, the Government of the Northwest Territories expressed its solidarity with that position by way of a motion that it passed in its legislature.

Seventeen long years ago, in 1997, just prior to my having stepped onto the federal scene here, a joint House-Senate committee presented to Parliament a report entitled “For the Sake of the Children”. That report urged Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to make equal shared parenting the normative determination by courts dealing with situations of divorce involving children. The non-partisan recommendation from that joint House-Senate report was based on some pretty compelling research. Members can read that extensive testimony. It was made available to all committee members of the different parties.

Bill C-560 is a modest attempt to address some of the concerns and recommendations made in that report and, in particular, the rebuttable presumption, which takes children out of the equation as pawns in the battle for gain by adversarial parents. Some marriage breakdowns are more adversarial than others, but removing children from that equation would be good. Parents could fight over the house, the boat, the land, and whatever other kinds of assets of that marriage, but not the children. We will set some guidelines. We will have some restrictions. It will not be about the children.

Bill C-560 would require parents to co-operate toward equal shared parenting unless they can make a credible compelling case that this would not be in the best interests of their children.

In this respect, Bill C-560 is catching up to the best social science research, which demonstrates the importance of a child's continued access to both parents, a father and a mother, for the best personal and social outcomes.

There are exceptions to this ordinary reality, which is why the presumption is rebuttable, and lawyers in the House would understand what that means, and why there are exceptions for proven neglect and abuse. This is not just allegations of abuse or allegations of this, that, or the other, but evidentiary proven neglect and abuse.

Bill C-560 would also replace the language of custody and access with the language of parents and it uses terms such as “parenting order” and “equal parenting”.

Recommendation 5 from the “For the Sake of the Children” report reads as follows:

This Committee recommends that the terms “custody and access” no longer be used in the Divorce Act and instead that the meaning of both terms be incorporated and received in the new term “shared parenting”, which shall be taken to include all the meanings, rights, obligations, and common-law and statutory interpretations embodied previously in the terms “custody and access”.

The international organization Leading Women for Shared Parenting reports that:

Research also proves that, although children want a relationship with both their parents regardless of marital status, healthy bonding with a non-residential parent is impossible without a substantial amount of time spent in that parent’s physical presence.

That means very close to equal.

This legislation would not establish a firm figure for what that equal time would be. In jurisdictions across the world, from more socialist countries, like Sweden, Belgium, and so on, to more-to-the-right countries, such as I suppose Australia and some U.S. states, the range has been determined to be 35% to 50% of residential time with each parent. That is considered to be consistent with the notion as it is in the courts thus far.

Lawyers for Shared Parenting notes that Bill C-560 conforms with the principles of children's rights as advanced by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by Canada. We are a signatory to that convention.

Article 9 of that UN Convention on the Rights of the Child argues for a child's prior right of access to both parents, thereby establishing a presumption for equal shared parenting in cases of divorce and separation.

Some people have objected to establishing a presumption in law regarding child custody cases, but the reality is that a presumption already exists, de facto, in the system. Upwards of 80% of custody cases are decided for sole custody. In effect, we do have a presumption in favour of sole custody as things presently stand.

What Bill C-560 would do is bring Canadian law into the 21st century by bringing it up to date with the best social science research, which indicates that a child's continued access to both parents following divorce or separation is in the typical child's best interest.

I think it is important to define what this best interest is. So often across the country we use the term, the amorphous, vague term, “the best interests of the child”. Members might have even heard it said in speeches today around the House. Certainly people will say that they do not know if they want this bill to come into place, because they are for the best interests of the child, which is amorphous, vague, and moldable as putty in the hands of lawmakers, social workers, and so on, and it does not really get at what that really is in a factual way.

We now know from social science research that the best interests of children is to have continued access to both parents following divorce or separation. That is in their best interests. That is the understanding from a social science basis of what that term actually should mean.

Others have represented this bill by claiming that it eliminates judicial discretion. I am not a lawyer and of course I would not want to offend my legal colleagues, so we are not eliminating all judicial discretion on these custodial matters. This bill would not eliminate all judicial discretion. There could still be a consideration of the situation of each family that comes before the courts.

What the bill does is tighten up the language surrounding judicial discretion, so that it becomes more difficult to use an antiquated interpretation of the best interests of the child as an excuse to rationalize a disproportionate percentage of sole custody decisions in today's family courts.

Suggestions that a rebuttable presumption is too onerous a standard are also brought forward by some people. That particular accusation is really inconsistent with multiple constitutional rulings in many countries, including Canada, where those rulings have made judgments that parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children unless shown otherwise.

If one wants to say that rebuttable presumption is too onerous, then really one is almost arguing for the revocation of the basic legal doctrine that one is presumably innocent unless proven otherwise. That is a basic tenet of our judicial system, that one is innocent until proven otherwise, presumptively innocent. In respect to parents, it is same thing. Unless one can prove that a person is not a fit parent, we are not wise to make those kinds of assumptions.

Some have argued that a presumption of equal shared parenting would increase conflict in already acrimonious family situations. In fact it is the adversarial family court system that fuels such conflict and disenfranchisement of parents that is really the most harmful to children, pitting parents against each another in bitter court battles that frequently result in a winning and a losing parent. Do we really desire that kind of a system where we litigate over children? Do we desire a system where the courts remove fit parents from their own children's lives?

The negative impact of this current system on children, mostly and foremost, as well as on their parents and extended family is really quite unconscionable and immoral.

Bill C-560 should reduce conflict because it takes children out of the equation as objects of possession to be fought over by parents. With a presumption of equal shared parenting, access to the children cannot continue to be a part of divorce negotiations and treated like a portion of the winnings or losses of divorce agreements.

Parents would know that, barring cases of proven abuse or neglect, the courts would enforce an equitable access arrangement between both parents. Parents would be free to surrender some access, if that works better for their personal circumstances and their children, but the presumption would create a disincentive for hostile parents to try to keep access to the children from the other parent.

For example, if a father were a long-haul trucker, he might say he has the presumption of equal shared parenting but, for him, it only works to have the kids about 30% of the time and the mother to have them 70% of the time. The mother might say that she is a physician with a busy and pressured life, and she can only handle the children 35% of the time at her location. In those cases, that kind of arrangement would be made. It would not impose upon people to say that access has to be 50%. It could be arranged, and it could be anywhere from 35% to 50%.

The presumption of equal parenting would also be expected to reduce divorce rates. This is proven to be the case. As far back as 1998, researchers postulated that. When people go into a situation without the presumption that they are going to get it all, sometimes they back away a bit and they begin to work at those marriage difficulties.

People like Margaret F. Brinig, Frank Buckley, and Dr. Sanford Braver and various publications, such as International Review of Law and Economics and American Law and Economics Review, have found that there is a pre-emptive and preventive factor in this whole concept of equal shared parenting.

I think colleagues in the House are well aware of the social costs surrounding deviant behaviour among youth, whether it is in terms of the justice system or the welfare system. An important way to reduce those costs and the logistical challenges related to policing, the courts, social welfare program delivery, social worker caseloads, and more is to strengthen the families in our communities, including children's access to both their father and their mother, even in cases of separation and divorce.

Children in sole custody settings are reported as having a notably higher likelihood—three times higher, in fact—of suffering from low self-esteem, insecurity, and rejection, being underachievers, including school dropout, substance abuse, depression, suicide, teen pregnancy, and even crime. It is kind of jarring, but I am just stating the facts here. Approximately 80% of criminals are from single parent homes.

I need to quickly qualify that my hat is off to the single parents I have known, and who we all know, from the House, our ridings, and elsewhere, who do a 24-7 job and who do a remarkable job. However, it is not an easy job. The reality is, and the statistics are, that 80% of individuals in trouble with the law are from single parent home situations.

In most cases of sole custody, it is granted maybe more typically to the mother and the father is shut out. Fatherlessness in particular has been isolated as a serious indicator for poor outcomes among children. We have Big Brothers Big Sisters and other substitutes for that very reason.

I can list a host of problems. There is anxiety, learning disabilities, truancy, runaways, drug abuse, teenage pregnancies, mental illness, and suicide. They are some of the things that can occur on a long list or litany, when fathers are removed from homes unnecessarily. Equal shared parenting is an important way to combat these risks among the growing segment of children who live in homes that have experienced divorce.

There is a lot of good research. I will just drop a few names at this point. There is Dr. Edward Kruk, a professor at the University of British Columbia. There is a new study by Richard A. Warshak at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura have an article on social structure and criminal victimization. We have a long list of many others who have done extensive research on the benefits of equal shared parenting. People can contact me later about them, and they are on my website for people to look at.

We have countries in Europe, including France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, and Luxembourg, that have adopted shared parenting. A number of U.S. states have as well.

We find, as well, across our country, that about 80% of those who claim to be NDP supporters and 80% of Liberal supporters support this concept of equal shared parenting; also 80% of Conservative supporters. More women than men, above 80% again, support equal shared parenting. All across the country, the highest levels of support are in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, where it is again above 80%.

I would close by thanking my colleague from the Liberal Party, Raymonde Folco, who was the seconder on my bill, Bill C-422. She is an avowed, staunch feminist, who stood with me as we launched that first bill.

The bill is one that all colleagues in the House, irrespective of gender or part of the country, would support for the benefit of children.