Bill C-22 (Historical)

Energy Safety and Security Act

An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act (the “Acts”) primarily to update, strengthen and increase the level of transparency of the liability regime that is applicable to spills and debris in the offshore areas.
More specifically, Part 1, among other things,
(a) expressly includes the “polluter pays” principle, which is consistent with the notion that the liability of at-fault operators is unlimited;
(b) increases to $1 billion the limit of liability, without proof of fault or negligence, to which certain operators are subject in the event of a spill or damages caused by debris;
(c) provides that an applicant for an authorization for the drilling for or development or production of oil or gas must demonstrate that it has the financial resources required to pay the greatest of the amounts of the limits of liability that apply to it;
(d) establishes a regime in respect of the development of transboundary pools and fields;
(e) provides for new circumstances in which information or documentation that is privileged may be disclosed;
(f) establishes a legal framework to permit the safe use of spill-treating agents in specific circumstances;
(g) harmonizes the environmental assessment process for projects for which the National Energy Board, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board or the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board is the responsible authority, as defined in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, with the requirements of that Act, including by establishing timelines for carrying out environmental assessments and creating participant funding programs to facilitate the participation of the public in environmental assessments; and
(h) creates administrative monetary penalty regimes.
Finally, Part 1 makes amendments to remove certain discrepancies between the English and French versions of the Acts, as well as to modernize the language in the Acts.
Part 2 of the enactment repeals the Nuclear Liability Act and enacts the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act to strengthen the liability regime applicable after a nuclear incident. It also provides for the establishment, in certain circumstances, of an administrative tribunal to hear and decide claims and implements certain provisions of the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Speaker's Ruling

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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

However, I will not hide the fact that I have many questions and concerns that he did not address.

My question is about a very specific topic, and that is damages associated with non-use value. This is an important principle that has been raised during debate on this bill. We can always quantify the economic value of a natural area, but we also need to look at other damages. There could be significant repercussions for communities.

With respect to marine areas, we were had by the Conservatives when they focused protection measures solely on commercially viable species, which overlooks the richness, the diversity and the complex interrelationships in a marine environment.

I would like to hear the hon. member's thoughts on the government's deliberate failure to include non-use value. It seems quite problematic to me. It is a huge loophole that companies could exploit.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking me a question in regard to changes made to the Fisheries Act, and the House is currently debating Bill C-22, which is nuclear and offshore liability changes we are proposing.

The reality is that everything under the absolute liability regime would be covered when it comes to the polluter pays principle. That would mean damages to people, damages to property, and damages to the environment. All of it would be covered under absolute liability. That is what the word “absolute” means. It is unfortunate that the hon. member does not understand that word.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I said earlier in my remarks on the bill that members on the Conservative side are only interested in one side of the equation, or they were in committee when we studied this legislation, but it is also true of the NDP and its position on the bill.

Does my hon. colleague not think that we ought to consider what tax revenue comes to Canada and its provinces from these industries? What revenue is there for Canadian workers who have salaries in the nuclear sector or in the offshore oil and gas sector? What revenue is there for pensioners who have pension funds or mutual funds that invest in these sectors?

We heard from the minister that going to $1 billion for absolute liability would increase the cost of insurance for these companies by eight or nine times. Could the member tell us if he knows what the NDP's plan of unlimited absolute liability would do to the cost of insurance for the companies in this sector? What would be the impact on these sectors?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, rare is the day when I have a colleague in the Liberal Party asking me to help him beat up colleagues in the NDP. However, I will take the bait, because here is what the NDP is proposing.

The NDP and the Green Party simply do not want nuclear facilities in Canada. I will answer my colleague's question directly. My understanding is that raising liability to $1 billion would cost the average household a couple of dollars a year on its utility bills to cover it. However, if we were to move to unlimited liability and the vast amount of liability being proposed by other parties, it would result in a hefty increase to those premiums. Ultimately, as we all know, regulated utility industries are regulated to the point where they will make a profit. That is the way those systems are set up, and those costs will be passed on through those energy utility boards in the various jurisdictions to those consumers. That much we do know.

It is a responsible approach to go to $1 billion of unlimited liability for the offshore sector for oil and gas and for nuclear liability. We have seen from various countries around the world that we are in line with what everyone else is doing. We are going to protect our environment but also not place an unreasonable burden. We will strike that right balance not only to protect taxpayers but to ensure that there is money left over on the kitchen table at the end of the month.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Before resuming debate, I understand that there is a motion from the member for Leeds—Grenville.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House after working in the constituency all summer. I am glad to see my colleagues' smiling faces around, all ready to co-operate as we move forward into this session.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-22, an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, and enacting the nuclear liability and compensation act. I will be splitting my time with the member for St. John's East whom, I am sure, will have lots to say about how the bill would affect Atlantic Canada.

I do have an admission to make. George Bush has been very influential in my life, and I somehow cannot seem to get nuclear and nucular straight sometimes, so I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, if I do accidentally misspeak. I promise that is as far as I will go toward copying Mr. Bush.

I also thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for her hard work on the bill. She is an outstanding member of Parliament and also a great leader within the NDP. She has led the natural resources committee since taking over recently very well, so I thank her for her work.

Although we supported the bill at first reading, we did so with the hope that the committee would accept some of our amendments, would listen to the witnesses, listen to what we had to say on our side. Unfortunately, we will not be supporting the bill at third reading because we did not really feel we were listened to. We put forward 13 amendments, which we thought would improve the bill quite a lot, but the Conservatives rejected all 13 of those amendments.

I was formerly a member of the natural resources committee and quite enjoyed my time there. I found my colleagues on both sides to be open to suggestions, willing to bring in witnesses who were not partisan, and really conciliatory. I quite enjoyed my time in that committee. Even sometimes they would accept motions from the opposition parties for study, which I thought was quite good of them.

I do not actually think that the rejection of these amendments came exclusively from the members of the committee. It was probably from the PMO. As we know if we have been on enough committees in the House, no matter what kind of debate we are having or what kind of witnesses we hear from, we do have dictums that come from central office to say what exactly will show up in bills. Again, it is sad that this happens.

In fact, I think that perhaps this is related to the bill. There is a member of the natural resources committee from Saskatoon—Humboldt who has a private member's motion where committee chairs would have much more freedom over the content of their reports and also the committee agenda. I am proud to say I jointly seconded that motion and support it as it moves through the House, hopefully to enactment. That bill points out what should happen in committees.

However, I do think the members of the natural resources committee are reasonable on all sides and would do a very good job if they were freed from the constraints of the Prime Minister's Office. I really do not fault the natural resources committee for rejecting all our amendments, but we know that the all-seeing eye that is the PMO has probably made this happen.

My second comment about the bill is that it is all about energy, once again. It seems that all the time of the natural resources committee was spent talking about energy usage and disposal all across Canada. I find that this not only engages the natural resources committee but also the industry committee, which I have also sat on.

We have had many bills tabled in the House that specifically deal with how we use energy in Canada. This one is no exception. This one is about how we extract oil and gas or how we use nuclear power and what happens in the event of accidents. It is tied in to our consumption and usage of energy. It shows us a sliver of the complexity of energy usage in Canada.

For example, just to outline a little bit of what is included in the bill, it updates Canada's nuclear liability regime to specify the conditions to compensate victims following an incident at a nuclear power plant and the levels of liability of operators. That is needed. Every country in the world that uses nuclear power has to have these kinds of provisions. It is a needed step forward but a very small part of Canada's energy portfolio.

The second is dealing with oil and gas exploration off the coast. The measures in the bill are supposed to explain what happens in the event of an accident, so they are important. This is off the Arctic and Atlantic waters.

There are important issues that are dealt with in the bill. Although we know it has been tabled five times and finally coming through the House, whether it will make it all the way to the end I do not know. However, it is too bad that it was rushed through at this stage and none of our amendments were taken.

Part of our problem with the bill is that it does not really uphold the idea of polluter pays. It does discuss this notion but it does not really deal with polluter pays when it comes to the nuclear energy sector. For example, there are provisions in the bill, as I understand it as I was reviewing it again this morning, that allow the minister to make adjustments as to how much a company or operator would have to pay in the event of an accident. It does not mandate an inclusive consultation process for specific projects.

In my riding where this is not specifically related to oil and gas but the industry, when there is no proper consultation there are problems with getting the social licence from the local community. Therefore, whether it is pipelines, drilling offshore, or dealing with nuclear energy, if there is no proper consultation there will never be social licence and there will be problems.

We have had a pipeline rupture in my community in 2007. Because there was not an inclusive system in terms of how we deal with pipeline spills, there are still ripples within the community and real resentment toward the company for these types of accidents.

The other problem with the bill is that it removes company liability for oil spill chemical dispersants. That is also a problem because if we think that we have to clean up the oil and we use something that is as bad as oil or even worse, then there is no liability for the companies and we think that is a problem. I think the folks listening at home or reading what we propose would say that these are things that are worth including in the bill, but of course they have been rejected.

Our 13 suggested amendments were consistent with the principle of polluter pays, including the removal of the liability cap, which reduces taxpayer liability. As we have seen, these offshore spills, the BP spill in the gulf in the United States is a recent example, can run into the billions of dollars for cleanups. The liability cap right now is far below the costs of such a cleanup. Our amendments also included the principle of sustainability by adding non-use value damages, which are important to consider.

When I think about what we are debating here, what we are talking about, what is going through on this third reading, it is the whole idea of how we deal with energy in Canada. We do not have a comprehensive plan. Most countries in the world have a national energy strategy. They have not only a long-term view of what should happen in the country but also a comprehensive view, which is thematic. For example, in the United States energy security is probably the key principle of its national energy strategy and everything kind of falls from this key principle.

We have a sliver of a bill that deals with a very small component of our overall energy plans in this country. Unfortunately, it is not very comprehensive and non-inclusive. It is kind of a shallow vision instead of what we really need for Canada, which is a large vision. That is what people will get when they elect an NDP government in 2015.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Burnaby—Douglas for his important presentation. I share his concerns about the nuclear industry.

There has been no industry that constitutes such a giant white elephant in terms of its fiscal impact on Canadians. Contrary to what we heard earlier from a Conservative colleague, this industry has gobbled up about $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies. Removing the cap would not affect provincial electricity rates in any provinces that still use nuclear energy.

The reality is that, there but for the grace of God go we, every single event that occurred at Three Mile Island had previously happened in Ontario nuclear plants but not all on the same day and at the same reactor. Human error is always the biggest risk. As more reactors are brought on stream, the promises made when they are built are never fulfilled. We are always told they are going to be reliable and then we find that retubing is required or that the Point Lepreau reactor in New Brunswick is over budget, as always, or that it takes much longer than the government thought it would take. The government of the day in New Brunswick that approved retubing Point Lepreau ignored the recommendations of its own public utilities commission to do so. It ignored the advice, by the way, of the current leader of the Green Party of New Brunswick, David Coon, who clearly said more money would be wasted.

It is interesting to hear Conservative members defend an industry that has gobbled up things that they usually would have opposed, massive subsidies to something that simply cannot bear market forces.

I would ask my hon. colleague if he would not agree to just removing the cap on liability and making this industry pay its own way if, God forbid, we ever have a nuclear accident.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to deal with in the member's question.

Those of us who live on the west coast are very conscious of nuclear accidents. We were concerned about possible radiation coming on the shores of British Columbia as a result of the Fukushima plant accident. Government monitoring has been cut, so it is hard for us to determine the exact extent of this radiation.

However, I am quite excited about a new technology called fusion. A very active company in my riding called General Fusion is trying to move toward a much safer use of nuclear energy. I try to visit it every year and see its progress and it is going quite well. I am proud of its work and hopefully that technology will develop.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if there is one issue that sets us apart from the members across the way, it is natural resources.

Today, in response to a question I asked as to why nuclear energy was not included in Bill C-22, the minister more or less said—I do not have his exact words in front of me—that when disaster struck Japan, it was so bad—those are my words—that the government had to take matters into its own hands.

If I understand what this government is saying, we will pay once disaster strikes. Canadians will pay for everything that happens with regard to health, cancer, the environment, and cleanup. We saw what happened in Lac-Mégantic.

The NDP prefers to plan ahead. When a company sets up somewhere, can we estimate the environmental cleanup cost in the event of an accident? What would be the human cost and the health-related cost in the event of an accident?

We have to look at this from a sustainable development standpoint. That is the right approach. We need to have green development—we are indeed a green party—for our country so that Canadians can have what is best for them and their children.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, planning is essential and that is what we have been proposing since we were elected as the official opposition in 2011, and beforehand. My colleague from St. John's East could probably tell us how long we have been arguing for the need for a national energy strategy when we do forward planning, not only inclusive but comprehensive. That is greatly lacking on the other side. Those members are content to have foreign companies come in and do whatever they want in Canada. We think that is not the right way to go and more Canadians are agreeing with us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak on third reading of Bill C-22. Third reading, of course, is the opportunity to debate the bill after the committee has, we hope, improved it during committee hearings by listening to experts from all sides, accepting recommendations from experts as to how the bill can be improved, and, in most Parliaments, accepting amendments from the opposition seeking to make the legislation better.

Unfortunately, in this Parliament we do not see much of that. In fact, it is very rare for amendments from the opposition to be accepted by the government, even when it agrees with them. In an incident during the debate on a justice bill, 88 amendments were made in committee; the government rejected them all, only to try to make them itself at third reading, and they were ruled out of order. That is how obstinate the government can be.

I spoke as well on second reading, and my colleagues in the NDP, the official opposition, as you may know, Mr. Speaker, supported this bill at second reading. We saw it as an improvement over the existing regime and we supported it in the collegial hope that when evidence was heard from experts in committee, their expertise, knowledge, and understanding would be taken into account and there would be a better bill at third reading. Unfortunately, the 13 amendments that were presented by the official opposition were all rejected by the government. Not only that, it limited the debate. There was a request for an additional week to deal with some of the debates and discussions that needed to take place, and that was refused.

I can say that there are some things New Democrats like about this bill, and I will repeat them because I think we are responsible for some of them.

This bill, in one form or another, without the oil and gas part of it, the nuclear side, has been before Parliament previously. This is, I think, the fifth time. At one time, the NDP was the only party that opposed the bill when the cap was raised from $75 million to $650 million. It is now up to $1 billion, so that is an improvement over what would have existed if the bill had gone through a couple of years ago, and New Democrats take credit for arguing that the $650 million limit was inadequate. There has been an improvement in that way, so we are pleased to say that we have had some effect on this aspect.

The real problem, of course, was that for some 38 years Canada's nuclear industry has had a cap of $75 million of liability. This is an industry that can cause enormous amounts of damage not only to the environment but also to the health of individuals for many years to come. We noticed that with the Fukushima situation in Japan, the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, and, of course, with Three Mile Island a number of years ago in the U.S. These were very serious accidents, and to say that we are going to have an absolute total liability of $75 million is clearly a direct subsidy to an industry—a licence, in fact, to not only pollute but also to cause extraordinary harm to the citizens of a country.

That is what we are talking about here. Some people might call it a subsidy to the industry, but it is also a licence to pollute, to destroy the environment, and to take risks.

One of the things about liability is the obligation to look after the damages that are caused. That is what the polluter pays principle is. If people pollute the environment and make a mess, they need to clean it up. If someone says they do not have to clean it up, there is going to be a bigger mess. Anybody who has teenagers in their homes knows that. If teenagers are told they do not have to clean up after themselves, that they can leave their dishes wherever they want and throw their clothes on the floor because someone else will look after that, then there are going to be a lot of messy dishes and a lot of clothes on the floor. Saying that people have liability and responsibility makes the operators, whether of offshore oil and gas or of a nuclear facility, care more about safety. Obviously there is going to be a safety regime, but it makes them take responsibility in a way that they might not otherwise and it gives safety a bigger priority.

The $1 billion sounds like a lot, but not when it is put into perspective. I heard the member for Wetaskiwin. I think he was trying to be reasonable. He said that the $1 billion liability is going to cost and that it will be the consumers who will have to pay for it. He said it would add $2 or maybe $3 a year to each consumer's electricity bill. I will take him at his word; I do not know the numbers. He must have some reference for those numbers.

However, if it was $5 billion liability, it would cost consumers $10 or $15 per year. We are talking about $1 a month. For the protection that we are talking about here, maybe that is reasonable. Maybe people opposite think it is unreasonable. I do not think it is unreasonable if we are talking about having protection versus not having protection and about having an incentive for a nuclear operator to pay greater attention to avoid accidents.

It is a little bit a question of degree, but it is also a question of principle. We have asked to see the polluter pay principle in both aspects of this bill. In the oil and gas section there is a $1 billion absolute liability, whether the operator is at fault or not, and in the case of fault on the part of an operator in the oil and gas industry, there is an unlimited liability. They have to find the resources or insure against the resources up to whatever the cost of the damage is.

It can be argued, and we would argue, that the $1 billion is enough in terms of absolute liability if we are looking at an accident in the Gulf of St. Lawrence or in the Arctic. Absolute liability means that it starts getting cleaned up right away, regardless of who ultimately has to pay.

That is what fault is all about. Lawyers will fight over who is responsible or what percentage of the fault lies with this party or that party. That is fair. I am not opposed to lawyers, as some people in this House seem to be. Lawyers have a role to play; I played one myself. The Speaker probably did a fair bit over his career as well. In the meantime, absolute liability is designed to make sure that the job gets done.

This is a question that has to be dealt with. Although the liability may be spread in fault after it is all over, and we are still seeing that in the Gulf of Mexico case with Deep Horizon, absolute liability means that it gets started right away. The work is done to clean up the damage that has been done because they are going to be responsible regardless of what the fault is, and we have that.

I am going to just end here. The reason we are not supporting the bill now is that it does not include the polluter pay principle on the nuclear liability side and it does not include the principle of sustainability. Even with the $1 billion absolute cap, it gives the minister the right to waive it or lower it at his discretion. That is the wrong thing to do, because it opens up the door to all sorts of lobbying and favouritism.

Everybody would lobby, presumably, because if it is available to them, why should they not? Why should they not seek an exemption? Why should they not seek to lower their liability because of the consequences it might have for shareholders of the company or for some other aspect of their operation?

Based on those problems, the failure to accept reasonable amendments to this bill, and the failure to recognize these principles in the bill, we cannot support this bill at third reading.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which truly enlightened us about the possibilities and the limitations within this bill. I would like my colleague to elaborate on some of these limitations he talked about in his speech.

In his view, what improvements could be made to the bill? Can he talk about the NDP'S proposals to improve this bill that the government unfortunately left out?

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

Mr. Speaker, the improvements that we sought to make would have been to ensure that the principle of sustainability was contained in the bill and spelled out to demonstrate the requirement that there be a recognition of these principles of sustainability when one is dealing with inclusive participation, the precautionary principle, and equity or fairness with sustainable development between the environment and industry, but we do not have that. One of those aspects is, of course, the issue of absolute liability.

The total maximum liability for the nuclear industry is set at $1 billion. However, we know the extent of the accidents that have happened. Experts say that these accidents can happen somewhere in the world every 10 years, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Obviously the industry tries to be as a safe as it can, but why should the people of Canada accept that liability beyond $1 billion when it seems that it is possible for the industry itself to accept it for a reasonable amount of money?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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

If we look at the nuclear sector specifically, one of the deficiencies of the bill is the issue of financial liability for all the suppliers and contractors working with operators. Right now, they are unfortunately not included and that might create problems in the supply chain, leaving only operators liable.

That seems problematic to me. I think my colleague will agree that, if all of the stakeholders in the supply chain are liable for problems and damages caused by a nuclear accident, we can obviously hope that they will adopt better practices. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.