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.

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a point that we need to be clear on. Bill C-22 would raise the liability limits for the operator to $1 billion. We know we needed to do that. We were operating under a nuclear bill that was several years old and needed to be updated. We know when we compare the billion-dollar operator liability to other countries that this will put Canada among the highest limits in the world.

The United Kingdom, France, Spain and other European countries are moving to an operator limit of $1 billion. They are not there yet but they are thinking of going that way. Other non-European nations, including South Korea, South Africa and Argentina, have lower liability limits.

We ask, “Why not move it higher?” We know that in the aftermath of Fukushima the Japanese government had to step in and bail out the operator. In the highly unlikely event of an incident that exceeded the billion dollar limit, the Minister of Natural Resources in Canada would be required to table a report before Parliament containing estimates of the costs of the damages from the nuclear incident. That report would provide government the opportunity to make recommendations on the desirability of additional compensation beyond the liability limit based on relevant consideration at that time.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in opposition to Bill C-22. It is called “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 suppose, compared to some other names I have seen for bills coming before the House, this one is not as reactionary or volatile.

I have a major concern. We are dealing with a piece of legislation that is critical, and I am hearing that from colleagues on the other side. First, it took them forever to bring the bill here. They could have done it a long time ago. Now they keep moving time allocation on it. Here we are, once again, speaking to a bill, and it is one out of eighty bills that has had time allocation.

This is getting to be ridiculous. I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at that. Not only has the government placed time allocations in the House, but at committee stage it prevented a full array of experts and other witnesses from coming forward to present testimony so that the legislation can be well thought out and based on opinions of those in the field. It prevented experts from talking, who know a lot more about this issue than many parliamentarians in the House.

Once again, we, as parliamentarians, have been denied access to that kind of expertise and science. Knowing the government's allergic reaction to science and expert opinion, I should not be surprised, but I am still very disappointed.

I have heard a number of times today that the bill is an improvement on what we have. I agree.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to say that I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. My apologies to her.

The bill has taken a long time to come here. The changes are long overdue, but once again my colleagues across the way have failed to address fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

I always hear from my colleagues about how the U.S. does it, and that if the U.S. is dropping missiles into Iraq we have to follow because we are very close friends. However, it seems in this case that they are quite willing to ignore what the U.S. is doing in this area, and what other countries are doing. Germany, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, and Switzerland have unlimited liability for nuclear power plants. We are not talking about one or two countries;.this is a series of countries that I have listed.

The Conservatives have set the bar even lower than the U.S., the closest to us border-wise. That causes me major concern. When it suits us, we have to be like the U.S. and follow it here and there. However, when it does not suit us and it concerns the pocketbooks of Canadians and our future well-being, then they are quite willing to look the other way.

Even the U.S. has standards that are much higher than the ones proposed in the bill. The U.S. has an absolute liability regime of $12.6 billion U.S., compared to $1 billion. We can all see, even my grandchildren in school would be able to see, that there is a huge difference there.

However, if the companies are not paying, guess who is paying? It is the taxpayers. The current government, which is always talking about being good managers of taxpayers' assets, in this case is willing to land the taxpayers with billions and billions of dollars worth of liability. I am not exaggerating. We only have to look at what has happened in the past when it came to cleanup.

It is not as if we do not have any examples. We can look at the cost of cleanup around Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. The Japanese government estimates that the cleanup for the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant could be over $250 billion.

I am not grabbing these numbers out of the air. This is a country that has experienced that reality, and it is giving us its best opinion. Japan has already spent well over hundreds of billions on this.

What do the so-called smart economic managers for our Canadian taxpayers do, who are sitting on the other side? They are proposing a total liability of $1 billion. That does not speak well for being good managers of taxpayers' money.

We are pleased to see that the bill would bring some changes, which include unlimited liability for gas and oil companies. Coming from beautiful British Columbia and being very proud of our pristine coastline, we are very concerned. We want to see obstacles put in the way so that the business community, oil explorers, and other companies, will make sure that they take every precautionary step possible to avoid a leakage, spill, or any other kind of disaster.

If this measure is good enough for the oil and gas industry, it should be good enough for the nuclear industry as well. I am finding it very hard to get my head around why we would treat two industries so very differently. Neither industry is new; they are both well established.

After years of experience as the environment minister in Quebec, I believe that the NDP leader knows environmental protection and sustainable development inside and out. I absolutely believe that he would not support, nor would he bring forward, legislation that would put liability for nuclear companies at only $1 billion.

Subsidizing the most profitable industries in the country and leaving taxpayers on the hook for a massive nuclear disaster or oil spill does not make sense. However, the Conservative government would do exactly that.

I would say that the Conservatives are going against the common sense test. If I were to put this idea forward to a grade 5 class in my riding, they would say “Really? That's not fair”. It is not right, and it concerns me. I think it is shameful that we have a bill before us that does not put the interests of the taxpayers before narrow corporate interests, and that is what we are seeing here.

I will finish with wishing everyone in the House a happy and productive week in their ridings. I know that all of us will be participating in Remembrance Day ceremonies, which are always filled with pathos, sadness, and memories as we honour those who sacrificed for us. However, this year, in light of the events we have personally experienced here, they will take on a different level of poignancy.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the remarks that my colleague made. If I heard her correctly, she stated at the beginning of her speech that this legislation was long overdue and she was wondering why it has taken the government so long to bring it forward. I am a bit curious about that comment. If I recollect correctly, this is about the fifth time that we have introduced legislation on this important issue, and each time it has been opposed by the NDP.

Does the member opposite not agree with stronger accountability, improved response, and greater transparency when it comes to nuclear operations?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear about transparency and accountability from that side of the House. It is absolutely because we want accountability and transparency, and because we want the polluter pays principle applied to the nuclear branch as well, that we are opposed to the bill. The bill is deficient. We would not be doing our homework.

I hear about the minister. This legislation proposes to give discretionary power to the minister that could lower the amount from $1 billion. That seems asinine to me.

This is not about transparency or accountability. This is about doing favours for the government's corporate friends.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of liability insurance could be of great interest to many people with regard to the cost of acquiring it. There is a need for government to get engaged sometimes, and the best example I can come up with was after the 9/11 disaster when the government had to get involved in terms of insurance in order to secure air flights.

Does the member believe that at some point limits should be put on liability insurance, or should it be 100% recoverable through insurance? I am referring to companies that want to drill or export or transfer oil, or deal with nuclear material.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that it should be polluter pays, and at no time should taxpayers be burdened with the cost of cleanup, whether it is nuclear material, oil, or gas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague two or three questions.

Assuming there is no limit to how much an oil company can get out of the ground, if an oil deposit contains $20 billion worth of oil, the oil company will take that $20 billion worth of oil. Since the resource potential is unlimited, why should the company's liability be limited? What are we supposed to tell people if a company causes damage in excess of $1 billion?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the insightful conversations that I have with my colleague and his thoughtful contributions in the House.

If we believe in the principle of polluter pays, then that has to be applied consistently. We cannot pick and choice and say that it will apply to one industry but not the other.

My friends across the way have commented that a report will be made to Parliament. What difference would that make? It would be great to have a report that says it costs more than $1 billion, but at the end of the day, who is going to pay for the cleanup? Companies are not going to pay. Taxpayers are going to end up paying, and that is unacceptable.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the public is well aware that we are debating 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.

This legislation has a number of sections, but the part that I will focus on is the fact that it would modify Canada's civil liability regimes for the offshore oil and gas industry and it would notably increase the absolute liability threshold to $1 billion to operators of offshore oil and gas and nuclear facilities. The current threshold for offshore oil and gas operations are $40 million in the Arctic and $30 million for all other offshore areas.

Offshore drilling does not take place in all parts of Canada. The legislative summary points out that, in addition, offshore exploration activity is currently being conducted in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Offshore petroleum wells may also be drilled in the Beaufort Sea. Drilling programs there are undergoing a regulatory screening process. In addition, offshore basins near Nunavut's high Arctic islands and in the eastern Arctic may be developed in the future.

Currently, there is a federal moratorium on oil and gas activities in place on the offshore of British Columbia. In Quebec, a provincial moratorium exists on the oil and gas offshore activities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. A permanent prohibition on such activities applies in waters northwest of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and its estuary.

What we have heard from the other side is that the New Democrats should approve and support whatever bill the government brings forward. One member talked about the fact that this was all about jobs. Any responsible member of Parliament must, first, do their due diligence. However, second, when we talk about resource development and issues pertaining to resource development, we need to consider them in the economic, environmental and social contexts. We would be irresponsible if we did not take a very broad view of any resource development that happens in Canada and the consequent liability.

The NDP has been critical of this bill on a number of fronts, but there are three principles of sustainable development: equity, precautionary principle and broad inclusive participation. Bill C-22 would not uphold the polluter pays principle in the nuclear part of the bill and it would fail to create an inclusive consultation process for projects. It would allow the minister to be subject to lobbying, thus reducing the minister's accountability.

Bill C-22 would not mandate a solid inclusive consultation process for specific projects, which is essential, given the potential impact these projects could have on the quality of life and well-being of concerned communities and regions.

The government's proposed $1 billion cap for offshore drilling would apply to no fault liability, while operators would continue to face unlimited liability should they be found at fault or negligent. Companies would also be required to demonstrate to the regulators their financial capacity to cover $1 billion in cleanup costs should it become necessary. It would also increase coverage for exploratory drilling operations offshore, production operations, the loading of tankers for transport and undersea pipelines, such as natural gas from Sable Island to the Mainland in Atlantic Canada.

Here is the sticker. The bill would provide for ministerial discretion to reduce absolute liability levels to below the legislative level of $1 billion. This discretionary provision could undercut the advantages of the legislative increase in the absolute liability limit contained in Bill C-22.

The legislative summary refers to section 2.1.4.2 under “Public Hearings”. Bill C-22 would add new sections to the Canada oil and gas operations, allowing the National Energy Board to conduct a public hearing in relation to the exercise of any of its powers or the performance of any of its duties and functions under the act.

The New Democrats absolutely support a public process with regard to reviewing applications that come forward around resource development. However, I want to highlight the fact that the National Energy Board has been subject to some pretty severe criticism with regard to its operations. Simply because it is in this bill that the National Energy Board would be able to conduct a public hearing, it does not give us any confidence about how that public hearing would be conducted, who would be involved and whether the information would actually be considered.

I want to turn to a letter dated October 30, that was sent to the secretary of the National Energy Board. It is about an intervenor making a licence withdrawal from the hearing on the Trans Mountain expansion project. I will read an excerpt from this letter, because again, if the legislation mentions it but we do not have confidence in the process, why would we support it? In this letter, the intervenor says:

The unwillingness of Trans Mountain to address most of my questions and the Board’s almost complete endorsement of Trans Mountain’s decision has exposed this process as deceptive and misleading. Proper and professional public interest due diligence has been frustrated, leading me to the conclusion that this Board has a predetermined course of action to recommend approval of the Project and a strong bias in favour of the Proponent.

In effect, this so-called public hearing process has become a farce, and this Board a truly industry captured regulator.

If the government is to review applications in sensitive offshore areas like the north and if this is the kind of process to which these reviews would be subject, it does not leave us any confidence that we will end up with the best kinds of decisions.

The letter goes on to say:

In addition to gutting the oral-cross examination feature of a public hearing process that supports proper questioning and an adequate level of due diligence, there are other Board decisions that have been made over the course of this hearing that reflect a pre-determined outcome.

The evidence on the record shows that decisions made by the Board at this hearing are dismissive of intervenors. They reflect a lack of respect for hearing participants, a deep erosion of the standards and practices of natural justice that previous Boards have respected, and an undemocratic restriction of participation by citizens, communities, professionals and First Nations either by rejecting them outright or failing to provide adequate funding to facilitate meaningful participation.

Certainly in British Columbia that continues to be an ongoing source of irritation, which is probably too light of a word. However, many people who want to intervene in an NEB process simply do not have the capacity to review the thousands of pages of documents and to present a finding, so funding becomes critical, particularly with regard to first nations communities that will be directly impacted by projects.

It is a lengthy letter, so I cannot read it all, but further in the letter the intervenor indicates:

The Board had stated that the elimination of cross-examination of the Proponent’s evidence can be evaluated through the two scheduled Information Requests. But we have a Kafkaesque outcome. Trans Mountain refuses to answer questions and the Board does not compel them to do so.

We have a proponent that can say whatever it wants, yet intervenors have no ability to question it, because the board will not allow the questions.

The intervenor goes on to say:

The Province of British Columbia stated that “Trans Mountain’s failure to file the evidence requested by the Province in Information Request No. 1 denies the Board, the Province and other intervenors access to the information required to fully understand the risk posed by the Project, how Trans Mountain proposes to mitigate such risk and Trans Mountain’s ability to effectively respond to a spill related to the Project.”

The National Energy Board is not fulfilling its obligation to review the Trans Mountain Expansion Project objectively. Accordingly it is not only British Columbians, but all Canadians that cannot look to the Board’s conclusions as relevant as to whether or not this project deserves a social license. Continued involvement in the process endorses this sham and is not in the public interest.

One of the reasons the NDP has objected to the bill is the lack of clear process around public consultation. The government continues to say that Canadians should not worry, that the National Energy Board will look after their interests. When we have had a very credible intervenor raise questions about the NEB's independence, we need to do a far better job of telling Canadians how projects would be evaluated.

We need that openness, transparency and accountability so Canadians have confidence that when a project is approved, that it has been tested for the environmental, economic and social impacts. It is with very good reason that the New Democrats do not support the bill at this stage. We attempted to make a number of amendments at committee stage and of course to no surprise, those amendments were rejected by the government.

I point out, once again, that we are under time allocation and that limits the amount of time and the number of witnesses who can be called to review the bill. With very good reason, the New Democrats oppose the legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There will be five minutes for questions and comments for the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan when the House next turns to debate on this question.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. I will be splitting my time with my neighbour, the very capable member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

This bill has been a long time coming to the House. It addresses a number of specific provisions for the offshore oil and gas industry as well as the nuclear energy industry. It is our government's effort to modernize legislation and regulation around these industries. We are hoping that this will not be the third or potentially fourth time that the NDP attempts to delay and block such important modernizing legislation.

The offshore industry is an area where the federal government works collaboratively with the Atlantic provinces. There are accords with the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those provinces will update their legislation following the passage of Bill C-22. For offshore exploration in the north, it is the National Energy Board that is responsible for the oversight of exploration and drilling, whereas with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, it is the offshore petroleum boards that are the specific and expert regulators.

This bill is our attempt to make sure that Canada continues to have world-class and modern regulation of these industries, which are parts of Canada's dynamic energy economy; to make sure that safety is at the forefront of these industries; and to make sure that the environment is respected in the process as well.

As I said, the two areas addressed by this bill are the offshore industry and the nuclear industry. I will speak to both briefly in my remarks on elements of the bill, and then I will discuss something dear to my heart, which is the nuclear energy industry in Canada.

On the offshore oil and gas exploration side, this bill would carry out an important act by clearly enshrining the polluter pays principle in legislation. That is important. It would recognize that when there is fault or negligence on the part of operations in the offshore environment, there would be unlimited liability for people who are negligent or at fault in their operations in that sector.

In the no-fault regime, this legislation is important because it would update and modernize an approach and compensation levels and structures that are remnants of the 1970s. In the case of the offshore oil and gas industries, the no-fault provisions would be increased from a $30 million range for compensation to a $1 billion range for compensation. I think most Canadians would agree that these things should be updated at least every 25 to 30 years. In this case, we are looking at a gap of almost 40 years in updating the regulatory approach and updating those limits and insurance requirements for operators.

The bill would also make it much easier for the government to be directly capable of seeking damages for environmental impact from operations. We all want to make sure that those things never happen, but this bill, which promotes safety and security, would address these liability issues with unlimited liability where there is fault, as I said, and with requirements for compensation of up to $1 billion in the no-fault regime. Canadians think that that is important.

The other aspect, as I said at the outset of my remarks, is the nuclear industry. This is another case in which the regulatory regime and compensation levels would be updated after a lag time of 30-plus years. In cases of incidents in nuclear energy generation, the old cap of civil liability, which is in the $75 million range, would also be increased to $1 billion. Absolute liability would rest with the operators.

The operators, who have a terrific track record in Canada, a perfect track record, I might add, certainly know that they are required to keep the highest standards and ensure that they have adequate operating and insurance coverage to meet the new limits, which would be updated with Bill C-22.

Importantly, on the nuclear side, we are also increasing the limitation period from 10 years to 30 years. This is important because claims may arise from an incident. Remember that we are talking about the what ifs, the very unlikely scenario of any incident. The claims period for accessing compensation should be longer than 10 years. As a lawyer, I know limitation periods are important, but it is important to have a limitation period that acknowledges that some damages or injuries will present themselves long after the incident. This is another way of bringing this up to a modern era.

This bill would also allow Canada to be a signatory to an international convention, the International Atomic Energy Agency's convention on supplemental compensation. This would bring us up to a standard where we could be a signatory to that important international convention, which deals with transborder and international issues with respect to offshore and the nuclear energy industry. This would also make sure we would be world class. Our compensation levels are among the top in the world, particularly in the top for countries with active industries in these sectors.

This is an important modernization of the regulatory and compensation structure for these important industries.

As the member of Parliament for Durham, I am also very happy to be an active proponent of nuclear energy in Canada. Our world-class excellence in this area is something we do not talk about enough. I wanted to do that as an MP, someone who had worked in some energy regulatory matters as a lawyer beforehand, so I helped create the nuclear caucus in Ottawa to promote the industry, to try to raise the level of knowledge among parliamentarians and certainly among Canadians on the important role this industry played in Canada.

Canada was the second nation to have controlled nuclear fission, to create cheap and affordable clean energy. That is an achievement we sometimes forget. The great part of our experimental work in industries in the nuclear sector is that we were never a nuclear nation in terms of warheads. We always used nuclear energy peacefully, and our technology remains among the world's best.

There are 71,000 jobs connected to the nuclear and supply industry in Canada, representing a $7 billion benefit to our GDP. There are 19 operating reactors across Canada. In Darlington, there are four reactors, which, in 2013, were awarded an international safety award from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.

If we look at the Durham region at large, beyond just my riding, 50% of Ontario's electricity is generated by nuclear power, a good portion of that coming from the Durham area. This is important because this power is affordable and predictable, it is baseload power, and it is GHG emission-free. So many people in the House, particularly in the NDP, talk about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but then, at the same time, oppose nuclear energy. It is really an absurd position.

I would note that the member for Winnipeg Centre actually said in the House, “We do not want to see the Darlington nuclear power plant doubled in size. We want to see it shut down”. When 50% of the baseload electricity in Ontario is from nuclear, we cannot set up a few wind turbines to replace that. It shows the absurdity of the position of the member for Winnipeg Centre and many of his colleagues.

I have been a proud supporter of working not only with Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in my riding, but also the Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries. Our government provided it with an $88,000 global opportunities for associations grant to sell technology abroad. AECL Candu technology is present in China, Romania, India, Pakistan, Argentina, and in Canada, with a perfect track record. I do not want to forget that It is also in South Korea. When I was in South Korea, people talked positively about our industry. It has an error-free record and some of the best technology in the world, so we need to celebrate industries that are world champions.

I would also like to mention the University of Ontario Institute of Technology's clean energy research laboratory, where nuclear power can help work with hydrogen and isotopes to create clean technology.

The bill is important to modernizing our regulatory structure and allowing our industries' offshore industry and the nuclear industries to excel.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

He said that the $75 million for compensation has been increased to $1 billion because the compensation levels dated back to the 1970s. In his speech, he also said that the amount should be updated every 25 years. That said, the amount was updated for the 1990s. Does he not think it would be appropriate to update it again, given that this is 2014?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for asking the question in the way that he did because it allows me to politely chastise his party. This is the fourth time that our government has tried to bring this type of legislation before the House, only to be delayed, blocked, and impeded by the New Democratic Party, which has a very bizarre position on nuclear energy. New Democrats, and the member for Winnipeg North, oppose nuclear-generated electricity which provides the majority of Ontario's power, yet they want more reductions on greenhouse gas emissions.

They do not seem to realize that in certain provinces with an industrial base, like Ontario, we cannot pull out 50% of the electricity generation which is all greenhouse gas emission-free, and replace it with wind or solar. It shows that the NDP does not understand the modern economy.

I would ask the member to speak to his leader, and members like the MP for Winnipeg North, to tell them to stop blocking this legislation to update our standards.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, the member is doing an outstanding job in his area of the country, in Durham region, and part of that is making sure that jobs are protected and jobs are created.

Moving forward with Bill C-22, our government is very much focused. Unlike what the NDP would like to do, essentially bankrupting these companies that are moving forward, and putting people out of work, we are moving forward to make sure this is done in a responsible way and that we are creating jobs in the interim.

I would like to ask the member for Durham for his thoughts with regard to how this contributes to job creation, and with respect to the opposition members' position and how it is a job-killing motion.