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

[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.