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

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

moved 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank my constituents from the great Kenora riding for their support over the past almost six years and in this capacity to serve them as the minister responsible for natural resources.

I want to take this opportunity today to highlight our government's action on energy safety and security in Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries.

Our government is determined to maintain a world-class liability regime in Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries.

We are responsible for ensuring the safety and protection of Canadians and our environment. We are committed to authorizing only development that can be done safely.

One of the key elements of the legislation would raise the absolute liability limits in both the offshore and nuclear sectors to $1 billion. These changes would bring Canada's offshore and nuclear liability limits in line with the international community. This important measure would be proactive action to ensure that if there were an accident, taxpayers would not be on the hook.

For oil spills, these changes would help further strengthen safety and security to prevent incidents and ensure a quick response in the unlikely event of a spill.

In our Speech from the Throne, we were clear. We will enshrine the polluter pays principle in law. We also committed to increasing the required liability insurance and setting higher safety standards for companies operating offshore.

Bill C-22 would achieve these goals.

Regarding the management of Canada's offshore oil and gas industry; as we know, Canada's booming offshore oil and gas industry has transformed the economy of Atlantic Canada. The offshore industry has pumped billions of dollars into Canada's economy and provided thousands of employment opportunities. Offshore development is currently one of the fastest-growing sectors in Canada. Right now, there are five major projects currently producing in the Atlantic offshore.

As my hon. colleagues know, Canada's environmental record in the Atlantic offshore is already very strong.

Our responsible development plan strengthens environmental protection by focusing resources on reviews of major projects.

Our government has put forward new fines to punish those who would break Canada's rigorous environmental protections. We have also increased the number of inspections and comprehensive audits of federally regulated pipelines. What is more, we are bringing in tough new measures for oil tankers, to ensure the safe transport of our energy resources through our waterways. These measures include the introduction of the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act and the formation of an expert review panel to examine Canada's current tanker safety regime and propose ways to strengthen it. Building on these measures, our government is taking important, tangible steps today to make our already-robust offshore liability regime even stronger.

As many of my Atlantic Canadian colleagues know well, the Government of Canada shares the management of the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area and the Nova Scotia offshore area with both of the respective provincial governments. Offshore oil and gas projects, therefore, are regulated by either the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board or the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. Each board ensures that operators exercise due diligence to prevent spills from occurring in Canada's offshore. With this in mind, we have worked closely with these two provinces to update and expand legislation to ensure that Canada's offshore rules remain world-class.

Regarding the key changes to offshore liability, this legislation would ensure that the liability limits reflect modern standards. The current offshore petroleum regime specifies that operators have an absolute liability for up to $30 million. Given the value of the resource and the capacity of those who develop it, all members can agree that this amount needs to be raised. That is why we would increase the benchmark by 33 times its current level to an absolute liability limit of $1 billion. Doing so would bring Canada in line with similar regimes in Norway, Denmark, and the United Kingdom.

We also need to ensure that companies operating in the offshore have the financial capacity to meet these and their obligations. Before any offshore drilling or production activity can take place, companies must prove that they can cover the financial liabilities that may result from a spill. Typically, the financial capacity requirements can range from $250 million to $500 million, with $30 million to be held as a deposit to work in the Atlantic offshore and $40 million to work in the Arctic. This deposit is held in trust by the offshore regulator as a letter of credit, guarantee, or bond.

With these legislative amendments, the minimum financial capacity would be raised to $1 billion, in line with operator’s absolute liability. Regulators may require higher amounts if deemed necessary and, in addition, we would increase the amount of funds to which operators have unfettered access to $100 million per operator. Industry would also have the option of setting up a minimum $250 million pooled fund, and operators could choose to use membership in such a fund to serve as their financial responsibility. We would also establish a cost-recovery regime for regulatory services provided by the offshore boards. I am pleased to say that the companies operating in Canada's Atlantic and Arctic offshore would be subject to one of the highest absolute liability standards in the world.

Regarding the nuclear industry, the second important part of this legislation focuses on updating the absolute liabilities for nuclear energy. In fact, it is one of the main reasons that our electricity supply is one of the cleanest in the world; 77% of Canada's electricity mix is non-emitting. Our government recognizes the importance of the industry to the Canadian economy. The industry generates nearly $5 billion a year in revenues and provides jobs for more than 30,000 Canadians. This is the number of jobs that the New Democrats want to destroy with their anti-nuclear position. We know that nuclear energy can be generated safely. In fact, Canada's nuclear safety record is exemplary and there has never been a claim under Canada's Nuclear Liability Act.

Our nuclear industry has sound technology, a qualified workforce and stringent regulatory requirements. However, as a responsible government, we must ensure that our security system is up to date and able to respond to any incidents that may occur.

The responsibility for providing a liability and compensation regime, a solid framework to protect Canadians and provide stability to this important industry, falls under federal jurisdiction. The Government of Canada, then, has a duty to all Canadians to assume its responsibilities in this area, and we are committed to doing so.

Although the basic principles underlying Canada's nuclear liability legislation remain valid, the Nuclear Liability Act is nearly 40 years old. It needs updating to address issues that have arisen over the years and to keep pace with international developments. Bill C-22 serves to strengthen and modernize Canada's nuclear liability regime. The proposed legislation is a major step forward in modernizing this act. It puts Canada in line with internationally accepted compensation levels and clarifies the definition for compensation, spelling out exactly what is covered and the process for claiming compensation.

This bill is the culmination of many years of consultations involving extensive discussions with major stakeholders, including Canada's nuclear utilities, the governments of nuclear power generating provinces, and the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada. This is the fifth time that this nuclear legislation has been introduced, and I hope my hon. colleagues recognize the critical need for finally passing this legislation in a timely manner.

Let me be clear. If it had not been for the past filibustering by the NDP, the nuclear liability limits would already have been updated. It is my sincere hope that New Democrats will have a more reasonable approach this time around to modernizing nuclear liability. Bill C-22 significantly improves the claims compensation process, increases the financial liability of nuclear operators for damages, and provides greater legal certainty for the nuclear industry in Canada.

Like the offshore sector, under Bill C-22, the nuclear industry will also see an increase in the amount of operator liability, which would go from $75 million to $1 billion.

A liability of $1 billion balances the need for operators to provide compensation without burdening them with exorbitant costs for unrealistic insurance amounts, amounts for events that are highly unlikely to occur in this country. It is critical to remember that liability must be within the capacity of insurers, otherwise taxpayers would be held accountable for the cost. The $1 billion strikes that balance between protecting ratepayers and holding companies to account in the event of an accident.

Let me assure all hon. members that the new legislation will maintain the key strengths of the existing legislation. Most importantly, it will mean that the liability of the operator will be absolute and exclusive. There would be no need to prove fault, and nobody else would be held liable. Our government would also provide increased coverage for lower-risk nuclear facilities, such as small research reactors at Canadian universities.

Bill C-22 also features other key improvements.

First, Bill C-22 will broaden the definition of compensable damage in order to include physical injury, economic loss, preventive measures and environmental damage.

Second, it would extend the limitation period for submitting compensation claims. The limitation period for bodily injury claims, for example, would be expanded from 10 to 30 years. This would help to address latent illnesses that may be detected many years after an accident or incident. This is another way that our government is continuing to protect Canadians.

Finally, Bill C-22 will establish the authority to implement a simplified process for dealing with claims that can replace the regular court proceedings if necessary. This would allow Canadians to submit their claims more quickly and effectively.

Our government is taking concrete steps to address important issues for the nuclear sector. This includes responsible management of legacy waste; restructuring of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL; and promoting international trade.

When it comes to nuclear power, we are talking about a global issue that knows no borders. I am very proud to announce that Bill C-22 will also serve to implement the provisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage.

My colleague signed the convention and tabled it in Parliament in December. The convention is an international instrument to address nuclear civil liability in the unlikely event of a nuclear incident.

By adhering to this convention, Canada will bolster its domestic compensation regime by up to $450 million by bringing in significant new funding. This would bring the total potential compensation in Canada up to $1.45 billion.

Joining this convention also reinforces our commitment to building a strong global nuclear liability regime. It is important that Canada's legislation is consistent with international conventions, not only financial issues, but also in regard to what constitutes a nuclear incident, what qualifies for compensation and other matters.

These changes will help establish a level playing field for Canadian nuclear supply companies, which welcome the certainty of providing their services in a country that is a member of the convention.

Given that our closest neighbour, the United States, is already a member of the convention, our membership will allow the two countries to establish civil liability treaty relations.

Korea and Japan have also signalled their intention to sign the convention. Once Canada becomes a member, the convention will be one step closer to becoming a reality.

In conclusion, these are just some of the ways that our government is ensuring that Canada is amongst the strongest liability regimes in the world. Bill C-22 provides a solid framework to regulate the offshore and nuclear liability regimes in Canada.

Although an offshore or nuclear incident is highly unlikely, we have to be prepared to deal with such incidents, which could result in cleanup, liability or other costs. Bill C-22 seeks to help prepare for that possibility. Its legislative provisions focus on the responsible promotion and development of our offshore and nuclear industries, which are essential.

In closing, I urge all honourable members to support this important piece of legislation.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the member for Kenora for becoming the Minister of Natural Resources. I certainly look forward to working with him, not just on Bill C-22, but on all of the files in the portfolio.

I do regret that the minister started his new career by pointing fingers at the NDP for ostensibly holding up bills in the past, in particular this bill on nuclear liability, when in fact that is a bit of revisionist history. I would remind the member that the truth is that the Prime Minister killed his own legislation, in 2008, when he ignored his own fixed election date, and, in 2009, when he prorogued Parliament. He let Bill C-15, the predecessor of Bill C-22, sit around for a year, until the 2011 election.

Let me move on to a question this morning. I am pleased to see that while we have been revisiting this bill for the fifth time, the government has actually increased the liability limit from $650 million to $1 billion. However, there are a number of countries that believe there ought not to be a cap on liability at all. Some of those countries include Germany, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, and Switzerland, all of which have unlimited liability when it comes to nuclear power plants.

I believe, and I think my NDP colleagues all believe as well, that liability has to be strong enough so that a nuclear or offshore disaster never happens and that operators put the best safety measures into place.

I wonder whether the minister would, first of all, comment on why the government chose to limit liability at just $1 billion and, second, whether he would be agreeable in committee to looking at expanding that liability limit to be more in line with other international standards.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words of my colleague. I look forward to working with her in her new role as the critic for this portfolio.

With respect to the liability question, obviously it would be fairly predictable for the NDP to use words like “no liability”, meaning no limits of money. That is not true. We should not expect that from our taxpayers. We have to be fair and reasonable to the industry.

A liability limit of $1 billion would mean Canada has among the highest limits in the world. There are countries who are doing this with certain success and Canada wants to be atop that, not just because we want to set an international standard with partner countries, but for the protection of Canadians as well.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for such an interesting speech. This is a first step, and it is time something was done to make up for time lost in recent years. However, like my colleague and our critic stated, I do not accept his claim that we on this side are responsible for the delays.

The member spoke about taxpayers. As Canadians, we are all taxpayers who participate in the Canadian economy. There is a $1-billion cap. According to several experts, this is really just another subsidy for oil and gas companies that are already benefiting from billions of dollars in subsidies.

Does the member not think, as we in the NDP do, that the most extreme form of the polluter pays principle should apply here, meaning that there should be no cap and the polluter should be the one to pay? If the polluter is unable to pay, it should not be conducting oil exploration in the gulf, for example.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's current absolute liability limits have not been updated since the 1980s. This bill will ensure that Canada's offshore regime for oil and gas, specifically for which the hon. member put the question, remains world class. A $1 billion absolute liability would place Canada's regime squarely among those of its peer countries.

In cases of fault or negligence, liability remains unlimited.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada we often benchmark ourselves with the United States, which is our major trading partner. We share many common regulations and standards. We often partner with it in terms of research on public safety.

Many of our international partners have much better protection when it comes to nuclear liability than what the Conservatives are proposing. The U.S. has an absolute liability regime of $12.6 billion U.S.

My question is, why would the Conservatives not want at least the level of liability that the Americans have in this field? Why would we have such a puny liability level compared with our major trading partner?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not correct to say that the liability limit is $12 billion in the United States, as its system is different from that of other countries. The operators' liability insurance is capped at $375 million. In the event of an accident resulting in damages exceeding the operators' liability insurance, all U.S. operators, 104 reactors, would also contribute up to $125 million for each reactor that they operate. That would make available a compensation pool of a maximum of $13 billion, should it be required.

I can say to the member that this type of pooling system would not be feasible in Canada, given that we have far fewer nuclear reactors. We have 19, as compared to 104 in the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his new role. I hope that bringing new blood to cabinet might result in a new approach.

I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on one point. We know that many of the government bills stealthily confer additional discretionary powers on various ministers.

The same thing is being done with Bill C-22. In fact, the bill provides for ministerial discretion to reduce absolute liability levels to below $1 billion. The level is being increased from $75 million to $1 billion, so it seems like a tremendous step in the right direction. However, a few lines later, we note that the minister can make changes at his discretion.

What does the minister think of that measure, which allows him to rule unchecked?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the intention here is to modernize. This bill would reflect the realities both for the protection of Canadians and for the industry itself, and move Canada as a leader with other countries to a place, through international conventions, that would in fact modernize this. Therefore, any of the changes, specific or broadly speaking, reflected in this bill is an effort to make sure Canadians have the best protection available under the law and continue to respect the economic benefits of offshore activities and the nuclear sector.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can tell us today what the actual cost to a nuclear power plant operator would be when the liability limit increases to $1 billion. Could he also give us an idea of what the phase-in period is for that?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the proposed changes, before any offshore drilling or production activity can take place and during any activity, the proponent must provide evidence that it can actually cover the minimum $1 billion financial liability. The expectation is that the proof of financial resources would at least be equal to the absolute liability limit. Of course, there would be a range of options for proving financial resources, including cash on hand, credit bonds, fixed assets, and insurance. Also, the financial resource requirements would be an ongoing condition of a licence.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as the newly appointed NDP critic for energy and natural resources to lead off our caucus' participation in the debate on Bill C-22, which has the less than pithy title of 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 would be remiss if I did not say a few words first about my predecessor in this portfolio, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. I owe him and his staff a huge debt of gratitude for their incredible work on the full range of files that fall under the rubric of energy and natural resources. I stand on their shoulders as we move forward on the important questions of resource management and energy security in our country. I wish the government House leader the best of luck in dealing with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster in his new capacity as NDP House leader.

The government House leader and I were elected at the same time, and I know we both fondly remember the MP for Burnaby—New Westminster's time as our trade critic. We will both remember his tenacious fight against the Panama free trade agreement, which he successfully prevented from being passed on a number of occasions. Without telling tales out of school, I can say he always reminded us in caucus meetings that the bill was a bill that we had to “go to the wall on”, even if it meant sitting past the regular adjournment dates of the House. In each of those instances, he had the full support of our caucus.

Now he is our House leader. I imagine there will be many more instances where he will exhort us to go to the wall. We will follow his lead as unconditionally now as we have in the past. I bet the government House leader is as excited as I am about that. Yikes, I can see him scurrying off now to draft more pre-emptive time allocation motions.

Oh well, those are strategic battles for the days ahead. For now, I am pleased to say that on Bill C-22, the government will have our support at second reading, so that at least we can get the bill to committee and pursue expanded liability there.

However, let me not get ahead of myself. I should first lay out, for those people who may be watching this debate on television today, what this bill is all about. As it stands now, if there is a significant oil spill or nuclear accident, the federal government could be left responsible for damages and cleanup costs in the billions of dollars because there are caps on the liability of reactor operators and companies operating offshore. Increasing those caps would reduce the federal government's exposure and therefore protect Canadian taxpayers. That is what Bill C-22 attempts to do.

It must be noted at the outset that we are only dealing here with costs to the government. The bill does nothing to address the prevention of spills or nuclear accidents, and therefore, both communities and the environment remain highly vulnerable in case of an accident.

Let us look instead at what the bill does address, beginning with the sections that deal with offshore oil and gas liability. Currently, the government and taxpayers are exposed to the financial downside of a catastrophic offshore oil spill by weak liability regimes that cap operator absolute liability at $40 million. Distinct liability regimes govern different aspects of oil and gas development, from pipelines, to rail transport, to offshore drilling. Each regime is in need of fundamental reform.

The oil spill liability reforms in Bill C-22 are limited only to the offshore industry. 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 to be 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 they become necessary. Additionally, the bill increases coverage for exploratory drilling operations offshore, production operations, the loading of tankers for transport, and undersea pipelines, such as a natural gas line from Sable Island to the mainland in Atlantic Canada.

However, here is one of the kickers in the bill. It provides for ministerial discretion to reduce absolute liability levels to below even the paltry legislated level of $1 billion. This discretionary provision could undercut the advantages of the legislated increase in the absolute liability limit contained in Bill C-22. It would leave the door wide open for the reduction of absolute liability levels for certain projects as a form of economic incentive for oil and gas development that the government wishes to encourage. Given the Conservative's poor track record in protecting Canada's public interest, this aspect causes us grave concern.

Before my colleagues across the way accuse me of fearmongering, let me just point out that many industry observers adopt the position that operators should face unlimited absolute financial liability for oil spills, as is the case in some other countries, including Norway and Greenland.

Let me just remind members that the offshore BP Gulf oil spill of 2010 is expected to cost as much as $42 billion for total cleanup. That is right. Given the liability limit of $1 billion, that spill alone would leave the government, and therefore taxpayers, on the hook for $41 billion.

Does the government really believe that Canadians should hold the risk for these private companies? If asked, I suspect it would respond with a resounding no.

As this bill proceeds through the legislative process, we might want to reflect on the fact that a German bank, for example, has completely stopped financing offshore oil projects in the Arctic. A spokesperson said:

The further you get into the icy regions, the more expensive everything gets and there are risks that are almost impossible to manage.

Remediation of any spills would cost a fortune.

In part, of course, that is because there is no oil spill response capacity to address a sizeable well blowout or a large scale spill in Arctic waters.

As Martin von Mirbach from the World Wildlife Fund put it:

...there is currently insufficient knowledge and inadequate technology and infrastructure to safely carry out drilling in Canadian Arctic waters. More time is required to address these gaps....

He concludes on a more optimistic note by suggesting that:

...this necessity can become a virtue if at the same time we collectively invest in the research, planning, infrastructure, and dialogue that are the key characteristics of responsible stewardship.

Truthfully, I am not holding my breath. I do not think there are very many Canadians who believe that responsible stewardship ever has been or will be a priority for the Conservative government, but I would love to be surprised. Regardless, the questions raised by Mr. von Mirbach must be explored further with both him and other stakeholders when Bill C-22 finally gets to committee. Not to follow up on those questions would be extremely irresponsible.

Let us leave that for the next stage of the legislative process. For now, let me move on to highlighting the nuclear liability piece of the bill. Here, the impetus for legislating a change lies in the fact that the existing liability limit of $75 million was created to support the industry in the 1950s. It is so low that international courts simply would not recognize it. Therefore, to boost foreign investment in nuclear power in Canada, a legislative change was needed. That process began in 2008, and this is now the fifth time that the Conservatives have brought in a bill to try to deal with its woefully inadequate liability scheme.

To its credit, this bill does propose to increase the maximum liability for operators of nuclear installations for damage resulting from a nuclear accident. It proposes to increase it by more than the earlier iterations of this bill. Whereas the Conservatives once thought that an increase from $75 million to $650 million per nuclear installation would suffice, Bill C-22 would raise it to $1 billion. That is certainly a step in the right direction, but even this limit seems shamefully low when we consider the consequences of a nuclear accident.

As Greenpeace bluntly points out:

...the current nuclear liability conventions are intended to protect the nuclear industry, and do not offer sufficient compensation to victims.

From the beginning of the use of nuclear power to produce electricity 60 years ago, the nuclear industry has been protected from paying the full cost of its failures.

Governments have created a system that protects the benefits of companies, while those who suffer from nuclear disasters end up paying the costs.

It is for precisely that reason that even the Fraser Institute, which no one would accuse of being a left wing think tank, is arguing for more draconian action. Joel Wood, senior research economist at the Fraser Institute, had this to say on nuclear liability gaps:

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

In other words, both Greenpeace and the Fraser Institute agree that the bill before us today continues with the tradition of protecting corporations, rather than protecting Canadian citizens.

Let us look at the liability caps and evaluate them. It seems obvious that the total liability would not be able to cover a medium-sized accident, never mind a catastrophic one. A nuclear accident would cause billions of dollars in damage in personal injuries, death, and contamination of the surrounding areas.

The Japanese government is now saying that the cost of the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant will be over $250 billion.

According to the director of environmental governance for the Pembina Institute, a major accident at the Darlington, Ontario nuclear plant east of Toronto, near my riding of Hamilton Mountain, could cause damage in the range of an estimated $1 trillion. One billion dollars does not even come close to being adequate, and taxpayers will be on the hook for the difference. The U.S. on the other hand has a cap of $10 billion. Germany, which has experienced the fallout of the Chernobyl meltdown, has an unlimited amount. Many other countries are also moving in that direction of an unlimited amount of liability.

Does the government really believe that Canadian lives, properties, and communities are worth less than those of our U.S. and European counterparts? Judging by this legislation, one would think the answer is yes.

Perhaps more than anything else this legislation and the debate around it highlight the outrageous costs and potentially devastating risks of nuclear energy, particularly when we compare it to greener, more sustainable alternatives. For example, the Three Mile Island incident outside Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1979 was a relatively minor nuclear accident, but cost an estimated $975 million for the cleanup and investigation. To put the absolute enormity of these costs into context, for the cost of cleaning up Three Mile Island, 1,147,058 100-watt solar panels could have been bought and assembled.

The total subsidies for Canada's pseudo nuclear company, AECL, from 1952 to 2000 were approximately $16 billion. This money could be spent investigating safer methods of energy.

But the enormous costs do not just apply when things go bad. The planned construction of the Fermi 3 plant in Michigan will cost an estimated $10 billion U.S. and take approximately six years to complete. The price of wind power on the other hand is dropping fast and can even be had for as low as 11¢ per kilowatt hour right now. Imagine the cost savings to taxpayers and the lower electricity bills for seniors and hard-working families if we could shift to cheaper, safer, and more sustainable power. On top of the financial expenses, nuclear energy in general is extremely unsafe both for the environment and human life.

There can be no doubt that Canada needs a greener approach to power. In fact, statistics show that Canada ranks 11th in a poll measuring wind power capacity. If Canada expects to be seen as a leader in the world, we need to compete in the field of clean renewable energy.

That is a topic I would love to go on about at some length, but with only a few minutes more available to me here in this debate, I will return to the text of the bill before us today and highlight a few other changes the bill entails.

If the bill passes this time, Bill C-22 would allow Canada to ratify the convention it signed in December 2013 called the International Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. That convention would establish nuclear civil liability treaty relations with the U.S., which is already a party to the convention. Important here is that this provides access to supplemental compensation from an international pool of up to $500 million, if that were ever needed by convention participants.

Domestically, the bill would expand the range of damages that could be claimed, and it would triple to 30 years the length of time a person can wait to make a claim for latent illnesses. While this is an improvement, it is clearly not enough.

The Chernobyl disaster is already more than 25 years in the past, and the other report on Chernobyl done by two British scientists in 2006 predicted there would be between 30,000 and 60,000 excess cancer deaths, while the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare estimates that more than 50,000 cases of thyroid cancer are still to be expected. Obviously, in light of this evidence, the 30-year statute of limitations is something that we on this side of the House would want to examine more closely in committee.

A few other points about Bill C-22 are also of note.

First, I would point to a provision that is missing entirely from this legislation. Bill C-22 does not cover any accidents outside of the nuclear plant setting. Oil and mining companies and medical facilities use radioactive materials as well, but they are not liable for any accidents related to their use or disposal. That is a gaping hole in this legislation, a hole that we must try to fill at committee. Either we are serious about protecting Canadians or we are not. I certainly know whose side I am on.

While I am on the topic of reviewing the bill in committee, let me remind my colleagues on the government side of the House that the Canadian Environmental Law Association had requested the federal government to undertake a meaningful public consultation on how the Nuclear Liability Act should be modernized to acknowledge lessons from the Fukushima disaster. Instead, Natural Resources Canada has been privately consulting Canadian nuclear operators on how to revise the NLA. This behind-closed-doors consultation with industry is completely unacceptable. The NLA transfers the financial risk for reactor operations from industry to Canadians. It is imperative, therefore, that Canadians be consulted.

The former minister of natural resources, who now serves as the Minister of Finance, did promise that there would be plenty of time for consultation with the public. He said:

Once a new bill is introduced, members of Parliament will have the opportunity to call witnesses before committee to provide comment and debate the legislation line-by-line.

I trust that the new Minister of Natural Resources will honour his colleague's commitment and will not cave in to his House leader's draconian predisposition to shut down all debate. But as always, the proof will be in the pudding, and I do not expect we will get a clear answer on that here today.

Returning to the bill itself, I do want to point out a few other provisions. The bill does set up a quasi-judicial claims tribunal, which, if needed, will handle damage claims in the event of an accident.

Second, the bill stipulates that only half of the $1 billion liability coverage for nuclear operators will have to be covered using traditional insurance. Operators will be allowed to put up other forms of financial security for the remaining $500 million.

Third, it is the Government of Canada that will provide some of the coverage for lower risk nuclear facilities, such as smaller research reactors.

Last, it bears pointing out that the bill mandates a review of liability amounts at least once every five years. While the five-year review is certainly an important safety valve giving Parliament the opportunity to re-evaluate the adequacy of the $1 billion liability limit down the road, I think it is important that we do our level best to get it right the first time. It is our job as legislators to protect the interests of Canadian.

Frankly, if the government is so convinced that nuclear power is a mature industry, then it is an industry that can and must pay for itself. Instead, the bill is just one more corporate handout by making taxpayers liable for nuclear risk. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for subsidies to nuclear energy over other renewable power sources. Other countries certainly seem to agree with me on that and have decided that their citizens deserve much higher protection in the event of a nuclear accident. Why will the Conservatives not offer Canadians that same protection?

I will wrap up by reiterating my bottom line on the bill. First, if the government truly believes in the polluter pays principle, then taxpayers should not hold the risk for these energy projects.

Second, if we measure risk correctly and assign liability, then industry will improve its safety practices, reducing the likelihood of catastrophic accidents.

Third, we have to study global best practices and ensure that the federal government puts Canadians first.

Fourth, the Canadian government should prepare a comprehensive assessment of the risks posed by nuclear power plant operations in Canada, and the opportunities for reducing that risk and the accompanying risk costs and risk reduction costs.

Fifth, we must engage publicly with a wide range of stakeholders to discuss risks and options to improve nuclear liability in Canada. We must have comprehensive public hearings on the bill.

Sixth, we must review the liability regime regularly moving forward to make sure that our laws are up to date. It is completely unacceptable that successive Conservative and Liberal governments have waited decades to address this. Canadians deserve so much better than that.

I would just conclude by saying that while the bill before us today talks about who will clean up after an accident, what Canadians really deserve is a government that puts their interests first. That means a government that understands that what we need is an offshore and nuclear liability regime that focuses on ensuring that these kinds of disasters never happen in the first place. That is real leadership and the kind of leadership Canadians can expect when they elect an NDP government in 2015.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention. I am just wondering how realistic the New Democrats think their plan is to make liability limits unlimited. Have they actually looked into the impact their plan would have on families who rely on nuclear power for electricity?

For our part, we have done our research. Our legislation raises the limit to an amount that is fair and reasonable, and that protects Canadians in the event of an incident and protects ratepayers from exorbitant costs.

What would the costs be to consumers under the plan the NDP are proposing?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the minister, uniquely on that side of the House, cares so passionately about workers in this country. He is quite right. There are 30,000 people who are currently employed in the nuclear industry, but my goodness, is it not the health and safety of those workers as well that is at stake here? Frankly, these 30,000 workers are taxpayers as well. So if the government essentially has to pick up all of the costs of a $1 billion nuclear accident, it is those 30,000 employees as well who will be on the hook for those costs.

I would suggest to the government that raising the liability limit is something we cannot afford not to do. We have to raise that limit precisely to protect taxpayers, to protect workers, to protect hardworking families in this country. For the minister to suggest that this cannot be done is clearly wrong in the face of the evidence, because countries like Germany, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, and Switzerland have all done it. I think it is a false argument to suggest that all of those jurisdictions are doing it in a way that is harmful to employees.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on several occasions my colleague from the NDP alluded to the NDP's position on nuclear power. I am sure she would agree that nuclear power as a form of electricity generation and power going forward is going to be part of our energy mix for the foreseeable future. But I take it from her comments that the NDP is officially opposed to nuclear power. Some 60% of Ontario's power is now nuclear. California is expanding its examination of the use of nuclear for many other reasons.

I want to get a better sense of what the official NDP policy is with respect to nuclear power. If it is against nuclear power, how quickly would it phase it out in Canada?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel a bit bad that what I said in my speech was not clear to the member. I suggested quite clearly that we have to start focusing on renewable sources of energy, that we need to invest in green and clean technologies. That is the focus of our party and where we want to go with respect to energy generation. That is something that all members on all sides of House ought to be able to support, so I am sorry if the member misunderstood that part of my speech, but I would be delighted to talk to him in private about this again after we finish this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Hamilton Mountain on her excellent speech. Once again, she illustrated the Conservatives' poor management. They are shifting the burden to taxpayers, effectively making them pay more taxes and cover the cost of cleaning up messes made by proponents who want to develop nuclear energy and oil and gas resources.

The government could invest those hundreds of billions of dollars in supporting renewable energy, cleaning up the environment and creating well-paying jobs. Once again, the government is indirectly telling Canadians that they will have to foot the bill for messes made by multinationals developing Canadian resources. That is an unacceptable way to manage Canada. The NDP wants to manage the environment and energy sustainably.

I would like my colleague to comment further on companies' and proponents' responsibility to develop resources sustainably and reasonably without placing the burden on Canadians who have to put up with the government's shenanigans.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's question and his passion for this issue. He is absolutely right: we ought to be debating in the House measures to enhance sustainable development in this country. One of the things that is woefully lacking in the bill is any language about the things that we need to do to prevent nuclear accidents and offshore oil accidents from happening in the first place. We are not talking about that in the House—not now, frankly, and never. We are simply talking about how much liability companies will have in the case of accidents. That is not a conversation that is in the best interests of Canadians if we do not put it into the fuller context of how we stop those accidents in the first place.

I want to commend my colleague for bringing that to the floor of the House and I look forward to his intervention on the bill, where I am sure he will elaborate further.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether she and her party continue to agree with her leader's comments when he said, “I want to be very clear. The NDP is opposed to any new nuclear infrastructure in Canada”.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me say that I look forward to working with the parliamentary secretary on the natural resources committee. I am sure that we are going to have many lively debates in the House.

I have been a member in this House since 2006. One of the things I learned, probably within the first week of being in this House, was that the most foolish thing any MP could do is actually speak on behalf of his or her leader.

I suspect that there will be many opportunities when the parliamentary secretary could put that question directly to the member for Outremont. I look forward to hearing that exchange.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Hamilton Mountain, when we start talking about liability, we can look at the fact that Japan has gone through an experience like no other country on earth, practically, when we look at the damage done there.

Our friends from the Liberal Party were asking questions about certain situations, but they left out the gas plants that were cancelled in a provincial election and the liability that suddenly hit Canadians in Ontario on their hydro bills because of that. There was no cap on liability, so the people are absorbing that cost. That is minuscule compared to the risks we would have. If we are capped at a billion dollars, it just does not make any sense.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some would suggest, though, that the experience of Ontario with respect to the gas plants the member mentioned was hardly an accident. Rather, it was a very calculated, politically motivated cancellation of those plants. However, I certainly take his point.

Yes, he is absolutely right. Taxpayers are again on the hook, quite substantially, because of an action the Liberal government in Ontario took simply in an effort to try to save some seats. That, of course, will be an issue that will be at the forefront of the upcoming provincial election in Ontario, and I suspect that there will be a huge political price to pay by the Liberal government.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem I have with the narrative of the member opposite is not just the failure or the inability to take a clear position on the nuclear sector, particularly for Ontario. The tendency there is to shag the industry but say that we are standing up for the workers. They are against pipelines, but the multitudes of trades that are involved in working on them, well, they stand up for them.

You do not get to have that hypocrisy in the official opposition. When you come forward with a plan like you were suggesting in your lengthy speech today, it is about your notions of liability. We know how much our plan would cost the ratepayer. It would be approximately $2.00 per year.

The question is put to you, because money does not grow on trees. I know that is your forestry policy--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please.

The minister has been here long enough to know that the questions are to be directed to the Chair rather than to a member directly.

The member for Hamilton Mountain has very little time left.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

That is all right, Mr. Speaker. I do not need very much time, because clearly the minister is confusing us with the Liberals. It was the Liberal leader who said that budgets balance themselves. I do not think I will be taking any lessons from him on that.

With respect to his suggestion that we are standing up for workers, I make no apologies for that either. In fact, the one thing the bill would do would be to say to the industry that this government will always be there to protect the interests of the Canadian nuclear industry at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

We will stand up for hard-working families. We will stand up for taxpayers and make sure that they are not on the hook for accidents caused by an industry whose behaviour may put Canadians on the hook to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his recent appointment as Minister of Natural Resources. I know that he brings to it thoughtfulness and sincerity and that he will be a pleasure to work with.

This is an important bill, because it deals with important issues that are sometimes difficult for average working Canadians to understand. Therefore, it is important for us to keep it simple. In my remarks this morning, I am going to try to explain to Canadians why this is so very important in the architecture of energy for Canada going forward, a theme I am going to return to in a few moments.

First, we know that this bill would update the safety and security regimes for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries. How would it do that? It would expressly include the polluter pays principle, a notion perfected in the 1980s that is now increasingly finding implementation in Canada and around the world. It is the notion that the entity that generates the pollution is responsible for its cleanup and is responsible for liability as a result of the pollution. That is an important and positive thing to be including in the bill.

It would also increase liability limits to $1 billion, and it would do so without proof of fault or negligence, or as we say in the legal profession, strict liability. The polluter would be held strictly liable for whatever occurred on its watch with respect to pollution of that kind. That is a very big step for Canada to be taking and is one that we will be exploring, I know, in greater detail in committee.

Part 1 would amend the offshore petroleum regime. That is the exploitation of oil and gas in our waterways, off Canadian soil. It would try to enhance incident prevention, our response capacity to problems, and of course, liability and compensation. It would primarily update and strengthen the liability regime applicable to spills and debris in offshore areas. This is very important. This question of response capacity and incident prevention, we now know, is extraordinarily important. We have seen two recent examples in the last several decades that have, frankly, focused the minds of Canadians and citizens all over the world who have watched them.

One, of course, was the terrible tragedy of the Exxon Valdez, how that occurred, and the remedies that flowed from that major oil spill along the coast of Alaska, the effects of which are still being felt and the cleanup of which is still being executed. As our American friends like to say, there have been “learnings”, things we have learned from that tragedy that have led to improvements, such as the widespread use of double-hulled ships for oil and petroleum products.

The second, more recent incident was the terrible spill in the Gulf of Mexico at the BP wellhead. For Canadians who were watching or reading, this was so significant that we now know that with prosecutions, fines, settlements, and compensation, the costs for the Gulf of Mexico incident are now well over $42 billion and counting. This is a very significant amount of money for the corporation involved. There are long-term effects. There are long-term human effects, long-term economic effects, and I would argue, perhaps longer-term ecological effects. We are entering unchartered territory in many regards, because the science does not always exist to confirm just how long term that ecological damage is. Therefore, it is important for us to examine this question of response capacity and incident prevention in committee.

It does, however, raise the question of why the Conservative government has rushed through Beaufort Sea exploration licences. Why is it, in full knowledge of the fact that we do not have the technology to deal with a spill in the Beaufort, that the government has rushed these licences through? It has been forewarned both by industry and by third parties. It has been raised on the floor of this House and raised in committee repeatedly.

The Arctic Ocean is a very shallow ocean. It is also an extremely rough body of water, and there is no known booming system to contain an oil spill should it occur during this phase of exploration and, ultimately, during exploitation. I do not know why the government is allowing the licences to go forward. In fact, it was fast-tracking them several years ago, and now, several years later, it is trying to take corrective action to enhance response capacity. We will have to look at that at committee, particularly, as I say, since there is no known response capacity for a spill in those waters.

The second thing this bill would do, in part 2, is amend the nuclear regime, the way we oversee our nuclear energy sector. It would establish greater legal certainty and enhance liability and compensation in the event of a nuclear accident. Many speakers here have raised the spectre of a nuclear accident. Of course, this is very worrisome. Of course, this is something we need to learn from internationally. The bill would provide for the establishment, in certain circumstances, of an administrative tribunal to hear and decide claims. It would implement certain provisions of an international treaty, the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage.

Here I would like to stop and speak about this question of our nuclear regime in Canada and what has been happening around nuclear power in Canada over the last eight years, since the arrival of the Conservative government.

For about 57 years, Canada led the world, through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, in the production of nuclear power capacity, the export of that capacity, and the physics underpinning that technology. It was a world leader, not only in the generation of power but also, linked to it, in the production of medical isotopes. This is extremely important going forward, and this bill would have a bearing.

There was a time when Canada supplied 65% of all the medical isotopes in the United States. It furnished our own medical isotopes here in Canada and exported widely around the world. Why is that so important? It is because medical experts tell us that the future of medicine is in what they call personalized medicine. Personalized medicine is going to require the significant, expanded use of nuclear medicine, without which we will not be able to take our medicine and our treatment as human beings to the next iteration, the next level. Isotope production is going to be critical for Canadians. It is also going to be critical for the rest of the world.

As China, India, and other parts of the world become more affluent, there is no doubt in our collective minds, I am sure, that those parts of the world are also going to require greater access to nuclear medicine. What has Canada done with that opportunity and that knowledge in front of it?

Several years ago, the Prime Minister's director of communications was involved in a well-orchestrated rollout with respect to the future of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It was the same individual who now heads up Sun TV for Mr. Péladeau, the separatist owner of a major news network. As an aside, I would love to hear from the Sun journalists who for years have been attacking all sorts of different folks with respect to their views, but I have not seen a single commentary from these leaders of the Sun regime on the majority shareholder of their corporation.

We had that same person, the former director of communications, come out in the hall here and run down the asset, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I remember the words and I remember the day, because I was so absolutely stunned when he came out and said that Atomic Energy of Canada is a $12 billion sinkhole.

That was, of course, deliberate, because it is a Conservative strategy to run down a state-owned asset that they want to dispose of. Lo and behold, the vast majority of AECL was dumped in a fireside sale of $100 million to SNC-Lavalin in Montreal, thereby compromising Canada's future, in my view, with respect to nuclear power plants and with respect to producing medical isotopes and obtaining a certain share of that marketplace.

Today, as we speak, there are over 120 requests for proposals being considered worldwide for new nuclear power plant installations. That is the reality. Is Canada prepared? Is AECL actively bidding? Are we ready to conquer some of those markets?

I would say no, not when the Prime Minister's director of communications is dispatched to describe our state-owned nuclear energy company as a $12 billion sinkhole.

Furthermore, as I just put to my colleague from the NDP, in committee we will have to look at the energy mix going forward. We will have to look at how nuclear power will fit with renewable power and other forms of power, for example geothermal, which in my view is an energy source we have barely begun to tap, particularly in a northern Canadian context. It is highly economic to be using geothermal in our north, but we are not investing very much at all.

Here I would agree with my NDP colleague: we are not putting the needed resources into public research and development in our energy future, whatever that mix is going to be.

Finally, on the nuclear regime side, it is important for all members to understand that very unfortunately, given the global consumption of water, 70% of the world's fresh water is used today in agricultural production. It is the same statistic in the United States. As American northeastern cities drop in population and as the United States builds ever-larger cities in its dry southwest, we will see even more pressure on fresh water, which of course is giving rise to all kinds of new economic opportunities, unfortunately, in the desalination of water.

The only form of energy we know thus far that is economic in desalination is nuclear. Are we going to tell the world that it cannot have access to water? I do not think so, not given the pressures that we know are coming and knowing what we know now about climate change. We will come to the place of climate change in an energy discussion in a second.

It is very important for us to examine this question of the nuclear regime in a broader context. This is not just a technical amendment bill; it has to be examined in the context of both the Canadian situation and the international markets that I alluded to just a moment ago.

For example, we know that the liability cap in the nuclear sector is going to go from $75 million to $1 billion. That is a very significant jump. This brings Canada in line with the promises it made when we signed the international Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage in December 2013. In a sense, we are simply moving to ratify what we signed on an international level.

In the offshore oil and gas sector, the absolute liability for companies operating in the Atlantic offshore will increase from $30 million to $1 billion, and in the Arctic from $40 million to $1 billion. Operators will have to earmark $100 million specifically for spill response. That is a quantum, a number that I think deserves to be examined much more closely.

It is $100 million earmarked for spill response if, as I said earlier with respect to the Beaufort, that technology actually exists, which we know it does not in that context. It is $100 million when the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico is $42 billion and counting. I do not think that is a serious number.

On this question of satisfactory protection, we will have to hear from experts. It is linked, of course, to the insurability of some of these actions and whether or not there is insurance to be drawn down on top of the $100 million specifically earmarked.

There are other questions that have to be asked, as the proposed legislation raises several issues.

For example, would the bill make it far more expensive for offshore energy companies to operate off the Atlantic and Arctic coasts by raising their financial liability, by forcing them to have more money on hand, by increasing the funds they must have on hand for disaster response specifically? In that case, by how much would the cost be increased? What do the corporations have to say about that? I think it is important for us to hear the answer.

Is $1 billion adequate in the Arctic, where environmental conditions make spill response efforts very challenging? Is $1 billion realistic, as we rush through these exploration licences, as has been done by the government?

Here is another question. Why does the bill provide for ministerial discretion to reduce absolute liability levels to below the legislative level of $1 billion? Why would we do this? What would be the implications of this provision?

In fairness, there has been a trend since the Conservatives came to power eight years ago of vesting more and more power in ministers or in the cabinet. Nowhere has that been more egregious than in the case of decisions rendered by the impartial, arm's-length National Energy Board. Now, all of a sudden, as a result of the government's power grab, a decision rendered by a third party, outside-of-government group of experts with quasi-judicial processes and expert evidence is not good enough, because if it is not in line with the government's views or the Conservatives' priorities, they can undermine the entire process with a stroke of a pen. In fact, they can overrule the entire process. This is unusual, but it has been happening over and over for eight years in different sectors.

Here, again, we see it slipped into the bill. I think the government has to explain to Canadians why that is. Why would the minister have the power to say that it is not $1 billion but $229, or zero, or there is a delay in payment? What are the implications of this provision as we go forward with another concentration of power in a single minister?

We know that the bill is the culmination of many years of discussion with respect to operator liability that, objectively, started under the previous Liberal government. For that, I want to commend all of those departmental officials who have been involved in helping to craft the bill and who helped to lead those discussions and reconcile competing views. They should be congratulated for their hard work. We are only as good in this place as the work provided by those officials. In many respects, we stand on their shoulders.

The second thing the bill does is address recommendations to raise liability limits from the 2012 report of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development. Need I remind the House that this is another office created by the Liberal government?

There are some very positive changes in the bill. We look forward to seeing it get to committee. We are looking forward to hearing from the experts on many important questions.

Bill C-22 is a good building block in what I hope will become an adult conversation on Canada's energy future, because in eight years we have not had an adult conversation. We have been fixating on a single pipeline or some other construction project, as opposed to examining what our energy future looks like, what the mix looks like, the extent to which we are integrated in the North American context, and where we are going with greenhouse gases, a term I have not heard uttered here today. To talk about energy, which the bill addresses, without talking about greenhouse gases is irresponsible.

In closing, I am looking forward to seeing Bill C-22 in committee and getting more information and more evidence with a view to improve it.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention. The discipline and rigour that he brings not only to his presentation but also to his questions with particular regard to some of the work I have done with him in the past are very much appreciated.

I share his concerns about the broader questions around energy, in particular about where the nuclear sector fits in. I too have been concerned. An example is the green pulp and paper transformation program to reduce the environmental footprint and significant costs of the pulp mill in Dryden, which went from 85% to 112%. Unfortunately, the priorities of the provincial government at that time, just a couple of years ago, did not provide for that extra energy, which, at no cost to the environment and at great benefit to the high ratepayers in northwestern Ontario, could have gone onto the grid line.

That is a subject for another discussion, but it does raise an important point when the member talks about the mix. I appreciate the consideration of water and nuclear medicine. Having just been the minister responsible for science and technology, I may take some opposition to his sense that good research is not being done in those areas.

The first concern I have is with the failure of the NDP to take a stand on the nuclear sector. The second is to understand, in the broader context, the important contributions it makes, in particular to nuclear medicine and isotopes. We are making some great strides in these areas in Thunder Bay.

I wonder if the member could comment broadly and perhaps more specifically on his concern about the cost structure under the scenario for liability that the NDP is proposing. Although he may have some exceptions and concerns around our liability regime, it is taking us one more important step forward toward a reasonable balance between liability and ratepayers.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not within me to divine the thinking of the NDP in this area. I am not surprised that its members are not in a position to talk about the implications of unlimited liability. It is interesting to call for that and have an aspirational goal. When my kids were very young, while tucking them into bed I would tell them about the way the world ought to be, and in the morning I would get up and deal with the way the world is. The New Democrats do need to deal with the way the world is, although I do commend them for their aspirational views on unlimited liability. I would like to hear from the experts at committee what the ramifications and the distributive effects of this approach would be.

Going back to the energy mix that my colleague alluded to, it is fair to point out that in the last eight years most, if not all, of the fiscal incentives and programmatic expenditures that were in place to help us move to a greater renewable portfolio have all been eliminated. We have lost the renewable power production incentive and the wind power production incentive. We have eliminated the ecoENERGY program for people's homes, which was an attempt to encourage average citizens to retrofit the homes where they live to make a contribution to energy efficiency. This is unfortunate, because Canada should be retooling our economy to become the cleanest, most energy-efficient, most materials-efficient, and most water-efficient economy in the world. I think the minister ought to go back and take a look at some of those issues and cuts and look at reinstating them.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent presentation today. I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate the new minister on his appointment. I am looking forward to working with him.

There are a number of issues with this bill that we have to study at the natural resources committee, of which I am the vice-chair. Among those is the question of what impact this bill would have on the operating costs of offshore energy companies operating off the Atlantic coast or in the Arctic.

In terms of the Arctic, my hon. colleague from Ottawa South spoke eloquently about the challenges there. There is the question of whether $1 billion is adequate in the Arctic, given the kinds of environmental concerns that a spill there could raise, such as the difficulties of a spill response, especially in deep water and under ice. Those are big concerns. Why the bill provides for ministerial discretion to reduce the liability limit below $1 billion is not clear to me.

I would ask my hon. colleague if he has any comments on these issues.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my first comment is how confident I am in my colleague from Halifax West, who will be stickhandling this debate at committee. He is going to be asking the very tough questions that he has just raised on the floor of the House. I am very confident, and his constituents and the House should be very confident, that he is going to be there, that he is going to make those contributions and elicite the important evidence and testimony that we need to improve the bill.

A theme that I picked up on earlier, which I commend to my colleague from Halifax West, is that when it comes to energy, much of the last two years has been fixated on a single pipeline. When the north-south pipeline issue is resolved, everyone will feel either happy or unhappy about the outcome. However, meanwhile we are not having an adult conversation about energy in Canada and energy in the United States. We are not having an adult conversation about Canada's, the United States' and Mexico's integrated North American energy market, especially as Mexico now looks to inculcate private investment in its energy holdings. That is an important question for Canada's energy future.

Instead of focusing on headline-grabbing comments around one particular pipeline, it is unfortunate that the House has not been seized with—as I have personally been calling for over eight years, and other voices have as well—having an adult conversation about what our energy future looks like and to what extent we could use fiscal incentives and disincentives to improve our performance.

How is this linked to our greenhouse gas reduction targets? We are not having a conversation about that here. Every time we do, the Prime Minister shuts it down, which frankly is irresponsible.

Therefore, I am happy that my colleague from Halifax West will be stickhandling this through committee. I have every confidence that he will be raising these tough questions.

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

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

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

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

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

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is somewhat different.

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would be worthwhile, it seems to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments by the member, especially when he talks about Newfoundland's offshore and the some 8,000 people who work on the offshore. Again, I am going to ask the question that I asked earlier.

First, I would compliment the government and the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for implementing most of the recommendations of Justice Wells' inquiry into the Cougar flight crash. However, when are the government and the Offshore Petroleum Board going to implement all the recommendations, not just some of them, from this inquiry? Some of these recommendations are even outstanding from the Ocean Ranger disaster in the east. There are still some recommendations that need to be implemented. Recommendation 29 is one of them, which calls for an independent Offshore Petroleum Board safety regulator. These are very important recommendations coming from a very serious accident in our offshore. When is the government going to implement all of the recommendations?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a good one and a very important one. It is rare that all of the recommendations of any inquiry are accepted by government, but I believe there is only one or maybe two items from that study that the government is not including in this legislation.

However, the judge who carried out that review came before committee and indicated that in reality what we are doing with this legislation really does the job. So there are other ways of doing the job than exactly through the recommendations the judge and the review presented. He made that very clear. He said that he had made that recommendation, but that the problem was being solved and the situation was being dealt with in another fashion.

I would argue that all of the concerns of the study have been dealt with in this legislation.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague started by dealing with some of the misinformation he heard in some of the speeches today. In my community of Oshawa we have many people who are employed in the nuclear sector, for example, which has been proven to be a very safe form of electricity generation.

We hear the NDP's job-killing policies and the fearmongering that goes along with issues such as pipelines and their talk today about Fukushima and the nuclear sector. Why does he think the NDP members have to rely on fearmongering in their speeches and debates?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright, a short answer please.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question that the voters should take a very serious look at in the next election. When the voters in British Columbia looked at that, they rejected the NDP, which had been way ahead in the polls, and elected a Liberal government again, even though the Liberals were very unpopular. The Liberal government in B.C. is of course the conservative government.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, it just has a different name. I just wanted to make that clear for the Liberal members across the floor who were responding.

The nuclear industry is of course safe. But still, in case there is an incident, it is really important to have the protection in place and provision for the cleanup needs in place. That is why we have the $1 billion absolute liability and unlimited liability. So if there is $10 billion in damage, the company is responsible for paying the $10 billion in a situation—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, which includes the Chalk River Laboratories of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, I say thanks on behalf of the almost 3,000 employees at the facility for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-22, Energy Safety and Security Act. It is an important piece of legislation that would increase accountability in Canada's nuclear and offshore industries.

As my hon. colleagues are aware, Bill C-22 has both a nuclear and an offshore component. Given the importance of the nuclear industry to my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I would like to speak to the nuclear aspect of the bill today.

Our Conservative government is strongly committed to responsible stewardship in support of a strong and sustainable nuclear industry in Canada. Nuclear energy is a key part of Canada's energy mix and one of the main reasons that our electricity supply is among the cleanest in the world. In fact, here in Ontario, more than half of the entire province's electricity is provided by safe, clean, and reliable nuclear power.

Canada's nuclear power industry is an important contributor to our national economy. It generates close to $5 billion a year in revenues and provides employment for more than 60,000 Canadians, most of them here in Ontario.

As Canadians, we are aware that our Conservative government is focused on Canada asserting its role as a clean energy superpower. Nuclear energy is an integral part of that energy mix. We know that modern and effective nuclear liability legislation is essential to the sustainable growth of Canada's nuclear industry. It helps to protect Canadians, and it provides stability to the entire industry.

In the highly unlikely event of a nuclear accident that results in civil damage, it is crucial that Canadians be compensated equitably and quickly. In order for that to happen, the operators of nuclear facilities must know their financial obligations so they can undertake appropriate planning. With this in mind, we are demonstrating our commitment by reintroducing legislation with new improvements to strengthen Canada's nuclear liability regime.

What most hon. members might not realize is that Canada's nuclear liability regime is already nearly 40 years old. Certainly, times and standards have changed when it comes to the nuclear industry in Canada. Therefore, this legislation clearly needs to be brought up to date.

When it comes to nuclear power, it is absolutely important to note that times have changed. Unfortunately, there are environmental extremists like Gerald Butts, the principal advisor to the trust-fund-pampered Liberal Party leader. Mr. Butts is co-author of the so-called Green Energy Act in Ontario that is causing electricity bills to skyrocket out of control, and hollowing out the manufacturing sector in Ontario as business flees to places like New York State, which receives taxpayer subsidized electricity from Ontario. These people, and others like them, are living in the past.

It used to be just the NDP that had its head in the sand when it came to economical, greenhouse gas-free nuclear power. With the dangerous presence of people like Gerald Butts, the Liberal Party has become a threat to the thousands of Canadians who work in our nuclear industry. Whenever the word “nuclear” is raised, informed Canadians, like the individuals in my riding who work in the industry, understand that the world has come a long way in 40 years when it comes to nuclear research.

When it comes to nuclear waste, the CANDU nuclear system, our Canadian nuclear success story, leaves behind a lower volume of waste due to its superior design utilizing more of the nuclear fuel than our competitors do with their light water reactors. As we work to perfect this technology, the end result is to reduce the radioactivity in spent fuel from the tens of thousands of years down to just hundreds of years or fewer, all the while generating emission-free electricity.

Our nuclear industry can supply this power, all at an economical price, compared to the industrial wind turbines that are bankrupting Ontario and making a few Liberal Party insiders rich.

Our government has sought advice from and received input on this legislation from a broad range of stakeholders over the years. They include the governments of nuclear power-generating provinces, as well as the nuclear industry. We are confident, therefore, that this legislation is a solid reflection of what we have heard from Canadians and the industry itself, both operators and insurers.

The current operator liability limit was set in 1976. This is clearly unacceptable. Under Bill C-22, our government would increase the liability beyond the current $75 million to an amount of $1 billion. This amount would put Canada's liability limit among the highest internationally. In the event there is an accident resulting in civil damages exceeding $1 billion, Bill C-22 would require the Minister of Natural Resources to table a report before Parliament estimating the cost of the damages. This report would allow the government to make any decisions about additional compensation on a case-by-case basis, and any final decision would be decided by Parliament.

Let me assure all hon. members that Bill C-22 would maintain the key strengths of the existing legislation. Most importantly, it would ensure that the liability of the operator would be absolute and exclusive. Put another way, it means that there would be no need to prove fault and no one else could be held liable. The new liability amount of $1 billion would ensure equitable compensation for civil damages—that is, within the capacity of insurers—and would not burden taxpayers.

This legislation would include a number of other significant improvements. First, it would include a new mechanism to periodically update the operator's liability. Under the legislation, the Minister of Natural Resources would have the authority to review the limit regularly and the amount could be increased by regulation. This would ensure that our nuclear liability system remained current at all times. Second, it would contain detailed new definitions of compensatory damage, including certain forms of psychological trauma, economic loss, preventive measures, and environmental damage.

Third, it would include a longer limitation period to submit compensation claims for bodily injury from the current 10 years to 30 years. The 10-year limitation period would be maintained for other forms of damage. Finally, it would elaborate the features of the quasi-judicial claims tribunal to be established to replace the regular courts if necessary. This would significantly accelerate claims payments to Canadians.

Under this legislation, operators would be permitted to guarantee their financial liability with traditional insurance and up to 50% with other forms of financial security, such as provincial government guarantees, letters of credit, and self-insurance.

The government would provide coverage for certain risks for which there is no liability insurance. It would also provide increased coverage for lower-risk nuclear facilities, such as small research reactors at universities, through indemnity agreements with operators. All of the measures I have highlighted in Bill C-22 have the same goal in mind: protecting the environment and the health and safety of Canadians.

Our government is taking concrete steps to address important issues in the nuclear sector. This includes responsibly managing legacy waste, restructuring Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and promoting international trade. I would like to touch upon the international efforts our government has undertaken with regard to Bill C-22.

In December 2013, our Conservative government signed the international Atomic Energy Agency's Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. By joining the convention, Canada will bolster its domestic compensation regime by up to $450 million by bringing in significant new funding for compensation. In Canada, this would bring the total potential compensation up to $1.45 billion, and by joining this convention, our government is advancing our commitment to a strong and secure global nuclear liability regime.

Given that the United States, our closest ally and neighbour, is already a member of the convention, our membership enables us to establish civil liability treaty relations with it. By becoming a member, Canada is playing an important role in making this convention one step closer to reality.

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

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

Regardless of whether we say good things or bad things about the bill, something is missing. If disaster strikes, what will we do? It is all fine and dandy to accuse the companies and to plan to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars to repair the damage. However, what about our dependence on outdated energy?

Yes, this bill had to be updated. The Conservatives should just get up to speed sometimes.

What about the damage? In April, it will be 28 years since the Chernobyl disaster. The Three Mile Island disaster took place in 1979. It will be 35 years ago this Friday. What happens with the virtually never-ending collateral damage, when we know what radioactivity does?

Could my colleague tell me why this bill does not look at the environmental side?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, on our side we have prevention, in the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, ensuring that before anything is even built all legacy issues as well as safety issues are addressed.

The member opposite cited a couple of disasters, but it is important to note that Canada's technology, CANDU, is the safest in the world. Other countries use light water reactors whereas we use a heavy water reactor. This is used as a moderator, which slows down the neutrons and is much safer. It is in a separate container, apart from the boiling water. In Fukushima, the technology resulted in disaster.

We have the separate system as well as many passive systems in place, so that if electricity were lost, we have several features that would come into play to avoid disaster.

My answer, first and foremost, is that we have prevention and superior technology.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's good constituents, the good people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am sure they did not appreciate the member's nasty personal vitriol aimed at different individuals throughout her remarks. This is an opportunity for her to withdraw those.

That being said, I have three points to make for her to respond to. One is that during the first pronunciation of the clean energy superpower speech by the Prime Minister, in London, England, he promised that as a condition of Canada becoming a clean energy superpower, he would price carbon at $67 a ton by 2016. Where are we on that?

Second, the Prime Minister's former director of communications ran down the asset that the member rightly points out is an important asset for Canada, calling AECL a $12-billion sinkhole, before selling it off at fire sale prices to SNC-Lavalin.

Third, could the member tell us how many of the 124 requests for proposals for nuclear power plants worldwide AECL is actually bidding for right now?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will probably have no more time than to focus on the first question that the member opposite asked.

My constituents are infuriated over the skyrocketing costs of electricity that are a consequence of the provincial Green Energy Act, which his brother enacted under the authorization and architecture of Mr. Gerald Butts, who is now the key advisor to the Liberal Party leader.

If we want to have any idea of how energy costs are going to increase nationwide, we only have to look at what is happening to our hydro bills in Ontario to get a taste of that.

Further, this all started with the introduction of wind turbines. One of the first companies to reap the windfall is now also the president of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is a way of funnelling good taxpayers' money into government coffers, thereby funnelling it to their individual party interests. All the while, it is forcing Ontario taxpayers and ratepayers, hydro payers, out of their homes and into debt. They have to choose between heating or eating.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on 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 particular bill is a long time coming. It is the fifth attempt by governments to improve and modernize our legislation when it comes to liability in the case of nuclear accidents, and now in the case of accidents with the oil and gas sector.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the enthusiasm of my colleagues, but I am having trouble continuing.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. If members want to continue a conversation from the previous speech, they are welcome to do so in the lobby.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This gives me the opportunity to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Windsor West.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. As I said, it is the fifth time that the government has tried to get this right over the past nearly 40 years. It is long overdue. It is a chance for us to try to at least catch up with what other countries are doing around the world with similar forms of liability.

Our concern is that Bill C-22 does not offer Canadians the protection they need. The bill talks about the principle of polluter pay. It would have many reassurances for Canadians, and I will concede that it would make a step forward in terms of protecting Canadians from liability in the event of an accident in this sector. However, the bill's major shortcoming is that it would set the amount of liability at just $1 billion. What that would mean is that Canadians would be on the hook for any additional costs for the cleanup.

Now, $1 billion sounds like a lot of money. However, Canadians watching this should remember that any costs in addition to the $1 billion would come from the pockets of Canadians. All Canadians would share in the liability for any costs exceeding $1 billion.

I want to give some examples of what other countries are doing and the costs of some cleanups that have taken place.

Germany, for example, has unlimited absolute nuclear liability and financial security of $3.3 billion Canadian per power plant. This is not $1 billion overall; it is $1 billion per power plant. The United States has an absolute liability limit of $12.6 billion U.S. Other countries are moving to unlimited absolute liability.

The amount of $1 billion in liability for nuclear accidents would cover just a small fraction of the costs.

I want to say that our nuclear industry in Canada has been safe. We have been fortunate that we have not had accidents that other countries have experienced. There are many people who earn their livelihoods in the oil and gas industry and the nuclear industry, and this industry has had a positive safety record compared with other countries. I want to cite, for example, Japan's 2011 nuclear disaster at Fukushima. The Government of Japan estimates that the cost of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima could cost over $250 billion. Canada is talking about a $1 billion liability in the event, God forbid, that any disaster happened here.

We have had a good record. We plan to prevent disasters. However, that is the thing with disasters; they are often unexpected.

I would argue that the higher the liability for the industry itself, the greater the focus the industry will put on preventing accidents and maximizing the safety in our facilities. That, surely, is for the greatest good of all Canadians. If the industry believes, “Okay, it's $1 billion liability and we want our facilities to be safe, but anything that exceeds $1 billion is on the hook of Canadians”, then I think that changes the thinking of those who are responsible for safety in these facilities.

Let us look at the oil and gas sector. We all remember the disastrous offshore BP oil spill of 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico. That spill is expected to cost as much as $42 billion in cleanup costs, criminal penalties, and civil claims against BP. The firm is reported to have already spent $25 billion on cleanup and compensation. In addition, it faces hundreds of new lawsuits that have been launched this spring, along with penalties under the Clean Water Act that could reach almost $17 billion. A billion dollars sounds like an enormous amount to Canadians, but they have to realize that we are talking about huge sums with the possibility of anything going wrong in this sector.

It is not just New Democrats who are speaking out on this issue and putting Canadians first, before the needs of the industry. Others as well are saying that the government needs to really keep pace with best global practices. Let me cite some other examples.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association has requested the federal government to undertake a meaningful public consultation on how the Nuclear Liability Act should be modernized and to learn from the Fukushima disaster. Natural Resources Canada has been privately consulting Canadian nuclear operators on how to revise this legislation, but these behind-door consultations with industry alone are simply unacceptable. The NLA transfers the financial risk from reactor operations from industry to Canadians. Therefore, it makes sense that Canadians should be consulted.

Martin von Mirback of the World Wildlife Fund says:

To put it bluntly, there is no oil spill response capacity to address a sizeable well blowout or large-scale spill in Arctic waters. ... In conclusion, there is currently insufficient knowledge and inadequate technology and infrastructure to safely carry out drilling in Canadian Arctic waters. More time is required to address these gaps, but this necessity can become a virtue if at the same time we collectively invest in the research, planning, infrastructure, and dialogue that are the key characteristics of responsible stewardship.

Responsible stewardship—that is what we are asking for here. Let us take advantage of this opportunity to modernize this legislation to show responsible stewardship.

Let me end with a well-known, progressive, leftist organization, the Fraser Institute, on nuclear liability caps. I quote Joel Wood, the senior research economist. He says:

Increasing the cap only decreases the subsidy [to the nuclear industry]; it does not eliminate it. The government of Canada should proceed with legislation that removes the liability cap [of $1 billion] entirely rather than legislation that maintains it, or increases it to be harmonious with other jurisdictions.

We have an opportunity that only comes around once every 40 years to protect Canadians, modernize our legislation, show that we are at least attempting to keep pace with the rest of the world, and protect the public good. Let us not fail to seize this opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to bring us back to the facts and then perhaps ask my colleague a question.

In the United States, the system is very different from what it is in other countries. In fact, the liability of the operator is capped at $375 million of insurance. In the event of an accident resulting in damage exceeding the liable operator's insurance, all U.S. operators of their 104 reactors would also contribute up to $125 million for each reactor they operate, which would make available a compensation pool of a maximum of $13 billion, should it be required. This type of pooling system would not be feasible in Canada, given that we have far fewer nuclear reactors, so I am thankful for the opportunity to bring us back to those facts.

My question to my colleague is this: what is the NDP's position on clean nuclear power?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, but the issue at hand here is whether we are going to protect the safety of Canadians or whether we are going to limit liability of the nuclear and oil and gas industry to just $1 billion.

My colleague wants to cite facts. The fact is that there is an absolute liability regime of $12.6 billion in the U.S. That is more than ten times the liability here in Canada.

Let us look at other countries if she wants to cite facts. Germany, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, and Switzerland all have unlimited liability for nuclear power plants. Why did her government not consider this unlimited liability for Canada?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the question from the Conservative member and the answer to it. I do not think the member can be allowed off that easily. The question was very direct. The member has not answered the question. I asked it earlier today of another colleague: what is the position of the New Democratic Party with respect to nuclear power in Canada as we go forward?

To use the member's words, she talked about responsible stewardship, so let us talk about responsible stewardship. If the New Democratic Party formed government, what would it do with respect to the almost 60% of electricity generated in Ontario, for example, from nuclear power? What would it do with respect to the future of Atomic Energy of Canada, having seen it gutted by the Conservatives and sold off to SNC-Lavalin? Would it do anything to ensure that we would actually be competitive in the very fast-growing global market for nuclear power going forward?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

What we would not do, Mr. Speaker, is play fast and loose with coal-fired power plants for the purpose of winning votes in certain ridings in Ontario. We would not be doing that.

I spoke in my remarks about the importance of this industry and the safety of this industry. If the nuclear power industry is a mature industry, which it is, then surely it needs to pay for itself.

For goodness' sake, it is the 21st century, so if Canadians are to subsidize energy, let us put our subsidies into clean energy. Let us put subsidies into wind, solar, and bioenergy. Let us put our resources where we can get on the cutting edge of energy efficiency and renewable energy, and not focus strictly on the past with respect to energy, which, with all due respect, is what my colleague is doing.

I appreciate that he is a great fan of nostalgia and I appreciate the glory years of his party in the past, but let us look to the future. If Canadians want a future of energy efficiency, of renewable energy, of cutting-edge technology and protection for Canadians who end up footing the bills, then clearly the choice is the New Democratic Party.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague, who gave some outstanding reasons as to why we have concerns about Bill C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts. I will be focusing on some of the nuclear aspects of this legislation, but I will include some of the offshore issues as well.

First and foremost, we have to recognize how long it has taken for this legislation to be updated. The legislation was first tabled in 1976, and it is extremely outdated. It has been a low priority for the Conservative government, and it is sad that it has taken so long to come to the chamber. That is regrettable, because some important decisions need to be made with regard to the shipping of nuclear steam generators that need treatment and with regard to deep geological repository storage of secondary nuclear waste. I will focus on these two issues shortly.

The issue that we are really concerned about is the $1 billion liability covering Canadians. Canadians have been subsidizing nuclear energy for decades, and they are now facing the consequences of outdated legislation and not having proper safety regimes in place. Should there be an accident requiring some cleanup and damage control, there would be major subsidies. That is important to note, because taxpayers need to be aware that they are at risk.

People would not have insurance like this on their houses. This would be like having house insurance that only covers a fraction of what could be written off, despite paying a high price for the insurance. That is the equivalent of what is in this legislation. It is similar to having auto insurance that would only permit the bumper to be written off if the entire car was wrecked in an accident. We cannot stress enough the negligence in this measure, because other countries have been doing a much better job, and I will name a few of them.

They really understand nuclear energy. Part of their overall strategy is to require companies to clean up when necessary. There have been disasters and costs associated with those disasters, and I will highlight some of the costs to those countries with respect to liability.

Germany has unlimited absolute nuclear liability and financial security of $3.3 billion per power plant. The United States has absolute unlimited nuclear liability of $12.6 billion. Other countries are moving toward unlimited liability.

The cost could be over $250 billion with respect to Fukushima. This shows us that $1 billion is not a lot, given some of our aging nuclear facilities and the requirements they have.

I would like to note two examples in particular that we have been working on in southern Ontario. One was the Bruce power plant proposal to ship nuclear steam generators across the Great Lakes, which was fortunately scrapped. In February 2011 the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission issued a statement allowing the transport of these steam generators through the Great Lakes. This would have exposed people to radiation. The problem was that the generators would go from Canada to Sweden for treatment. The generators were going to be scrapped, but it was claimed that the contaminated nuclear material could be recycled and then sent back to Ontario.

Sending these huge steam generators through the Great Lakes would have exposed Canadians to great risk, as was brought up by the Ontario New Democrats, in particular Peter Tabuns. I would like to thank Mayor Bradley from Sarnia for his advocacy and strong leadership. First nations also expressed their opposition to this idea, and the Council of Canadians had petitions signed by 96,000 people.

These radioactive steam generators also created problems on the U.S. side, as American politicians started speaking against this idea. That was important, because the commission wanted to do this without a full environmental assessment, but when it became clear that it was not going to take place in the United States, it backed off from this program.

I am thankful, because the Great Lakes it is one of the world's most treasured ecological systems for the environment and for our economy.

Just this past week, I and a number of members of Parliament had the opportunity to go out on ice-breaking manoeuvres on Lake St. Clair with our great men and women of the Coast Guard. I can say that shipping goes on during the winter. Those men and women do an incredible job. It is critical for our economy and our environment. As opposed to putting that at risk for steam generators and recycling and having no plan, we should be taking care of our own nuclear waste. We have had a lot of concerns. I again want to thank a number of organizations that are opposed to that.

There is another important situation that is still evolving. In Kincardine, the Bruce Power plant wants to store its secondary radiation elements down a shaft, basically, within one kilometre of Lake Huron. They want to bury it in a layer of limestone 680 metres underground near the Bruce Power station. There are a lot of concerns about that. The scientist Dr. Frank Greening, a former employee, raised the fact that the numbers for the many radioactive elements that would be shipped there have been underestimated. This is of great concern. There has been a huge public outcry with respect to storage facilities so close to our water system, placing it at risk.

I want to thank a number of organizations that have been active with respect to this. If members are interested in this issue, because a decision has to come forward at some point in time, these groups are the Inverhuron Committee, Northwatch, Save our Saugeen Shores, and Bluewater Coalition. People can sign a petition online at the Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump website. I want to thank those organizations for their leadership, because they have seen that the exposure of our Great Lakes system would hurt our economy, our transportation, and our environment. There has been a lot of work done by these organizations to raise public awareness, because we still do not treat our Great Lakes properly. That is one reason we need to start investing in it. We must be cognizant that with the nuclear power plant situation, there would be costs. There should be the polluter pays principle. That is not happening. We saw that in the past with Three Mile Island and other situations in North America.

I will quote from The Star with respect to an incident that happened most recently. It states:

A U.S. nuclear waste site near Carlsbad, New Mexico leaked radiation in February. Proponents of the Bruce site have taken local municipal officials on tours of the Carlsbad site. Thirteen workers at Carlsbad were exposed to radiation, where an investigation continues.

That is important, because the type of work it is talking about in terms of this site operation has been described as a guinea pig, which is not the way we would expect to be dealing with our nuclear waste and the problems associated with the cost of it. We need to be responsible.

Cities like Windsor, Toronto, Kingston, London, and Hamilton have all opposed this. Also rejecting the site are Oakville, Mississauga, the town of Blue Mountain, Sarnia, Lambton County, Essex, and the town of Kingsville, just to name a few.

That is why we think the bill needs a lot of work at committee. We are willing to try. This liability issue of $1 billion is a childish way to approach dealing with this serious problem. We would like to see that fixed. We will see what happens at committee in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I only caught the last half of the speech by the member for Windsor West. What troubles me about his remarks is that he was praising a number of groups that opposed steam generator transport, thereby criticizing the work of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is a quasi-judicial body that uses science and expert testimony to determine whether something is safe for transport.

In the case of those steam generators, the misinformation by the Council of Canadians and other groups, which is not based on science but on fear, actually hurts the economy and hurt jobs, like those of the Power Workers' Union.

Those generators would have less chance of exposing people to radioactivity than an X-ray a Canadian might have. It is a radically low amount.

I would ask the member if his party, the NDP, puts the work of the Council of Canadians and some of these email-based groups above the work of our quasi-judicial Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the parliamentary secretary is taking such a condescending tone toward those organizations, those citizens of our country, and some Americans who signed the online petition, who are concerned about this. He also takes a condescending tone toward American politicians who signed against this. That does not help our relationship with our American friends. Senators and congressmen being typecast by the member does no justice to this House and does nothing for our relationship with the United States.

Simply put, these large steam generators would be put on transportation vessels going across the Great Lakes and across the ocean to Sweden. Yes, nothing could go wrong in that situation; I am sure he is right about that. It is ridiculous to suggest that they would be the perfect solution.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for his remarks. I think he has raised some important questions about the storage of nuclear waste, although I do not think they are evidence-based, but I do commend him for raising them.

For a third time, I will ask an NDP member speaking to the bill to answer a very simple question. What is the position of the New Democratic Party with respect to nuclear power in Canada today? What would it do with the almost 60% of energy in Ontario that is generated through nuclear power? Does it intend to phase out those plants? If so, what would the NDP replace them with exactly?

I am trying to get an understanding of the actual position of the NDP today with respect to existing nuclear power in Canada, the use of nuclear power in Canada going forward, and the ability of Canadian nuclear expertise to conquer international markets.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to take the bait on this type of situation.

The reality is that we are debating a bill that has very specific measures that concern us. We are going to continue to use our time to raise the fact that Canadians would be put at risk by this bill, both financially and in terms of their well-being. We are going to continue to raise this every single time we talk, because it is a significant liability for this country. It is the most important thing, which is why we do not care what the Liberal policy is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Windsor West for his excellent speech.

The Conservatives are talking about atomic and nuclear energy in Canada, while they have slashed basic research on all university campuses across Canada. How can they brag about being leaders in atomic and nuclear energy? It is very important that we discuss atomic and nuclear waste and all the adverse effects it can have on the environment. He spoke about the Great Lakes in Ontario, which are a vital natural resource for Canada and the United States.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to look at some of the models from other countries in rolling out the policy. Germany, in particular, and others have much more profound and robust strategies. That is what I believe we should be doing.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to speak to Bill C-22, an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.

Before I get to the main point of the bill, I want to talk about some of the things that happened in my constituency during the break week. It is important to bring the concerns of my constituents from Surrey North to Ottawa, rather than the other way around. I know that most of the Conservatives would rather take everything from Ottawa back to their constituencies.

I had an opportunity to knock on doors during the last two weeks. Some of this relates to the issues in this bill.

In one young family, which has been in Canada for the last five years, the spouse is a truck driver and the wife works in the health care industry. I want to bring to the attention of the House the lack of credentialling and recognition of the degrees they have from the country they came from. They like staying in Canada, but one of the issues they brought up was their inability to practise in the fields they are trained in.

They have a young child. The mother was a registered nurse in her home country. She has been trying to upgrade her skills here. She was very distraught that there is not enough help from the government. There are not enough pathways for her to take some schooling to upgrade and contribute in a meaningful way in a profession she worked in for 10 years. She was a supervisory nurse in emergency care at a very prestigious hospital in her country, and she is very distraught that her skills are not being translated to this country.

Her husband is a trained IT specialist with an engineering degree. He also pointed to the lack of ability to translate his credentials to Canadian standards so that he could work in an industry in which he has considerable expertise. He could contribute in a meaningful way to the Canadian economy as a new citizen. He drives a long-haul truck. It is difficult for the family.

It is important for me to bring forward those concerns. Those are the kind of issues we need to address when we are bringing in skilled workers or skilled labour from other countries. We should provide adequate training and adequate liaison into the fields they have practised in. That is woefully lacking across this country and is something the government needs to address in the House.

Another fellow I met was very unhappy with the unfair elections act. He let me and the government have it in regard to an institution that has been built over many years and is world renowned. Our ability to conduct fair and democratic elections is a role model for all countries. In fact, other countries use our model to bring in new laws to improve their democracies. He told me that the government's introduction of the unfair elections act was doing an inadequate job of consulting with citizens in regard to what changes need to be brought in.

This brings me to Bill C-22. He talked about the inability of the government to consult Canadian citizens to bring about change.

In particular, he was talking about the inability of the current government to consult Canadians when it brought forward the unfair elections act. We heard it throughout the day yesterday and throughout the discussions on the unfair elections act, and clearly, the government had not consulted Canadians when it brought forward the unfair elections act.

This leads me to Bill C-22. It has been two and a half years since the NDP has been the second party, and I have not seen a bill brought forward by the government on which it has consulted the very people who are going to be impacted. On this bill also, I do not think it has consulted communities, citizens, stakeholders, and Canadians on what needs to be in this liability bill with regard to nuclear and offshore gas and oil. That clearly shows some of the flaws in this bill.

Liberals talked about certain issues in the House today, and the Conservatives have asked certain questions of the NDP. Where have they been for 25 years? There has not been a change to this bill for the last 25 years. The Conservatives have had five tries at it and it is still not law. The Conservatives are very good at throwing mud at the NDP, with help from the Liberals today. It is beyond me, because the Conservatives have had the opportunity to bring in legislation that would improve the liability issues and the safety of nuclear power plants and offshore oil drilling.

Canadians will be astounded to hear that this is the fifth time this bill is being introduced. We on this side of the House are hoping that the fifth time will be the charm. It is time we acted to strengthen liability limits for nuclear operators and offshore gas operators. This change is long overdue. It has been 25 years and it is long overdue that we address this issue to bring it into the 21st century.

In fact, Canada's liability limit for nuclear operators has not changed for 38 years, and we are falling behind the actions other countries are taking to protect their citizens. Similarly, offshore oil and gas liability limits have not changed for over 25 years. The sentiment behind this bill is a good one and I am sure we can all agree to it in principle, but on the fifth go-round, it is time to get the bill right. This is the fifth try by Parliament in the last 25 years. We owe it to Canadians to get it right after the fifth time.

These are some of the things I am going to talk about in my speech. We need to expand liability and ensure that Canada falls in line with best global practices. Again, I go back to consultation. Not only should we be consulting Canadians, the very stakeholders who will be impacted by this particular bill, but we should be looking at what is happening in the United States and in Europe. We should be learning from best practices about what works to protect our pristine waters, whether they are in British Columbia or off the east coast, how to protect Canadians, and how to protect areas around major cities where there are nuclear plants. What are the best practices? What are the other countries doing to ensure that their citizens are protected? What is the level of safety that would reassure Canadians that they can live in those situations and that the environment off our coasts will be protected?

The pristine waters off British Columbia are an important resource to our economy. They generate hundreds and thousands of jobs, whether they are fishing, coastal logging, or tourism. Those are the kinds of jobs we need to protect.

We need to ensure that offshore oil and gas drilling and nuclear safety are intact, so we can grow the expanding tourism and agricultural industries off our coast. When it comes to protecting our beautiful country and our citizens in the event of a major environmental disaster, we need to take strong action.

This bill is based on the polluter pays principle. In its simplest terms, this means that polluters are held accountable for their actions. I am sure this is a principle that all Canadians can get behind. It makes sense to all Canadians that a polluter should pay for the costs from polluting. Every Canadian would agree. The Conservatives often talk about it, but they do not really practise it when it comes to the oil, gas, and nuclear industries. It is a fundamental principle that we should ensure that those costs are not passed on to the next generation.

I will give members an example of how the polluter pays principle works. I know that the Conservatives would love to hear it. I will talk about my own family. I have two young children, a son and a daughter. My son often makes a mess, and his toys are often all over the place. His mom usually tells him to pick up his toys. He runs around, picks a few of them up, and takes them aside, but he leaves the rest floating around. He then dares to ask his sister to clean up the mess. Guess what my daughter says? She says no. She says it is his mess and he should clean it.

That is the basic principle. My seven-year-old understands this. I am astounded that the Conservatives do not understand the polluter pays principle. If people make a mess, they clean it up. In my example, the mess is not my daughter's fault. She gets up and tells her brother that he made the mess and he has to clean it up. It is a basic principle.

The member across is pointing to himself. I know he has his family business, too. We have heard the pizza analogies, and now I am bringing my own family into this.

A seven-year-old understands it. He is okay with cleaning up his mess once his sister tells him that, no, it is his mess and he needs to clean it up. My daughter is clearly for the polluter pays principle. Children understand this polluter pays business, where whoever makes the mess cleans it up. The Conservative government, however, does not seem to want to address that particular issue. It is such a simple concept that whoever makes the mess cleans it up.

Let us extrapolate this example further. The liability limits proposed in this legislation are a step in the right direction, but they do not go far enough. It is just as it is with my son. He cannot get away with just cleaning a little bit of the mess. He needs to clean the entire mess. It is his responsibility. It is his mess.

Based on what is proposed right now, if a nuclear accident were to happen, the operator would be liable for $1 billion. That seems like a lot, but it is actually not a lot. Compared to the disasters we have seen, it is very little, and I will give some examples in my speech. If we look at the disaster that happened in the Gulf of Mexico with BP, there was about $42 billion of assessed damage. The limit of $1 billion would be less than a couple of percentage points. It is not very much at all.

It might sound like a lot of money, but on the grand scale of nuclear accidents, we have seen enough examples to know that it would only cover a fraction of the cost. Who would be on the hook for the rest? It would be the Canadian taxpayers. They would be on the hook for the rest of the money.

On one hand, we understand the polluter pays principle. If people make a mess, they clean it up. Why would Canadian taxpayers be held accountable for pollution they did not contribute to in the first place? This is the Conservative logic of cleaning up the mess.

The Conservatives talk about profits. Whenever there is a profit, they privatize. Whenever there is cost or expenses, they socialize those. Guess who gets to pay those costs? It is the taxpayers.

Using the example of my house where my son gets to clean up his mess, it is time we hold people accountable who make those messes or cause a disaster. It is the polluter pay principle. We need to ensure there are adequate resources available to clean up a mess, God forbid. It has been fairly good in this country. Again, we want to ensure the principle of fairness is upheld. We want to make sure the taxpayers are not being left holding the bag at the end of the day.

It would be as if my son cleaned up a few of his toys and then expected his sister to come and finish the rest of the job. It is not the greatest way to enforce “his mess, his responsibility”. If the government truly believes in the polluter pay principle, the taxpayers should not hold the risk of these energy projects.

The nuclear industry in this country has strong roots. We are not talking about a new industry or providing subsidies to a new industry entering in the economy. This is a mature industry, and mature industries should be able to factor in those costs and ensure that Canadians are not responsible for any liabilities.

The current liability limit for the nuclear operators is about $75 million, which is so low that international courts would not even recognize it. This bill proposes to increase the absolute liability limit for nuclear operators from $75 million to $1 billion.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a step in the right direction but this does not go far enough to protect Canadian taxpayers. Using the example of my son, parents set rules such as, if my son makes a mess, he cleans it up, and if my daughter makes a mess, she cleans it up. As parliamentarians, I think we have a responsibility to taxpayers to set some rules to ensure that those who are liable for pollution, whether it is nuclear, oil, or gas, are held accountable.

We have a joint responsibility to protect all Canadians, all taxpayers, not just the big corporations, letting them have a free hand at liability.

Here is another example. If I had $100 and went to a casino, and I knew that my risk was only that $100, I would be betting as much as possible and taking as much risk as possible to gain more profit. If my liability were only $100, I would be taking major risks.

If the liability is higher, risk-takers or any business would ensure safety in the facilities whether they are nuclear, oil, or gas. Having that additional responsibility to ensure the provision of safeguards for those industries is important, and Canadians clearly expect that.

I also want to illustrate just how arbitrary this number is in light of nuclear costs. Let us look at the costs of Japan's 2011 nuclear disaster. The estimated costs of that disaster are at about $250 billion, and yet we have set the liability limit at $1 billion, which would only cover a fraction of that.

Many other countries have already deemed that their citizens deserve much higher protection in the event of a nuclear accident. Germany has unlimited, absolutely clear liability, fault or no fault. We can learn from these other countries that have actually set very good examples.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the bill. We will gain some insight during committee and we look forward to providing some additional amendments to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to clarify a couple of things with my colleague across the way.

I want to know if he and his caucus colleagues agree with the words of the member for Winnipeg Centre, when he attacked our hardworking men and women in the nuclear industry by saying, “Somewhere out there Homer Simpson is running a nuclear plant”, or when he attacked jobs in Ontario when he said, “We do not want to see the Darlington nuclear power plant doubled in size. We want to see it shut down”, or does he and his colleagues stand by the words of his leader: “I want to be very clear. The NDP is opposed to any new nuclear infrastructure in Canada”.

My question: What is the NDP's position on clean, nuclear energy?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear our policy is for clean energy. We have been talking about this for the last few years. I do not know where this member has been or whether she has been in this House or not.

We have been advocating for clean energy to improve the energy we have available to us. We have been asking the government to invest in clean energy projects, to invest in energy that will help enhance Canadian businesses.

As far as speaking for my leader, he will be here this afternoon and this member will have plenty of opportunity to ask him that question directly.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the fourth consecutive time, I would like to put a question to the NDP member.

New Democrats can bob and weave, they can dance and sing, they can flip-flop on the dock like a fish out of water, but there has to be an answer. What is the position of the New Democratic Party with respect to nuclear power? That is, nuclear power which is in existence today, nuclear power which might be in existence tomorrow; and what is the position of the party with respect to Canadian nuclear expertise bidding for and conquering international nuclear markets, whether for energy or for water desalination?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard that question a number of times and I think it has already been answered.

It is very clear that New Democrats do not need to learn from the mess the Conservatives have created, and also the mess that the Liberals have created.

Let us talk about the bill. It has been 25 years. For half of those years the Liberals were in government, and for half of those years the Conservatives have been in government. They have failed to protect Canadians. That is the bottom line.

We have been asking for increases in liability in regard to nuclear power, in regard to offshore gas and oil. Clearly the government, and before that, those guys in the corner there, has failed to deliver for Canadians. It is time we take positive steps. It is time to revamp our Nuclear Liability Act to ensure that Canadians are protected in case of a disaster.

On the principle of polluter pays, I have been very vocal about having my children clean up their own mess, and it is time the government ensured the industry cleans up its own mess.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. The hon. member for Surrey North will have six minutes for questions and comments remaining after question period when the matter returns before the House.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in the House and speak at second reading in support of 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. That is a very long name for this legislation. What we are really talking about is Canada's liability when it comes to the nuclear and offshore oil and gas industries.

These are the major issues covered in this bill, and the NDP is pleased to see that it is back here again, though I understand that it has been through many iterations during previous parliaments and has never quite been enacted. This is an area in which we have wanted to see action for a very long time, as the existing legislation is so outdated. Our rules and regulations around liability for the nuclear energy and offshore oil and gas industries are so outdated that they go back to the 1970s. We have learned a lot since then, or I hope we have, and we need to address this in all kinds of ways.

As I started to go through this piece of legislation and read some people's reactions to it, I began to see a common thread that I have seen since I became a parliamentarian. That common thread, once again, is the lack of meaningful consultation with those who are well informed on these issues. It is not just me saying that; it is being said by many people.

What really concerned me in this area is the tendency of my colleagues on the other side to ignore those who are really knowledgeable. Parliamentarians are pretty well informed, but we cannot be experts in everything. Therefore, we need to consult the experts who work in these areas. We have scientists who have spent lots of time and energy looking at these areas. We have researchers and governments that we could learn a lot from. But once again, having an allergy to data and science and informed input seems to be what has won the day with this piece of legislation.

Here is a direct quote from the Canadian Environmental Law Association. We are not talking about lay people getting together to come up with some issues, but lawyers at CELA who requested that the federal government “...undertake a meaningful public consultation on how [the] Nuclear Liability Act (NLA) should be modernized to acknowledge lessons from the Fukushima disaster...”.

They also noted the following:

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) has been privately consulting Canadian nuclear operators on how to revise the NLA. This behind-closed-doors consultation with industry is unacceptable. The NLA transfers the financial risk from reactor operations from industry to Canadians. Canadians thus must be consulted.

As I said previously, there is a tendency not only to ignore broad-based Canadians but also many groups, such as lawyers and other knowledgeable people. This allergy to data, science, and informed advice does not serve Canadians well. Neither does it serve us as parliamentarians well, because we need to have that kind of an education and expertise informing the decisions we make.

There has been lack of consultation not just with this bill but also with the elections bill, which some members have called the “unfair elections bill” currently before Parliament. The current government, once again is not listening to the grassroots, not listening to the experts, not listening to the Chief Electoral Officer, and certainly going off to make some changes based on some ideological agenda. Instead of trying to make Elections Canada work for Canadians and improving our democracy, it is choosing to make the system less democratic, even when it has been made very clear by academics and researchers, who do not often come out jointly to issue or sign statements, that this is not good for democracy.

In a similar way, there has been lack of consultation with the legislation before us. In here, of course, we are not following what I would consider good practice. We just have to look at good practice around the globe. Germany, for example, has unlimited absolute liability, fault or no fault, and financial security of $3.3 billion Canadian per power plant. What is in this piece of legislation? The Canadian taxpayers pick up the liability after the first billion dollars. Germany is not the only country. There are also Japan, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, and Switzerland with the same. Even the United States has an absolute liability limit of $12.6 billion U.S. The research has shown me that other countries are moving to unlimited absolute liability, whereas our government is quite willing to saddle hard-working Canadians who pay taxes. After Canadian taxpayers have put in an incredible number of hours to survive, and many of them struggling with affordability issues, the government is willing to burden them.

I will give one example. The offshore BP Gulf oil spill of 2010 is expected to cost as much as $42 billion in cleanup costs, criminal penalties, and civil claims. So if we were to apply that same formula, though I am sure that the costs have gone up, the Canadian taxpayers would be on the hook for $41 billion for the cleanup and only $1 billion would come from BP Gulf. In a similar way, looking at Fukushima's nuclear disaster in 2011, the Japanese government has estimated that the cost will be over $250 billion, and with Canada being liable over the $1 billion cost if it had a similar accident, Canadian taxpayers' liabilities would be $249 billion at best.

We often hear my colleagues across the way talk about the hard-working Canadians who pay taxes and how we must protect them and protect their buying power. I agree with them, but what I see in this bill is a government that is not living up to what its members preach quite vocally in other areas.

It seems that the NDP is the only party that is very serious about protecting the interests of ordinary Canadians, while the other parties take a cavalier attitude to nuclear safety and offshore oil and gas development. Whereas other countries, of which I have listed a few, have deemed that their citizens deserve much higher protection in the event of a nuclear accident, our government is willing to look the other way or just have a limited liability for the polluters.

It seems that if polluters must pay, then it would be really good if the legislation here in the House today were current with that principle and really encompass it as well.

Let us get back to the hardworking Canadians. Let us also talk about Canadians who are working very hard to find a job, but cannot find employment. When I was in my riding over the last two weeks, these are the kinds of things I heard from hardworking Canadians and those looking for work.

One of the key things I heard from them was the feeling of community safety. I heard directly from seniors who said, “We do not have enough policing. I do not feel safe at home any more. Why is it that all these cuts are being made to the veterans? Why is it that we are not looking after our veterans who served in World War II and other military engagements on which we have sent them out?”

Constituents came to my meetings and said, “We did not say this before, but we are telling you, we have had enough. Why is it our taxpayers money is not being used wisely?” I would say it is because the government has other priorities. Rather than moving toward or actually implementing unlimited liability, what we are doing once again is putting Canadian taxpayers on the hook.

At the same time, we have hardworking Canadians who are struggling with quick fixes because of the government across the way. Businesses are hurting because they are paying high transaction fees, constituents are hurting because of the high rates on Visa cards, and others are hurting because the cost of living has gone up and their minimum wage jobs are just not cutting it.

Over and over again I heard about the proposed new cuts that could limit access to training and helping people to re-enter the job force because they face challenges in their lives. Changes have been made to the job grant. Negotiations are happening with the provinces and some changes will take place, but really, we will really be denying access to the most vulnerable Canadians so they can re-enter the workforce and be self-sufficient. The savings on that program alone when people re-enter the workforce would be just huge.

I also heard while I was in my riding a very direct quote that somebody read to me—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member is rising on a point of order.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the issue we are discussing here, Bill C-22, I think the hon. member should go back to discuss the issues regarding liability and the content of the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

As the hon. member knows, there is a very wide latitude. The member is addressing questions of security at a fairly broad level, which is somewhat related to the bill before the House this afternoon. It may be a bit of a stretch, but it is still within the realm of relevancy that we have applied in past rulings.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that we are here today talking about a liability that Canadian taxpayers would be taking on. If they are taking on that liability, that means the funds that are available could be spent on the issues my constituents and other Canadians are raising. Therefore, I see a direct link here between the safety and security issues being raised in my riding and the government's unwillingness to take examples of countries like Japan, Germany, and the many others I have listed and moving toward unlimited liability so that Canadians are not on the hook.

As I said, I was also reminded recently that the government finds money for, or finds ways to connect money to, all kinds of things when it wants to; yet it has not lived up to its commitment to add the additional RCMP officers that I know Surrey needs on the streets right now.

Those are the kinds of issues Canadians want their tax dollars spent on. Canadians are very concerned. On the whole, they are a giving people but also have some cogent arguments. Once again, it is not as if the NDP members are the only ones saying this. Joel Wood is a senior research economist at the Fraser Institute, not a left wing think tank, as my colleagues across the way would like to say, but a right-wing think tank, funded by friends of many of my colleagues across the way, and many of them take an active part on it.

This is what he had to say on this issue of nuclear liability caps:

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

If members do not like listening to the academics, the scientists, I hope they will be a bit more open to listening to the Fraser Institute, which gets quoted by my colleagues many different times.

As I go back to this once again, it is not a frivolous issue before this parliamentary body; this is a bill that each and every one of us should be paying particular attention to, especially in light of the fact that the government that sits across the way, my colleagues, has decreased the environmental protection and environmental filters, the rules and regulations that have been dismantled. Not only have we done that at that end, but we have also put Canadians on the hook for huge liabilities. These are taxpayers. The government does not just mint money in a room somewhere, although we do have the Royal Canadian Mint; it is the taxpayers who pay taxes, and from those taxes we will have to pay for something like this. I do not know about other members, but I was quite shocked at the costs of cleanup. It may be a polluter pays system, but in it the polluters would pay maybe 1% and we would pick up the rest. That does not seem fair. It does not wash with me.

What a huge liability to leave to the next generation. As members know, I have been a teacher for years. I am always conscious of what kind of world we are leaving for our children, not just environmentally but also economically. In this case, as a parliamentarian sitting in this room, I am thinking about the kind of liability I am leaving for them. Do the young people in our country think it is fair that when they are working they should pick up the liability for nuclear, offshore, and gas? I think they would say it should not be like that. There is no way that taxpayers should be on the hook for subsidies for nuclear energy over other renewable power sources.

If the Conservatives across the way in government have so much money to spare, let me invite them to invest that money in renewable, sustainable energy that will also protect our environment. I invite them to read what Germany, Japan, Denmark, Finland, and other countries have. I ask them why we cannot have those same policies. What is preventing us from going with unlimited liability?

We have been blessed. We are one of the world's richest countries in natural resources and we have to be good stewards of those resources. However, we also have to be good stewards for the next generation of Canadians and, I would say, for the planet in ensuring that it is the polluter who pays. The taxpayers cannot keep taking that on.

I could give the Conservatives a million ways they could spend money, if they had some to spare, on issues that would affect and benefit my riding.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the presentation of my colleague opposite, especially as the Pickering nuclear power plant is in my riding.

My hon. colleague is asking for unlimited nuclear liability, but the NDP does not have a plan for how this would work. We have put forward legislation that would balance the responsibility of nuclear operators to cover any damages by taking into account the impact on ratepayers. What would the NDP's proposal cost the ratepayers of Ontario who rely on clean nuclear power for their electricity?

Nuclear power is one of the green electricities. Does the NDP support the nuclear industry and the men and women who are workers?

In my riding there are 3,000 people working in the nuclear industry. It is very safe and has been producing safe electricity for more than 40 years without any problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP does support clean energy. Also, we have to listen to the experts, and we do not always have to reinvent the wheel.

Japan, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, and Switzerland have implemented unlimited liability. I would say that this is the time for us to listen to those experts and find out how they have done it.

We can have a plant that has been very safe for 40 years, and we want it to be safe for the next 100 years. However, Japan thought it had a very safe plant as well. With the events of 2011, it was no longer safe and Japan has ended up spending over $250 billion. Yes, we have to look at past records on safety, but we also have to prepare for the hazard that is there, which could implode one day.

Absolutely, we support workers, but I think the workers themselves want to know that everything has been done to ensure their and the planet's security and safety.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member focused mainly on the nuclear sector, but the bill also involves the offshore oil and gas sector. I would like the member's comments on what the limit should be in the Arctic.

We know that there is great concern among many Canadians on what would happen if there were an accident drilling in the Arctic or a blowout like the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf. Under ice, there is no real capacity to clean that up.

I would like the member to comment on whether she thinks the $1 billion limit is sufficient in the Arctic or on what it should be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the time to go into the opportunities and challenges of exploration in the Arctic. Those are well known to us.

However, I would say that there are some countries that are stopping exploration in the Arctic. I will provide a direct quote from WestLB. The German bank has stopped financing offshore oil projects in the Arctic, and a spokesman has stated:

The further you get into the icy regions, the more expensive everything gets and there are risks that are almost impossible to manage.

Remediation of any spills would cost a fortune.

Its experts have looked at this and they are telling us that there are huge danger signs. I would say the $1 billion cap seems very unreasonable.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with great interest.

A Conservative member told her that there was a nuclear power plant in his riding and that it was very safe. However, one of the weak points in Bill C-22 is that the industry will not have to assume any financial liability greater than $1 billion. We have questions about that because it is the people whom we represent in the House, Canadians from coast to coast, who will have to pay for the rest.

If the industry is so mature and safe, should it not have to assume a much greater part of the risk? A nuclear disaster can sometimes cost hundreds of billions of dollars. I shudder at that because, if we pass Bill C-22 as it stands, without going through a committee, it would be dangerous. We would be placing the risk on the shoulders of the taxpayers.

Is that not just another way of providing the nuclear industry with indirect subsidies on the backs of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hard-working colleague for her question. I have a great amount of respect for the way she works in her riding and her analyses of issues at this level. She has actually hit the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter here is that, as much as this bill enshrines into legislation that the polluter would pay, it would have the polluter pay only a small percentage of the real cost.

Once again, I want to assure my colleagues that I am not making up these figures from the air. Let us look at the cleanup for the BP Gulf oil spill, if there were a $1 billion cap: $42 billion has already been spent, and there is expected to be another $35 billion spent. That $1 billion seems like a pittance, does it not, even though $1 billion is a huge amount of money? Who is going to be on the hook for the rest? We would not simply say that $1 billion had been spent and no more cleanup would occur. That is just not an option. The reality is that, if it is polluter pays, then let us make this more realistic.

We are updating legislation that is over 40 years old. Let us not date it even before we have approved it in the House.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very good overview of what is going on in this country. She talked about the lack of consultation and the fact that whatever the government does, it sort of wanders ahead without talking to the people of this nation.

In addition to that, I live in Ontario; I survived the Mike Harris years, and I watched not just a lack of consultation but continual downloading. When the Harris government sold off the Bruce nuclear plant, the people who bought it got all the profits. Guess who got the liability in terms of decommissioning? It was the people of Ontario. It seems to me that it is the same story over and over again.

We have not even seen the end of the cost of Chernobyl, and the Japanese people are dealing with a horrendous liability. How on earth can $1 billion even begin to touch it? I am absolutely appalled that the government would say that somehow the people of this nation are liable and the corporations are not.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, $1 billion for the company; $250 billion for the taxpayers. That is what we are looking at, based on the money spent by Japan for the 2011 disaster.

There is a lot of downloading going on. With the job grants, once again a lot of the expenses for helping the most vulnerable will be downloaded onto the provinces.

It is time for us to be real when we are dealing with legislation. This piece of legislation should be amended and it should go back for consultation with experts.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill C-22, a bill respecting nuclear safety and liability in the nuclear and oil and gas sectors.

First of all, I want to congratulate the new minister on his new portfolio. I will be interested to see what he does with a number of issues; for instance, what his approach will be to the Keystone XL pipeline and other pipelines. I will be interested to see what degree of support he will show for rare earth elements and that whole sector, not to mention other files like Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and how he will deal with the whole nuclear sector.

I hope that he is not prone to inflated rhetoric, like blaming everything on foreign radicals. I also hope that he can foster better relations with our first nations communities. I believe that his background suggests that he may be able to do that. I wish him well on that and I hope that he can. It is very important to improve those relations and to improve consultations with first nations and aboriginal groups. It is a very important part of his portfolio. In relation to so many natural resource developments, there are many first nations and aboriginal communities that need to be properly consulted, and he can be part of that process.

I am curious to see if he has any more success in getting this legislation passed than his predecessors, who made four or five attempts to update this legislation. I suspect that he will. As far as I know, the next election will not take place until October of next year, assuming that the Prime Minister allows the fixed-date election law to come to fruition and does not call an election ahead of that, or change the law or something else. We will not know though, of course, until it happens. I suspect, though, that the government will be able to pass this bill in the coming weeks or months. We have seen in the past sometimes that the government brings forward a bill and then does not move it further forward for months, sometimes even years. We will have to wait and see.

This bill would make a number of improvements regarding the offshore energy sector and the nuclear sector. It would increase liability limits to $1 billion.

When I say liability limits, that is not the limit where a company or operator is found to have done something wrong or taken wrongful action that has caused an accident or spill, for example. In this case, it is where no such proof is there or there is no indication of wrongful action. However, we want to make sure that operators are held responsible, regardless, so that they have to live up to the highest possible standards. That is why there is this kind of legislation. It is to provide liability limits for absolute liability, regardless of whether any wrongful action is found to have been taken.

This bill also expressly includes the polluter pays principle. The principle has been around since the 1980s or earlier. It is a very important principle, and I am pleased to see it in this legislation. It is overdue.

The bill would update safety and security regimes and, as I said, the liability of at-fault operators remains unlimited. There would be no limits at all on those operators, whether in the nuclear sector or the offshore sector. That is important.

This is an important piece of legislation, given some of the disasters that we have seen recently around the globe. We heard today some mention of the devastation of the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear plant. The estimation made by Japan's National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology suggests that it has cost at least $31 billion. I heard a different figure from a colleague a few minutes ago. I am not sure what the source of that is, but the information I have is from Japan's National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.

The damages in the BP Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico are currently estimated at $42 billion. These are very substantial sums and, yes, they are well in excess of $1 billion. It is also true that in the vast majority of events of this nature involving the offshore and nuclear sectors, the cost has been well below $1 billion.

We have to measure these things as we discuss and examine this bill.

The Liberal Party recognizes the need to raise the absolute liability limit for the offshore oil and gas sector and the nuclear sector. That is why we will support this bill at second reading. However, we will also look at ways to strengthen this legislation in committee.

For the nuclear sector, the liability cap will go from $75 million to $1 billion. This change brings Canada into line with promises it made when it signed the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage in December 2013.

In the offshore oil and gas sector, the absolute liability for companies operating in the Atlantic offshore will increase from $30 million to $1 billion and in the Arctic from $40 million to $1 billion.

Operators will have to have $100 million specifically earmarked for spill response.

While this updated legislation is long overdue, we need to ensure that the level of liability is in line with the level of potential damage of either a nuclear incident or an offshore spill. As well, we need to take this opportunity to review our ability to respond to an offshore spill, particularly in the Arctic, as I was saying earlier in my question to my hon. friend from Newton—North Delta.

The bill has two parts. Part one amends the offshore petroleum regime to enhance incident prevention, response capacity, and liability and compensation. It primarily updates and strengthens the liability regime that is applicable to spills and debris in offshore areas.

Part two, on the other hand, amends the nuclear regime to establish greater legal certainty and to enhance liability and compensation in the event of a nuclear accident, something we would never want to see in Canada, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

It also provides for the establishment in certain circumstances of an administrative tribunal to hear and decide claims. It implements certain provisions of the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage.

The Liberal caucus will support this bill because it is a step in the right direction, but we will seek to strengthen it at committee. We hope the government is not once again blinded to any potential improvements. So often we have seen bills passed in the House, passed with the government majority perhaps, that go to committee. In the House, there had been all kinds of noise about how we could perhaps look for ways to improve it, and of course then the government does not accept any amendments or really consider any of the arguments made for the amendments at the committee stage.

I urge the government to listen to what expert witnesses tell us at committee, for once, and act on their advice to make this an even stronger piece of legislation. That is what this process is really about. Unfortunately, too often the government simply uses its majority to ram through what is flawed legislation.

Bill C-22 is the culmination of several years of discussion started under the previous Liberal government with regard to operator liability. It addresses the recommendations to raise liability limits from the 2012 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The bill establishes in statute that operators are liable for contractors, and it also allows government to seek compensation for environmental damages.

I think that is an important point, the first one in particular, that the operator cannot simply pass on work to a contractor and that contractor not be liable. Both are important, and so the way to establish that is by saying that the operator will be liable for mistakes the contractor makes. Often a contractor may be a much smaller company doing the work, with much less ability to cover the cost, which might be enormous, and at the very least would certainly be substantial.

While Bill C-22 is a step in the right direction, it also serves to illustrate that the Conservative government still lacks a coherent nuclear policy.

When it comes to the government's record on nuclear energy, unfortunately, in terms of comments made earlier today, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke seems to be quite misguided. The member talked about how important the nuclear sector is for her riding, and no one here would argue that point. However, she seems to think that the current mean-spirited Conservative government supports Canada's efforts and achievements in the nuclear field. The member seems to completely ignore the fact that the Prime Minister's chief spokesman called Atomic Energy of Canada Limited a “$12 billion sinkhole”. That certainly is not an indication of support from the Conservative government.

Thankfully, members like my colleague from Ottawa South are here to set the record straight. As my friend from Ottawa South said earlier today in his excellent and eloquent remarks on this legislation, the $12 billion sinkhole reference, in his view and in mine, was a deliberate strategy by the Conservatives. It seems to have been part of a plan to degrade AECL, which was once a global symbol of Canadian know-how, so they could sell it at rock-bottom prices. It is shameful behaviour. In the process, the Conservatives compromised the country's future, as my colleague from Ottawa South said, with regard to nuclear power plants; with regard to the production of medical isotopes, an important part of the nuclear field; and with regard to obtaining a certain share of that marketplace.

It is important to note that we have quite a range of ways of producing electricity in this country. For instance, in my province a lot of electricity is produced by burning coal, but we are moving away from that. A lot of it is produced from natural gas from offshore Nova Scotia from the Sable project. More and more is being produced by wood, and some by solar. The solar-generated electricity in most cases is produced by individual family homes.

A few years ago, my sister, who lives in California, bought 14 quite large panels at a substantial cost to her and her husband. The panels were to be the main source of electricity in their home. I was very impressed that she did that. We do not have a lot of that in terms of a major production of power, and there are parts of this country where that would not work. Someone pointed out to me that it is no surprise that in the Northwest Territories there might not be a lot of solar power, because it would not work too well in the winter months for fairly obvious reasons.

Getting back to the nuclear sector, there is speculation about the future of the nuclear lab in Chalk River and speculation that the so-called GoCo model may be in trouble because of intellectual property issues.

I am hearing from the nuclear industry that it is concerned about what the Conservative government will do with the NRU reactor, the national research universal reactor. Industry feels that science should be there to help develop policy. That is a problem. I am not even sure my colleagues on the Conservative side hear that. I am not sure they hear industry saying that science should help develop policy, because we all know that the Conservatives prefer policy-based evidence as opposed to evidence-based policy. While the Conservatives should be supporting the need for a national research reactor to replace the NRU, which may only have about five years left in its life cycle, they are too busy selling off assets and botching the management of this important sector.

Bill C-22 also raises the question of whether liability limits are adequate, and that question should be explored, in my view. Hopefully it will be explored in some depth at the committee stage of the bill.

Some groups that have taken a preliminary look at the legislation have also noted that despite the fact it represents a positive step forward, there are several fundamental weaknesses as it is currently drafted. Ecojustice, for instance, has raised five concerns.

The first of the five concerns raised by Ecojustice is that in its view, the $1 billion limit in absolute liability is too low to cover the cost of major spills like BP's Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, especially if something like that were to happen in the Arctic.

The second concern is that there is a need to clarify the provisions for ministerial discretion to reduce absolute liability levels below $1 billion. It is a good question. Why do the minister and the government feel that there is a need to have discretion to lower that limit in some cases? I suspect it may involve small gas fields, but it is an area we need to examine at committee.

The third concern mentioned by Ecojustice is that in some cases the bill provides relief from liability for the effects of dumping toxic spill-treating agents into marine environments. Clearly there is an interest in cleaning up spills and in using the best agents that can be found to clean up those spills, but it is worth examining whether permitting the spill of those agents is too broad a permission to give.

The fourth concern Ecojustice raises is that the bill does not require an operator to provide proof that it has the financial resources to pay the entire at-fault liability when wrongful conduct is demonstrated. While most of the bill is about absolute liability when there is no wrongful action, what it is suggesting is that in a case in which wrongful conduct is shown—because we will have cases like that from time to time—it is important for the operating company to prove in advance that it has the financial resources to pay the entire costs for that kind of a cleanup operation if it is found to have acted wrongfully in causing a spill or other type of disaster.

The fifth concern Ecojustice raises is that the bill fails to provide regulation-making provisions for the calculation of non-use environmental damages.

Hopefully, these and other issues can be addressed as we go through this legislation in committee.

The legislation also raises several issues that need to be studied. Will the bill make it more expensive for offshore energy companies to operate in the Atlantic and Arctic, and what impact would raising their financial liability and increasing the funds they must have on hand for disaster response have on those coasts? We would like to ask our witnesses these questions and hear their reactions.

Is $1 billion adequate in the Arctic, where environmental conditions make full response efforts very challenging, particularly under the ice? In my view, from what I have read so far, we do not have the capacity to clean up a major spill under Arctic ice. To me, that is a major concern.

Why does the bill provide for ministerial discretion to lower that $1 billion limit, and what are the implications of this provision?

The Liberal Party recognizes the need to raise the absolute liability limits for the offshore oil and gas development sector and the nuclear sector. That is why we will support the bill at second reading.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my Liberal colleague for his speech.

Does he know that Norway is an offshore oil and gas development leader, and that its unlimited absolute liability regime does not seem to have paralyzed its industry at all?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know that, for the past 30 years or so, Norway has been very active in oil and gas development in the North Sea, as has Great Britain. I have been to Norway. When I was the minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, I talked about those conditions with my Norwegian counterpart. We talked about oil and gas development. That was not the main topic we discussed, of course, but it did come up.

I do not know that much about their liability regime for the oil and gas industry, but I am sure we can look at issues like that when the bill goes to committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very measured speech on this important issue.

With respect to oil and gas exploration and development in both the Arctic and the offshore, on the east coast in particular, is the member aware that the absolute liability in the U.S. is actually $12.6 billion in U.S. dollars as an absolute liability regime? That does not seem to affect the 2,500 wells in operation in the Gulf of Mexico, for example. Could he comment on that in terms of affecting the business operation in Canada?

Also, does he really think that ministerial discretion to reduce the billion dollars is something that can be left uncontrolled, or that it should even exist at all?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start with ministerial discretion, the latter part of the member's question. When we think of offshore drilling or a nuclear power station, it is hard for me to imagine that we would want a minister to have the discretion to reduce the absolute liability limit below $1 billion. I agree with what the member is saying entirely.

On the other hand, I would like to hear what the government has in mind when it proposes this provision. I have not heard its argument yet. If, as I suggested, it is intended for small gas fields, I would like to hear if there is a way to limit that possibility of ministerial discretion to circumstances in which the House might feel it was appropriate. That is an important question.

In terms of the question about what the limit should be, there is no question that raising the limit from $75 million in the case of nuclear and from $30 million or $40 million in the case of the offshore to $1 billion is a substantial improvement. I think it is worth having testimony at committee about what the ideal level ought to be, but for starters, this is an important step in the right direction. That is why we are supporting the bill at second reading: to send it to committee, where we can study it further.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good presentation. We have done some good work together.

I wanted to interject on the last question because McMaster University, in the riding I represent, has one of the few university reactors, and I have not had any direct conversations with the minister regarding the full scope of the intention of the ministerial discretion.

Would the member agree that so far we have been talking about big power producers in this regard, and that a small research reactor in a university or public institution would raise other questions regarding liability that would not be germane to, let us say, Ontario Power Generation and the large capability it has through reactors?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts. I have read the full title of the bill for those few brave souls listening to us on CPAC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

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

Bill C-22—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who may wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of how many wish to participate in the question period.

Questions, the hon. opposition House leader.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is another sad moment in Parliament. This is the 66th time that this government has used time allocation or closure in Parliament. In the past, the Conservatives complained about the corrupt Liberals imposing a record number of time allocation and closure motions, but the Conservatives have since broken that record. This is the 66th time they have used time allocation.

Here is why this is again not a very intelligent move, because we are talking about a bill about which the government has unfortunately not been able to bring good, solid legislation into the House. I can recall in 2008, Conservatives brought forward Bill C-15, and they were so embarrassed by the bill because it was so poorly drafted that they sat on it for three years. They never brought it forward. Bill C-15 went right through 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Now they have introduced what they hope to be a better bill, a bill that does have some very positive aspects to it—there is no doubt—but a bill that has also raised some very serious questions.

Like Bill C-15, which they sat on for three years, they have been sitting on this, refusing to bring it to Parliament for debate for months. The issue is that we have a bill that has some flaws and also has some good things, and we certainly support the principle of the bill, but in the scant minutes of debate that the government has accorded so far, only a handful of members of Parliament have been able to speak and have been raising those questions.

Why has the government refused to bring it forward for debate? Why is the government so intent on refusing the types of amendments that need to be brought in to amend the bill? Why, for 66 times, has the government been running roughshod over parliamentary rights and democratic debate in the House?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. In fact, we are not limiting debate. We have had a significant amount of debate at this stage with respect to this piece of legislation. As the member knows, we are at second reading now. Then the bill goes to committee. Then it returns back to the House for further debate.

Therefore, I am unclear why he thinks we are limiting debate. Canadians have given us a strong mandate to focus on creating jobs and economic growth and, at the same time, putting in pieces of legislation, whether it is this particular one or in the context of our measures around world-class pipeline safety or marine safety to ensure that we have the right pieces of legislation in place for the health and safety of our communities and the protection of the environment.

Canadians expect our government to make decisions, to take action on our commitments, and that is what our government has done and is doing in the House of Commons in the context of this debate right now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again, and for the 66th time in the House of Commons, we have seen the majority Conservative government's new approach to dealing with process inside the House. It is quite disappointing. What we have is a majority Conservative government that uses its majority to limit the debate inside the House.

Past government House leaders, both in opposition and government, have always recognized that there is a responsibility to sit down and negotiate in good faith so that the bills that are quite controversial get more debate than those bills that might not be as controversial and that all members will support.

The government has not been able to negotiate any sort of agreement regarding an appropriate passage of legislation through the chamber. It is, unfortunately, dependent on using time allocation, which is closure. The government does not like to use that word, but let there be no doubt that it is closure.

My question for the government House leader is this. Why, ever since the Conservatives achieved a majority government, have we seen this change in attitude from the Prime Minister's Office, which says that the only way we can pass legislation in the House of Commons is through closure? It is a sad day for the chamber. It is a sad day for all Canadians.

My question for the government House leader is: Why?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot possibly answer that with as many words as the member has put forward. However, I can say that we are not limiting debate. In fact, we have had a significant amount of debate at this stage. I was here, speaking to this bill previously.

As the member knows, we are at second reading now, as I said before. The bill then goes to the committee and it returns to the House for further debate. I am unclear why he thinks this is limiting debate, but I can tell him that we will continue to keep our commitments to Canadians, introducing and advancing important legislation like the bill we are talking about today.

I look forward to debating this important piece of legislation, being here and being present, discussing it with all of our colleagues, having studied it in committee with parliamentarians hearing from expert witnesses.

Of course, the purpose of time allocation is to ensure that adequate time is allocated for further debate and consideration of the bill. That is the exercise we are going through right now.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, up is down and down is up in this place today. It is either time allocation or it is not time allocation. It is either closure or it is not. If it is not closure, we should be debating the bill, but we are not, because the government has invoked time allocation. This is what is happening, and it has happened time and time again in this place.

When I first arrived here, the government moved a time allocation motion on a bill that it said we had debated in the House in a previous Parliament. That was the government's justification for that time allocation.

There is no justification for this, except to mute debate, to limit the legitimate voices of opposition members—and Canadians—who want to participate in the right process of democracy in this place. That is something the government shows it has little respect for, time and time again.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard a question in there, but I will take this opportunity to speak more specifically to this bill.

There is no question that this is a pressing and substantial piece of legislation. It is consistent with our approach to responsible resource development, which as I said earlier, aims to increase jobs and economic growth opportunities for regions across Canada. It would ensure that the energy sector has safe and secure policy and legislation in place to protect the health of our communities and to protect the environment for all Canadians.

These measures, which are contained in this bill, would build on a sound system overseen by strong regulators to ensure world-class standards for Canada's offshore and nuclear industries. Obviously, we have had some good debate on this already. Our exercise now is to continue that debate. It will go for some time today. At that point, it will have a chance to go back to committee, where committee members are enthusiastic about further expert witnesses and participation from stakeholders on it. After that, we will bring it back here for further debate.

This is all good news. In this sense, today's exercise will ensure that parliamentarians have the opportunity they need to discuss and debate this, both here in the House of Commons and at the standing committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is unaware that the closure motions, this being the 66th one, have the effect of depriving members of Parliament from adequately debating the bill. Particularly for smaller parties in this place and independent members of Parliament, the rotations on limitations like five more hours at second reading mean it is extremely unlikely for me to put forward the concerns I have at second reading, unless the Conservatives want to give me one of their 10-minute speaking spots, which I will gladly take.

I actually have had questions on the order paper. They are now answered. They confirm that the $1 billion liability could be removed. The Conservatives could remove the cap altogether without having any impact on provincial electricity rates, which has been one of the arguments used for keeping the cap. Also found in the response to the question on the order paper is that they have estimated that the risks of a large-scale nuclear accident would reach $100 million. We know what happened in Fukushima, Japan and $100 million as an estimate of loss is completely out of the realm of real estimates of a catastrophic accident. Then in the response to the question, they do go on to say, “The limit is not meant to address a catastrophic loss involving loss of containment”.

We need a lot more time to debate the bill so we find out why the regulator has decided not to address a catastrophic loss involving loss of containment. That is exactly the kind of nuclear accident for which Canadians want to know the operators are fully responsible.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question and commentary. I can assure her that I have a full appreciation and understanding of the processes that take place in the House. I take great pride in my previous capacity as a parliamentary secretary and now as a minister, to be aware of those. I thank her for giving me an opportunity by way of her question to respond to that matter.

With respect to any questions and comments the member has to the substantive dimensions of this debate on the nuclear liability piece, the Government of Canada is bringing forward a modernized nuclear civil liability legislation that would bring the absolute liability of operators of nuclear facilities up to $1 billion. This is being done to be in line with other levels in other peer jurisdictions. There is an important emphasis on the word “peer” for those who may understand that, obviously with respect to countries that are engaged in similar activities. The legislation would also broaden the number of categories for which compensation may be sought and improve the procedures for delivering those compensations.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege this morning of being in committee and hearing the Minister of Natural Resources address our committee about what his priorities were. We were told that the government had been clear that projects would not proceed unless and until it had been proven safe for workers, communities and the environment.

If nuclear and offshore oil and gas are so safe, why would we have to put any kind of liability requirement on it? We know and it is known around the world not to be safe. Serious questions have been raised in the community, particularly post-Fukushima and post-BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, that the limits the government is imposing on liability fall far below the amounts of liability. Essentially what the government is saying is that the industry should go ahead, that it will limit its liability and that the public of Canada will cover it.

What is reprehensible is not so much that the Conservatives have limited debate in this place, but we are fast-tracking the review in committee before we even have the bill. There will only be two meetings to debate this. We will have probably two hours to talk to experts in these huge areas. The public will not have the opportunity to participate because these hearings will not go out to the public, to the coastal communities, to the Arctic coast and to the communities adjacent to the nuclear facilities, including the proposed waste management facilities.

The only place where the public would have an opportunity to hear the issues, and we the members of this place can raise the concerns that members of the public raise with us, is here. The Conservatives in their wisdom have decided they do not want to hear those concerns.

Why does the minister not want to hear from members of Parliament and why does he not want to hear from Canadians about their concerns with the potential far too limited liability?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. I have had a chance to work with her closely on other standing committees. She may be one of the best at packing 12 questions into one. I will try to deal with the number of issues she has raised and perhaps opportunities.

I get the sense from the way she put that question that she may be on a treadmill to provide energy for her own home. She seems to suggest that there are no other forms of energy that she would like to see in Canada. That would not be consistent with our record in Canada. More than 78% of our domestic energy is produced from non-emitting sources. It would not fairly reflect the dynamic supply potential that Canada has for energy and the safe way with which and by which they are delivered.

There are important elements of that. Obviously safety is the key. Safety addresses prevention, preparedness and response. To get to the finer point of her question of liability, liability is there for the penultimate purpose of providing that extra set of circumstances, as rare and remote as they might be, that protects Canadians.

First, with respect to nuclear liability and compensation, the government has taken into consideration, among other things, an amount that, in three regards, is sufficient to deal with the consequences of controlled releases of radiation.

Second, it is within the capacity of insurers to provide insurance at a reasonable cost.

Finally , it is in line with modern liability limits in other countries. Therefore, this amount would also put Canada's liability notably among the highest internationally. We are proud of that record.

After my visit to Rome, we were pleased to see that countries were looking to us as a model and a world leader when it came to the safety with which we produced and transported various forms of energy at home and for the purposes of energy supply abroad.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the minister said earlier, which was that we have had a good, wholesome, sufficient debate in the House. I wanted to clarify this for the minister. Maybe he is a little confused because we have had debate in the House on this bill at this stage only on one occasion, which was on March 25.

Therefore, my question for the minister is along the lines of why the hurry now. If the Conservatives wanted to ensure that the debate occurred in the House, then they had the opportunity to bring it back the next day. If they felt that it was an important and pressing matter that needed to be dealt with expeditiously, then they had the opportunity to bring the bill back into the House for debate the next day, or the day after, or the week after, even the month after, but they did not. Therefore, why the hurry today? What is the hurry now?

I am the closest New Democrat member of Parliament to the Pickering nuclear plant and I do not get a chance to speak to this bill. Therefore, my constituents in Scarborough do not get a chance to have a voice in the House on this bill because I probably will not be able to speak to it. Once again, the government is moving time allocation for, if I remember what my House leader said, the 66th time, breaking every record there is in the history of Parliament.

What is the hurry now? He had months to bring it up for debate. I would like him to tell all of us and Canadians why the hurry now.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is almost as good as the member for Edmonton—Strathcona. Let me address a couple of the issues.

First, I appreciate her question. I am not so sure, in the context of this debate or normal relations, I appreciate the condescending tone with which it was delivered. I am not confused about this. I can assure her that if she wants to have a speaking place, she should speak with the House leader for her party. I am sure, given the member's proximity to Pickering, he would be more than happy to accommodate for that.

However, I do know this. Canadians expect their government to make decisions and to take action on its commitments. That is exactly what we are doing here in the context of offshore activities and nuclear liability. We are going to continue to keep our commitment to Canadians by introducing and advancing important legislation.

It is quite timely that we are here having these debates around this legislation because it is consistent with actions we have taken quite recently in other areas of energy production, energy infrastructure and energy transportation.

I look forward to not only debating this important legislation today and having it studied at the committee by parliamentarians, but also taking into account and accommodation, the contributions of expert witnesses in that process.

The purpose of time allocation for this debate is to ensure that adequate time is allocated for further debate and consideration of a bill, but of this bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians also expect parliamentarians to do a proper review of legislation, to have the time in the House to debate the issues properly, to have the time at committee to have the witnesses in so it can do an adequate job. They also expect that proposals and amendments from opposition parties be considered as well. That is not happening under the government on most legislation. Maybe it will under the current minister. We know he is new. He is quite excited about getting legislation into the House. I would think he would want to see it given more time so he could profile all the good things he claims to be doing with the legislation.

Would that not be a better approach rather than, for the 66th time, the government implementing closure on this legislation?

I would like to see a new minister turn over a new leaf and allow Parliament to function as it should

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I guess turning over a new leaf is important, Mr. Speaker. It may not change my opinion of certain things that are important to my constituents, like what is in the bill, like a position on another important issue such as the gun registry.

I know the member opposite, coming from his particular riding, is keen to understand, to debate and to be assured that the proposed measures would strengthen incident prevention, response capability, operator accountability and transparency, particularly with respect to the offshore component for some geographical relevance, among other changes. This new legislation would enshrine in the statute of the principal polluter pays. Oil and gas companies operating in the Atlantic and Arctic offshore would be subject to the strictest liability in the world. Liability for the environmental costs and third party losses from spills would be absolute and up to $1 billion.

We are having this debate. I look forward to this moving on to the next step. The member's participation in the committee's important work would help ensure for him and his constituents that this government is on the right track when it comes to this legislation.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister has to do with some simple math. I am talking about extending this debate for only another five hours. He knows, with the rotations that take place, that means no more than five more New Democrats will to get to speak. The last three of us who stood are all people waiting to speak. I suggest we should ask somebody else for a place. That is exactly the problem with time allocation. There is no place to ask for that because we want to speak to this bill.

It also undervalues the diversity of our country. The member for Scarborough—Rouge River wants to talk about nuclear liability because she is near Pickering. I represent Vancouver Island.

We are talking about maritime liability being set at $1 billion. We now have major pipeline projects coming forward on the coast. Is this a parallel for those? Every day tankers the same size of the Exxon Valdez will go by Victoria. Twenty-five years ago that spill cost $4.5 billion to clean up. I have some important points I would like to raise from the perspective of the west coast.

How does the member think we can accommodate the diversity of our country when he leaves only five spaces for the New Democrats in this important debate?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am quite hopeful, knowing the House Leader of the Opposition, as I do, as the completely accommodating gentleman he is, that he is going to see to it that NDP members who have some specific concerns have an opportunity to speak to this bill. I am sure that his twitching arm means that he is excited to get them on the roster.

That notwithstanding, the member raised a really good point in his question. It was along the lines of alignment with respect to liability on a couple of key measures, some of them relevant to his riding. I have lived in Langford. In fact, I have been back and forth to British Columbia over the past three weeks. People are talking with a great deal of enthusiasm and excitement about the pieces Canada is putting in place to ensure that the safety, preparedness, prevention, and liability regimes are in place for these dynamic energy, transportation, and infrastructure requirements coming forward from the British Columbia government, for example, with respect to LNG, and their implications for pipeline safety and shipping.

There has been tremendous enthusiasm from my British Columbia ministers. They are looking forward to this as it pertains to offshore and tanker safety and liability limits. I know that they are looking forward to support from NDP members from British Columbia on these important points. We will be curious to see which way they stand in this place on those issues, because of course, British Columbians are depending on their federal parliamentarians to represent their interests in responsible resource development that puts a particular focus on environmental protection and the economic opportunities that go along with energy production, transportation, and infrastructure.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats do not represent the government yet, but on October 19, 2015, this will be the government side of the House. There is no doubt.

What the minister just said is, I think, quite disingenuous. There were two very good questions from the members for Scarborough—Rouge River and Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, both of them saying that it is a real problem when 280 members of Parliament are cut off from being able to speak to a bill. It is not up to the minister to then say that the Conservatives will let a few of them speak, and somehow that makes it okay. This particular time allocation motion shuts 280 members of Parliament out of the debate on what the minister admits is a very important subject.

The Conservatives do not seem to want to speak to these issues or any others. They just do not seem to represent their constituents. However, New Democrats actually care about the quality of the legislation we bring forward and its impact on the lives of Canadians. How can the minister accept that 280 members of Parliament are being denied their ability to speak on behalf of their constituents on this bill and to offer improvements so that the bill can be fixed, unlike Bill C-15, which languished for three years until the government dumped it? How can he shut 280 members of Parliament out of this important debate?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has faced continued attempts by the opposition to delay and obstruct these important bills.

My reference in a previous question to government was the B.C. government. The member knows that. Any capacity New Democrats have to understand how government works would be for them to actually support what British Columbians and the British Columbia government is looking at right now, which is to ensure, for the benefit of folks in that beautiful province and for Canadians across the country from coast to coast to coast, that they have the right pieces of legislation in place when it comes to energy as a general matter, and then as we advance debate and discussion, the specific types of legislation.

Canadians then expect their government to make decisions and take action on our commitments. That is what our government has done with this particular piece of legislation. I look forward to this process continuing, including today, with debate, the important activities that will occur at the standing committee, and then a return to the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The 30 minutes for debate has expired. Consequently, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #156

Energy Safety and Security Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried.

I also wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended for 30 minutes.

The hon. Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I request that we see the clock at two o'clock.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at two o'clock?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The member does not have unanimous consent.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver South.

The House resumed from March 25 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Second reading

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to be speaking in front of this learned House today. I understand that we are speaking on Bill C-22. As we know, Bill C-22 is the energy safety and security act. This bill would enhance environmental protection. It is part of our responsible resource development plan. Our Conservative government has been clear that the development of our natural resources will only proceed if it is safe for Canadians and for the environment.

Over the past year, our Conservative government has initiated a series of new measures to ensure that the development of our natural resources offshore is balanced with the protection of the environment. For example, we have already taken major steps toward enhancing the environmental protection of Canada's maritime domain through an increased number of tanker inspections, mandatory use of double-hulled ships, and improved navigation tools and surveillance offshore.

Our Conservative government has worked closely with the governments of the Atlantic provinces, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, to ensure that Canada's offshore oil and gas regime remains world class. In each province, offshore oil and gas projects are closely and jointly managed by the federal-provincial offshore boards, namely the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

Bill C-22, the proposed energy safety and security act, would build on this work and provide world-class—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I regret that I must cut off the member for Vancouver South, but she will have 18 minutes to resume with her remarks following question period.

The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

It is a great opportunity to speak to this very important piece of legislation that would update the liability limits for nuclear and offshore oil and gas sectors. As part of our government's responsible resource development plan, we are enshrining the polluter pays principle into law, and certainly this makes for a very important piece of legislation.

I would like to focus on the fact that the proposed act would play a very central role in advancing our government's northern strategy. I will be limiting most of my remarks to that aspect of the bill, although it would also affect the Atlantic offshore region of our country. When much of the attention has been focused on the impact of the legislation on the Atlantic offshore, it would be equally valuable to northern residents, industry, and taxpayers, as it would extend the same provisions and protections to the Arctic offshore.

We know that Canada's north has tremendous resource potential. Approximately 38% of Canada's remaining marketable resources of natural gas are located in Canada's Arctic, as well as 35% of the remaining light crude oil at over 11 billion barrels of oil. These figures do not include unconventional resources, such as shale oil and gas.

Canada's Arctic petroleum, found primarily offshore in the Beaufort Sea, accounts for one-third of the country's unconventional oil and natural gas reserves.

The responsible management of Canada's immense petroleum and mineral resources in the region supports our northern strategy goals: more predictable, timely environmental reviews; reduced regulatory burden and duplication; improved environmental protection, which is always important; and meaningful aboriginal consultation making provision for that. No one likes duplication just for duplication's sake and this would harmonize a lot of the regulatory burdens and ensure that they are far easier to follow.

More specifically, Bill C-22 would provide the clarity and certainty industry needs to ensure its developmental plans protect the environment while promoting economic development in Canada's north. The energy safety and security act would also help ensure that any future development occurs in a way that respects aboriginal communities and safeguards the environment for the benefit of future generations. All Canadians can be assured that our government is committed to the safety of Canadians and the protection of the environment.

Once passed, the new legislation would enshrine in law the polluter pays principle that I referred to earlier. This would fulfill our commitment in the Speech from the Throne. It would mean that oil and gas companies operating in both the Atlantic and Arctic offshore would be subject to one of the strictest liability regimes in the world.

Under the proposed act, before any offshore drilling or production activity could take place, the proponent must provide evidence that it can cover the financial costs and damages that may result from a spill. Absolute liability for the environmental costs and third-party losses in the unlikely event of a spill in the Arctic would increase from the $40 million that is there today to $1 billion. Of course, the regulators may require higher amounts if they deem it necessary.

A proponent found at fault for a spill would continue to be completely responsible for cleanup and compensation costs.

However, we are saying $1 billion for strict and absolute liability. Whether they are responsible or at fault or not, the liability would be there. Of course, anyone found at fault for a spill would continue to be completely responsible for cleanup and compensation costs, as I mentioned.

This would standardize northern and southern oil and gas regimes across the country.

In addition, Bill C-22 would demand that industry provide regulators with direct and unfettered access to $100 million in funds per project or a pooled fund of $250 million. This would give regulators immediate access to money in the unlikely case they need to take direct action to respond to a spill or compensate affected parties.

There would be an immediate short-term provision, there would be a longer-term provision, and there would be a significant increase in the amount of liability under strict liability and an unlimited amount otherwise.

The energy safety and security act would also establish the right of governments to seek environmental damages. This means that they would have the power to pursue operators for any damages to species, coastlines, or other public resources. These measures would build on a sound system overseen by strong regulators to ensure world-class standards for Canadian offshore and nuclear industries. They would further strengthen safety and security to prevent incidents and they would ensure swift response in the unlikely event that a spill takes place. Prevention and response and then, in the unlikely event, damages would ensue.

It would also build on recent legislative initiatives to complete our government's action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes by ensuring a predictable, timely regulatory system across the north that supports economic growth in the north while ensuring environmental stewardship. A prime example of such an effort is the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which received royal assent on March 27, 2013. It gives northerners more control over their own land and resources and will help ensure Northwest Territories residents benefit from the responsible development of the region's great resource potential.

Apart from having strong regulators, Canada has a responsible industry with a solid record of safety and security. With the assurance of these strict new requirements, northern communities can proceed with resource development projects with confidence. We need only consider the benefits the energy industry has already produced for northerners to appreciate its potential to generate even greater impacts for Arctic communities when these energy resources are responsibly developed. Responsible development is key in all areas, but particularly in the north.

In earlier phases of exploration, more than 1,500 wells were drilled, which led to abundant discoveries. Some discoveries were developed for production to support local energy consumption in the north. Imperial Oil's Norman Wells installation, for instance, has contributed to the town's energy supply and economic development. For several decades now, it has also sustained the surrounding communities in terms of jobs, businesses, and infrastructure. It has generated a large revenue stream to government with a percentage of revenue contributing to resource revenue sharing with aboriginal groups in the Mackenzie Valley under the provisions of their land claims.

We know that the Beaufort Sea has incredible potential to produce even better results in the future. There have been more than 60 discoveries to date. In addition, several companies hold exploration licences with cumulative work commitments of over $1.8 billion. Oil and gas companies are planning work and have filed extensive drilling proposals with the National Energy Board. The proposed drilling is a first for Arctic deep waters, and the first after the release of the National Energy Board's 2011 report on offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic. That report confirmed that the National Energy Board's regulatory regime can address matters related to the safety of northerners, workers, and the environment.

Environmental stewardship is and always will be a key consideration in resource management. Achieving this objective requires accurate environmental and other scientific, social, and economic data to support good decision-making. Oil and gas exploration development creates unique opportunities to advance Canada's knowledge of the north. As part of the northern strategy, we are looking for innovative programs to advance responsible development and increase our knowledge of the north. One example is the Beaufort regional environmental assessment initiative, or BREA for short. Our government is providing $21.8 million over four years to ensure that governments, Inuvialuit, regulators, and industry are prepared for renewed oil and gas activity in the Beaufort Sea. Northerners play a prominent role in BREA and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation is part of the national executive committee, while the Inuvialuit Game Council and representatives of the hunter and trapper committees are members of various committees and working groups.

The north's resource potential is a key asset for Canada, though still largely unexplored and untapped. Oil and gas exploration development essentially offers an opportunity for economic and social development through investments, jobs, and training and infrastructure, as well as revenues from resource development.

Given this world-class potential throughout the Arctic, it is imperative that exploration continue responsibly and that northerners actively participate and benefit from that development. Bill C-22 is designed to do just that, as it complements and advances the northern strategy, which promotes the same goals.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of how the Conservative government refuses to act quickly and even meet international standards, which are much higher than those it is proposing.

I want to know whether the member opposite is prepared to ask his government to raise the standards to match the standards that exist elsewhere in the world, which are much tougher than the ones his minister is proposing.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this particular legislation would raise the standard considerably in terms of the amount of liability and the amount that developers must put together. It would raise the liability amount from $30 million or $40 million, depending on the location, to $1 billion, and there are provisions beyond that. When we compare that to the amounts and the standards in the world, we certainly meet or exceed the top countries involved in this particular type of regime.

This legislation is leading in its own way, and it would be a standard that others would use and apply in the future.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by the fact that the member's speech is full of the same bluster we hear in the Conservatives' remarks about their efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Everyone in the world—not just in Canada, but the world—knows that Canada is an outlier when it comes to its efforts with respect to its environmental record. The Conservatives are not even expected to meet their very low 2020 expectations under Copenhagen, and that is an extreme disappointment.

With regard to bluster, BP spent almost $8 billion trying to clean up the Gulf of Mexico after that oil spill, yet the member for Souris—Moose Mountain touts $1 billion as being an adequate amount of liability. Could he possibly tell me from his investigation how the $1 billion limit of liability was set, when we all know that costs are going to be well beyond $1 billion if there is ever a spill?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the nuclear liability portion of this particular piece of legislation would ensure that we have continuous production of clean energy, particularly in Ontario, and that member is from this particular province.

In my riding we have the carbon capture and sequestration project, which takes care of emissions generated in other types of electrical production, so we have gone a long way in ensuring clean energy and in dealing with that aspect of it.

The present liability portion is $30 million to $40 million. This would be increased substantially. Not only would it be increased substantially, but the bill makes provision for additional funds to be put in place by the operators for immediate concerns and immediate purposes. Additionally, depending on which part of the legislation, the matter can be brought back to the House as well.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contribution to this debate and the important work he is doing for his constituents.

I want to build on this discussion about liability. While I would find it otherwise irresistible to respond in some way to the previous member's question about greenhouse gases, and I am proud to say that this government has delivered a net reduction in GHG emissions for the first time ever, I need to talk about liability, because it is more to the point of this particular debate. I am concerned about the NDP's proposal for a nuclear liability amount that would not take into account the real capacity of insurers.

Could my colleague tell me how Bill C-22 would balance the need for operators to be responsible for the costs of an incident with the need to be realistic while protecting Canadian taxpayers? It is a tough but fair question at this time in the debate.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 does address the need for operators to provide adequate and appropriate compensation—and I have referred to that—without burdening them with exorbitant costs for unrealistic amounts of insurance against events that are highly unlikely to occur in this country. The $1 billion that I spoke of strikes a proper balance between providing adequate compensation for citizens for a nuclear incident and holding companies to account in the event of an accident. In all of these matters we must have that balance.

The amount is also well above the liability limit imposed on nuclear operations in many other countries and is in line with the limits that have been proposed in the EU, so in a lot of ways we have set a standard and in a lot of ways we have done what other countries have been thinking about doing.

Of course, when we look at what the present regime is compared to what we propose it would be, we see there is a substantive and significant increase to ensure that there is adequate protection at the same time that we protecting taxpayers as well. This is a balance that I think has been appropriately achieved in this bill.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited to be getting up to speak on Bill C-22.

The energy safety and security act should actually boost Canadians' confidence in what is already a very world-class safety and regulatory regime for our offshore and nuclear industries.

Bill C-22 is important, and it is important to the marine environment that we all love. It demonstrates here today, with concrete proof, that our government is committed not only to protecting the safety and security of Canadians but also to protecting our environment.

Let us make no mistake: we are the only party in this House of Commons that is looking out for our environment and for our sustainable energy development. This energy development pays many of our bills, bills for education, pensions, and health care, things that vastly increase all Canadians' quality of life.

As we have said, under our responsible resource development plan, the development of our natural resources will proceed only, and I highlight this, if it is safely done in a way that is safe for Canadians and safe for our environment.

I want to give a little background.

Management of offshore oil and gas in this case is carried out jointly by the Government of Canada, the Province of Nova Scotia, and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Government of Canada has been working very co-operatively with these two provinces to create a really strong offshore safety system for oil and gas exploration and operations, and it is world class.

That is not just rhetoric. In fact, an independent consultancy group, PFC Energy, rated Canada, the U.K., Norway, and Australia as the world leaders in offshore regimes, in contrast to what the NDP was trying to feed us a few minutes ago.

This is based on our unique combination of extensive regulations and processes. Bill C-22 is going to take those even further. The energy safety and security act reflects the continued collaboration with the provinces and really strengthens regulations in three main areas. Those are prevention, response, and accountability.

Today, given my limited time, I am going to focus on response, and pollution response specifically.

Bill C-22 enhances our response capability by adding what we are calling a new tool to the emergency response tool kit in the very unlikely event of a spill. That tool is spill-treating agents.

I will address what spill-treating agents are, why they are a very effective response option, and the stringent safeguards this bill puts in place so their use is environmentally safe.

I am sure all members in the House would agree with me on one thing, which is that in a world-class response regime, it is critical to have the capability to respond in the most effective way possible if there is ever an incident. A key component of Bill C-22 involves giving responders the very best technology and scientific advancements available so that they can have that swift and effective response.

Spill-treating agents are scientifically determined to be the best way to mitigate the environmental effects if there is a spill. Of course, our aim is to prevent any spills, and Canada does have an excellent track record. In fact, the vast majority of spills are under one litre. That is right: under one litre. I think it is important that Canadians know that so they can put this issue in context.

Our largest spill, regrettably, was 1,000 barrels at Terra Nova in 2004. The next-largest Atlantic Canada spill was just 38 barrels. That lets people know what we are dealing with here.

No spill, of course, is one we want to see, but when used appropriately, generally within the first 12 hours, spill-treating agents can reduce the impact of an oil spill on the environment. When these substances are applied to the oil spill, they change the behaviour of the oil so that they can help control the path that the spill is going to take and they can mitigate the effects of the spill on the coastal or marine environment. They will also assist in the natural process of biodegradation.

Spill-treating agents are not new. In fact, they are an accepted part of the offshore oil and gas safety regime in a number of countries with regimes similar to Canada's, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Norway.

At present, spill treating agents are not used here in Canada, but in 2013 the tanker safety expert panel, an independent panel that was commissioned by Transport Canada, recommended that the government approve the use of these spill treating agents. Therefore, with this bill today we are accepting that recommendation. We believe it really does make sense. I should stress that these agents would only be used if their use would result in an overall net environmental benefit.

With that in mind, there are four conditions we have put in place in the bill. These agents could only be used if the conditions are met. First, the spill treating agent must be on an approved list prescribed by the government. Second, the spill treating agent must be included in the operator's spill contingency plan, which must be approved by the offshore regulator before the operator begins operations. Third, the regulator's chief conservation officer, who is an individual with a wide range of powers, has to determine that the use of the spill treating agent is really likely to achieve this environmental net benefit. Fourth, the spill treating agent has to be used in conjunction with the regulations and conditions that are imposed by the chief conservation officer I just spoke about.

I will just explain these conditions in a bit more depth. The first condition states that the spill treating agent has to be on a prescribed list. The minister of the environment, not the minister of natural resources, would actually establish this list based on scientific evidence regarding the potential for these agents to provide an environmentally beneficial effect. It is setting that bar very high.

The second condition is built into the operating licence. Every operator has to submit a contingency plan in order to actually obtain an operating licence. If the operator wants to use a spill treating agent, it has to be included in that plan. The regulatory bodies here are the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. Unless one of these two boards determines that the use of the spill treating agent is likely to achieve this net environmental benefit, it would not be accepted as part of the spill contingency plan.

The effect of all this is to require really careful consideration of whether the spill treating agents are actually appropriate and environmentally beneficial, both at the front end of the planning process, as well as later on in the planning process when an event might actually happen. This planning would also allow for informed decisions to be made quickly, because in the event of a spill we want to act fast, so that we can contain it.

The third condition, that the offshore board has to determine that the use of the spill treating agent must be likely to achieve an environmental net benefit, is a way to verify that the response options that are put into that plan at the beginning are actually going to be appropriate on the scene, as every spill has different conditions. It would be assessed on both ends. There are a lot of variables that can be present at the time of a spill that might make the agents appropriate or not. They are things like waves and tides and how much the product might be dispersed.

The fourth and final condition is that the spill treating agent would have to be used in accordance with the regulations and any additional conditions that are imposed by the chief conservation officer. This gives some flexibility to further fine tune the conditions on the scene as our use of scientific and technical know-how evolves.

In conclusion, spill treating agents are part of a comprehensive toolkit of spill response techniques. Responders have indicated that they want them in their toolkit. Currently, the mechanical techniques they are using that we are most familiar with, booms and skimmers, can be quite effective but superior results can often be gained by using these spill treating agents.

Bill C-22 provides numerous checks and balances, which I have gone through, to ensure they would only be deployed when their use would be of a net environmental benefit. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, in his fall 2012 report, supported these measures.

Bill C-22 is one more reason Canadians can have confidence that their government is diligently protecting all of our interests in developing offshore oil and gas and protecting our environment every step of the way. I ask my hon. colleagues opposite to join us in supporting Bill C-22 at second reading so it can move on to committee.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Calgary Centre dealt primarily with oil and gas, but my concern is about the nuclear side of this bill.

One of her colleagues earlier suggested that the amounts proposed in this bill would bring Canada in line with Europe. However, our limitation would be $1 billion for a nuclear accident, while the U.S. limitation is $12.6 billion and Germany, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, and Switzerland have unlimited liability. There is no liability.

Is putting a liability cap on something that is potentially so dangerous not a way of subsidizing an industry? Is that not a negative consequence for the Canadian taxpayer?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to hear the NDP worried about the taxpayer, but I am delighted to answer the question.

I have a particular interest in the nuclear industry, because I covered it as a natural resources reporter. I can tell members that this $1 billion is the right balance between providing adequate compensation for citizens if there is a nuclear incident and also holding companies to account.

We are moving to the polluter pays model. This limit is well above the liability limits that are being imposed on nuclear operators in many countries.

The NDP is never happy until it can actually shut down all of our industry in Canada.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the same question of this member as I did of the previous Conservative speaker.

The Conservatives are somewhat delusional in having Canadians believe that they care at all about the environment. They are outliers, not just in Canada, but throughout the world in their inattention to the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Now, the member would have us believe that somehow this legislation is the panacea to protecting our environment.

The previous NDP member asked about liability. It cost close to $8 billion to clean up the Gulf of Mexico after the BP spill. Somehow, she thinks that $1 billion is an acceptable amount to Canadians as a limit of liability.

I would ask her very specifically, because she claims that it is a balance, if she can tell us how the amount of $1 billion was arrived at, when other countries have vastly larger limits and other spills have cost vastly more than $1 billion.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite, unfortunately, is using the Justin Trudeau model of “budgets balance themselves”. This is the party that—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

You cannot mention Justin Trudeau.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. This is just a reminder to the hon. member.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I apologize.

Greenhouse gases do not go down by themselves. The member opposite should know that the government's record is reducing greenhouse gases. We are more than halfway on our way to meeting our emissions targets, while the greenhouse gas levels went up 30% under the Liberals opposite.

The safety record in the Canadian offshore is absolutely phenomenal. We have a phenomenal track record. We have basically never had a consequential spill on our west coast. On our east coast, I went through the two spills: one was of 1,000 barrels and the other was of 38 barrels.

Believe me when I say that $1 billion is plenty, and it meets the criteria that are being used in other countries around the world, and exceeds them in many instances.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be that, here in Ottawa, we receive officials from all across the north who are coming here because they want to see that their local input and local priorities can go forward. We have passed many bills in the House to help support development and to help support investment.

Obviously, there are many cases where Canadians want to see increased jobs and growth, but also increased environmental sustainability. The member has brought up many points in her speech that, as she said, strike a balance. For example, there are many opportunities in the north where small hydro projects or small nuclear projects may allow a resource development community to be able to open up new opportunities.

Does the member feel that this piece of legislation would help those kinds of opportunities? Again, these new kinds of plants—for example, nuclear facilities in France—require more updated laws. Would these kinds of opportunities, in the member's estimation, come along with this bill's passage?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course they will, and we heard some very interesting testimony at the natural resources committee recently about how energy development in Canada has actually extended our life spans. It has resulted in the reforestation of much of this country, because we used to take all of our fuel straight off the surface of the earth and cut down all the trees. Now, because of advancements in oil and gas and nuclear, we actually are living in a much greener country and on a greener planet than we used to.

Of course, we cannot go without mentioning our aboriginal Canadian citizens, because we are specifically targeting to work with them. We have been consulting with them and have heard that in resource development, they are often a community that can really benefit from this kind of activity.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in support of our government's proposed new legislation to increase accountability in Canada's nuclear and offshore industries.

Before I continue, I would like to announce to all present that I will be splitting my time with the valued and intellectual member for Yukon, who sits with me on the natural resources committee and does an absolutely amazing job standing up for Yukoners and their natural resource sector and does a much better job than the previous member of Parliament for that region certainly did.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has responsibility for Canada's international treaties as well as nuclear non-proliferation policy, he has stressed the importance of bringing Canada into an international nuclear liability convention. This convention would facilitate trade among nuclear power manufacturers while providing for streamlined compensation in the event of a nuclear accident in a country that is a party to the treaty. This is important to Canada, where 15% of electricity is generated by nuclear power. The mix of nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar-powered generation means that 77% of the electricity produced in Canada emits no greenhouse gases. We are number one in the G7 in this regard.

To advance Canada's intention to join an international nuclear liability and compensation regime, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Consular, the hon. member for Blackstrap, signed the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage, or the CSC, in Vienna, in December 2013. I would like to talk about some of those benefits.

With Canada's having achieved that important milestone, let me emphasize that the passage of Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would allow Canada to ratify and fully join the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage. I should note that Canada's signature on the treaty has encouraged Japan and South Korea to accelerate their approval processes for joining.

Once one of those countries joins the convention, the combined nuclear power capacity of treaty members will, according to the requirements set by the convention's drafters, be sufficient for the treaty to enter or come into force. This would allow Canada's nuclear trade with the U.S.A. and other treaty member states to flourish. It would establish absolute certainty that liability lies with the operator in the event of a nuclear incident. This clarity would allow manufacturers of nuclear power components and systems in member states to export without the worry of liability that may otherwise impede trade.

Ratification of the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage would offer Canadians two additional pools of international funds for compensation up to $1.45 billion in the event of a nuclear incident. Ratification would also provide exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian court in the case of a nuclear accident in Canada causing damage internationally. As noted, the convention on supplementary compensation would also channel liability exclusively to the nuclear operator of the site where a nuclear accident occurs, thereby providing business certainty to the many nuclear supply chain companies that add value to the Canadian economy domestically and abroad.

As a treaty member, in the event of a nuclear accident outside Canada, Canada would have its liability limited to $23 million per event, and it would be recovered from nuclear operators in Canada. Taxpayers would be fully protected from any expense. The method of reimbursement to the federal government by the nuclear industry for any amount paid out would be established by regulation prior to Canadian ratification of the convention. This has international importance and consequence.

The convention is aimed at a worldwide liability regime in which all states may participate, regardless of whether they are members of any existing civil nuclear liability conventions or have nuclear installations in their territories.

While the convention is open to all states, those with nuclear installations must also be party to the International Atomic Energy Agency's nuclear safety convention. Canada ratified that convention in 1995 and since then has been a leader in nuclear safety, transparency, accountability, and best practices at the triennial review meetings.

Canada's ratification of the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage would be a favourable response to international calls, led by the U.S. government and the IAEA, for countries to establish a global liability regime. As the world continues to recognize the clean energy advantages of nuclear power, the importance of such an instrument as this only increases, and of course, there are domestic benefits as well.

The convention would also facilitate nuclear development for Canadian provinces, especially Ontario and New Brunswick, which have nuclear power generating programs already.

Within the G7, Canada and Japan are the only members that do not belong to a major international civil nuclear liability regime. This would also be addressed through Bill C-22, and we are confident that Canada's example will help move other countries in the same direction.

This legislation brings Canada up to date with international standards and best practices in the nuclear sector. Our government has made a number of attempts to modernize our nuclear safety system. This is my third Parliament, and I remember the previous iterations of this legislation, and every time, only the NDP opposed improved safety measures.

We on this side of the House support a strong and safe nuclear industry that generates non-emitting electricity. Allow me to quote the Leader of the Opposition. These are the words of the NDP. They are not mine. He stated:

I want to be very clear. The NDP is opposed to any new nuclear infrastructure in Canada.

Canadians know that nuclear energy can be generated safely while supporting jobs for thousands of Canadians. While the NDP will continue to oppose our efforts to improve the safety of this important industry, we will focus on the safety of Canadians and a safe environment. It is time to move this very important initiative to its conclusion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Before we go to questions and comments, and I am sure there will be some, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Quebec, Consumer Protection.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the comments of the member opposite. I first have to say that the NDP's priority is protecting the interests of Canadians and respecting Canadian tax dollars. With that respect comes a real sense of perplexity as to why the government would place a limit on the liability of the oil and gas and nuclear industries. For example, he has just said that the nuclear industry is an incredibly safe industry. If it is a mature and safe industry, then let it pay for itself. Why should Canadians be on the hook for potential liability caused by this mature and safe industry? Other countries have either no limit on liability for these companies or they have limits that are set much higher than those set by the government.

My question to the member opposite is this: why have limited liability? Why leave Canadian taxpayers on the hook for industry disasters?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who asked me the question left a lot of facts out of that question. For example, she failed to mention that not only is Canada's proposed set target of $1 billion not the highest, but it is also by far not the lowest. There are a number of other countries around the world that have much lower limits.

She also failed to mention that in the United States, for example, which has over five times as many nuclear installations, they have a pooled plan whereby they have individual liabilities for their companies, which when combined form a pooled amount that is far greater than Canada's. We simply do not have that capacity.

The hon. member should have brought up the fact that Japan, before the Fukushima incident, had unlimited liability for its companies. However, no company has the fiscal capacity to deal with a disaster like Fukushima, and the Government of Japan had to step in and deal with it at any rate.

The $1 billion is the right amount. Everyone in the industry who knows what they are talking about accepts it. The only people who do not accept it are the ones who do not know what they are talking about.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me a chance to address the bill. It is not that I have not had the opportunity in the past, because I think this is the fifth time this legislation has come forward, and I have been here for at least four of those. It is good to see it finally moving ahead. Through all of those iterations, the NDP has been consistently incoherent.

I want to add to something the member said earlier. Canada does have $1 billion put aside for compensation, and I believe that part of the bill deals with signing the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage, which would bring in another half-billion dollars that would be potentially available if it was needed as well.

I would like to know if the member would address some of the limits we find in other countries to see how Canada's limit of $1 billion straight up and that other half-billion dollars that is available through the supplementary compensation fits with what is going on in other countries. I want to note, as the member did, that the Americans have far more nuclear installations. They have a pool there, but their individual operators are actually liable for less than half of what the Canadian operators would be individually. I look forward to his comments.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reasoned and logical question from my colleague. We used to sit on the natural resources committee together for a number of years when he was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of Natural Resources. I certainly appreciate his wisdom and guidance and his knowledge and expertise on this file. We should not be surprised that an intelligent question comes from him.

Let me compare Canada's current position in the bill, which is $1 billion. It is in line with international standards. It is significantly higher than the limits set by many of our nuclear peers. In the U.K., the operator liability is currently capped at approximately $260 million, which is basically one-quarter of what we are proposing in the legislation. South Africa is $240 million. Spain is $227 million, and France is even lower, at $140 million.

My finding is that $1 billion is a reasoned approach. We met extensively with many stakeholders who are involved in this. We are protecting the Canadian public and at the same time are not setting such a burdensome insurance or liability regime in place that we would drive business completely out of Canada, especially a clean business like nuclear energy. One would think the Liberals and the NDP would be in favour of non-GHG electrical generation. I am surprised that they would impose caps on these Canadian businesses that would basically drive the businesses out of business, and goodness knows where we would get our clean electricity then.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate and the hon. member for Yukon, I would let the House know that more than five hours have passed since the opening round of debate on this question, in which case, all of the interventions from this point on will be limited to 10 minutes for speeches and the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have 10 minutes to try to do as much for the issue as my great friend and colleague from Wetaskiwin just did. After listening to him, I probably do not need to say much more. I think he said it all. Even the Liberal Party agrees he did such a fantastic job.

Of the many issues and the many persuasive arguments to support Bill C-22, few matter more to the residents of the Canadian north than the fact that the legislation would protect and defend the Arctic offshore. This is something all Canadians and northerners particularly are genuinely passionate about.

Our government has put the Arctic region higher on the domestic policy agenda than it ever has been before. We are determined to see Canada's north achieve its promise as a healthy and prosperous region that captures the benefits of economic development without harming the Arctic's unique environment.

We envision a north that fully realizes its social and economic potential to secure a higher standard of living and quality of life for today's generation and for those that follow. The vision is articulated in our northern strategy that focused on exercising our sovereignty, enhancing northern environmental stewardship, promoting social and economic development, and improving and devolving northern governance.

Since releasing the strategy, our government has taken action in all four areas, equipping northerners with new authorities, resources and tools that they need to play a central role in the Canadian economy now and into the future.

Less than two months ago, our government's promised Northwest Territories Devolution Act received royal assent, giving northerners control of their own onshore resources and improving regulatory regimes in the Northwest Territories. Bill C-22 is the latest in this long list of initiatives.

As members know, the Arctic's offshore harbours enormous resource wealth, which, if responsibly harnessed, can increase opportunity and prosperity in the Arctic and across all of Canada's north for generations. However, as Bill C-22 makes clear, we are not advocating development at any price. We are instituting important new measures with the legislation to protect the environment and public health and safety. We are putting industry on notice that it will be held to account in the unlikely event of any spill.

Our government recognizes the need for effective stewardship to ensure that future resource development occurs in a way that respects the traditions of first nation and Inuit communities and that ensures the Arctic environment is safeguarded.

To explain how this proposed act would advance these goals, let me first explain the federal role in Canada's Arctic offshore.

Petroleum management in the north is legislated under the Canadian Petroleum Resource Act and the Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act. Land, royalty and benefit issues are managed by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada on behalf of the minister. The National Energy Board administers the Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act and associated technical regulations.

While offshore oil and gas reserves remain under federal authority, Canada's three northern territories are now strongly engaged in responsible resource management. As I previously alluded to, on April 1 of this year the Government of the Northwest Territories assumed responsibility for onshore land and resource management in that territory. In Yukon, the transfer of land resource management responsibilities occurred in 2003, and we look to future negotiations with Nunavut toward a devolution agreement in that territory.

Devolution gives northerners control over resource development decisions, among other things. As one example, the Northwest Territories devolution agreement provided for the transfer of more than 100 oil and gas licences from the Government of Canada to the territorial government. This included several production licences as well as numerous exploration licences in the Sahtu settlement region, which are attracting industry interest in its shale resources. These new responsibilities allow the territories to take full control over exploration, production, and supply of oil and gas to northern communities and beyond.

Within these areas of federal jurisdiction, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada officials work to create the conditions for a positive investment climate that enables the private sector to successfully compete in the north. There is a well-established market driven oil and gas rights issuance process, with an annual opportunity to obtain exploration rights through a competitive process. This process of regular calls for bids increases investment confidence in Canada's frontier lands.

There is widespread agreement on the need for responsible resource development to create jobs and economic opportunity across the north, and a willingness on the part of all parties to work together to achieve this potential. However, confidence in industry's ability to be responsible environmental stewards was eroded with the fateful accident in the Gulf of Mexico in the summer of 2010. This led to the subsequent Arctic offshore drilling review by the National Energy Board, which triggered a federal review of Canada's frontier oil and gas regulatory regime. In turn, this led to the development of the legislation that is before us today.

Informed by the findings of the Arctic offshore drilling review, along with recommendations and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's 2012 fall report, Bill C-22 would take action to ensure that no development would proceed unless rigorous environmental stewardship measures were already put in place.

The energy safety and security act proposes new safety and environmental authorities for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and the National Energy Board to help them better administer oil and gas development in the Arctic offshore. Chief among the improvements, the legislation would raise offshore absolute liability limits from $40 million to $1 billion. This would mean that only companies that have sufficient financial resources to prevent and respond to incidents are active in Canada's offshore.

Bill C-22 would also authorize the use of spill-treating agents when they can be expected to achieve a net environmental benefit. This would create a new tool for operators to use in the response to an offshore spill, should one ever occur.

The legislation would enshrine the principle of polluter pays. This means that in the unlikely event of a spill, any of the damages to species, coastlines, or other public resources could be addressed. Especially important, it would give regulators direct access to $100 million in funds per project or a pooled fund of $250 million, if needed, in case they had to take action to respond to a spill or to compensate affected parties.

The proposed amendments complement the changes to the territorial lands and resource management legislation in the Northwest Territories, which establishes fixed review timelines, monetary penalties for regulatory infractions, and cost recovery regulations. The territorial government is obligated to substantially mirror all amendments in federal frontier statutes to support integration for a minimum of 20 years.

Once passed, the legislation will confirm the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development's authority to order the joint exploration and development of oil and gas fields that straddle federal offshore administrative jurisdiction and other administrative jurisdictions.

Our government has consulted widely on these proposed amendments with territorial governments, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and industry representatives, all of whom, by the way, support these measures because they recognize they are necessary and should be in place before any major development in the north occurs, in order to protect the environment and public health and safety.

With approval of Bill C-22, all of these measures will be established prior to any drilling in the Arctic offshore.

Beyond being our government's northern strategic goals, these aspirations are shared by the people in all the communities across all of Canada's north. People are counting on us to pass this important legislation so they can responsibly develop the north's region and utilize and realize its immense energy potential.

Therefore, I call on all parties in the House to join us in supporting this important legislation for the people of the north and indeed the people of Canada.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will come back to the nuclear energy side of it, and I know there are not a whole lot of nuclear reactors up in Yukon.

The proposed legislation suggests an upper limit of $1 billion for nuclear power operators. Nuclear power operators in Canada generate about $5 billion a year in electricity, so it would seem that the cost of actually providing a bigger level of protection to Canadians is well within their grasp. In the United States it is $12.6 billion and in most of Europe it is an unlimited liability. Why, then, would the Conservatives consider $1 billion to be sufficient to protect the taxpayers and to ensure that the plants are as safe as possible?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Wetaskiwin did an excellent job of explaining why the $1 billion liability would be sufficient and balanced for our country. The one thing that is important to note is it is a substantial increase. This has not changed since 1976, and here we are in 2014 looking forward to cleaner energy generation in our country.

The one thing that needs to be expressed when we talk about this is finding the balance of attracting this sort of development for cleaner, greener energy technology in our country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We do not want to set a limit so high that it obstructs any of that, because then we have to rely on diesel generation. I and the people of the north know this. We have to rely on burning diesel to heat our homes and to transport food on the highways. Electrical generation in our country needs to get cleaner and greener, and this would be a great way of doing that.

The member referenced the U.S. $12.6 billion liability. The member for Wetaskiwin accurately pointed out that the U.S. enjoys the benefit of being able to pool those liability plants, and individual plants are lower than the Canadian limit. While we talk about a couple of others that have unlimited liability plants that are higher than Canada, there are a number that are substantially lower, including the United Kingdom. South Africa has a $240 million limit. Spain has a $227 million limit. France is even lower at $140 million.

Canada has found the right balance to ensure we can deal with this without making it so obstructionist that we are unable to enjoy the benefits that we would get from clean energy generation and the Canadian benefit with lower and cleaner electrical costs.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to what my colleague just said about the liability limit for companies. If there were an unfortunate accident and the damages were much greater than the limit proposed in the bill, who would be liable for the difference? Would the private company be liable for the accident or would the taxpayers be left paying the balance yet again?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing we have to reflect on is what benefits Canadians receive from cleaner energy technology. I am not so inclined to deal with the worse-case scenarios because what we have, as was noted, is a mature, responsible, well-developed, and extremely safe industry that happens to provide tremendous benefits to Canadians from coast to coast to coast with clean energy generation.

An increase in the limited liability from $40 million up to $1 billion is a substantial increase. It is remarkably higher than other countries.

If we are going to talk about the unfortunate and very unlikely event of a disaster, then we have to be realistic about the clean-up and the capacity to do that. We can look at Fukushima for example, as the member for Wetaskiwin pointed out. Despite the unlimited liability that Japan carried, there was no way the corporation could cover those costs, and Japan ended up having to step in and pick up those costs.

It does not matter what we set the liability amount at. If we make it so outlandish that there is no capacity to deliver it, then it is an unrealistic point we are making in legislation. We are ensuring we strike that perfect balance so as to invite that development, invite that industry, so Canadians can enjoy the benefits of safe, clean, green energy technology at an affordable rate with reasonable and sensible protection for Canada and its environment.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill, which ironically is titled the energy safety and security act. I say ironically because nothing in the bill actually talks about energy security, which is something that residents in my riding and across Canada have been asking the government to protect for many years. Energy security means actually providing that we have a reliable and secure source of energy in our homes, in our businesses, and in our workplaces.

The bill is weaving its way through and has taken forever. There are portions of the bill that are to ratify international obligations. It was introduced by the government on several previous occasions, and each time the government was the cause of the bill actually not proceeding. First, it was the quick call of an election in 2008 before the four years was up, then a prorogation actually eliminated the ability for that bill to go forward, and finally, an election was called before the bill finished wending its way, so it has been on the books for several years.

There is some importance to the speed with which the bill goes through, but obviously the government wants to take its time and discuss it over a long period of time. However, another bill, Bill C-24, was voted on in an absolutely tearing hurry just this afternoon, and yet I was not able to speak on it.

I have had meetings with constituents who have expressed serious concerns and serious reservations about the core of a bill that would give the minister the ability to take away the citizenship of persons born in Canada, which is an unprecedented thing in Canada and should have had a considerable amount of opportunity for members to discuss. Yet the government moved time allocation with only about five hours of debate on this subject. It boggles the mind why that is so much more necessary to be hurried along than this bill, on which the government has taken years and years.

I will focus mostly on the nuclear side of this, because I have some personal concerns about the nuclear side of it. There have been a number of serious events on this planet involving nuclear power generation. Those events involving nuclear power generation have brought, I think, into crystal clear relief the fact that we have completely underestimated the costs of an actual disaster in these things. We are treating these nuclear power plants as just a piece of the landscape, but when in fact they go wrong, the cost is absolutely enormous.

Three Mile Island was a relatively small disaster. It was the first of the biggies, but it was a small disaster in terms of what actually happened. Nobody was killed and there were no bodily injuries, but the cleanup took 14 years and $1 billion, starting in 1979. A billion dollars was what was needed in 1979 for a small problem. Now we are in 2014, 35 years further along, and $1 billion is all that the nuclear industry has to put up if there is a liability involving a nuclear problem at a nuclear plant.

Let us fast-forward just seven years to Chernobyl. Chernobyl had $15 billion in direct losses. That is the plant itself, direct losses at the time on the site, a number of deaths, a whole lot of injuries; and over the next 30 years, it is estimated that because of the thousands upon thousands of residents of Ukraine and Belarus who will develop cancer, those costs could be over $500 billion.

We are not suggesting that the nuclear industry in Canada is capable of covering a cost of $500 billion, but to suggest $1 billion is all that is necessary is laughable, particularly when this industry is now quite robust and has been around a long time in relative terms.

The government is suggesting only $1 billion. That is actually a subsidy to this industry. We do not need to be subsidizing the nuclear power industry in this country, particularly when just two years ago the government gave away the CANDU licence to SNC-Lavalin. Now, a private corporation is actually in control of the development of our nuclear reactor system. It is not a corporation that is getting a whole lot of good reviews lately.

Then we come to 2011 and Fukushima. This is by far the worst of the nuclear disasters. It really brings home just how bad things can get when things go wrong in ways that are not expected. That is the essence of what nuclear designers are trying to do: figure out what we can do to protect against the unexpected.

Fukushima will probably cost between $250 billion and $500 billion when it is done. Nobody is absolutely certain. There is an untold human cost of Fukushima. They have had to evacuate and evict 159,000 people from the area around Fukushima. Though those people have not been told this, they can probably never go back to their homes.

Caesium-137, radioactive caesium, has a 30-year half-life. That radioactive material is now all over the ground, in the water, and in the air, in the area around that reactor. Because of a 30-year half-life, that means it will be centuries before those places are safe to inhabit again. Those people are still paying mortgages on their homes, but it will be centuries before they can go back to them.

That is the magnitude of what a nuclear disaster is really all about. I am afraid the government really does not understand just what it is dealing with in terms of tossing out the number $1 billion as if it is somehow an appropriate number to suggest the nuclear industry would have to come up with.

I am of two minds on the whole notion of nuclear energy as being a good thing for Canada. My father-in-law came back from World War II. He was a pilot in the RAF. He went to Chalk River and helped build those first few reactors at Chalk River. He was part of the design team that designed the CANDU system. His name was Roy Tilbe. He has passed on now, but he had a fierce loyalty to the nuclear industry generally and a fierce dedication to trying to make it a safe industry.

He would be appalled to think that the taxpayers have to pick up the ball if the industry is not safe enough. That is essentially what the government is suggesting to the industry, after six or seven years of dithering on what to do, by offering a paltry $1 billion as all that is required. The costs are of such magnitude that $1 billion is dwarfed by what those costs really are in the sense of a nuclear accident.

Let me talk about another cost that nobody here has talked about. Nuclear reactors in Canada and elsewhere have effluent, an output, waste. Nuclear waste is very toxic. It is something that people should not go near.

I was up on a little tour of Chalk River, where they showed us their nuclear waste management site. They did not call it a disposal site, but a management site. We went on a little bus. There was a bunch of Japanese and German tourists on the bus with us. We went around to the management site, and we were told that inside the steel cylinders encased in concrete was the waste. We know that the steel lasts about 150 years, and the concrete lasts about 75 years. So every 75 years, the concrete has to be replaced, and every 150 years the steel has to be replaced.

I asked the guide how long that would have to be done. I was told 75 years for the concrete and 150 for the steel. No, I said; I asked how long we had to manage the waste. I was told 500,000 years.

Has anybody really recognized what that means? What will $1 billion be worth in 500,000 years? Who will be around? Will SNC-Lavalin still be around? Will I still be around? The safety of Canadians should be paramount, and the industry should be held accountable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the nuclear industry, we see it is ultimately the responsibility of governments to work hand in hand with other governments, so that we achieve the safest possible environment where there is nuclear waste or byproducts from using nuclear energy.

One of the products we use extensively is isotopes for X-rays and so forth. It needs to be acknowledged that there is a very real practical need in medicine. Having those isotopes is of critical importance for scans and so forth. I wonder if the member could comment on that. There is a lot of discussion about nuclear reactors, but there are other aspects of the nuclear industry of which we need to be aware.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who fired the nuclear safety officer when she declared that the reactor that was preparing these much-needed isotopes was operating in an unsafe way because some procedures had not been followed with regard to earthquake-proofing that reactor. The answer from the government was, “To hell with safety; let's fire the regulator”.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Seriously? Watch your language a little.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Sorry; “To heck with safety; let's fire the regulator.”

Nuclear energy is perhaps a good thing, but we need to understand it and we need to understand just how dangerous it can be if it goes wrong, and that is something I do not think the government understands.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the argument we sometimes hear that there is little chance of such events ever occurring. Our colleagues opposite say it is strictly theoretical.

I was living in Europe when the Chernobyl disaster struck. The media told us we had nothing to fear since the clouds stopped at the borders. That is actually what the media reported at the time.

Ukraine was heavily criticized at the time for its deplorable management of nuclear power plants. However, even a country like Japan, with its advanced safety mechanisms and technologies, had to deal with a major incident like the one in Fukushima.

Can my colleague speak to that part of the argument we keep hearing, about the unlikelihood of a nuclear accident?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the point I have been making throughout, that we and the companies running these things need to be prepared for the absolute worst-case scenario. To avoid the worst-case scenario is obviously the best course of action. These corporations are not public; these are corporations whose bottom lines are to make money for their shareholders. Therefore, managing risk means asking what corners they can cut. If their liability is only $1 billion, then they might be more inclined to cut corners in the design or operation of a reactor, and that cannot happen.

We must insist that the operators be completely responsible for whatever they do, which would, in turn, make them much more conscious of avoiding the absolute worst-case scenario.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-22.

We recommend supporting the bill in principle at second reading and calling for greater liability and global best practices. Our position at third reading will depend on the government's response.

This bill warrants further study in committee to see whether it can be improved. It will be hard to sit down with the Conservatives and improve a bill because they think they have all the answers. We know how that goes. We have seen it before.

Bill C-22 updates the Canadian nuclear liability regime and sets out the victim compensation procedures and conditions in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant. It maintains the principles whereby operators have limited, exclusive, no-fault absolute nuclear liability, except in the event of war or terrorist attacks.

The bill increases the limit of absolute liability from $75 million to $1 billion. It extends the deadline for filing compensation claims for bodily injury from 10 years to 30 years to address latent illnesses. The 10-year deadline is maintained for all other types of damage.

The changes in terms of nuclear liability apply to Canadian nuclear facilities such as nuclear power plants, research reactors, fuel processing plants and facilities for managing used nuclear fuel.

Bill C-22 also updates the offshore regime for oil and gas operations, in order to prevent incidents and to guarantee a rapid response in the event of a spill. It keeps the idea of an operator's unlimited liability in cases of demonstrated fault or negligence. It raises the absolute limit of liability for offshore oil and gas exploration projects and sets it at $1 billion, without proof of fault. The current limit is $40 million in Arctic waters and $30 million in the Atlantic. The bill explicitly mentions the polluter pays principle and clearly and officially establishes that polluters will be held responsible.

The bill strengthens the current liability regime, but it does nothing to protect the environment, or Canadian taxpayers, because it still exposes them to risks.

The Conservatives are constantly behind our international partners and they ignore best practices when it is a matter of recognizing the dangers of an inadequate liability regime.

We have already expressed our opposition to the inadequate limits in the matter of nuclear liability. The provisions must be considered a step in the right direction in terms of the current limits, but this bill does not adequately consider the real dangers that Canadians are facing. We hope that we will be able to deal with this point in committee, if the Conservatives let us work in committee, as I was saying.

Only the NDP takes the protection of Canadians' interests seriously, while the other parties take a cavalier attitude to nuclear safety and the safety of offshore oil and gas operations.

If the nuclear energy industry is a mature one, it must pay its way. This bill continues to subsidize the industry by making taxpayers assume any financial risk in excess of $1 billion.

Taxpayers should not have to subsidize the nuclear industry instead of subsidizing other sources of renewable energy. Other countries feel that their citizens deserve better protection in the case of a nuclear accident.

Bill C-22 has come before the House before. It was then Bill C-5, which went through the committee stage and was passed at report stage in 2008. However, it died on the Order Paper when the Prime Minister called an election, ignoring the fact that it was supposed to be held on a fixed date.

Bill C-20 made it through second reading to committee stage in 2009, but it died on the order paper when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. Bill C-15 was introduced in 2010 and then nothing happened for a year, until the 2011 election. This government claims that this is an important bill. Now, we have to sit until midnight until the end of June because the government says this bill is important, even though we have been talking about the same bill since 2008. All of a sudden this bill is important to the Conservatives.

The latest version of the bill does not give the public the protection it needs. Its biggest flaw is that it puts an artificial $1 billion limit on liability, even though the costs of a serious accident can be much higher than that. Taxpayers will be stuck paying for the remaining cleanup and compensation costs. In reality, the $1 billion limit is not enough, and imposing an artificial ceiling amounts to subsidizing energy corporations, since they will not have to cover the full costs of the risks associated with what they do.

I want to share some figures. The figure of $1 billion for liability may seem like a lot, but it is an insufficient, arbitrary amount if we consider the costs of cleaning up nuclear disasters and marine oil spills, which have happened in the past.

In Germany, for example, nuclear liability is unlimited, fault or no fault. Germany also has financial security of $3.3 billion Canadian per power plant. The United States has set an absolute liability limit of $12.6 billion U.S. Other countries tend toward unlimited absolute liability.

A nuclear liability limit of $1 billion would not have covered a fraction of the costs of the 2011 nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. The Government of Japan estimates the cleanup costs at more than $250 billion.

The government still brags about saving money for taxpayers and giving them a break. This same government is prepared to protect major corporations by setting the limit at $1 billion. However, we have seen that the disasters in other countries have cost more than $1 billion. When a disaster happens, someone has to pay. Why should Canadian taxpayers have to foot the bill for a disaster?

The NDP says that amendments will have to be put forward in committee to improve this bill. We are not against this bill, but we have to protect Canadians, who pay enough taxes already. That money is supposed to cover their own needs. The government is cutting funding for health care and all kinds of other things. Our roads are full of potholes. Everyone is mad because the government is not investing enough money in programs that people need.

The government is ready to let oil and nuclear companies get away with one heck of a deal. Their insurance should cover those costs. We cannot let them get away with not paying for insurance or paying only half as much as they should. If we do, and if a disaster happens, they will declare bankruptcy, and taxpayers will be on the hook for the bill. We have seen companies do that. As soon as the price gets too high, they declare bankruptcy. They should be the ones paying. They believe in the industry because it is profitable, so they should set money aside for possible disasters. Canadians are not the ones who should foot the bill, but that is exactly what they have to do.

The 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could cost the company $42 billion to clean up. The company has been sued, and there will be criminal penalties.

Is Canada ready to foot the bill for these companies? My answer is no.

Bill C-22 does not go far enough. We will recommend changing the numbers.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I have been hearing today reminds me of the philosophy of the Titanic's owners: the ship is big enough and unsinkable, so we do not even need to have enough lifeboats for everyone because there will not be a disaster.

The Conservatives' solutions seem to be wishful thinking. For example, contaminated water from the oil sands is mixed with bentonite and a polymer. Instead of having a pond full of contaminated water, you get a solid mass that you can walk on. Bentonite and all kinds of toxic substances will have to be treated. I am trying to imagine what they will do in 50 to 75 years when they want to do something with this toxic material that will be produced in unimaginable quantities. There could be millions or billions of cubic metres.

You cannot improvise when dealing with nuclear waste, which will pile up for 40,000, 50,000 or 80,000 years. We have to look beyond the immediate future. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

When it comes to nuclear energy, we are still dealing with the unknown. No one wants nuclear waste in their backyard. That is not the case with electricity, which is a clean energy. No country wants to take another country's nuclear waste. Just try asking the Americans if they want our nuclear waste. They will say no. Just try asking Canadians if they want the Americans' nuclear waste. They will say no. Just try asking a province if it wants another province's nuclear waste. Everyone will say no. No one wants nuclear waste.

That will cause a problem. They have never found the answer. In the future, when we are stuck with something that we cannot get rid of, there will be no money to deal with it. That is why we have to protect ourselves.

If disaster strikes, things are even worse. Just think of what happened in Japan. Let me remind people that taxpayers had to pay for that, not the company. It is nice to own a company that can cause damage without any repercussions. The people will pay for the cleanup. However, who reaps the profits? None other than the company, which does not share the profits with the public. It shares them with its executives, who receive huge bonuses and treat themselves to millions of dollars in salaries. Nonetheless, if the company is not careful and causes damage, the taxpayers will pay.

The same thing is true of spills that can happen at sea. A spill could occur in Chaleur Bay or anywhere else. It can destroy an entire fishing industry. This is not Mexico. If a spill occurs in Chaleur Bay, it will stay in Chaleur Bay for a long time.

I say that the government must be careful and take action before this happens in order to protect the interests of Canadians.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for his speech.

My colleague is a former miner. That makes me think of the mines being closed. The taxpayers are stuck with the waste. They have to pay to clean up the mines. The Conservatives are keen on the nuclear system. They like to beat their chests and say that they are the ones protecting taxpayers.

To describe what they are trying to do to taxpayers, there is one word I would like to use, but I will not because it is unparliamentary. I will just say that what they are trying to do is coax taxpayers into paying for nuclear waste.

Could my colleague attempt to explain why the Conservatives, who say they want to protect taxpayers, are trying to make them pay for nuclear waste?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

What Canadians do not understand, in my opinion, is that the Conservatives ask for their votes and then, when they get them, they answer to Bay Street in Toronto. That is where their employers are, on Bay Street, in Toronto, just like the Liberals, actually.

As an example, I would like to talk about the paper mill in Bathurst. It had been in existence for 100 years, and someone was making money with it. The Bathurst Power and Paper Company then became Smurfit-Stone. It is incredible. The bosses exploited the forests in our area so much that there are no forests left.

When the mill closed, the bosses in question signed a contract to sell the steel, but they forgot to include disposing of the cement buildings. Now, in East Bathurst, New Brunswick, we have six cement silos and a lot of cement walls. It looks like the landscape in Iraq after the war.

The government has completely washed its hands of the matter. Now the residents are going to have to pay to get rid of it all. I am not even talking about anything nuclear. It is a simple job and it is going to cost $3 million to get rid of, though it should have been in the contract. Normally, you get rid of the steel, you close the plant, you clean up the site and you put down some green grass so that people can at least look at something nice. Instead, we are left with a place that looks the war in Iraq was fought there.

That is what the Conservatives' bill does today. That is what we are going to get, when all is said and done. They are trying to make us believe that going from $40 million to $1 billion makes for a good bill. All along, though, it is a present from them to the industry. That is what they are doing.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke to speak to Bill C-22, which some of my colleagues have already discussed today. I will obviously echo what has been said. As I usually do, I will say at the outset that I will be supporting the bill at second reading. I think the first thing to do is to announce how I will be voting when the time comes.

This bill is a step in the right direction, as many bills are, admittedly, although that is not always the case. Once again, there are a few flaws. The purpose of debate in the House is to discuss, debate and try to convince the people in the other parties that the bill can be improved.

Several points of interest to us will have to be examined in greater detail with experts. One of the best ways to examine a bill is to invite experts to discuss it. The other members and I often have some knowledge, but we are not experts in all fields, although every member has his or her own expertise. We cannot be experts on every subject, but we represent the people who elected us to come here and speak on their behalf. I believe the people of Sherbrooke are very interested in this because we are talking about their protection. We are talking about people who want to feel safe when they are at home and when they travel across the country. They want to be sure they are safe.

It is with that in mind that I rise today to speak to Bill C-22. It addresses two matters that are very simple on the surface, but more complex when we examine them further, as I had a chance to do before taking the floor. This bill concerns nuclear liability and therefore everything pertaining to nuclear energy, the way we generate energy that may at times be dangerous and for which necessary precautions must be taken to ensure that it is developed properly and as safely as possible. It also concerns liability for offshore oil and gas development, another topic of obvious interest to the people of Sherbrooke.

There are a few other details, but I will focus mainly on those two topics. We have already addressed nuclear liability and the potential dangers of nuclear energy development. Everyone watching is aware of those dangers because unfortunate accidents have occurred in the world, most recently in Fukushima, Japan. I imagine everyone here has heard about that. Another accident that dates back further occurred in Chernobyl, in eastern Europe, and caused a lot of damage, some of which is still being felt today.

The unique thing about this industry, and the danger associated with it, is this: the fallout from an accident lasts tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years. It is therefore important that we implement mechanisms to protect people, not only those currently living in the affected area, but the future generations who will live there as well. They expect today’s decision-makers to live up to their responsibilities. Obviously I will not be around in 50,000 years, even though I would very much like to be. The reality is that human life is finite.

I hope that humanity will always exist. If we fail today to address the long-term consequences, future generations will be left to deal with an ecological debt resulting from our mismanagement.

Unfortunately, the government is sometimes guilty of having a short-term vision. It focuses on elections and on the next five years because it wants to be re-elected. This often puts the welfare of future generations at risk because they are left to bear the consequences.

It is therefore critical that the government live up to its responsibilities in the area of energy development, more specifically the development of nuclear energy. It bears mentioning that this highly dangerous resource can be developed very responsibly. I am confident that most nuclear energy companies conduct their operations responsibly. I am not saying that they all shirk their responsibilities or try to cut corners with no regard for the consequences of their actions. I am confident that companies are mindful of the dangers associated with the resources they are handling. I hope they do everything possible to avoid unfortunate accidents.

However, human error is practically unavoidable. Mechanisms must therefore be implemented to secure the resources needed to prevent disastrous long-term consequences for future generations. Companies have a financial responsibility to protect the public and future generations when accidents occur. Serious accidents can cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Mention was made earlier of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The cost of the cleanup is estimated at around $40 billion, proving the importance of having mechanisms in place that require companies to cover costs when they are at fault.

This past summer, in Lac-Mégantic which is close to where I live, a company was negligent in following the rules, and perhaps the government was negligent as well. An accident occurred and once again, the taxpayers are the ones left to pick up the tab. The government is forced to cover the cost of these accidents. Private corporations think only about their profit margins and do not want to be held responsible for any accidents that happen. Governments are left to pick up the tab.

The bill now being debated makes nuclear, oil and gas companies liable for $1 billion. It is a step in the right direction. However, in other countries, liability ceilings are much higher, or even unlimited.

There is thus a lot of room to improve this bill and at least try to bring in the same standards seen elsewhere around the world or, better yet, to make Canada a country that leads by example. It would be good for Canada to set an example for other countries and protect its citizens in the process.

I will be happy to answer any questions.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague clearly pointed out that $1 billion in liability may seem like a lot to ordinary Canadians. However, in reality it is an arbitrary, insufficient amount. Other jurisdictions throughout the world have much higher limits.

My colleague may be aware that the German bank WestLB has stopped financing offshore oil projects in the Arctic. A spokesperson for the bank said:

The further you get into the icy regions, the more expensive everything gets and there are risks that are almost impossible to manage. Remediation of any spills would cost a fortune.

Could my colleague speak to that?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which is very relevant and echoes somewhat what I was saying at the end. I did not have the time to conclude.

Yes, $1 billion is a step in the right direction. However, some governments elsewhere are living up to their responsibilities much more than ours is and making sure that corporations pay the bill for the cleanup.

She referred specifically to the fact that some banks no longer even want to insure a corporation for the cleanup, fearing that it will cost too much money. If liability is only $1 billion, we have to ask ourselves some questions. For example, if it costs $3 billion or $4 billion—for the Gulf of Mexico it was over $40 billion—and in Canada liability is $1 billion, who is going to pay the difference when the cost is higher? These are questions we have to ask experts. They may be able to answer.

There are other solutions as well. If I am not mistaken, in the United States they have a kind of group fund for all the companies. I cannot go into detail because I am not sufficiently familiar with it, but there are other solutions to make sure that even if the corporation goes bankrupt, there are alternatives other than having the government pay the bill.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to what my colleague from Sherbrooke was just saying. He referred to the possibility that in some jurisdictions, a purely private corporation might go bankrupt and thus might have limited financial liability.

Let us take the opposite argument. Members on the other side of the House—I know my colleague followed the debates earlier—argued that some countries have much lower limits on financial liability, in the order of a few hundred million dollars. In reality, those financial liability limits are found in countries in which the corporations producing nuclear power are not private enterprises; they are often public or indirectly public. I would give the example of France, where it is Areva, formerly Framatome, which is 70% owned by the French government.

I would like my colleague from Sherbrooke to explain why it is a fallacy to use foreign examples that cannot apply, because the jurisdictions and levels of state liability and involvement are not comparable to what they are in a country in which the corporations are purely private and have to cover their financial liability themselves.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question that I would have liked to address in my speech, but now that I have been asked it, I have the opportunity to talk about it.

In fact, we could make clumsy comparisons with certain countries, because not all countries have the same energy resources. We therefore cannot compare apples and oranges.

The Conservatives tell us that these scenarios are very unlikely, that we should not worry because it will never happen, or there is virtually no chance it will happen. However, there have been times when it has happened.

I think the anecdote that my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle recounted was excellent. He said that the people in charge of the Titanic had not provided enough lifeboats because they said it was invincible. The ship was so big that nothing was ever going to happen to it. In the end, something did happen. They were caught short, and that led to the tragedy we all know about.

The government has to live up to its responsibilities and protect the public. That is what the people of Sherbrooke are asking for, and I hope we are going to achieve that during the study of this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. Before I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I will let him know that we only have about a couple of minutes, but we will get started, at least. Of course, he will have the remainder of his time, I would suspect, maybe in an hour or so, once we get the other business of the House dispensed with.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the notice on that.

It is interesting. Bill C-22 has been long in coming. One could argue that it has been in negotiations and under discussion since prior to the Conservatives taking office. It was initiated by the Liberal government a number of years ago. In fact, members will find is that this is, I believe, the fourth rendition of—

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

Fifth.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been corrected. It is the fifth rendition of this particular bill.

It is not overly controversial. It is something that, in principle, Canadians would get behind. There are some areas that we could maybe explore, such as the possibility of giving it some additional strength. We will have to see, once it gets into the committee stage.

It really adopts the idea of the polluter pays principle. We hear quite often about its importance when we have these massive industrial developments and when we talk about the issues, such as nuclear power, the way nuclear energy is used, and how we dispose of the remnants of it. They are very serious issues. International attention is given to how one should dispose of it and under what sort of conditions, but there is one thing that bears repeating, which is that we need to adopt this whole idea of polluter pays.

This is something that I hope to continue with once we have finished with private members' business.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Of course, the hon. member for Winnipeg North will have eight minutes remaining for his comments when the House next resumes debate on the question and, of course, the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

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 House resumed consideration of the motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North will have eight minutes to complete his speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I began by talking about how important it is that we have legislation of this nature brought forward. I talked about how the government has been really sitting back and doing very little in terms of advancing the legislation, and this legislation has been needed for a good number of years. In fact, the government has attempted to introduce it in the past, but to date it has consistently failed to ultimately get it passed through the chamber.

We, within the Liberal Party, have been very supportive, in principle, of getting this legislation to the committee stage because there are many different aspects of the legislation that have a great deal of merit. In fact, the record will show that back in the days when Paul Martin was the prime minister, there was a great deal of discussion, and that is when the negotiations started with respect to really moving forward with the legislation we have here today.

However, they have been somewhat moving at a turtle's pace, if I can put it that way, in terms of advancing this type of legislation.

That is not to say that the legislation is perfect. In fact, it is far from perfect. However, we do believe the principle of it justifies our acknowledging and allowing the bill to go to committee.

It is one of those bills on which the government was determined to put time allocation, and we are not too sure why, because, at least from within the Liberal Party's perspective, we were quite content to see it move on without even having to require time allocation or the government's decision to move closure on it.

I just want to point out a couple of aspects of the legislation before I make some general comments on it.

In part 1, for example, it expresses and includes the whole idea of the polluter pays principle. This is something that is consistent in terms of the whole notion of liability of fault of operators, and in fact something very important for us to recognize.

Another aspect of it is that it provides that an applicant for an authorization for drilling or development of production of oil and gas must demonstrate that it has the financial resources required to pay the greatest amount of limits of liability that could apply to it. It is very important that we recognize that.

It is one thing to say to a company, “You know, if things go wrong, you're going to be held liable for it”, only to find out that, in a worst-case scenario, something does go wrong and the company folds or does not have the ability to adequately compensate.

There would be substantial increases put into place through this legislation, so we have to ensure that it is in fact doable.

I have had the opportunity to listen to a number of New Democrats speak to the bill. Do they want to see it ultimately pass? I am not sure. I will have to wait to find out what their position is on the legislation.

The reason I pose that is that I think it is important that we recognize that certain industries would be profoundly impacted by the legislation.

I will start off, at this point, by talking about our oil and gas sector and how the legislation would have an impact in our Atlantic provinces that want to see this development.

Within the Liberal caucus, we have, I would say, super fantastic members of Parliament from that Atlantic region. They are concerned about the environment. Let there be no doubt about that. However, they also are concerned about economic opportunities. They want to see jobs for their constituents, jobs for their provinces. We recognize that the oil and gas industry has just phenomenal potential for generating economic opportunities.

This is something that we take quite seriously within the Liberal Party. We believe that through these opportunities, the biggest benefactors would be all Canadians. It would be our middle class. Everyone would benefit from it.

We want to ensure that we have good, solid laws and regulations that would protect our environment and our taxpayers through ensuring that we have larger fine capabilities and more consequences for companies that are irresponsible. We want to ensure that when disasters occur, there is going to be a break so that the taxpayer is not going to foot the bill. Equally, we want to see economic development in the regions across Canada materialize and improve the quality of life for all Canadians.

This is a very important issue. Members will see that there are provincial governments and agencies watching what is taking place on this issue. They are even looking beyond the legislation, at what else the government is doing to foster that.

The legislation would harmonize the environmental assessment process for projects for which the National Energy Board, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, or the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board is the responsible authority, as defined within the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012.

The point is that we need to take a look at environmental assessment and how it is conducted in Canada. How do we make sure that we are able to move forward in that area?

I see that I only have one minute left. I wanted to make a personal comment regarding the nuclear industry. I have done this, and I will hopefully continue a little bit more this evening, because we need to recognize the benefits of our nuclear industry. At the same time, we have to ensure that the safety of Canadians and our environment are a high priority. We are not convinced that this is the case with the government.

I would like to conclude my comments by emphasizing the importance of nuclear medicine and how that is growing at a rapid pace. It is literally saving lives. Whether it is radiation for cancer treatment or diagnostic work, we will find that medical needs that depend on our nuclear research and industry as a whole are absolutely critical. Our nuclear plants play a critical role as well, and it is important that we have the right safety environment for all of that.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is very pleased to see Bill C-22 introduced. We have major concerns that will have to be examined in committee.

In Canada, the liability limit for nuclear plant operators has not changed since 1976, so it is 38 years old. The liability limit for offshore oil and gas operators has been the same for more than 25 years. We need to amend our laws so that they are modern and better suited to our present situation.

I would like to know why the Liberals waited decades without doing anything on this issue and without amending these laws to provide better protection for our environment. I would also like to know whether my Liberal colleague is in favour of giving subsidies to the nuclear power industry to reduce the risks associated with it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a comment often given by New Democrats on any and all pieces of legislation. It is almost as if they get a star if somehow they can incorporate the Liberal Party into their question in a negative fashion.

It is important to recognize that, with time, things do change. I could equally ask my colleague if the New Democrats introduced a private member's bill on this issue 20 years ago, or was it not an important enough issue back then?

The point is, things change through time. I pointed out that it was a Liberal administration that initiated the discussion and brought forward the idea that we needed to look at how we could make these changes. I believe the record would show that the Liberal Party has been fairly supportive of this legislative going through in a more timely fashion, because we recognize the government has not done a good job in passing the legislation. This is the fourth time that we are seeing legislation of this nature. Some suggested it is maybe even the fifth time. I know it is at least four times and the government has not been able to do it.

The session does come to an end, at least to a summer break. It would be wonderful if we tried to get something in place to modernize this.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I was engaged in this debate going back to one of the first iterations of the bill. It became very clear on the nuclear side that we were trying to establish a liability limit that would fit with what the international community would accept rather than what Canadians need for their own protection.

That is what was going on at the time in 2007 when this first came out. We were trying to establish the lowest possible liability limit that would satisfy the requirements of the U.S., especially the U.S., because if a U.S. company invests in another country and its environmental standards are not high enough, then the U.S. company is judged under the U.S. standards, which are much higher, so there was a problem at the time in trying to move nuclear industries into foreign hands.

Does my colleague think that this type of situation, where we are more concerned about what is the least possible liability that this nuclear industry can bear in order to satisfy international standards, is the way to go with this legislation, or should it be actually looking at what is proper liability for Canadians, to protect them and to protect the government in the event of a nuclear calamity?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my biggest concern is that we make sure that whenever we see the development of it, that there is enough there that we can draw out the money that is required.

This, I understand, would bring Canada in line with the International Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, which was fairly recently established, back in December 2013. I believe that to be the case.

Is that enough? We will find out. We hope we will not find out because of a disaster.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the House may very well know that my riding of Pontiac is across the river from Chalk River, so this particular issue is of concern not only to me personally but also to all my constituents who would be, in the eventuality of some kind of failure at Chalk River, affected quite drastically. We have to think, of course, of the events of several decades ago in Chernobyl and more recently Fukushima. There is probably no Canadian in this country who does not feel like those types of events should not happen in Canada.

The reality is that we need to make sure that our legislation is robust and that there are liability provisions that make sense and would ensure that Canadians like the good Pontiackers I represent would be protected.

This legislation would do a number of things. It also talks about offshore oil liability, which is perhaps a bit less of a concern in the Pontiac, given that we have lots of lakes and rivers and great fishing, but the ocean is quite far away.

Nonetheless, I remember watching television one night with my two beautiful daughters. One of those commercials came on showing a number of animals struggling under the weight of oil from an oil spill. They were smeared with oil. What is interesting and maybe even innate in human beings is their sympathy with animals in that situation. Both of my daughters were immediately concerned because it was a small seabird. They said, “Dad, that's terrible.” They immediately recognized that this kind of tragedy should not occur.

Oil spills of that magnitude have ecological consequences, but they have human consequences as well, particularly on those living near shores and those who are affected either by the fishery or economically.

It is clear that the reasoning for liability is strong. While this particular legislation is an improvement upon the current liability regime, I certainly feel that the proposal is insufficient to protect Canadians and the environment. In fact, it will continue potentially in its incrementalism to continue to put Canadian taxpayers at risk because the amounts here for liability are just too low. There is a financial dimension to the bill, and it is clear that the Conservatives have given it somewhat of a token treatment. The government has consistently fallen behind our international partners and has ignored best practices that are already in place when it comes to recognizing the dangers of inadequate liability regimes.

I would like my Conservative colleagues to tell me what research went into this. What consultation went into this? Where is the science to show that these measures may do something to help? It is hard to oppose oneself to a good thing when it is not good enough, but at least it is good.

The NDP has opposed the insufficient nuclear liability limits in the past. We have a long history of doing so. While the provisions in the bill should be considered a step forward compared to current liability limits, the bill does not significantly address some real risks facing Canadians and facing, as I mentioned, some of my constituents. We on this side of the House and my particular political party are serious about protecting the interests of ordinary Canadians.

The Conservatives have a cavalier attitude toward this type of nuclear safety and offshore oil and gas development. Their intimate relationship with the oil and gas industry in our country opens them up to a certain amount of influence with regard to keeping some of the legislation minimal. It is kind of a minimalistic approach to regulating the oil and gas sector, which unfortunately puts Canadians in danger.

Nuclear power is a mature industry. If it is a mature industry and a profit-making one, to a certain extent it should pay for itself. The bill continues to subsidize the nuclear industry by making taxpayers liable for a nuclear risk beyond $1 billion. Why is that? It is something that can be profitable and it is something that has proven itself, to a certain extent, with respect to an energy source. Though there are fundamental issues with regard to nuclear waste, there still remain fundamental issues with storing it. Nonetheless, it is a viable and mature industry, so why would taxpayers be liable for risks beyond $1 billion? If the Conservatives were serious about a robust set of liability measures, then they would have liberated taxpayers a bit more from footing the bill with respect to nuclear risk.

Taxpayers should not be on the hook for subsidies to nuclear energy. Despite having been sold off for some reason, in every budget AECL gets millions of dollars. I do not get that. What kind of contract did we have with it from the beginning? The government sells something off, but then it keeps putting millions of dollars into it. Either it has been improved and it has used those dollars in a transitional way to improve AECL installations, or it is corporate welfare. To a certain extent the government has to let go. Those millions could be put into social programs that could affect the lives of Canadians. For example, we just mentioned employment insurance. I do not know how much it is, but we could give $225 million to AECL every day or put it somewhere else. I think one wonders what is going on at AECL that it keeps needing money from the federal government.

Other countries also have deemed that their citizens deserve much higher protection in the event of a nuclear accident. We should obviously be following the international norms and best practices with respect to liability.

If the government truly believed in the polluter pays principle, then taxpayers should not hold the risk for these types of energy projects. If we measure risk accordingly and assign liability, then industry will improve its safety practices. That is a logical two plus two equals four calculation.

We need to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic events, which nobody wants in our country. The suffering of the people in Fukushima indicates the severity of what can go on in any country that uses nuclear energy. Heaven forbid that anything like that would happen here.

As I have said before, we need to study global best practices and ensure that the federal government puts Canadians first.

Also, the Canadian government should prepare a comprehensive assessment of the risks posed by nuclear power plant operations in Canada, the opportunities for reducing that risk and the accompanying risk costs and risk reduction costs. We have not seen any of that study brought to parliamentarians and Canadians.

The Canadian government should be engaging publicly with a wide range of stakeholders to discuss risks and options to improve nuclear liability. I am sure the constituents in my riding would approve and would like to be consulted with respect to what they think the risks are. We must review the liability regime regularly. Therefore, there have to be some regularly scheduled reviews.

It is completely unacceptable that the Conservatives and Liberals waited decades to address this issue.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

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

He mentioned a number of points, and I would like to hear his views on the fact that economic development and increased liability are not contradictory; in fact, the opposite is true. Norway, a leader in offshore oil development, is an example of this. The unlimited absolute liability regime that Norway has established does not appear to have paralyzed its industry.

Does my colleague agree, and can he comment further?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. One would say that the Conservatives assume that if we bring in this kind of measure to protect Canadians, we will be making our industries less competitive, which is not necessarily the case.

The people in these industries simply want to know what rules they have to follow and how to follow them. They will follow the rules and find a way to be competitive within these measures that are intended to protect Canadians.

The Scandinavian countries are proof of this. It seems to me that we should take the time to study best practices at the international level and perhaps we could even be inspired by them. Unfortunately, it is difficult to do this with a time allocation motion, which I deplore, on an issue that is as fundamental and as important as the safety of Canadians.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to what my colleague has just said about international comparisons, I have heard a wide range of comments this afternoon. One Conservative member was saying that the limited liability in certain countries was lower, financially, than $1 billion of liability. He was making a comparison between what may be true in certain administrations or certain legislative frameworks and Canada.

However, what this argument overlooks, and what is a complete fallacy in my view, is that in some countries safety, including nuclear safety, is provided by companies that are not privately owned, but belong to the government through government agencies that take care of nuclear safety or state-owned companies, depending on the legislative framework. These companies allow these states to take full responsibility. These are countries where the government has decided to take responsibility for an energy source that, to them, is much more important than in Canada.

I would like to hear my colleague’s comments on the fact that we cannot compare levels of financial liability in countries where the administrations are organized differently. In one country, the nuclear industry is private, while in others, it is almost a public resource.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question, which is very clear and well balanced.

Clearly, we must pay attention. Regardless of the situation, we cannot compare apples and oranges. This shows the extent to which the government has not conducted the necessary research and the extent to which it does not understand the specificities or the subtleties of the issue or the practices in place beyond Canada’s borders. Clearly, the private and public sectors cannot be compared in this way.

Of course, a much more in-depth analysis, not just a superficial one, must be conducted. This bill must be improved to ensure that it is more rigorous and that it really protects the interests of our constituents.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House this evening to participate in the debate on 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.

As we can see, the bill has quite a long title, but I will explain a little of what it contains. I am going to support the bill at second reading, but not because it is perfect, far from it. Actually, it is typical Conservative work, never perfect. However, it can be sent to committee so that amendments can be proposed.

Specifically, we are going to call for broader responsibilities and the implementation of best practices from around the world. Our position at third reading will depend on this government's willingness to work with us in committee and to consider the amendments proposed by the official opposition.

People watching at home on CPAC are probably aware that we are sitting until midnight tonight. We are very pleased to be working until midnight; my colleagues often work very hard. What bothers me is that the Conservatives never seem to want to listen to our concerns. This evening, I see that the benches opposite are almost empty. Our feeling is that there is no real willingness on the part of the Conservatives to participate in this debate in a constructive manner.

The Conservatives did not ask very many questions about any of the most recent speeches. Unfortunately, no more Conservatives will speak tonight. Conservative members are not seizing the opportunity they have to speak about Bill C-22, which is going to have a considerable effect on Canadians' quality of life.

Bill C-22 has two major parts. The first deals with nuclear liability. Bill C-22 updates Canada's nuclear liability regime and specifies the conditions and the procedure for compensating victims in the event of an accident at a nuclear power station.

This decades-old regime must be updated; Canada's nuclear liability regime must be modernized. I warmly welcome the changes that Bill C-22 will make, but, as I will explain later, I have some concerns about the details.

The second part of Bill C-22 updates the Canadian liability regime with respect to offshore oil and gas development in order to prevent incidents and ensure rapid response in case of a spill.

Even though we support the changes that Bill C-22 would make to a decades-old regime, I want to raise some concerns that my NDP colleagues have already raised in the House.

We are especially concerned about the fact that the Government of Canada is adopting much weaker regulations than those in effect in other countries. We have already expressed our opposition to inadequate nuclear liability limits. Unfortunately, this bill does not really take into account the real risks facing Canadians.

As everyone knows, the NDP is in favour of the polluter pays principle. This means that companies, individuals and organizations that pollute our environment are liable for the cost of cleaning up environmental damage.

The NDP is the only party that is willing to stand up for Canadians' interests. The other parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, do not seem all that concerned about nuclear safety and offshore oil and gas development.

If the nuclear power industry really is mature, it should pay its own way. As written, this bill continues to subsidize this industry by passing the financial risk in excess of $1 billion on to taxpayers.

If the government really believes in the polluter pays principle, then taxpayers should not have to bear the risk related to these energy developments. I strongly believe that. Proper risk assessment and assignment of liability will force the industry to improve its safety practices. That alone will reduce the likelihood of catastrophic incidents.

My colleagues in the House have encouraged the government to study global best practices to ensure that it is putting Canadians first. It is important to look at several models to see what the Government of Canada can do. Many countries have much stricter nuclear liability regimes than Canada.

For example, in Germany, nuclear liability is absolute and unlimited, and financial guarantees go up to $3.3 billion per power plant. In the United States, absolute liability is capped at $12.6 billion U.S. Other countries around the world lean toward absolute and unlimited liability. I will not take the time to name them all.

The bill contains a $1 billion liability in the event of a nuclear accident, which would cover only a fraction of the cost of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. A billion dollars may seem like a lot to most Canadians, but the estimated cost of the accident in Fukushima Daiichi was more than $250 billion. As you can see, when an accident of that magnitude occurs, $1 billion does not go very far. If something like that were to happen here, Canadian taxpayers would have to make up the difference.

In closing, I want to mention that a number of stakeholders support our position. I will quote Greenpeace Canada because I think they are a rather significant stakeholder:

From the beginning of the use of nuclear power to produce electricity 60 years ago, the nuclear industry has been protected from paying the full costs of its failures. Governments have created a system that protects the profits of companies while those who suffer from nuclear disasters end up paying the costs.

I am very pleased to support Bill C-22, but I hope that the Conservatives will take certain things into account when this bill is in committee and that they will adopt some meaningful amendments to this bill.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

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

She spoke about the Fukushima plant, for one. It came as a surprise to some when we heard the terrible news about the disaster at the plant in 2011. The Conservatives are talking about how it is very unlikely, or practically impossible, that a nuclear disaster would happen in Canada.

However, members will recall that with Chernobyl, for example, the nuclear facilities were aging and poorly maintained. Experts were not particularly surprised. However, Japan, which has the third largest number of nuclear power reactors, was a reminder that even countries with the strictest, most effective safety measures can still potentially be susceptible to a disastrous accident. She mentioned some figures, and I think they were straightforward enough.

I would like to hear her comments on the Conservatives' attitude. They seem to think that this could never happen here because of the controls in place in our nuclear industry, even though those controls are very limited in comparison to the ones in other countries.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

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

I think that we need to consult Canadians in order to improve this bill. We also need to look at what other countries are doing. The regulations that the Conservatives are proposing in this bill are far less stringent than those in other countries. We need to take a leadership role, and we need to see if there are other examples we can follow.

I would also like to mention that this sector plays a very important role in Canada's economy. More than 30,000 jobs rely on Canada's nuclear sector. More than $5 billion worth of electricity is produced by this sector each year. It is a major industry that is well established in Canada. However, we need to look at what experts in other countries are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the deputy critic for energy and natural resources and a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I was invited to a briefing on Bill C-22 organized by the minister and his officials.

When I asked them how they had arrived at the amount of liability, I expected them to tell me that they had prepared incident and accident scenarios to determine the amount. In the end, there was no real methodology. What they told me was that the amount was adequate. I was truly surprised.

It seems to me that the most logical way to determine the amount is to prepare different plausible scenarios for both nuclear and offshore accidents. They could then calculate the amount that would be more than sufficient to cover the costs of disasters that could occur. That is not at all how they went about it.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the method used, or rather the lack of a specific method, to determine the total amount of corporate liability.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised an interesting point. The $1 billion liability is arbitrary and inadequate given what it could cost to clean up potential disasters. In fact, a number of stakeholders said that this amount was arbitrary.

This shows the importance of acting with transparency and consulting environmental NGOs and first nations in order to put together a bill that makes sense.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, after a number of years, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this new Bill C-22, an act that would set the terms and conditions of liability not only for nuclear issues but also for oil and gas issues. It is a little misleading in the title, as it speaks to only the offshore. I will point out later on that the title is not exactly right.

First, at second reading, we deal with principles. This is when we talk about the principles of the bill. The principle I think we can all support is that liability for nuclear accidents and oil and gas spills should lie in a decent fashion with those who make those things happen. We can accept that the principle of the bill moving forward is okay. However, many of the details still remain, as they were six years ago, understated. Six years ago we talked about a $650-million liability limit for nuclear plants. Now we are talking about $1 billion.

What has happened in the intervening time? Well, we have seen what happened at Fukushima, and so we know quite clearly that nuclear liability is at a higher level than we ever dreamed or thought possible in a modern state, such as Japan, with the equipment we assumed would have been handled in a decent fashion. However, we found out that right from the very beginning, the opportunity for failure had been built into the system. Therefore, liability is important. It is important right from day one.

When people understand the nature of the liability, they are not going to shortchange during the construction of the facilities. They are not going to start out bean-counting how much they have to invest in a particular facility to avoid the type of unlimited liability that would apply to it. When we reduce liability, we probably end up with a lesser product to service our nuclear or offshore oil and gas industries. That, I think, is quite clear in the modern economics of today.

Most companies employ scores of accountants to examine the liability of their actions. When we set liability limits, they will determine the degree to which companies ensure that the safety of their projects is well maintained.

Is $1 billion enough for the nuclear industry to ensure that a nuclear operator is going to put the best possible effort into creating a nuclear plant? Is it enough to ensure the best possible effort in running an existing plant? When there are conditions, such as at Fukushima, where the backup power supply could quite easily be flooded, is $1 billion enough to ensure that someone does a careful safety analysis of the existing facilities?

Liability limits are extremely important, because they set the parameters for the industry. As we go along in this debate and see at committee the kinds of presentations about nuclear liability, the new presentations after Fukushima, I think it will become very clear to us that $1 billion is probably not enough.

I am going to leave that subject and move over to the liability regimes for offshore oil and gas operations. Interestingly enough, we speak of offshore, but here in appendix 1, we talk about onshore in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. If one is onshore within 200 metres of inland water, under the current liability limits, there is no limit specified. Now it would be put at $25 million.

What has happened recently in the Northwest Territories? Between Wrigley and Norman Wells, there was an oil spill from a buried pipeline that has easily cost that amount of money to clean up, and it still has not been dealt with completely. There are aging pipelines throughout this country, as well as in the Northwest Territories, and there are facilities that need attention.

What happens when we set a $25 million liability limit on an oil pipeline that has existed for 30 or 40 years? How does it work out when one company sells it to another, in the nature of the oil and gas industry? Who is taking care of it? To what degree do they see the liability as being the most important part of what they are doing? To me, $25 million on land in the Northwest Territories does not sound like a lot of money to take care of the kinds of spills that can occur from buried oil pipelines traversing the territory.

When it comes to blowouts in the High Arctic, there has actually been one. In the late 1970s in the Arctic Archipelago, there was a major blowout, but luckily it was natural gas. The flare from that natural gas blowout was visible by aviation. It was used as a navigation medium in the High Arctic because it was so large and went on for nine or ten months. We can imagine what would happen with that type of spill if that had been an oil discovery that had blown out. Within the limited number of wells that have been drilled in the Arctic, we have already had a blowout. That is the reality of it.

Now we are talking about a liability limit offshore of $1 billion. With the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, tens of billions of dollars were involved in the cleanup. How do we quantify that in the Arctic? The National Energy Board did a study on it and determined that it does not really know how to deal with it, but it is going to just approve projects as they come up and it will see what companies are offering in terms of how to deal with blowout situations or other types of spills.

Interestingly enough, there is a clause in here. With proof of fault or negligence, there would be unlimited liability in most of these cases. What we have done is separate it out. It is $1 billion if it is not a company's fault and it just happened to blow out. That is what it costs. If it was a company's fault, then it has to pay, pay, and pay.

How does that work, when the National Energy Board approves a project when it knows it does not have any solution for a blowout? Where does the liability land then? How does that work in a situation in the Arctic? These are questions that need examination. This is why we should talk about these things in Parliament. That is why I am standing here today taking the time that I have, which is 10 minutes. Does that cover the full knowledge we have about these situations? Does that answer any questions? Not really. That is not much. No, we are going to need some serious time in committee to do anything with this particular bill, to understand the liability.

Interestingly enough, we are setting liability limits on land in the Northwest Territories. What did we go through in Parliament just a little while ago? There was a devolution agreement, whereby the Government of the Northwest Territories is now responsible for a lot of the stuff on the land. How is that going to work? Has the Government of the Northwest Territories given its okay to this liability limit on the land for which it now has responsibility? These are questions that we need answered. These are things that are obviously going to take a long time in committee. We have been through this before. Seven years ago we started this. Many bills have been brought forward in that time and the government has thrown up its hands on more than one occasion.

We look forward to seeing this in committee. We have agreed that the principle is right, but the details in the bill need a lot of work.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his excellent work. I actually have the honour of working with him on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. He always works very hard for his constituents and for Canada's north.

He rightly pointed out the importance of certain sustainable development principles. The Leader of the Opposition is one of the fathers of the Sustainable Development Act in Quebec. He wants to implement a national sustainable development act when he becomes prime minister.

It is very important to include the polluter pays principle in sustainable development legislation. Strangely enough, the Conservatives said they agreed with this principle. However, the bill does not quite reflect the polluter pays principle.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether he feels that the bill upholds the polluter pays principle. What amendments should be made to incorporate this principle?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of polluter pays, I agree that those who go into operations that take risk have to be responsible for that risk. That is quite clear.

Polluting the environment in this day and age is one of the largest risks one can take. That, quite clearly, is what people think. There is a social licence about it. No one is interested in seeing oil spilled on the ground. They want it cleaned up. This is not the 1920s or the 1930s; it is 2014. That is quite clear.

When it comes to sustainable development, only by creating the parameters that ensure that companies do every possible thing to make their projects safe will we have sustainable development. Was it sustainable to lose that oil in the Gulf of Mexico? There was almost $100 billion blown off there. Was that sustainable?

Was what happened in Fukushima sustainable? There was ruined landscape. The cleanup caused an enormous tax burden on the people of Japan. It probably caused damage to the Pacific Ocean, damage that will last for the rest of our lifetimes. How is that sustainable?

Liability limits set the parameters for how the project develops.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the member across the way continued to refer to the need for the best possible effort being put into putting together a nuclear plan, when we know the NDP is opposed to any nuclear infrastructure in Canada. The NDP members have been asking for unlimited liability, yet they have no plan for how this would work.

We have put forward legislation that would balance the responsibility of nuclear operators to cover any damages while taking into account the impact on ratepayers.

My question is this. What would the NDP's proposal cost the ratepayers of Ontario, who rely on clean nuclear power for their electricity?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with the energy field for a long time on different issues. I was special adviser to the premier on energy in the Northwest Territories.

I think all energy should be priced according to what its full-value cost is. When we give nuclear energy this break, what we are doing is skewing the market. That is wrong. That is just what we are doing with the fossil fuel industry: we are giving it breaks over and over again through regulation and tax incentives that are really skewing the market.

The same thing would happen here with nuclear liability. If no one is facing up to the actual liability for putting up a plant, we are not doing a service to our children and grandchildren.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, looking at Bill C-22, we can see that there are many positive things in it that are steps in the right direction, but let us be frank and look at the record and what we are hearing from the government side.

We often hear that Canadians have to settle for less. Conservatives will tell us we are not being realistic about things, we have to settle for less, and Canadians in general have to settle for less because industry needs a bit of a break.

It is not only the Conservative side that says that. The Liberal side has been saying that for years. I am proud to stand in the House and provide the only progressive vision for this country, seeing that neither party, either facing us or beside us, can give us a progressive vision.

For years and years, the Liberals neglected to promote safety for Canadians. As I said, this bill is a step in the right direction, but we do not feel it goes far enough; it needs to go further. We are hoping the government will listen and try to make things go further in terms of improving this legislation.

I am very upset that the Liberal Party has pulled all its speakers from this debate. I was hoping, since they say they are progressive, that they would match their talk with action, and unfortunately the fact that they have no speakers during this debate is very disappointing.

As I said, we are the only progressive option. We are the only party that is providing a progressive vision for Canadians. We know the other parties in the House are comfortable with the lobbies of big oil and big gas companies and the perverse effect this has on Canadian safety.

For example, I look at Line 9 in my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges and the fact that for 15 years, from 1998 until 2013, Enbridge was allowed to violate federal safety regulations, unfettered. The National Energy Board knew it was in violation. The federal government kept quiet, the Liberal governments under Chrétien and Martin and the government under the current Prime Minister. They kept quiet about this violation of safety regulations, putting in jeopardy the constituents in my riding with this pipeline that was not respecting regulations.

If we look at rail, it was a Liberal government that allowed rail companies to go down to one-man crews. We have seen the effect that a one-man crew had. When there are not enough eyes keeping something safe, if there is not enough manpower to have a second set of eyes to make sure everything is okay, accidents can happen. As soon as we rely on technological solutions only and reduce manpower when it comes to safety, it puts people in jeopardy.

The Conservatives have continued this negligence toward Canadians' safety, and I hope that they end up improving this legislation, that the reasoned arguments we are making will get through to the other side and they will improve this legislation.

My riding is on the Ottawa River. We are the only Quebec community that is south of the Ottawa River, all the other communities being in Ontario, and that body of water has things upriver like the Chalk River nuclear reactor. It has pipelines crossing it, so these are very real issues to my constituents. They worry and they talk to me about the effect a spill would have on the Ottawa River, the effect an accident would have there; it would ruin a whole ecosystem and ruin the natural beauty of our riding.

We have seen that consecutive provincial Liberal and Conservative governments in Ontario have neglected the upkeep of the Ottawa River, and the federal government has also neglected to keep the integrity of the river. The fact that this legislation does not go far enough continues to put it into jeopardy.

I know the Chalk River reactor because my dad was a truck driver. He used to deliver paper to different parts of the federal government in Ottawa, and his farthest route was in Chalk River. He delivered goods up to the reactor and the whole infrastructure around that reactor.

Therefore, I know it well, and I have to take issue with the member from Saskatchewan who said that New Democrats are not interested in the nuclear industry and continue to rail against it. I sat on the natural resources committee and heard witnesses. I asked the witnesses from the federal nuclear agency if there has been any research done by the federal government in generation 4 reactors, which is the future of the nuclear industry. If we want to talk about vision, we have to look generation 4 reactors. I asked if the federal government had done any research in this area and their answer to me was no, it had done zero research.

Therefore, in terms of having a vision for the nuclear industry, the Conservatives can talk a lot about it, but there is no action being taken. We have seen from the accidents that have happened that if we are to continue with this technology, it has to be vastly improved. The other thing is that the safety liability regime has to be improved. We have to move to an unlimited liability regime, and that is simply because it is going to tell the industry that accidents cannot be tolerated with this technology. We need to tell companies that we have seen the devastating effects of it and we are putting an unlimited liability regime on them so they will never have accidents. Otherwise, they will suffer enormous consequences if an accident ever happens. That is the whole idea behind the polluter pays principle. It is to make sure taxpayers are not footing the bill. A nuclear accident would not only be a horrible thing for taxpayers' pocketbooks but for their basic health.

The fact that there is not an unlimited liability regime in the nuclear industry is disturbing because it is an industry where we do not want accidents to happen. We need to send a message to the industry saying we do not ever want accidents to happen, so we need to put this regime in place.

When the nuclear industry talks about things like putting nuclear reactors in the north, it does not even account for things like frost heave, which is a major occurrence in the Arctic. It is disturbing that lobbyists and higher-ups in the nuclear industry do not understand the basic geographic reality of Canada's Arctic with something as simple as frost heave and talk about placing nuclear reactors there, with our changing climate. I and my party believe that there should be an unlimited liability regime in place for the nuclear industry and that we should be moving to a polluter pays model.

By assessing risk correctly, knowing all the factors that create risk, and assigning the proper liability to industry, the industry itself would improve its safety practices. If we put out the spectre of massive payouts in cases of an accident, industry will step up and improve its safety practices. It is thinking about its bottom line as well, and wants to protect its own companies and interests. When we cut corners for industry, it is going to cut corners as well. If we give it an inch, it will take a mile.

I know that all of my constituents do not want to be footing the bill for accidents, such as offshore spills, in terms of nuclear liability. If we say that nuclear technologies are safe, oil extraction is safe, and transportation is safe—I have often heard that the transport of oil is 99.99999% safe—and if that is the case, then what is the problem with unlimited liability? If it is that safe, companies should not have to worry, and we can raise liability rates substantially.

We have been debating this for a long time. I have looked at the history of the nuclear liability regime in Canada. We were at a $600 million cap, and then went to $1 billion. The United States has a $12 billion cap and Germany has an unlimited cap.

We have to look at best practices and move to a true polluter pays model. That means raising the liability limits for the oil industry and for the nuclear industry as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for laying out the concerns with regard to the legislation that is before the House.

One of the points that I think is worth making is with regard to the scope of damages that have happened in other incidents, such as Fukushima. In Fukushima, the Japanese government is estimating that the costs will be up to $250 billion by the time all is said and done.

Could the member comment on the fact that although $1 billion sounds like a tremendous amount of money, when we look at the scope and scale of other disasters out there, it is simply going to be insufficient, and Canadian taxpayers will be on the hook if a disaster like that should happen in Canada?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true, $1 billion does sound like a large amount of money.

However, the scale of these disasters, as we have seen with Fukushima and with Chernobyl in the 1980s, ruins entire regions of the earth. The costs entailed in that are incalculable. Although $1 billion does seem like a lot, when we imagine the entire Ottawa region all of a sudden becoming ruined, we can then sort of understand the scale of the costs that are involved. There is the financial cost, but then there is that very real human cost. By putting an unlimited liability regime on this industry, we would be sending a message saying that we do not ever want to take on that human cost of lives being lost and entire regions of the earth being ruined.

It is not just a Canadian thing. It should be a global concern. When Fukushima happened, it was not as if Canadians did not care about what was happening in Japan. We felt as though part of the earth had been ruined, destroyed, and that very human, ecological cost should, in policy, translate into an unlimited regime.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the whole notion that liability should be unlimited comes back to the question of why it is being limited in the first place. It is being limited in the first place because the government believes that the industry could not sustain an accident, that it would be unprofitable. We are not worried about profit here. We are talking about human safety and the safety of the planet. We should not be worried about profit. We should be worried about whether or not our planet is going to survive.

If the industry is such that unlimited liability, which apparently is okay in some countries, is not okay in Canada because it will destroy an industry, then what are we doing with that industry? We only have to look so far as the Sydney tar ponds and the gold mine outside of Yellowknife to realize that the polluter pays principle has not really worked in Canada, because in both of those places, the companies left and Canada was left with the mess.

Are we not trying to change that here?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it goes back to what I said at the beginning of debate.

What I have understood from the two other main parties in the House is that we have to settle for less, and we are constantly being accused of not being realistic. They have the interests of the profits of these companies in mind. The NDP is thinking of the very real human costs and the greater interests of the population of Canada, the human element of this, not the bottom line of an industry.

In the greater interests of future generations, we see that the human element is the more important one. When we pass away, we do not take our money with us, but we still have the world to leave to our children. That is the most important thing: that they are left a world that is clean, safe, and healthy.

Our progressive vision has that human element in mind. We sometimes put that human element above profit. Sometimes it is more important than profit. In this case, this is one of those times.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on 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.

New Democrats have indicated that they will support the bill at second reading, but they have grave concerns about the bill and are hoping to make amendments at committee.

I am going to focus on the oil and gas aspect of the proposed act.

Bill C-22 would update Canada's offshore liability regime for oil and gas exploration and operations to prevent incidents and ensure a swift response in the event of a spill. It would maintain unlimited operator liability for fault or negligence, increase the absolute liability no-fault from $40 million in the Arctic and $30 million in the Atlantic to $1 billion for offshore oil and gas projects in both Arctic and Atlantic waters. It references the polluter pay principle.

I am so interested in this issue because I live in Nanaimo—Cowichan, which is on Vancouver Island and is a coastline community. There are certainly efforts in British Columbia to look at offshore oil and gas exploration. However, one of the things that it is important to remind people of is the cost when there is a spill.

The offshore BP Gulf oil spill of 2010 is expected to cost as much as $42 billion for total cleanup, criminal penalties, and civil claims against it. The firm is reported to have already spent $25 billion on cleanup and compensation. In addition, it faces hundreds of new lawsuits launched this spring along with penalties under the Clean Water Act that could reach $17 billion. Members can see how $1 billion for a spill of that magnitude simply would not cut it.

In British Columbia, there are a number of people and organizations that have raised concerns around the current regime in Canada. I want to reference a submission from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, UBCM, on June 21, 2013, which raises a number of issues.

First, they say that:

...BC local governments are very concerned with the increase in ocean traffic along the West Coast of BC and particularly from ships carrying dangerous and/or toxic products; and do not believe that the current environmental measures are adequate to clean up damages caused by these types of large scale spills or disasters.

It goes on in its presentation to say:

A key area of consensus was that a stringent environmental and fiscal regulatory system was necessary, and must be implemented, prior to offshore oil and gas development.

The report also contained a number of recommendations regarding oil spills, including:

Establish a substantial remediation fund from industry to be used in the event of an oil spill. (In light of the high costs for clean up of oil spills, the fund will have to be very robust.)

Invest in the necessary infrastructure to minimize risk of an oil spill and damage to surrounding areas in the event of an oil spill by:

Establishing deep sea salvage tugs along the central and north coast to assist vessels in distress.

Implementing a vessel tracking system for the British Columbia coast.

It goes on to talk about the oil spill response recovery and says that:

Development of an Incident Command System (ICS) and an oil spill organization that would be a repository for all equipment and contact information in the case of an oil spill.

Enhancement of current marine spill response capability on the British Columbia coast....

The report goes on to the polluter pay principle, saying:

BC local governments support the polluter pay principle, which makes polluters responsible for paying for damages caused by a spill.... The resolution also requests that a polluter pay fund or emergency fund be substantial, and that it be used to clean up, and compensate for any and all damages, including capital devaluation, social, cultural, and ecological damage, caused by an accident involving said goods and cargo; fund research into improving clean-up methods to deal with the eventuality of such spills....

In British Columbia right now we have a relatively pristine coast, and we are very concerned about preserving it, not only the environmental aspect, but the social and cultural aspect as well.

Much of B.C. has a healthy tourism industry, and it would be a disaster if that tourism industry, fisheries, and aquaculture were damaged. Therefore, it is very important that whatever we do first of all ensures that the safety methods are put in place. However, if there is an unfortunate spill, there must be a way to compensate and to clean up.

I want to turn to a paper that was put out called “Protecting Taxpayers and the Environment Through the Reform of Canada's Offshore Liability Regime”. It is a paper by William Amos and Ian Miron. The abstract at the beginning of the paper states:

This article assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the various legislative components that combine to form the overarching “patchwork” civil liability regime for oil and gas activities in the Canadian offshore. It concludes that the existing liability regime fails to adequately implement the polluter-pays principle and provides a wholly inadequate measure of protection to Canadians and the Crown against offshore-related environmental liabilities. At the same time, the existing regime fails to promote an appropriate industry safety culture, creating a moral hazard that increases the risk of a worst-case scenario oil pollution incident.

That is an important piece. We know that when industry understands what its responsibilities and the regulations are, it will meet them, but we have to be clear what those are.

The paper does a very detailed analysis and, unfortunately, I do not have time to go through the whole paper, but they do have some recommendations. Amos and Miron state:

Canada's current offshore liability regime suffers from a number of weaknesses that actually increase the risks of a worst-case scenario oil pollution incident by failing to promote an appropriate industry safety culture, while exposing Canadian taxpayers to potentially massive liabilities in the event of a serious spill. These weaknesses include: inappropriately low maximum absolute liability limits; uncertain availability of environmental damages, and no mechanism for assessing the costs of long-term ecological system damage; an absence of express recognition of the polluter-pays principle; lack of a dedicated, industry-capitalized fund or mutual insurance pool to ensure remediation and compensation even when the operator is unwilling or unable to finance these efforts; lack of clarity regarding the breadth of operator liability for oil spill response costs; a restriction on the imposition of joint and several liability under the residual strict liability regime; lack of clarity regarding the overlap between the COGOA and the AWPPA liability regime...

They go on to make a couple of other points. They identify the weaknesses and make a couple of recommendations as follows:

In order to effectively reduce the risks borne by taxpayers in the event of an offshore oil pollution incident to an appropriate level, liability reforms must: 1) a. Remove the limit on operators' maximum absolute liability; b. In the alternative, significantly increase maximum absolute liability limits and create an exception to the cap where operators contravene federal law; 2) Increase financial responsibility requirements to screen out fiscally unqualified operators, although not necessarily to the level of the absolute liability cap.

It is a very thorough analysis of the weaknesses of the current legislated process and it makes some very strong recommendations for where it should go. The legislation before us fails to meet some of those criteria.

The paper also touches on the polluter pays principle, and I want to mention that because that is a very important theme that seems to run throughout a number of organizations that have offered a critique around the bill. It states:

Explicit recognition of the polluter-pays principle, particularly when coupled with substantial increases to or the outright elimination of statutory maximum absolute liability limits, sends a clear signal to industry that it will be held liable for the costs of pollution. Without this signal, industry may have more incentive for risky behaviour, knowing that the taxpayer will ultimately subsidize the consequences of such behaviour. The certainty provided by an explicit statutory recognition of the polluter-pays principle removes this incentive and instead promotes industry behaviour that seeks to “protect ecosystems in the course of ... economic activities.”

I want to quickly refer to the fall 2010 report of the Commissioner of the Environmental and Sustainable Development. In that report it was clearly demonstrated that on the west coast, the Coast Guard did not have an adequate plan in place to deal with oil spills if such an accident should happen. Therefore, not only do we not have adequate protections in place from an industry perspective with regard to liability limit, but we also do not have a mechanism on the ground to deal with it in the event that there is such an accident.

I again want to remind people about the importance of protecting our environment. It is about fisheries, tourism, recreation and all those elements that are such an important part of our very precious and fragile coastlines.

I encourage all members in the House to look at meaningful amendments to the legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to emphasize that within the legislation there are a number of aspects that would improve our current situation. I made reference to the polluter pays principle, which is fairly consistent with the notion of liability. Citizens across Canada would support something of that nature.

The bill emphasizes the importance of drilling for the development and production of oil and gas in the Atlantic regions. It would harmonize the environmental assessment process for projects. There are a number of very strong, positive initiatives within the legislation. As such, in principle, we would like to see the legislation go forward. It is important to note that the legislation has been needed for a number of years. This is now the fourth or fifth rendition. We hope to see the bill pass, but most importantly, we would also like to see amendments brought forward to try to improve upon the legislation.

Would the member comment on the position of the New Democratic Party on the legislation and to what degree it wants to see amendments? If it does not see the amendments, would it support the legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my opening statement, the New Democrats support this bill at second reading and getting it to committee.

I outlined in my speech some of the concerns around the amount of liability. Although I am aware that the polluter pays principle is in the bill, I want to emphasize how important that principle is. I also want to emphasize that others, like the Union of B.C. Municipalities and other legal experts, have talked about how important it is to enshrine that principle.

With regard to whether the New Democrats will support the bill with amendments, I cannot say. I do not have a crystal ball. I do not know what those amendments would be. I do not know what the Conservative government would entertain as amendments. Certainly, its past track record regarding amendments has been pretty poor. I would like to be cautiously optimistic that the government would be open to amendments, but that has not been its track record. We will have to wait and see.

I hope that when the bill is referred to committee, there will be adequate time to study the bill, bring in witnesses who can speak to the substance of the it, and then look at the amendments that could be proposed based on the testimony before committee.

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

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

I would like to immediately follow up on the question from my colleague from Winnipeg North. I must admit that it boggles my mind that he was talking about a number of years, because what this bill will fix in part—it will not fully fix it—is the result of decades of negligence on the part of successive Liberal and Conservative governments. Nearly four decades of inaction on nuclear safety and compensation is what will be partly fixed here.

I would like my colleague to tell us how successive governments have failed to keep up with the how the industry assesses risk. Take for example how the German bank WestLB determined that it was nearly impossible to manage the risks of developing oil in the Arctic.

Could my colleague talk about how inaction on the part of successive governments caused Canada to lose a great deal of its competitiveness in terms of developing its natural resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on the lengthy time that bills have been before the House. In fact, the last bill, Bill C-15, received first reading in 2010 and then sat for a year on the order paper without ever being brought forward.

I always find it ironic that when the New Democrats want to get up and debate the substance of a bill that could have profound implications for taxpayers because of this $1 billion in it instead of the real liability, we are somehow accused of dragging our feet. It is really the government that has been dragging its feet, and governments before it.

It is important. I keep talking about due diligence. It is our due diligence to study bills that are before the House and ensure that we have the best possible bill. That is our role as parliamentarians.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act.

My colleagues on our side of the House have done an excellent job explaining this legislation, so I would like to explain the role of the federal government in overseeing Canada's nuclear sector.

As has been made clear today, Canada has an excellent record of safety for both the offshore oil and gas and the nuclear sectors. The government places top priority on health, safety, security and the environment in relation to nuclear activities in Canada. It has established a comprehensive legislation framework, which focuses on protecting health, safety, security and the environment. It consists of the following: the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Nuclear Energy Act, the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act and the Nuclear Liability Act. Our government supports the generation of nuclear power because it is an important component of a diversified energy mix, and contributes to the fact that 77% of Canada's electricity comes from non-emitting sources.

When properly managed, nuclear energy can contribute effectively and significantly to sustainable development objectives. For that reason, the Canadian nuclear industry is a very important component of Canada's economy and energy mix.

According to a study by Canadian manufacturers and exporters, the industry directly employs 30,000 Canadians and, through its suppliers, generates another 30,000 jobs. The industry generates nearly $7 billion in economic activity, pays $1.5 billion in federal and provincial taxes, and exports $1.2 billion in goods and services.

Through our responsible resource development plan, our government provides support to a strong and safe nuclear sector. For example, our government has taken strong action by ensuring a strong regulator; updating our legislative framework; responsibly managing legacy waste; restructuring Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL; and building international relationships.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC, is Canada's strong, independent nuclear regulator. The mission of the CNSC is to regulate the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment, and to respect Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

The Nuclear Safety and Control Act, which established the CNSC in May 2000, provides a modern regulatory framework that mirrors the latest scientific knowledge in the areas of health, safety, security and environmental protection.

In addition to the policy and other responsibilities of Natural Resources Canada, the following departments contribute to a whole-of-government approach to promoting a safe and secure nuclear sector both here at home and abroad.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade promotes bilateral and multilateral nuclear co-operation and safety, as well as the implementation of non-proliferation and disarmament agreements. Through this action, our government enhances security and well-being by promoting the peaceful and safe use of chemical and nuclear technologies, and ensures the compliance with the international commitments such as the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention. It also assists in the development of relevant international law and guidance, such as conventions established under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group regime.

Health Canada is responsible for protecting Canadians from the risk of radiation exposure. It is responsible for the federal nuclear emergency plan and supports the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Health Canada's activities are managed by the Radiation Protection Bureau. It contributes to maintaining and improving the health of Canadians by investigating and managing the risks from natural and artificial sources of radiation.

Additionally, Transport Canada promotes public safety during the transportation of dangerous goods. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Directorate is the leading source of regulation, information, and advice on dangerous goods transport for the public, industry, and government employees.

Industry Canada fosters the growth of Canadian businesses in making Canada more competitive internationally. The growth of the Canadian nuclear energy industry is the responsibility of the manufacturing and processing technologies branch, which focuses on competitiveness, international trade, technology, and investment.

All of this is to say that Canada has a very strong nuclear industry with independent regulatory oversight and strict safety standards. We are proud of this record, but we recognize that we must do more for Canada to be in line with international standards. That is why we have put forward Bill C-22, which takes significant steps to increase the absolute liability of the nuclear industry.

This legislation will also broaden the number of categories for which compensation may be sought and improve the procedures for delivering compensation. Furthermore, the bill permits Canada to implement the international convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage, or the CSC.

Canadian ratification of the CSC would create a treaty relation with the United States addressing liability and compensation for damages arising from trans-boundary and transportation nuclear incidents. By joining this convention, Canada would benefit from significant added pooled funding for compensation, up to another $130 million to $500 million.

While our government's support of a strong and safe nuclear industry is clear and well documented, the NDP members oppose everything to do with this sector. They oppose the hard-working Canadians who rely on non-emitting nuclear energy for their livelihood and they reject our attempts to raise the absolute liabilities on it to a level that is up to date.

While the NDP would prefer that the nuclear industry remains subjected to liability limits that are over 30 years out of date, we will continue to work toward increasing this important aspect of our safety system.

The leader of the NDP reaffirmed his party's position when he said, “I want to be very clear. The NDP is opposed to any new nuclear infrastructure in Canada”.

That is certainly not our government's position, and we are very proud of it. We will continue to work toward a stronger, safer, and more secure nuclear industry for the benefit of all Canadians, and I look for the support of both sides of the House tonight in achieving that end.

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

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague give me his opinion on the total amounts of liability?

Does he think it makes sense for the committee to look at a potential amendment to include an indexing formula for the amounts, so that they are indexed annually to the inflation rate? Does the member think we could avoid having to review this issue if we set the appropriate amount to cover expenses and it is indexed over the years to adjust to the cost of living and the cost of workplace accidents?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the day today we have had a tremendous amount of debate on this issue. The bill updates outdated liability limits. For instance, 1976 was the last time an update on the bill was presented. At that point in time, it was some $75 million of liability coverage, which has now been expanded to $1 billion.

I thank my hon. colleague for the question and I appreciate that the opposition members have indicated they will support the bill going to committee. That is a good first step and I applaud them for it, but the important aspect of this bill is the $1 billion. We have heard a lot of discourse over the course of the day about whether that is enough or not. The amount has to be sustainable, and by setting it at $1 billion, I believe our government has achieved that goal in a responsible way.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would comment further on an issue that many Canadians are concerned about, and that is our environment. We have environmental assessment processes that governments and companies looking to invest all have to abide by. Could the member provide some commentary as to how the legislation would obligate Ottawa, provinces, and other stakeholders to take a more coordinated approach to environmental assessments?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that throughout the course of the day we have talked about regulatory oversight. Clearly there is a well-established relationship between the federal government and the provinces and all the various agencies and ministries that I outlined in my presentation. I would be happy to read that for him again if he wishes.

The bottom line is that the government would establish a level of oversight and regulation through this bill that would represent good business and good governance in ensuring that we operate a safe and responsible nuclear industry.

Clearly, our history is good. It is strong. We have not had any major accidents, and that is a good thing. However, the reality is that we all have to be conscious of our environment. Some of my colleagues spoke earlier about families and next generations. I am as concerned about that as they are. I believe that the regulation, the oversight, and the governance provided in this bill clearly meet that demand.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, particularly since it included a lot of the international component of nuclear regimes.

There are many different ways of regulating this particular industry. I know from some of the reading that I have done that 75% of France's power, I believe, comes from nuclear power. It has a variety of newer types of nuclear power generators that allow it to have energy security while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We have heard a lot of questions tonight about the $1 billion operator liability limit that is in the legislation as it stands. Could my colleague provide some context by giving us a better understanding of what the standards are internationally? Could he enlighten the House on that subject?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, because it brings into context a more global approach to who is doing the right thing.

A $1 billion operator liability compares well with other countries. In the United Kingdom, operator liability is currently capped at approximately $260 million, barely a quarter of what we are proposing. In South Africa, operator liability is $240 million. In Spain, it is $227 million. France is even lower, at $140 million. We would suggest those are irresponsible levels. We have taken a very responsible approach.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin my speech, although I feel like responding to the member for Don Valley West by saying that we cannot compare different systems. He cited the example of European countries that have completely different levels of financial liability.

They are indeed systems that are implemented differently. As the parliamentary secretary said, compared to Canada, those countries have nuclear energy generation levels that are completely different in percentage terms. Consequently, these are not valid arguments because we are comparing apples to oranges. I will come back to that.

Bill C-22 is definitely headed in the right direction, but it does not solve all the problems. In particular, it provides for only $1 billion of financial liability for private nuclear power generation companies, whereas the costs incurred as a result of nuclear disasters far exceed that amount.

Why is this subject of particular interest to me? It is because I was living in western Europe at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. My colleague from Saint-Lambert was living there too, and she also experienced the famous radioactive cloud. The authorities explained to us that it did not cross borders because it obviously did not have a passport. In reality, however, the radiation affected not only Ukraine at the time, but also much, if not all, of western Europe.

When the civilian facilities were built to generate power, no one ever anticipated a disaster of that magnitude. There can be no comparison with military nuclear consequences, but those consequences were disastrous and unpredictable.

Furthermore, the populations in the immediate exclusion zone were not the only ones that suffered stress at that time. People died from radiation, but those who were within a slightly wider circle also developed diseases. In particular, there were birth defects, which were a real problem in Ukraine in the 1990s. Several thousand children, if not tens of thousands, were born with deformities or defects. That was an extremely traumatic experience in Europe.

We obviously will not ignore the nuclear disaster that occurred in Fukushima in 2011. We must therefore consider the level of technology when talking about these nuclear safety problems. In 1986, according to the experts, while it was predictable, although not understandable, that a natural disaster might occur in facilities that did not have adequate safety levels, there was no level of deterioration in Japan, the third-largest civilian nuclear power in the world, that could have suggested a disaster of that magnitude.

I heard the argument made by the member for Don Valley West, and I congratulate him for taking the trouble to speak to us, unlike his Conservative colleagues, who seem to have left this place.

That argument, which can be summed up by the words “strong and safe nuclear energy industry”, to quote the member, does not hold water, and this is why there is insurance. The reason behind insurance is that unforeseen or unlikely events happen. However, they happen because a series of human errors will have consequences that are totally unthinkable and that have a financial impact that goes far beyond what might have been imagined.

Of course, the amount of $1 billion will be discussed. Its arbitrariness is quite astonishing, because we know that in the case of Fukushima, the estimates are in the order of several hundred billion dollars. With regard to the Chernobyl disaster, I was reading on the site of France’s Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission that it was impossible to put an exact figure on the scope of the disaster because it spanned a decade. For some disasters, it is even impossible to quantify their full financial impact. This is my answer to the Conservatives’ main argument.

I was interested to note another argument the Conservatives used in previous debates. That argument was that we should be able to compare ourselves with different countries in millions of dollars. The example they gave us was that of European countries, where the level of financial liability for France, for instance, is $140 million.

In reality, this is a perfectly fallacious argument, because the level of liability must increase in value according to how nuclear energy production is organized in a given country. The example of France, which I know personally, is that of a country where 75% of current electricity production comes from nuclear plants. Furthermore, in the 1990s, this percentage rose to 85% or 89%. At one point, the country's energy policy was based almost solely on its nuclear capability.

The way in which things are organized was that the state was the major shareholder, through the French Atomic Energy Commission, which was the owner of a private company that was called Framatome at that point and became Areva in the early 2000s. However, the level of government involvement is still in excess of 70%.

Imagine if a disaster happened involving Areva, the private company. The government, with a 70% stake in this private company, would take full responsibility for the consequences, not only with regard to cleanup, but also with regard to compensation for the victims.

We can see that the context is completely different because in this case we do not even have to wonder whether it is fair or unfair that the taxpayer should take part in insuring an industrial risk, since the industrial risk is not really a private industrial risk. In fact, a specific country decided at one point to be the owner of the primary source of electrical energy.

This discussion of the comparison between $140 million and $1 billion is completely distorted. I totally reject this argument. This argument is fallacious and intended solely to make comparisons and give Canadians the impression that they would be protected in the event of a nuclear accident, while in reality when the company involved is a private company that is completely independent from the government, the government says clearly that it is not involved in the production of energy and that it would therefore not have to suffer the consequences or compensate the victims if a problem arose.

I see that I am running out of time. I will stop here and take questions from my colleagues.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. He recalled a very dramatic and tragic event that occurred in Europe and affected all the neighbouring countries. It was a famous cloud that unfortunately had devastating effects on the health of many people.

The consequences cannot be quantified, and they have a horrible effect on people's lives and health. My colleague spoke about pregnancies and birth defects, not to mention all the blood cancers caused by nuclear radiation.

My colleague also mentioned the $1 billion limit, an artificial limit. As he explained, costs have mushroomed, and an artificial limit of $1 billion is not going to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand quite well the gist of my colleague’s question.

Having lived through this terrible experience, even though I was not near the actual site of the accident, I know how emotional this is for my colleague.

What we are dealing with, in my view, is the concept of privatization of benefits and nationalization of risks. When a government is prepared to assume or nationalize risks, then it also nationalizes benefits. We cannot have both, that is, on the one hand, nationalization of risks and, on the other hand, benefits for private corporations that do not pay to assume risks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite. He talked about how the absolute liability level of $1 billion is not enough. He talked about the industry in France, where the absolute liability limit is about $120 million. He thinks it should be raised there. Well, we are talking about Canada.

Clearly, what the member wants to do is close down the nuclear industry in Canada. It is a green industry. The NDP talked about how it supports green industries, so I would like to ask the member if he agrees with his leader, who said:

I want to be clear. The NDP is opposed to any new nuclear infrastructure in Canada.

The member for Winnipeg Centre said:

Somewhere out there Homer Simpson is running a nuclear power plant... We do not want to see the Darlington nuclear power plant doubled in size. We want to see it shut down.

These members are clearly against the nuclear industry, yet they claim to be in favour of green energy. I would just like to ask the member if what his party wants to do is shut down nuclear energy entirely and the tens of thousands of jobs that go with it.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not recall saying that I wanted to see an end to everything nuclear. I will reread my notes and the House of Commons Debates. I do not believe I said that.

Nor can we say that the nuclear industry is green because that is not the direction we want to take. A number of countries have decided to phase out their nuclear industry. Germany is one such country. Its goal is to shut down all of its nuclear power plants by 2021. In the meantime, its nuclear plants are still operational.

I do not believe that the NDP holds a Manichaean view that everything should either remain operational or be shut down. All we are doing is discussing a particular issue, namely the level of financial liability of a private industrial activity in Canada. I was merely saying that no comparison can be made with the economic and legislative reality of other jurisdictions where electricity generation is fully nationalized.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a preliminary comment. I find it incredible that our country's federal government has taken so long to address risk management, internalize costs and protect the public interest.

In his speech about nuclear energy, the hon. member for Don Valley West said that safety is a top priority. However, it is all relative, given that liability is limited to $1 billion. As he said, Canada's nuclear industry is mostly privatized. The Conservative vision, which the Liberals support, is clearly behind the times when it comes to the future of Canada's nuclear industry. The Conservatives' shoelaces are untied and they are about to trip over them without realizing that they are going to crash to the ground.

The government is seriously going to have to take the time to listen to what the NDP is saying, in order to understand the real issues in the debate we are engaged in right now. Obviously, I would point out another paradox that borders on the ridiculous and in fact is so ridiculous, it enters the realm of caricature. Today, the government imposed a time allocation motion on a bill that has been sitting on the shelf and was even torpedoed by the Prime Minister when he failed to abide by the fixed election date law in 2008. The bill sat on the shelf for years, and catching up got put on hold for decades before the government corrected one obvious flaw, only in part and relatively clumsily.

There is nothing to prevent me, like all of my New Democrat colleagues, from supporting the bill at second reading. We will at least have a base to work on, somewhat wobbly though it may be. In cabinetmaking, when a table is wobbly, you can always try to level it, particularly if you have some expertise and a degree of skill. You have to make sure it is solid and the dishes will not fall off.

In the second part of my speech, I am going to focus on the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry needs to assume its responsibility completely. I do not think that comment will generate debate. To start with, it is a matter of the public interest. I would hope that everyone will agree that the safety of the Canadian public as a whole is absolutely non-negotiable, in spite of a few somewhat nonsensical comments from government members.

We also need to learn from the various events that have taken place in the past in various parts of the world. Based on that, we have to draw the following conclusion: in the Canadian context, setting the limit at $1 billion will be insufficient to cover the cost without requiring that the government invest large amounts of taxpayers’ money to deal with certain potential accidents. Zero risk does not exist anywhere. If I take my car out tomorrow, I assume a share of the risk, for which I pay through my insurance. However, the risk must be completely assumed by the industry. That is a very basic question of how a market operates. We are talking about internalizing the costs associated with the risk to be assumed. It is a very simple principle. Plainly, understanding how a market functions in economics is an insurmountable obstacle for many government members.

There is also the issue of the competitiveness of the Canadian nuclear industry. It must be viable and exportable, and our Canadian businesses must be able to compete and offer their skills and expertise by having optimal conditions on our domestic market, no matter the area of activity, whether it involves the design, construction, operation or development of certain parts of the systems in the nuclear industry.

We are not the only ones talking about this. This is a concern shared by experts in different fields about both the nuclear and the oil and gas industries. I will first quote Joel Wood, senior research economist at the Fraser Institute, who had this to say about the absolute liability cap:

Increasing the cap only decreases the subsidy; it does not eliminate it.

The subsidy is obviously a concept that I hope my Conservative colleagues will be able to grasp. I hope that they will be able to follow my logic. However, I am not very confident that they will since the Conservatives manage to confuse collective savings with the Canada pension plan and a tax, for example, which shows that the government has a very limited understanding of very important social issues.

Mr. Wood goes on to say:

The Government of Canada should proceed with legislation that removes the liability cap entirely rather than legislation that maintains it, or increases it to be harmonious with other jurisdictions.

When speaking of other jurisdictions, as the member for Saint-Jean said, we are speaking about foreign examples that are comparable in terms of the development of the nuclear or oil and gas industry.

Let us take a look at oil and gas development. One of the first elements is rather strange. In fact the bill deals strictly with offshore development, and does not deal with the entire issue of oil and gas development and transportation. We are already wondering why the government took a slapdash approach.

Earlier, I attended a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, where I was filling in for my very esteemed colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for the clause by clause study of the bill.

During the period for questions and comments on omnibus Bill C-31, which I would remind the House is a monstrous bill that is impossible to study in the context of our work in the House or on committee, I raised some very serious concerns that the riding of Beauport—Limoilou has about the transportation of dangerous goods by rail. Bill C-31 was compromising, possibly even severely compromising, the regulations in that area.

Unfortunately, in Bill C-22, we are going to, yet again, end up partially correcting past failings and massive negligence by the Liberals and Conservatives. There is a reason we see them working so hard on joining forces to try to stop us. We saw that earlier this week with the conditions put on the debates scheduled to take place between now and the end of June.

We cannot look at this type of activity separately or in isolation, using a piecemeal approach, without understanding all this might entail for our society, our citizens, the environment and even for industry. It is truly deplorable to see the government improvising so easily and providing hollow, ready-made answers that do nothing to address the legitimate concerns that Canadians might have.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know exactly what the NDP's position is on offshore gas development. I am sure the people of Newfoundland would like to know as well.

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

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

I will not hide the fact that the NDP has a perfectly coherent position, regardless of the objections he has to questions about offshore oil development or rail or pipeline transportation.

What the NDP objects to is the government’s complacency and the lack of regulatory mechanisms and inspectors. I am not even talking about the processes involved in bringing a project to completion. Basically, the NDP objects to the overall weak regulatory framework and to the fact that industry is allowed free rein.

Self-regulation is tantamount to living in a fantasy world and refusing to face reality. We must not be naive. We must be demanding and demanding is what the NDP will always be.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide comment in regard to the liability issue. He talked about the $1 billion not being enough, and I can appreciate why he said that.

The question I have is about our universities. There are universities in Canada that do research, and in certain situations they work in nuclear research activities. To what degree does my colleague believe that those universities should be obligated to get insurance policies?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Winnipeg North for that question.

The reason why I reacted badly to the comment by my colleague from Don Valley West is that I once worked as a physicist. Absolute safety is pretty much incompatible with the overall Canadian framework of a $1-billion liability ceiling.

However, my colleague from Winnipeg North talked about something else. He compared a heavy industry, the nuclear industry and the electricity generating industry, with a much less powerful research reactor. Liability is also clearly different.

That is why I support this bill at second reading. It is important for us to distinguish properly between activity sectors that are quite different and from that point on, to establish liability scales adapted to each individual sector. For that reason, debate on this bill should certainly not be limited.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about liability, I will point out that a railway accident recently occurred in Quebec. Oil was spilled, and it is amazing to see that no one is being held liable for it.

That is amazing. The moment someone arrives with a bill, no one is there to accept it, and it becomes an embarrassing problem. One of the major weaknesses of this bill is that you have to phone a lawyer before you call anyone to clean up, repair and provide compensation. Something is wrong. People are in trouble because someone did not do their job right, and they have to go looking for a lawyer.

I would like my colleague to tell us about that disconnect, about the fact that we in Canada always have to phone a lawyer before calling someone to clean up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his particularly relevant comment.

He has shed light on the fact that when we correct deficiencies in the legal framework, in the legal approach or in the compensation framework, it is often already too late. That is really unfortunate. I entirely agree with my colleague on that point.

The problem is much greater and much more fundamental than the solutions that Bill C-22 will provide. That is why we must clearly go further and, more particularly, expand the measures that should be introduced.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-22, the proposed energy safety and security act, which would provide a world-class regulatory regime for Canada's offshore and nuclear industries while strengthening protection for Canadians and the environment. Bill C-22 would ensure accountability from these industries and protection for taxpayers if an incident or spill results in cleanup costs and compensation.

The Governments of Canada, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador have worked together over several years to update Canada's offshore safety regime. Bill C-22 reflects this extensive collaboration by focusing on three main areas: prevention, response, and accountability.

Allow me to summarize a few of the key points in each of these areas.

First, with regard to prevention, the bill would raise financial capacity requirements for offshore operators to a minimum of $1 billion. It also would provide authority for offshore boards to impose fines for regulatory contraventions. In the nuclear sector, Bill C-22 would increase absolute liability for compensation for civil damages from $75 million to $1 billion.

In the area of response, Bill C-22 would implement a number of measures to improve spill prevention and response capability. The bill would provide industry with the option of establishing a pooled fund of at least $250 million, and it would permit the safe use of spill treating agents where there is a net environmental benefit.

As far as accountability is concerned, our government is delivering on its promise to enshrine the polluter pays principle in law. Further, we are also clarifying jurisdictional responsibilities for occupational health and safety in the offshore.

These are not stand-alone legislative improvements. Rather, they are part of a comprehensive and ongoing approach to achieve environmental protection in resource development throughout Canada. Our government has been clear. Projects would only be approved if they were safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

That is why our government has introduced a series of new laws and regulations through our plan for responsible resource development to strengthen environmental protection. For example, we have worked to ensure that the National Energy Board has the necessary resources to increase pipeline monitoring and inspections, so that companies are held accountable. These measures include increasing the number of full audits of federally regulated pipelines, and we have put forward new, significant fines as a strong deterrent against breaking Canada's rigorous environmental regulations.

Our government's record on ensuring that Canada has a world-class safety regime is proven with each of these measures. Yet the opposition voted against each of these improvements.

Offshore, we have taken major steps to enhance the protection of Canada's marine environment. Our government has increased tanker inspections, required the use of double-hulled ships, and improved the navigation tools and ship surveillance used in our coastal waterways.

In addition, a tanker safety expert panel has reviewed Canada's current system and is proposing further measures to strengthen it. After many consultations with stakeholders and aboriginal peoples on the panel's report, last month the Minister of Transport announced our government's next steps in strengthening Canada's world-class tanker safety system.

Many of these new safety and environmental measures are currently being enshrined in law. For example, Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, would strengthen oil spill response, set new requirements for energy facilities, establish new standards for pollution prevention, and introduce substantial monetary penalties to deal with offences. While our current marine safety regime has served Canada well, these new initiatives would help make Canada's shipping standards truly world class. We are working hard to develop support and enforce these standards.

On our east coast, the Government of Canada shares offshore management with two provinces, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Offshore oil and gas projects are accordingly regulated by the appropriate offshore board, either the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board or the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

Each offshore board ensures that operators exercise due diligence to prevent spills from occurring in Canada's offshore. With this in mind, we work closely with these two provinces to update and expand legislation to ensure that Canada's offshore rules are among the strongest in the world.

The accord act gives the offshore boards the legal authority to regulate oil and gas activities. The boards evaluate each drilling application for completeness and compliance with federal regulations. As a result, drilling cannot occur unless the responsible board is fully satisfied that drilling plans are safe for workers and for the environment.

Providing a liability and compensation regime to protect Canadians and create stability for this important industry falls under federal jurisdiction. The Government of Canada has a duty to all Canadians to assume its responsibilities in this area, and we are committed to doing so. Bill C-22 would increase the amount of financial capacity companies operating in the offshore must have to meet all liability obligations and it would increase the amount of the deposit companies must provide prior to receiving an authorization for drilling or production. In other words, before any offshore drilling or production activity could take place, companies would have to prove that they could cover the costs that could result in the unlikely event of an incident.

Canada has long depended on the shipping industry to move products from our coastal ports to world markets. On any given day, about 180 vessels operate in Canada's coastal waters. Energy is a big part of this trade. Each year, 80 million tonnes of oil is shipped safely off Canada's coast. On Canada's west coast, tankers have been moving oil safely since the 1930s.

With the phenomenal growth of the oil and gas industry in B.C. and Alberta, marine shipping on Canada's coast will increase substantially in the coming years. We are preparing for this future growth through our efforts today to bolster Canada's safety regime for the maritime environment. Our government is ensuring that the many opportunities for economic growth and prosperity that Canada's natural resources offer are available to all Canadians throughout the country, including aboriginal peoples. Our government's plan for responsible resource development will help achieve this by creating greater certainty and predictability for project investors while at the same time strengthening environmental protections, as Bill C-22 demonstrates.

In conclusion, these are just some of the ways in which our government is taking action to ensure that Canada continues to have world-class environmental protection in resource development. As all members can appreciate, Bill C-22 would provide a solid regulatory framework to safely govern the offshore and nuclear industries in Canada for decades to come. Bill C-22 would ensure that Canada's vast resource wealth can be developed responsibly by putting public safety and environmental protection first.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his discourse on this bill, but I think he has missed something. He talked about the offshore regime, but when we examine the bill, we find that almost a third of Canada is covered onshore by a liability regime. In the Northwest Territories, the maximum liability without proof of fault or negligence is $25 million onshore. Therefore, it seems that perhaps he needs to spend a little more time to understand this bill. We should be spending more time in Parliament talking about it, because obviously there are things in it that he has not seen yet.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, having listened to some of the debate earlier, I recognize the fact that this will be going to committee and there will be more discussion. We can take a look at the absolute liabilities we have. We have talked about the Atlantic offshore and the $30 million there for absolute liability and the $40 million in the Arctic, where the member comes from. It is clearly unacceptable that this is the rate it is. With Bill C-22, we would raise that so that it would cover the kinds of concerns people have.

There are a couple of points I would like to mention to the member.

With regard to Canada's responsibilities and the way it handles regulations, I remember that about six or seven years ago, when I was just getting started in politics, I had a chance to talk to some individuals. These people had been around the world, and they said that the best place for regulations and protection of the environment is Canada. The only place that came close was Australia, and that was because it was taking the regulations Canadians had.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments regarding the issue of liability. He stated that the government would be open to amendments. A member from across the way heckled, saying, “always open for amendments”, but that is not what we have witnessed from the government over the years.

We in the Liberal Party have indicated that the principle of the legislation is good, and we are encouraged by it, but we believe that it needs to be strengthened. There are certain amendments we believe would provide more strength and would improve the legislation.

I wonder if the member could provide further comment on the degree to which he believes the government is actually open to listening to what opposition members might have to say in regard to amendments.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have gone through numerous consultations with various groups to come up with the proposals we have. Again, here we are at second reading taking this to committee so that things can be discussed and we can bring in different types of witnesses and hear what they have to say.

I believe that when we hear what the witnesses have to say, we will see how the consultations we have had are reflected in the way the legislation has been crafted. I believe members will find that after it goes through the committee stage, we will have a great bill coming back from there too.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the House tonight in the debate on Bill C-22, a bill the NDP believes should at least get to the committee so that we can hear from the experts and witnesses who know something about this issue of liability when it comes to nuclear projects as well as about what happens in the offshore.

I need to make some passing comment on what my friend just said recently about Canada's state of regulatory protection for the environment and for communities. Systematically, often through omnibus bills, these massive bills the government has been using, it has been pulling out and destroying pieces of that very same environmental protection law the government says is the best in the world.

The government keeps ripping out pieces of the environmental protection laws we have in place, such as the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and then continues to say that it must be the best in the world. Then it rips out some more and says that its is global-leading environmental protection. Then the government rips out some more and says that it must all be great. That is, of course, not the case. The government has been enabling the speedy approval of oil and gas projects over the last number of years with very little public oversight of any little stipulations.

We can all recall that it was the Prime Minister who got up after getting elected to government and said that within a short time, Canada would become a global energy superpower. That was in 2006. Eight years on, how are the Conservatives doing? Oh, my goodness; they are yelling at the U.S. president because they do not like his delay. They cannot get Enbridge northern gateway past the communities and gain the social licence they need. They have controversies on every single energy project they propose and demand that Canadians just accept them.

When Canadians raise any questions, this is the government's approach to this point when it comes to oil and gas projects. It calls Canadians who raise objections foreign-funded radicals. The Conservatives call them enemies of the state. This is the Conservative attempt to woo Canadians to oil and gas development in Canada. It has had the opposite effect.

It is no wonder that the oil lobby, CAPP, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, just a couple of weeks ago broke away from the Conservatives' public relations strategy, because it was toxic. It was hurting the industry so much that it said it could no longer be associated or in line with the Conservatives' strategy when it comes to speaking to the public. It is going to go its own way. It took them a number of years, but the oil lobby is pretty smart and has a lot of money.

Let us talk about the specifics of the bill. This is of incredible importance to me because I represent northwestern British Columbia, and we are in the target zone. We are ground zero for a bunch of the Conservatives' more misaligned schemes when it comes to energy development.

Liability and limited liability, as in this bill, are of great interest to us. There is a curious thing I hear, both from progressives and from very conservative constituents, when it comes to who pays the costs when there is an oil disaster. Both from the right and the left, there is a curiosity as to why there is a liability placed over top of oil companies at all.

When a limit is put on the liability to which a company is exposed, what the government is effectively saying is that the company can be sued, but only up to a certain point, and beyond that, there is cap and it cannot be held responsible or made to pay compensation beyond that cap.

One would wonder, of all the industries in the world, why the oil and gas industry would be the one to receive what is in effect a subsidy from the public. It is a subsidy because any cleanup costs beyond that cap are picked up by the Canadian public.

It makes no sense. It does not happen to other industries, except for nuclear, which is also included in this bill, but it happens for oil and gas. Why is that? It is because the oil and gas industry has really good lobbyists. One told me a funny little joke the other day. I guess it is a joke within the oil lobbyist circle. He said that when the oil lobby wants the Conservative government to know it wants something, it does not phone; it just rolls over in bed and whispers in the government's ear.

While I thought that image was a little disturbing, it seems to be true. When it comes to the Conservative government, whatever oil wants, oil gets.

With the liability question that is front of us, let us take nuclear for just a second. Let us step away and look at the process we are under. We see that this bill, which has massive implications for the Canadian people, is under time allocation. That means that the government has decided to restrict the debate.

All through the back and forth on this restriction of debate, the Conservatives have said that they want to show up to work, and yet the Conservatives have missed 11 speaking spots so far. That is 11 shifts they have not shown up for.

In most Canadian workplaces, if workers have a shift that they do not show up to, there would be some sort of consequence. I know that as an employer, I would be somewhat suspicious of employees who said they wanted to work hard and yet did not show up to work, and so be it.

On nuclear liability, for example, the Conservatives previously attempted to raise the liability cap to $650 million, and the New Democrats were the only ones in this House—and I remember, because I sat on the committee—who said that $650 million might be a little low. We suggested $1 billion just as a good place to start. The Conservatives and Liberals at the time said that was outrageous, that we would kill the nuclear industry in Canada, that we would make it unaffordable, that it was irresponsible.

Then Fukushima happened. Does it not often seem an unfortunate reality that significant and painful disasters have to occur before governments suddenly snap awake and realize? As of today, current costs of that one disaster in Japan have hit $58 billion.

The Conservatives will wave this bill around and say they are being tough and that $1 billion is just an extraordinary amount of money for a company to hold. However, when things go wrong at a nuclear plant, they go really wrong. People die and get exposed to radiation, and all sorts of serious consequences happen to people in the area.

The idea that the public would pick up the cost beyond $1 billion is one that we found questionable. We raised this before, and the Conservatives and the Liberals said it was a terrible idea. Then suddenly they adopted that terrible idea. They now call it a great idea. I guess that is how ideas transform from “terrible” when they come from the opposition to “great” when they come from the government.

Let us move over to offshore oil and gas liability, because that is also discussed here.

To put it in context, the cost of the massive and disastrous spill that happened in the gulf as a result of BP's actions is at somewhere near $28 billion in damages so far. I was just looking this up online, and some of these estimates may double or triple that amount, approaching $70 billion in compensation for damages because it was such a terrible thing. One of the regions the government wants to drill in is the high Arctic and the Beaufort, and one of the stipulations that sits on the books in Canada right now is that the company that is drilling must have the capacity to drill what is called a “relief well” in the same season.

It was only a relief well, as people will remember, that was ultimately able to stop that terrible disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The workers tried absolutely everything to stop the oil from coming up, but it was only by drilling a second well and then going below where it was being released that they were eventually able to get enough cement and solids in there to be able to cap it.

In the Arctic, the oil companies came to the current government and very quietly and secretly said, “Let us get rid of that stipulation”. Why did they want to get rid of the stipulation in the Arctic in particular? It was because having the capacity to drill a relief well in the same season is not possible. The government and industry know that, yet they want to drill in the Arctic.

This is a strange irony that because of the results of climate change and inaction from governments like this Conservative government, we have seen Arctic ice melt and recede at an incredible pace. More of the Arctic is becoming exposed, which has a compounding effect. As we all know, the more ice retreats, the worse the situation gets.

The Conservatives' reaction to such a disaster and its impact on such a sensitive region as the Arctic was to celebrate. They said, “Now we can go and drill. Is that not so exciting?”, thereby adding insult to injury by pulling more oil up out of the ground. We know we have left behind all the cheap, accessible, and relatively safe oil in the world. We have moved over. We are now dealing with very expensive and much more dangerous oil that is harder to get at.

It is unfortunate that it requires a disaster, a significant news event that people cover from around the world.

The idea that we maintain is that if the profits are being held and enjoyed by the private sector, then why, for goodness' sake, would the risks be taken on by the public? The Conservatives want to privatize the profits but socialize the risks.

We argue this on the issue of temporary foreign workers and we will argue it on this issue as well. The free market has a call and response. The oil game is sometimes a bit of a risk and a roulette wheel, and if the companies want to play this game, if they are going to risk our environment, our communities, and our economy, then they should bear the cost of that risk. The public should not be picking up the tab.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have an opportunity to put some questions to the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley because, unlike the hon. member for Red Deer, I suspect he may have read Bill C-22 and knows there is nothing in the bill that has anything to do with tankers or a safety regime for shipping oil in tankers. I mean no disrespect to the hon. member for Red Deer. I think he was handed a speech he had not written that spoke to a lot of measures that have nothing to do with Bill C-22.

The tanker methods and measures that were mentioned by the hon. member for Red Deer, such as double-hulled tankers, which are not in Bill C-22, have been required globally since 1978. I think there should be a statute of limitations on how often this administration can announce a global standard that has existed since 1978, but which, by the way, is not mentioned in Bill C-22.

Let us talk about Bill C-22, which is a regime for liability for drilling in the offshore. That is what it is about. It sets limits that, as the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has pointed out, will do absolutely nothing to deal with a major disaster such as may happen if they go ahead and drill a deepwater oil well called Old Harry in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where no one should be drilling for oil.

I want to ask my hon. colleague one specific question, because I find it fascinating. On page 35 of Bill C-22, we find this wonderful statement about violations of the act. It states, “The purpose of the penalty is to promote compliance with this Act and not to punish”.

What does he make of that?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that statement buried within the bill tells us that certainly the Conservative government would never want to punish anybody in the oil sector. If people happen to donate to an environmental charity or be part of a social justice group, they would all be looking for punishment from the Conservatives, but if they are in oil, they are okay.

The association to risk is what is important here. If people could go to a casino and gamble knowing that no matter how much they gambled, they could only lose $100, it would probably influence the way they gambled. They would bet lots of money, knowing that there was no way for them to lose more than this maximum amount.

I do not suggest that drilling for oil is exactly like going to Vegas, but it has some similar qualities. The oil companies will say it is a one-in-a-thousand chance. They are into risk, but if a cap is placed on that risk, it encourages behaviour that we do not want, which is high-risk behaviour.

Finally, the member made the point that a lot of the Conservatives' speeches are about tanker traffic and pipelines and so on. What the Conservatives are doing is so obvious that it is a bit unseemly. They are trying to soften the ground for the announcement that is coming with respect to Enbridge and the northern gateway. That is what this is about. They want the public to believe that somehow double-hulled tankers are going to save the day. They have been in place for more than a generation, and suddenly the Conservatives are going to talk tough on oil. No one is going to believe them, because it is not true.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of oil spill examples for the member that he could maybe comment on.

One oil spill, of course, was Lac-Mégantic. The railroad that was licensed to operate by the government was licensed to operate on the basis of $25 million in liability. That is all it was required to carry to have a licence. It was clearly not enough. We know the result: the taxpayer is on the hook for the rest.

The other example is a gentleman in Fredericton, New Brunswick, who several years ago bought a home which, he discovered, had a leaky oil tank in the back yard that had been leaking through the town. The several million dollars in damages were entirely the responsibility of the homeowner. There was no liability cap. There was no government paying the bill. That is the reality of what goes on with oil spills in Canada: an individual is in big trouble, but companies are okay.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only caveat I would put to his question is that there are many Canadian companies, from IT to the automotive sector and others, that do not enjoy this subsidy. That is what it is, because the cost of carrying insurance is a cost of doing business. If companies lower the amount of insurance they have to carry, they lower the cost of doing business. If somebody else is picking that cost up and it is the public, that is a public subsidy. I can hear Mr. Hudak screaming in the rafters now, “No more corporate welfare”.

Conservatives are so often very comfortable with the idea of corporate subsidies, particularly for corporations that do not need it because they have such an enormous amount of wealth. Oil is $105 a barrel. They are pulling it out of the ground. They are making the money.

If they are taking those risks and enjoying that profit, then certainly they should assume that risk and not spread it out among the hard-working Canadians who had nothing to do with the accidents that those oil companies created.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I must apologize to my interpreting friends. I have given them my notes, but I am going to go a little off the cuff here because I have a few things to say beforehand.

First, I would like to say that I am really fortunate today in just having had supper with some good friends from Chilliwack, Dennis and Penny Martens, who are right there watching me. Dennis and I went to UBC together in the early sixties. It is kind of neat to be able to talk to him and Penny.

I feel really privileged to have followed my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He was in my riding just last week, actually, talking to people about the proposed Enbridge pipeline and its consequences, and I will talk about this a bit later. I had a chance to visit the beautiful pristine area that he lives in to see exactly what the consequences of that proposed pipeline would be.

I have some notes here, and I will just ask the interpreters to bear with me.

I just want to say that it seems that the current government that I have been faced with for the last eight years since I have been here is not really friendly with respect to looking after our environment and looking after the people of Canada.

There are many fine individuals in that party, and I see them here. We have a good relationship. They treat me well, with respect, but collectively, the current government has done a lot to our country that will take us a long time to recover from once it is no longer in power.

The bill would update Canada's nuclear liability regime to specify the conditions and procedures for compensation of victims.

It would maintain the principles of absolute fault or no fault, limited and exclusive, except for situations of war or terrorist attacks.

It would extend the limitation period for submitting compensation claims for bodily injury from 10 years to 30 years to address latent illnesses. It would maintain the 10-year period for all other forms of damage.

The nuclear liability changes would apply to Canadian nuclear facilities, such as nuclear power plants, research reactors, fuel processing plants, and facilities for managing used nuclear fuel.

It would also update Canada's offshore liability regime for oil and gas exploration and operations to prevent incidents and ensure swift response in the event of a spill. I will talk a little bit about that later.

It would maintain unlimited operator liability for fault or negligence.

It would increase the absolute liability limit from $40 million in the Arctic and $30 million in the Atlantic to $1 billion for offshore oil.

It would reference the polluter pays principle explicitly in legislation to establish clearly and formally that polluters would be held accountable. That is a good thing.

However, let me say a few words on offshore oil spills in general.

The fact that the absolute liability limit would be increased to $1 billion should not—and I repeat, should not—be a green light to approve further tanker traffic off our B.C. coast. That is what my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley was alluding to: the fact that all of this discussion is somehow supposed to lay the groundwork for this wonderful project in northern British Columbia.

As members are aware, I am sure, after all these years the Alaskan coastline is still seeing effects of the Exxon Valdez spill.

At the invitation of my colleague, the MP for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I had a chance to visit our northwestern coastline communities of Terrace, Kitimat, and Kitimaat Village. I and some of my NDP colleagues heard what the people had to say about the proposed Enbridge northern gateway pipeline.

As we have seen from the recent vote or referendum in Kitimat, 60% of the people voted against the pipeline, in spite of the huge amount of money spent by the oil industry going door to door to try to get support for the pipeline.

When I was there, we had a meeting with something like 150 people in Terrace, and people of all political stripes do not want the project to go through. At the meeting in Terrace, we learned that if roughly 30% of the oil can be recuperated after a regular oil spill, such as occurred with the Exxon Valdez spill, that is considered excellent.

However, if we can recuperate 7% from a spill of raw bitumen, that is also considered excellent.

It does not really matter what the liability is, once raw bitumen is spilled in the ocean, the environment is basically destroyed forever. This is the point that people in northern communities, people in the area I represent and all over British Columbia are trying to get across. Thousands of jobs in the tourist and fishing industries will be lost permanently. It is not just that the oil is spilled, the company has a liability of $1 billion, and we clean it up. We can clean up only 7% of it, and that is considered excellent. If we do a good job, that is probably 3.5%. If we do a terrible job, we would probably clean up 2% of the bitumen. We cannot allow tanker traffic in the northern coastline. It is as simple as that.

People in my province are mobilizing against this project. For the sake of future generations, we cannot let this project take place. It is often expedient not only for the current government of the day but for governments of all political parties that happen to be in power to think in the short range. It does not matter if governments are Conservative, Liberal, NDP, or Green; we need governments that look to the future. The future is our children and grandchildren. What is the coastline and the province of British Columbia going to be like in the future?

The grandchildren of my friends Dennis and Penny are not going to read in the paper that they cannot go to northern B.C. because the coastline is polluted because a tanker just spilt raw bitumen and none of it was recuperated. Surely we can increase our own refining capacity to create jobs in Canada. I know my party is working on a policy that when we hopefully assume government, we will be able to transition into this green energy strategy that other countries have done, which will provide jobs to millions of people as we transition out of the fossil fuel industry.

If we look at the predictions of climate change, if we look at what is happening in other countries, it is logical. We have this chance, and in the meantime we can increase our oil refining capacity. If we have an oil industry, why not keep the jobs here? For the sake of a few hundred or a thousand jobs for a short period of time, should we build a pipeline and get some hundreds of tankers a year moving in in areas that are prone to high gales and accidents? Why would we do that, rather than taking this product that we take out of the ground and refining it somewhere in our country? We would create jobs as we keep the economy moving, and we would move toward a green energy strategy. That would be a win-win situation. I would prefer that we create jobs in Canada rather than somewhere in Asia.

The bill before us strengthens the current liability regime but will not help protect the environment, or Canadian taxpayers either, because it still exposes them to risk.

The Conservatives constantly lag behind our international partners. They disregard best practices that are used to identify inadequate liability regimes.

We have previously criticized the inadequacy of nuclear liability limits. Even though these provisions must be considered a step in the right direction relative to current limits, this bill does not duly reflect the actual risks Canadians face. We hope to address this point in committee. Consequently, this bill must absolutely be referred to committee. We need to hear from witnesses.

I eagerly await my colleagues’ questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the member's closing comments. He talked about the importance of the bill going to committee, and we concur.

There is no doubt that this is a step forward in principle. There are many aspects of the legislation that are long overdue. However, it is important to recognize that with some strategic amendments, we could give more strength to the legislation. This could enrich the legislation to the point where it would be stronger, and all of us would benefit from that.

To what degree does the member feel the government will be open to opposition amendments? It seems, even from the government side, that there is a need to add some additional meat to the bones. Would he like to provide comments on how important it is for us to make those changes?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for all of his hard work on behalf of his constituents.

Today, I read an op-ed in the Manitoba Co-operator, where my colleague from Welland was quoted as saying that we all came together as parties to move through Bill C-30, the railway act. Here we had this instance of co-operation. It is something that often does not happen. All parties got together, the government listened, we made suggestions and, all of a sudden, we had a bill that benefited all Canadians.

This is a golden opportunity for this bill to go to committee and for the government to listen and not do what it did, for example, when I was on the agriculture committee studying the food safety bill. Both the NDP and the Liberal Party provided something like 25 amendments, and not one was accepted. That is not how government works and that is not how democracy should work. This is an opportunity.

I welcome the question from the member for Winnipeg North. I really hope that once it gets to committee, we will have this debate and strengthen the bill so it will be our bill on behalf of Canadians, not just the government's bill.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his excellent speech. He provided an excellent explanation of all the good aspects of the bill and of the elements that should be fixed.

The NDP, the official opposition, supports the polluter pays principle. The Conservatives claim they also support the polluter pays principle. However, although this bill is a step in the right direction, it does not quite go far enough. Once again, the taxpayers, the everyday citizen, including the people of Drummond who pay their taxes, will have to foot the bill for any disasters that result from accidents.

Could my colleague speak a little more about his position on the polluter pays principle? How would the bill have to be improved in order to observe the polluter pays principle, which is a principle of sustainable development?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I also thank him for the work he does for his constituents and the work he does in the House.

Taxpayers should not be responsible for the mistakes made by large corporations. Oil companies must absolutely contribute and must pay when there are environmental risks. That should not be up to taxpayers.

The issue is not only the $1-billion limit. What would happen if it cost $2 billion? Would that mean that taxpayers would have to cover the $1-billion difference? I do not think so.

The bill must absolutely include the polluter pays principle, not just for the nuclear and oil industries, but also for all industries. If you run the risk, you pay the price.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, agreeing on legislation is already quite a difficult exercise, but the other problem is that, with this government, passing legislation is absolutely no guarantee that it will be implemented.

We are told that we will have very strict safety standards. It looks really nice on paper, but what about their day-to-day application?

For the past two years, the practice of transporting oil by rail has increased by 900%. We should therefore expect that there is a decent railway safety system in place. Is there?

Regarding the number of audit investigations, only 26% of the minimum number of audits is carried out, and 100% of these 26% are poorly done. That is unbelievable. In addition, there is no follow-up of violations. This has got to be the pinnacle of mediocrity. It is a remake of the Pan Am Airways scandal, when they charged clients an additional fee to guarantee their safety, but it was only a marketing scheme. In fact, the company had changed absolutely nothing. We also know what happened with Lockerbie. This is another problem.

We can argue about legislation, but when the government still refuses to implement it, this is when we get such poor results. This is when a Lac-Mégantic disaster happens.

There have been major developments in terms of nuclear liability. The nuclear industry of 1976 and the nuclear industry of today are very different creatures. There are mining facilities where ore enrichment is carried out. This is also a dangerous process. Nuclear plants are not the only ones at risk of exploding. Nuclear plant explosions are bad enough, but now there are more and bigger mines that have ore enrichment processes. That is dangerous. This is something new. It must be discussed.

The nuclear industry also produces medical materials for treatments. Radioactivity is used for medical purposes, if you will. There are plants that make these materials. There are plants that handle radioactive materials. This is dangerous. We must discuss this as well. Therefore, the dangers that were noted in 1976 are very different from the dangers today. We must talk about this and we must make regulations. We must be sure that Canadians are protected and that they are compensated adequately in the event of an accident.

If it costs $2 billion or $3 billion, will you tell Canadians that you are sorry and that it is first come first served? When there is no more money, will you say that is just too bad for them? I do not think that Canadians will particularly like this. It will be up to the taxpayers to foot the bill.

For people who say they want to protect taxpayers, they are being awfully generous to those who systematically expect taxpayers to pick up the tab. Canadians should not be the ones paying the price for these situations.

This law has been in need of change since 1976. Here is a fact: in 1976, inflation was at 10%.

I do not need to point out that, even back then, $40 million was too little. Imagine what that is worth now. It is not enough for anything. All it would pay for is relocating people to a hotel for a few days. That would eat up the $40 million. That number really needs updating.

We want something comprehensive. That is why we are sending it to committee. We have things to talk about and we need to hear from experts. The experts will give us some very interesting information. We have to take the time to listen to them.

What can I say about the wonderful stuff that is oil? Do we need it? Yes. Will we keep needing it? Yes.

I listened to the comments by my colleague from British Columbia. When I was in the northern part of that province, I saw what they were using as a rescue boat.

Believe it or not, it was basically a rowboat. Anyone who thinks a little motorboat can stop an out-of-control tanker from running aground off the coast of British Columbia is mistaken. The Coast Guard is definitely not equipped to deal with these challenges. They have nothing.

Unfortunately, the people who promise to respect the environment and so on are the same detestable bunch that did such a wonderful job in Port Valdez, the same rotten pack that did such fabulous work in the Gulf of Guinea and the Gulf of Mexico, the same despicable gang that performed so admirably off the coast of the Philippines. Those people never paid the bills. The Exxon Valdez cost $7 billion, and the case is still before the courts. Nobody was ever compensated, and that was a long time ago now. No, those people do not want to pay for their irresponsible actions. It might be a good idea for Canada to have ways to protect itself from that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 9:36 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)