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

[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.