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.

Safe and Accountable Rail Act

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to commence third reading of Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act, which seeks to amend both the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act.

As parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, I have the great privilege to be a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and to have been able to take part in the study of this extremely important piece of legislation.

Before I speak to the important points raised during committee stage, I would like to take a few minutes to remind all members of this place of the important components of this legislation, beginning with the important amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

As stated by the Minister of Transport at committee, the tragic Lac-Mégantic derailment has shown us that our liability and compensation regime for rail must be strengthened. The Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway only carried $25 million in third-party liability insurance, which we now know is not nearly enough to cover the incredible magnitude of the resulting damage and loss of both life and property that night.

With this bill, railways would be required to hold a mandatory level of insurance based on the type and volume of dangerous goods they carry. These levels would range from $25 million for short lines carrying limited or no dangerous goods to $1 billion for railways carrying significant amounts of dangerous goods, namely CN and CP.

These mandatory insurance requirements have been set based on analysis of historical accident costs, taking into account the severity of past accidents involving certain goods. These requirements would make certain that a railway's insurance directly reflects the risk associated with its operations.

These insurance levels were determined to be adequate to cover the cost of the vast majority of potential accidents and, while a scenario of the magnitude of Lac-Mégantic is an extremely rare occurrence, we want to be certain that all costs in such a case would be recovered.

That is why a supplementary shipper-financed fund would be created to provide compensation above the railway's insurance for accidents involving crude oil and any other goods added through regulation.

In the event of a rail accident involving crude oil, railways would be automatically liable, without the need to prove fault or negligence, up to their insurance level, and that would happen immediately.

The bill provides that they would be liable for all actual damages, which includes damages to people, property, and the environment. There would be certain defences to this strict liability. A railway, for example, would not be held liable if the accident were a result of war, hostilities, or civil insurrection such as a terrorist act, as these occurrences are outside of the railway's control. If accident costs reached beyond the railway's mandatory insurance level, the supplementary fund would cover the remaining damages.

For the supplementary fund, we have included a broad definition of crude oil in recognition of the serious damage that all crude can cause if released. Even a less-volatile crude can have a grave impact on the environment and result in very high remediation costs.

The fund would be financed through a levy on shippers of $1.65 per tonne of crude oil transported by federally regulated railways, indexed to inflation. The aim is to capitalize the fund to $250 million, which is an amount that would provide substantial additional coverage for crude oil accidents above the insurance levels. Based on a reasonable projection of oil-by-rail traffic growth in the coming years, we have determined that, with the $1.65 per tonne levy, we would reach that target in approximately five years.

That said, however, it is important to emphasize at this point that the $250 million capitalization is a target and not a cap. The bill would allow the Minister of Transport to discontinue or reimpose the levy as necessary.

This means that the levy could continue longer than five years should oil-by-rail traffic grow at lower than expected rates. It also means that the fund could be capitalized to a different amount should that be considered appropriate.

Just to be clear. The fund will cover all costs above the railway's insurance and will not be capped. In the unlikely event that damages from a crude oil accident surpass both the railway's insurance level and the amount in the supplementary fund, the government's consolidated revenue fund would back up the compensation fund and would be repaid through the levy.

Bill C-52 also propose amendments to the Railway Safety Act, which would seek to further strengthen the oversight of Canada's rail safety regime in certain areas. These include the following: first, a new power for the Minister of Transport to order a company to take corrective measures should that company's implementation of its safety management system risk compromise safe railway operations; second, a new authority to regulate the sharing of information, records and documents from one party to another, other than the department, for example, from a railway company to a municipality; third, to broaden railway safety inspectors' powers to intervene in a more effective way with any person or entity, including companies, road authorities, and municipalities, to mitigate threats to safety; fourth, a broader power for the Minister of Transport to require a railway company, road authority, or municipality, to stop any activity that might constitute a threat to safe railway operations, to follow any procedures, or taking any corrective measures specified; and, finally, a cost reimbursement scheme for provinces and municipalities that respond to fires determined to be caused by a railway company's operation.

Part of Transport Canada's prevention strategy has been to ensure the department has an effective oversight regime. This means both ensuring that industry is in compliance with the various rules and regulations that govern them and also responding to changes in the risk environment.

Transport Canada continuously examines and monitors its resource levels to adjust and reallocate, as needed, to address emerging issues, trends and higher-risk issues.

Transport Canada has further enhanced railway safety in Canada by establishing the following new or amended regulations: grade crossings regulations; railway operating certificate regulations; railway safety management system regulations, 2015; transportation information regulations; and railway safety administrative monetary penalties regulations.

Allow me to refer back to the review of the bill at the committee stage.

The review of Bill C-52 provided the opportunity for the committee members to examine, in detail, the text of the bill, its purpose and objectives. Particular issues were raised and the hon. Minister of Transport provided some important clarifications, which bear repeating in the House today.

First, the minister assured committee members that no additional financial resources would be required for the implementation of these new proposed authorities and requirements. The department's operational budget was assessed and represents the level of resources adequate to carry out all of the projects and the priorities. Nonetheless, in the event additional funding is requirement, the government always has the ability to reallocate or request funding through the supplementary estimates.

Second, with regard to the supplementary shipper-financed fund, the minister made a number of important clarifications. The fund has been proposed, through Bill C-52, to provide substantial additional coverage for incidents involving crude oil. The fund would cover any damages that surpassed the railway's required minimum insurance coverage. To finance the fund, the government would introduce a levy of $1.65 per tonne on shipments of crude oil transported by a federally regulated railway. The formula used to establish the levy would be based on a mid-range growth estimate of projected oil by rail. The supplementary shipper fund cannot apply retroactively for incidents that occur prior to the coming into force of the legislation.

As previously mentioned, the proposed supplementary fund would not be capped or cut off. Therefore, claims against the fund would not be limited. The fund would be capitalized to $250 million. However, Bill C-52 would allow the Minister of Transport to suspend or reinstate the levy as would be necessary. This would ensure that the fund would be at the appropriate level to pay for damages in excess of railway insurance levels without holding excess capital unnecessarily.

The government modelled this compensation fund on the ship-source oil pollution fund in the marine mode. Levies for that fund were suspended once it had been capitalized. The fund has grown through interest over the past 40 years without the need for further levies. For the time being, the supplementary compensation fund will cover incidents involving crude oil.

However, the bill provides regulation-making authority to include other types of dangerous goods in the future. Moreover, Bill C-52 provides for a loan from the consolidated revenue fund if the resources in the fund have been exhausted. This loan would be subject to terms and conditions established by the Minister of Finance and would be repaid through the shipper levy.

Furthermore, this bill includes the authority to put in place a special levy on railways to help repay the CRF loan to ensure that liability continues to be shared appropriately in the event of a catastrophic accident. The funds would be supplementary to the newly proposed minimum liability insurance coverage for railway companies transporting dangerous goods.

The strengthened liability and compensation regime in the bill is in line with the modernized liability and compensation regime put forward for pipelines in Bill C-46, as well as the regime for offshore oil and gas in Bill C-22, which received royal assent on February 26. This includes a provision that ensures that the strengthened regime for rail would not preclude any other regimes, including future regimes with higher limits of liability from being applied to a railway accident.

It is also important to highlight the clarification made by the Minister of Transport at committee regarding subclause 152.7(1) of the bill. Through this subclause, only a railway company that is involved in a crude oil accident through physical operation of a railway, for example, moving a train or responsibility for tracks or cars, would be held liable without regard to fault or negligence.

In the Canada Transportation Act the terms “operate” and “railway” are defined in section 87 of the act. They are defined in a physical sense, not a commercial sense. Therefore, a carrier that quotes a through-rate or interswitches with a railway company that later has an accident would not be considered involved in an accident. With this strengthened liability and compensation regime for rail, the minister clearly stated in committee that she was confident, and “we do have the ability to ensure that the polluter pays and that taxpayers don't have to incur costs”.

The minister confirmed to committee members that where a crude oil accident was the result of an act of terrorism, the railway company would not be held automatically liable under our proposed legislation.

Finally, the committee discussed the cumbersome definition of “fatigue science” presently found in the Railway Safety Act. As stated by the minister, the definition included in the act is simply a definition of a term and does not add any implementation requirements toward the railway companies. By having the term predefined, it restricted the department's ability to enforce. Amendments to the act seek to remove the definition allowing the application instead of the new Railway Safety Management System Regulations, 2015, to fulfill its purpose of ensuring a company's safety management system includes mechanisms for applying the principles of fatigue science when scheduling the work of certain employees.

Following the Lac-Mégantic derailment, the Speech from the Throne in 2013 and the Auditor General of Canada's fall 2013 report, our government has worked to bring forward these amendments to strengthen railway safety in Canada and increase the industry's accountability. Within this process, consultation with our stakeholders, particularly on liability and compensation, was essential to achieve the results we see today in this bill. We are grateful for their collaboration, support and commitment to improve the safety and security of the railway system.

I urge all members to vote in favour of Bill C-52 so it can be referred to the other place as soon as possible.

Pipeline Safety Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of our government to open debate on the pipeline safety act at third reading. Canadians can proudly look at this legislation as another significant step our government has taken in advancing responsible resource development. That is because we stand on the threshold of a generational opportunity to harness our vast energy wealth. We have a unique opportunity to cement Canada's place in the world as a secure, reliable, and responsible producer and supplier of energy. However, we can only take advantage of these opportunities if we choose to make them happen and if we are willing to think big and act accordingly. The stakes could not be higher.

Despite lower world oil and gas prices, we know that the long-term outlook for Canada's energy sector is bright. According to the International Energy Agency, global demand for energy will increase by one-third by 2040. Again, according to the IEA, 74% of this demand will still be met through fossil fuels. Countries such as China, India, and other emerging nations are fuelling this thirst for energy. Even developed countries, like those in the European Union, are eager to diversify both the types of energy they use and who supplies it to them.

Canada is perfectly positioned to seize this moment in time to create the quality jobs, the economic growth, and the long-term prosperity Canadians want for themselves and for their children. We have some of the largest known reserves of oil and gas in the world, the blue chip companies with the wherewithal to bring these reserves to market, the clean technologies and exciting new innovations to do so in ever more sustainable ways, and the world-class pipelines to transport our oil and gas safely and reliably. In fact, as I have proudly noted many times, between 2008 and 2013, 99.999% of the oil, gas, and other petroleum products transported through the federally regulated pipelines in Canada arrived safely. This is an extraordinary record, and most countries would be satisfied that it was enough. However, our government always strives to do even better. Our target is zero events. That is why our focus is on maintaining a world-class and even world-leading pipeline safety system.

As many members know, the National Energy Board was established back in 1959, with a very clear mandate to regulate international and interprovincial pipelines, power lines, and energy trade. Now, some 56 years later, the board is overseeing approximately 73,000 kilometres of pipelines that transport over $100 billion worth of natural gas, oil, and petroleum products every year.

It is important to note that the independent National Energy Board is responsible for the review of new pipeline proposals. The NEB's work is based on an exhaustive study of the science and on extensive public consultations to determine if a project is in the overall Canadian public interest. Furthermore, the board can impose enforceable conditions and has important powers to ensure that pipelines are built and operated in a safe manner. For example, it can issue administrative penalties to pipeline companies and reduce the amount of product allowed through its pipelines, or even shut them down entirely.

However, the board's role does not end with reviewing applications and setting conditions. It also oversees the entire life cycle of a pipeline, from concept to construction, from operation to eventual abandonment. To perform these duties and responsibilities, the NEB conducts ongoing audits, inspections, and emergency exercises. Some 300 such compliance actions were conducted in 2013 alone.

At the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, we heard from a variety of witnesses who support our legislation. For example, the members of Canada's Building Trades Unions take immense pride in their work to ensure construction of the safest pipelines ever built. Other experts, lawyers, and members of the National Energy Board also appeared before the committee and voiced their own support for our goals. There is widespread agreement that the pipeline safety act is an important step in our efforts to maintain the most rigorous pipeline safety regime in the world.

The result is a bill that would inspire even greater confidence in our existing national network of pipelines and that would ensure broader public assurance for new ones coming on stream.

All Canadians from coast to coast to coast should find comfort in this proposed bill. They can rest assured that the energy that fuels their cars, heats their homes, and goes into producing their home electronics and household products will continue to be delivered through the safest energy transportation system possible. Anything less would be unacceptable to Canadians and to our government, period.

This is why the pipeline safety act is built on three key pillars: incident prevention, preparedness and response, and liability and compensation.

Looking first at prevention, our government understands that responsible resource development demands that we take every measure and precaution we can to prevent incidents from ever occurring, and we do. That is why we have proposed amendments to the National Energy Board Act that would build on the steps we have already taken over the past two years. Our goal: to further improve the transparency and operation of the board under its enabling legislation.

We have already increased the number of inspections and audits the board conducts each year, and we have given the board the authority to levy administrative monetary penalties. Our new legislation would add to the current preventive measures.

In addition to clarifying the board's audit and inspection powers, the legislation would also provide greater clarity on when to seek the board's permission before disturbing the ground near a pipeline. This added clarity would help to prevent potentially life-threatening accidents and avoid damage to both property and the environment.

Prevention also depends heavily on the design and construction of our pipelines. That is why the minister has recently asked the National Energy Board to provide guidance on the use of the best available technology in pipeline projects. This includes materials, construction methods, and emergency response techniques.

Second, the pipeline safety act would ensure a robust response in the event of an incident. The legislation would require pipeline operators to have a minimum level of financial resources and to keep a portion of these resources readily accessible for rapid response.

The bill would also allow the Governor in Council to give authority and resources to the NEB to take control of an incident response or cleanup. The NEB would take control if, in exceptional circumstances, the company was unable or unwilling to do so. This means that the government would provide an initial financial backstop to ensure that the NEB had the resources it needed, when it needed them, to complete the cleanup.

In addition, and in the unlikely event that the NEB had to take control of an incident response, the government would also be able to establish a pipeline claims tribunal. Setting up this tribunal would streamline the claims process. In either case, the legislation would provide that all costs and expenses would be recovered from the industry should the board ever have to step in and take charge.

This leads me to the third pillar: enshrining the polluter pays principle in law. We fundamentally believe that polluters, and not Canadian taxpayers, should be held financially responsible for any costs associated with an incident, responsible whether the polluters are at fault or not. For companies operating major oil pipelines, this absolute, no-fault liability would be $1 billion. However, let us be clear. The liability would remain unlimited in instances where they were at fault. It is a new standard that would leave no doubt or wiggle room, no doubt for Canadian taxpayers and no wiggle room for pipeline operators.

The pipeline safety act would also allow the government to go after operators for damage to the environment over the entire lifecycle of a pipeline. This would include even after a pipeline had been abandoned.

The absolute or no-fault liability regime created under the bill would be one of the most robust and comprehensive in the world. In addition to actual losses, all types of damage to the environment resulting from oil spills would be covered by the enhanced regime.

Under Bill C-46, three broad categories of damage could be claimed. The first would cover claims for loss or damage incurred by any person as a result of a spill, including loss of income and future income. In the case of aboriginal peoples, for example, it would include the loss of hunting, fishing, and gathering opportunities.

The second category would cover the cost and expenses incurred by the federal government, a provincial government, aboriginal governing bodies, or any other person in taking action in response to a spill. This would include recouping the costs incurred in responding to or mitigating the damage from an oil spill.

The third category would cover claims by the federal or provincial governments for the loss of what is referred to as the non-use value relating to a public resource that is damaged by a spill. Non-use value means that the federal government or a provincial government could bring a claim for damage to environmental assets that are valuable to Canadians and future generations.

The concept of non-use value was first introduced for environmental offences by our government in 2009, and Bill C-46 is consistent with those measures. It is also consistent with the amendments we have introduced to Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, for the offshore oil and gas regime, which also would allow governments to claim for the loss of the non-use value of public resources.

In many ways, these provisions mirror similar steps our government has already taken to strengthen marine, rail, and offshore safety. As part of our plan for responsible resource development, we have been strengthening environmental protection, enhancing aboriginal engagement, and modernizing our regulatory review of major resource projects. Our overriding goal has been to eliminate duplication and to provide investors with predictable beginning-to-end timelines for projects, all the while creating jobs and growing the economy.

This is an ongoing process. It demands constant attention and continued diligence, which is why our economic action plan 2015 contains new measures and investments to build on this momentum.

There are many items I could highlight from our balanced budget, but let me start by saying what is not in it. I know that what the opposition was hoping to see in our budget was a carbon tax. Both the Liberals and the NDP have been clear that they intend to put a tax on everything Canadians buy, from gas to groceries to electricity. We have been clear. We will not introduce a carbon tax.

We are very proud of the targeted investments proposed in economic action plan 2015 that are particularly noteworthy for today's debate. The first is $135 million over five years to support project approvals through the major projects management office initiative. We are proposing to make this investment because the development of our natural resources deserves both scrutiny and careful stewardship. Our processes and systems need to be modern and nimble, reflecting the views and needs of citizens and industry alike.

The second item is a commitment of $34 million over the same period of time to continue consultations with Canadians on projects assessed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Third, we are proposing to provide $80 million over five years to the National Energy Board to support greater engagement with Canadians and enhanced safety and environmental protection.

Through these investments, we will continue to deliver the kind of responsible resource development Canadians have come to expect from their government, development that is critical to our government's economic plan to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

The fact is, Canada's natural resource sector represents 19% of our economy. It accounts for more than half of our merchandise exports and supports 1.8 million jobs directly and indirectly. Canada's natural resource sector is also one of the leading private employers of aboriginal people, and let us not forget that natural resource firms have contributed approximately $30 billion per year in revenue to governments, revenue that builds hospitals and highways, schools and subways.

In short, our resource industries are critical to the strength of our economy, the quality of our lives and our aspirations for the future.

As recent geopolitical events have shown, energy is also playing a critical role in national, continental and indeed global security. Our government recognizes that Canada is in a unique position to meet the world's energy needs, but just importantly we also have a responsibility to contribute to global energy security.

That is why, between 2005 and 2014, Canada's crude oil exports grew by 81%. That is almost 1.3 million barrels per day. Our exports expanded beyond North America to reach new markets around the world. Indeed, since 2013, Canada has been shipping oil into markets from Spain and Ireland to Chile and Hong Kong. In Italy, for example, our exports accounted for 3.4% of that country's total crude oil imports in 2014, as measured by volume.

With the European Parliament's fuel quality directive confirming that oil sands crude is as environmentally responsible as other sources, we expect exports to continue to grow. Canadian exports help nations diversify their sources of energy. They help reduce their dependence on unreliable suppliers and help bolster their energy security.

To continue to play that important role in global energy security, Canada must expand its ability to get its products to market. Pipelines are the safest, most secure and most reliable way of doing so.

As we expand our ability to export, this legislation will set the standard for pipeline safety, charting a new path to good-paying jobs and sustainable growth across the country for generations to come. I urge all members of this House to join our government in continuing to support this legislation.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Again, this is one of the concerns that has been raised by industry and by insurers, and I appreciate the opportunity at the committee to discuss and clarify what the position is.

What I can tell the committee is that this is standard language that is in line with the modernized liability and compensation regime that has been put forward on pipelines in Bill C-46, as well as the regime for offshore oil and gas in Bill C-22, which received royal assent on February 26, 2015. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that the strengthened regime for rail would not preclude any other regime, including future regimes that set higher limits of liability, from being applied to a railway accident. That's a clarification that was sought by industry, and I'm pleased to be able to address it today.

[Martin Olszynski]

I'll answer the question more of who “does” right now. The “should” is maybe a bit trickier.

In other jurisdictions, such as the United States, this is a power generally confined to governments, the federal government in the U.S. and state governments. It is a bit broader in the U.S. in that state tribes are also authorized to sue. The reference under the American legislation, under CERCLA and OPA, is to trustees, that being the federal government, state governments, and state tribes.

I have in the past, blogging about Bill C-22, or ESSA, suggested that there might be scope here to broaden the category to recognize aboriginal governments, Indian bands and such, to claim for such damages within their territory. You could expand it to include municipalities. With the disaster that happened at Lac-Mégantic, amongst the tragic loss of life was also a massive environmental catastrophe. It seems to me that the municipality there should be empowered as well, frankly, as a representative of the people.

I guess my bottom line, to try to keep it simple, is that governments, various levels of governments, generally are accepted as being the right parties to sue for such damages.

[Martin Olszynski, University of Calgary, Faculty of Law, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

My name is Martin Olszynski. I'm an assistant professor at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Law. The focus of my presentation today is on what are commonly referred to as the environmental damages provisions of Bill C-46.

I began thinking and writing about environmental damages roughly 10 years ago, when the Supreme Court of Canada first opened the door for governments to sue for such damages in a case called Canadian Forest Products v. British Columbia. I have since written several articles on this topic, including with one of Canada's leading resource economists, Professor Peter Boxall.

I will begin with a brief primer explaining this concept of environmental damages. I'll then describe their role and their treatment under Bill C-46. Finally, I will make two recommendations for improvement.

Most simply, environmental damages can be understood as the financial compensation awarded for the loss or impairment of some public environmental asset and the services it provides, for example, a forest, in the case of Canadian Forest Products, or a coastal area, such as was affected following the Exxon Valdez spill or the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon blowout.

Environmental and resource economists divide such harms into the loss of two kinds of values: use value and non-use value. Referring to an Environment Canada publication, the Library of Parliament's legislative summary of Bill C-46 defines these two values as follows:

Use values are associated with direct use of the environment such as fishing and swimming in a lake, hiking in a forest - or commercial uses such as logging and farming. Non-use values are related to the knowledge of the continued existence of the environment...or the need to leave environmental resources to future generations.

As committee members might imagine, environmental damages assessment can be a complex and difficult task. Various scientific disciplines—ecology, toxicology, hydrology—are applied to first determine the extent of harm done, while economics and the techniques of environmental valuation in particular are then used to convert this harm into monetary terms.

Under Bill C-46 there are actually two different roles for environmental damages. They play a role in sentencing and they play a role in civil liability. As to sentencing, where an operator commits an offence under the NEB Act, the proposed section 132—and this is clause 37, page 35—directs a sentencing judge to consider the “damage or risk of damage to the environment” as a result of the offence. That is further defined under subsection 4 as “the loss of use value and non-use value”. Through this amendment, the NEB Act joins the ranks of at least 10 other federal environmental laws with similar sentencing provisions. Although light on details, this wording is both simple and comprehensive.

The other environmental damages provisions, which are decidedly more opaque, are found in the context of civil liability. Under the proposed subsection 48.12(1)—and this is clause 16, pages 6 and 7 of bill—there's a reference to three heads of damages: “(a) all actual loss or damage incurred by any person...”; “(b) the costs and expenses” of cleanup; “(c) all loss of non-use value relating to a public resource that is affected” by the spill.

In other words, environmental damages are not actually referred to in this part of the bill; rather, their availability—at least partially—is implied by the reference in paragraph (c) to “all loss of non-use values relating to a public resource...”. Use values are not explicitly referred to, although as I will explain, some of these may be caught by paragraph (a).

There are two other relevant provisions I want to touch on just briefly. These are proposed subsections 48.12(9) and 48.13(5). The former states that only federal and provincial governments may sue for the loss of non-use values, while the latter states that the NEB is not required to consider the potential loss of non-use values when determining the financial resources that operators will be required to maintain for the purposes of absolute liability.

My first recommendation is that the third category of loss under the civil liability provisions be amended to refer simply to environmental damages. For instance, “all environmental damages resulting from the release...", and that this be coupled with an additional subsection defining environmental damages, as is the case in the sentencing provisions. Those are the simpler and more comprehensive provisions, and I suggest that the civil liability provisions be amended to reflect that simple and comprehensive structure. This would not only simplify this section, but it also seems necessary to correct what appears to be an omission in the current bill.

As the committee is probably aware, most of the wording here was brought over almost verbatim from Bill C-22 , the Energy Safety and Security Act, which amended COGOA along similar lines. That legislation already had some spill-related provisions, and specifically a definition for “actual loss or damage”. I'll just read that definition quickly. It “...includes loss of income, including future income, and, with respect to any aboriginal peoples of Canada, includes loss of hunting, fishing and gathering opportunities.”

On my reading of this bill, this definition for “actual loss or damage”, which admittedly does capture some of the use values that I was referring to before, has not been brought over. Even if it were, I submit that there would still be a gap in the legislation. I can provide some examples of that gap after my presentation, if the committee is interested.

My second recommendation is that the Governor in Council should be required within a certain timeframe, or at least authorized, to make regulations setting out a process for environmental damages assessment. Reliance on this process should result in a rebuttable presumption of validity in any action for such damages, whether in court or before the pipelines claim tribunal. First, and as noted above, environmental damages assessment is a difficult and complex exercise; regulations would bring certainty to all parties and reduce needless litigation. It is for this reason that the equivalent American legislation, CERCLA and the Oil Pollution Act, contains such provisions, and that processes have been prescribed for the purpose of what is referred to there as “natural resources damage assessment”. I submit that such regulations represent the gold standard in this context.

My second reason tracks the preventative spirit of the bill. There are now roughly 10 federal environmental laws with some kind of environmental damages provisions, and it has been 10 years since the Supreme Court opened the door for governments to sue for these, and yet I am not aware of a single case where the federal crown has actually sought to do so. Perhaps this is something that future government witnesses could shed some light on. Whatever the case, this reality greatly undermines, in my view, the deterrent effect that statutory liability regimes like Bill C-46 are intended to create.

[Jeff Labonté]

That's a great question. I appreciate the question.

We did a fair bit of analysis and certainly looked at a whole bunch of factors when establishing the proposed limits that are included in the bill. We took into account an analysis of the historic incidents and the number of incidents that have occurred and have involved pipeline spills. We looked at current and proposed projects. We looked at existing pipelines, the volumes they carry, the nature of the goods they carry, and the exposure they might have to different scenarios of land, property, and whatnot.

We looked at other jurisdictions as well, so as your benchmark would say.... We certainly recognize that to our south in the United States there is the example of the Enbridge incident in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where there was a rupture and just shy of 20,000 barrels leaked into the Kalamazoo River, I believe. The cost of cleaning up that spill is in the order of a billion dollars. I think it's about $1.1 billion or $1.2 billion, depending on which dollar you're looking at and what day you're looking at. That particular cost would be, I think, the high-water mark, if you will, in terms of analysis we've conducted.

We looked into the records of NEB hearings and different projects that are taking place. Certainly, the northern gateway panel, as an example, had established a $950-million limit as the terms of fiscal capacity expected of the northern gateway partnership project. That was a mix of cash, insurance, and asset requirements.

We looked at the United States, Norway, Australia, and other countries around the world that we would consider peer jurisdictions. In the U.S., the methodology for looking at oil spills is an oil spill fund. An oil spill fund has an upper limit of $1 billion per incident, so should an incident occur and a company is not able to deal with the incident adequately, there is up to a billion dollars of coverage that's funded.

In establishing our assessment and liability limit, we looked at all of those factors and felt that the billion-dollar amount was an adequate amount given (a) our comparators with other jurisdictions, and (b) the number of incidents we've seen and the incidents we've seen in terms of incidents around the world, and certainly what was established as a benchmark in the northern gateway scientific hearing, which had testimony from various experts from many jurisdictions. That was one part of it.

The second part of it was to look at and compare our world in terms of liability as it relates to liability related to negligence and fault and to liability as it relates to absolute liability. Certainly when we look at the Canadian context, we have several examples in statute around this particular domain of natural resource development where we see absolute liability, in which the entity that's responsible for the activity is automatically responsible in the event of something going wrong, regardless of fault or negligence. We see this in the offshore under Bill C-22, which has passed. We've seen it in the nuclear sector. We see it in the Fisheries Act. We see it in a number of places.

Not only did we establish the billion-dollar limit, but we also proposed—and this is certainly included in the legislation, as you see—the notion of absolute liability, which removes the arguing and entanglement about who's responsible for what and what degree of responsibility there is. It becomes the responsibility of the operator. After everything is settled and sorted out, if you will, the operator can then pursue the legal routes to deal with who may be responsible beyond themselves, whether it was a contractor or a third party.

Certainly, when we established the billion dollars, we worked fairly extensively at looking at a number of areas and came to a conclusion. I think I have covered most of what your interest was, and if there are more questions in this area, I'm happy to take them.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-46 on behalf of my fellow constituents in Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. This is a bill that deals with issues as important as energy resources and the protection of our environment.

Bill C-46 amends the rules governing oil companies’ liability. That consists of establishing a principle under which the party responsible for an oil spill will pay up to $1 billion for the damage caused. This bill is part of a broader government review of the liability rules that apply to various aspects of oil and gas development.

Canadians are aware of the potential risks of extracting and transporting oil, and they need to know that their government is going to oversee the industry properly and also protect our environment. Canadians do not have to make a choice between economic development and environmental protection. We need to take both aspects into consideration jointly.

When it comes to projects like northern gateway, Keystone XL or energy east, it is important to make judicious decisions that promote economic development and employment in Canada, while at the same time minimizing the risks to our environment. We need a new vision when it comes to the future of our energy resources, a vision that is guided by three very simple principles.

The first is sustainability, to ensure that polluters pay the bill for cleanups associated with a spill and the pollution caused, rather than passing the bill on to the next generations.

The second is partnership, to ensure that the First Nations, the provinces and local communities genuinely benefit from resource development and to create reliable and value-added jobs here in Canada.

The third is the long-term prosperity that comes from investing the proceeds of our natural resources in modern, ecological technologies, to keep Canada on the cutting edge of energy innovation and keep energy prices affordable for all Canadians.

We are disappointed that in spite of all our calls for urgent action, the Conservatives have taken so long to introduce this bill. In 2011, the Commissioner of the Environment pointed out that the National Energy Board had been unable to solve a number of known problems and ensure adequate maintenance of pipelines. The government has still not implemented an adequate monitoring and inspection system.

Last year, Bill C-22 was also introduced. It dealt with liability relating to offshore drilling and the possibility of spills in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. Because of this narrow vision, the government did not conduct consultations on the liability regime applicable to rail transportation. The Conservatives did not take that issue seriously until they had to limit the political fallout or consequences from the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.

The bill we are currently considering includes absolute liability for all pipelines regulated by the National Energy Board. In other words, the companies will be liable for the costs and damage caused by a pipeline spill, regardless of fault, up to a maximum of $1 billion for high-capacity pipelines. However, in the case of fault or negligence, liability will be unlimited.

I welcome this measure. It is a good start, but that figure could be reached quickly, since the cleanup of some tragedies that have occurred in recent years has significantly exceeded the $1 billion ceiling provided by this bill.

Bill C-46 also limits the time Canadians will have to claim compensation for long-term damage to their health or the environment caused by an accident. The claim must be made within three years of when the damage occurs or six years, at most, after an oil spill. This is debatable, since it is highly probable that some damage will be discovered well after the six years provided by this bill.

The bill gives the National Energy Board the authority to order reimbursement of any cleanup costs incurred by governments, communities or individuals. It also grants the National Energy Board the authority and resources to assume control of a response to any incident, in exceptional circumstances, if a company is unable or unwilling to do so. The NEB would also have new tools for recouping cleanup costs, which could go so far as charging the entire industry.

Unfortunately, the government left some leeway here with decisions that would be left in the hands of cabinet and the National Energy Board, an agency that, on occasion, has demonstrated a lack of credibility. Instead of establishing a responsible regime, with a strict framework, the government is leaving too much leeway for politically motivated decisions, cabinet decisions and backroom agreements that would obviously not be made public between operators and the NEB. Of course, we will question the government about these discretionary measures. It is important to hold the government accountable to Canadians. We are disappointed in the scope of the bill. I hope the Conservatives will be open to the amendments that will be proposed in committee.

Given the limited scope of the bill, we are concerned that polluters will not have to bear the full cost of the damage and that Canadians will end up footing the bill. If so, that casts doubt on the true scope of this bill. What happens if there is a problem establishing fault or negligence? Will Canadians have to pay in such cases? We are talking about possibly billions of dollars. That is a lot of money, and it is not up to Canadians to pay the bills for companies that may have been negligent in their operations. It is all well and good to introduce a bill that focuses on figuring out who is liable, but we also have to be proactive and do as much as possible to prevent oil spills. This bill does not do that.

We need better regulations and increased monitoring of pipelines. In addition, we need to rebuild the robust environmental assessment process that has been dismantled by the current government over the past few years. With the huge expansion in the production and transportation of crude oil, we need enhanced safety protection, regardless of the method of transportation. To that end, we need to increase mandatory inspections, implement adequate regulations, and enforce these standards. Public safety and environmental protection must be among our top priorities.

My colleagues and I firmly believe that Canada must take steps to ensure that we are developing and transporting our resources in a safe and secure way that serves the interests of all Canadians. To that end, all pipelines need to adhere to the highest possible safety and environmental standards consistent with the principles of sustainable development. To ensure that oil companies and pipeline operators adhere to the regulations, we need to put in place robust laws and establish credible environmental assessment mechanisms.

Furthermore, given that transportation affects the provinces, municipalities and communities, we must ensure that the government consults them and establishes partnerships with them. If everyone works together, Canadians can be assured that all of these projects will be implemented and will respect the principle of sustainable development and that the approval process will be as fair as possible, in order to strengthen the accountability of everyone involved. The provinces will continue to develop their natural resources. The issue is knowing how to develop those resources sustainably, while protecting the environment and creating value-added jobs in Canada.

In closing, we will support this bill at second reading, and we ask the government to remain open to the amendments we plan to propose in committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received, which is as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

February 26, 2015

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that Ms. Patricia Jaton, Deputy Secretary to the Governor General, in her capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 26th day of February, 2015, at 3:20 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace

The bills assented to on Thursday, February 26 are Bill C-47, An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect; and 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.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate, informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill: 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.

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Victoria.

Bill C-51 is now before us so that we can debate something that is of great importance to the people of Canada. I think its short title is the “anti-terrorism act, 2015”. There is a real question as to what it is really about.

In fact, The Globe and Mail, one of the oldest and most prominent newspapers in Canada, says:

On close inspection, Bill C-51 is not an anti-terrorism bill. Fighting terrorism is its pretext; its language reveals a broader goal of allowing government departments, as well as CSIS, to act whenever they believe limply defined security threats “may”—not “will”—occur.

That is a pretty fierce condemnation of a piece of legislation by what purports to be a serious government interested in dealing with terrorism.

Let us make no mistake. Terrorism is a real threat and everyone agrees that public safety is a top priority for any government. However, Canadians do not have to choose between their security and their rights. This is in fact a false choice presented to the people of Canada by the current government and by the Prime Minister.

When the member for Ottawa West—Nepean was announcing his retirement as foreign minister, he quoted John Diefenbaker that "Parliament is more than procedure—it is the custodian of the nation's freedom.”

I believe that is right. What we are doing here today on this side of the House is what we can and must do as parliamentarians to protect the freedoms of Canadians, because that is the issue here. The issue is that we need to have concrete measures that would keep Canadians safe without eroding our freedoms and our way of life. Unfortunately, time and time again, the current Prime Minister and the current government is putting politics ahead of principle.

Once again, The Globe and Mail stated, on February 1:

Under the cloud of fear produced by his repeated hyperbole about the scope and nature of the threat, he [the Prime Minister] now wants to turn our domestic spy agency into something that looks disturbingly like a secret police force.

Canadians should not be willing to accept such an obvious threat to their basic liberties.

Where does that come from? It comes from the provisions in the bill itself, which would give additional powers to CSIS that it does not already have and, arguably, does not need; and which would allow for information-sharing broadly between 16 government departments. The bill does not specify this would be limited in nature. It would cause problems that have been described and outlined by many prominent citizens—former prime ministers, former leaders of political parties, academics, legal expects, former justices of the Supreme Court of Canada—all of whom have condemned the legislation as going too far and giving unnecessary and dangerous powers to government agencies with a profound lack of parliamentary oversight.

The government's position on oversight is that we already have enough, that we have a robust system. We do not. We do not have any system of oversight for the Canada Border Services Agency. We have an appointed body, SIRC, that deals with CSIS, but it is not an oversight agency. It says so itself in its most recent report and it makes the distinction between oversight and review. It says it is a review agency that looks at things some time after the fact. It does not have oversight on a continuous basis over what is going on in the moment on the day. Therefore, it is not an oversight agency. It says so itself and recognizes that oversight is a different value and is required.

Its provisions have been put before the House to provide the kind of oversight that we could use, oversight that some of our Five Eyes friends have over intelligence. Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America have robust parliamentary or congressional oversight with the power to know what is going on and to keep an eye on things.

This has been rejected outright by the government. There was private member's bill, Bill C-622, that would have modernized a piece of legislation that was before the House in 2006, a piece of legislation that arose out of the committee that you, Mr. Speaker, sat on, along with the current Minister of Justice, who said at that time that this would be a desirable, necessary, and important measure to be undertaken. That bill died on the order paper, but Bill C-622, which proposed modernizing that legislation to some extent—which I am not saying we agreed with entirely—was before the House and was defeated by the government at second reading.

Also before the House is Motion No. 461, a motion that I presented to the House on October 24, 2013, calling for a special select committee of the House, like the one the Speaker and the Minister of Justice sat on, to devise the best and appropriate form of oversight by Parliament that might be required given the change in circumstances since 2004 and the experiences of other jurisdictions, for us to devise the best system for our Parliament.

Although it was offered up for debate, the government House leader refused to allow it to be debated, saying there was no necessity for any more oversight than already in place. That flies in the face of all the experts, the academic experts and people who have studied this time and time again, such as lawyers, judges, former leaders, and former prime ministers, who have all said that parliamentary oversight must be present in a system that protects the rights and freedoms of individuals in this country when we are dealing with this kind of legislation.

The bill is is extremely intrusive. It gives significant police powers, including the power to disrupt activities. I heard the Minister of National Defence—who all of a sudden is the spokesperson for Public Safety, as I do not know what happened to the Minister of Public Safety, who seems to have disappeared off the map since the new Minister of Defence was appointed—say several times over the weekend in various interviews that “No, no, no, we're giving powers to the judiciary, not to CSIS”. That is wrong. The power to disrupt in section 42 of the bill would be given to CSIS directly. It would only be when CSIS decided that whatever it wanted to do would actually violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that it would have to go a judge, and the judge supposedly would be allowed to tell CSIS that it could break the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I do not think that is constitutional. I do not think a judge can have a licence by legislation to violate the Constitution of Canada, which is what the bill would allow. That is how bad this legislation is. that in itself is enough to say that the bill is bad, wrong, unconstitutional, and cannot be supported. I will leave it at that.

Pipeline Safety Act

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today in the House to Bill C-46, the so-called pipeline safety act.

I listened closely to the speeches by the last two speakers in the House, and I hope that we can work together here in the House, but also at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, on improving this bill and making it stronger and more effective. This is a major issue for the environment, for the industry and for Canada.

I hope this legislation will not suffer the same fate as the legislation that we finally passed through the House last year, which addressed the liability regime in Canada's offshore oil and gas sector. That legislation, Bill C-22, as I mentioned earlier in a question for the minister, was introduced numerous times by the Conservatives only to be left to languish on the order paper for several years. The government seemed to be in no hurry at all to move that forward, for the longest time, so the fact that it seems to be a bit more anxious now is encouraging. When that bill finally moved through the House, the government refused to accept a number of solid amendments that would have improved the bill, made it stronger, and given greater protection for the offshore environment.

I hope it will be a different story for Bill C-46. Perhaps one might say, when I express optimism, that I am feeling hope despite all past evidence to the contrary. However, I remain an eternal optimist.

The Liberal Party recognizes that pipelines are a critical part of our energy sector's infrastructure. We have all seen the consequences of the government's failure to provide the means to get our resources to market. We have all seen what it has meant domestically in Canada for communities and in the international community in terms of how the Conservative government is viewed as a regulator of the environment. It is certainly not seen as a defender of the environment, and it has no credibility when it comes to environmental regulations, which makes it harder to get acceptance, for example, for the Keystone XL pipeline in the U.S. or to sell our resources in the international market and around the world.

Bill C-46 has already drawn a number of comments from members of Parliament and from interested stakeholders and other groups. Some have raised concerns over the potential impact of leaving many of the proposed changes in Bill C-46 to the discretion of cabinet and the National Energy Board, as I was saying earlier. Again I am an eternal optimist, but hopefully the government side will address this issue during debate on the legislation or perhaps in committee.

I am also looking forward to hearing at some point from the leader of the Green Party on this legislation, who according to media reports, sees nothing in the bill that she would oppose. However, she also indicated that she looks forward to a discussion about why her party will always oppose any pipeline shipping diluted bitumen. I certainly look forward to hearing that discussion.

One thing on which there is consensus is the importance of the energy sector to our economy. It is undebatable. The energy sector makes a large direct contribution to jobs and economic growth in this country. That is perhaps one of the reasons we are so aware across Canada of the impact on the oil and gas sector of the recent drop in the price of oil.

Let us look at what generally has been the case in that sector. For instance, we have seen average annual government revenues of $26.6 billion from the oil and gas sector. That pays for a lot of doctors, a lot of schools, and a lot of teachers. It is a significant number, to say the least. Per year, it is $155 billion in the country's GDP and approximately 300,000 jobs. There are indirect impacts in engineering and construction jobs, about $2.5 billion in engineering and research and development in 2010, and $32 billion in annual energy efficiency savings across the economy in 2010. Important research development is happening in the energy sector. This is, without question, an important sector. In my view, this has to be part of the equation when we consider what ought to be the absolute liability limit for pipelines.

Overall, there seems to be a consensus that, while the bill is long overdue, it is a move in the right direction or at least a good first step. I do not think anyone would argue with the fact that we need to strengthen the safety and security of pipelines to ensure that companies operating them take every measure to prevent any spill from happening and of course be held accountable if a spill does occur.

I know the Minister of Natural Resources is fond of pointing out that between 2008 and 2013, 99.9995% of oil transported in federally regulated pipelines moved safely. It is not perfect, but it is certainly a very good record, and our pipeline companies do deserve recognition for this important achievement.

The fact of the matter is that we use petroleum products in our country every day. We could go outside to the nearest street and watch the number of cars that go by. They are not all electric, by any means. Most of them obviously are not. We use it to heat our homes. We use petroleum products in so many ways. We rely on pipelines. They are an important part of our economy and are likely to be for quite a while to come. They play an important role in our society, and it is vitally important that they be run safely. When they are, it is appreciated, and we have to find ways to ensure it is done as well as possible at all times.

However, we also need to look to the future and take every step possible to continue to prevent spills, because they are the last thing we want. We heard about one in Montana a few minutes ago. That is very alarming. We do not want to see the kind of damage that oil can do when it is released to the environment.

We need to put in place proper measures to efficiently and effectively clean up spills and assign appropriate liability to make sure that companies have a really strong incentive to look after those pipelines, to renew them, and to maintain them appropriately. Canada must have the safest pipelines in the world, and we need to ensure that this pipeline safety act is well designed to achieve that goal.

In the bill, the National Energy Board would be given increased regulatory control over the 73,000 km of pipeline that transport more than $100 billion worth of petroleum products across Canada annually. Bill C-46 would build on previous moves to give the NEB the authority to increase the number of pipeline inspections and double the number of yearly safety audits. It does not guarantee the NEB would actually do either of those things, but at least the bill gives it the authority. In that sense, it is a step in the right direction. The worry is the amount of discretion that would be given to cabinet and to the NEB, as I mentioned earlier.

The NEB would also be asked to provide guidance on the best available technologies for pipeline construction and operations. We have seen the measures that set out how the government would work with aboriginal communities and industry to develop a strategy to better integrate aboriginal peoples and pipeline safety operations. That is something those communities are very concerned about, for obvious reasons. This would include planning, monitoring, incident response, and related employment and business opportunities. I hope this is an indication that we will see some progress in this area.

However, let us look at some of the key provisions in Bill C-46. Previous speakers have noted that there would be at least the $1 billion absolute or no-fault liability limit. In other words, in a case where there is negligence or fault shown, the liability would be in fact unlimited. However, no-fault or absolute liability applies when that negligence or fault is not shown. It means that no matter what they have done, if the product is a deleterious product that could be toxic, we would hold them accountable when there is a release of it, whether or not it can be proven they were negligent. That is an important measure because it is a valuable product and it produces important revenues for the industry, so we have to hold them to account appropriately. We are talking here about an unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas, or other petroleum product from a pipeline.

Absolute liability applies to companies operating major oil pipelines; that is to say, those with capacity to transport at least 250,000 barrels per day of oil. Lesser amounts—so smaller pipelines—will be prescribed by regulation for companies that operate smaller pipelines.

It should be noted that Bill C-46 confirms that the liability of the companies operating pipelines would remain unlimited if the spill is the result of negligence. Companies would be required to maintain the financial resources to pay the amount of liability that applies to them and must make sure that the resources are readily accessible to ensure rapid response to any spill situation. They would be required, as stated in the bill, to have the materials and equipment necessary nearby in order to deal with a spill. I hope the NEB would enforce that.

Under the bill, the NEB would have the authority to take control of an incident response if a company were unable or unwilling to do so and to order reimbursement of any level of government, whether it be an aboriginal governing body or a federal-provincial-municipal government or an individual, for cleanup costs. That is a positive measure. Again, would be left to the discretion of the NEB, and that discretion is a concern.

If the NEB takes control of an incident response, the government may also establish a claims tribunal. Again, it is “may establish”. We do not know that the government will do this; we hope it would. It may also establish a claims tribunal to streamline claims for compensation for those affected by the spill. This could be a good measure, depending on how the government used its discretion in implementing this.

While the government would provide the resources to take control of an incident and set up a claims tribunal, it would have the authority to recover the costs from the individual or the company. That is a good thing.

The bill would also ensure that companies are liable for their pipelines until they are removed from the ground, and the National Energy Board would be authorized to make sure companies are responsible for the maintenance of their abandoned pipelines. Clearly these and other measures in Bill C-46 signify a much-needed overhaul of the liability regime for federally regulated pipelines.

The no-fault liability, the additional authorities given to the NEB, and measures around abandoned pipelines are welcome, and the Liberal Party will support sending the legislation for further study at committee. I expect that the process will lead to amendments at committee that strengthen this legislation. I hope we will be surprised to find that the government will actually adopt such amendments, because our past experience has been that this is not the case.

For instance, groups like Ecojustice have already noted that the effectiveness of the changes proposed in Bill C-46 would be left largely to the discretion of the National Energy Board and the government. I think this is an issue we will hear more about when the bill goes to committee for further study.

To wrap up, as I said earlier, I was a bit surprised to be debating Bill C-46 on the first day of the House coming back after the holiday recess and given the fact that this legislation was only introduced on December 8, 2014. Perhaps the haste with which the government is proceeding has more to do with trying to restore public confidence in pipelines after it has completely bungled the file so often.

As my colleague from Papineau has said, when it comes to pipelines, the Prime Minister and the government are all hat and no cattle. This is a government that has failed to effectively protect the interests of the oil and gas sector or the environment. Of course, the oil and gas sector needs pipelines to get its product to offshore markets and other markets domestically in North America in the safest manner possible. I suspect members would all agree that, in terms of transportation of petroleum products, a pipeline is safer than a truck or a train.

Look at the government's record. It has botched the handling of the Keystone XL project. It bungled the northern gateway. It has orphaned energy east. Let us not forget that this is a government that has swallowed itself whole with regard to its attitude toward the energy sector. It was not very long ago that the government and the Prime Minister were constantly boasting about how Canada was a petro-state. The Prime Minister boasted that we are an emerging energy superpower to anyone who would listen. As a result of his fixation with the oil and gas industry, his party became dismissive of the importance of other sectors.

Of course, that was when the price of oil was in the $100 a barrel range, and perhaps it will be there again in six months or a year. Who knows when? However, now that the price of oil has fallen dramatically, the Prime Minister and his minions have adopted a new mantra to try to cover their incompetence and their failed economic strategy to put all their eggs in one basket.

Today they are telling Canadians that the energy sector is just a small percentage of Canada's GDP and that the economy as a whole is strong. They should tell that to the workers who are experiencing downsizing these days.

Some voters might believe the empty rhetoric, if there were not obvious signs of panic and chaos within cabinet ranks. We have a finance minister who one day says that his economic forecast remains on target and the very next day says that he is forced to delay the budget for several more months because of severe economic uncertainty. How do those two things equate? How do they go together? Clearly, the finance minister is hiding his budget, for obvious reasons.

I hope the natural resources minister is not hiding the real reason he is moving so quickly on Bill C-46. I hope the government is serious about pipeline safety, when it comes to Bill C-46, and is not just trying to cover up its ineptness and incompetence. I guess we will find out when we see its response to our efforts to enhance and strengthen this legislation to make sure that Canada has the safest pipeline infrastructure in the world. I hope that means the government will allow us to hear what experts have to say about what the limit ought to be and how this bill ought to be amended to be improved. After all, Canadians deserve nothing less.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first sitting day of the 2015 calendar year, I begin by wishing you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues in the House a belated happy new year.

I do not know how I got lucky enough to be the first New Democrat to give a speech on a government bill in this chamber this year, but I am certain that there is a short straw with my name on it somewhere in the opposition lobby. Anyway, let us launch right into it.

The bill before us today is Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. Perhaps it will help people to stop from nodding off if I explain at the outset that despite its unimaginative title, the bill really purports to improve pipeline safety in our country.

That is where we find the yardstick for whether my NDP colleagues and I will ultimately be able to support the bill. Does Bill C-46 actually improve pipeline safety, or is it a rhetorical exercise to provide the government cover in what is, after all, an election year? I will spend the next 20 minutes or so in this House trying to answer that single and most germane question.

I will begin by providing a bit of context first. There is no doubt that Canada's natural resources are a tremendous blessing and that our energy sector is the motor of the Canadian economy. It is imperative that we capitalize on those unique advantages. For New Democrats, that means that we have to leverage them by creating high quality middle-class jobs, by harnessing the full potential of Canada's natural gifts, and by maximizing the benefit of development for all Canadians. That development is vital to our economy and our country.

However, the reality is that resource development can only move forward if development is done sustainably. If we are going to seize the opportunities ahead, if we are going to leverage our resources to create wealth and prosperity for generations to come, then we will have to rise to meet new challenges and adapt to the new reality of the new century, and that requires a new vision, a vision that my NDP colleagues and I have been promoting tirelessly, not just for months, but for years now.

Our vision is one that promotes economic growth without sacrificing social or environmental sustainability, one that looks to the future instead of clinging to the past, and one that creates lasting prosperity instead of feeding endless cycles of boom and bust. To that end, our vision is based on three key principles: sustainability, to make sure that polluters pay for the pollution they create instead of leaving those costs to the next generation; partnership, to make sure that communities, provinces, and first nations all benefit from resource development and that we create value-added, middle-class jobs here in Canada; and most important, long-term prosperity that leverages our natural national resource wealth to invest in modern, clean energy technology that will keep Canada on the cutting edge of energy development and ensure there are affordable energy rates into the future.

For far too long, Canadians have been told they have to choose between our economy and our environment, but that is a false choice. It is an approach that is stuck in the past. A little less than two years ago, government documents revealed the very real economic costs of the environmental cleanup of the Giant Mine at Great Slave Lake. They have doubled from initial estimates, ballooning to nearly a billion dollars.

This is a vast industrial waste site bordering on the second deepest freshwater lake in the world, a Canadian treasure, and yet for more than half of the last century, it was contaminated with no regard for the costs it would impose on our children and grandchildren.

Communities from coast to coast to coast have made their voices clear. We will not let that happen again. However, despite this mess, the Conservative government is continuing down the same short-sighted path. It is dismantling every major piece of environmental protection and hurting Canada's economic development at the very same time.

Past generations can perhaps be excused for the way they treated places like Great Slave Lake, but our generation has no excuse. The fact is, in the 21st century, a social licence is every bit as important as a regulatory licence, if not more. In this day and age, any development model that relies on degrading our environment, on putting public safety at risk, or on exploiting our resources without benefiting our communities is no model at all.

Canadians understand only too well the long-term consequences of the Conservative government's attacks on our environmental laws, and they are reacting because those attacks are sabotaging resource development and ultimately our economy as a whole.

In big cities and in small towns, development projects are meeting increasing resistance. The northern gateway, Kinder Morgan, and energy east pipelines are but three of the most recent examples.

Why should Canadians not be worried? They see the Conservative government gutting environmental assessments, they see dangerous pipeline spills on the rise, and they worry whether their communities will be next.

A recent Harris/Decima poll conducted for the government made it clear that only 27% of Canadians are confident that the Government of Canada is able to respond effectively to a significant oil spill on water. The number is only slightly higher, at 32%, for oil spills on land. Similarly, a significant proportion of Canadians do not feel confident that pipelines, tankers, and trains are transporting dangerous goods safely. When it comes to rail transport, only 29% of Canadians feel confident that it is safe. Only 37% of Canadians believe oil tanker transport is safe, while 47% of Canadians are confident that pipelines can safely transport oil.

Clearly, that is not a vote of confidence in the Conservatives' handling of this critical file.

It is equally clear that Canadians share the belief of New Democrats that we must take steps to ensure that we are developing and transporting our resources in a safe and secure way; that we have to implement effective oil spill prevention measures; that we have to increase inspections in oversight; and that we have to push for expanded liability so that we are giving teeth to the polluter pays principle.

When it comes to oil transport, with the huge expansion in production and transportation of crude oil, we need enhanced safety protection. This is common sense, no matter what the method of transport.

Public safety and environmental protection must be the highest priorities if we are to develop our natural resources sustainably.

That brings us back to the heart of the bill that is before us today. Would Bill C-46 implement a true polluter pays regime in Canada, and would the bill go far enough to obviate Canadians' legitimate concerns when it comes to pipeline safety?

Let us look at what the bill purports to do.

Unfortunately, in the time allotted to me here today, it is only possible to do that in the broadest of terms. However, I am hopeful that we will be able to undertake the detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny the bill merits at the committee stage of the legislative process.

At its most general, the purpose of Bill C-46, would be to improve Canada's pipeline liability regime.

It would be part of the government's larger review of the distinct liability regimes that govern different aspects of Canada's oil and gas development. Here, members will recall that last year Bill C-22 dealt with liabilities related to offshore drilling and potential spills in both Arctic and Atlantic waters. As well, over the course of last year, the government began consultations on the liability regime governing rail transport, as it sought to do damage control in the wake of Lac-Mégantic. Now, we have yet a third piece before us dealing with the liability regime governing Canadian pipelines.

Here is what Bill C-46, would do.

It would reinforce the polluter pays principle.

It would confirm that the liability of pipeline companies is unlimited if an unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas, or any other commodity is a result of fault or negligence.

It would establish the limit of liability, without proof of fault or negligence, at no less than $1 billion for companies that operate pipelines with capacity to transport at least 250,000 barrels per day and an amount prescribed by regulation for companies that operate any other pipelines.

It would require that pipeline companies maintain the financial resources necessary to pay the amount of the limit of liability that would apply to them.

The bill would authorize the National Energy Board to order any company that operates a pipeline from which an unintended or uncontrolled release occurs to reimburse government institutions for the costs incurred in taking any action in relation to the release.

It would require that pipeline companies remain responsible for their abandoned pipelines.

It would authorize the NEB to order pipeline companies to maintain funds to pay for the abandonment of their pipelines.

It would authorize the Governor in Council to authorize the NEB to take, in certain circumstances, any action the NEB considers necessary in relation to an unintended or uncontrolled release.

It would also allow the Governor in Council to establish a pipeline claims tribunal to examine and adjudicate claims for compensation for damage caused by an unintended or uncontrolled release from a pipeline.

Many of these changes are long overdue, and I would be less than honest if I did not acknowledge that they appear to be a step in the right direction.

However, it is also true that, once again, the Conservatives are late to the game. New Democrats have been waiting for the government to fix oil spill liability for quite some time. As always, with the current government, the devil is in the details.

Let us take a closer look at the some of the pluses and minuses of what has been presented to us in this bill.

On the upside, the fact that polluters will be absolutely liable for harm caused by a pipeline spill is obviously a good thing. What it means is that any company operating a pipeline will be liable in the event of a spill even if it has not been negligent and has not broken any laws. Moreover, companies must have enough financial resources to cover in full the absolute liability limit. For companies whose pipelines have the capacity to move at least 250,000 barrels per day, that limit will be $1 billion once this bill passes. That monetary amount may be increased by the government in the future, but the bill would prohibit cabinet from lowering it. That too is a good thing.

The bill would also give the NEB new tools to recoup cleanup costs from polluters, and in certain circumstances it even gives the board the power to recover costs from the industry as a whole, not just from the individual polluter.

Finally on the plus side, the bill would make polluters liable for environmental damages. Members will recall that we spent a lot of time when scrutinizing of Bill C-22 on the need to make polluters responsible for environmental damages or losses of non-use value of public resources. It is as important now as it was then to ensure that liability is not just restricted to the environment's commercial value. Bill C-46 sets out to do that and is an important first step in catching up with U.S. oil spill regulation, which is much more developed with respect to the recognition of environmental damages.

However, as a thoughtful analysis by Ian Miron at Ecojustice makes clear, there is an overall lack of certainty in Bill C-46 that may well undermine what would otherwise be this positive first step. Specifically, Mr. Miron points out three things. First, and perhaps most crucially, Bill C-46 does not impose unlimited absolute liability on polluters. No liability regime can truly be called a polluter pays regime unless and until polluters are made absolutely liable for the full costs of environmental harm.

While the $1 billion limit for some companies may be a big improvement over the status quo, it still would not completely cover the cleanup costs of an accident such as Enbridge's Kalamazoo River spill in Michigan. According to recent estimates, that spill, the largest in U.S. history, cost more than $1.2 billion to clean up, not including compensation for damages.

Moreover, Bill C-46 actually takes a step backward by eliminating the government's ability to recover cleanup costs for a pipeline spill under the Fisheries Act, which applies in certain circumstances to make a polluter absolutely liable without limit. In the absence of such unlimited absolute liability, the government and, therefore, Canadians may still be on the hook for spills, and that, frankly, is wrong. If the government is so convinced that pipelines are a mature industry, then the industry is one that can and must pay for itself. Instead, the fact that this bill does not completely enshrine the polluter pays principle means that the Conservatives are giving just one more handout to its friends in the oil patch by making taxpayers liable for oil spill risks.

In that regard, it is also worth pointing out that the bill is completely silent on identifying absolute liability limits for smaller oil pipeline companies, or for gas and other non-oil pipeline companies. While such limits may be set by cabinet down the road, it begs the question of why the government would not do so now. Is volumetrics the only criterion the government has used to assess the potential magnitude of damages from a spill? I hope that in the course of our deliberations the Conservatives will give us an answer to that rather pressing question.

This leads to my final broad criticism of the bill. Just as the absolute liability limits are discretionary for all but the big pipeline companies, many other aspects of the new liability regime are as well. While the bill would create several new tools that could enhance the NEB's ability to recoup cleanup costs from a polluter, the NEB or the cabinet get to decide whether or not they will be implemented. As Ecojustice thus rightly points out, BillC-46 leaves considerable leeway for politically motivated decisions and backroom arrangements between operators and the NEB, a regulator that lacks credibility on the pipeline front.

In fact, this may be a good time to say yet again that the NEB needs a fundamental overhaul. While the Liberals and Conservatives have generally been happy simply to rubberstamp pipeline projects, my NDP colleagues and I firmly believe that major resource projects must be judged on their merits. That means that the NEB has to subject proposals to a rigorous and robust environmental assessment process. Assessment criteria must include the impact of each individual project on our emissions and climate change commitments, on Canadian jobs, and on national and regional energy security. Public consultations must be credible and democratic, not shallow, limited, or by paper only, and projects must honour our legal obligations to first nations.

Clearly, such rigour was absent in the NEB review of both Enbridge's northern gateway and Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain expansion, and the same flawed process is now being applied to TransCanada's energy east plans as well. No wonder Canadians are worried about these pipelines snaking their way through backyards.

Northern gateway has the capacity to move 525,000 barrels per day, 890,000 barrels per day for Kinder Morgan and a staggering 1.1 billion barrels per day for energy east. The potential for disaster is huge, which brings me to the last point I want to raise in wrapping up my participation in today's debate.

While the new liability regime deals with protecting Canadians from the cost of cleaning up an oil spill, my NDP colleagues and I believe the best way to protect Canadians is to ensure such spills do not happen in the first place. Measuring risk correctly and assigning liability may be one tool in the kit to encourage industry to improve its safety practices and therefore reduce the likelihood of catastrophic accidents. However, it is only one tool of many and nothing else is being done. Where is the concrete action to fix the broken environmental assessment process that the Conservatives have dismantled? Where is the much-needed legislation that would bring in better regulation and oversight?

As far back as 2011, the environment commissioned highlighted that the National Energy Board was failing to ensure that known problems were being fixed and that pipelines were being properly maintained. We have a world-class labour force that is ready and eager to do that work. However, without companies making commitments to pipeline safety, Canadians can be forgiven for wondering not whether an oil spill will happen but when.

Canada's natural resources are a tremendous blessing and managed properly and sustainably they can be important drivers for our economy. This is particularly true of the energy sector. However, instead of guiding our energy policy in the best interest of Canadian jobs, the environment and the economy, the Conservative government is gutting assessments and reviews, and failing to address the valid concerns of Canadians. That is such a narrow-minded and counterproductive approach. Social licence, the consent of Canadians for the development of Canada's resources, is crucial to the success of any project. However, instead of working to achieve such consent, the government's intransigence is actually undermining the support for companies in the pipeline sector by exacerbating opposition to energy development right across the country.

There is a better way, and the New Democrats have been championing it for years. It is based on sustainable development. Governments must look at environmental, social and economic impacts before going forward with any development project. That way we can prevent devastating environmental damage, while ensuring that Canadians benefit from Canada's natural bounty of resources. It is the right thing to do, and it finally would allow us to move beyond the all too convenient Conservative canard that Canadians must choose between the economy and the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth.

With the right kind of leadership, Canadians will finally be able to have their cake and eat it too, and that is the kind of leadership the NDP will provide when it forms government, under the experienced leadership of the member for Outremont, later on this year. That will make this a happy new year indeed.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see this bill come forward. As my hon. colleague from Hamilton Mountain said, it is a step in a positive direction and it is needed.

Considering that the bill was just introduced on December 8, it is good but surprising to see it up for debate, considering that the previous bill on absolute liability concerning offshore oil and gas, Bill C-22, was introduced numerous times over several years but left to languish on the order paper. I am interested in what the hurry is in this case, but I am still pleased. The difference is stark, but it is good to have it come forward.

The minister talked about public confidence. That seems to me to be the test, because that is a huge concern right now for the public and for the industry. The petroleum sector is concerned that when they try to put forward projects, they have difficulty in obtaining public confidence when the public does not have confidence in the government or in the NEB as environment regulators.

In leaving so much discretion to cabinet and to the NEB, how does the minister expect to overcome this challenge and to create any greater confidence in the public so that some of these projects might go forward?

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is our biggest complaint about Bill C-22. If the Conservatives really wanted to protect Canadians and the environment, they should have harmonized the two parts of Bill C-22 by imposing the same standards on the nuclear energy and oil and gas sectors.

That is what has me stumped about this bill. The government has not provided an adequate, acceptable or reasonable response to explain this double standard that seems to exist between the oil and gas industry and the nuclear industry. Is it because the government knows that damage caused by the nuclear industry would be much worse and more costly and, in that case, it is not prepared to force the industry to provide compensation?

I do not know what is behind all this, but something does not feel quite right. I think it is a shame that a thorough study of the bill was cut short to benefit the people who keep telling us about their nice nuclear industry in television ads. Congratulations, they do things. We must not think that the nuclear industry is fundamentally bad. The nuclear industry does a lot of very good things, but let us be realistic.

We do not talk about it enough, but there is potential for human error. I realize that there may not have been any errors yet, but something could happen. To err is human. That is what we have to protect ourselves against. We must ensure that we treat the industries the same way.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time.

It is a pleasure for me to rise in the House to represent the people of Gatineau on this lovely Friday before we go back to our ridings for a week. People might wonder why the people of Gatineau would be interested in the 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. Unlike my colleague who just spoke, I can say that it is of great interest to us, as it should be to all Canadians.

This law outlines what would happen if serious problems were to occur, especially in cases of offshore oil and gas spills. This legislation also outlines the levels of responsibility in the event of nuclear incidents. Nonetheless, as we all know, it is often Canadians who are expected to foot the bill.

I always have to smile a little when people talk about the government's money. It is not the government's money; it is the taxpayers' money. That always reminds me of the time someone told me that the government was nice because it had sent him a cheque at tax time. I told him that the government did not send the cheque out of the goodness of its heart, but because it had taken too much of his money, and, on top of it, without paying interest.

I already spoke to this bill at second reading, and I want to acknowledge the tremendous work done by my colleagues from Hamilton Mountain, Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Edmonton—Strathcona, for this is not an easy issue. That act is very hard to read.

In my speech at second reading, I said I was very pleased that our critic in this area had made a recommendation to approve the principle of the bill and suggest amendments at the committee stage. The amendments sought expanded liability and the implementation of global best practices.

The member said that she was going to present amendments to try to strengthen the bill. After some explanations and some rather heated debates, the NDP caucus, which always works very well together, rallied behind the member and her recommendation and voted in favour of the bill at second reading.

Of course now we are getting a slap on the wrist from the government because we have announced that we will be voting against the bill. I find many things in the House pretty shocking, but I was deeply shocked when the Conservatives flatly rejected the serious, intelligent amendments presented by my colleagues of the official opposition.

This is a very important bill that could potentially represent billions of dollars. The sun can't shine every day. We have to be prepared for the tough times. That is what we call risk management. If we do not plan ahead, we might go bankrupt and have to borrow money to pay for things.

This should raise a flag for the Conservatives, unless they think it is up to Canadians to always pay for their mistakes. I want to pick up on what my colleague said. I am still trying to digest what he said about the fact that there has been no human error because accidents only happen as a result of human error.

According to him, since there has been none, this justifies neglecting to include the necessary compensation guarantees with regard to the nuclear industry. With all due respect to the hon. member, that is a bit cavalier because the principle of this bill is to protect against the risk of accidents.

The goal is also to ensure that there are reasonable amounts of money to do so.

I often tell the House that we have a tendency of forgetting the past and that is why we continue to make the same mistakes.

There has not been a case of human error in the nuclear sector. So much the better. However, human error was a factor in Lac-Mégantic, and there is a cost attached to that. All kinds of repairs and rebuilding are going to cost millions if not billions of dollars. I do not wish that on anyone.

I represent the riding of Gatineau, which is in the Outaouais region and the National Capital Region. Chalk River is not very far from there. I remember reading articles in the Ottawa Citizen about the transport of rather dangerous and radioactive materials. Quite often we are not even aware of what is happening under our noses.

I believe it is our duty to ensure that the legislation we pass protects Canadians. At the same time, Canadians should not be our country's cash cows.

Some companies earn huge amounts of money from their industry, and we are not against industry, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier. We simply want to ensure that polluters pay their share and that they do it the right way. For example, if an accident happens, we want companies to be required to compensate anyone who is affected and to fully fix the situation, not to stop at $1 billion. Although $1 billion is a nice figure, it is just a drop in the bucket if you look at the astronomical costs associated with events that happen around in the world.

I would like to talk more about the work done in committee. I was shocked to see that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources had three meetings. Some might say that holding three meetings is fine. However, there were just two meetings with witnesses on a bill that is really not easy to study, and one meeting for the clause-by-clause study.

If memory serves, the two meetings with witnesses were not even full meetings, because of interruptions for votes. All members experience this in committee. Sometimes groups of witnesses are forced to wait for us while we come back to the House to vote. To date, we have come to the House 80 times to vote on time allocation motions, as was the case with this bill.

I am rising in the House to speak to a bill at third reading that is subject to a majority-led gag order. In other words, since the government holds a majority, it is in control of the committee so no one really knows what happens during in camera meetings. There were requests to extend the meetings in order to hear from all of the witnesses who wanted to share their opinion and provide information. Although I do not know what was said behind closed doors, I understand that those requests were denied.

Committees are not an extension of our work here. It is not simply about debating one another. It is about listening to the witnesses and trying to understand the bill. However, given what happened and in light of the comments from some witnesses, we do not get the impression that the bill was seriously, thoroughly studied in committee. There were not very many witnesses who were able to speak. That saddens me deeply.

Another thing that saddens me deeply is that Bill C-22 is being debated under an 80th time allocation motion.

I have already expressed my views on time allocation motions, which can be necessary. They have been used by other parties in power, which were not our party. I hope that we will never have to get into that kind of discussion. I would not like to be criticized for something I said. I am usually consistent and I walk my talk. However, 80 times is really too much.

I would like to take the time I have left to say that I hope the people of Gatineau can participate in Remembrance Day day ceremonies that honour this special time we set aside to remember what our veterans have done for us every day.

I will be at the Norris and Pointe-Gatineau branches of the Royal Canadian Legion to honour the presence and bravery of our veterans.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, and particularly on the ways in which the bill would enhance environmental protection.

As part of our responsible resource development plan, our government has been clear that the development of our natural resources will only proceed if it is safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

Over the past year, our government has initiated a series of new measures to ensure that the development of our natural resources in the offshore is balanced with the protection of the environment. For example, we have increased the number of tanker inspections, required the use of double-hulled ships, and we have improved navigational tools and surveillance used in offshore.

Our government has worked closely with the governments of Nova Scotia, and 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 a federal-provincial offshore board, 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, builds on this work and would provide a world-class regulatory regime for Canada's offshore oil and gas sectors, as well as the nuclear sector, while strengthening protection for Canadians and the environment.

Bill C-22 is focused on the three main areas: prevention, response, and accountability. Today I would like to focus on the area of accountability, namely polluter pays.

In our Speech from the Throne, our government committed to enshrining the polluter pays principle into law. Bill C-22 would do exactly this. It would place accountability on industry and protect Canadian taxpayers in the unlikely event of an accident.

The polluter pays principle assigns responsibility to the polluter, who would have to pay for any damage done to the environment as well as any associated cleanup costs. In doing so, this principle would encourage industry to put more emphasis on the need to protect the environment through the course of its operations.

Under Bill C-22, our government would deliver on the promise to enshrine the polluter pays principle in the law for the offshore civil liability regime.

The current offshore civil liability regime is twofold. First, in the event of an at-fault accident, the offshore operator is subject to covering all costs related to cleanup and remediation. Second, an offshore operator could be subject to absolute liability, even without fault, of up to $30 million in Atlantic Canada and $40 million in the Arctic. This means that if an operator deliberately or negligently causes an accident, it is wholly responsible for all damages and cleanup costs. If it is not negligent in causing the accident, the offshore operator is liable for the accident and any damages that emanate from it, but only up to $30 million in the case of the Atlantic offshore and $40 million in the Arctic. This is clearly out of date, and the legislation before us will update these liability limits.

One of the key features of Bill C-22 is that it will raise the absolute liability limit to $1 billion. This would bring Canada's offshore liability limit in line with other countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. It would mean that if a company caused an accident in the offshore or Arctic but was not found at fault or negligent, it must cover costs of up to $1 billion. I think we can all agree that this would be a significant improvement from the current $30 million and $40 million, in the offshore Atlantic and Arctic respectively.

Unlimited liability will remain. This means that if found at fault, a company must pay for all of the costs regardless of how much they are.

Another key feature is that the legislation would establish a basis to seek environmental damages. This would ensure that any damage to species, coastlines, or other public resources could be addressed in a timely and effective manner. The civil liability regime created under the bill would be one of the most robust and comprehensive in the world.

In addition to actual losses, environmental damages resulting from an accident will be included in the new civil liability regime. This is an important aspect of our legislation, and I would like to outline what can be claimed under that regime.

The regime is set out in three broad categories of damage, as follows: first, claims for all actual loss or damages incurred by any person as a result of an incident; second, the costs and expenses incurred by the federal government, a provincial government, or any other person in taking action in respect of a spill; and the third category would cover claims by the federal or provincial governments for loss of what is referred to as “non-use value” relating to a public resource that is damaged by a spill.

The scope of what would be included under the first category of damage is broad. It would cover all actual loss or damage, including loss of income and future income. With respect to aboriginal peoples, it would include the loss of hunting, fishing, and gathering opportunities. This head of damage would include the loss of what falls under the term “use value”, which would include claims for damages to what is commonly referred to as “ecosystem services”.

The second category of damage would enable the federal and provincial governments, or any other party, such as third-party response contractors, to recoup the costs they incur in the course of taking measures to respond to or mitigate a spill.

The third and final category of damage would create liability for loss of what falls under the term “non-use value” in relation to public resource. This would mean that the federal government or provincial government could bring forward a claim for damage to environmental assets that are valuable to Canadians and future generations.

We introduced authority to account for loss of non-use value in the calculation of fines for environmental offences, in 2009.

Bill C-22 would mark the first time that civil claims for loss or of non-use value of public resources would be available under federal legislation. This would clearly be a big step in improving environmental protection. I am proud that our government has brought it forward.

In conclusion, future generations depend upon our taking a long view of protection: establishing clear liability rules, plus an economically meaningful marker demonstrating that we value the full scope of benefits that we receive from our environment.

Bill C-22 would recognize the economic and social value of our natural resource assets, and the diverse and unique value that the environment holds for Canadians.

I urge all of my hon. colleagues to support this important legislation, and I remain available for any questions that may arise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Labour for her intervention and for her passionate work across Canada. She certainly has a soft spot for the Durham region, and that is appreciated by me and all of the MPs. For a time she was one of the leading surgeons in our area, and it was deeply appreciated.

She certainly also understands the importance of this industry, not just to Ontario but to the Canadian economy. If we look at the generation and supply network, there are 71,000 jobs in a very high-tech and innovative sector. Canadian technology, represented by CANDU technology, is world class, with a perfect operating record. We should be promoting this more internationally.

We do have plants in half a dozen or so countries around the world, generating greenhouse gas emission free power. However, our regulatory regime, the safety and environmental represented in Bill C-22, needs to be updated. This should not be an opportunity where the NDP, and even the Liberal Party, because the Liberal candidate in the by-election called the nuclear industry “a necessary evil”, stand in the way of modernizing the regulatory framework for some of our leading energy industries, the offshore and nuclear. This is about world-class regulation and promoting jobs in Canada.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Energy Safety and Security

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the public is well aware that we are debating Bill C-22, an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The letter goes on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The intervenor goes on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in opposition to Bill C-22. It is called “an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts”. I suppose, compared to some other names I have seen for bills coming before the House, this one is not as reactionary or volatile.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to that member's question.

We need to remember that Bill C-22 would do four important things. It would raise the absolute liability for companies operating in the Atlantic offshore. We talked about that. It would also raise it in the Arctic. It would amend the agreements that are in place with both the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. In the nuclear sector, it would increase the absolute liability amount to $1 billion. It would also take steps to replace the 1976 Nuclear Liability Act.

There are other things that this bill would do. Coming from an area such as Sarnia-Lambton, I am well aware of the importance of the energy sector to our economy and the safety and environmental issues that are inherent in that energy sector. I am also well aware of pipelines. We probably have an inordinate number of pipelines in my area, far more than in any other area in this country.

Bill C-22 also puts in place some other measures that would provide an improved response, a stronger accountability and greater transparency. Therefore, I am looking forward to all members supporting the bill and getting it passed quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Prince George—Peace River for sharing his time with me.

It is my privilege to speak to Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. This legislation would ensure continued world-class safety and security for Canada's offshore oil and gas, and nuclear energy industries. It would enhance regulation and ensure that development is done in a manner that is safe for Canadians and safe for our environment.

Our government has been very clear, taxpayers should not be liable in the highly unlikely event of an incident in either of these industries. It is the company that must be held liable. The bill would deliver on the promise made in the Speech from the Throne to enshrine the polluter pays principle into law. As well, it would fulfill our commitment to provide $1 billion in protection to Canadians by raising absolute liability limits in both these sectors. Absolute liability holds the company responsible regardless of fault.

Canada has an enormous wealth of natural resources that generate significant economic benefits for Canadians. It is not an exaggeration to say that the resource sector is the cornerstone of Canada's economy. Natural resources account for nearly 20% of our gross domestic product, and 50% of our exports.

In fact, the energy, mining and forestry industries provide over $30 billion a year in revenue to governments, money that supports critical social programs such as health care and education. Furthermore, 1.8 million Canadians currently work in the natural resource sectors or in industries that service these sectors. Put another way, one in 10 Canadians work directly or indirectly for the natural resources sector.

Natural resource jobs are in every part of Canada from coast to coast to coast. Today, more than 30,000 aboriginal people work in energy, mining and forestry jobs throughout Canada, making the natural resources sector the largest private sector employer of aboriginal people.

There is true potential for massive investments in resource sectors in every region across Canada. It is estimated that hundreds of major resource projects are currently under way in Canada or planned over the next 10 years, worth approximately $650 billion in investment.

These investments will generate enormous economic growth and create hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs in communities across Canada. Responsible resource development achieves the right balance to unleash the potential of our resource sectors to create high-value jobs across Canada while strengthening safety and environmental protection.

The legislation before us today will strengthen the growth of Canada's energy sector, and will protect Canadians and the environment. With respect to Canada's booming offshore oil and gas industry, the economy of Atlantic Canada has been truly transformed.

Over the past 15 years, Nova Scotia offshore oil and gas production has generated over $2.4 billion in government revenues and annually supports some 750 jobs. At the same time, Newfoundland and Labrador production has generated over $9.2 billion in government revenues and provides over 12,800 direct and indirect jobs annually.

Every stage of offshore petroleum activity, from exploration to production, is subject to strict regulations and oversight by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

Canada's environmental record is strong, and we are making it stronger by focusing on what matters to Canadians: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Our government manages Canada's offshore oil and gas resources jointly with the provinces. We worked in collaboration with Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador to develop these changes.

Bill C-22 would hold companies to account in the case of an incident. By fulfilling our promise in the Speech from the Throne and enshrining the polluter pays principle into law, we are ensuring the continued success of offshore development.

In the Atlantic offshore we are increasing absolute liability from $30 million to $1 billion. We are also increasing the offshore absolute liability in the Arctic from $40 million to $1 billion. This means that companies are responsible for damages up to that amount, regardless of whether they are at fault for the incident. As is currently the case, we would continue to maintain unlimited liability where fault or negligence is proven.

Additionally, companies would need to demonstrate that they have $1 billion in available financial capacity. The bill would make companies responsible for their product and require them to pay for any damage caused. The bill would also strengthen the transparency of our safety regime by giving the public access to emergency planning, environmental plans and other documents filed with regulators. We feel strongly that the public deserves access to this important information and we will make sure that they have it.

Through our government's actions, oil and gas companies operating in the Atlantic and Arctic offshore would be subjected to the highest safety and liability standards in the world.

As my colleagues have mentioned, the energy safety and security act would also strengthen Canada's system for nuclear liability. It places Canada in line with internationally accepted compensation levels and significantly increases the operator's absolute liability for civil damages from $75 million to $1 billion. This increase brings Canada in line with modern western nuclear power generating countries.

This is an important aspect for Canadians because they want to be assured that nuclear power generated in Canada is done safely. Of course, the safety and security of this sector is paramount to the bill and I am proud that we are taking steps to update the liability limits for nuclear.

It is unfortunate that the NDP continues to oppose thousands of jobs in the nuclear sector and the non-emitting electricity generated by nuclear power. I do not need to remind Canadians of the importance of our energy sector. Most willingly acknowledge the huge role that it plays in our national economy and many Canadians would even suggest Canada is blessed with an abundance of resources. The question is why any responsible party would attempt to minimize or negate the importance of one of the most important players in the energy sector, the nuclear industry, as it relates to the overall economic well-being of Canada.

While other parties refuse to support hard-working Canadians or the creation of high-paying jobs across the energy sector, our government is moving forward to ensure that we have world-class safety standards for the benefit of all Canadians, which will in turn lead to even better economic opportunities for all.

In conclusion, the energy safety and security act offers Canada a solid, modern framework to regulate the offshore and nuclear liability systems in Canada for decades to come. Despite the divisive nature of the debate against Canada's development of our various natural resources, the truth that many Canadians realize is that economic prosperity and environmental protection can both be achieved.

Canadians trust our government to grow the economy, create jobs and responsibly develop Canada's resources.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton today.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today on an extremely important piece of legislation: the energy safety and security act. The act would ensure the continued safety and security of Canada's offshore oil and gas and nuclear energy industries, helping to make a world-class regulatory regime even better while strengthening protection for Canadians and the environment.

Bill C-22 would modernize Canada's laws to ensure accountability in these industries and to protect taxpayers if a serious incident resulted in cleanup costs and compensation.

Our government has made a firm commitment, under our plan for responsible resource development, that no major resource project will proceed unless rigorous environmental protection measures are in place. Bill C-22 reflects this commitment by strengthening safety and security in Canada's energy sector by focusing on prevention, response, accountability, and transparency.

The energy safety and security act would give Canada one of the strongest liability regimes in the world, providing a solid framework to regulate Canada's offshore and nuclear industries into the future.

The legislation would also support the responsible promotion and development of our offshore and nuclear industries, which are essential to Canada's economy.

I would first like to speak about the strong regulations we have in our nuclear sector.

Canada has a proud and distinguished history in the development and application of nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes. Canada has been involved in almost every aspect of the nuclear industry, from uranium mining and processing to the development of our CANDU reactors for clean power generation to the production of medical isotopes. As well, in many aspects of nuclear science, including our regulatory regime, we have been world leaders.

The task of overseeing Canada's safety in the nuclear sector falls to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or CNSC, Canada's nuclear regulator. As hon. members are aware, the CNSC is independent with respect to licensing and regulatory matters. It reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources.

Our government places the highest priority on the protection of health, safety, security, and the environment in relation to nuclear activities in Canada. That is why we have ensured that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has the resources it needs to do its mandated job.

The CNSC's compliance and enforcement system includes a number of enforcement actions, such as increased regulatory scrutiny, licensing, decertification, and prosecution. As part of our government's plan for responsible resource development, the CNSC has received an additional tool to ensure safety and environmental protection in Canada's nuclear sector: the Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations. These new regulations authorize the use of financial penalties for violations of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Our Canadian nuclear industry is strong. Unlike the NDP, our government is committed to taking the necessary steps to make it even stronger. If the NDP had its way, it would shut down the nuclear industry entirely, putting 17,000 highly skilled Canadian workers out of work and bankrupting Canadian businesses. This is obviously unacceptable

The government supports a strong and safe nuclear industry, and Bill C-22 further demonstrates our commitment to nuclear safety.

A key feature of Bill C-22 is the $1-billion protection it would provide. In the case of Canada's nuclear industry, we would be strengthening the liability regime to increase the amount of compensation available for civil damages from $75 million to $1 billion

Canadians can be assured that the CNSC would continue to diligently oversee all aspects of the Canadian nuclear industry to ensure that public health, safety, and security, as well as the environment, were protected.

I would now like to briefly touch on other parts of the bill that deal with the offshore.

Bill C-22 would also apply to oil and gas companies operating in the offshore, where we would be raising the absolute liability to $1 billion from its current levels of $30 million in the Atlantic offshore and $40 million in the Arctic.

With these measures, the energy safety and security act would reinforce, in unprecedented fashion, the polluter pays principle, which would protect Canadian taxpayers.

As hon. members know, on our east coast there are two independent offshore boards: the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. The accord acts give these boards the legal authority to regulate offshore oil and gas exploration and development activities.

Members of the offshore boards have professional expertise in various disciplines, including environmental protection, law, economics, engineering, and business. They are supported by highly qualified management teams and staff with extensive experience, including in the fields of environmental protection and safety. Each board ensures that operators exercise due diligence to prevent offshore spills. As a result, drilling cannot occur unless the responsible board is completely satisfied that drilling plans comply with federal regulations and are safe for workers and the environment.

With this in mind, we have worked closely with Nova Scotia and with Newfoundland and Labrador to update and expand legislation to ensure that Canada's offshore regime continues to be world class. Offshore installations and the equipment and training required to operate them must meet strict regulatory standards that are among the highest in the world. The Offshore Health and Safety Act, which received royal assent last spring, will further strengthen Canada's safety regime by giving the offshore industry a clear occupational health and safety framework that is enforceable by law and is free of jurisdictional uncertainty.

Bill C-22 would mean that companies operating offshore would have to have the financial capacity to meet the higher liability obligations. Before any offshore drilling or production activity could take place, companies would need to prove that they could cover the financial liabilities that could result from a spill. This legislation would also establish a cost-recovery regime for the operations of the offshore boards, oblige new requirements for transparency, and create new enforcement tools, such as administrative and monetary penalties.

In conclusion, our government knows that economic prosperity and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. We are committed to protecting the safety of Canadians and the safety of the environment. Through our plan for responsible resource development, we have taken action to ensure that Canada's vast resource wealth can be developed responsibly by putting public safety and environmental protection first. With the passage of Bill C-22, Canada would have in place one of the most modern, efficient, and stringent offshore safety regimes in the world.

Our world-class standards are supported by strong environmental laws. We have worked closely with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to modernize this legislation to make Canada's already world-class safety regime even better.

Bill C-22 is yet another example of our government's commitment to being a leader in safety and environmental protection while ensuring that all Canadians benefit from the jobs, opportunities, and economic growth created by Canada's natural resources. I urge the New Democrats to stop their ideological opposition to resource development and urge all hon. members to allow the passage of Bill C-22.

The House resumed from September 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as my friend has observed, the House of Commons has had an eventful week, but the event that gave me the most satisfaction was seeing the House vote on Tuesday to adopt Ways and Means Motion No. 16. Some watching on TV at home might ask what Motion No. 16 is. That motion enables our government to proceed with the family tax cut and it supports our increase to the $100 a month universal child care benefit, an increase that would see up to $1,920 per child, per year going to support Canadian families.

As exciting as that vote was, I was disappointed to see the position of the members of the NDP and the Liberals in particular, who voted against that support for families.

Now, on to the business of the House. This afternoon we will resume and hopefully conclude debate on second reading of Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act.

Tomorrow, we will finish third reading debate of Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act.

Next week, of course, is a constituency week, when we will be able to connect with our constituents, as well as have a chance to join them at Remembrance Day ceremonies, in our home communities. This is especially important this year, for many reasons.

When the House returns on Monday, November 17, we will start the report stage of Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, and after question period, we will start the report stage of Bill C-27, the Veterans Hiring Act. Both of those bills have been recently reported back from committee.

On Tuesday, November 18, we will have the third day of debate on Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Since all parties support committee examination of the bill, I would expect that the opposition will agree to let that start after next Tuesday's debate.

Also on Tuesday night, we will complete the concurrence debate on the first report of the agriculture committee.

The following day, we will debate Bill C-18 again.

Finally, on Thursday and Friday of the next sitting week, we will resume debate on Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, at second reading.

I was asked directly when the remaining two opposition days will be scheduled. Some time in those remaining four weeks, before we rise for the Christmas break, we will hold those two opposition days.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue to debate Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2, at second reading. That is a bill that focuses on job creation, economic development, growth and prosperity for all Canadians, and is certainly something that is welcomed in this time of continuing global economic uncertainty, and something that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. That debate will continue tomorrow and then will conclude on Monday.

Of course, also on Monday, the President of France, François Hollande, will address both houses of our Parliament that morning.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, we will consider Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act, at second reading.

Ideally, we will conclude this debate on Wednesday, so that a committee can get on with the important work of studying the details of this legislation. This will be an opportunity for all parties to study the bill and its important measures in detail.

Next, I am hoping that on Thursday we could wrap up the second reading debate on each of Bill S-5, the Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve act; and Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act.

Finally, next Friday, November 7, will be dedicated to finishing the third reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act.

There was a specific question with regard to the remaining two allotted days. As members know, I believe we have four weeks available to us after the opportunity in the ridings to observe Remembrance Day with our constituents. I anticipate that those two allotted days will be designated for dates in that last four-week period.

[Andrew Van Iterson, Manager, Green Budget Coalition]

Mr. Chairman and honourable committee members, thank you for inviting the Green Budget Coalition to speak to you again. I'd also like to introduce the Green Budget Coalition's co-chair, James Brennan, from Ducks Unlimited, who can also answer questions.

As many of you know, the Green Budget Coalition is unique in bringing together the expertise of 14 of Canada's leading environmental organizations, collectively representing over 600,000 Canadians and ranging from Ducks Unlimited to Greenpeace. Our mission is to present an analysis of the most pressing issues regarding environmental sustainability in Canada and to make a consolidated annual set of recommendations to the federal government regarding fiscal and budgetary opportunities.

The coalition has welcomed the Government of Canada's progress on the GBC's recommendations, including the Prime Minister's May announcement of the national conservation plan, reductions in tax preferences to the extractive industries, funding for fresh water and infrastructure, and the proposed measures to enshrine the polluter pays principle into law in Bill C-22.

However, many more federal actions are still needed to conserve Canada's natural heritage, to ensure Canadians can live healthy lives, and to play a responsible role in advancing global environmental sustainability

For budget 2015, the Green Budget Coalition is recommending that the Government of Canada pursue three strategic agendas, each of which has a number of associated recommendations. First is energy innovation and climate change leadership with an integrated agenda to capitalize on the blossoming global clean energy economy and to demonstrate leadership on climate change when it is increasingly clear that it its needed. Second is to advance Canada's national conservation plan and make progress on protecting our life-support system starting by meeting our international Aichi biodiversity targets of protecting 17% of our lands and fresh water and 10% of our oceans. Third is to ensure healthy communities for all Canadians, featuring a new environmental health equity agenda to ensure that all Canadians, including vulnerable and disadvantaged populations, can enjoy the same level of protection from preventable environmental health hazards.

Implementing these agendas together could lead to pivotal progress on each of the finance committee's consultation themes, as outlined in the executive summary of our submission, creating prime environmental, economic, and human health benefits.

Given today's focus on jobs, I'd like to outline the key actions we're recommending to accelerate progress on energy innovation and climate change leadership. First is to continue progress on phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, honouring our commitment to the G-20 by committing to not provide new subsidies to liquefied natural gas or renew the mineral exploration tax credit. Second is to announce and implement a well-designed price on greenhouse gas emissions as has been endorsed by the World Bank, the IMF, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, our friends here from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and, I suspect, others at the table here, in 73 countries and over 1,000 companies. Third is to fund fast-charging stations for electric vehicles around major urban centres and provide accelerated capital cost allowance for all forms of power storage to remove key barriers to an efficient Canadian energy system. Fourth is to play a leadership role in United Nations climate change negotiations, including committing $400 million annually for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. Fifth is to protect Canadians and our environment from increasingly volatile weather events, building on the funding for disaster protection that was in Budget 2014, by renewing and expanding the adaptation funding under the clean air agenda before it sunsets in 2016 to at least $45 million per year, and to complement that, by integrating adaptation considerations into all infrastructure project planning and assessment under the Building Canada plan.

Before my time is up, I would also like to highlight a few of the other recommendations we're supporting: renewing and increasing implementation funding for the Species At Risk Act; mapping conservation value across Canada to support the success of the government's national conservation plan; promoting the new environmental health equity agenda, by building on a model that's already in place in the United States; and establishing a tax credit to help Canadians remediate radon, which is the second-leading cause of lung cancer, in their homes.

Thank you all for your time.

Bill C-22--Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, in a previous answer, the minister talked about alignment when it comes to polluter pays. I wonder if he could speak to the proposed nuclear regime in Bill C-22 and how it aligns with that in other countries.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is now the 77th time in this Parliament that the Conservative government is shutting down debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation for Canadian taxpayers, for Canadian citizens, in the House.

Bill C-22 is a bill that deals with nuclear liability and liability in the case of offshore oil and gas accidents. At stake here is whether Canadian citizens ought to be on the hook for the cleanup of accidents, either in the offshore oil and gas industry or with respect to nuclear accidents. We know that in Fukushima it will cost $250 billion to $500 billion to clean up after that nuclear accident. However, here in this bill, the government is proposing that companies be on the hook for only $1 billion, meaning that taxpayers would be on the hook for the rest.

This is a fundamentally important bill that goes to the very heart of the polluter pays principle. However, we find that the Conservatives, clearly not very proud of their approach on this, want to shut down debate and want to make it impossible for us to take those views into account to produce a piece of legislation that actually protects Canadian citizens and our environment.

The irony here is that in no other bill has it ever been this apparent that the Conservatives only shut down debate when people disagree with them. There was no closure motion and there was no time allocation at second reading when we indicated that we would support the bill being sent to committee so that we could improve it and bring it up to international standards. At that point, they were fine with the debate, as long as we all said we were supportive of the bill. However, at third reading, we made it very clear that the bill, even after being amended in committee, fell far short of what Canadians deserve, and now the Conservatives are trying to shut down debate.

It is absolutely outrageous. I want the minister to stand up and agree today to give us the debate that Canadians deserve so that we can enact the polluter pays principle effectively.

[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 one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at third 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.

Bill C-22—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House that agreements have not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) concerning the proceedings at the third reading stage 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here to deliver my first speech since the summer break, following a busy summer that was full of ups and downs. I am on my feet, ready to respond to the government and hold it to account.

Bill C-3 has to do with marine safety and aviation safety. Once again, there is a discrepancy between the bill's objective and what it actually does. We already debated Bill C-3 in another form before prorogation. At the time, it was Bill C-57, which was referred to committee. The NDP proposed some amendments, which were all rejected. The NDP also asked the government to expand the scope of the bill, which the government also refused to do.

This attitude is really unfortunate. When we are dealing with topics as broad as aviation safety and marine safety, they are often very complex and require the testimony of expert witnesses. Logically, then, if we are opening up such a debate, we need to try to go over the entire subject and take the opportunity to discuss all the appropriate aspects of marine and aviation safety in order to avoid having to constantly come back to such a technical subject. Basically, it is a little like spring cleaning at home—we have to look inside every nook and cranny. We cannot simply choose the parts that interest us. This is the logical way to go about it, but unfortunately, the government refuses to apply this logic. It does not agree that as long as we are discussing such complex issues, we should explore them fully and completely.

As I said, one thing we wanted was to expand the scope of the bill, in order to discuss in particular the closure of the marine rescue centres and the negative impact of some legislation on environmental protections, specifically for coastal environments. All of these subjects were directly related to the bill's objective. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to do so.

Bill C-3 also proposes to amend the Marine Liability Act. It also seeks to implement the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010. Canada has been a signatory to this very important convention since 2010, and only today are we seeing a bill seeking to implement it. The convention defines the liability of vessel owners for costs incurred when oil or other similar materials are spilled.

It is very important to highlight and clarify the liability of companies and vessel owners when such a spill occurs and when damage is caused. If oil or other noxious and hazardous substances are spilled, Canadian taxpayers should not have to cover the cleanup and damage costs.

The limited liability of private businesses is a recurring problem from one bill to the next. We saw this in Bill C-22. The real costs and inflation over time are not being considered, and there may be a considerable burden on Canadians. As New Democrats, we believe in the polluter pays principle, unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, who constantly fob off the true environmental, social and economic costs onto current and future Canadian taxpayers.

As the deputy critic for natural resources and energy, I believe it is extremely important to understand that proper natural resource development requires a constant and appropriate legal framework.

When development in certain industries is not subject to a legal framework, investors tend to flee. Also, let us not forget that, to be developed, this natural resource must be transported. However, if the transportation framework is flawed, the industry can become unstable.

Therefore, we must protect our natural resource development as well as the economic potential of that development. To attract investment, this activity must have an adequate legal framework. People will want to invest in Canada if they know that safety measures are in place to reduce incidents, particularly during transportation.

Canada signed the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010. Yes, it is a 2010 convention.

In the fall of 2012, quite recently, two large transport vessels ran aground on the west coast because of the marine traffic. Today, we are under the impression that, with this bill, the Conservative government is trying to apologize for its inaction over the last few years.

The government may have wanted to show goodwill when it signed the international convention in 2010, but years have passed. There have been disasters since then and oil spills on the west coast. We are only now debating this bill at third reading. It took a long time.

Throughout the various stages of the bill, many members have pointed out the government's failings when it comes to safety. Shutting down marine safety programs and cutting budgets is certainly no way to promote safety. The Conservative cuts are being felt even in our air force.

Recently, the Canadian air force had to resort to stealing parts from search and rescue aircraft kept in museums to keep its planes going. We will not even mention the Liberals' recycled submarines. Obviously, things are not any better on that side.

Part II of the bill amends the Aeronautics Act to give the Airworthiness Investigative Authority powers to investigate aviation accidents or incidents involving civilians and aircraft or aeronautical installations operated by or on behalf of the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces or a visiting force.

In other words, instead of letting the Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigate when a military aircraft is involved, the investigation could be done by an authority under the Department of National Defence, which is therefore not required to release its report, as is the case for the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

A witness from the armed forces told us that some reports and secrets are not made public for security reasons. However, when we hear that the armed forces consider a secret the number of soldiers taking drugs for erectile dysfunction, we realize that we might not agree on what should be secret in the armed forces.

Many flights pass through my region of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, including military planes that fly over the northern part. The consequences of one accident could help us avoid other accidents with civilian aircraft, but unfortunately, since this information is sent to National Defence and the report is not made public, other avoidable accidents can occur. I find it unfortunate that the government's decision is to favour this new way of doing things.

Energy Safety and Security Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Speaker's Ruling

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

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

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

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope you had a great summer. It is nice to be back and to see all my colleagues here in the House. I trust that everyone had a great break. It is nice to see that we picked up right where we left off, in the spirit of co-operation here in the House.

I am pleased to participate in this important debate on Bill C-22. While it is not a topic around the barbecue circuit in my riding, be assured that it is very important that we discuss this. The bill is important, because it seeks to increase safety and accountability in Canada's offshore and nuclear liability regimes.

Most hon. members would know that Canadians are very fortunate. Canada has an extraordinary wealth of natural resources that other nations can only envy. In an increasingly energy-hungry world, we are among the world's leading energy producers of crude oil, natural gas, and uranium. With our vast energy resources, Canada is well positioned to play a leading role in meeting the world's future energy needs.

As the International Energy Agency has told us, traditional energy sources like oil and gas will continue to be the dominant energy source for many years to come. However, the world energy map is changing dramatically. In fact, global energy demand is expected to increase by about 40% from 2010 to 2035, with much of that new demand coming from Asia.

World energy demands are on the rise, and Canada has an enormous supply of energy to meet these demands. Growing energy demands in the Asia-Pacific and the developing world are ushering in a new era of energy use and opportunity for our great country. There are hundreds of major resource projects currently under way in Canada or planned over the next 10 years. They are worth approximately $675 billion in investment. That means hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadian families, jobs in every sector of our economy and in every corner of our country.

With these opportunities on the horizon, our government is working to increase Canadian trade and investment and to expand Canada's energy infrastructure. That is why I would like to talk about the government's responsible resource development plan.

Our government's plan for responsible resource development is helping to ensure that Canada can seize these new opportunities and others to come. Our plan is sending a strong message that Canada is open for business and has a modern, efficient regulatory system. We have set firm beginning-to-end timelines for project reviews. Where provincial review processes meet federal requirements, we can get projects moving faster by eliminating the unnecessary duplication that has weighed down project reviews in the past. Our streamlined approach is providing clarity and predictability for project proposals. It is making international investments in Canada's natural resource sectors much more attractive. In a nutshell, it means that new projects and proposed infrastructure will be reviewed and approved to come on stream in a timely manner so that Canada can sharpen its competitive edge.

However, our plan is not just about developing resources efficiently. It is about developing them responsibly. Simply put, we will not approve any project unless it can be done safely. Let me assure members that we are committed to developing Canada's natural resources while strengthening our environmental protection. We firmly reject the notion that we cannot do both. Through our actions, we are proving that we definitely can.

Over the past year, our government has initiated a series of new measures to ensure the safe development of our natural resources. Through our plan for responsible resource development, we have introduced new enforcement mechanisms, including monetary penalties for non-compliance with environmental requirements. Oil and gas pipeline inspections have increased by 50% a year, and comprehensive audits of pipelines have been doubled.

While our government focused on increasing safety measures for our energy sector, what did the opposition do? They voted against more pipeline inspections, against implementing fines for companies that break the law, and against doubling the number of pipeline audits. That is truly a record of shame.

As part of our commitment to responsible resource development, our government promised Canadians that we would take action to maintain a world-class liability regime in Canada's nuclear and offshore energy industries. We have been clear: projects will only be approved if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

One of the key features of Bill C-22 is that it would raise the absolute liability limits in the offshore and nuclear sectors to $1 billion, bringing Canada's offshore and nuclear liability limits in line with similar regulatory regimes, such as in the United Kingdom, Norway, and Denmark.

As hon. members are aware, Canada's liability regime was founded on the polluter pay principle. With Bill C-22, we are fulfilling our commitment in the Speech from the Throne to enshrine this principle in law. This means that Canadian taxpayers would be protected in the unlikely event of a spill or accident. With the passage of this legislation, companies operating in Canada's Atlantic and Arctic offshore areas would be subject to one of the highest absolute liability standards in the world.

Canada's nuclear safety record is outstanding. In fact, there has never been a claim under Canada's Nuclear Liability Act. We have robust technology, a well-trained workforce, and stringent regulatory requirements. However, as a responsible government we must ensure that our security systems are always up-to-date and able to respond to any incident. That is why we are demonstrating our commitment by introducing legislation to strengthen Canada's nuclear liability regime.

Ultimately these measures are all about the same thing: acting responsibly by protecting Canadians and protecting our environment. This legislation would provide a solid framework to regulate the offshore and nuclear liability regimes in Canada to make them truly world-class. It would send a strong signal to the world that Canada is a safe and responsible supplier of energy resources and that Canada is also open for business.

Unfortunately, the NDP wants to shut down Canadian businesses by opposing the nuclear industry. As the leader of the NDP said, “I want to be very clear. The NDP is opposed to any new nuclear infrastructure in Canada”. That is not a responsible position.

The bottom line is that our government will not take any lessons from the opposition. We will focus on what matters to Canadians: ensuring that resource development is done responsibly and creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

I urge the NDP to abandon its reckless position and encourage all members to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Wetaskiwin.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak to our government's proposal to modernize and strengthen Canada's nuclear and offshore liability regimes and how these proposed changes will ensure that Canada's safety system for these important industries continues to be world class. Knowing that some hon. members have had questions in this regard, I would like to specifically address the increase in the amount of absolute liability this bill would provide, an amount that not only meets but in many cases exceeds the standards set in other countries.

At the outset, I would like to remind my colleagues of the outstanding safety record of Canada's nuclear industry. We can be proud that it is second to none. Through decades of service, Canadian nuclear technology has a proven record for safety and reliability, a record for safety and reliability that matches or surpasses any in the world.

The regulatory framework for Canada's nuclear industry is similarly highly regarded around the world. It is solid and robust, supported by legislation such as the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, overseen by the independent expertise of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Together and with the industry's own commitment to excellence, this regulatory framework and independent oversight continue to assure Canadians that they can rely on our nuclear industry to be a safe, secure, reliable provider of clean electricity.

At the same time, our government is aware that one aspect of Canada's nuclear regulatory regime is not in keeping with international standards.

The existing Nuclear Liability Act has been in place since 1976. While the basic principles underlying the legislation remain valid, the act is almost 40 years old. It, indeed, needs to be updated to keep pace with international trends, including increasing the level of compensation to an adequate level in the unlikely event of a nuclear incident that leads to injuries or damage.

In fact, the liability limit would have been increased already had it not been for the ideological opposition that the NDP has for nuclear. Nonetheless, our government remains focused on establishing a modern liability regime to address potential civil damages that may result from a nuclear incident. That is precisely what Bill C-22 would do.

Bill C-22 would increase the amount of compensation available to address civil damage from $75 million to $1 billion. This amount is not only in line with current international standards, it is in fact significantly higher than the limits set by a number of what might be considered Canada's nuclear peers.

In the United Kingdom, for example, operator liability is currently capped at approximately $260 million, barely a quarter of the absolute liability that would be imposed by this bill. In France, a country with close to 60 power reactors, the operator liability limit is even lower, at about $140 million in Canadian funds. In Spain the limit is about $227 million in Canadian funds, in South Africa it is $240 million Canadian and in Belgium it is $450 million, less than half the liability amount that Bill C-22 would put in place in Canada.

I would also like to remind hon. members that we are talking about absolute liability. That means an operator is responsible for up to $1 billion in compensation for damages that may result from an incident, regardless of the cause, regardless of who is at fault and even if fault is never established or even alleged. This means Canadian taxpayers are not left on the hook. This bill would also require operators to demonstrate that they would have the financial capacity to deliver that amount.

I would remind hon. members as well that Bill C-22 would also serve to implement the provisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. By adhering to this convention, Canada increases its domestic compensation regime by up to $500 million by bringing in significant new funding from the other parties to the convention. In order words, the total potential compensation available in Canada could reach $1.5 billion.

It has been suggested that Canada should follow the example of the United States where nuclear liability limits appear to be higher. In fact, in the United States the individual operator's liability is capped at about $415 million in Canadian funds, again a fraction of what would be the case with this new legislation in Canada. It is true that in the event of an incident that resulted in damages in excess of an operator's liability insurance, the U.S. regime includes a provision for all operators of power reactors in the U.S. to contribute to a compensation fund, $125 million each for the reactors they own. The difference here, however, is that there are more than 100 power reactors in the United States. Such a system is not feasible in Canada where we have only 19 reactors and 4 operators.

In determining an appropriate limit for absolute liability, we must take into account, and this bill certainly does take into account, that liability must be within the capacity of insurers. Bill C-22 addresses the need for operators to provide appropriate compensation without burdening them with exorbitant costs for unrealistic amounts of insurance against events that are highly unlikely to occur in our country.

The $1 billion strikes a proper balance between providing adequate compensation for citizens for a nuclear incident and holding companies to account in the event of an incident. This amount is also well above the liability limit imposed on nuclear operators in many other countries and it is in line with limits that have been proposed in the E.U.

In summary, Bill C-22 would ensure Canada's nuclear liability regime meets the definition of “world class” in every respect, from the type of damages that can be claimed to the time allowed to make claims, to the $1 billion in absolute liability of nuclear operators to pay those claims. I urge all members in the House to support this important legislation.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to be here today, in the House of Commons, to speak to Bill C-22.

The Conservative government has failed, on numerous occasions, to follow through on prior attempts to update nuclear liability legislation and update the safety and security regime for Canada's offshore. I am pleased to see that this legislation has finally come to third reading. Past attempts were started and then the government would either call an election or prorogue the House and not bring the bill forward. We have seen that with various government bills, whether it be on the Criminal Code or a variety of matters. The government introduces a bill with great fanfare and then we do not see it for months. It disappears, and the government does not present it again in the House. It is nice to see that finally we are getting somewhere in terms of this legislation moving forward because it does deal with an important issue in terms of nuclear liability and the liability for spills offshore.

I want to thank the witnesses who appeared before the natural resources committee to talk about this legislation. We would have liked to have heard a lot more from them, had we not been cut off a number of times, and had we not had a limited time of three days to consider the bill. I appreciate that they were willing to share their expertise, provide insightful comments, and give us their sage advice. We should all be thankful when experts appear before our committees.

Unfortunately, as is the case with much of the work conducted in committees of the House, the government restricted the scope of the study of this legislation. We all know that the government has the majority on almost all committees and can determine not only what the committee will study but the terms and scope of the study. It was very much restricted in this case. In fact, government members showed a distinct lack of interest in what we should have been doing, which was to make every effort to ensure that we ended up with the strongest possible legislation on this issue. If we think about the role of members of Parliament and our responsibility to hold the government to account and ensure that legislation is as good as possible, in my opinion, that did not allow us to do the job we ought to have been able to do, which is what committees are for.

If a member is a government backbencher or a member of the opposition and not a minister or a parliamentary secretary, then that member has the responsibility for holding the government to account. When governments have been going for a while, I have seen some members on the backbenches start to realize that. However, it would seem that we have fewer than ever with the Conservative government and we need to see more of that kind of attitude. There is a lack of interest in legislation that is focused on more than just the economic side of the equation, as in this case when we are dealing with the economy and the environment. We must do better than that in future.

The development of our natural resources and the strength of our economy depends on having good policies that people can have confidence in, so we can get community support for the kind of things that are happening or might happen in natural resources. If the government is seen as simply a cheerleader, as not being a responsible regulator, then we are going to have a hard time convincing Canadians that we are going to do a good job of regulating the natural resource sector. That is the fundamental problem that the government has at the moment.

The Liberal Party supports the development of our energy potential in Canada. We recognize the positive contribution that resource development has on our economic growth and job creation, especially for the middle class.

We also understand, and this is essential, that resource development must be done in an environmentally responsible and sustainable manner. It must be done through consensus building, which is something that is entirely lacking these days. The need is there to ensure that if an accident does happen, the proper regimes are in place to deal with an accident. Obviously a key part of that process is by making sure that legislation, like this legislation dealing with liability limits, is in place and that it protects our interests. With regard to Bill C-22, everyone in the House understands that there is a need to raise the absolute liability limit in terms of the offshore oil and gas sector and the nuclear sector.

Let us be very clear. Let us understand what this means. If we have a case where there is an accident, either at a nuclear site or in the offshore oil and gas sector, and negligence is proven by the operator, liability is then unlimited. The operator would have to pay for the entirety of the damages, whatever they might be.

What we are talking about is a case where negligence is not proven and the liability is absolute. This means that regardless of whether someone proves that the operator was negligent, it still has to pay, because the operator was undertaking this risky activity. That is what this is about.

That is the reason we have supported this legislation. It is going in the right direction. In the nuclear sector, it would increase the liability cap from $75 million to $1 billion, bringing Canada in line with the promises it made when it signed the international Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. In the offshore oil and gas sector, the absolute liability for companies operating in the Atlantic offshore would increase from $30 million to $1 billion, and in the Arctic, from $40 million to $1 billion.

With regard to the Arctic, as I was saying earlier when I asked the minister a question, there are still many unanswered questions. Is $1 billion adequate in the Arctic, where the environmental conditions make spill response efforts very challenging? There we are dealing with a situation where we are a long way from ports. It is a remote and isolated area, with difficult conditions.

We heard today that the minister has approved exploration licences, two of them in deepwaters in the Beaufort Sea. We heard at the natural resources committee a couple of years ago, at the time of the BP Deepwater Horizon well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, that the technology did not exist to clean up a spill in the high Arctic in deepwater under ice.

It seems to me that this is a very irresponsible decision by the government when that kind of cleanup capacity is not there. Yet, we did not have a chance at the committee to get into this because the scope of our study was so restricted. That is most unfortunate.

Why did we not also take the opportunity to look at our ability to respond generally, and to review our ability to respond to other events and accidents in shallow water in the Arctic, or any kind of spill there? We did not get to that.

As my esteemed colleague from Ottawa South said in debate on Bill C-22, the committee should examine the question of response capacity and incident prevention in the Arctic. That should have been examined by the committee. I hope that the member is recovering well from a broken ankle that he unfortunately suffered not too long ago, and I look forward to his quick return.

Instead of being concerned that the science does not always exist to confirm how long ecological damage will last, the government has rushed through those Beaufort Sea exploration licences that I mentioned. That is perhaps why the government decided that the scope should be so narrow for our committee study.

The member for Ottawa South also correctly pointed out that while looking at the issue of nuclear liability, the committee should have addressed the question of what has been happening around the nuclear sector in the past eight years. I suspect that government members may have been told to avoid any discussion of how we are no longer a world leader in the production of nuclear power capacity, as we have been in the past. They may have been told to avoid discussion of how the government ran down the value of the AECL and sold it off at bargain basement prices, and how it compromised Canada's future with regard to nuclear energy. This is not to mention the production of medical isotopes, which has been so important, and where Canada has been one of the world leaders.

Part of the discussion at the committee around suitable liability limits should have been focused on how we see the role of nuclear power as part of the energy mix going forward. The committee, for example, could have looked at how nuclear might fit in with renewable power options in the future, and other energy sources, like geothermal or tidal.

Wind is another area that is very interesting these days. My province of Nova Scotia has tremendous wind resources. I suppose some might say MPs have good wind resources as well, but that is another kind of wind resource. I am not sure if my colleague appreciated that remark, but he seemed to agree.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting with Dr. Lukas Swan, a professor of engineering at Dalhousie University. He runs the renewable power storage lab where they are working with various kinds of batteries. However, the important thing is not so much the different kinds of batteries, as the examination of the different kinds of conditions that happen with wind turbines. Sometimes there will be different speeds and fluctuations, with all kinds of variables. They are trying to find out what works best in managing the batteries so that we can have more capacity.

At the same time, there is a new study going on in Liverpool, Nova Scotia, involving a company called LightSail. It started because of the research of a young woman from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. She is a graduate of MIT and has developed new technology to store energy, in air basically, underground cabins that compress air. Previously there were problems with that, and she has created a new technology where a very fine mist can be sprayed so that heat is not created. Heat had apparently been a problem in this technology until now. There is a major trial project going on in Liverpool, Nova Scotia, thanks to the brilliant research of this young person, who is 26 years old and from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. That is a marvellous example of renewable energy that is happening right here.

In fact, if we in Canada can get this right, if we can actually find a way to be successful with much better storage of electricity, we will overcome the problem of wind, which unlike the wind of some MPs of course, does not blow all the time. Wind does not blow all the time. Therefore variability is a problem when we want to have power. People want to turn on the television, a microwave, oven, or do the laundry, and not just when the wind is blowing. Getting this right so that we can even out the power supply with storage could make an enormous difference. In a place like Nova Scotia, it could remove the need for what we have now, which is power created by coal and natural gas, although more and more wind is playing an important role. We think tidal power is making very good progress, and we hope it will play a big role in the future.

It is unfortunate that the scope of the committee work was restricted. We did not get an opportunity to examine these important questions in a broader context. We could have perhaps ended up with a much stronger bill. It reminds me of a study that we did last year at committee on the cross-Canada benefits of the oil and gas sector. There is no question that there are benefits to that sector across this country. I am from Nova Scotia. We have natural gas off our shore, which is important. We have exploration by BP and Shell for oil, and that could have a positive impact on our economy. There are benefits across the country.

As I said before, it is the Conservatives who have majority at committee, so they have the ability to determine what a committee will study and what its scope will be. In having a study that looks only at the benefits, where we cannot ask questions about the cost, problems, challenges, or the downsides of an industry, we end up with a report that has no credibility with the public. It does not advance what we are attempting to do in creating a report that is credible, to tell of the impact across the country, both good and bad. Let us have a balanced approach and look at both of these things because there are benefits and there are costs that we need to examine. We need to make it more sustainable. We need to improve the performance of the industries. We have some that are good, but there is always room for improvement on the environment.

We all recognize that Bill C-22 is an important piece of legislation, particularly given some of the disasters we have seen recently around the globe. There was the devastating meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, which is estimated by the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology to cost at least $31 billion; I heard a much larger figure earlier. The damages from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, in the Gulf of Mexico, are estimated at $42 billion.

While this updated legislation is long overdue, we do need to ensure the level of liability is appropriate in relation to the level of potential damage of either a nuclear incident or an offshore spill. It is also relevant to consider how frequently these things occur. We have to examine those things. If we do not consider both of those, we have the view of the NDP, which is that we would not have the kind of exploration we have had off Newfoundland and Labrador and not have the economic benefit we have had.

We have to have a good regime that protects our environment, but let us have one that makes sense. Let us consider all of these things.

We of course need to make sure that Canadian taxpayers are not at risk and that the polluter pays principle is maintained. That is why it is important that if a company is negligent, it pays the whole shot, obviously. Let us keep that in mind.

The real question before us today is this: do we think the limit of liability for the nuclear sector should be at $75 million, or should it be $1 billion? For the offshore, should it be $30 million in the Atlantic and $40 million in the Arctic, or $1 billion? Which is it going to be?

In my view, the answer is fairly obvious. This bill is by no means perfect; it could have been much improved; it should have had much more study in committee; however, the answer is this bill should be supported.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today 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.

I suppose I should begin by giving a brief synopsis of what the legislation is about, since it has now been some months since the bill was last before the House.

With respect to nuclear liability, Bill C-22 would update Canada's nuclear liability regime to specify the conditions and the procedure for compensation of victims following an incident at a nuclear power plant. It would maintain the principles of absolute limited and exclusive nuclear liability for operators except in situations of war or terrorist attacks. It would increase the absolute liability limit from $75 million to $1 billion. These 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. Moreover, the bill would extend the limitation period for submitting compensation claims for bodily injury from 10 years to 30 years to address latent illnesses, while maintaining the 10-year period for all other forms of damage.

With respect to offshore oil and gas liability, Bill C-22 purports to update Canada's offshore liability regime for oil and gas exploration and operations to prevent incidents and to ensure a swift response in the event of a spill. It would maintain unlimited operator liability for fault or negligence and would increase the absolute liability limit 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. Significantly, the bill explicitly references the polluter pays principle to establish clearly and formally that polluters will be held accountable.

As members may recall, my NDP colleagues and I supported this bill at second reading in order to get it to committee so that it could be studied thoroughly and so we could present amendments to fix its many flaws. As we indicated at the time, our support was premised on the promise made by the former Minister of Natural Resources that there would be plenty of time for public consultations. I guess we should have known better.

After the cabinet shuffle in the spring, the new Minister of Natural Resources simply ignored his colleague's commitment. Instead of comprehensive public hearings and detailed scrutiny of the bill, the natural resources committee was allotted only three meetings, for a total of six hours, to study this important piece of legislation. Two of those meetings were set aside to hear from witnesses and one meeting was for clause-by-clause consideration. To add insult to injury, one meeting designated for witness testimony was cut short because members had to go to the House for votes, and that lost time was never compensated for at a later date.

With apologies to Thomas Hobbes, this committee process was “nasty, brutish and short”. The whole process was a sham, entirely in keeping with the government's utter disdain for public consultation. The government's desire to get this legislation passed without any meaningful input was, of course, not lost on Canadians.

As one witness said before the committee, her family lives just shy of four kilometres from the Pickering nuclear power plant. Her neighbours know nothing about Bill C-22 going through Parliament, and the witness did not have time to tell people that Pickering residents' personal assets were currently being discussed in the hallowed halls of Ottawa. They have one newspaper that goes out Wednesday and Thursday. They could not even get real-time news during the ice storm through the mainstream media, let alone news about a bill rushed through Parliament.

Not surprisingly, this impassioned plea for more time to study Bill C-22 and its impact on Canadians and their communities did nothing to change the government's approach to dealing with this important file.

Just as Canadians got the brush-off, so did members of Parliament. New Democrats put forward serious amendments, buttressed by expert testimony, that would have significantly improved the government's bill. The amendments were reasonable and simply aimed to strengthen the bill by bringing fairness and balance to its approach. However, not a single one of our amendments was adopted, and as a result, the government missed out on enacting a truly cutting-edge piece of liability legislation for Canada's energy sector.

It is unfortunate that I have only 20 minutes in the House today to reflect on some of the powerful witness testimony that we heard in committee. Twenty minutes is wholly inadequate to explain the importance of some of the amendments New Democrats moved and to explain the deleterious consequences of the government's inaction with respect to their adoption. At a minimum, I owe it to those who lent us their expertise to give a high-level overview of the bill's serious flaws.

In a nutshell, here is what New Democrats attempted to accomplish with our amendments. First, we tried to establish the polluter pays principle, including the removal of a liability cap. Second, we wanted to see the sustainability principle adopted in this legislation by including non-use value damages.

Third, we attempted to increase the incentive for safety by making suppliers and contractors liable, not just operators.

Fourth, we moved an amendment that would increase the timeframe for submitting claims regarding bodily injury, latent illnesses, and death.

Finally, we tried to get concrete commitments for inclusive public consultations on a go-forward basis.

We moved 13 amendments in these five broad categories, but not a single one was passed. Let us look at them in a little more detail so that folks who may be watching the debate here today can truly understand the potentially dire consequences of the Conservatives' intransigent attitude on this file.

Let us look at what the bill entails. The single biggest flaw in this bill is that it continues to subsidize the industry by making taxpayers assume any financial risk in excess of $1 billion. It does this by failing to uphold the critical principle of polluter pays. In Bill C-22, absolute liability is capped at $1 billion, putting public funds and taxpayers on the hook for accidents that exceed this limit.

Witnesses repeatedly told the natural resources committee that the $1 billion cap is as arbitrary as it is inadequate. Here is just a sampling of the testimony we heard.

In a submission from the Canadian Environment Law Association, Theresa A. McClenaghan wrote:

...the amount of $1 billion is far too low to provide assurance of the ability to adequately compensate victims of a severe accident in both the offshore oil and gas as well as the nuclear energy sectors. In the offshore oil and gas case we saw the experience with the Deepwater Horizon spill where President Obama established a $20 billion fund which is not even inclusive of the environmental damages or state clean up costs. The potential consequences of a Fukushima large accident from the nuclear plants in Ontario could far exceed the amount of 1 billion dollars; this number would have to be assessed in light in property values in the GTA as well as the experiences at Chernobyl and Fukushima. The concerns about the reality of potential accidents are not academic concerns; an article written by Dr. Kristin Shrader-Frechette of the University of Notre Dame just after the Fukushima accident listed 26 unintentional nuclear core-melt accidents that have occurred worldwide since the 1950s; the most notorious of course including Chernobyl in 1986 and the three at Fukushima in 2011 . For Fukushima, the Physicians for Social Responsibility have cited figures ranging between $250 billion and $500 billion in consequences from the events there. The scale of these types of accidents far exceeds the billion dollar amount that Bill C-22 establishes for the absolute liability limit in both the oil and gas and the nuclear sectors.

Professor William Amos from Ecojustice echoed those concerns. He said:

I sense the $1 billion number is literally picked out of thin air. Conversations we had with the government were not dissimilar to the question of what's the right number. We said there is no right number; it should be unlimited liability. It seems to me that at a certain point there has to be a recognition on the part of the government that, if there is going to be a functioning free market, then entities that want to engage in risky activities, for example Arctic offshore drilling, they should be able to pay the full freight. I think it is unlikely that we could expect the crown to recover all of the damages caused, including non-use damages, if there were a worst-case scenario off any of Canada's coasts.

He went on to say:

The goal of any extracontractual liability regime is to make sure that an operator's actions in terms of prevention are at the highest possible level and to make sure that the company itself, not the Crown or the taxpayers, assumes the clear risks. Certainly, when a regime is based on the polluter pays principle, and when the provisions of the legislation require the company to pay a greater part of the damages in the case of a catastrophic spill, the company will take steps in advance to modify its behaviour. In this case, modifying the behaviour of those with a financial stake is most important.

Finally, I want to quote from the testimony of Dr. Gordon Edwards from the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility:

We urge you, as elected representatives of the Canadian population, not to approve this Act for third reading without insisting on due diligence. First of all, why is there a need for such a limitation of liability? Shouldn't every enterprise be required to accept full responsibility for potential offsite damages? If the government has to ultimately step in to deal with a messy situation, such as that at Lac Mégantic, so be it—but why should the owner or operator have his responsibilities lifted from his shoulders ahead of time? Secondly, where did the figure of one billion dollars come from? This is even less than the cost of a reactor refurbishment. It is far less than the cost of onsite damages in the event of a severe nuclear accident, for which the owner/operator is fully liable and adequately insured.... Costs are mounting. Overnight, the estimated cost of the radioactive cleanup of Port Hope went from $800 million to $1.8 billion. Overnight, the $7 billion cleanup of Chalk River went up by another billion dollars.

New Democrats on the committee took that expert testimony to heart and introduced amendments to abolish the $1-billion liability cap. We agree that Canadian taxpayers should not be on the hook for cleanup and compensation costs beyond the $1 billion. The Canadian taxpayer is not the polluter and therefore should not be held liable for damages caused by the industry. Only if we legislate the polluter pays principle will Canadians get the protection they deserve.

Keeping on the theme of liability, let me quickly raise a couple of other issues we sought to address through our amendments at committee. First, as if it was not bad enough that the Conservatives refuse to lift the liability cap altogether, they added insult to injury by giving additional discretion to the minister to reduce absolute liability even below the already inadequate $1-billion threshold. In the absence of any credible rationale for providing relief from liability, we moved to have those provisions scrapped from the bill. We simply cannot trust the Conservative government to protect the public interest when it has a track record of abusing arbitrary powers. Not surprisingly, our amendments were handily voted down by government members on the committee.

Our efforts to create a more even distribution of liability met a similar fate. In its current iteration, Bill C-22 completely excludes suppliers from any liability. On the nuclear side, they are not held accountable beyond negligence, thereby limiting the possibility of a more even distribution of liability. Not incorporating the supply chain as part of the liability process places the entirety of the blame on the operator. This allows smaller suppliers to act in a hazardous way, increasing the likelihood of a nuclear accident, as companies down the supply chain may act with financial impunity for their actions.

Instead of leaving taxpayers on the hook for cleanup costs that a company could not pay, New Democrats at the committee submitted amendments that would include suppliers and contractors in the liability process. This would increase the incentive for implementing best practices throughout the entire supply chain and would therefore help to ensure the safety of Canadians.

A number of witnesses supported our belief that we needed to fix the imbalance in the existing legislation. Theresa McClenaghan, from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, addressed supplier and contractor liability this way. She said:

Both aspects of the bill channel supplier and contractor liability to the operator or the licence holder for that absolute liability portion, but only on the oil and gas side is liability ever possible against suppliers and contractors and their negligence. On the nuclear side, that's never possible. The nuclear suppliers to that entire supply chain never have to consider the consequences of the decisions they are making around risk, and on the nuclear side as well as the oil and gas side, decisions are made every day around risk.

In its brief, CELA said:

...we would recommend amending Bill C-22 to bring suppliers and contractors into the liability framework in the nuclear sector, just as it does in the offshore oil and gas sector, and to remove the cap on liability so that the nuclear operators as well as others in the supply chain are liable for consequences of their negligence beyond their $1 billion insurance.

I could not agree more. We should not be allowing suppliers and contractors to engage in the nuclear sector with full immunity from any and all liability risks. Nuclear operators should be facing the full consequences of any negligence on their part, just like they do in the oil and gas sector.

Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a nuclear analyst from Greenpeace, agreed. He said:

At this time, in terms of liability, a reactor supplier has no obligation if an accident occurs. That is how the law is worded and that is also true of the new version. In our opinion, this is not a good thing. In the case of Fukushima, it was demonstrated that the designer, General Electric, was aware of the reactor's problems not only in design but also in manufacturing. That was not what caused the accident, but it did contribute to the radiation leaks into the environment. In any other industry, the Japanese could have sued the company. We therefore recommend that there be a right of recourse in that respect. The operator is always the entity that can be sued. However, a negligent supplier could be sued by the operator as he is in the best position to do so and thus obtain the largest amount of compensation for the affected population. That is what we are requesting.

Sadly, even this most reasonable amendment was rejected by the Conservatives at committee.

The same is true for another eminently reasonable amendment dealing with the health of Canadians. We moved an amendment that sought to increase the time frame for submitting claims regarding bodily injury, latent illnesses, and death. The current prescription for claiming damages due to injury and latent illness is 10 years. Bill C-22 would increase this to 30 years, but there is no medical evidence to suggest that health issues manifest and are then able to be identified within 30 years. On the contrary, from what we know about the mutagenic effects of radiation release and exposure, the government should have used this opportunity to include an additional generation to the time frame for submitting claims.

In an effort to strengthen this part of the bill, New Democrats moved an amendment that would have simply extended the time limit from 30 years to 50 years. However, even something as straightforward as that was met with Conservative opposition. Protecting the public interest was clearly not at the forefront of the government's objectives when drafting the bill.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the Conservative members on our committee would also vote down our amendment seeking to create meaningful and inclusive public consultation on this file. New Democrats moved an amendment that would require the review of the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act to be made public, and that it be done in consultation with non-industry stakeholders and those not affiliated with the nuclear industry. Such an approach is crucial to transparency and accountability. As Dr. Edwards asked rhetorically at committee, “should there not be an opportunity for adequate public input and debate on the substantive pan-Canadian issues of equity that are involved? Shouldn’t citizens from provinces without nuclear power reactors be given the opportunity to comment on a bill that would potentially bind their children and grandchildren?”

The answer of course is yes; they absolutely should. However, that was not the answer we got from the Conservatives when we moved our amendment at committee. Those efforts too were voted down.

I know my time is almost up, but I do want to say just a few more things about the offshore oil and gas side of the bill. One of the cornerstones of the NDP's energy policy is sustainable development. It ought to be a guiding principle in all sectors of Canada's energy economy. However, as it is currently written, sustainability gets short shrift in Bill C-22. It de facto ignores those vital aspects of our world that cannot and have not been assigned a monetary value. The bill fails to provide any regulation-making provisions for the calculation of non-use environmental damages.

Here is what Professor Amos told our committee. He said:

...the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the availability at common law of natural resource damages, or damages which compensate for harm to non-use value...of the natural environment.... However, natural resource damages claims at common law are currently subject to uncertainties. ...the process for assessing natural resource damages is ill-defined, reflecting a lack of baseline ecological information and the inherent difficulty in assigning monetary values to environmental values.

It is commendable that Bill C-22 includes the legislated imposition of liability for natural resource damages, including the explicit adoption of damages for non-use values. However, no regulation-making powers are included in Bill C-22 for the calculation of non-use damages. This is a serious gap, as significant regulations are needed to address the lack of baseline ecological information and the inherent difficulty in assigning monetary values to environmental values.

To close that gap, we moved an amendment to both quantify and account for the loss of non-use damages. We wanted to use the regulatory window to include the environment in assessing the scope and the cost of harm to the environment. Sadly, those provisions were never adopted, leaving the whole section on non-use damages deeply flawed.

None of our amendments were intended to tease the proverbial bears. We acknowledged that starting the debate on enhanced liability was a step in the right direction. However, failing to improve the bill represents a colossal wasted opportunity. We did not propose things that were radical or over the top. In fact, most of our amendments simply sought to bring greater fairness and balance to the legislation. Even our proposal to remove the liability cap altogether is not as radical as the government would like Canadians to believe. In fact, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, and Switzerland all have unlimited liability for nuclear power plants already. Even in the U.S., the absolute liability limit is $12.6 billion.

Do not let the Conservative response to that fool you, Mr. Speaker. Predictably, the Conservatives will try to suggest that an unlimited cap would encourage operators to claim bankruptcy instead of cleaning up after an accident.

However, that is looking at the problem upside down. New Democrats believe that liability has to be strong enough to ensure that a nuclear or offshore disaster never happens in the first place, and that operators will have to put the best safety measures into practice. That is how to protect the interests of Canadians, and frankly, they deserve nothing less.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that should be very interesting to all Canadians. All of us care about our environment. We want to ensure that our environment is protected. In fact, no government in Canadian history has been more proactive on the environment than this government.

I think what Canadians want to know is, in broad terms, how would Bill C-22 actually toughen the environmental standards? We are not content to sit where we have been. We are continually increasing the environmental standards.

I would like the minister to address how this bill would toughen our environmental standards, continue to hold our energy companies accountable and ensure that the environment is protected for Canadians while our development proceeds.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as you can imagine, as the NDP critic for natural resources, I have a ton of questions for the minister that I would love to ask, but I do not want to offer him a big buffet today so he can pick and choose which ones he answers. I will focus in on something really specific.

Access to information documents acquired by Greenpeace indicate that the Department of Natural Resources commissioned a study on the impacts of the economic effects of a nuclear accident in 2013 to support revisions to the nuclear liability and compensation act.

According to those documents, Ontario Power Generation and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission limited the scope of another study on the health effects of a nuclear accident so they would not undermine the study by the ministry.

The CNSC study was released to the public and the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, but study on the economic consequences of a nuclear accident was not.

To me, it is completely unacceptable that both parliamentarians and the public would be kept in the dark with respect to that study as we are debating Bill C-22.

I am respectfully requesting the minister today to agree to table those documents in the House of Commons so we can all have the benefit of knowing what that study said before we give third and final reading to the bill.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome all members of this place back, and in addition, the new members.

It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to discuss how our government has taken action to strengthen energy safety and security in Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries.

The health and safety of Canadians and of our environment is of the utmost importance to our government.

In the Speech from the Throne we pledged that no resource development would proceed unless safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. In other words, no development would proceed unless rigorous environmental protection and health and safety measures were in place. That is the goal of Bill C-22. The legislation builds on Canada's already strong record of safety and security in the nuclear and offshore industries, and it will ensure that Canada's thriving energy sector will continue to grow.

One of the key features of the energy safety and security legislation is the $1-billion protection it provides to Canadians. The legislation would raise the absolute liability limits in both offshore and nuclear sectors to $1 billion. These changes would ensure that Canada continues to have world-class regulatory regimes. As hon. members know, Canada's liability regime is founded on the polluter pays principle. With Bill C-22, we are enshrining this principle into legislation for the first time. The bottom line is that Canadian taxpayers and the Government of Canada will not have to foot the bill in the unlikely, perhaps rare, event of a spill.

The Canadian offshore oil and gas industry is booming and provides many economic benefits for Canada's Atlantic region, including thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue.

From an economic perspective, activities in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore accounted for about 28% of the nominal provincial gross domestic product in 2012. In the Nova Scotia offshore, they represented about 3% of the provincial GDP.

Canada collected an impressive $8.4 billion in royalties from the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore and $2 billion from the Nova Scotia offshore and transferred those funds to these respective provincial governments. I am sure they appreciated that. Offshore development is currently one of the fastest growing sectors in Canada. Right now there are five major projects under way in the Atlantic offshore, another project under construction with initial production slated for 2017, a major prospect in the Flemish Pass, and several major exploration projects under way.

Atlantic Canada currently produces about 200,000 barrels of oil a day. That is about 15% of Canada's conventional crude oil production and seven million cubic litres a day of natural gas. Put another way, that is enough to heat about 950,000 Canadian homes for one year.

There are still opportunities for the oil and gas industry. Our country has the resources to help meet international demand for energy, which is expected to increase by one-third by 2035.

Most of that growth in demand is coming from emerging economies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Few countries are developing natural resources on the scale and at the pace of Canada. There are hundreds of major natural resource projects under construction or planned for the next 10 years. These are worth approximately $675 billion in investment.

The Government of Canada shares the management of the offshore with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Companies operating in Canada's offshore have an excellent track record. Every stage of offshore oil and gas project development, from exploration to production, is managed and regulated by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board or the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

These boards ensure that operators exercise due diligence to prevent spills 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 regime remains world class.

Canada's environmental safety record in the Atlantic offshore, for example, is already very strong. In fact, some 73 million barrels of oil are produced in the region each year, without a significant spill since production began in 1997. Our plan for responsible resource development strengthens environmental protection by focusing resources on the review of major projects. We have put forward new measures, 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 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 tanker safety regime and proposed ways to strengthen it. Building on these measures with Bill C-22, our government is taking tangible steps to make our robust liability regime and its great record even stronger.

Our proposed changes focus on four key areas: prevention, response, accountability, and transparency. They will help further strengthen safety and security to prevent incidents and ensure a swift response in the rare or unlikely event of a spill. As I mentioned, our liability regime is founded on the polluter pays principle.

First, we are proposing to enshrine this principle in the legislation and to maintain unlimited liability when an operator is found to be at fault. This will clearly establish that polluters will be held accountable.

Second, we will ensure that the liability limits reflect modern standards. Under the current regime, offshore operators in the Atlantic have absolute liability of $30 million. Given the value of this resource and the boom currently under way in offshore exploration and production, most members, I think, can agree that this amount needs to be raised. That is why we are increasing the benchmark to $1 billion with this bill. In this way, Canada's benchmark remains among the highest in the world.

In addition to increasing the absolute liability in the Atlantic from $30 million to $1 billion, our government is also increasing the absolute liability in the Arctic from $40 million to $1 billion. Fault or negligence does not have to be proven for operators to be responsible for that amount of damage or compensation. I think that is important.

Let us move to a discussion, then, of financial capacity.

We must also ensure that companies operating offshore have the financial capacity to meet their obligations.

Before any offshore drilling or production can take place, companies have to prove that they can cover the financial liabilities and damages that may result from a spill. Currently the financial capacity requirements range from $250 million to $500 million, with $30 million to be held in trust for working in the Atlantic offshore and $40 million for working in the Arctic offshore. This deposit is held in trust by the offshore regulator as a letter of credit, guarantee, or bond. These amounts will increase to $1 billion for financial capacity and $100 million to be held in trust per offshore project. These are significant resources that I think go a long way to help build public confidence.

Furthermore, we are taking steps to create greater transparency in the offshore industry. With this in mind, we are making emergency planning, environmental plans, and other documents filed with regulators available to the general public. This will ensure that operators make protecting Canadians and the environment their first priority.

These are just some of the ways we are protecting Canadian taxpayers by ensuring that Canada has one of the strongest offshore liability regimes in the world.

In fact, with the passage of this legislation, Canada's offshore liability will be among the most stringent in the world. We will ensure that only those companies with an interest in operating safely and securely and with the financial wherewithal to address any problems will be able to comply.

I would like to spend some time talking about nuclear liability, the second piece of this act.

Canada's nuclear industry is also a critical component of our energy resource mix. This industry accounts for 30,000 high-quality jobs and helps make Canada's electricity supply among the cleanest in the world.

Electricity from nuclear energy powers our homes, our businesses, our cities and even our cars. In fact, nuclear energy is helping reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 89 million tonnes a year, which is the equivalent of over 18 million cars.

Our country is recognized the world over as a leader in nuclear energy for a number of important reasons. For one, Canada's nuclear industry boasts an impressive safety record. It has operated safely and securely for over 50 years. In fact, there has never been a single claim under Canada's nuclear liability act.

We have robust technology, a well-trained workforce, and rigorous regulatory requirements. The industry is supported by legislation, such as the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, and is overseen by the independent expertise of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

What most Canadians probably do not realize is that Canada's nuclear liability regime is already nearly 40 years old, young by anyone's standard in this place, I am sure. However, times and standards have changed when it comes to the nuclear industry. Clearly, this legislation needs to be brought into the modern age.

As a responsible government, we must ensure that our system is up to date and that it can respond to any incidents. That is why we have brought in a bill to modernize Canada's nuclear liability regime.

This new legislation will increase the amount of compensation available to address civil damage from $75 million to $1 billion. We believe that the $1-billion figure strikes the right balance between protecting Canadian taxpayers and holding companies accountable in the event of an accident. The amount is also in line with current international standards.

The proposed legislation maintains the key principle of absolute and exclusive liability for operators of nuclear facilities for injury and damage. This means that the liability of the operator will be unqualified and undivided. There will be no need to prove fault, and no one else will be held liable.

These are big numbers we are talking about. In fact, nuclear insurers have indicated that a $1-billion liability limit would mean an increase in premiums of five to eight times the amount operators are currently paying. If we take, for example, some of the operators in Ontario who have several reactors at their nuclear power plants, they currently pay premiums in the neighbourhood of up to $1.2 million for a $75 million insurance policy. Under this legislation, they would be required to pay annual premiums of up to $10 million for a $1 billion insurance policy.

What about the cost to ratepayers? Based on average monthly electricity consumption by Ontario households of 1,000 kilowatts an hour, the impact of the increased insurance would amount to a very small amount. In fact, it would be roughly less than $2 per year.

As for compensation, Bill C-22 will broaden the definition of compensable damage to include physical injury, economic loss, preventative measures, and environmental damage. It will also extend the limitation period for submitting compensation claims for bodily injury from 10 years to 30 years. This will help address any latent illnesses that may only be detected years later, after an accident. It is another important way our government is protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

Bill C-22 would significantly improve the claims compensation process, increase the financial liability of nuclear operators for damages and provide greater legal certainty for Canada's nuclear industry. Ultimately, these reforms would boost public confidence, Canadians' confidence in the safety and responsibility of the industry as a whole.

Our government is taking these concrete steps to address other important issues for the nuclear sector. This includes responsibly managing legacy waste, restructuring Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and promoting international trade.

Let us talk about international efforts.

As hon. members know, when we talk about nuclear energy, we are talking about a global issue that knows no borders. With Bill C-22, we are implementing the provisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. This convention is an international instrument to address nuclear civil liability in the rare and unlikely event of a nuclear incident.

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

Joining this convention will reinforce our commitment to building a strong, global, nuclear liability regime.

This underscores how important this Canadian bill is, not only with respect to financial issues, but also in other areas, such as clarifying what constitutes a nuclear incident.

These changes will also help provide greater certainty for Canadian nuclear supply companies that want to market their services in a country that is a member of the convention.

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

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

In conclusion, our government believes that economic prosperity and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive goals. They can and they do go hand in hand. The legislation we are debating today is designed to do just that.

This bill will ensure that Canada's energy resources are developed safely and responsibly and that the environment is protected.

The energy safety and security act would provide a solid framework to regulate the offshore and nuclear liability regimes in Canada and to ensure they would remain world class. It sends a strong signal to the world that Canada is a safe and responsible supplier of energy resources and that Canada, at the same time, is open for business.

That is why I want to urge all hon. members to support this important legislation. I have appreciated the debate in previous sittings, and I look forward to responding to questions from my colleagues at this time.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-22. The sponsor of the motion as well as the two members who had submitted an identical notice have indicated to the Chair that they do not wish to proceed with the motion. Therefore, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

The House proceeded to the consideration 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you, that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation”.

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined”. At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function”. He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principle duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to respond to the Thursday question from the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

I know how proud he claims to be about showing up to work. In fact, though, the New Democrats seem to have a spotty record on that. Last evening, that very member rose to speak to our government's bill to protect our communities and exploited persons—that is Bill C-36—and after one whole minute he moved to adjourn the House. He said we should all go home. Maybe that is the parliamentary equivalent of taking one's ball and wanting to go home when one is unhappy with how things are going in another meeting.

In any event, we did all dutifully troop into the House to vote on that at 6 p.m. However, what was very revealing was that only 61 of those 98 New Democrats stood in their places to vote. A few of them were missing their shifts, oddly. We did not find that on the Conservative side. In fact, we just had two votes in the House, and the number of New Democrats who were not standing in their places was very similar to that.

Therefore, when I ask myself who is not showing up for work, I can say it is not the Conservatives not showing up; it is, in fact, the New Democrats.

However, following the popular acclaim of last week's Thursday statement, I would like to recap what we have actually accomplished in the House since last week in terms of the legislative agenda.

Bill C-37, the riding name change act, 2014, which was compiled and assembled through the input of all parties, was introduced and adopted at all stages.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan, act no. 1, was adopted at both report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was concurred in at report stage.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was passed at third reading. Of course, the NDP tried to slow down its passage, but Conservatives were able to get around those efforts, as I am sure the 50 New Democrats on vigil in the House last night fondly appreciate, and we were able to extend our hours because there were, again, not even 50 New Democrats here in the House to stand in their places to block that debate as they wanted to. So we did finish the Canada-Honduras bill that night, and were able to vote on it.

The government's spending proposals for the year were adopted by the House, and two bills to give these plans effect, Bill C-38 and BillC-39, were each passed at all stages.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, was reported back from committee, and several other reports from committees were also tabled. As I understand, we will see Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, reported back from the health committee in short order.

Finally, this morning we virtually unanimously passed a motion to reappoint Mary Dawson as our Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Sadly, though, the New Democrats did not heed my call last week to let Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, pass at second reading. We were treated, sadly, to only more words and no deeds from the NDP.

Turning to the business ahead, I am currently anticipating the following debates. This afternoon and tonight, we will finish the debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, at second reading. That will be followed by third reading of Bill C-24 and second reading of Bill C-35, Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law).

Tomorrow morning, we will debate Bill C-24, if necessary, and Bill C-18, Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading. After question period, we will get back to Bill C-32, and give the NDP one more chance to send the victims bill of rights to committee.

The highlight of Monday is going to be the report stage of Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Tuesday’s feature debate will be Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act, at second reading. Wednesday will see us finish third reading, I hope, of Bill C-6. During the additional time available those days—in addition to Thursday and Friday of next week—I will schedule any unfinished debates on Bill C-18, Bill C-32 and Bill C-35.

I will also try to schedule debates on Bill C-22 and Bill C-17, as well as other bills, such as Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-12, the Drug-free Prisons Act, at second reading; Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill S-2, Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-3, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; and Bill S-4, the Digital Privacy Act—which I understand we will receive shortly from the other place—at second reading.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to table today.

I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “Cross-Canada Benefits of the Oil and Gas Industry”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government make a comprehensive response to this report.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources 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. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Theresa McClenaghan]

In terms of CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, your question is about how polluter pay can be incorporated. When we do environmental assessments in federal projects or projects that fall under CEAA, they're not always looking at the economic impacts of those projects necessarily. Often they defer to the other sector in that case. They do look at cumulative effects and they do look at the precautionary principle.

It is an area that we could improve in terms of incorporating polluter pay. We do have Supreme Court support for polluter-pay principles. We just saw the other day, through your sister committee, explicit incorporation of polluter pay in proposed Bill C-22. We do absolutely support incorporation of polluter pay, and making it explicit.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Because it seems to me that perhaps some members of committee have in the last number of months forgotten why it is I'm here, I just seek to remind you that this wasn't my idea. This process is not a process I sought. I'm summoned here based on a recommendation and in fact a motion that was passed by this committee, and an identical motion that has occurred in 20 other committees.

I've just run here from the committee that was looking at Bill C-22, where I had to provide clause-by-clause amendments in order to ensure that I not be precluded from the rights that I have on paper in O'Brien and Bosc. But for those motions passed, which I imagine came to us from the PMO, since they were identical in content in 20 different committees.... But for those, I could present my amendments as substantive amendments at report stage. That's why I'm here, and that's why I get to speak to every one of my amendments. I appreciate the opportunity.

I'm very taken with what the Canadian Bar Association has said about the current drafting. That's why my amendment is identical to that of the NDP. It's the language recommended to us. Madam Boivin and I share a number of things. Our birthdays are right next door to each other, and on top of that, we are both lawyers. The advice of the Canadian Bar Association is not something to be dismissed out of hand.

The concept of criminal responsibility involves mens rea. It involves an intent. The way the bill has been drafted it's so broad that in the example used as a hypothetical by the Canadian Bar Association, someone could be found criminally responsible for having lent somebody else their laptop, someone who, in a series of events, opens files and ends up incidentally sharing images with no intent on the part of the person who owns that laptop. The Internet age opens up numerous possibilities for inadvertence—not with negligence and not with intent—so when the term cyberbullying is a very clear term with an intent to hurt others, that has to carry through with intention to the various aspects of criminality. That's why my first amendment, Green Party-1, is an amendment that seeks to ensure we don't inadvertently ensnare completely innocent people in criminal liability.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment speaks to proposed subsection 26(1) that requires the minister to review the liability limits that will be passed in Bill C-22 at least once every five years. Then there are subsections as to what the minister should have under his or her consideration when reviewing at least once every five years whether the liability limits are keeping up with reality and keeping up with both the industry and the Canadian economy.

My amendment speaks to a very long-held experience of anyone who has observed the nuclear industry in this country, that it's certainly not transparent, not accountable, and there are very, very few opportunities—and I'm not speaking of any one administration or any one party—but historically for a very long time the nuclear industry operates in a fashion that is immune from most normal processes of public consultation and engagement.

In fact, in the preparation of this bill, witnesses who spoke before the committee said Natural Resources Canada had done very little in terms of outreach to civil society and to critics of the nuclear industry.

In this case what I'm proposing is that when the minister conducts the five-year review-—and I hope this is non-controversial and that there might be a chance of this amendment passing—the minister would undertake that review publicly and in consultation with non-industry stakeholders.

This is a critical piece to bringing the nuclear industry...to drag it kicking and screaming to some place of public accountability in this country. It's not for five years that the review would take place.

I urge all members in all parties to pass this amendment. It can do no damage whatsoever to the bill, but it does give a future minister the responsibility to make sure this review on the liability limits takes place in public with non-industry stakeholders having a right to be considered and consulted.

Thank you.

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

This amends the bill to ensure that the fault placed on the operator cannot be reduced.

I would like to remind committee members of Mr. Edwards' remarks when he pointed out that taxpayers must also be considered.

He said, “While the act limits the ability of the operator, it does not limit the liability of the taxpayer. The exposure of the Canadian taxpayer is unavoidable under this legislation and it's unlimited”.

When a bill like this is passed, taxpayers must also be considered. If we reduce the operator's liability and simply send an invoice to the taxpayers, we are no further ahead. In my view, this in no way observes the polluter pays principle.

I would also like to make another comment.

We have had little time to study Bill C-22. As the transcripts of the meetings have not yet been translated, I can only quote the remarks in English. If I mangle some of the quotations sometimes, I apologize. It is more difficult for us francophone members to quote those remarks because we still do not have the official translation of previous meetings.

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

Yes, and Mr. Chair, this won't surprise anyone at this time. PV-18, as in previous efforts, attempts to ensure that liability will extend to suppliers and contractors in the nuclear industry. This is based on testimony. Certainly, the committee heard from a number of witnesses, who came from law associations, Greenpeace and others, that there's no rationale provided for shielding nuclear reactor suppliers from liability.

I would just note very quickly that in the attempts at explanations that we've heard from officials, essentially, they have said that we don't have to worry on the nuclear side because we're channelling the liability to the operator. The operator will ensure that the supply chain is held responsible because they're ultimately going to be liable for a nuclear accident. That same explanation would work on the oil and gas side.

One could say the project proponent, the operator, will make sure that all suppliers and contractors are responsible and accountable because the ultimate liability and costs will rest with them.

Again, I don't think we really have an explanation for why the nuclear industry is being treated differently, except for the fact that, historically, and I mean going back to the 1950s, the nuclear industry has always been treated differently in this country. It probably stems from the fact that nuclear materials were seen to be a military target. We had a lot less transparency around the nuclear industry.

Traditionally, the nuclear industry has been the recipient of billions of dollars in subsidies and it tends to continue, under Bill C-22, to be treated differently from the more private sector industries in this country. Of course, as the nuclear industry in Canada is being operated now by more private sector companies, as the role of AECL has changed, there's less and less excuse for treating the nuclear industry differently from the way we treat other sectors in the economy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

—a recorded vote on NDP-8.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We've been working on this for two hours now. We'll take a break and come back in five minutes to continue with our clause-by-clause discussion on Bill C-22.

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

The goal of this amendment is to allow the operator to seek recourse against any person whose gross negligence causes an accident. Proposed section 13 in clause 120 of Bill C-22 nullifies common law practice, and by deleting lines 35 to 39 we remove the part in the bill that goes beyond common law practice. If the responsibility is only with the operator, this will ensure the operator will be able to....

We want to make sure that the operator will be able to seek recourse against a subcontractor who has demonstrated negligence and responsibility for an accident. This amendment is quite important. It reflects the discussions that have been held as this bill has been studied, specifically in the testimony from Mr. Stensil.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment PV-17 inserts an entirely new and somewhat lengthy proposed subsection 11.1(1), which would extend the liability beyond operators to contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers.

Having been privileged to sit at this table as you've been going through clause-by-clause study, and having heard the explanations given by officials, I would echo what Linda Duncan has pointed out. The rationale has been that this is what other people do under international law. We didn't have that as evidence so far. We really have only been told that the current legislative framework leaves out operators. We're currently amending the legislative framework. No reason has been given to exclude suppliers and contractors in the nuclear sector when suppliers and contractors in the oil and gas sector are given the same treatment in terms of unlimited liability for fault or negligence.

My proposed amendment PV-17 would be:

11.1(1) Where damage...is caused by a nuclear incident...

(a) the operators or persons to whose fault or negligence the nuclear incident is attributable or who are by law responsible for others to whose fault or negligence the nuclear incident is attributable are jointly and severally liable, to the extent determined according to the degree of the fault or negligence proved against them, for

(i) the compensable damages described in sections 14 to 23 of the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, (ii) the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by....

The crown is also covered. The amendment continues:

(iii) all loss of non-use value related to a public resource...affected by a nuclear incident.

These are sensible amendments that carry through the thrust and purpose of the act as found in other parts of Bill C-22. I hope the committee will consider that this is where we set the legislative framework. With all due respect to our expert civil service representatives here at the table, I find the response to why subcontractors and suppliers in the nuclear industry are treated differently from those in the oil and gas sector essentially a tautology—they're not included because they're not included—but I don't find it persuasive as an explanation.

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

Yes.

In summary, this amendment deletes “and no person other than an operator”, and brings the supplier into the liability process.

As the testimony showed, the current legislation poses a real problem because only the operator is held liable in the event of an accident. Suppliers providing services in the nuclear installations would not be held liable, for example, in the event of negligence or a poorly executed operation.

This is a major problem that absolutely has to be fixed during the study on Bill C-22. Of course, the operator must be held liable, but if the suppliers of goods or services with whom the operator is doing business have no liability in the event of an accident, I see a major problem. This absolutely must be corrected.

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

Mr. Chair, yes, I would like to speak to PV-10.

Again, this is consistent with earlier efforts to amend the act, in this case returning to the discussion we had earlier of non-use values. In subclause 20(3) of C-22, in determining the amount of liability and proof of financial wherewithal to deal with potential damage, the National Energy Board is specifically directed:

When the National Energy Board determines an amount under subsection (1) or (2), the Board is not required to consider any potential loss of non-use value relating to a public resource that is affected by a spill or the authorized discharge....

My amendment is very straightforward. It alters the paragraph 180 degrees to say that as an affirmative responsibility, the National Energy Board is required to consider any potential loss of non-use value. This amendment also comes from the brief by Ecojustice and was presented as their fourth recommendation.

Under Bill C-22, we're asking that the industries that operate within these new liability limits have proof of financial resources to pay for damages up to the absolute liability. We're not requiring them to show that they have financial resources to deal with the potential for unlimited at-fault liability, which of course remains, as we've heard from the officials.

When you don't have to consider potential costs associated with environmental losses, or so-called non-use losses, damaged ecological systems, and so on, when determining whether they have the financial wherewithal to pay, you've left out a significant part of what the ultimate damages may be.

I think the effect of my amendment is clear. If the act is to be serious about suggesting there will be liability for non-use values, environmental values, and loss of cultural and traditional rights within the act, then we really should be removing the “not” that appears in subclause 3.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is on the same topic, and I'm glad we've brushed the surface of it. It is really a commendable aspect of Bill C-22 that sees the recognition that non-use values are explicitly identified as a new category of damages, and that if you have damage in a non-use value, you are, under proposed section 26 of the act, opening up the environmental or natural resources damages that affect something that's categorized as a non-use value, such that they are now open to compensation.

The gap here—and my amendment seeks to address this gap, just as the previous NDP effort did—is that while recognizing that damage to a non-use value is open to compensation within Bill C-22, there is no parallelism in the regulation-making powers to ensure that there can be a consequential implementation of that non-use value. For instance, we definitely need to know about baseline ecological information and inherent difficulty in assigning monetary values to environmental values. Without having that information, it's very hard to know how the spirit of the law would translate practically in saying that we can recognize non-use values as opening up a door to compensation following damage. If you don't have any way of evaluating that, of finding a way to monetize that, then it becomes a fairly ineffective protection of “non-use value”.

Very simply, what the Green Party proposes is that in clause 14 a new paragraph be added. We have proposed paragraphs 14(3)(h.1), (h.2), and (h.3) already in the bill. To create the opportunity to evaluate such value, we would insert, at the very top, proposed paragraph 14(3)(h.01), creating the opportunity concerning the calculation and recovery of damages for a loss of a non-use value. We really do need to put some meat to the bones of the new and commendable effort to include non-use values within the category of damages for which compensation can be claimed under the polluter pay principle.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the latitude.

The effect of this amendment would be to remove the exemption, which would mean it would revert to absolute liability. I can be corrected, but that's how I understand it would work.

The reality is that the science around the dispersant agents is still evolving. By creating the carve-out exemption in Bill C-22 as is currently being proposed, there'd be no effective pressure on manufacturers to consider that the spill-dispersant agent they're using could have a negative impact. It could be even more of a disaster than the spill they're trying to clean up. By maintaining that they're not exempt from environmental damage, there will be more pressure to ensure that spill-dispersant agents are both effective in dealing with a spill and don't become yet another source of problems.

The classic example is what happened with a spill-dispersant agent used after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Some of the spill-dispersant agents themselves contributed to long-lasting negative environmental impacts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to committee. We're here to do clause-by-clause study 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.

With us today to give us guidance and to answer any questions members may have, we have witnesses from the Department of Natural Resources.

We have Mr. Labonté here again. Thank you very much.

We have Tyler Cummings, deputy director, frontier lands management division, petroleum resources branch. Welcome.

We have Dave McCauley, director, uranium and radioactive waste division, electricity resources branch, energy sector. Welcome.

We have Jean-François Roman, legal counsel, legal services. Welcome.

Also, there is Joanne Kellerman, general counsel and executive director, legal services. She will be here, will she?

[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 Sault Ste. Marie. I appreciate his work for northern Ontario. Our government is taking action to ensure that our resources are developed responsibly. That is why we have introduced the energy safety and security act to strengthen protection for taxpayers in the event of an incident in the offshore and nuclear sectors. Bill C-22 is being studied by the natural resources committee, and I look forward to further debate when it returns to this place.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

The next question is that according to the 2014-15 main estimates, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will receive about $1.6 million more in funding than the amount planned in the 2013-14 main estimates, but $1.2 million less than was actually spent in the last fiscal year, when this year's main estimates were tabled. So the question is, in light of this $1.2-million reduction in the estimates, what impact will the adoption and enforcement of Bill C-22 have on the commission's budget?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me start with Mr. Binder.

Thank you all, by the way, for being here this morning.

Mr. Binder, numerous Canadians, as you can imagine, have written to the committee, our members' offices, in relation to Bill C-22. One of them was Mr. Chris Rouse of New Clear Free Solutions in New Brunswick. He wrote to my office some time ago and made a submission to the committee earlier in the week to say that he has asked the commission for the definition of nuclear safety and risk used in deciding liability limits—the legal definitions you apply. He claims he's not able to get an answer, so I wonder if we could ask you to provide one. I don't expect you to have it just at your fingertips, but I wonder if it would be unreasonable to ask you to provide it before Tuesday's clause-by-clause meeting.

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

Mr. Stensil, in Bill C-22, are there any other ways to make service providers liable, besides the one in the amendment you proposed?

[Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Nuclear Analyst, Greenpeace Canada]

Thank you for this opportunity to give Greenpeace's views and recommendations on the proposed nuclear liability and compensation act contained in Bill C-22.

I will make my presentation in English, but I will be pleased to answer your questions in French.

While listening to the debate on Bill C-22 during second reading, I heard from the opposition parties that they viewed this bill as a step forward but with important flaws. They hoped that the bill could be improved upon and the flaws addressed at committee.

I didn't hear from the government that they were opposed to improving the bill.

In my presentation to you, I will provide four recommendations on how to improve Bill C-22. These recommendations are reasonable and based on precedent.

First is international best practices, which I hope the Canadian government would be striving to meet. Second is modern principles of Canadian law and jurisprudence; specifically the inclusion of the polluter pays principle.

There are two key reasons that the bill should be amended. It increases the risk to the public and to the taxpayer.

The Fukushima disaster had yet to occur when Parliament last debated this bill, so the context has changed. In Greenpeace's view, this new version of the NLCA does not take into account lessons learned from Fukushima. We're now seeing major nuclear accidents, somewhere in the world, about once a decade. This regular occurrence of nuclear accidents was not what the nuclear industry predicted when Parliament passed the original Nuclear Liability Act in the 1970s. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima all have a common cause and it has nothing to do with engineering. These accidents were caused by humans and companies, corporate entities, failing to put public safety first.

In a post-Fukushima world, where we know that nuclear accidents are caused by irresponsible companies, does it make sense for the Canadian government to increase the protection given to the nuclear industry at the expense of public safety? From a public interest perspective, I think the answer is clearly no. You don't encourage public safety by shielding companies from the consequences of their actions. This is a key weakness of Bill C-22.

It also poses an unneeded risk and burden on the taxpayer. Natural Resources Canada has portrayed the $1-billion cap on operator liability as balancing public compensation while ensuring that reactor operators aren't burdened with high insurance costs. But as seen with the oil and gas section of Bill, you can require $1 billion in insurance and absolute liability with no coinciding cap on overall liability. You heard from representatives from CAPP, on Tuesday, that this wasn't a problem.

I will assert this: removing the $1-billion liability cap will not increase costs to operators. As written, the NLCA needlessly transfers all of the financial risks above $1 billion onto Canadians. This is contrary to the polluter pays principle, which brings me to my first recommendation.

The polluter pays principle has been omitted from the purposes section of this bill. It is 2014, not 1974, and this is a glaring omission. Greenpeace recommends the committee import the language regarding the polluter pays principle from the purposes section of the oil and gas section of Bill C-22.

Greenpeace recommends clause 3 be amended to read as follows:

The purpose of this Act is to ensure accountability in accordance with the “polluter pays” principle in case of a nuclear incident.

To apply the polluter pays principle, Greenpeace recommends amending the clauses shielding operators and suppliers from liability; specifically, clause 24 (1) should be amended to state that reactor operators have unlimited liability above the $1 billion in absolute liability.

This is the same as for offshore oil and gas.

Unlimited liability is now an international best practice for operator liability and it is also the approach used by the government for the offshore oil and gas industry.

Similarly, clause 13, which completely shields reactor suppliers from liability even if negligent, should be amended. Greenpeace recommends clause 13 be amended to read:In respect of damage that is caused by a nuclear incident, an operator may seek recourse against any person whose gross negligence causes an incident.

This would provide consistency between the oil and gas and nuclear sections of C-22 and meet another international best practice. India's nuclear liability legislation exposes suppliers to liability.

My final recommendation is forward-looking. There is ample documentation showing that the Department of Natural Resources Canada has intentionally avoided over the past decade, under both Conservative and Liberal governments, consulting Canadians while developing this bill. It is unsurprising, then, that NRCan believes it is acceptable to cap liability and transfer the majority of risk created by the nuclear industry onto Canadians.

Subclause 26(1) requires that the NLCA be reviewed every five years. Greenpeace recommends amending this clause to stipulate such reviews must be public and done in consultation with non-industry stakeholders. There's also international precedence for this.

That concludes my comments. I look forward to your questions.

[Dr. John Barrett, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the members of the committee for inviting me to appear on behalf of the Canadian nuclear industry.

The Canadian Nuclear Association is a non-profit organization established in 1960 to represent the nuclear industry in Canada. The association promotes the development and growth of nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes. It represents the nuclear spectrum from uranium mining to waste management and all the points in between.

The Canadian nuclear industry provides isotopes that improve cancer diagnostics and therapies, imaging that improves manufacturing quality, electricity that avoids greenhouse gas emissions that in turn drive climate change. Through these activities, the Canadian nuclear industry directly employs 30,000 Canadians and another 30,000 Canadians indirectly through our suppliers.

According to the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association, the industry generates nearly $7 billion of economic activity, exports $1.2 billion in goods and services, and pays $1.5 billion in federal and provincial taxes. In all of our activities, our business is safety. It is inextricably and permeates our corporate culture.

Nuclear power plant operators hold an enviable safety record highly regarded by employees, by host communities, and nuclear industry globally. We are proud of the fact that there has never been a claim under the Nuclear Liability Act. We are determined to see that none will ever occur under the proposed Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act. Our industry supports the passage of Bill C-22. This legislation would improve the nuclear liability framework, bringing it in line with international standards. It would protect Canadians and improve the industry's ability to manage risk responsibly.

With the passage of the Nuclear Liability Act in 1976, our industry accepted the principles of absolute and exclusive operator liability, mandatory financial security, and liability limitations in time and amount. These principles are standard features of nuclear legislation in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere.

Bill C-22 adequately balances the needs of industry and the needs of Canadians. In updating the 1976 legislation, Parliament would bring Canada in line with modern international standards and our members appreciate the government's flexibility in proposing financial instruments as insurance alternatives.

Moreover, the nuclear industry strongly supports the ratification of the Convention on Supplementary Compensation. This treaty already ratified by the United States will provide further protection in the case of an international incident. It will also improve the industry's ability to export Canada's significant nuclear expertise.

There are significant global opportunities presented by the current construction of 71 nuclear reactors in the world, including five in the United States and 20 in China. Canada enjoys an enviable international reputation as a nuclear pioneer and global leader in technological innovation and regulatory effectiveness.

Mr. Chair, we support the provisions of this proposed legislation and we urge Parliamentarians to pass it into law. With that said, there are two points that deserve the government's attention. The first is we would urge the Minister to use his authority to increase the number of eligible insurers. Our members face a substantial increase in premiums and would appreciate the benefits of open and fair competition in the insurance market. The government's recent actions have ended a long running monopoly, but greater competition will be needed when this bill is proclaimed.

Second, we seek clarification of the term “nuclear installation”. We detect a difference between the interpretation provided in the bill and that provided in the backgrounder that accompanies the bill. In the backgrounder, nuclear installations are defined as “Canadian nuclear facilities such as nuclear power plants, nuclear research reactors, fuel processing plants and facilities for managing used nuclear fuel”. In the bill however, the definition of nuclear installation is potentially much broader. If the backgrounder is correct in identifying only these four types of installations, then the legislation should be made equally clear.

In summary, Mr. Chair and committee members, the Canadian nuclear industry supports this bill just as we have supported the government's previous efforts to amend the Nuclear Liability Act. These amendments, long overdue, would bring Canada's nuclear liability regime in line with international standards.

We encourage you and your colleagues to pass this legislation with the improvements that we have recommended.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good morning everyone. We continue our study of Bill C-22.

We have with us for the second part of our meeting three witnesses.

We have, first of all, from the Canadian Nuclear Association, Dr. John Barrett, president and chief executive officer. Welcome to you, sir. Thank you for being here on such short notice.

We have from Greenpeace Canada, Shawn-Patrick Stensil, nuclear analyst. Welcome to you, sir.

We have from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Dr. Michael Binder, president and chief executive officer. Welcome to you, sir.

We'll go ahead with presentations. We've asked you to limit them to five minutes, so that we have ample time for questions and comments from members.

We'll go in the order that you are listed on the agenda, starting with Dr. Barrett from the Canadian Nuclear Association.

Please, go ahead, sir.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

He recommended a number of amendments to Bill C-22. One of them called for the bill to give cabinet the ability to make regulations for the calculation of non-use environmental damages.

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

Thank you.

I am indeed interested in seeing their modelling.

In Bill C-22, absolute liability is set at $1 billion. You mentioned scenarios that you had analysed, but those are not the worst case scenarios that could take place.

I know nuclear safety is very, very important in Canada and that it appears very unlikely for an accident to happen. However, the fact remains that such an accident would be quite costly. How can we ensure that taxpayers do not end up footing the bill?

[Jeff Labonté]

Thank you for your question.

I think your comment contains a few sub-questions. I would like to answer by making several points.

There certainly is a risk of accidents happening in the nuclear sector. The risks are there and it's always a possibility. However, we think the probability is very low. At the same time, we need a compensation system and legislation to protect citizens as well as every aspect of our economic activity, the environment and public health.

In developing Bill C-22, we have had many discussions with various stakeholders and with the population. We have imagined scenarios that could lead to an accident in Canada, taking into account our nuclear reactor's model, system and context.

With your permission, I will carry on in English.

We modelled the context—and certainly it was done a number of years ago—such that the design of the reactor and the situation provide for an incident contained within the design parameters and within the structures of the reactor. Procedures are built into the engineering to provide for things to shut down or to happen, and there are backup procedures and backups to backups that limit the potential for an incident to escalate into a more substantial incident.

The modelling looked at a scenario in which an incident would be contained within a nuclear facility. It also looked at a number of different contexts, one in

Gentilly, in Quebec, and another one here in Ontario, where there are reactors. In such cases, I believe the scenario would amount to $100 million, which includes costs and expenditures from an accident that would take place in the context of developing or installing a reactor.

In that context, it was believed to be in the order of about $100 million. The modelling did not model the scenario of a Fukushima or a Chernobyl, being that these are a very, very low probability and, if you will, very unique circumstances. In each of those, it hasn't been something that we've looked at in terms of trying to design a system to protect against those types of incidents.

In the case of Fukushima, I believe the cost of the Fukushima accident is in the order of $30 billion at this point and is expected to be much more as it goes on. It's a running total, if you will. In the Chernobyl case, I'm not sure of the figures for that one. It is not one in which the countries involved have been as transparent about the cost structures.

I think you had a third reference. Three Mile Island? For Three Mile Island in the United States, I'll have to get back to you on the exact numbers of that particular incident, although it's not considered a severe incident, if I could use language of that sort. There was one in the United Kingdom in the 1950s that was a bit more substantial in terms of an incident in which there was a release of radiation.

For the three examples that you have posed, certainly we can get back to you with the numbers, if you wish. On the design scenarios around the Canadian context, our colleagues at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would have done and have done some modelling work also, and some work in terms of incidents, and may be able to provide further evidence and further information to you in response to your question.

[Jeff Labonté]

From a policy perspective, the department would certainly feel that it was a stronger bill. The previous version of the bill limited the liability to $650 million, whereas this bill puts it at $1 billion, so there's a fairly sizeable change. This bill has that liability phased in over time, which is responsive to what some of the stakeholders felt was the need over time to be able to get into the insurance market, to get the insurance required, and to put the fiscal elements in place they would want. That's moving from $75 million to $1 billion over a three-year horizon, starting at $650 million, moving to $750 million, $850 million, and then to $1 billion.

Bill C-22 also more clearly defines psychological trauma, one of the damages that is compensable under the bill, and how that would work over time and how it's associated with bodily injury. It was less clear in the previous versions of the bill. So the longer we officials have had to look at a bill, the longer we have had to try to optimize and refine it to provide as much clarity as possible. As you're parliamentarians, I'm sure you're trying to do the same thing, but time always limits the ability for you to look at everything as much as you can.

Bill C-22 makes explicit that the costs incurred by authorities in responding to an incident are not compensable by the operator. For example, if emergency services of fire, police, or whatnot responded to a potential incident, those costs are not reimbursable to the municipality or the province responsible. They're covered via the emergency services of that particular part of the country.

[Jeff Labonté, Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here this morning to speak to you about the second part of Bill C-22. This will focus on nuclear compensation and liability.

This morning, it is my pleasure to provide you with some background about the second portion of this bill.

A presentation has been circulated. I hope everyone has a copy. As with previous representations, we will try to move through the presentation fairly quickly and open the floor for your questions and comments and will do our very best to respond to those.

The purpose today is to brief on the nuclear components of the energy safety and security act. In essence, the act proposes to amend the nuclear regime to establish greater legal certainty, and enhance liability and compensation procedures, protocols, and aspects related to the unlikely event of a nuclear incident in Canada.

For background, the act will replace our current nuclear liability regime, which is based on a 1976 nuclear liability act. My legal counsel has reminded me that the act was tabled in parliament in 1970 and wasn't in to force until 1976.

To point out a couple things, the act provided for liability limited to $75 million in the event of a nuclear incident. There are aspects of the act that I think it would be fair to say are outdated and that we would hope to modernize. Certainly it doesn't reflect international standards, nor international conventions that have emerged to manage transboundary and transnational issues related to nuclear incidents in the event that they ever occur. Those are the focal points, to us, in terms of the policy logic for the bill.

I think most committee members may know this, but I'll say it for the record. The bill has been introduced four times before parliament and has not managed to make its way to a vote and to royal assent. That said, I think it's an important piece of legislation that we hope we can help advance, and certainly respond to your questions in a fashion that allows so.

With regard to highlights of the bill, it is really about three things. One is to strengthen compensation and bring it in line with international peers and with other international context. Two is to clarify the compensation definitions and the procedures in which compensation would be provided and how it would be determined. Three is to allow Canada to sign and ratify the International Atomic Energy Agency convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage. That is in effect a convention that allows countries to work together to deal with transboundary incidents and to share resources in the event that there's an incident in a member country to the convention.

As well, the bill—similar to the offshore portion of the bill—has elements that are quite consistent with what was proposed in the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's fall 2012 report. It looked at liability limits for all of Canada's energy production regimes and natural resource sector areas.

I will now discuss what is found on slide 4 of our presentation.

The nuclear sector is important for Canada's economy. It provides 30,000 direct jobs, of which 5,000 are in the uranium and aluminum sectors, and 25,000 in services and energy production from uranium. In total, over $6 billion in revenues are produced annually in Canada. This is a major aspect of our economic context as well as development.

On the fifth page, I'll cover a couple of key elements of the act in terms of highlights. I'm certain you'll have a more deeper look at things, but there are elements of the bill that focus on improving accountability and looking at the liability aspect.

First, the act maintains that liability for operators is exclusive and absolute. Similar to the offshore portion of the bill, that would mean that in the event there were an incident—and we believe that such an incident would be highly unlikely—the operator of the facility would be absolutely liable. There would be no need to provide fault or negligence to demonstrate that liability.

The bill proposes to increase absolute liability to $1 billion over a period of three years in several steps. It requires that operators have a commensurate amount of insurance or fiscal security that demonstrates they are able to handle the $1 billion worth of absolute liability. It also provides that the government will provide coverage where there is no insurance, and there are several instances where we might find that in this part of our economic sector. One example is small reactors or reactors that relate to research areas. The second example is in areas where the insurance community is not prepared to look at 30-year horizons, for example, for coverage of certain damages.

The act also provides a mandated review of liability amounts every five years so that at least Parliament will have the opportunity every five years to increase the amounts of liability and compensation that are fundamental in the act.

The second part or theme of the bill is really to look at increasing the response capability, so the bill goes quite a ways in expanding the definition of categories of what are the compensable damages. It provides for a limitation period and expansion for bodily injury for claims from 10 years to 30. It provides the compensation of remedial measures to repair and to deal with environmental damages and it establishes authorities to simplify the claims-handling process through a tribunal, should it ever be necessary.

It also allows Canada to enhance its transparency and to join the international community, so the bill provides for Canada to ratify membership in the convention on supplemental compensation for nuclear damage. Once in force, this convention will provide certainty for liability in jurisdictions for trans-boundary and trans-national issues. It specifies how these issues will be dealt with. It provides supplemental coverage should Canada ever need it and it provides that Canada would also contribute to supplemental coverage from another member country, should it ever be needed as well.

In terms of next steps for the bill, it was introduced on the 30th of January. Following royal assent and entry into force, part 2 requires a number of regulations to be established, and we expect to do those in the coming months and, over the next 12 to 18 months, one regulation is to provide for an insurance policy and another is to establish the definition of a nuclear installation.

Once it has come into force, Canada will then formally complete its process to ratify the convention. So we've signed the convention, but it isn't formally ratified until the policy is in place domestically in law and several regulations are in place, and then we're able to actually ratify the convention and become formal members of it. So there are several steps along the path that gets us to being a member. The annex includes the acts that will be amended either directly or consequentially through this process.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Now we'll get to the business we have before us today.

I want to start by thanking all of the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Labonté, this is two meetings in a row, and we're looking forward to your presentation and your answers to questions by members today.

We are here today to continue our study 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.

For the first three-quarters of an hour this morning, we have from the Department of Natural Resources Mr. Jeff Labonté, director general of the energy safety and security branch, energy sector. Again, thank you.

We have Dave McCauley, director of the uranium and radioactive waste division in the electricity resources branch, energy sector. Welcome to you, sir.

And we have Joanne Kellerman, general counsel and executive director, legal services. Thank you for being here today as well.

Go ahead, please, with your presentation. Then we'll get to the questions and comments after that. I look forward to a meeting as productive as the last one.

Go ahead, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Then the other thing that we need to decide is....

First of all, in case the clause-by-clause study goes longer than the two hours, is it agreed that we go as long as it takes to complete the clause by clause of Bill C-22?

Is that agreed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Crockatt.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for being here today and giving your knowledge and expertise in the answers to the questions that were asked today.

We have, from Ecojustice Canada, William Amos. Thank you very much for being here.

We have, from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Paul Barnes. Thank you very much for being here.

We have, from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Theresa McClenaghan, executive director and counsel. Thank you very much for being here.

We'll be back on Thursday to take a look at the nuclear side of Bill C-22.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director and Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the committee for inviting CELA to speak to you today about Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act.

CELA is a 44-year-old national ENGO, and when we're looking at conventional sources of energy, the areas we're focusing on are usually around things like liability, safety, emergency planning, and environmental health.

Today I'm going to focus on the liability aspects of the bill. You are focused on offshore oil and gas in your study today and on nuclear energy on Thursday, as I understand it.

First I want to look at the bill as a whole, because there's a significant contrast between the approaches in the two sectors of the bill. The areas I'll address are the polluter pays principle, which we've been hearing about this morning, absolute liability, liability for negligence beyond absolute liability, and supplier and contractor liability.

First of all, with respect to the polluter pays principle, CELA too supports this principle and is very pleased to see it included in several oil and gas statutes as part of their purpose statement, so that it will now be part of the purpose of all of those regulatory statutes.

However, the polluter pays principle is not included in Bill C-22 on the nuclear side of the bill. We would submit that it is poor policy that a bill that espouses the polluter pays principle does so only in respect of one type of energy source in the bill, oil and gas, and not in respect of nuclear.

With respect to absolute liability, both sides of the bill, oil and gas and nuclear, require minimum insurance or other demonstration to show that an absolute liability amount could be paid in the event of an incident. We agree with that, although we also agree that $1 billion is not enough in either sector.

The difference is that in the case of oil and gas, licence holders or their suppliers and contractors may be liable beyond the absolute liability in the case of negligence, as you heard described. That may sound obvious, but on the other side of the bill, negligence and liability beyond the absolute liability are not provided for on the nuclear side. On that side, the billion dollars or whatever the phased in amount is, would be the absolute maximum that an operator would ever have to pay for an incident even if it drastically exceeded the liability of the incident.

In the case of the negligence side of the bill with regard to the oil and gas sector, the damages would have to be proven. We recognize there are issues with proof, but nevertheless the fact that claims can be brought for proven damages in cases of negligence even beyond absolute liability is entirely appropriate in our view. We would submit that this should be done as well on the nuclear side of the bill.

A section analogous to clause 19 of part 1, which amends the act by changing section 26 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, should also be included in the nuclear side of the bill.

The other big difference is with respect to supplier and contractor liability. Both aspects of the bill channel supplier and contractor liability to the operator or the licence holder for that absolute liability portion, but only on the oil and gas side is liability ever possible against suppliers and contractors in their negligence. On the nuclear side, that's never possible. The nuclear suppliers to that entire supply chain never have to consider the consequences of the decisions they are making around risk, and on the nuclear side as well as the oil and gas side, decisions are made every day around risk.

The other thing I want to focus on today has to do with the proposed amendments to the bill. In addition to the amendment I suggested, which would insert a section analogous to section 26 of the Oil and Gas Operations Act into the nuclear side, I would also say, with regard to the nuclear side, that in clause 120, proposed section 9 and all of the subsections there that have the words “and no person other than an operator” should all be struck out. Then proposed section 24 should be amended to increase the absolute liability amount similarly on the oil and gas side.

Then a provision like clause 19 of part 1 of Bill C-22, which provides for additional liability beyond the absolute liability in the case of negligence, as I already said, should be included.

To conclude, because I know time is short and you have questions, with respect to this bill, we agree that the amount for the absolute liability portion of the bill is insufficient. We agree that there should be an amount for absolute liability in both sectors. We also agree that there should be liability for negligence beyond the absolute liability. Our submission is that this should apply in both sectors as well.

Thank you.

[Paul Barnes, Manager, Atlantic Canada and Arctic, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers]

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Paul Barnes. I'm the manager of Atlantic Canada and Arctic, for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, sometimes referred to as CAPP.

We represent Canada’s upstream oil and gas sector, basically those companies involved in the exploration, development, and production of oil and gas. We appreciate the opportunity to offer our perspectives regarding Bill C-22 today, specifically those sections of the bill related to the offshore oil and gas industry.

Safety comes first in Canada’s offshore oil and gas industry. Offshore operators assess every activity before beginning it, with safety in mind. Similarly, protecting the environment is a key consideration in everything we do. Operations are designed to mitigate potential risks to our people and the environment. To put it simply, our industry is committed to developing offshore resources safely and responsibly.

We are therefore supportive of this bill, which aims to enhance accountability for safe operations and to modernize aspects of the offshore oil and gas regulatory regime so that Canada’s offshore can maintain its world-class safety and environmental performance.

I'll begin by talking about the polluter pays principle and offshore liability.

Bill C-22, as you know, is founded on the polluter pays principle. This principle is supported by CAPP and is consistent with other federal legislation that applies to the oil and gas industry throughout the country.

One of the most significant changes resulting from this bill is an increase in offshore liability limits. It's important to differentiate between absolute or no-fault liability versus liability for incidents where fault or negligence by industry is proven.

In any case where fault or negligence is proven, the industry has unlimited liability, meaning that we are fully responsible for the costs of cleaning up the incident. This has always been the case in Canada, and this bill does not suggest any change to at-fault liability.

The increase in liability, however, that we are talking about or referring to is in absolute liability, meaning the amount companies will be required to pay, even if they are not at fault for an incident. The amount companies must provide to government so they can get unfettered access to use it, if needed, in the event of an incident has also increased.

It should be noted that industry works diligently to prevent incidents from occurring, so it is our hope that we never find ourselves in a position where liability for an incident comes into play. At the same time, we understand and accept the rationale for increasing the absolute liability limits. Likewise, we understand that this bill also brings new requirements for companies to demonstrate that they have at least $1 billion in financial capacity to undertake work in the offshore. Again, we accept the rationale for these changes.

We do wish to have further dialogue with governments and regulators as regulations and guidelines related to financial responsibility are further developed, as industry would like to see some flexibility in some of the financial instruments that are available in the financial market today, such as insurance and parental guarantees, which would be acceptable in order to demonstrate financial capability or capacity.

I will now comment on dispersants.

As I mentioned, offshore operations are designed with a prevention-first philosophy. While our primary focus is on preventing incidents like spills from occurring, it is also important that we be prepared to effectively respond in the unlikely event of a spill.

We are encouraged that the federal government, through the bill, is taking the steps necessary to enable the use of spill-treating agents in Canadian waters in the event of a spill. Industry has been advocating for the acceptance of dispersants as a viable spill countermeasure in Canada for several years. Several recent reports and reviews have also recommended that Canada facilitate dispersant usage where there is a net environmental benefit, including a recent report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

Dispersants are a common spill countermeasure in other offshore jurisdictions. In fact, over 75 countries around the world identify dispersants as a first- or second-response option. These proposed changes in the bill bring Canada in line with other countries and current global practice.

The key to effective spill response is having access to a variety of tools that can be used in a particular spill scenario. Dispersants provide another tool in the tool box to spill responders, thereby improving our capacity to respond effectively to a spill and minimizing environmental impacts.

I also want to point out that this bill supports the concept of the offshore petroleum boards in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia as the best-placed regulators for the offshore industry in Atlantic Canada.

Industry has always advocated for a single-window regulatory approach for the offshore, meaning a regulatory structure that has industry engaging with one primary regulator. This approach ensures cohesiveness and clarity in the regulatory model, and is in line with the original intent of the Atlantic accord acts.

Bill C-22 provides additional authority to the boards in the areas of environment, and health and safety, and makes the offshore petroleum boards lead regulatory authorities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. In our view, the boards are the best-placed regulators for conducting offshore environmental assessments, so we are pleased to see this authority being granted to the boards. It also brings them in line with the National Energy Board, which was granted this authority many years ago.

The bill also provides additional authority to the boards to release environmental reports and other documents to the public. Generally, we are supportive of efforts to improve transparency. In fact, in CAPP's own annual “Responsible Canadian Energy” report, we voluntarily published performance data related to environmental safety. However, further dialogue is required as the bill does not define specifically what documents will be released, and some information could be commercially sensitive. We look forward to having some further dialogue with governments and the boards as they develop regulations and further information about the release of these documents.

To conclude, I want to reiterate CAPP's support for Bill C-22. The bill demonstrates government's commitments to ensure public safety and environmental protection, and is in line with industry's own commitment to develop resources safely and responsibly.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today, and I look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We resume our committee meeting with witnesses on Bill C-22.

We have three witnesses with us.

First of all, here in person from Ecojustice Canada, we have William Amos, director, Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Ottawa. Thank you very much for being here again. We've had you before the committee a couple of times, I believe. Welcome.

By video conference from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, we have Paul Barnes, manager, Atlantic Canada and Arctic. Welcome to you, sir, and thank you for being with us today.

We have by video conference from Toronto, from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Theresa McClenaghan, executive director and counsel. Welcome to you. Thank you very much for being with us today.

We'll have the presentations, for up to five minutes, from witnesses in the order that you are listed on the agenda.

We will start with Mr. Amos from Ecojustice Canada.

Go ahead, please, sir, with your presentation. Again, thank you for being with us today.

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

Mr. Labonté, you can take notes, because I have some questions for you.

You mentioned the polluter pays principle. Does that principle apply in your department as a general rule or did you decide to apply it to this specific bill?

You said that you used certain accidents to determine the level of liability. The Piper Alpha accident in the United Kingdom cost $1.2 billion. If you consider inflation, that comes to $2.83 billion. For Ixtoc 2, the cost was $3.4 billion. Those amounts exceed $1 billion.

Which accidents did you use to determine the costs of liability? Would recovery operations in the Arctic, in Canada’s far north, cost a lot more? Did you include those operations in your scenarios and your calculations?

The legislation has not been changed for 30 years. We are presently studying Bill C-22 so that we do not have to amend the legislation for a while. So why does the bill not provide for an annual indexing formula for the liability amount so that we can avoid a situation whereby another 30 years might go by without the amount being indexed and with it no longer reflecting reality? Would it be possible to include an indexing formula in the bill? If so, what would you suggest?

[Jeff Labonté, Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources]

Yes, indeed.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this morning and to discuss the elements of Bill C-22.

There is a presentation that's been distributed by the clerk in French and English.

You can have it in the language of your choice.

Let me begin by appreciating the chance to come and speak to you about the bill and hopefully be able to answer the questions you may have, and to be followed by other stakeholders later today.

Today's focus of the presentation would be on the offshore components of the energy safety and security act, an act that amends the petroleum regime to enhance incident prevention response capability, liability, and compensation.

Just as background, the offshore legislation was developed by the Minister of Natural Resources in collaboration with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of the Environment, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

This piece of legislation was also developed in collaboration with the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, both of which share management of the offshore with the Government of Canada and have mirror offshore legislation, both of which will be presenting similar bills in their legislatures in the coming months.

Here are some highlights of Bill C-22: Its focus is to strengthen the safety and security of our offshore and nuclear energy industries. It ensures that Canadians will continue to have a world-class offshore regime that is accountable and responsive, and both works to prevent incidents from occurring as well as provide for the compensation and liability in the event of an incident.

This piece of legislation builds on the government's agenda for responsible resource development by ensuring that we have an equally responsive regulatory regime to support responsible resource development.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development recognized the government's intentions previously when at committee and has found that these pieces of legislation are consistent with the fall report that made mention of the need to raise liability and compensation in the offshore sector among other stakeholders across the country.

From an economic point of view, the offshore petroleum sector is fairly significant, representing 28% of Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP and 3% of Nova Scotia's nominal GDP. There are about 13,000 jobs or 5.8% of total employment in Newfoundland and Labrador. There has been about $9.2 billion in royalties to Newfoundland and Labrador, and $2.4 billion in royalties to Nova Scotia over the past 15 years. That is to say that the energy sector and the offshore for Atlantic Canada is quite significant and important from an employment and revenue point of view.

Regarding key features of these particular amendments that are proposed for the offshore, there are themes within the bill.

If you look at one theme about improving the accountability of the regulatory system, there are proposed amendments in the bill to enshrine the polluter pays principle into law; to reinforce in statute the unlimited liability at fault or when negligent; to increase the absolute liability amount to $1 billion, up from $40 million in the Arctic and $30 million in the offshore and everywhere else; to establish in statute that operators are liable for contractors; and to allow governments to seek compensation for environmental damages.

In terms of enhancing prevention, the bill will provide for the requirement to set a minimum of $1 billion in financial capacity for operators of the offshore and create an ability for regulators to levy administrative and monetary penalties for infractions and regulatory incidents.

Moving to the sixth slide, the third element of the bill is to increase response capability and transparency. Here the bill clarifies authority for use of spill-treating agents when there's a net environmental benefit. It provides the regulators direct access to $100 million per project or a pooled fund of $250 million if the operator is unwilling or unable to respond to a spill and the regulator needs to step in.

The act will require the boards to make emergency plans, environmental and other documents public. It will also create in statute a cost recovery regime that requires industry in law to provide payment to government for the regulatory services that are provided. Currently, there's a 75% cost recovery in Newfoundland and Labrador, and 50% in Nova Scotia under voluntary agreements. This therefore puts in statute the current agreement.

The final point would be to establish the authority to manage resources that straddle two or more administrative areas in the Arctic region, particularly as we look at different opportunities and different collaborations that are happening north of 60.

In terms of next steps, the bill was introduced, as you might know, on January 30. The government and the department are currently working on regulations in the statute or in the proposed amendments that are imposed over a timeline.

Provincial versions of the bill are in development. We are working closely and collaboratively with our provincial counterparts so that mirror legislation will be introduced. We expect that to happen in the early fall in Nova Scotia's case and shortly thereafter in the cast of Newfoundland and Labrador. The entry into force of the bill will be determined with the provinces once they pass their legislation and all of the regulations are completed.

There's a small annex that identifies which of the federal acts are impacted by part 1 of the energy safety and security act and where the amendments apply.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good morning, everyone.

As you all know, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 29, 2014, we are studying 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.

In our study of this legislation, we begin with departmental officials who will be dealing with the offshore section of the act. I welcome you to our committee this morning. Thank you very much for coming on such short notice.

We have with us from the Department of Natural Resources, Jeff Labonté, director general, energy safety and security branch, energy sector; Samuel Millar, senior director, frontier lands management division, petroleum resource branch, energy sector; and Jean François Roman, legal counsel, legal services.

From the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we have Michel Chenier, director, petroleum and mineral resources management directorate, natural resources and environment branch, northern affairs.

We have three-quarters of an hour with these witnesses, and we will start immediately.

Do you have a presentation to make, sir, to start our study of this bill?

Energy Safety and Security Act

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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, 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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first let me start by acknowledging the support shown on Tuesday night for our motion to have the House work hard for all Canadians to ensure that we have a productive, hard-working, and orderly House of Commons. It was not just this side of the House that voted for this ambitious plan to let MPs reach decisions on many important issues, and I want to thank the Liberal Party for agreeing to join Conservatives in rolling up their sleeves this spring.

I know my hon. friend has a different definition of what our work is here in the House of Commons. He believes that our work here is to filibuster and fill every moment possible with as many speeches as possible to avoid decisions being made. I have encountered one or two Canadians who think the problem with politicians is too much talk and not enough action. Now we know where they get that impression.

On this side of the House, we are committed to action, we are committed to delivering results, and we are committed to decisions being made and to people participating in votes and making decisions on behalf of their constituents at home. That is why we need debates to also come to a conclusion so we can make those decisions and so we can have those votes.

Last night, for example, we had a great debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. That is our government taking steps to modernize the Citizenship Act for the first time in some 35 years. What is even better, we just had a vote and a decision. Every single member, not just a dozen or so who might have spoken for a few hours but every single member of this House, got to have a say on behalf of his or her constituents and got to make a decision and advance a bill through the legislation process. That is what it is really all about.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday morning—before we adopted the government's ambitious work plan—a number of New Democrats expressed their support for Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. However, they did not walk that talk.

The honourable member for Chambly—Borduas said, “we do recognize the urgency [of this matter]”. Nevertheless, seven other New Democrats then got up after him to block this bill from going to committee. Among them was their deputy leader who said, “I also hope that the bill will go to committee quickly...”.

I wish that the New Democrats listened to their deputy leader. It would be disappointing to think that the NDP might be using Vanessa's law as a political hostage by filibustering it as a means to avoid debating other bills.

I would not want to ascribe such cynical motives to the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and I trust this is not a preview of how he wishes to approach the business of the House for the forthcoming three weeks, when Canadians actually expect us to accomplish things for them.

Looking forward to these three weeks to come, I am pleased to review the business the government will call in the coming days.

This afternoon, we will carry on with the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. Once that has concluded, we will take up Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, at report stage. If time permits, we will get back to third reading and passage of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, will be considered tomorrow at report stage and hopefully at third reading as well.

After the weekend, we will consider Bill C-20, which would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Honduras, at report stage.

Following Monday's question period, we will consider Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, at second reading. That will be followed by second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

On Tuesday morning, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act. The hon. member for Richmond Hill spoke a couple of nights ago about this wonderful bill, Quanto's law, which will have a chance to be considered, thanks to having additional debate time in the House. Since I cannot imagine New Democrats opposing this bill, the only question is how many speeches will they give supporting it, and of course, how will giving more speeches make this bill become law sooner.

Following question period, we will resume debate on Bill C-20, on Canada-Honduras free trade, as well as Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, which I discussed earlier, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, and Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act. After private members' hour, we will begin report stage of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which underwent clause-by-clause study at the Standing Committee on Finance this week.

A week from today, on Thursday next, we will continue debating our budget implementation bill. Ideally, I would also like to see us finish third reading of the bill on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of the Honduras that day.

Finally, any remaining time available to us that evening will be spent on the bills on which the NDP will be able to offer more, remarkably similar speeches confirming, time after time, their support. Although I appreciate their supportive attitude towards many parts of our government's legislative agenda, it would be great if they would let all members of Parliament have their say, in an ultimate expression of democracy and to help us move from mere words to actual deeds, so that all of us can tell our constituents that we have actually accomplished something on their behalf.

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—

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.

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.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an odd debate. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Burlington. He is the chair of the committee and I am the vice-chair.

I found some of his statements peculiar. The fundamental problem with the motion presently before the House is not the fact of staying until midnight. The NDP team has a reputation for hard work. Anyone who wants to entertain themselves by visiting my Facebook page would see that the people of Gatineau are actually advising me to slow down because they are worried about my health. Perhaps they are right, considering the flu I have at the moment. We in the NDP work very hard. A number of bills, for example, are before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, so that they can be debated in the House or in committee. It is not the work we are afraid of.

The cat is out of the bag. There are issues that our Conservative friends want to talk about, and they want to speak about them at length. Had I been asked, I would have said—before they even rose to speak—that I expected to see a great many Conservatives rise to speak in the House about Bill C-32. Why? Because it is an opportunity for the Conservatives to give Canadians the impression that they have been dealing with this issue—and this issue alone—for weeks, months and even years. They are the ones who stand up for victims. We are all deadbeats and have washed our hands of the problem. That is not true, though. Now, when workers’ rights were at stake, the Conservatives wanted to cut debate short.

The member said that nine bills had been passed and that he is embarrassed to return to Burlington. What I would say to him is that he is absolutely right to be embarrassed; the Conservatives did nothing with their majority aside from getting nine bills passed, and they had to resort to time allocation motions to ram the bills through. There is something not quite right with this government. The Conservatives are averse to debate. They do not like hearing opinions that do not coincide with their own. When the Conservatives too often hear something they disagree with, a red light suddenly goes on. We have had to debate many a time allocation motion. I do not know how many times I have taken part in debates in the House or how many speeches I have made expressing my dissatisfaction with the fact that we have been stripped of our right to speak.

The Conservatives made mention of Bill C-13. I am fortunate to be the NDP justice critic and to have had the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding this omnibus bill, right after the minister spoke. This is no small bill; on the contrary, it is approximately 50 pages long and has an impact on numerous other pieces of legislation. It does address the issue of cyberbullying, as the government likes to point out, but it goes much farther, so far that the committee is being flooded with requests for meetings. We hear all manner of experts warning us to be careful. That is what is missing in the House.

The Senate is referred to as a chamber of sober second thought, but we were not elected to this place in order to abdicate our duty to think. Members have a responsibility to be present in the House to voice and stand up for the opinions of their constituents. Canadians expect us to go about our work in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, to take the time to properly analyze bills. I am in favour of debating this bill in the House and referring it to committee for further consideration. More often than not, bills are analyzed at lightening speed.

The Conservatives will say that the House was given an opportunity to debate Bill C-13, the bill on cyberbullying, and thank God, especially given the time allocation motion that was foisted upon us so as to ram the bill through to committee.

Suddenly, things became urgent. Why urgent after the death of Rehtaeh Parsons, and yet not after the death of Amanda Todd? That was a question a witness asked us. The notion that the government would somehow need to act urgently does not really cut it with me; these things are more politically driven than they are concrete. It is a bit worrisome.

Bill C-13 is large and contains a number of disturbing provisions. When considered alongside the remarks made by the Conservative committee members, it leads me to believe that the Conservatives will not be very receptive to the many amendments proposed by expert witnesses. If past events are any indication, I am not very optimistic. Still, I am an optimistic woman by nature.

In light of this, I have trouble believing it when the government tells us, hand on heart, that its goal is to work harder. Working harder, for a Conservative, does not necessarily mean working more effectively and harder. It simply means that members end up working until midnight in order to discuss all the bills before the House, including those bills that have not been studied for an eternity.

For example, there is Bill C-2 on safe injection sites; Bill C-3 on marine transportation; Bill C-6, which implements the Convention on Cluster Munitions; Bill C-8 on counterfeit products; and Bill C-10 on contraband tobacco, which we finished studying in committee such a long time ago that I will have to reread all my material. Indeed, since then, we have studied so many other topics that I have almost had enough time to forget all about it. We will resume studying this bill at report stage. We could have covered it a long time ago. I have been waiting for some time for this stage to be completed in the House. Everything will have to be done over. It is a colossal waste of time for everyone concerned. There is also Bill C-11 on the hiring of injured veterans. If there is a category of people in our society who have huge needs, it certainly is our veterans.

Suddenly, the Conservatives are going to try and push all this through at once. The member for Burlington has done the math when it comes to the number of hours, and the government is going to try and give us a few hours for each bill. Then the government turns around and calls itself a champion of hard work. Well done, champion.

There is also Bill C-17, Vanessa’s law, about drug safety, an extremely important bill that must be debated; Bill C-18, concerning farm regulations; and Bill C-20, concerning the Canada-Honduras agreement, which is at report stage. I no longer even remember when I gave my last speech on that subject. It has already been a heck of a long time. The Conservatives have been in no rush, but all of a sudden, they are in a rush.

We will examine Bill C-21, concerning red tape for small businesses. The junior Minister of Tourism is travelling all over Canada to talk about the importance of eliminating red tape everywhere, while this bill is stuck in some office or other. It could have been debated a long time ago.

There is Bill C-22, concerning oil, gas and nuclear liability, and Bill C-24, concerning the Citizenship Act. These are bills that are announced to us with great fanfare at big press conferences, but then they stagnate and we do not see them again.

There is Bill C-26, about sexual predators. I expected that one would move quickly, because the Conservatives told us we had to work on this issue quickly. There is also Bill C-27, about hiring veterans in the public service. It is extremely important, I repeat, because it concerns a category of people in our society who have needs that are just as important.

Then there is Bill C-32, about the victims bill of rights. I think it is the reason why this government’s Motion No. 10 has no credibility at all. For a full year, I was treated to one press conference after another. If it was not the Prime Minister, it was the Minister of Justice with his senator from the other side. They told us they were going to work very hard, listen, set up panels and do everything we could wish for, and then they brought forth a charter that was denounced by many people, starting with victims, because they expected a lot more. That may be why the Conservatives kept their charter hidden for some time.

Apart from the minister, one Liberal and myself, no one has yet spoken on this subject. I am going to make a wager with my colleagues in the House. I expect there will be a time allocation motion on this. The Conservatives are going to rend their garments and plead that it is urgent, that it is extremely important and that it must be passed immediately, or the opposite will happen, because they will want to talk to us about it for hours on end. It becomes part of their narrative.

Every Conservative member wants to go back to their riding and have their householder and the excerpt from their speech in the House, which they made to show that they are protecting victims’ rights.

In the NDP, we want to talk about important issues and show that we could do even better than Bill C-32, specifically by amending it. We want to talk about the proposals made by the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. In fact, Bill C-32 does not contain a large percentage of her recommendations. A balance has to be struck. For every Conservative who speaks, the New Democrats will also speak.

When we want to talk about something, it is not important. That is the message we constantly get in the House, and, perhaps because we are approaching the end of the session, it is becoming extremely annoying, to put it mildly and stay within the bounds of parliamentary language.

It is appalling to see that people who are elected to represent the residents of their riding are silenced as often as we are by this government. We get told they are not interested. I have also heard the member for Burlington say—and I am going to talk to him about it again, in fact, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—that sometimes we just need to go and read because members all read pretty much the same thing.

If the people of Gatineau think the same thing as the people of Laval, I think it is important that this be pointed out. Who has more right than whom to speak in the House on a particular bill? There is something indecent about wanting to constantly silence people.

Sometimes, I tell the members opposite that they should stop imposing time allocation motions and motions to get things done, as they like to say. I very much liked the expression my colleague used yesterday, when he talked about motions that are “a licence for laziness”.

This is unpleasant. If they had taken the time spent on debating those motions and instead used the time to finish the debate on the bill that they were trying to stop from being debated, we would probably have finished. The fact is that not all members in the NDP caucus or the Liberal Party or the Green Party or whatever colour you like necessarily wish to speak.

However, if the government limits the speaking time of a single member who wishes to speak, we cannot claim to be living in a democratic system. That is what is known as the tyranny of the majority. I believe we have to stand up against that, loud and clear. Every time that happens here, we are going to speak out against it, in every way possible.

We are told that we could perhaps go faster. I listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs say that, and what he said made sense, in some respects. The way that Manitoba and the NDP government operate makes sense. Those consensus-based approaches make sense.

Quebec managed to pass a bill on a very sensitive issue, end-of-life care, with the agreement of all parties. There was an election, and the members all agreed to reinstate the bill once the election was over. That is being discussed.

The problem here is that the people on the Conservative benches are not talking to the opposition parties. All they talk about is strategies. We keep wondering who is going to pull a fast one on us. They use roundabout tactics such as counting how many MPs are in the House, catching them off guard, and forcing a party leader to go testify before a committee. This is unprecedented—and they say they are democratic.

Then the Conservatives get all offended when we say that Motion No. 10 is total nonsense. This is not about giving us more time. This is about taking all of the bills—there are more on the agenda than have already been passed, and that took much longer than the amount of time we have between now and June 20—and making us think they are giving us more time. They are not giving us a thing. I do not believe in Conservative gifts, and nobody in Canada should believe in any Conservative gift whatsoever.

The truth is that the Conservatives are going to shove their agenda down our throats because they could not get through it in a mature, parliamentary, by-the-rules way. They could have said that the House leaders would discuss it and try to see if some of the bills were more palatable or if we could agree to pass some of them more quickly. Then the real committee work could have started.

It is true, for Bill C-13, we had a lot of witnesses. However, I am not yet ready to give a seal of approval to the government in power, indicating that the bill has been studied in depth, because we still have the entire amendment stage. I believe that what the other side wants to accept is under so much remote control that the committee is not really doing the work. Instead, the higher-ups are dictating to our colleagues opposite what they have to do, while at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we are trying to bring out the best in the bill.

I have not even mentioned the upcoming Bill C-35, dealing with service animals. Bill S-2 deals with statutory instruments and may not seem like much. However, it is a very significant bill that is going to change an entire way of doing things in terms of regulations. We know that regulations have an impact on the everyday lives of our fellow Canadians in all kinds of areas: the environment, transportation, health and what have you. This is a real concern. I bet that we will analyze it very quickly. That concerns me.

The fact that we are extending our hours until midnight does not encourage any belief on my part that we will be having constructive debates followed by more productive work in committee. That is why the Conservatives have this problem with credibility. We are not the only ones saying so. When their measures are challenged in court, the Conservatives get slammed.

I will take a deep breath and take a little time to say that perhaps we should review our way of doing things. Our friends in the House may not know this, but the bill on prostitution may well be coming our way next week. We hear whispering in the corridors that the government wants the bill passed. It is huge, though, since it comes as a response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Everyone in the House knows that passing the bill will not be easy because there are people on all sides of that issue. I would bet that we are going to have just a few hours of debate before they pitch it—to put it very nicely—to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We can expect a hot and heavy summer on that one.

Extending the sitting hours until midnight just to work harder is one more tactic that is just like their time allocation motions, closure motions and any other kind of motion they can think of. It is part of the Conservatives' bag of undemocratic tricks. They will force these tricks on the House, but not on themselves, as ministers. Based on how the motion is written, I think it will be quite humourous. It will be interesting to see how many of them will be here in the House to happily participate in the debates on all the topics I mentioned, instead of at a cocktail party. That is why it is extremely important that we amend this motion.

Seconded by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “place” and substituting the following:

(b) when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply, Private Members’ Business, or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at that day’s sitting,

(ii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at the next day’s sitting,

(iii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until 6:30 p.m. on the following Monday.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by sharing a couple of sentiments with my friend.

First, on this side of the House—speaking for myself at least, and many others, including the Prime Minister—we congratulate the Montreal Canadiens on their success and wish them all the best in the next round, where I am optimistic Canadians will have much to look forward to.

Second, I have to agree with the member about the fact that what we saw today was a preview of what we would see if the NDP were ever to win government. We saw a grilling where the highlight was the question of NDP corruption and abuse of taxpayers' dollars. That is what we could expect to see if the NDP were ever to become government, and because Canadians know that, we will never have to fear it happening.

That abuse of taxpayers' funds goes beyond the question of breaking rules and not following rules. It goes to the whole NDP philosophy that taxpayers' money is there for them, they should get more of it, and they should spend it in every way possible. That is what the NDP is all about.

We in the Conservative Party, on the other hand, have an approach that is focused on a productive, hard-working, and orderly Parliament that respects taxpayers' dollars. As a result, we will continue with our agenda.

I will note the highlight today from the NDP. The NDP was defending itself on charges of improper spending and improperly using taxpayers' dollars for partisan activity. The member did not point out that the NDP's positive agenda was what they were proposing today in the House of Commons on one of the rare days when NDP members actually get to put forward their own policy proposals. It is funny how he says, “That is not the highlight”. I agree with him, because when they do get in power, they will have very little to advocate for.

That said, we on this side do follow the rules, and the rules require that we continue with the NDP opposition day motion for the balance of the day.

Tomorrow we will start the second reading debate of Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, before we return to our constituencies for a week.

Upon our return we will roll up our sleeves and work hard for Canadians in the final sittings until the summer.

On Monday, May 26, we will consider Bill C-18, which is the agricultural growth act.

On Tuesday, May 27, we will resume the second reading debate on Vanessa's law, Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act.

That will be followed by Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act at second reading.

The next day will see us continue our productive, hard-working, and orderly agenda by returning to the second reading debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship act. As hon. members might recall, the New Democrats proposed a second reading amendment to block the passage of this important bill.

On Thursday, May 29, we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the Energy Safety and Security Act. After that debate concludes, we will consider Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage. Finally, we will consider Bill C-10, the Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, at report stage and third reading on Friday, May 30.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we still have a lot of work ahead of us this spring.

Bill C-22—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to speak to Bill C-5, the offshore health and safety act.

This bill is a culmination of over 12 years of negotiations that started back in 2001 between the federal government and the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, as we all know, no bill is perfect. This bill is certainly not perfect, but 13 years later this bill is well past due. I am glad to see that this important step forward is being taken.

It is far past time that this legislated offshore safety regime be put into place. All workers, whether they work onshore in our communities or offshore, deserve to work in a safe environment and to have their rights protected. This bill places the overall responsibility for occupational health and safety on the operator. This means that the employer is responsible for implementation and coordination, although employees are still expected to take all reasonable measures to comply with occupational health and safety measures.

There are basically three principles in this bill: first, the offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide workers with protections at least as good as those that exist for onshore workers; second, the protection of employees' rights; and third, support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibilities in the workplace.

These basic principles address protections that should be available to all workers. It is a shame that offshore workers have had to wait this long for these protections to be afforded to them.

It comes as no shock to me that the Conservatives waited this long to bring this legislation to the House. This is not the first time we have seen the Conservatives drag their feet and delay long overdue legislation.

However, now that we have finally reached the point where we can give these offshore workers the protection they deserve, this bill represents a very necessary improvement to the current offshore health and safety regime, by finally placing safety practices in legislation.

My NDP colleagues and I have been calling for this type of strengthened regime for several years, and we are proud to support Bill C-5 at this stage.

I mentioned earlier that this bill is not perfect, and I would like to explain my comment. The glaring deficiency in this bill is the federal government's refusal to implement recommendation 29 of the Wells inquiry. The Wells inquiry took place after the March 2009 crash of a helicopter approximately 30 nautical miles from St. John's, that left 17 dead and 1 lone survivor.

Before Justice Wells made recommendation 29, he said:

I believe that the recommendation which follows this explanatory note will be the most important in this entire Report.

This is a direct quote from the author of this inquiry who made this recommendation. He pointed out that recommendation 29 was “the most important” of all the recommendations. Here is what it said:

29. (a) It is recommended that a new, independent, and standalone Safety Regulator....

An alternative option was also recommended in this report. However, unfortunately, Bill C-5 fails to establish either of these options. It seems the government is not committed to establishing this necessary reform and closing the gap that remains.

On this side of the House, we are committed to working with the Nova Scotia government and the Newfoundland and Labrador government to further strengthen health and safety by working towards the creation of an independent stand-alone safety regulator, as recommended by the Wells inquiry.

As Canadians, we should strive to set an example for the rest of the world. We should be leaders on the global stage. However, time and time again, we are faced with examples showing that we are not keeping up with global best practices. This has been apparent.

I made a speech just the other day when we debated Bill C-22. Canada is not keeping pace with the international standards set for nuclear and offshore gas liability. I will give an example, specifically how we are not even making the polluters pay for it themselves. I talked about my son and my daughter and the liability issues that are in Bill C-22.

The current liability for offshore gas, oil, or nuclear disasters is about $75 million, which we would now increase to $1 billion. We have seen the nuclear disaster in Japan and the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Recently, we had the 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on the west coast, where I am from. We know for a fact that $250 billion is the rough estimate now of the cost of the disaster in Japan. The cost is in the tens of billions of dollars in the Gulf of Mexico, and it is the same for the Valdez disaster in the Pacific Ocean off B.C.

My point is that we are increasing the liability for these disasters to $1 billion for the corporations, the people who are producing the gas and oil, and the private industries that are operating our nuclear plants and so on. I will use an analogy from my own home shortly. The sum of $1 billion is not enough to clean up the mess that has caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. In other words, corporations are getting a free ride if there is a disaster, because guess who would be left holding the bag? It would be the taxpayers, Canadians, who are held liable for the rest of the cleanup.

We are not looking at other countries and the standards that are out there. We could look at other countries, such as Germany and other European countries, that have substantially higher liability for these issues.

I used the example of my kids the other day. My son is seven years old. He makes a mess and he does not want to clean it up. He cleans up a little bit of it, and he wants his sister to clean up the rest of it. His sister comes to me and says no, it is his mess and he should clean it up. My wife and I have explained to my son that it is his mess and that he needs to clean it up. He cannot pass on his mess to someone else.

That is what we are doing. We are not looking at other standards. That is what we are doing with regard to the liability issues for nuclear disasters, oil, and gas.

We need to look at other governments among our partners, including south of the border and other nations, to find ways of improving it. That is the case in this particular situation, where one of the major recommendations is to have an independent regulator, as Justice Wells pointed out. We need a new independent and stand-alone safety regulator, and we need to look at what other countries are doing for best practices. We have not done our job here. That was one of the recommendations made by the Wells inquiry. It clearly pointed out that this was the most important recommendation. Again, it was ignored by the Conservatives.

Countries like the U.K., Australia, Norway, and the United States have all recognized the value of an independent offshore regulator and have taken steps to put it into action. Why should the Canadian offshore gas industry and Canadian workers be treated any differently? That is my question for the Conservatives. Why should our offshore industries and workers be treated any differently from their counterparts in our partner countries around the world, whether in Europe or south of the border?

Instead of setting an example, with Canadians being leaders in a particular area with other countries to follow, we are lagging behind. It is time we reversed this trend.

Here is another example. We are world leaders when it comes to conducting elections. We are viewed as a model for other countries. We also learn from other countries. We use some of their best practices and they use some of ours. I am very proud as a Canadian that our election model is used worldwide to conduct fair elections. What are we doing in our country? We have had the top three electoral authorities, the elections commissioner, Elections Canada people, and Mr. Neufeld, testify at committee that the changes being brought forward by the Conservatives in the unfair elections act will not strengthen our current electoral system. In fact, they will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Canadians. That is not an example we want to set. We want to go in the right direction. The right direction is to improve the systems that we have in place and to ensure that not only are our democratic values protected, but also our offshore workers, so that they have the same safety level as onshore workers. It is a very disturbing trend that we are witnessing from the government. We need to improve the safety of our workers, onshore and offshore.

Not only does the bill not provide an independent, stand-alone safety regulator, or an autonomous safety division within the petroleum board, but our efforts to provide for a review of the bill in five years were also voted down by the Conservatives at committee. This, yet again, demonstrates the Conservatives' lack of interest in further strengthening the bill. Allowing for a review of the bill in five years' time would have provided an opportunity to re-evaluate whether an independent safety regulator were needed. Even if the government did not put in the safety regulator in the first place, we asked at committee for a review after five years. Perhaps they would find evidence that we do need an independent safety regulator.

When we talk about evidence, it is very clear that science and facts do not really figure into the Conservative equation, whether on the environment or jobs. The government is using Kijiji facts to inflate the number of jobs created in the country. I have never actually used Kijiji, so I looked it up today. It is a website for people to trade household goods. In fact, one can actually buy a used tie on Kijiji, or used shoes, and there are other things created on the site. The fact that the government, which is allergic to research and facts, uses Kijiji of all websites to inflate the number of jobs available in the country makes ones suspicious of the other facts brought forward by the government.

I talked about the unfair elections act. The Conservatives say there have been many irregularities and that we need to strengthen our Elections Canada Act. They say “We need to make it fair, that there have been 15,000 irregularities.” When asked how many people were charged since Confederation with fraudulent use of voter identification cards and voter fraud, the answer is zero. The government cannot come up with any examples. Oh, it does have examples it makes up. I know that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville brought up some facts that he had to retract because they were false. Those are the kinds of facts and figures that Conservatives make up. It is unfortunate that they do this.

The real facts would be for them to concede that they are not appointing the regulator now, but that we should further evaluate the issue. That would make sense, that we would look at it five years from now and re-evaluate the situation to see if we needed a regulator. But the Conservatives turned that down. I have been here for a number of years now and we have seen thousands and thousands of recommendations made at committee to improve bills. We have heard from expert witnesses and stakeholders begging the government to make changes that would be beneficial to the stakeholders, the very people the laws would affect, and we have seen very few if any amendments adopted at committee stage.

I know that was not always the case. Usually members of Parliament were able to propose amendments to bills and improve them. That is the work of Parliament, to improve the legislation brought forward. That is my job, to bring forward the views of my constituents and the very people who are being affected by this. But, unfortunately, the Conservatives, who get their marching orders from the Prime Minister's Office, are told how they should go about this. We are seeing the same thing happen with the unfair elections act at committee. Reasonable amendments have been provided to improve the bill, but the Conservatives have again chosen to reject the amendments on a technical basis. Due diligence and good governance require the review of legislation, particularly in this case where we are dealing with complex legislation involving multiple levels of government. The behaviour here is consistent with the Conservatives' unwillingness to consider amendments that would strengthen the legislation coming to the floor of the House. It is not the first time we have seen this, and I can guarantee it will not be the last.

Finally, I want to point out how refreshing it is to see a bill that represents the collaborative efforts of the provinces and the federal government, although it has taken eight or nine years to bring it to this stage. I am happy that finally the Conservatives were able to collaborate with the provinces.

I can give a couple of examples where Conservatives have failed to collaborate. I would like to announce to the House that I am very pleased that Port Metro Vancouver is up and running. Port Metro Vancouver is one of the largest ports in Canada. It employees directly or indirectly 60,000 workers. There has been a strike going on for the last four weeks. This dispute has been simmering since 2005. The truckers had brought to the government's attention over the last eight or nine years some of the issues they were having locally. What have governments been doing? They have done nothing over the last seven years to address these issues.

Last week, the Prime Minister went to Vancouver and said it was not a federal problem, but a B.C. problem. The B.C. government said that it was not its problem, that it was actually the federal government's problem. So with a problem that has been simmering for eight or nine years, the federal government and the provincial government could not figure out whose problem it was and we have lost billions of dollars as a result from the strike. I would put the blame squarely on the Conservative government and its inability to collaborate with the province.

Again, this bill could be greatly strengthened. One of the things it lacks is recommendation 29, which calls for an independent regulator.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-5. This is the second day this week that the House has debated legislation that impacts activities in the offshore sector, which, to those of us in Atlantic Canada, like my colleague the member for St. John's East, who just spoke, and the member for Avalon, who asked him a question, is very important. It is very important to our economy and to the people who work in the offshore sector who benefit from that. It is very important that they are safe in the work they do and in travelling to and from the offshore platforms.

The offshore sector can be a dangerous place. I know there are many measures taken to make it as safe as possible, but it is tough work. It can be dangerous work, and we have seen unfortunate proof of that over the years. In fact, there are brave men and women working out there every day performing very challenging work.

Making sure that these people are safe in their workplaces and that they return home to their families must be a priority for all of us. Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction.

However, I hope the government will actually listen to experts on Bill C-22, which we debated on Tuesday, because it did not listen to experts with respect to Bill C-5, which we are discussing today.

When the House was debating second reading of Bill C-5, the member for Burnaby—Douglas asked if I thought the legislation went far enough in addressing the concerns of the Wells royal commission.

I did not, and I do not. One concern I have with Bill C-5 is that it did not adopt recommendation 29 of the Wells commission report, which flowed from a terrible helicopter crash off Newfoundland. That was already discussed a bit this morning.

My hope was that when the bill went to committee there would be consideration given to an amendment to adopt recommendation 29, which called for a separate organization to look at the question of workers' health and safety, an organization solely dedicated to that absolutely vital task.

Commissioner Wells testified at the committee last fall that he “felt that an independent safety authority was the best choice..”. Commissioner Wells went on to add that he did not think everyone would agree with the recommendation. That is reasonable. He included a fallback position, which was to create a separate safety division within the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. Of course, this legislation would also apply to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

While the fallback position was adopted, in my view it falls short of what is needed. It is yet another missed opportunity by this neo-Conservative government. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 was reported back to the House of Commons with only a few technical amendments which correct inaccurate wording in a number of clauses.

It was also very unfortunate, in my view, that the Conservatives on the committee would not support efforts to provide greater clarity on the word “danger” in the act. That word is particularly important, and the meaning of it is particularly important in this kind of legislation.

Under this legislation, certain terms such as “danger” are not defined in this bill. They remain to be defined by federal regulation on the recommendation of the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Labour, and with the approval of provincial ministers.

In committee, I introduced a proposed amendment calling for consultations with the provinces and key stakeholders on the definition of “dangerous work”, something that we have heard is important. I felt it would coincide with the testimony we heard in committee about the importance of consulting on this question of the word “danger”. That is critical for all parts of the offshore oil and gas industry, and the men and women who work in our offshore.

While this legislation does push the yardsticks and while it is a move in the right direction, it could have been better. It could have been strengthened. It should have been amended. As legislators, that is our job. It is our job not only to examine these carefully, to look for ways to improve them, but also to hear the evidence, hear the experts, and reflect on that expert evidence and testimony and make the appropriate changes. We are not simply here to do whatever the kids in short pants in the Prime Minister's Office tell us or order the Conservatives to do.

We are often asked to strike a careful balance between economic success in the oil and gas sector, the rights of employees and, of course, environmental concerns. Bill C-5 is one of the many tools to achieve this balance, and I believe the Canadian Parliament, including members in the House of Commons, ought to strive to set an example to the rest of the world by clearly indicating that we value human capital at least as much as the wealth we derive from our natural resources. That is why the Liberal Party has supported this bill.

Bill C-5 will effectively solve the issue of jurisdiction surrounding occupational health and safety in Canada's offshore oil and gas industry. It was not clear until now—which became very clear after the terrible helicopter accident off Newfoundland when it was unclear which level of government had responsibility and jurisdiction. This will solve that issue and that is important. That is an important step forward, which has taken over 10 years to realize.

The legislation would also create a streamlined process for rectifying health and safety issues and to assign responsibility. That is important because we do not want to have any doubt about jurisdiction if there is an accident in the offshore. An issue of the utmost importance is our capacity to respond to an accident or spill in the offshore. However, that is a debate for another day, and I hope we will have opportunities to do that.

This legislation is focused on the right to a safe workplace. It is an important right and a right that all Canadians must enjoy. Many of us as Canadians, and certainly those of us as members of Parliament, have a very safe work environment and are very fortunate in the kind of work we do. For the most part, it is indoor work and a lot of it is desk work or standing up work, but it sure is not in conditions some workers across this country face, by any means.

If we think of working outside on a cold day like this, or of the folks in Atlantic Canada—and I look across to my colleagues from New Brunswick and consider our families back home and other families in Atlantic Canada, digging out from a terrible storm and still experiencing terrible wind, some of them without power, and consider the folks from the power companies and snowplow drivers and others out there who are working to get things back to normal—we should feel pretty fortunate to be working in a place like this with the kind of jobs that we have.

Though a safe workplace is not the reality for all Canadians, governments have worked with stakeholder groups in the past to improve conditions faced by Canadians in their places of employment.

That, obviously, is incredibly important work. Bill C-5 is an example of these efforts—in this case, the joint efforts of the provincial and federal levels working together, which does not happen often enough. Indeed, this government is not known for working with provincial governments. However, it is our collective responsibility, whether as a legislative body, employers or employees, or society as a whole, to ensure that the right to a safe work environment is respected.

It is absolutely vital. The conditions for employees on offshore drilling projects should be comparable to those on land-based projects. There is no question that a drilling rig, whether offshore or onshore, can be a very dangerous environment.

I think employees and their families can be confident that what is proposed in Bill C-5, as far as it goes, would improve the health and safety regimes of our offshore oil and gas projects. However, members of my party believe we still need to ensure that the separation of health and safety concerns from those of production and economic viability occur. Justice Wells made that very clear in much more eloquent language than I.

We recognize that these two issues are very different things, but one trumps the other, and health and safety comes first. We need to make sure that, when necessary, those health and safety concerns are paramount, as they ought to be.

Bill C-5 should guarantee that the proposed chief safety officer has powerful methods of inquiry to hold operators to account. A regime of self-regulation, in our view, would be insufficient. I have already said that we do not think the chief safety officer approach is necessarily ideal. There are other things that Commissioner Wells recommended, but since that is what we are going with, let us try to make it as strong as possible.

The chief safety officer must not be influenced in decision-making by concerns of economic viability or by political pressure, which should be obvious. This individual must be a champion of a healthy and safe environment for all employees who work in our offshore oil and gas industry, or in any of those kinds of projects.

Bill C-5 has survived changes in governing parties at both the federal and provincial levels. It has received clear provincial support, and legislatures in both Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador have given the bill's mirror legislation assent, in short order. By supporting Bill C-5, we have the opportunity to improve upon legislation that has already met some of the concerns of the provinces.

If we take into account all the elements of employee health and safety, the original offshore accords, and Bill C-5 itself in those bills, this could provide the model for future negotiations between the federal government and other provinces, like Quebec for example, that are looking to develop their oil and gas sectors.

Let me conclude by noting that while Bill C-5 is a step forward, we should recognize that more work needs to be done. Hopefully, we will not have to wait another decade for that to occur.

It is not new to Canadians that our country places great economic importance on the development of natural resources. Forest products, natural gas, hydro electricity, and oil and gas are cornerstones of our export market and contribute immensely to the creation of jobs, which, of course, we believe is very important. We want Canadians to have a good quality of life that comes with jobs and opportunity. However, let us make sure that those resources are developed in a responsible and sustainable way. Let us recognize that occupational health and safety must be paramount.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to speak yesterday during the debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. This important piece of legislation will modernize and increase accountability in Canada's offshore and nuclear industries. Our government understands that there are enormous economic benefits stemming from the offshore and nuclear industries. Bill C-22 will allow these industries to continue to grow while ensuring they are done in a responsible manner.

Bill C-22 will raise absolute liability in the offshore and nuclear regimes to $1 billion. Our current liability limits have not been updated for over two decades. This is clearly unacceptable. While the NDP's plan would put Canadian taxpayers on the hook for the costs of incidents and increase the costs to Canadian ratepayers, Bill C-22 strikes a balance between ensuring protecting Canadians and ratepayers.

Our government is committed to our nuclear and offshore industries, and I urge all of my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-22.

Energy Safety and Security Act

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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, 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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. whip for the opposition for her very kind comments about the abilities on this side of the House with regard to procedure. Of course, I am only as good as the team that I have.

However, I will say that one thing I have tried to outline and to make clear over some period of time is that the use of time allocation is very distinct from the use of closure. We have chosen an approach in this government to use time allocation as a scheduling device to set an amount of time that we believe is appropriate for debate on any particular issue, which, as the hon. member in her own comments confirmed, in some cases results in even more time being allocated than is necessary for debate.

One of the benefits, though, is that the time does not have to be used. If all speakers complete their discussion of the subject, the debate can collapse and we can move on to other matters. So, really, no time is to be lost from that approach. It is a very positive thing, one that allows certainty for the benefit of all members about how much debate we will have, when votes will happen, and when decisions will be made. That is the most important thing for us in our work up here: making decisions and getting the job done.

As for this morning, I know that the NDP keeps seeing conspiracies and ghosts behind curtains, particularly the House leader for the NDP, who has that concern.

I think everyone knows that the only time one can move these time allocation motions—and we do not need to have a great command of the Standing Orders to know this—is at the start of government orders, at the start of the day. So I really had no choice.

However, the committee had considerable flexibility, which it did exercise. There was no conspiracy. There was no obstruction.

I hope that the opposition House leader will take the benefit of the two weeks to calm down, hopefully look around, see that there are no people waiting behind every curtain and every tree, out to get him, and that some of the conspiracies he imagines are simply not there. It will lower his blood pressure. It will make his life much more comfortable, in total.

I know that the opposition whip will share that advice from me, with him.

This afternoon we will continue debating Bill C-20, Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, at second reading.

Tomorrow, we will conclude the second reading debate on Bill C-25, Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act.

Then, we will return to our constituencies, where we will have a chance to reconnect with our real bosses.

When we return on Monday, March 24, the House will have the seventh and final allotted day. At the end of that day, we will consider the supplementary estimates, as well as interim supply, so that these bills will be able to pass through the other place before the end of our fiscal year.

The government's legislative agenda for the balance of that week will focus on protecting Canadians. Tuesday, March 25 will see us start the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, a bill that will implement world-class safety standards in the offshore and nuclear sectors. That evening we will finish the debate on the motion to concur in the first report of the foreign affairs committee respecting the situation of Jewish refugees.

On Wednesday, March 26, we will consider Bill C-5, the offshore health and safety act, at report stage and third reading. This bill will complement legislation already passed by the provincial legislatures in Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, given the shared jurisdiction that exists in the offshore sector.

On Thursday, March 27, we will have the fourth day of second reading debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. Through this bill, our government is demonstrating its commitment to ensuring that our children are safe from online predators and online exploitation.

Finally, on Friday, March 28, I hope that we will be able to start the second reading debate on Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, also known as Vanessa's law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you and thank you to all the witnesses for what was an all too short time today. Dr. Chakhmouradian from the University of Manitoba, Mr. Neatby from Avalon Rare Metals, Dr. Schreiner from Saskatchewan Research Council, and Chief Paul from the Eagle Village First Nation, thank you to all of you. We do have your presentations translated, so we have that to refer to.

We will end this meeting, but just before we finish and go on to our next meeting, I would just like to remind all members of the briefing at 11 o'clock on the Energy Safety and Security Act. The full name is a long handle, but you know what it is, Bill C-22. I encourage you all to come, so that we're as well prepared as we can be as we go into debate and eventually receive the bill.

Again, thank you very much to all the witnesses.

This meeting is adjourned.

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)