Bill C-46 (Historical)

Pipeline Safety Act

An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act

This enactment amends the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act in order to strengthen the safety and security of pipelines regulated by those Acts.
More specifically, the enactment, among other things,
(a) reinforces the “polluter pays” principle;
(b) confirms that the liability of companies that operate pipelines is unlimited if an unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or any other commodity from a pipeline that they operate is the result of their fault or negligence;
(c) establishes the limit of liability without proof of fault or negligence at no less than one billion dollars for companies that operate pipelines that have the capacity to transport at least 250,000 barrels of oil per day and at an amount prescribed by regulation for companies that operate any other pipelines;
(d) requires that companies that operate pipelines maintain the financial resources necessary to pay the amount of the limit of liability that applies to them;
(e) authorizes the National Energy Board to order any company that operates a pipeline from which an unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or any other commodity occurs to reimburse any government institution the costs it incurred in taking any action or measure in relation to that release;
(f) requires that companies that operate pipelines remain responsible for their abandoned pipelines;
(g) authorizes the National Energy Board to order companies that operate pipelines to maintain funds to pay for the abandonment of their pipelines or for their abandoned pipelines;
(h) allows the Governor in Council to authorize the National Energy Board to take, in certain circumstances, any action or measure that the National Energy Board considers necessary in relation to an unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or any other commodity from a pipeline;
(i) allows the Governor in Council to establish, in certain circumstances, a pipeline claims tribunal whose purpose is to examine and adjudicate the claims for compensation for compensable damage caused by an unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or any other commodity from a pipeline;
(j) authorizes, in certain circumstances, that funds may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay the costs of taking the actions or measures that the National Energy Board considers necessary in relation to an unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or any other commodity from a pipeline, to pay the costs related to establishing a pipeline claims tribunal and to pay any amount of compensation that such a tribunal awards; and
(k) authorizes the National Energy Board to recover those funds from the company that operates the pipeline from which the release occurred and from companies that operate pipelines that transport a commodity of the same class as the one that was released.

Pipeline Safety Act

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

moved that Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour for me to serve the constituents of the great Kenora riding and to proceed with the debate on pipeline safety.

One of our country's greatest success stories is Canada's extraordinary ability to develop our natural resources through the use of new technology and innovation. Whether we are unlocking the incredible energy potential of the oil sands, mining uranium to generate nuclear power, or developing our vast hydroelectric power resources, Canada's energy industries continue to rise to the occasion.

As Canada's production of energy resources grows, we have an opportunity to export more of our energy products to international markets with growing demand. The choice is simple: build the energy infrastructure to reach these markets, or leave these products in the ground.

Expanding our energy trade in not merely a priority for our government, it is an imperative. We recognize that for this opportunity to be realized, we must ensure that the public is confident in the safety of our infrastructure.

Through our responsible resource development plan, our government strengthened environmental protection, enhanced aboriginal consultation, and provided predictable timelines for regulatory review. This included bringing forward regulations that ensure that companies, not taxpayers, are responsible in the event of an incident.

There are over 73,000 km of federally regulated pipelines that criss-cross our country. They deliver oil, natural gas, and petroleum products from coast to coast to coast and beyond our borders. These energy products heat our homes and our workplaces. They power factories and farms. They fuel cars, buses, trains, and planes. They transport us across town, across the country, and around the world.

More specifically, in 2013, Canada produced over 3.5 million barrels of oil and 13.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. The vast majority of it, over $100 billion worth, was shipped by pipeline.

While the economics themselves tell a compelling story, we have been clear that if projects are to proceed, they must be proven safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. In fact, more than 99.999% of petroleum products, going through more than 72,000 km of federally regulated pipeline between 2008 and 2013, was transported safely. Much of the credit for this solid track record rests with our stringent regulatory requirements and the excellent work of the National Energy Board.

Companies operating pipelines must anticipate, prevent and manage potentially dangerous situations associated with their pipelines. They must develop programs to address safety issues, deal with emergency situations, manage the integrity of the pipelines, educate the public and protect the environment.

The National Energy Board reviews and audits all of these measures. Although the pipeline safety record is impressive, our ultimate goal is zero incidents. That is the purpose of this bill. The pipeline safety act seeks to further improve Canada's record by modernizing the National Energy Board Act.

This legislation would send a clear signal. Our government would be fulfilling our commitment in the Speech from the Throne to have a world-class safety system that enshrined the polluter pays principle in law.

We are determined to reduce risks to public and environmental health and safety as we capitalize on Canada's energy wealth to create jobs and prosperity for Canadians. This ongoing commitment to safety and environmental protection is part of our plan for responsible resource development. The plan is a continuous process of finding new and better ways to improve our world-class regulatory system.

This legislation represents the next step in our continued process of strengthening Canada's pipeline safety system. It would build on previous pipeline safety measures that gave the National Energy Board new authority to levy administrative monetary penalties and to increase the number of NEB inspections and audits. The pipeline safety act would go even further. In other words, we would build on that 99.999% safety record for more than 72,000 kilometres of federally regulated pipelines.

Our objective here is to ensure that we have a world-class, in fact, elements of it world-leading, pipeline safety system. It would be built on three pillars: one, prevention; two, preparedness and response; and three, liability and compensation.

The pipeline safety act would deliver on our pledge to enhance efforts to ensure that aboriginal peoples are engaged in all aspects of pipeline safety operations.

Let me explain each of these improvements in greater detail.

First, we will look at the preventive measures. In order to develop our resources responsibly, we need to do everything we can to prevent incidents from occurring. We will be asking the National Energy Board to provide direction on using the best technologies available for building and operating pipelines. Technologies continue to improve, and the government is committed to ensuring that every project is environmentally sustainable.

As an additional preventive measure, the act sets out the National Energy Board's powers related to audits and inspections. It stipulates that companies have a legal obligation to respond to any requests the board may have in relation to such audits. To protect pipelines from accidental damage, the National Energy Board will strive to align federal and provincial pipeline safety zones.

Companies must inform the authorities and obtain approval before digging or building in the safety zones. This safety measure will prevent damage to pipelines.

We will also take action in terms of preparedness and response measures. We are strengthening requirements, particularly financial requirements, to ensure that companies are able to deal with an incident, if necessary.

The pipeline safety act enshrines the polluter pays principle. The bill requires companies operating pipelines to hold a minimum level of financial resources for responding to oil spills, set at $1 billion for companies operating major oil pipelines. The companies must demonstrate their financial capacity and a portion of those financial resources must be readily accessible to ensure rapid response to any incident.

The bill includes other measures. It gives the National Energy Board the authority to take control of incident response and cleanup in exceptional circumstances. This means that the government will provide financial security to ensure that the NEB has the necessary resources to pay for the cleanup costs. If a company is unable to pay damages to those affected, the government may establish a pipeline claims tribunal to streamline the complaints process.

In both cases, the legislation expands the NEB'S authority to recover costs from the companies if it is called to respond. Canadians can rest assured that every incident will be dealt with properly and that taxpayers will be protected.

I want to emphasize the government's commitment to working with aboriginal communities. Together with communities and the industry, we will develop a strategy to increase aboriginal participation in pipeline safety measures.

I also want to emphasize the government's pledge to work with aboriginal people in a way that protects the local environment and respects ancestral treaty rights.

The third key area or pillar covered by the legislation is liability and compensation. In this regard, we are world class, if not world leading. Building on companies' unlimited liability when they are at fault or negligent, this legislation would implement no-fault or absolute liability for all companies operating pipelines. For major oil pipelines, the figure would be $1 billion. What this would mean is that pipeline companies would be responsible for damages, regardless of what happened, who caused it, or how an incident arose. This is a standard that would leave no doubt.

The pipeline safety act would provide government with the ability to pursue pipeline operators for the costs of environmental damages. The legislation would also give the NEB authority to order reimbursement of spill cleanup costs incurred by governments or individuals. Companies would bear the full cost of cleanup and compensation.

Also of significance, the legislation would ensure that companies would remain responsible for their abandoned pipelines in perpetuity. In the event of an incident, operators would cover all costs and damages related to their pipelines, even if they were no longer in use. This would reassure landowners that they would never be in a position where a pipeline would become their responsibility.

As well, the act would expand the board's authority to recover its own costs for stepping in and taking charge if industry failed to adequately respond to an incident. Again, operators would be held financially accountable for costs and damages.

Tally up these amendments and the message is clear. The Government of Canada will ensure that Canada's pipeline safety system is world class, that first nations are involved in pipeline safety operations, and that taxpayers are protected.

The oil and gas sector is vitally important to the lives and livelihoods of Canadians, contributing 7.5% of our country's gross domestic product. Canada sold $117 billion in energy products to the world in 2013. That is more than one-quarter, 27%, to be precise, of our country's merchandise exports.

While we have an enormous endowment of petroleum resources, we have only one significant export customer. One hundred per cent of our natural gas exports and 97% of our oil exports currently go to the United States. This relationship has served both countries well and will continue to do so in the future.

However, it is clear that Canada will need to find new markets as Canadian and United States' oil and gas production grows. There are incredible market opportunities, particularly in Asia and Europe. In Asia's case, the International Energy Agency forecasts that by 2035, the world will need one-third more energy than is being consumed today. The rise of China and India, among other emerging nations in that part of the world, is propelling the bulk of that demand.

Although we are making progress toward developing alternative and renewable energy sources, according to the International Energy Agency, by 2035, fossil fuels will still be meeting three-quarters of global demand.

Canada's energy sector can contribute more to our economy and global energy security, but only if we build the pipelines to transport energy to markets, including the domestic market.

Our country needs to develop a new energy infrastructure to diversify its markets and seize this unprecedented opportunity. This is critical if we want Canada's energy sector to prosper and stimulate our economy in the future.

The economic benefits for Canadians would be enormous. According to the International Monetary Fund, building new energy infrastructure would boost Canada's GDP by an additional 2%. That is equivalent to $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country.

First nations communities are especially well positioned to benefit from responsible energy development. Many of the existing or proposed energy resources and infrastructure projects are located proximal to their communities, and over the next decade, hundreds of major resource projects worth more than $675 billion are planned or currently under way.

As technology evolves, Canada's oil sand reserves could double to over 300 billion barrels to become the largest reserve in the world, leading to an even greater opportunity in the future for Canada.

Likewise, Canada's marketable natural gas resources are estimated to be up to 1,300 trillion cubic feet. These are incredible reserves. That is not only enough to meet our domestic demands for over 200 years at current production rates, but to meet the burgeoning demand from markets like Europe and Asia over the medium term. That is before we have even considered offshore gas reserves and new discoveries potentially revealed or realized through fracking.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, between 2012 and 2035, the natural gas industry could invest over $386 billion in Canada, almost half of it in British Columbia.

As global energy markets change, Canada also needs to change in order to unlock this potential. Other countries are moving quickly to capture growing energy markets in places like China and India. We cannot lag behind if we want to continue to make the most of our energy resources.

We have a world-class and, in some cases, unique regulatory system to monitor this sector. This legislation further strengthens the regulatory system. It sends a message to Canadians and international clients that pipeline safety is paramount to Canada.

If we continue to innovate in the technology sector and remain committed to working constructively with aboriginal groups and protecting the environment, we will then have all the elements needed to ensure Canada's place as a world leader in responsible energy development.

Furthermore, the government is committed to ensuring that Canada's pipeline safety system is a world-class system that Canadians can trust. We will not be satisfied with a system that is almost perfect; we want absolute excellence.

The legislation we are debating today builds on our world-class safety regime, but the job is never done. We will continuously examine the pipeline safety system to better protect Canadians and the environment. We are striving for zero incidents. We will get there by maximizing advances in technology and innovation.

We can take inspiration from Sir Henry Royce, the English engineer and car designer who co-founded Rolls Royce Company. He built a dynasty in his quest for perfection. His motto was “Strive for perfection in everything you do. Take the best that exists and make it better.” That remains our goal and our focus as we continue to develop and transport Canada's natural resources responsibly.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister's speech, and those of us on this side of the House would say that indeed it is long overdue that we bring in an updated liability regime for pipelines. As the minister well knows, Canadians are profoundly worried about pipeline safety.

As a general comment, I would say that it is good that we are finally dealing with this bill. One might wonder why we are dealing with this matter now when we had the opportunity to update other liability regimes earlier in this Parliament, such as the nuclear liability regime and offshore oil and gas, but nonetheless here we are. I would suggest, though, that it might be a bit early to celebrate, because as we know, with this government the devil is always in the details.

In fact, when we look at this bill more closely, one of the things that becomes very apparent is that much in the legislation is left to the discretion of both the National Energy Board and the Governor in Council, which means that we cannot really be certain that the government is acting with any kind of real commitment to improving pipeline safety.

I will explain why I am worried about that. There is a briefing note posted online from McCarthy Tétrault to its clients about what this bill may mean, and those clients are pipeline companies.

It talks about the new responsibilities that companies may now have to comply with. Here is the final sentence in that brief:

Accordingly, pipeline companies should consider their safety and financial obligations...to ensure they meet legislated requirements once the Bill’s amendments are brought into force.

It makes one wonder what companies are doing now. Do they not care about safety now, if this is the advice they are receiving from their lawyers? I would want Canadians to know that there is absolute certainty about what this bill is going to do, about how we are going to improve pipeline safety and how we are going to improve the liability regime, because Canadians need to be able to trust that pipeline companies are not going to put their lives and their environment in danger.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say to the member for Hamilton Mountain that it has been a privilege to work with her in her capacity as critic. I understand this may be the last debate that she has on natural resources-related files, and I appreciated the opportunity to work with her.

That was more of a comment than a question per se, but I will take this opportunity to speak to part of it with respect to liability.

What we have done with this measure, this piece of legislation today, is obviously to align it to the extent possible with other liability compensation regimes that we have in other key areas of the national resource portfolio, and in addition to that, to have liability and compensation specifically in marine, rail, and pipeline transport look and feel much the same.

This is not just for the benefit of industry and investor confidence; it is to assure the public that as a matter of confidence we are doing the right thing in a streamlined, efficient, and effective manner to give Canadians that ultimate confidence that in any regard, the energy transport system and the infrastructure required to support it are world class, and in particular are world-leading in areas of liability and compensation.

[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?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am relieved to hear the member from the Liberal Party talk about pipeline safety and offshore opportunity, particularly with respect to safety, liability, and compensation, as an exercise in public confidence. That would be an important term that is markedly different from what the leader of his party is using.

That said, we have already positioned the NEB with considerably more powers with respect to audits and inspections. As well, the penalties for non-compliance have increased significantly. That has put us in a great position when it comes to this piece of legislation.

The National Energy Board, through a number of measures, will ensure timely, effective, and transparent operations. To modernize the damage prevention regime, these changes will ensure clear roles and responsibilities within the NEB and implement mandatory timelines for committee hearings and decisions as well as any Governor in Council decisions that would be made.

I am pleased that the tone of this debate is pointed toward this being a positive step forward with respect to public safety and public confidence. Moving pipeline safety to the forefront is the centrepiece for establishing everyone's frame of reference with respect to how committed this government is to ensuring we have world-class, if not world-leading, pipeline safety for this country.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, in earlier questions in this debate, the comment came up as to what companies are doing with respect to safety right now. I would like to put to the House that the current safety record for Canadian pipeline operators is a 99.999% effectiveness rate, which puts us as best-practice leaders internationally for the safe transport of energy products. Companies do this through planning, construction, and operation, as well as through emergency response.

With respect to what companies are doing right now, I would ask the minister to comment on something like C-FER Technologies in Alberta, which has a jointly funded operation to look at new technologies in all four phases of safety planning and with which we are a partner.

I would like the minister to comment on the $1 billion liability limit, as I believe that number will be questioned in further debate. I was hoping that he could speak to the acceptability of that number based on international best practice, and to the difference in liability coverage between when companies are found to be at fault and when they are found not to be at fault, and why this particular number was selected.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question, particularly with respect to her work in western economic diversification and the support this government is giving for certain companies to advance pipeline security, monitoring, and safety.

There is a reference to best available technology in this legislation. Through our support, these companies from Quebec City and across the country through to Alberta are working on exciting new technologies that will give a key frame of reference for all companies in the business of creating pipelines and energy infrastructure to focus on and take the safety element even further.

With respect to liability, there are two key points here. Pipeline companies remain fully liable when they are found to be at fault or negligent. This is referred to in insurance nomenclature as unlimited liability. What builds on that and what is terrific about the pipeline safety act, which on all accounts has been well received by stakeholders, is the absolute $1 billion liability, which means that no matter what the problem source or whose fault it is, the pipeline company would be responsible to pay up to $1 billion.

An analysis of historical data demonstrates that this level of absolute liability is world-class, world-leading coverage. Comparisons to countries around the world tell us that we are at the forefront and assure Canadians and our prospective customers in new markets that energy infrastructure is important to us and that our liability and compensations lead the world.

[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.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to wish you and all members of the House a very happy new year.

I listened carefully to the comments delivered by the hon. member. As of today, she has been a thoughtful and considerate representative for her district for 3,291 days, and I congratulate her.

The gist of the message I heard today is that the member is basically against pipelines, but she is for manufacturing, and in her district they manufacture pipelines. I would like the member to make an equalization between those two arguments.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not quite counted my presence in the House in days. I guess I have not had enough time to do that, but I do appreciate the numerical count. I thank the member, and I appreciate the good wishes.

With respect to the question being put about whether I support pipelines or manufacturing, it is a little like asking if I support the environment or the economy. It is a false choice. Of course I support manufacturing, and at no point in my speech did I say that I did not support pipelines. It would have been naive to say that we heat our homes with gas, but that we do not need gas pipelines. Nowhere in my speech did I make any such statement.

What I did say was that Canadians needed to have confidence that pipelines were safe, and that the Conservative government and its latest bill would not, on the face of it, provide Canadians with enough certainty that there would not be any pipeline spills. As the member will recall from my speech, I also said that we had a world-class workforce. That labour force, when it is constructing pipelines, is doing the very best that it can with the money and the mandate given to it by pipeline companies.

All I said in my speech was that Canadians deserved certainty. We have to implement the polluter pays principle. We have to develop our resources in a sustainable way. That includes the transport of those resources, of which pipelines are a significant part in Canada.

I would be willing to debate the manufacturing sector next. I would welcome that debate in the House, and perhaps we could do that. Perhaps the member would like to introduce a private members' bill so we could once again debate U.S. Steel, for example, a topic on which the Conservative government has been absolutely silent.

The future of U.S. Steel is obviously a huge issue in my hometown of Hamilton. Thousands of pensioners are concerned about their future. They have been waiting for the government to stand in the House and comment on the manufacturing sector, to bring forward a manufacturing sector strategy, and to take real action on the retirement security of Canadians.

I look forward to that debate.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is correct that the member for Hamilton Mountain has announced that she will not be running in the next election. I would like to congratulate her. It is a pleasure to work with her on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I know there is a new critic for natural resources, but I hope she will stay on the committee until the end of this session.

I would also like to congratulate her on the professionalism with which she conducts herself as a member of Parliament, from what I have seen, at all times. I do not want to go too far as she might change her mind and run again, and I would not want to read about my comments in an election brochure at some point.

Let me ask her a question about the absolute liability of $1 billion that the government has proposed. It is curious that is a round number. The government really has not told us what the considerations and criteria were in its calculations which found that this number was the correct one.

In the view of the NDP, what should be the limit on absolute liability and what considerations should be included in that calculation?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I posted on social media some time ago that Canadians had been as nice to the nearly departed as they were to the dearly departed. The same is holding true in the House. I thank my colleagues for their comments. It is unfortunate that I was unable to use those comments in my last election brochure, but it is better late than never.

I welcome the question about absolute liability, because my colleague is absolutely right. It seems with the government that, often, these numbers are just pulled out of thin air. The member will recall that we debated nuclear liability in the House, not just twice, but three times, I think. Each time, the amount of money that the government had included under the liability regime changed. There was never any reason given for that change in numbers nor, frankly, for the first number that it chose.

Now we are dealing with a bill that targets that number at $1 billion, as was the case with nuclear liability and offshore liability. I suppose we should at least celebrate the fact that there is some consistency here. However, we do need to have a close look at that number in committee.

If we believe in the polluter pays principle and that companies ought to be responsible for the environmental damage that they cause, the number ought to be whatever the cost of environmental damages. If it is $1.2 billion, companies should be paying $1.2 billion. The figure of $1 billion is entirely arbitrary.

Perhaps the question about how the government got that number would have been better put to the minister. It will not surprise my colleague that I cannot speak for the Conservatives. Getting into their minds has always been scary place for me, and I would not venture to do that here today. However, it is a point that we will definitely have to pursue once the bill gets clause-by-clause scrutiny in committee.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her response for the Conservative member. It is nice to see the Conservatives seem to finally be remembering that there is a manufacturing sector in Canada. For many years it was one of the leaders of our economy and certainly could be again with the right kinds of decisions made. However, unfortunately the government chose to pick one resource, one part of the country and one part of our economy to the exclusion of everything else, putting all of our economic eggs in one basket, in a boom-or-bust basket to boot.

I also want to thank the member for bringing up U.S. Steel Canada Inc. in her riding. Changes to the Investment Canada Act would certainly improve what happened there.

The member talked about confidence and certainty. Businesses, like Canadians, need to have confidence and certainty in order to make investments and the right decisions that will bring well-paying jobs to Canada.

It is interesting that we are dealing with liabilities now, when the actual regulation of pipelines and the safety and security of them is a complete and total mess. The government eviscerated the navigable waters act, which prevented many improvements from happening when future pipelines would cross rivers, streams and bodies of water, in some cases not even requiring stop valves on either side of the river.

Would this bill perhaps not be putting the cart before the horse, where we need to fix the regulations so we can have certainty before we can figure out what kind of problems we will have?

Maybe the member can comment on any of the great number of things I just brought up.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really do have a plethora of things on which I could comment. I will start with a point that I did not get to highlight in my speech as much as I had wanted to.

One of the things that is obviously true in Canada is that much of our pipeline infrastructure is aging. It is one of the reasons why Canadians are so concerned about the possibility of spills. The Americans are way ahead of us on that, or at least in recognizing there may be a problem.

Members in the House may be aware that there has been a second spill in Montana. This spill was near the city of Glendive, Montana. Over 40,000 gallons spilled and contaminated downstream water supplies. Relatively speaking, I guess that was the minor spill of the two spills that happened in Montana. However, when the local senator, who is a Montana Democrat, was asked about that, he told the media that more frequent inspections by regulators were needed and older pipelines should face stricter safety standards.

In Canada, we are going the exact opposite way. As I said, in 2011 it was pointed out to the government that we needed greater oversight and stricter regulations. The Conservatives, as my colleague from Scarborough Southwest said, are gutting regulations. They have gutted the navigable waters act. It is no wonder that Canadians are concerned about pipeline safety in our country.

I do not often say this, but in this instance we ought to be taking a page out of the book that is south of the border, where the Americans are actually taking environmental damages and the potential for environmental damages more seriously than we are in Canada. Canadians deserve that kind of certainty when it comes to potential impacts on the environment.

[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.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with much interest to our colleague across the way. I have a lot of respect for my hon. colleague and for most of his remarks. If I overlook the partisan nature of the last five minutes, he made some very good points.

The member mentioned that we are bringing in new measures on pipelines and an absolute liability of $1 billion. He mentioned that there is Liberal support for measures around abandoned pipelines and so on. There are a lot of good measures coming in to build on an already tremendously successful pipeline record in Canada.

I think the member noted in his speech that there are some 73,000 kilometres of pipeline in Canada. Converted to miles, it is about 45,360 miles, with a few decimal points after that. That is almost two times around the world.

I will just make this point, and then I will pose my question. We had a pipeline going through Burnaby for more than 60 years, and most people in Burnaby did not even know it was there until someone, a few years ago, inadvertently put a backhoe through the pipeline and caused a minor spill. There has been no environmental disaster.

We have had a lot of furor, particularly in the community in Burnaby and other places, about pipeline security.

We have one of the largest and most secure pipeline systems in the entire world, and I appreciate the member acknowledging that. I wonder if the member would acknowledge that there has been a lot of media hype related to pipeline security, which has raised the angst of the public, and that it is a good idea to emphasize the safety record we have in this country, one that is enviable in the world. We are looking to work with our colleagues to make sure it is even better with the legislation before us today.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I must say, first of all, that I was impressed watching my colleague do the conversion in his head from kilometres to miles. He said he could not come up with the decimals, but I thought the rest was pretty precise. That was very impressive.

The member talked about how in a community in his riding there is a pipeline that has been there for 60 years, and people do not know it is there. One of the concerns we ought to have as we look at this bill and what the limits should be and how we regulate the pipeline sector is the concern that where there are pipelines that have been in place for 60 years they are being properly maintained and checked.

I am sure my colleague knows about the mechanisms used to run through pipelines. They are called pigs that go through pipelines. They are not actual pigs. That is the name of the machine that goes through the pipeline to examine the condition of the pipeline. We need to make sure that this is being done as it should be and that no pipeline is left in the ground longer than it ought to be, becoming a danger.

While it is true, as the member noted, and as I did earlier, that the safety record of pipelines in our country is enviable, it is not perfect, and we want to perfect it. The last thing we want in any community is a spill of oil or any kind of petroleum product, especially one that ends up in some of our fresh water or soil. That is a grave concern.

It is very important that we look at this in detail. I hope to be able to have a thorough study of this bill at committee.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech, and I share his skepticism with respect to whether we will have a thorough study in committee. However, hope springs eternal, and maybe in 2015 a committee will actually study it and make recommendations, and the government will actually make changes to the bill.

I would like to get the member's commentary on the $1-billion threshold for liability. As the member rightly points out, it is a no-fault threshold, and thereafter it is unlimited liability. In the matter of oil spills, particularly significant ones, $1 billion is actually just a rounding error. It is nothing in terms of the catastrophic effect an oil spill can have. To use my own community of Toronto as an example, if there were an oil spill and it leaked into Lake Ontario close to a water pipe intake, the consequences would be catastrophic

I wonder whether the committee might actually give some thought to whether $1 billion is a threshold. In fact, liability beyond $1 billion is limited by bankruptcy legislation. No company is immune from bankruptcy, and a company can hit its bankruptcy threshold pretty quickly in some of these things.

The third thing I would like the member to comment on is a terrorist incident. If there were a series of well-planned incidents by people who wished to do us harm, how would the liability play through, both for the $1-billion threshold and the post-$1-billion threshold?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on this question, I think it is important that the committee actually look at the options in terms of what the threshold should be for absolute liability.

It is kind of an odd coincidence that when the government has done its calculation, when it has weighed all the factors it thinks ought to be weighed, it so happens to have picked this round number of $1 billion. Why is that the number, and why do the Conservatives feel that it is the correct number?

That is why it is important to have experts talk to us about what might be the impact on the environment and on the industry if there was a different threshold. What is the argument for this particular threshold, and what are the arguments for other possible thresholds? I think the NDP is saying, basically, that it should be unlimited, but let us hear the argument on that and the impact it would have.

My hon. colleague talked about bankruptcy. I think another consideration here is insurance. It is not just a question of whether the company itself goes bankrupt in a case like this. It is also a question of whether the insurance company also goes bankrupt. One would expect the insurance to cover the consequences of a spill and to cover the liability provided for in the legislation, whether it is unlimited liability where fault is found or absolute liability where no fault is found.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with friends like me, he does not need any enemies. This is actually an opportunity to have a real debate about this liability, as opposed to the usual nonsense that passes for debate around here.

I wonder whether the concept of pooled insurance would be a concept the committee might consider. It may well be similar to Lloyd's of London. The insurance company would take the first hit on the liability, and thereafter some form of Lloyd's-type insurance, either from the industry itself or from Lloyd's, would actually pick up the balance.

I appreciate the significance of the cost of the premiums, but on the other hand, as they say in the economics trade, these are externalities. These externalities are things that heretofore we have not actually factored into the cost of transporting carbon. We feel it is perfectly fine to pollute the environment, the water, the air, and that sort of thing and not price it, as opposed to other forms of energy generation. These are the kinds of things I would like to see a committee get into.

Does the member accept the minister's statement that it is 99.99% safe? There seem to be a heck of a lot of incidents in the newspaper about spills, small and large.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member is going to use up all the time, and the member for Halifax West is not going to have an opportunity to respond.

The member for Halifax West.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention.

I do not think I can answer all the points and questions my hon. colleague raised. It is remarkable. In my time in this job, I have found it interesting how often some of the most fascinating debates around here happen within our own Liberal caucus. It is great to have discussions, because we need to have that kind of debate around here.

I think this question of pooled insurance is one we ought to consider. We have to have enough companies in the sector to make it worthwhile. For instance, in the nuclear sector in the U.S., apparently there are enough to do it, while it would not work here in the nuclear sector. Perhaps it might work well in the pipeline sector. It is a good question to raise in committee. I hope we will have the chance, with a good study of the bill, to do so.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member from Saskatoon—Humboldt today.

Let me begin by saying I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the pipeline safety act and its critical importance to all Canadians.

Most Canadians hardly think twice about the impact pipelines have on their day-to-day lives. These energy highways are essential for delivering energy that Canadians need to heat our homes, power industries, and fuel our vehicles. When Canadians turn up the thermostat, we hardly bat an eye. We tend not to consider where energy comes from. Like mine, most homes in Canada are heated with natural gas, all of which is delivered by pipelines, but Canadians do not need to give it a second thought, because it all happens so safely and seamlessly every single day.

Behind the scenes is a vast network of federally regulated pipelines. There are some 73,000 kilometres throughout Canada. These pipelines transport $100 billion worth of oil and natural gas each year. When we stop to think about it, energy fuels our daily lives and pipelines carry that energy. Pipelines are used to move oil from producers to refineries and on to customers right across the country. Whether we travel by car, bus, train, boat, or airplane, our journey is fuelled by energy that was most likely transported by pipelines at some point.

The oil and gas sector is tremendously important to Canada. It generates almost 8% of Canada's gross domestic product. As members know, energy is our leading export. Central to all of this economic activity are Canada's pipelines. In fact, 94% of all Canadian transportation is fuelled by energy from petroleum products moved by pipelines.

One thing is certain: pipelines are the cornerstone of Canada's oil and gas sector and are also an important national industry. In 2012, pipelines added nearly $9 billion to Canada's gross domestic product and over 6,800 jobs. They also account for between $40 billion and $55 billion in private sector investment each year. That is a lot of dollars being invested in the Canadian economy.

It seems that Canadians cannot pick up a newspaper or turn on the television these days without hearing about pipelines. Some Canadians have concerns about pipelines after a few recent incidents, but when it comes to safety, Canada's record is outstanding. In fact, our pipelines are among the safest in the world. Between 2008 and 2013, 99.999% of oil delivered through federally regulated pipelines arrived safely. As a result, our pipeline safety record easily tops that of Europe and the United States. What is more, during the last three years, 100% of the liquids spilled by these pipelines were completely recovered. Therefore, pipelines have proven to be one of the safest means of delivering the energy we all use.

Every day, Canadian pipeline companies move about three million barrels of oil. Moving the same amount of oil would require 15,000 tanker trucks or 4,200 railcars. Transporting oil through pipelines also consumes less energy and causes fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

However, we know we can always do better, and when it comes to the safety of Canadians and the safety of our environment, there is no second best. That is why new pipeline safety legislation is so important. With this legislation, the Government of Canada is building on its already impressive safety record through a suite of measures in the areas of prevention, preparedness and response, and liability and compensation. We are taking action to strengthen pipeline safety and modernize the National Energy Board Act.

This legislation proposes preventative measures that will clarify the rules and responsibilities of pipeline owners to prevent pipeline incidents, increase safety for Canadians, and better protect the environment. It will ensure that pipeline operators have the financial resources to respond in the unlikely event that an incident occurs. For example, major oil pipeline operators will be required to show proof of $1 billion in financial resources. In addition, they will be required to carry a certain portion of these resources as cash on hand in order to ensure an immediate response.

New regulations would also give the National Energy Board the power to directly administer tough new penalties that would address contraventions quickly so that larger issues would not arise in the future. We would enshrine the polluter pays principle in law so that polluters, not Canadian taxpayers, would be held financially responsible for the costs and damages they caused.

The bill also introduces absolute or no-fault liability. This means that pipeline operators would be held liable even when fault or negligence has not been proven. For companies operating major oil pipelines, the amount of absolute liability would be set at $1 billion. The pipeline safety act would also give the NEB authority to take control of incident response and cleanup if a company is unable or unwilling to do so. At the same time, it would expand the authority of the National Energy Board to recover costs from industry if the NEB ever steps in and takes charge.

Beyond the legislation itself, our government is taking a wider approach to pipeline safety and resource development. We are deeply committed to working directly with aboriginal peoples in all aspects of pipeline safety operations, including planning, monitoring, incident response, and related employment and business opportunities. We believe that aboriginal peoples must be partners in everything we do, from ensuring the safety of our pipeline system to protecting our marine environment from incidents to sharing in the benefits of developing our resources. That is why our Conservative government is working with aboriginal peoples to ensure the responsible development of our resources and the long-term prosperity of our communities for the benefit of all Canadians.

Taken together, these measures would ensure that Canada's pipeline safety system is world class and among the safest in the world. Building safe pipelines is something Canadians have done well for decades now; with the proposed legislation, we are making Canada's robust pipeline safety system even safer.

When it comes to the handling of oil and gas, our government should and will strive for the highest safety standards possible. Canadians expect and deserve nothing less. Canada's pipelines carry the products that fuel our economy, support the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians, and support our day-to-day high quality of life. I am a big promoter of continuing the great record we have.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my dad was an investment banker and taught me from the time I was two that the first rule of business is “Buy low, sell high.” Here in Canada, we buy the world's most expensive oil in the east. We have an 80% dependency on oil from places like Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela, oil that has a large carbon footprint and is very expensive, and we sell at a huge discount in the west.

Yes, we want safer pipelines. This act is not going to do it without some major changes, but the real question for the member is this: does he understand that we have to reduce our use and export of oil, that we need to transport it more safely, and that this bill is not going to do what we really need to do, which is to stop putting all of our eggs in the oil basket?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, diversity is, of course, a key to the success of our Canadian economy. Yes, I agree with the member opposite that we have to look at all alternatives for energy, but when we have a 99.999% success rate using pipelines to transport oil, it is incumbent on us to continue to look at this as a very viable option. With this new act, we would even improve on that record.

As long as we are going to use oil as an energy source, we need to do the best job we can in transporting it. Pipelines have one of the finest records so far, and this act will do nothing but improve that record.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the issue of pipeline safety is of great concern for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We understand and appreciate the need to capitalize on the potential of Canada's contribution of a very important energy source, but in looking at the legislation, one cannot help but be somewhat disappointed, in the sense that the government seems to be offloading quite a bit through regulations and the National Energy Board. The government could have been more precise in terms of how it is going to deliver that world-class pipeline safety.

My question for the member is this: does he not believe that the government has fallen short, in terms of having stronger legislation that would have provided assurance to Canadians that we are in fact serious about going forward?

Yes, we have a great record on pipeline safety, but there is more that we could have done through legislation, as opposed to being so dependent upon regulation. I would ask him to comment on that.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member agreed that our record is great, and it is nice to hear that from an opposition member. I must say, though, that the previous government's record was not necessarily great. We lived through a period of time of about 13 years when that particular government's record was not great.

Now our government is doing what it is supposed to do. We are supposed to keep Canadians safe and we are supposed to keep our economy growing and going forward, and this is what the act is all about. It would push the economy of this wonderful country forward and ensure that we deliver energy in a safe, secure manner. The bill would do nothing but that.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

I advise the member that he will have approximately six to six and a half minutes before we end the debate for question period.

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

Mr. Speaker, like many members who arrive late on Monday mornings as a result of flights, I unfortunately have not been able to listen to all of the remarks of my hon. colleagues, so I hope I do not engage in too much duplication in my remarks.

By way of quick summary, as someone who has been on the natural resources committee, I would point out that I quite enjoy doing legislation like this. The pipeline safety act and the other safety acts we have done clearly demonstrate how we as a government and as responsible legislators try to bring together natural resources and the environment to provide for safety and to deliver results for all Canadians. This is something that we sometimes take for granted here in this country, because we have a modern society, a technologically advanced society, a clean society and clean industry that in many parts of the country is based on natural resources.

Other parts of the world do not necessarily have this. They produce natural resources and products for world markets, but they do not always have the safety, the technology, or the culture and mentality to deliver and produce natural resources in a safe way. That is why I enjoy talking about issues such as the pipeline safety act. Canada does have extraordinary expertise with respect to pipelines and an extraordinary safety record. The environment and oil production can go hand in hand.

I will make some comments on what I think a few other people will already have said in this debate, but which need repeating.

Building and operating safe pipelines is something that Canadians have done well for decades. Federally regulated pipelines in Canada have transported 99.999% of oil safely. Our environmental performance has been strong. It is world class. As technology and regulations are improved, safety standards are raised.

The government has structured its plan based upon four key objectives. First of all, we make regulatory review processes for major projects and pipelines fit in a more timely and predictable way. Another goal of all of our legislation involving natural resources and issues like pipelines is to reduce duplication. We also try to strengthen protections for the environment in everything that we do. Our government is also strongly committed to engaging first nations in every aspect of resource development.

Across Canada the opportunities for prosperity in aboriginal communities from infrastructure and resource development have never been greater. It is one of the reasons the government is determined to forging a strong and lasting relationship with aboriginal peoples in Canada in the development of oil and gas resources. There are not many economic opportunities for many aboriginal communities located in rural areas, except for natural resources.

Over the past year, as part of its responsible resource development plan, the government has initiated a series of new measures to ensure the safe development of natural resources. We introduced new enforcement mechanisms and monetary penalties for non-compliance, along with new legislation, regulations, standards, and environmental requirements. Oil and gas pipeline inspections have increased by 50% a year and comprehensive audits of pipelines have doubled.

The government has also brought in tough new measures for oil tankers to ensure the safe transportation of our energy resources through our waterways. With respect to the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, an expert panel reviewed Canada's current tanker safety. As Canadians can see, we are committed to safety from the second oil is pumped from the ground right up until the time it is delivered and leaves not only our lands but our waters as well. Building on these measures the government is taking steps to improve the pipeline safety record and ensure that it remains truly world class.

The new legislation focuses on prevention, preparedness, response liability, and compensation. It takes concrete action to strengthen pipeline safety and would modernize the National Energy Board Act.

I am just going to summarize my remarks by saying that in everything we do, we should have in mind a motto that goes something like this:

Good, better, best,
Let's never rest.
Our good is better;
Our better is best.

That rule should apply to everything in this place, and especially to environmentally sensitive legislation. Legislation like this would help to protect Canada's environment while our natural resources are developed.

The House resumed from January 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. The government has chosen to name the bill as the pipeline safety act.

The measures to increase liability for pipelines are long overdue and very much welcome. However, there are some concerns that the measures may be inadequate, which I will speak to.

Crude oil petroleum products, natural gas liquids, and natural gas move through 71,000 kilometres of existing interprovincial and international pipelines. That does not include the three proposed pipelines to be regulated by the National Energy Board.

This bill purports to reinforce the polluter pays principle. It purports to confirm that the liability of companies operating pipelines would, first, be unlimited if an unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas, or other commodity is a result of their fault or negligence; and, second, be a limited liability to a maximum of $1 billion for pipelines with capacity to transport a minimum of 250,000 barrels of oil per day if there is no proof of fault or negligence.

The bill purports to obligate pipeline operators to maintain the financial resources necessary to cover potential liability. It also purports to authorize the National Energy Board to reimburse government entities for any costs incurred in a spill response.

It purports to improve responses to abandoned pipelines. That is a new measure, as the National Energy Board previously was not regulating abandoned pipelines. It also expands that responsibility to inquire into accidents involving abandoned pipelines. It purports to grant discretion to the National Energy Board to require companies to maintain funds for abandoned pipelines.

It also purports to empower cabinet to establish a pipeline claims tribunal in certain circumstances. The tribunal would examine and adjudicate compensation claims. It also authorizes spending to respond to spills, to establish the tribunals, and to pay for compensation awards that are issued by the tribunal. Furthermore, it authorizes the National Energy Board to recover funds paid out by the government as opposed to the company.

It expands on the polluter pays principle by imposing liability on operators for losses to non-use value of public resources. However, it limits the power of the federal Crown to pursue those, and there is some concern expressed at how seriously the National Energy Board will pursue that.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could interrupt. The minister is having a conversation with another member and I am having a very hard time hearing myself talk. I wonder if they could be asked to move it outside.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I realize there are several conversations going on in the House. Obviously, when a member has been recognized and has the floor, we ask the indulgence of all members to bring their attention to the speaker who has the floor, who at the moment is the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona. Therefore, I would again ask all members who wish to carry on conversations if they might leave the chamber and carry on outside in their respective lobbies.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I asked for your intervention because I believe this is a very important piece of legislation and it is important for us to understand what the bill is and is not doing.

As I mentioned, the bill expands on the polluter pay principle, a welcome intervention, by imposing liability on operators for losses to non-use value of public resources, but it limits the power to the federal crown to pursue compensation for those impacts, and there is some concern that the National Energy Board would not necessarily seriously pursue compensation.

It expands the National Energy Board's powers to order actions by the companies where there are risks to safety or security of the public, to the company employees, or to the pipelines or abandoned pipelines, and for protection of property or the environment.

However, it may noted that the recently tabled estimates for 2015-16 provide for reductions in the budget of the National Energy Board for the regulation of pipelines contributing to the safety of Canadians and the protection of the environment. So much for the touted equal attention to supporting resource development and environmental protection. No additional resources will be allocated for the ongoing mandate and no additional resources for the added mandate of the NEB for abandoned pipelines.

Natural Resources is also apparently being cut by $320 million across the board, or 12.6% of its budget. Surely, given the potential payouts under Bill C-46, this is not the time to be paying down the deficit on the backs of the communities impacted by spills.

There would be greater confidence in the commitments of the government to address the impact if a contingency fund were set aside. That will become apparent later in the discussion of the bill, as taxpayers may be left holding the bag under this law.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Agency is also forecast to be cut by $13.6 million or 44% of its budget. A significant portion of its budget has previously gone to supporting aboriginal consultation. Many of these pipelines go through first nation lands, which are already designated as these lands or are being claimed.

Given the number of resource projects proposed and the fact that the NEB does not adequately deliver on public participation in decision-making, it is impossible to understand how the government will fulfill its duty to consult indigenous peoples and how any project will obtain the social licence needed to operate.

Yes, we recognize that these budgets may well be supplemented through the supplementary estimates, but it is astounding nonetheless that at the same moment we are debating a bill touted to improve pipeline safety, the government tables estimates providing no increased funds to deliver on the expanded mandate of the National Energy Board, the tribunal, and for the government to address spill compensation, let alone the coverage of spill clean-up costs.

This is troubling on a number of fronts. The scale of potential risks and the potential impact from major increased daily volumes have increased, in particular given the nature of the products proposed to be piped, in other words, diluted bitumen. First, the Enbridge gateway pipeline proposes 525,000 barrels a day. The Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion would add 890,000 barrels a day, and the TransCanada energy east pipeline, if approved, would add 1.1 million barrels a day.

One can only hope that the intent is to retroactively apply these higher liabilities for pipelines already approved prior to the passage of this law. This law should be triggering significantly enhanced inspection and capacity to respond to breaks and spills as well. This is important given the poor record by the National Energy Board and the pipeline operators in detecting pipeline breaks and spills or in seeking compliance.

The majority of pipeline accidents of late in my province of Alberta and in the Northwest Territories have been discovered and reported, by and large, by citizens or aboriginal hunters and trappers out on their lands, not by the National Energy Board or provincial regulatory agencies, or by the companies themselves. For example, there was the incident in Wrigley.

I had an opportunity to see this when attending a Dene gathering in Fort Providence a couple of years ago, where a hunter came to the meeting and revealed that when he was out on the land, he was sitting down by a marsh and suddenly a bear appeared. There did not seem to be anything he could do to make the bear go away. He would scare the bear away and the bear would come back. So he finally decided that he would investigate what was happening with this strange behaviour of the bear. He discovered a major break in a pipeline and a massive spill. That is one example where the operators are simply not detecting, reporting, and apprising the people on the land of accidents.

In addition, in this case, we had to step in and demand support for the first nation community, which was trying to address the impact of this spill. If we had not done that, the National Energy Board would not have stepped forward.

I could go on and on about the incidents with pipelines in Alberta. For example, there was a spill from the Plains Midstream pipeline near Sundre, Alberta, into a river, then into a drinking water reservoir. It was not reported to the impacted landowners.

In April 2011, there was the largest pipeline spill in history, again by Plains Midstream, with 4.5 million litres of oil spilling northeast of Peace River. Again, that was detected by the Dene Tha' First Nation and not the operator. They ended up having to close the local school because of the fumes from the petroleum. The first nation was deeply concerned about the impacts on the waters, fish, birds, and wildlife they relied upon, and concerned about the many abandoned wellsites and pipelines. That, of course, is an example where, if the first nations are not able to seek compensation for impacts on the waters, fish, birds, and wildlife they rely upon in their habitat, it will become an issue if the government does not step up to the plate.

Again, I remind this place of the Wabamun derailment and spill. Yes, it was not a pipeline, but it took a week for the federal agencies to actually come forward and assist the first nations directly impacted by that incident.

What are some of the concerns that have been identified with the bill? There are some additional concerns with respect to many of the reforms in Bill C-46, including expanded powers and new rights.

The reforms themselves are welcome, including expansion to abandoned well sites, expansion of liability, and the increase in the liability to $1 billion. However, there are some concerns with the way the bill as drafted; for example, with the adequacy of the upper limit of $1 billion. We can all recall the Kalamazoo bitumen spill cost $600 million merely to clean up the spill, and that was before any compensation was given to any of the communities or property owners who were impacted.

Ecojustice has stated that the bill would fail to prescribe mechanisms to actually assess the risk, taking into consideration either the type of materials shipped, whether they are more corrosive, for example: the potential for environmental, and, I would add, health, damages; an accident or compliance history; and the age of the line and, I would suggest, also the maintenance record.

There is no provision in the bill specifying what the National Energy Board is supposed to consider, or the tribunal once it is established.

Second, concerns have also been raised about bankruptcy implications. There is a concern that the polluter pay provisions may be superseded in the case of bankruptcy of a pipeline owner or operator, as bankruptcy law prevails. That is something that merits discussion at committee.

Third, there is concern with the level of discretion vested in the National Energy Board and in the tribunal. There appears to be a discretionary, potentially politically influenced, process. For example, the company must first be designated before the tribunal may review.

It is also not clear whether there would be a permanent tribunal and whether its members would simply sit around, waiting for a pipeline to be designated, or a company designated, or whether it would only step forward at the time that there is an incident and compensation claims are required.

This would also only occur in a situation where the cabinet, in its discretion, has determined, on the recommendation of a minister, that a company does not have sufficient resources to pay costs or clean-up, or the company has failed to comply with an NEB order.

The National Energy Board could then directly reimburse for the impacts or the costs incurred, and the payment could be directed from a pooled fund. The costs could be recovered as a debt, but that is unlikely from a bankruptcy.

The tribunals would be established only, as I said, where a company is designated; in other words, for each incident, not permanently designated.

Proposed subsection 48.18(2) is a little confusing. It states that the Governor in Council, in other words, the cabinet, could only establish a tribunal if it is in the public interest, somehow factoring in the extent of the compensable damage. It is unclear if the concern is with too small a claim or a very large one.

The tribunal would be granted total discretion in how to notify the public. It has been suggested by a number of parties who have participated in other tribunals that there should be clear guidance on who is actually supposed to notify the public that they can seek a claim for damages and how they would go about doing that.

There is also the query of why only the appointment of retired judges. In many cases in these tribunals, it is perhaps more appropriate to appoint people with a technical background who understand pipelines, the impacts and so forth.

The reason this issue has been raised is because the staffing and expertise for the tribunal is at the discretion of the National Energy Board. However, there is no certainty that there will be some form of secretariat with the appropriate expertise to assist the tribunal in its determinations.

It is encouraging that the cabinet may make regulations authorizing the tribunal to award fees, travel and other costs for claimants to present their case. However, that will be by regulation, and it is not clear what the timeline is on the issuance of those regulations to set the guidance.

It is noted that the regulations could fix a maximum compensation, but we do know what factors that is based on, as mentioned earlier. Perhaps it would be a good idea to actually provide criteria for calculating the costs of the impacts.

The imposition of fees, levies and charges for payouts can be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund. However, there is the issue and concern of how seriously the funds will be pursued from the operator or whether there will be reliance on public funds.

The National Energy Board would be empowered to issue regulation-setting rates, but there is no mention of consultation with either the pipeline operators or the public on how it will set those rates for the levies and fees. It will be important for the National Energy Board to report regularly on its efforts to recover the debts incurred or spill cleanup for compensation. However, there is no mention in the bill to that effect.

Regarding cost advances to file claims, it is unclear if the law would allow for the payment of advanced funds to address or cleanup a spill, or if it would also allow for advances to people who would seek compensation to hire lawyers, experts and so forth, which is very important in procedures before a tribunal.

Increasing concerns are being expressed within communities and first nations with the approach to regulating pipelines arising from failed spill prevention, failed detection, failed response to spills and the failure of the National Energy Board or other government agencies to require pipeline proponents to disclose their emergency and spill response plans for public review and scrutiny.

This certainly has arisen in the review of the Kinder Morgan proposed trans mountain pipeline expansion. People along that line are very concerned that they are not getting access to the emergency spill response plan.

The same is the case with the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation with a review of a pipeline in Alberta. It eventually pulled away from an Energy Board review because it was denied access to that emergency spill response plan for a pipeline and then given less than 24 hours to review the document.

The Alexis First Nation in Alberta has also been demanding greater access to information on the spill from breaches of mines.

The preference of Canadians is the prevention of harm to their communities, the environment, and not mere compensation after the fact. As the expression goes, “Mieux vaut prévenir que guérir ”.

The improved measures provided under Bill C-46 will be welcomed and will offer succour to those impacted by major spills. However, that is unlikely to be sufficient to restore trust in the government or in the National Energy Board in the wake of denied access to potentially impacted communities and first nations of emergency spill response plans, the downgrading of federal environmental and fisheries laws, and the diminished opportunity for public first nations to participate in pipeline reviews.

Frankly, in the National Energy Board and provincial energy reviews, there have been many concerns raised. I gave the example of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, which is extremely disturbed that the pipeline will go through its traditional lands, not having access to major documents.

The change to the National Energy Board intervener rules would limit participation. I gave the example of where the previous minister of Natural Resources dubbed “interveners” in the review of pipelines as “radical groups” who “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda”, merely because they sought to intervene to raise concerns with pipeline projects.

Concerns have been expressed by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in his 2011 report regarding the long-standing failure by Transport Canada and the National Energy Board to ensure compliance or corrective action, and the failure of the NEB to review emergency procedures of 39% of regulated companies. Absent of increased resources, there is little confidence this will be addressed in a timely manner.

Yes, Canadians recognize that they rely on fossil fuels for use, benefit from revenues from sale and export, and that pipelines are needed to transport the fuel. However, it is reasonable for Canadians to expect their government to regulate the sector in a manner that ensures the protection of their health and environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, one would think that one's hypocrisy could only go so far, but it appears not. That discourse was not only free of statistics and quantitative and qualitative evidence, it was fact-free as well.

It is worth pointing out that in the past decade more than 72,000 kilometres of federally regulated pipelines boast a safety record of 99.999%. These pipelines account for 6,000 jobs and $7 billion in annual sector revenue.

It is even more astonishing coming from that member. Here are some interesting facts. The member voted against increasing pipeline inspections. She voted against doubling the number of comprehensive audits. She voted against implementing fines against companies that would break the law.

In fact, I would bring to the attention of the House the comments she made during her speech regarding the Plains Midstream spill. That company was fined by the National Energy Board on February 12.

Why did that member vote against the very things she has tried to advocate for in her speech.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question. The hypocrisy is all on the side of the minister.

As he well knows, the measures to improve the environment to better regulate the oil gas and sector were included in the government's omnibus budget bills. No matter how many times we requested the division of those bills so they could be debated and voted on separately, they were refused. The hypocrisy is all with the government.

Our party has continuously called for improved measures and greater seriousness in delivering on what the government calls responsible resource management. It professes that it gives equal attention to environmental protection as it does to resource extraction, but that is far from the truth and far from the matter before us.

As the House is aware, I simply quoted the flaws and the problems identified by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I rest my case, and the response needs to be to the commissioner on the failure to adequately follow up.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. I am honoured to serve with her on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

I will have the pleasure of giving a speech on Bill C-46 this afternoon, but I would like to ask my colleague a question about liability. The bill limits liability to $1 billion in the case of a disaster caused by a pipeline where there is no proof of fault on the part of a company. Why did the government choose that amount? In Kalamazoo, in the United States, costs have already reached an estimated $1.2 billion, and only a tiny proportion of the mess has been cleaned up.

Why did the government peg liability at $1 billion? Would it not be better to set a higher amount? That seems to me to be nothing more than a round number.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the terrific role he plays as the critic for natural resources. It is a pleasure to work with him in that role.

I can not answer why the government has chosen $1 billion. Canadians will be pleased that we have gone from, I think, $50 million before to $1 billion. Simply doing it as a one-off for offshore activity, shipping and so forth is inadequate. We are glad the government is coming forward with a larger sum to potentially recover after a pipeline spill.

There is a measure in the bill wherein the discretion of the cabinet could opt to increase that amount, but again there is no criteria given for when it might opt to increase that amount. Again, that topic merits discussion at committee. There is potential for an amendment to the bill to provide criteria either by regulation or within the context of the legislation in those incidents where we would require more than $1 billion, not only to clean up the spill but to provide compensation.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question just posed to the member, there is a bit of a false dichotomy in terms of the comparison. In the example that was cited, the operator was found to be at fault. This legislation enshrines findings that have been put forward in case law to ensure there is unlimited liability in cases where things are found at fault.

Therefore, would my colleague clarify that this example is not a correct application of what she has put forward?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech at the outset, there are two approaches to liability under the statute. One is unlimited, if it is unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or other commodity as a result of a company's fault or negligence. In the second, it is limited to a million dollars if there is no proof of fault or negligence. Those are often complicated matters and it may well be that the government simply relies on the $1 billion because of a difficulty in proving fault or negligence.

What would probably happen in those scenarios and what the community that would be impacted really would want to have happen, if in an isolated area, would be an immediate cleanup. What will happen is the taxpayers will incur the costs of that more immediate, direct cleanup and eventually try to recover that. It may end up in complicated litigation over whether there was or was not fault or negligence.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

With this type of issue, whether we are talking about a pipeline spill or a tragedy like the one we saw in Lac-Mégantic, my constituents in Sherbrooke often tell me that they are concerned about the company responsible for the spill. When the company goes bankrupt and the government is trying to find money to clean up the mess the company has caused, what happens next?

That is the kind of question I have heard many times from the people of Sherbrooke. Can a company default on its obligation when it is responsible for a spill? We could be talking about a pipeline in the case of the bill we are debating today.

People are wondering whether there is a way to prevent a company from defaulting on its obligations if it is responsible for a spill. I wonder whether the bill we are studying today addresses the concerns of the people of Sherbrooke.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did note in my speech that there was some growing concern about the factoring in of bankruptcy. That of course would particularly arise where there were abandoned pipelines, as is the case in my province where there are tens of thousands of abandoned well sites. In some cases in residential development of suburbs we discover, after the fact, that there are abandoned well sites and someone has to move in to clean that up. It may be companies have disappeared or may have been bought by another company, and there is the issue of who is liable.

What the relationship would be in the case of bankruptcy and the powers under this legislation to recover the costs are matters that need serious discussion at committee. Particularly what it does is send a wake-up call that time may lapse and the company may be bankrupt. This follows on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development 's report on the failure of the National Energy Board to move quickly enough to ensure compliance or action to address what it has issued in its orders.

We need measures in both ways. We need to look to the resources and the intention of the NEB and where its priorities lie. We also need to ensure we have dealt with this in the bill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I have quite enjoyed the debate this morning, because we are talking about what the right balance is in terms of this particular set of regulations.

We have had some debate earlier this year in the House around how government should approach regulations, just as a whole, with regard to the red tape reduction act, and I think it is worth bringing some of that to the front end of my speech, just to get some context for my comments.

With regard to this regulation, we are trying to ensure the health and safety of Canadians. We are trying to ensure a high degree of environmental integrity with regard to transport of energy products, and we want to make sure that the regulations are based on fact, historical analysis, statistically proven probabilities, and consultation with industry and with first nations and aboriginal communities; and we also want to ensure, when we were talking about balance, that the fact-based analysis and the desire to ensure the highest degree of public safety are also contextualized within an opportunity cost calculation, making sure there is stability, transparency, and predictability for industry.

If we talk offline to anyone in industry or even in the NGO community, I would like to think there is a cognizance of the importance of the energy sector to Canada, which I will speak to in a moment. However, really what I think the bill has done, and why I am speaking in favour of it, is balance those three points.

It has a very high degree of regulation in terms of health and safety for Canadians, which of course builds on the responsible resource development package that we put in place in budget 2012. It also would ensure that fact-based analysis were used to develop some of the criteria and some of the amounts for liability that were included in the bill, but then it would also ensure that it is reasonable: it could still receive those high results but also be reasonable in terms of industry expectations to operate, so it has that economic balance.

First, I think it is worth starting at the bottom end and talking about the economic importance of this industry to Canada, because sometimes I find that the policy debate around energy infrastructure and energy policy tends to say, well, maybe we should not have this industry at all; maybe it is something we should completely scale back or, through different types of regulations, seek to curtail. I think what we should be doing with our regulation is acknowledging the importance of this industry and encouraging it to grow, but in a framework of sustainability, both for the health of Canadians and for sustainability of the environment.

I want to start by making my position and our government's position very clear, which is that we do believe that the energy sector is very important to Canada's economy. There is no doubt about this. It creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. I know the figures that are regularly put out are roughly in the neighbourhood of 500,000 jobs. That is not just through direct employment; it is through secondary sectors like manufacturing and services. Certainly, we hear about this from excellent groups like the Canadian oilwell drilling association. It has a huge impact on the economy in terms of job creation.

It also has a huge impact in terms of government revenue. Many of our social programs and our innovation programs are funded by revenues that come in from the energy sector.

We have to go into this debate saying that this is a cornerstone of the Canadian economy. It is important. How do we develop it, and how do we ensure, in this case, the transport of energy products in a healthy and sustainable way?

I should also say that we need energy. That is something we do not talk about here. Sometimes when we talk about the importance of the energy industry, we are remiss in not talking about the fact that we need the resources that are produced here, both for our own energy security and because we need energy to do things.

It is essential to have natural gas delivered to our homes, to fire furnaces on cold winter nights like we are experiencing this week, and it is certainly important in terms of looking at a viable, safe, secure source of energy that encourages manufacturing companies to invest in building Canada, that encourages our agricultural sector to grow, and that encourages mobility.

I do not think we can divorce this conversation from the fact that we need this sector from an economic perspective both in the sense of direct economic impact and also in the sense of energy security and being able to see the economy grow through that.

If we need energy and it is important to the economy, how do we transport it? That is the rub. That is why we have the pipeline safety act in front of us today. This bill acknowledges these things: that we have a demand for energy and that it is important to the economy. An interesting statistic is that, according to the International Energy Agency, the world will need 37% more energy in 2040 than it consumes today.

How do we transport it? Pipeline companies are currently moving about three million barrels of oil every day. If we were to turn off those pipelines tomorrow, we would have to add about 15,000 tanker trucks on our roads every day or put another 4,200 rail cars on our railways every day just to meet existing demand. These alternative modes of transportation consume more energy, which of course increases our greenhouse gas emissions. This is an important discussion in the context of our debate on how Canada responds to the issue of climate change. Pipelines offer a clean and efficient way to deliver the energy we need on a daily basis.

Industry knows this, and we know this. It is why we have put this bill forward in this place, to address some of the concerns around what is already a very safe track record. My colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, talked about a 99.999% safety rate with regard to federally regulated pipelines. When we look at international best practice, we certainly have that here in Canada in terms of health and safety regulations for pipelines. This would take it to the next level.

Going back to the front of the speech, the three components we are seeking on the balance of regulation among health and safety, fact-based analysis, and ensuring that economic balance are the following: incident prevention, preparedness response, and liability and compensation.

Looking at prevention, this particular bill speaks to a number of things. I am going to give some examples of some of the things that are happening in western Canada, which may not be addressed by this bill directly but are important for the context of the discussion. My ministry, Western Economic Diversification, in part seeks to look at the strength of some of our primary industries and ask how we can use the strength in there—through both highly qualified personnel and economic opportunity—to create secondary industries that develop diversification opportunities. It is interesting, because by some of the regulations we have put in place through our responsible resource development package in 2012, we have incented innovation and new industries by creating opportunities for industry to respond to those.

There are two specific examples I want to speak to with regard to preparedness.

The first is a very interesting centre with which Western Economic Diversification has engaged in funding, and that is C-FER Technologies in Edmonton. I want to spend just a bit of time on this because I know in the previous round of debate one of the questions that were asked by my colleague across the aisle was what is industry doing now.

What I really like about this particular organization is that it focuses on facilitating the use of leading-edge technology by oil and gas pipeline operators in the development of challenging resources. The component of this particular bill that we are trying to push is the creation and adoption of best available technology. Best available technology is something that is changing and growing every day, and our government has been working to fund it. A project that has been recently completed is a facility-expansion program, which includes leasing and operating a new facility in the oil and gas sector and the design, construction, and installation of high-capacity loading testing systems, upgrades, and instrumentations. Basically this centre allows industry a place to test new technologies that pertain to pipeline safety. That includes different widgets that could be deployed in a pipeline to sense leaks. It is very high level technology.

I have been there and I encourage colleagues across the aisle to go and visit this facility. Again, it is a demonstration centre so that new technologies can be translated from the bench into the market. This does two things: first, it encourages long-term safety for these pipelines; and second, it creates jobs because we are taking intellectual property from the bench and commercializing it in Canada. It is an absolutely astounding centre, and I am very proud that we have supported it.

The other component I want to talk about is SDTC Canada, Sustainable Development Technology Canada. This is a group that has been supported by our government, which is involved in the development and commercialization of clean technology, using industry as a driver. As a Calgary MP, I want to bring up Pure Technologies, a very innovative little company in Calgary that has been working with SDTC. It has developed a robot device for pipeline inspection, of which I have a diagram. It looks like a ball. It is a very complicated, technological ball that goes into the pipeline and, based on fluid dynamics, can sense minute fractures in pipelines so that leaks can be detected and dealt with ahead of time.

Again, we are looking at ways to ensure that there is prevention with the best available technology. This is another way our government has been working with industry to strike that balance between health and safety and economic development. It is really cool to look at some of the technologies coming out in the development of a secondary industry around clean technology for pipeline safety.

Looking at the second component of this bill, preparedness and response, I will speak from my notes, but then I want to speak about another project that has an economic diversification angle with regard to this particular aspect of the bill.

The pipeline safety act would ensure a robust response in the unlikely event of an incident. We talked about that 99.999% success rate. The new legislation would require companies operating pipelines to have a minimum level of financial resources. It would also require that these pipeline operators keep a portion of that money readily accessible for rapid response should an incident recur.

The bill would also give the National Energy Board the authority and resources to take control of an incident response or cleanup if, in exceptional circumstances, the company is unable or unwilling to do so. This means the government would provide a financial backstop so that the board has the resources needed to complete the cleanup and take necessary action. Any funds provided by the government would be recovered from industry, again adhering to the government's polluter pays principle that we have talked about so many times in this place.

I would like to draw attention, though, talking about preparedness, to the importance of training people on the job. Sometimes this can be difficult for the energy sector, given that it is in remote northern conditions. We have been looking to work with industry and some institutions on best practices to ensure that training can be delivered.

A couple of weeks ago, I announced a project with the Justice Institute of British Columbia. The Justice Institute is a world leader in providing training and leading thought on safety training. It is actually launching a project that is going to have commercialization benefits, called Praxis, by which it puts simulated situations in web-enabled training. It is working with industry to have rapid response.

The interesting thing is that the intellectual property in those simulations can actually be commercialized into different software packages. Again, we are seeing economic spinoff on the service provision and commercialization on the new technology side and ensuring that companies have the preparedness and incident response requirement built into their companies. It is a great project and something I hope people look into, because it is really great and it is happening here in Canada.

With regard to liability and compensation, the third pillar of the bill, as I said, which would enshrine the polluter pays principle into law. There are two components, which I will speak to very briefly, as I know that the criteria around this will be examined more at committee. First, for unlimited liability, right now this is in practice through common law, but this bill would clarify unlimited liability when companies are at fault or negligent. This would be put explicitly into law in Canada. With regard to absolute liability, it would put an amount in place irrespective of fault or negligence for all companies operating pipelines, and it would set that amount at $1 billion.

I know that some questions have come up with regard to that particular amount, such as why this amount would be in place, how it was arrived at, and that it is not enough. When we talk about how we develop regulations, that fact-based analysis, historical analysis examples demonstrate that this level of absolute liability and financial capacity would provide world-class coverage. The average cleanup costs of major pipeline spills in North America result in costs in the range of $20 million to $50 million in the case of absolute liability.

With the time I have remaining, I should probably talk a bit about our government's response to climate change, because invariably the energy sector and climate change are a linked discussion. Certainly that has been the case this week with regard to some decisions made by our neighbours to the south on energy infrastructure.

It is important to talk about what we have done on this file, because the theme of my speech is how we develop balanced regulations. We need to talk about the same thing with respect to our response to climate change.

We have taken a sector-by-sector regulatory approach whereby we work with industry to set targets that produce tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. An example is the light-duty passenger vehicle sector, where these regulations will eventually result both in lower fuel costs for consumers and in reduced greenhouse gas emissions, which is a win-win for all. We have worked closely with the coal-fired electricity sector. Both of these sectors were major sources of emissions, and we have seen those emissions reduced. That is a huge accomplishment of this government.

With respect to international action, we have said that in order to see real reductions internationally, we need an agreement that sees all major emitters commit, not just a small percentage of them. We have been working toward that goal through our participation in the Conferences of the Parties.

Also, we invest heavily in research and development with respect to not only climate change adaptation and working with communities to respond to climate change but also in researching new technologies, monitoring standards, and best practices. We are researching new technologies through the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We commit quite a bit of funding, through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, to climate change research through the climate change and atmospheric research program. This also builds on basic research in other areas as well that feed into the specific domain .

In the few minutes I have left, I want to go back to the start of my speech and talk again about balance and pragmatism in putting forward regulations.

This is about seeing action in climate change. It is about ensuring that we have health and safety for Canadians, but it is also about ensuring that these regulations are based on fact-based analysis of what we have seen happen in the past and what is likely to happen in the future and do not put a shock on industry. These proposals were developed hand and foot with industry. They were developed in consultation with first nations groups. We want to make sure that when we put regulations forward, they achieve that balance.

I would be remiss if I did not talk about my opposition colleague's response in this area, which I found to be not responsible. I will speak specifically about the Liberal Party.

I have watched the Liberals' comments on pipelines with some curiosity. On June 19, 2004, their leader said, “I'm also supportive of the idea of a west to east pipeline.” Then on May 29 he said, “I am very much in favour of the west/east pipeline”. Then on the 13th he said that the energy east oil pipeline is not socially acceptable.

I think it is reasonable to have a debate in this place that looks at what the liability limits are, how we are achieving that balance, and what would cause a shock to industry, a necessary shock that would see a health and safety component put in place, versus just an ideological happenstance discussion that really does not serve industry, the public, or health and safety.

I am encouraged by some of the debate that occurs. I hope that my colleagues opposite will put this bill forward to committee. It can be studied in greater detail in terms of some of the assumptions about the facts and statistics put forward to calculate some of the specific liability limits and rules. However, I hope that it will not devolve into a flip-flopping debate, as we have seen from the leader of the third party.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to that commentary. It is regrettable, given the seriousness of this bill, that the hon. member gave little attention to talking about the significant measures in this bill or to cogent recommendations on how we can further strengthen it.

I am a little bit troubled that the minister is saying that when we are talking about compensation for spills from pipelines, we should be balanced and take a pragmatic approach in regulation. That is deeply troubling.

This specific bill is supposed to be about pipeline safety and about putting in place significant measures to genuinely offer a way in which people can be compensated. This bill is not about the mumbo-jumbo that we are hearing about what our energy policy should be. I hope that when we get to committee, we will have a discussion about the specific measures under the bill.

I did find what the minister talked about very interesting. I do follow up with these projects that Western Economic Diversification Canada supports. If the minister is genuinely concerned about acting on climate change, I would be happy if her agency gave greater attention, or at least equal attention, to supporting the renewable energy sector. She has continuously rejected it when it applies to invest in jobs in Alberta and in exporting clean technology to the rest of the world.

I look forward to her response about when the government is going to move from further research and dialogue about addressing climate change and the regulation of the fossil fuel sector and actually take action to address the impacts of the oil and gas sector.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, this is why I was trying to talk about balance. What I define as pragmatism in regulation is putting forward a target for health and safety that is absolutely stringent and world-leading, which we have done in this bill, and then, with this bill, ensuring that the liability limits cover it.

Enshrining unlimited liability in law when it comes to fault or negligence being proven is excellent. That is a very good best practice. Having $1 billion of coverage required for absolute liability in law takes that coverage in Canada one step further.

My colleague asked questions regarding my portfolio, Western Economic Diversification Canada. I am very proud to say that this year, with deep consultation with industry and different community groups, we put in place five very clear priority areas for our ministry. They are innovation, ensuring the acceleration of economic opportunities for first nations and aboriginal peoples, skills training, trade and investment, and the ITP program. We now have a comparative-based call for proposals model for our fund, which ensures that opportunities are evaluated in an investment portfolio model. I encourage everyone to apply for these funds. We have just closed the last round of applications, and evaluation is going to be based on a very clear and transparent evaluation framework.

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

Mr. Speaker, members can imagine how thrilled I am to have my colleague not only stand up for her province but represent her ministry so well. It has not been involved in the debate thus far that I can recall, but she understands as a member of Parliament for the prairies that pipelines offer a unique solution that other forms of energy transportation cannot.

The squeeze on the mining sector, grain farmers, and the forest sector right now is immense. It is going on in Canada, and it is being grumbled about and will arise a little later this winter in the midwestern United States.

This debate is right. The fact that we can bring in a piece of legislation that protects the interests of miners, the forest sector, and grain farmers is one thing, but this piece of legislation also represents the best available technology. We are giving the National Energy Board those considerations through this piece of legislation. That is something that this member is a bar-none expert on. She mentioned a few aspects in her speech, but I consider her an expert on getting innovation from the bench to the marketplace.

When it comes to pipeline integrity, to safety, and to detection, and to the elements of this bill, which are prevention, preparedness, and response, I would like to give her an opportunity to expound on other examples of Canada leading the way in technology and innovation in pipeline safety and security as a strategic business unit of the energy sector.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, this is an area that is near and dear to my heart. Prior to entering politics, I worked at the University of Calgary in its research services division, where I was pleased and thrilled to work with some of the best minds in the world in terms of clean technology and public policy with regard to this area.

With regard to my portfolio, we had the Alberta Innovates Technology Futures. We partnered with the Government of Alberta to start the Materials and Reliability in Oil Sands research and development consortium to develop innovative coatings and welding techniques that would reduce wear and corrosion on pumps, pipelines, and other equipment.

I could go on and on, because we are seeing that as government puts forward strong, stable, balanced regulation, industry is responding. Industry is also proactively looking at their corporate social responsibility mandate in ensuring that those technologies are being adopted. It is a really cool pull into the market that has been created both by strong government legislation as well as by expertise in western Canada. It is a great thing to see.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

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

We are talking about the fundamental polluter pays principle. She talked quite a bit about balance. I would like to know what she thinks as a member of Parliament and a member of cabinet about the government's reasons for introducing such legislation, which affects oil pipelines but not other products like natural gas or solvents, which can also be transported via pipeline.

I would also like to know why she thinks the bill, if it is amended, would only affect pipelines transporting more than 250,000 barrels of oil a day and not those that transport 100,000 barrels, for example.

Why does the government's plan have this limit?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to listen in French. If I understood my colleague's questions correctly, he asked why we have this legislation and why it affects this and not other materials.

Certainly we want to ensure that the bill would have a very positive impact on high-volume pipelines, which are regulated very well. We also want to work with smaller operators to ensure that the regulations are not too onerous on them, while also reflecting a high degree of health and safety requirements.

I think the bill gets that right, but I should mention that it is not just about looking at the pipeline. The bill also reflects some of the things we have put in place to ensure that the build-out is safe. Changes we have made to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as well as making the environmental assessment process more robust through the RRD process, are very good things.

I should also mention that we increased the budget to the National Energy Board in 2012 by $13.5 million and in 2014 by $28 million for increased audits and project reviews so that we could have that high degree of safety in the build-out as well.

We have a very robust piece of legislation that Canada can be very proud of, and I hope that my colleagues will vote to send it to committee.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-46. I am even more pleased about the fact that this is the first bill on natural resources that I have the honour to debate in the House as the official opposition critic for energy and natural resources.

This is an extremely important issue, particularly because of the various challenges we are currently facing and the projects that are under way. In my riding, the energy east project will pass through Témiscouata. It is a major project. Clearly, there are many other major projects all over the country that are directly affected by Bill C-46, which seeks to make the transportation of oil via Canada's pipelines safer.

The government asked us how we are going to vote at second reading. I can confirm that we are going to support the bill at this stage. We are not doing so because the bill is perfect, and in the next few minutes I will have the opportunity to explain the problems with this bill that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources should work on.

In our opinion, this bill is a good first step. Finally, after putting so much pressure on the government, we are truly pleased that the government is willing to reinforce the polluter pays principle, not just in words but also in the legislation.

As my colleagues no doubt know, since our leader, the member for Outremont, took over the reins of the New Democratic Party, he has spoken at length about this country's need to enforce the polluter pays principle, not only in the area of natural resources but also in all of our country's industrial and economic sectors.

He has also spoken about the need to take into account external economic impacts, for example the cost of the pollution caused by various industries, in order to reflect the actual cost of production, not only from an economic perspective for the consumer or the producer, but also from an environmental perspective and from the perspective of how it could affect large communities.

On this side of the House, we recognize the importance of the oil and gas industry across the country. We know that this industry accounts for approximately 7% or 8% of Canada's GDP and that it has an impact not only on the western part of the country, but also on regions such as Quebec and Ontario. However, if we want to enshrine the polluter pays principle in law, we will have to do so in a consistent and comprehensive manner.

In describing the bill, which is what I plan to do for the next few minutes, we realized that the generally positive points might not go far enough, such as establishing no-fault liability. Thus, at the end of the day, all companies could be liable in the event of a disaster. Even if it is not the company's fault or if negligence is not proven, the liability could be as high as $1 billion, depending on the amount established by the National Energy Board, by cabinet or by the governor in council.

While the $1 billion is positive when you consider that there is currently no implicit responsibility in Canadian legislation or regulations, it does minimize and water down the polluter pays principle. Even if the company is not at fault, it is nevertheless a question of a pipeline built and operated by a company that must eventually take full responsibility for it. We are therefore faced with the following problem: even if there is no fault assigned, taxpayers could end up bearing financial responsibility.

If a disaster occurred that cost more than $1 billion in cleanup and environmental costs, some of that burden could be placed on taxpayers through the government. We see this as one of the bill's weaknesses.

If we really want to remain true to the polluter pays principle, we need to follow through on the reasoning and make the company fully responsible.

Clearly, if the pipeline has a defect and the company is not responsible and a third party is, liability could be placed on the third party. However, if there is an operational issue and the company is responsible for the pipeline, then it must be fully responsible for any damage caused and for all environmental costs.

However, if the company is found to be at fault or negligent, under the bill, costs and damages could be much higher. This amount would be determined by either the governor in council or the National Energy Board.

We support the fact that this legislation will finally hold companies responsible for abandoned pipelines. Beforehand, the responsibility was implied but not necessarily very clear. My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona mentioned in her speech that this is a serious problem in Alberta, where there are many abandoned oil wells connected by equally abandoned pipelines. These abandoned infrastructures pose a problem, because most of the time, the companies that owned them no longer exist, which creates legal uncertainty regarding cleanup costs.

It is therefore good that the responsibility of companies for these underground pipelines in Canada, even after they stop operating, is explicitly stated in this bill, because we are talking about major projects and companies that are relatively stable economically and financially.

How can we ensure that the companies will assume these costs? Under the bill, any company that is operating a pipeline that matches the standards set out in the bill, namely pipelines that have the capacity to transport at least 250,000 barrels of oil per day, must have liability coverage of up to $1 billion. Once again, we support that. This money will be used to ensure that the company is immediately liable in the event of an incident and will also serve as a deposit in case a pipeline ceases operations, so that the company remains responsible for any potential cleanup costs or costs associated with subsidence, for example.

The bill thus provides for protection against any damage that could result on the land under which a pipelines passes. It is perhaps minimal compared to the growing costs associated with these pipelines but it is still a recognition of the company's responsibility.

It seems like I am praising the government, but we have to acknowledge the progress that has been made in pipeline safety and the positive aspects. For example, the bill authorizes the National Energy Board to establish a pipeline claims tribunal for claims following a pipeline leak or disaster.

It used to be extremely complex and onerous for a land owner to get compensation for a major pipeline spill. The legal system is very complex and there are a lot of costs up front for a person who suffered damages.

This bill includes a provision authorizing the National Energy Board and the governor in council, at their discretion, to establish an administrative tribunal following a disaster in to order hear and compensate the parties who feel adversely affected by the disaster. This is progress because it will make the administrative process easier—if the National Energy Board and the governor in council use their discretion wisely, that is.

Those are the positive aspects of this bill as I see them. This is progress, and it is why we are voting in favour of this bill at second reading. We could then consider the bill further in committee and propose amendments to improve these provisions, which seem more watered down than they could be.

As far as the bill's flaws are concerned, we can name three. First, I mentioned several times the issue of the discretion of the National Energy Board and the governor in council, or cabinet.

It would have been preferable to provide greater certainty in this bill and give it more teeth, if you will, so that some elements would be triggered without relying on the National Energy Board or the Governor in Council to provide good governance or wise decision making.

In fact, a number of these tools that, in principle, should improve the safety of pipelines are not guaranteed. Their application will be at the discretion of the National Energy Board and the Governor in Council. We all hope that will happen, but it will be determined on a case-by-case basis with no guarantees.

Furthermore, we really wanted the government to understand that pipeline safety impacts not only the transport of oil, but also the transport of natural gas and other products, such as solvents used in the oil sands. Quite often, the bitumen is treated in one area and the solvent, after being separated from the bitumen, is reshipped to the extraction site. These solvents are highly toxic and very dangerous. It would have been good for such a bill to cover the transport of these products, whose risk to the environment is similar to that of oil.

Furthermore, it is hard to understand why the government limited its new safety standards on pipeline transportation to pipelines that transport more than 250,000 barrels a day. Why did it not impose these standards and new restrictions on pipeline transportation safety on all interprovincial pipelines that fall under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board and the federal government?

Yes, it is a step in the right direction that the government is now applying, even partially, the polluter pays principle. That is why we will support the bill. It is also an important issue for the government and the industry, because it is a question of confidence in the industry. I can speak from personal experience, because one of the main concerns in my riding and in Quebec as a whole, given what I have heard about the energy east project, has to do with transportation safety with respect to rivers, waterways and watersheds, among others. That is a big concern that recently came up in a Harris-Decima survey of Canadians' views on the transportation of oil and gas, either by rail or by pipeline. Less than half of Canadians have confidence in the pipeline transportation system.

Lots of people talked about social licence. That is why it goes without saying that for the in-depth study and to reassure people that transporting oil by pipeline will not have a negative impact on their community, there must be elements in place to ensure safety and rapid response in case of a disaster. There must also be a mechanism in place to ensure that companies pay adequate compensation for all environmental disasters that occur on private property or even on public property. The government should have gone in that direction.

One could even argue that they took too long to go in this direction because it has been some time now since the government was reminded of its responsibility for pipeline safety and the safe transportation of oil and fossil fuels in general. It should have taken action on this long ago, and many members of society have criticized it for that, not just environmentalists, but also communities directly affected by that transportation, be it underground or by rail.

If we look at all of the projects, some will certainly be influenced or affected by this bill. It could help the communities that are stakeholders in this. I am talking about energy east, of course, and northern gateway is another one that is affected. This might enable communities to look at this from another angle.

We should not necessarily expect the government to have carte blanche when it comes to getting its projects approved by the communities. It can take a positive approach, or a relatively positive one in this case, but communities have still expressed a lot of concerns. I am not talking just about municipalities; I am talking about aboriginal communities too. For example, in the case of northern gateway, Kitimat could be severely affected if there is a disaster, and that has been brought up a number of times. The government seems unable to reassure that community. The government should have a responsibility to intervene directly in talks about pipelines with first nations; that should not be left up to the company. The government, which has a responsibility toward first nations, should be able to get involved in these matters.

It refuses to do so. As a result, these projects have no social licence. Ultimately, not only is the government doing nothing to increase safety standards, but according to most experts, it is also limiting consultation periods as well as the effectiveness of the environmental assessment process. It has sped up the process to supersonic speeds. I am using that language because, in the case of the energy east project, the National Energy Board has only 15 months. In fact, the deadline for intervening or even commenting on the energy east project in Quebec is March 3, which is next week. The problem is that TransCanada, which of course is the company behind the energy east project, has not yet even decided if there will be an oil port in Cacouna. Rumour has it that the route could change significantly. Apparently, Cacouna could be replaced by Baie-des-Sables, Bécancour or Lévis, for example. It is not clear if plans have been finalized, but the board seems to think that it has to act immediately because of the extremely tight deadlines that were imposed by the federal government's legislation.

The same thing goes for the issue of environmental assessment, given that there used to be separate processes. The National Energy Board dealt with the pipeline itself while environmental issues went through a separate process. To address some of the shortcomings, the government obviously could have changed the two processes to try to increase their effectiveness. However, in the end, by merging the processes and handing responsibility over to the National Energy Board, the government did not do the industry any favours, quite the contrary. These days, there is a lot more resistance to these projects, precisely because the process seems extremely inadequate for people who want to intervene and for those who are affected and worried and are feeling dismayed about how quickly everything is moving. In the case of energy east, we are talking about a major project involving 1.1 million barrels that the board has to handle in 15 months.

We are talking about the polluter pays principle, the federal government's responsibility, and the principle whereby the federal government should ensure the best provisions for the industry. These provisions are not just intended to make shipping and economic expansion easier. The government also has a responsibility to ensure that the economic, regulatory, and legislative conditions governing the oil and gas industry are stable enough to ensure long-term consistency. The companies and industry need to know that their economic environment is secured for the long term. At present, given how the government operates and the changes that were made, the companies are right to question the merits of the government's policies.

In the case of Bill C-46, the measures are a step forward in pipeline safety. That is why we support the bill. However, there is still some uncertainty when it comes to ensuring that natural resource development, which is important to Canada's economy, could grow responsibly and sustainably, as we gradually transition Canada's economy to one that is based more on renewable energy, of course.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill mainly tackles the problem of the polluter pays principle, but not other matters. I am worried about that. We are going to support the bill so we can discuss it.

Today in Le Devoir, there is an article about the municipal revolt against energy east:

At least 75 cities have voiced concerns about the TransCanada pipeline....The mayor of Mascouche...is not mincing words...“We do not want this project. That is clear.”

Canadians are worried about protecting many people's wells and also about protecting the environment. I hope that this flaw in the bill will be corrected. Communities must be consulted and mobilized in a significant way. If oil companies really want to obtain public approval, Canadians must have the assurance that these projects are sustainable and that approval processes are open and fair.

How can we harness these resources in a sustainable manner while protecting the environment and fostering the creation of value-added jobs in Canada? I would like my colleague to elaborate on this because it is not really addressed by the bill.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Honoré-Mercier for her question. The issue of social licence is important. Projects such as energy east would have no social licence without any real consultation. TransCanada and the National Energy Board held consultations and set up booths in the various municipalities and communities that are affected. However, they must do more. There must be real dialogue with the municipalities and communities, which have the impression that TransCanada and the National Energy Board are just trying to convince them.

Take for example, the liquefied natural gas or LNG industry, which still has it merits. A company that I will not name wanted to set up an LNG tank, following one of the three diagrams prepared by the engineers. When these three options were proposed to the public, people identified weaknesses in the two options that were the cheapest for the company. The third option did not seem to present any problems. The company therefore submitted the third project, even though it was more expensive, and set up the reservoir.

This community therefore had its say before the project was carried out. These people did not feel as though the company was trying to convince them to accept the least expensive option. Accordingly, social licence was easier to obtain. This bill also makes it easier to obtain social licence because it responds to some of the concerns that municipalities and communities have about the responsibility of companies. However, it does not address all of their concerns.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the importance of our national pipelines is incredible in the sense that Canada has been blessed with natural resources, whether it is the oil sands or natural gas. However, to get products to market, we do not have very much in terms of options. It is either pipeline development, if we are going to be expanding, or rail. I think most Canadians would rather see it go through pipelines, which is something the Liberal Party of Canada would also like to see.

The member has already made reference to this, but I would like to reinforce it. It is important, as we look toward potential growth and the delivery of these commodities, that we have consultations with the public as a whole, particularly first nations and other communities, to get what is often referred to as a social licence to proceed.

Could the member comment on how critically important it is that we get that social contract?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question. It is a very important one.

The concept of social licence is fundamental to the first nations, which are involved in these processes, but often not as a partner. More often than not, they are pressured on the projects, whether it is political pressure or pressure from the companies.

As I mentioned in my speech, I also agree that the oil and gas industry is hugely important to Canada's economy. This is evident not only in the west but also all across Canada. I was pleased to see that the bill included the two primary means of transportation: pipelines and rail transportation. In both cases we need regulations to keep everyone safe and to hold the companies involved accountable, whether we are talking about pipeline operators or, in the case of rail transportation, rail operators.

We know that the government introduced another bill to make companies more accountable. We will study its merits, as we are currently studying the merits of the provisions to increase the accountability of pipeline operators. We will also study the merits of the provisions for the environment and for landowners who could be affected by a spill and who have concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canada has a world-class pipeline safety system. In many respects, no other country in the world has legislation that is as comprehensive. For example, while the United States and the United Kingdom have similar legislation in place, the $1-billion minimum financial capacity and absolute liability limit are unique to Canada.

Alongside these measures, Canada's pipeline safety system already transports 99.999% of product safely, as was mentioned earlier. With this in mind, I would ask if the member opposite supports what can fairly be described as the best pipeline safety system in the world.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources for her question. We have both served on the committee together.

I would not necessarily use such laudatory and glorious language. Nevertheless, we will support the bill at second reading because it really is a good step forward. However, nobody should make the mistake of thinking that this is a pure and complete application of the polluter pays principle.

The reason is that if there is an absolute liability of $1 billion without having to prove fault or negligence on the part of the company, and if the disaster or catastrophe costs more than $1 billion, taxpayers—the government—could be affected and forced to pay part of the cost. According to the polluter pays principle, those costs should be covered by the company, which must take every precaution to minimize the risk of a disaster. Even though this is a positive step in that direction, it is not a complete application of the polluter pays principle.

When it comes to statistics, I do not necessarily want to talk about the ones that the government likes to bring up. However, other studies indicated that in the case of TransCanada and energy east, the company would be unable to locate leaks amounting to less than 1.5% of the flow. Now, 1.5% can add up to millions of litres along the length of the pipeline, so that is a huge amount of oil that could cause significant damage and affect individuals.

I do not necessarily want to get into statistics, but it is important to look at this kind of study, respond to it, and determine whether the statistics are wrong. If the study is correct, then we need to be able to address that concern. That would improve and optimize the safety of the pipelines we are talking about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak today on the government's new pipeline safety act. I will be splitting my time with the new member for Whitby—Oshawa.

During this debate, all members have reminded us of the great importance of Canada's energy infrastructure. We heard how Canada's pipeline network functions as a vital energy highway, delivering oil and natural gas to our homes, our businesses and industry, and supplying energy to all forms of transportation. While the New Democrats would prefer to deny this fact, it is clear that we all benefit daily from the energy that Canada's pipelines carry. We rarely think about this key infrastructure because, quite frankly, there is rarely a problem with it because it is so safe.

Canada has a vast network of federally regulated pipelines—in fact, over 73,000 kilometres. Those are just the federally regulated pipelines across this great country. In addition, 70 pipelines deliver oil and natural gas across the Canada–U.S. border every day safely and reliably.

In 2013, Canada and the United States' energy trade was the largest in the world, at some $140 billion that year. That is far more than total trade between any other two nations on earth. Today, historic volumes of Canadian energy are being supplied to the United States. In fact, Canada and the United States have dramatically reduced their oil imports from offshore. I think most of us in the House would agree that that is a good thing. At the same time, oil imports from each other are at record highs, contributing to greater North American energy security and economic growth in both countries.

As large as Canada's pipeline network is, the United States' pipeline system is even larger. According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are over 2.6 million miles of pipelines in America moving oil and natural gas throughout the United States. The American pipeline network is more than 50 times the length of the United States interstate highway system, which really makes the point that it is a tremendously huge system and a very safe one as well. Again, since pipelines have proven to be the most efficient, safest, reliable, and energy-efficient way to transport oil and gas, we rarely think about these energy highways and the fact that they link most communities throughout North America.

When it comes to pipeline safety, Canada's record is outstanding. Our pipelines are among the safest in the world. Between 2008 and 2013, 99.999% of the oil and products shipped by federally regulated pipelines arrived safely. Canadians can and should be proud of that record. Instead, I hear criticism and doubt from the members, particularly the NDP across the aisle. We have seen the conversion on the road to Damascus, as it were, of the Liberal members opposite. I am happy to see that they have got on board, after seeing that it is something they absolutely have to support.

Moving that same amount of oil by road or rail would require 15,000 tanker trucks or 4,200 rail cars every day, and would consume more energy and cause higher greenhouse gas emissions. The choice to move these products by pipeline is clearly the right one. There is no doubt about that, and I honestly do not think anyone in the House would deny that truth.

When it comes to safety, Canadians demand and deserve the very best. We want our communities to be safe, and we want the environment to be protected. That is why the pipeline safety act is so important. In short, we understand that public safety and environmental protection are necessary conditions for energy development. The pipeline safety act is one more way in which we could continue to build public confidence in our 73,000 kilometres of pipelines.

Bill C-46 would build upon Canada's already impressive pipeline safety record by focusing upon three key areas: prevention, preparedness and response, liability and compensation.

Bill C-46 would include preventive measures that would clarify the rules and responsibilities of pipeline owners to prevent pipeline incidents, increase safety for Canadians, and provide better environmental protection.

The bill would require companies operating major oil pipelines to have $1 billion in financial resources at their disposal, with sufficient resources always on hand to ensure an immediate and effective response.

We would enshrine the polluter pays principle in law so that polluters, not Canadian taxpayers, would be held financially responsible for the costs of damages that any incident might cause.

We would introduce absolute or no-fault liability so pipeline operators would be held responsible, even when fault or negligence has not been proven. That is an important point that I think has been somewhat missed, even though we have had quite a bit of debate on the legislation.

For companies operating major oil pipelines, the amount for absolute liability would be set at $1 billion.

Of course, our first priority is to prevent spills from happening in the first place. That is why we are proposing amendments to the National Energy Board Act that would build upon other recent improvements our government has implemented. These include increasing the number of inspections and audits conducted each year and giving the National Energy Board the authority to levy monetary penalties.

As well, we would ask the NEB to provide guidance on the use of the best available technologies in pipeline projects. This would include materials, construction methods, and emergency response techniques. As a result, the National Energy Board, one of the most respected energy oversight bodies in the world, would be involved in all stages, including new construction of pipelines.

We are proud of Canada's safety record with pipelines, but we have no intention of resting upon our laurels. There is no room for complacency when it comes to the safety of Canadians or the safety of our environment. Bill C-46 would reflect our government's commitment to doing even better, in spite of the fact that the record of pipeline companies is already impeccable.

We also understand the importance of consulting with Canadians, including with aboriginal peoples who are often living closest to where our natural resources are found. That is why, beyond this new legislation, our government is also taking an inclusive approach to safety and resource development. We are deeply committed to working directly with aboriginal peoples throughout Canada, in all aspects of pipeline safety operations, including planning, monitoring, incident response, and related employment and business opportunities.

The Government of Canada has a constitutional duty to consult with aboriginal communities whose aboriginal and treaty rights may be adversely affected by a proposed project, and we are doing that. We believe that aboriginal peoples must be partners in everything we do, from ensuring the safety of our pipeline system, to protecting our marine environment from incidents, to sharing in the benefits of developing our resources. That is why our government is determined to forge ahead with a strong and lasting partnership with aboriginal peoples in the responsible development of our resources and our pipeline safety system.

We have seen the NDP continuously vote down all of our increased pipeline safety measures, and Canadians know they simply cannot rely upon the NDP to prioritize their safety or the environment. Canadians can trust our government. With Bill C-46, we would be making Canada's world-class pipeline safety system even safer.

I urge all hon. members, from both sides of the House, to support the truly effective proposals put forth by this legislation. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate on the bill.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

I wonder whether he could provide more details about a measure I would have liked to see in the bill. I am not sure if it is there, which is why I am asking him.

One of the big concerns in Sherbrooke is the fact that when a company is responsible for an oil spill, or a spill involving some other product that is harmful to the environment, the company usually goes bankrupt. It no longer has any resources and can therefore dodge its environmental responsibilities. In the end, taxpayers are the ones who end up covering the cost of repairing the damage.

Does the bill contain any measures for situations where companies can shirk their obligations following an unfortunate spill, no matter where in Canada it occurs?

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to major pipeline spills, the average cost of the cleanup is between $5 million and $20 million for major spills. For smaller spills, it is much less.

The bill proposes $1 billion in absolute liability where no fault would have to be proven, and companies would have to have the resources available to cover the cost of the cleanup to that extent. Further, if it turned out that they were found liable and the costs were somehow above $1 billion, which is hard to understand when it is now between $5 million and $20 million for major spill cleanups, those companies would still be responsible for the full cost of the cleanup.

It is in the bill; it is clear and it is substantial. Many would argue that the government may be going a little too far with this. I have heard that concern. We will certainly have to be conscious of the smaller companies when it comes to the $1 billion absolute liability, but I do believe that it would be taken care of.

The member does not have anything to worry about when it comes to companies covering the cost.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We worked together previously in the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

I have a question that relates to this bill and the whole question of pipeline safety, because it is impossible to distinguish pipeline safety from the transportation of oil by rail. As the member knows, as chair of the natural resources committee, on present courses, if all of the pipelines that we are contemplating building are built—one to the west, one to the south, which appears to be on permanent hold, and one to the east—in nine years from now, based on the plans to continue exploiting fossil fuels from our oil sands, we will have 1 million barrels a day in excess oil capacity that will not be transported by pipeline.

Can the member help us understand how the government sees this question of pipeline safety and this incredible risk of longer trains carrying many more cars with oil? We saw what happened at Lac-Mégantic. We saw another explosion last week in the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. He served with me on the natural resources committee for a number of years. I know that he has looked at this issue before.

I really have a lot more confidence in our oil companies than believing they are going to produce excess capacity. Maybe the member meant excess capacity beyond what these three new pipelines would carry. I see now from him that that is what he was indicating. If that is the case, companies will build another pipeline. That is what happens. They are not going to produce substantially more than what they can move, and all companies would prefer to move most of their oil by pipeline.

I have a lot of confidence in the oil companies working with the pipeline companies, as long as we can start getting these pipelines built. There have been a lot of roadblocks thrown in the way that have caused undue delay. I would suggest that the balance will be there, and Canada will continue to grow its economy based on natural resources as one of the major building blocks, including the oil and gas sector.

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-46 is a piece of legislation with many compelling reasons to support it. First and foremost, the legislation would raise the bar even higher on Canada's already stellar pipeline safety record. Given the 99.999% safety record federally regulated pipelines have, we know that pipelines are a safe and efficient way to transport energy. However, as close as this track record is to perfection, we know that Canadians expect us to improve on this record even further. Our goal is simple: no spills. That is precisely what this legislation is about.

As the Minister of Natural Resources made abundantly clear, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada has a world-class safety regulatory system for pipelines. He left no doubt that there will be no development unless rigorous environmental and regulatory reviews indicate that they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment, because public health and environmental performance are non-negotiable.

The pipeline safety act is a solid illustration of responsible resource development in action. It would strengthen environmental protection and would create new jobs at home while providing energy security for our international trading partners abroad. The legislation is just the latest concrete action in this commitment.

The bill builds on previous pipeline safety measures our government has implemented. These have given the National Energy Board new authority to levy administrative monetary penalties and to increase the number of board inspections and audits.

I know that Canadians can count on our government to take action. Our pipeline safety act would go even further, strengthening incident prevention, preparedness, response, liability, and compensation. The legislation would give the National Energy Board even greater powers to hold the pipeline industry to account and would ensure that the sector would pay a hefty price if it let environmental standards slip.

These measures alone are reason enough to support the bill, yet there is another equally critical factor to consider: our time-limited opportunity to ensure that Canada's energy sector will continue to succeed, creating future prosperity for all Canadians.

As we know, Canada has the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world and is the fifth-largest producer of natural gas. These valuable resources are already a major economic driver in our country. The oil and gas sector accounts for over 190,000 direct jobs and nearly 7.5% of Canada's gross domestic product. Canada sold $117 billion in energy products to the world in 2013. This represents over a quarter of our total merchandise exports. That money makes its way into the pockets of all Canadians, whether directly, through business activity and jobs, or indirectly, through the benefits of resource sector royalties.

On average, for the past five years governments at all levels collectively received about $23.3 billion annually from the oil and gas sector. That is equivalent to the amount spent educating 1.6 million Canadian children in the public school sector or what governments would be spending on health care for nearly five million Canadians. This figure is just a fraction of what it could be. Hundreds of major resource projects worth more than $675 billion are under way or could come on stream over the next decade. This is truly a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

The Canadian Energy Research Institute says that over the next 25 years, the total value of the goods, services, and jobs generated by the oil sands alone could reach $2 trillion. That works out to $85 billion a year, and I have only talked about oil thus far.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, between 2012 and 2035, the natural gas industry could invest over $386 billion in Canada. Close to half of that, $181 billion, would be destined for British Columbia.

Of course, none of this will happen without adequate infrastructure to move our energy products to coastal ports in world markets. Without pipelines, Canadian oil and gas will continue to be stranded. In fact, we are already paying a price for the lack of pipelines. Discounted oil prices led to an estimated loss of $13.3 billion in revenues to Canadian producers in the year 2012.

We need new pipelines to reach new and different markets than what we have traditionally relied upon in the past. At the moment, virtually all Canadian exports of oil and gas are headed south to the United States. Canada will continue to be a key supplier to our American neighbours, but shifting global demand and supply conditions make it imperative that we broaden our customer base. Fortunately for us, there are enormous and fast-growing replacement markets we can tap into if we make our energy supplies available to them.

The International Energy Agency predicts that demand for energy will increase by one-third over the next 25 years. Two countries, China and India, will account for nearly half the increase. Some may suggest that renewable and alternative sources of energy negate the need for oil and gas. However, the International Energy Agency says that even with the progress being made in this area, it will not be enough to meet the demand, and that by 2035, three-quarters of the global energy demand is expected to be met by fossil fuels.

Canada can seize this historic opportunity to create high-quality jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians. The conditions are ideal for us to do so. Beyond our energy prowess, Canada has other important advantages that support the responsible development of our energy resources and associated infrastructure. For instance, Canada is one of the best countries in the world in which to invest. Canada placed second in Bloomberg's recent world ranking of business-friendly nations, and KPMG has concluded that Canada's total business costs are the lowest in the G7. They are more than 40% lower than the United States.

To capitalize on these strengths, our government has launched an ambitious free trade agenda. Free trade deals have been reached with 10 countries. They include Canada's most comprehensive trade agreement to date, which is with the European Union. The European Union represents a market of 500 million people and annual economic activity of $18 trillion. It is the largest marketplace in the world.

More recently, Canada has concluded a free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea, the fourth-largest economy in Asia. This landmark achievement will provide access for Canadian businesses to a population of 50 million people.

We have the perfect mix of growing global energy demand, growing Canadian energy supplies, and an economic environment conducive to increasing energy trade around the world. All can work to Canada's benefit.

The pipeline safety enhancements proposed in this new legislation to strengthen incident prevention, preparedness and response, and liability and compensation will help prepare Canada for these new economic opportunities. This legislation clearly demonstrates our government's commitment to public safety, environmental protection, and meaningful engagement with aboriginal people. By emphasizing prevention, responding quickly in the event of an incident, and making sure that companies, not Canadians, are liable for any costs, the act would ensure that we maintain a truly world-class safety system.

For all these sound reasons, I urge all parties to support this worthy and necessary legislation. The time to act is now.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-46 takes a long overdue first step toward a true polluter pays regime for pipelines in Canada, which has always been an element of the NDP's plan to grow the economy while also protecting the environment. I think this is a positive first step.

Presently in Canada some of the pipeline proposals are to export raw bitumen, which is not only a substance that will float to the bottom of the ocean and that cannot really be contained but is a substance that represents the export of jobs. That bitumen could remain in Canada and be processed here, creating all sorts of good, high-paying jobs for Canadians. I am wondering if the member has an opinion as to whether Canada should be seeking to try to process bitumen in Canada.

My second question is on climate change. Does she have any concerns that increasing our exports of fossil fuels will contribute to global carbon emissions, leading to climate change, and does she have some ideas on how we should be dealing with that?

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to raw bitumen and the export of jobs, this is actually about the pipeline and moving material. What we are doing is ensuring the safety of the mobility of the goods. Pipelines have proven over the years to be the safest way to move oil and gas. We have a 99.999% safety record. We are ensuring that we continue that safety and the environmental responsibility attached to that. We do not want it to injure people or our environment. Certainly we have proven that we have put the resources behind it to do that.

In terms of climate change and what might happen in the global economy, I am not entirely sure what the regulations are in various countries throughout the world and what they might do. On exporting it to those countries, I am sorry, but I cannot answer the question as to whether that would have an effect on climate change, but I would advocate that we try to mitigate that as much as possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Canadians want to see strong legislation that will provide a sense of security and safety related to our pipelines, whether it is the ones currently in place or future pipelines. To that degree, we have been supportive of the legislation the government has brought forward and see it as a step forward in this whole process.

One of the concerns the leader of the Liberal Party expressed yesterday in question period was the opportunities that have potentially been lost, and I should not use the word “potentially”, because of the government's inability to work with industry, with U.S. law-makers, and in particular, with President Obama in regard to the Keystone XL pipeline. The government talks about the benefits of the pipelines and what they prevent in terms of rail traffic and traffic on our roads and so forth. When it comes to the expansion of the pipelines, the government has not done that well.

Could the member explain why she believes that the government has not been able to take more tangible action with regard to the Keystone XL pipeline?

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issues south of the border are complex, and it is certainly a political situation. President Obama is dealing with issues in his country the way he feels is necessary.

We are offering some of the best opportunities in pipeline safety. This is something I believe will be a growing opportunity for Canadians, because we have great liability and compensation plans in place, preparedness and response and prevention plans we have put in place, and increased inspections. All the things we are putting in place will alleviate the fears and concerns people will have.

Opportunities are going to present themselves. Things do not happen overnight. Certainly they are being worked on.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Victoria.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act.

I will begin by stating that Canada's natural resources are a tremendous asset and the energy sector is a critical component of our economy. From oil, gas, trees, fish to mining, the New Democrats recognize the vital role that natural resources play in the Canadian economy.

However, unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals, the NDP has presented a clear vision which leverages our natural capital to create wealth and prosperity, while maintaining a high level of social, cultural and environmental integrity. The New Democrat vision for resource extraction focuses on three key principles of sustainable development.

The first principle is environmental integrity. It requires us to ensure that polluters pay for environmental impacts they create instead of passing those costs on to future generations.

The second principle is partnerships. It requires that government ensure that communities, provinces, territories and first nations benefit from resource development and that we create value-added middle class jobs right here in Canada.

The final principle is long-term prosperity. It focuses on leveraging Canada's natural wealth to invest in modern, clean energy technology that will keep Canada on the cutting edge of energy development and ensure affordable rates into the future.

For far too long, Canadians have been told that they have to choose between the economy and our environment. That is a false choice. It is an approach that is stuck in the past. In articulating our balanced approach, the New Democrats believe that our natural resources must be developed sustainably. Polluters must pay for the damage they cause. This is common sense and is fair.

While natural resources are undoubtedly a central component of the Canadian economy, only Canada's New Democrats recognize the need to move away from our overreliance on fossil fuels and have a vision for development that promotes economic prosperity and job creation that goes hand-in-hand with social, economic and environmental responsibility.

For most residents of B.C.'s Lower Mainland, like those in my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam and Port Moody, having government approach natural resource development through a collaborative approach, with the principles of sustainability at its core, is a necessary precondition for their support of resource projects.

While the Liberals and the Conservatives have been happy to rubberstamp pipeline projects, the New Democrats believe that major resource projects must be judged on their merits. That means projects must be subjected to a rigorous and robust environmental assessment process. Assessment criteria must include an impact assessment of our emissions and climate change impacts on Canadian jobs and on national and regional energy security.

Public consultations must be credible and democratic, not shallow, limited or paper-based. Projects must honour the legal obligations of our duty to consult first nations. Clearly, such rigour has been absent in the review of the northern gateway and Kinder Morgan proposals in British Columbia, and the same flawed process is now being applied to the energy east pipeline.

Despite the divisive pipeline politics that the Conservative government has created, Bill C-46 is a much needed and long overdue first step toward a polluter pays regime for pipelines in Canada. Although the bill can be seen more as an initial step than a giant leap forward, the fact that polluters will be absolutely liable for harm caused by a pipeline spill is a step in the right direction.

Once passed, Bill C-46 will ensure 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. For companies whose pipelines have the capacity to move at least 250,000 barrels per day, that limit will be up to $1 billion. That monetary amount can be increased by the government in the future, but the bill would prohibit cabinet from lowering it. That too is a good thing.

Despite the purported goal of implementing the polluter pays principle, Canadians may still be at risk as the limit in Bill C-46 places a liability of $1 billion when there is no proof of fault or negligence. This means that taxpayers may still be on the hook for oil spills costing more than that.

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 cost of an accident, such as the Enbridge 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, and still damages remain today.

While not a pipeline spill, I think of my home province of British Columbia and the disastrous Mount Polley mine spill that happened last August as an example of how a breach of a tailings pond can have a major environmental consequence, which may not be immediately apparent. With Mount Polley, which many say is the worst environmental disaster in British Columbia's history, the extent of the damage is predicted to remain unknown for years, even decades, as toxins can slowly accumulate in the environment, from lake bottom, to fish and wildlife, to people. This underscores that the $1 billion threshold might not be high enough, given the ambiguous cleanup times often associated with these types of disasters.

Finally, Bill C-46 would actually take 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 liability, the government, and therefore Canadian taxpayers, may still be on the hook for oil spills. This is just plain wrong and highly unfair.

If the government is so convinced that pipelines operate within a mature industry, then the industry is one that can and must pay for itself. Instead, the fact that the bill would not completely enshrine the polluter pays principle, means Conservatives are giving yet another handout to their friends in the oil patch by making taxpayers liable for oil spill risks.

I support imposing liability for oil spills on pipeline operators. However, ultimately, it remains imperative that we prevent oil spills from happening in the first place instead of concentrating solely on who is responsible for the cleanup.

To that end, we need better regulation and oversight. The New Democrats are committed to rebuilding a robust environmental assessment process to undo the damage done by the Conservative government.

The New Democrats understand the need to move away from our overreliance on fossil fuels and have a vision for development that promotes economic prosperity and job creation, hand in hand with social and environmental responsibility. However, until modern society can curb its dependence on fossil fuels, ensuring the utmost precautions are in place to prevent environmental degradation caused by spills, including imposing a financial liability on the operators of these pipelines, is vital.

As we have witnessed, a failure to properly regulate the natural resource sector can have a disastrous consequence for natural habitats and the environment in which we live. I will relay the impact of a spill that happened in a neighbouring community of mine.

Kinder Morgan was ordered by the courts to pay a mere $150,000 for a 224,000 litre spill of albian heavy synthetic crude oil into Burnaby's Westridge neighbourhood and Burrard Inlet, which my riding is connected to and shares. Nearly 78,000 litres poured into Burrard Inlet, impacting 1,700 kilometres of shoreline. Following that spill, Kinder Morgan spent almost $15 million in remediation costs and millions more for personal property damage. Imagine this pipeline twinned and the amount of tanker traffic in the Inlet doubling or tripling.

Residents along this pipeline are hugely concerned about an oil spill that would impact their property, neighbourhood, community and, indeed, the surrounding environment. Many people are concerned, and we need to address these issues. As I said, the bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that the New Democrats are being fully transparent on the issue of their positioning with respect to pipelines. When we listen to members speak to it, they give the impression that pipelines and the potential building of pipelines to meet market demands, not only for today but going into the future, is a bad thing, that we should not be building or adding to the 70,000-plus kilometres of pipeline infrastructure we currently have.

My question for the member is related to what he truly believes. Does he recognize the potential of getting more resources out of the ground for export purpose, for local consumption in Canada? If so, that would require either additional pipelines, increased train traffic or semis on our highways. Which one does he prefer?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little rich that my hon. colleague feels our position is not solid when the Liberal position is all over the map. That is the issue. If we look at the record, it is much closer to the Conservative approach than the New Democrat approach.

The New Democrats feel we need to have proper liability costs. We need to move to a value-added system where we increase refining in our country. If we take oil out of the ground, we must get the most value out of that by ensuring as many good-paying jobs are created from it. We also need to look at a transition to renewable clean energy future. Canadians are looking for that. They are calling for it around the world.

A critical piece my colleague is overlooking is the social licence that is needed from communities in which we are proposing resource projects, whether it is communities in cities or in rural areas and first nation communities.

Both those parties have not taken seriously the importance of having to work with communities, provinces, first nations and individuals.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on an excellent speech and for the fine work he does on behalf of a balanced and intelligent energy and environment policy in our country.

My question is one that I asked my Conservative colleague a few moments ago, and that is about the relationship between pipelines and climate change.

Conservatives, to their shame, pulled Canada out of the Kyoto accord. Liberal Party Eddie Goldenberg, the former assistant to the Liberal prime minister said that the Liberals never had any intention of every implementing Kyoto. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions rose under Liberal administration.

If we are to increase pipelines in the country, if we are to move resources, what are Canada's obligations or the proper policy course for us in order to play a responsible role on the world stage in dealing with climate change?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know how much work my hon. colleague does in his riding of Vancouver Kingsway.

It is a good question and it is an important one. It is an often overlooked question, especially from the government, dealing with climate change, which some would argue—certainly our youth would argue—is the most pressing challenge of our time.

My colleague mentioned that the government had pulled out of the Kyoto accord. Many Canadians are just flabbergasted, to be honest. They cannot believe a government would show not only a lack of leadership, but would pull us out of a world agreement.

The New Democrats believe we should go forward and tackle this tough problem. We had the climate change accountability act. It went through all the stages of the lower House and unfortunately was killed by the upper house, the unelected, unaccountable Senate when it called a surprise vote to kill it. Unfortunately, it would have been the only national bill on climate change.

This is an important element that must be linked to any kind of resources extraction or pipeline proposals. We must accommodate for how we reduce the carbon in our atmosphere.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise, and I wish to salute my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam for his excellent speech just now. I wish to avoid repeating some of the fine points he made, but I need to say a couple of things at the outset.

First, this false dichotomy of environment versus the economy, as he explained so eloquently, is simply a relic of the past. It is another example of the Conservatives' effort to divide Canadians, as they have done so effectively using terror as a wedge. They do this on the environment all the time as well. The rhetoric of the $20 billion carbon tax comes to mind, to their everlasting shame. However, that need not be the case at all in a bill like this.

Second, I want to congratulate the government for finally moving forward with something to deal with pipeline liability. It is long overdue. It is something that has been so long called for that the Conservatives have finally woken up and done the right thing.

I wish to say at the outset that I am going to talk about three things in the bill that bear repetition.

The first thing is the enormous amount of discretion given to the cabinet and to the National Energy Board. It looks great to say we are enabling a whole bunch of things to be done. The legal reality on the ground, of course, is very different. It is only if the regulator chooses to go ahead that anything meaningful will happen. I just hope Canadians are not deluded into thinking that somehow things are going to change. They may change—it is an excellent first step—but only if regulators choose to exercise the discretion that has been given to them in the bill so frequently, as I will say. That is what this bill is about.

The second thing that needs to be said is that environmental legislation and liability legislation ultimately have to do with whether there is enforcement. To use a Shakespearean metaphor:

...full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
That is unless and until the bureaucrats make the rules that would be enabled in this bill. Again, it is an enabling statute. If those rules that are made, once made, are not enforced because there are deals between the companies and the regulators and the like, so what? That reality needs to be put front and centre as we debate this enabling legislation.

I also wish to speak about orphan pipelines. I think that bears some discussion. First, this is an effort, no doubt, to increase the public's confidence in the regulation of our pipelines. A recent Harris/Decima poll conducted by the government pointed out that only 27% of Canadians are confident that the Government of Canada is able to respond effectively to a significant oil spill on water; a few more, 32%, think it can do better with oil spills on land. Canadians do not feel confident that pipelines, tankers, and trains that are transporting dangerous goods will do so safely. That is what the polling suggests. When it comes to rail transport, only 29% of Canadians feel confident that it is safe, and only 37% of Canadians believe oil tanker transport is safe; yet 47%, almost half, are confident pipelines can be made to transport oil safely. I say that because we need to talk about the enormous amount of diluted bitumen that is being moved through our waters, across our land on trains, and in pipelines. If Canadians have little or no confidence in those measures, then of course we need to work on that. To the government's credit, this bill is some effort to do so, if anything is effectively done with the powers that would be given.

I wish to say at the outset that this is indeed a good first step, and should therefore be taken in that context.

When the minister was speaking to this bill at first reading, he talked about how the bill would stipulate that companies have a legal obligation to respond to requests that the National Energy Board may make in relation to audits. It is passing strange that companies do not have to do so now, I gather. That is rather disturbing.

It says that the National Energy Board would strive to align federal and provincial pipeline safety zones. That is not good enough. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is an excellent example of co-operative federalism where, for dangerous goods that are moving by trucks or other ways, we have a federal set of regulations inches thick that are incorporated by reference in each of the provinces. We have a one-size-fits-all, coast-to-coast approach for the transportation of dangerous goods. For the minister to say we would strive to align pipeline standards surely is not sufficient.

Speaking of things that are not sufficient, the thing that concerns me the most is this notion of companies remaining responsible for abandoned pipelines in perpetuity. I have some experience with that. After a company has abandoned a pipeline, is long gone, and has had an amalgamation or transfer of ownership, in what practical way is the National Energy Board going to be able to make it continue to be responsible for that abandoned asset?

Some people will be aware of the Britannia Beach mine in British Columbia as they go up to Whistler. It was a copper mine during the First World War. It was a multi-billion dollar liability. There was acid rock drainage seeping into Howe Sound. When the companies were finally hit with a cleanup order by the province under the Environmental Management Act, they had to go back and do forensic accounting to try to find out who the successors in title were to the ancient companies that were the owners of the assets of the mine over time. It took a lot of time and money. Ultimately, they were found.

The problem is that it is very difficult to go after people. To blithely say that there is liability for abandoned pipelines in perpetuity needs more than just mere words. It is a very complicated matter to seek liability.

I said I would be positive about the bill, and I wish to say that the idea of unlimited liability in certain circumstances is an excellent idea. Absolute liability for up to $1 billion, regardless of fault, is an excellent idea. However, what happens after $1 billion? I suppose then that negligence has to be proven in a court of law.

To people listening, $1 billion might sound like an enormous figure, but that is only until we put it into context and understand it. Simply, the Kalamazoo spill in Michigan has already cost $1.2 billion for the cleanup, let alone liability to others. Enbridge owned that pipeline. It wants to bring us another pipeline in our province, called the northern gateway pipeline.

That sum of $1 billion sounds like a lot, and I congratulate the government for the notion of absolute liability, but in context, it may not be adequate. After that, one would have to prove negligence in a court of law. Sometimes, fault and negligence are not easy things to establish.

Another thing in the bill that I think is an excellent idea, and I congratulate the government for it, is providing the government with the ability to recover costs associated with so-called non-use value environmental damages. There is no guidance on what that means, but the Supreme Court of Canada has contemplated that damages to the environment itself and the cost to the environment is worthy of cleanup. That is excellent to find in a Canadian statute, and I congratulate the drafters for putting it in. In the future, I hope that courts will pour meaning into what “environmental damages” might mean.

As I mentioned, the problem with section 48 of the National Energy Board Act as amended for abandoned pipelines is of concern. The NEB would be given the power to take necessary measures when a company does not comply with a particular cleanup order, but only given this power with respect to abandonment and abandoned pipelines. It does not relate to operating pipelines. It is not clear. I suppose in committee we could understand, if the government is open to amendments, whether that could be clarified. I say “open to amendments”, because in my experience, the Conservative government is rarely, if ever, open to amendments, unless they come from its side of the aisle.

The bill is a comprehensive bill. I mentioned some of its deficiencies. I need to say, as I go back to where I started on public confidence, that it was way back in 2011 that the environmental commissioner pointed out that the National Energy Board was failing to fix a number of known problems and ensure that pipelines would be properly maintained. Here we are, and the Conservatives have still not implemented the regulations for proper oversight and inspection from four years ago. Action would be required.

To conclude, it is a nice first step. It is good to see that there are things there, all of which require discretion and enforcement. I hope that, when we get this bill to committee, we can make it better.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the public could be justifiably quite confused by what the NDP is putting forward here today, because what is false is that the member claimed the Conservatives are somehow setting up a false dichotomy between the economy and the environment. What is actually the case is that the Conservative Party is the only one in this House that has been consistently standing up for our environment and for our economy, and today's bill shows just that.

In fact, we have been moving forward with protecting lands the size of the entire country of Greece, at the same time as putting forward legislation, like the pipeline safety act, which would ensure that we have a very safe transportation method for some of our energy products.

I would like to ask the member opposite why the NDP continues to undermine public confidence in what is the safest pipeline system in the country, in the world. This is a fantastic pipeline system. Would the member opposite explain this to us? Does the NDP support what can fairly be described as the best pipeline safety system in the world?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure, but there were perhaps a dozen questions in there. The one I will start with is the one that dealt with the false dichotomy between the environment and the economy, asking me to comment on the wonderful things the current government has done about the environment.

I am standing here because I ran in a by-election, because people in my community are outraged by the current government's environmental record. The gutting of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the gutting of the Fisheries Act, the failure to consider first nations in environmental assessment in a meaningful way, and the Conservatives' abysmal record on climate change are only starters.

To suggest we should stand to salute the eradication of our environmental legislation is something I shall not do. I am embarrassed, in fact, to be a Canadian when I think about our environmental record.

Setting aside vast tracts of land in the Arctic does not constitute environmental management if we do not manage those parks, if we do not provide a budget for parks officers to actually do something with those lands.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, what I would like to do is emphasize the magnitude or the size of the infrastructure for which the federal government is responsible. We are talking about well in excess of 70,000 kilometres of pipeline. There is a responsibility we have as a national government to ensure that we provide a sense of security and safety around those pipelines and that there is a consequence, in certain situations, that the company that ultimately put that pipeline into place would be held accountable for mishaps that would take place.

The idea of the polluter pays principle is incorporated into the legislation. There are other aspects of the legislation that would move us forward.

I disagree with the Conservative member's assertion, in terms of the best in the world. I think our companies here in Canada strive to be the best in the world, in terms of providing that safety, but that is no thanks to the government. The government has not been providing leadership on that issue.

However, for the first time we do have this, and my question to the member is this. Would he not agree that having a polluter pays principle would force companies out there to give extra consideration to the importance of having safe and secure pipelines because, ultimately, they would have to pay for their mistakes?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental point that I think was being made is the importance of the polluter pays principle as a recognized concept in environmental legislation. I believe the bill would go some distance to achieve that.

However, again, I want to say, as other Liberal members have said in first reading debate, that really there is a lot about discretion that needs to be nailed down here. The government may; the NEB may; and if they do not, so what?

That is what I find so disturbing about legislation like this. It kind of hoodwinks the Canadian people, because what if there is no budget given to do anything? Would the polluter pay then? I do not think so.

It is full of sound and fury, but I hope signifying something.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

I was wondering whether the member thinks, as I do, that social licence is also extremely important in efforts to carry out huge energy projects like this one.

We are talking about new rules associated with transporting natural resources and the dangers this involves, but I wonder whether the member could also talk about the importance of social licence for these projects and the fact that we also need to take that into account.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the thoughtful question by my colleague from Sherbrooke. Social licence is really the order of the day on pipelines, tankers, and the like. It is really critical that they achieve it. I really believe companies can achieve it if they follow some important principles set out in the bill, such as polluter pay and internalization of their costs, working with the National Energy Board.

As the Leader of the Opposition has put it so effectively, sometimes the Conservative government gives companies a poisoned chalice. They get these great regulations that they need not necessarily comply with, and then they cannot build their pipelines because no one, certainly in my part of the world, wants anything to do with ones like the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline. They do not have social licence because the government has tried to jam them through without any public involvement.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.

I am delighted to speak today to the pipeline safety act. When it comes to energy supply, few countries can match Canada's enormous potential. We are the world's fifth-largest producer of oil, with the third-largest proven reserves; and we are the fifth-largest producer of natural gas, with natural gas resources estimated at up to 1,300 trillion cubic feet. Canada is indeed fortunate to have abundant oil and gas resources. However, as hon. members of the House know full well, to reach our full potential we need more than supply. We need the energy infrastructure necessary to reach new markets. Here is the problem in a nutshell.

While Canada's endowment of petroleum resources is immense, we have only one major export customer: the United States. In fact, nearly all of our oil and gas exports are to the United States. Meanwhile, here in Canada, production from the oil sands is forecast to continue to grow, apart from a temporary slowdown today, from about 1.9 million barrels per day in 2013 to more than 5 million barrels per day by 2035. These two factors—increasing Canadian production and declining American demand—mean that Canada must develop new markets and the infrastructure to reach them, including pipelines.

At the same time, global energy demand is projected to increase by 33% between 2011 and 2035. Massive new markets in Asia are fuelling new energy demands. Non-OECD countries are forecast to account for 93% of energy demand growth, with China and India alone consuming almost half of it. Canada can capably meet that need, as Canadian oil and gas production is expected to grow dramatically over the same period. However, again, without pipelines to move our products to tidewater to reach world markets, Canada's oil and gas will continue to be stranded, and the opportunity will be lost.

That is why it is critical for Canada to build new pipelines to the west, the south, and the east to open up new markets and ensure that Canada is getting top dollar for its energy resources. That is why pipeline safety is also so important.

We recognize that we cannot expand into foreign markets if we don't have the backing of the public. We understand that public safety and environmental protection are necessary conditions for energy development to proceed. Right now, despite what we hear from the other side of this House on a regular basis, Canada's pipelines are among the safest in the world. For example, between 2008 and 2013, 99.999% of oil transported on federally regulated pipelines arrived safely. In fact, the rate of spills on federally regulated pipelines in Canada was 60% lower than in both Europe and the United States over the past decade. Even given these impressive safety statistics, our government believes that it is not the time to be complacent, but rather it is the time for action. It is crucial to keep improving the technology and increasing our efforts to improve safety around pipelines.

We believe that expanding market access and protecting our environment can go hand in hand. Time and again, we have promised that no pipeline project will proceed unless it is safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. With this proposed legislation, we would build on our impressive safety record to make Canada's robust pipeline safety system even stronger.

Strengthening the safety of Canada's pipeline systems focuses on three key areas: prevention, preparedness and response, and liability and compensation.

When it comes to prevention, our goal is simple: to take action to reduce risks and prevent accidents from happening in the first place. This legislation would build on previous pipeline safety measures that increased the number of inspections and audits, and that gave the National Energy Board the authority to levy administrative monetary penalties.

For the first time, we will enshrine the polluter pays principle in law, so that polluters, not Canadian taxpayers, will be held financially responsible for the costs and damages they cause. Pipeline operators will be held responsible for incidents, irrespective of fault, and the National Energy Board will have the tools to take control of a response to an incident if a pipeline operator is unable or unwilling to do so. These costs will be recovered from industry to ensure that taxpayers are protected against any potential costs of cleanup.

We will also ensure that companies operating pipelines are responsible for them throughout their lifetime, from their construction until they are abandoned, including any related costs. To ensure full transparency, documents concerning pipeline safety will be available to the Canadian public.

We are also moving ahead with important measures that will enhance the participation of aboriginal peoples in the development and operation of pipeline safety systems. With the participation of aboriginal people and the commitment to world-class pipeline safety, Canada can harness the tremendous economic opportunities before us.

Ultimately, all of these measures are about the same thing: protecting Canadians and the environment. Emphasizing prevention, responding quickly in the event of an incident and making sure that companies, not Canadians, are liable for any costs, these measures are strengthening our pipeline safety system and making it world-class. This legislation will send a strong signal to the world that Canada is a safe and responsible supplier of energy resources, and that Canada is indeed open for business

Right now, the scale and pace of resources development in Canada remains truly remarkable. Hundreds of major natural resource projects are under construction or planned over the next ten years. This represents a total investment of as much as $675 billion. Over the next 25 years, responsible development of Canada's energy resources is expected to generate literally trillions of dollars in economic activity and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Huge markets in the Asia-Pacific region and in Europe are ripe for business. We must not let this opportunity pass us by. The bottom line is that opening new markets for our energy products will support our government's top priority, which is creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I largely agree with much of what the hon. member said, and I know he is shocked.

I have in my hand the parliamentary calendar. There are basically 12 sitting weeks, subject to the whims of the Prime Minister to call an election. Things do not move at lightning speed around here at the best of times and the chances of getting this into committee, out of committee and back to the House for debate, along with the budget, which may or may not be presented in April, and the rest of the stuff that goes on to get a bill out of here and into the Senate seems, to me, to be a lot of parliamentary time.

Does the hon. member think the bill will receive royal assent?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for those tempered supportive remarks.

For the legislative process, we depend on the good will and consideration of all parties in the House. As this bill goes to committee, we would hope we would not see the obstructive tactics that the NDP have taken on other very important legislation before the House.

As with all of our responsible resource development legislation over the life of this Parliament, we can count on all parties opposite to support these very significant improvements in the area of pipeline safety. After all, I do not think there is an individual in the House who would disagree with the fact that the transportation of petroleum products by pipeline is by far and away the safest way to transport this immensely valuable product.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying just how important pipelines, and the security and safety of them, are for all Canadians. We are very much dependent on them in getting our oil and natural gas to market, not only in Canada but outside of Canada. We are talking about billions of dollars.

My question for the member is with regard to the importance of having a social contract with the different stakeholders, something which the Prime Minister and his government have been unable to achieve. It is one of the reasons why we do not have the Keystone pipeline and other issues that are critically important to the industry.

Would the member provide some comment on why the government has been unable to assist the industry in further developing the need for pipeline expansion?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague for Winnipeg North knows the answer.

As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources have said any number of times in recent weeks, and months for that matter, the problem the Keystone pipeline specifically faces is not with any disagreement by the American people or the American Congress with the concept. It is a disagreement between the President and the American people. Congress has demonstrated its support in very positive and supportive legislative action. The State Department has repeatedly assessed the Keystone pipeline as having minimal negative environmental impact and very tremendous positive economic impact. I think it is only a matter of time until it is approved.

In the meantime, we will continue to consult with all stakeholders, certainly in our country and abroad, to further the broadening of Canada's delivery of this immensely valuable resource to world markets.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to further acquaint my hon. colleagues with Bill C-46, the pipeline safety act.

Bill C-46 represents another important step in realizing our government's commitment to assuring Canadians that our country's abundant natural resources are developed and transported in a safe and responsible manner. This commitment is the foundation of our plan for responsible resource development. No major project will proceed unless rigorous environmental and regulatory reviews have demonstrated that it is safe for Canadians and safe for our environment. This is essential if we are to continue to enjoy the benefits these industries have provided to generations of Canadians, and the benefits are many.

Given Canada's wealth of natural resources, experience and expertise of the industry in our country, we can be confident that the long-term prospects for natural resources development are there and will benefit us all as Canadians. It is a fact that natural resource development offers particular opportunity for aboriginal people in Canada.

Many of the existing or proposed energy and other natural resource and infrastructure projects are located near aboriginal communities. We have a duty to consult these communities and we will work to ensure they are fully engaged throughout the life cycle of resource development projects. It is a pillar of our plan for responsible resource development to pursue development in collaboration with aboriginal people in a way that protects the local environment, that respects aboriginal and treaty rights and that enables aboriginal people to participate in the economic opportunities that resource development can provide, opportunities that contribute to stronger, healthier and more self-sufficient communities.

We are taking concrete action to fulfill this commitment to consult and engage aboriginal communities in a truly meaningful way, including in the safety of existing pipelines and the potential development of new pipeline infrastructure. The pipeline safety act would provide for a series of new measures that would provide Canadians with the assurance of a truly world-class pipeline safety regime, strengthening incident prevention, preparedness and response, and liability and compensation.

Prevention, of course, is the first priority and the goal will always be zero incidents.

Bill C-46 would give the National Energy Board the ability to guide pipeline builders and operators in the use of the best available technologies in federally regulated pipeline projects, from materials and construction methods to emergency response techniques. To assure preparedness and effective response to incidents, pipeline companies would be required to show they would have ready access to a minimum amount of cash or cash equivalent so there would be no delays.

In the event a company is not able to mount an immediate, effective response, Bill C-46 would provide the National Energy Board with the authority to step in and lead the response. Where liability is concerned, Bill C-46 would impose absolute liability in the amount of $1 billion on the pipeline company. In other words, regardless of who or what caused an incident, the company would be liable for up to $1 billion in damages, period.

Of course, there would be no limit on liability should the company be found at fault or it were proven that it had acted negligently and caused the incident. The National Energy Board would have the authority to order the company to reimburse in full, even above the $1 billion mark in absolute liability, any and all cleanup costs incurred by any federal, provincial, municipal or aboriginal government body, or any person. As with the energy safety and security act, which is currently in the Senate, the pipeline safety act would include a firm statement of the principle of polluter pays. Taxpayers would not be left holding the bag. Companies would bear the full cost of cleanup and compensation.

I want to emphasize that our government recognizes and is supporting the important role aboriginal communities can play in ensuring pipeline safety, and we continue to move forward with new initiatives to ensure aboriginal communities are fully involved.

There is another way the government is responding to the work of the Prime Minister's special representative on west coast energy infrastructure, Mr. Douglas Eyford. Based on Mr. Eyford's report, Forging Partnerships, Building Relationships, we are proposing the development of a strategy to bring together aboriginal communities, the Minister of Natural Resources, and project proponents in establishing objectives and actions to enhance aboriginal participation in pipeline safety.

The goal is to integrate aboriginal communities into the overall process of pipeline safety. The government would work with industry, provinces and territories, community colleges, and aboriginal communities themselves to develop and promote training on pipeline monitoring and emergency response.

This collaborative approach would also focus on developing industry guidelines for community involvement in the preparation of emergency response plans, including who should be engaged and how they should be engaged, as well as the specific content of response plans.

A further objective is identification of employment and business opportunities that aboriginal engagement in pipeline safety may offer to all communities. Pipeline monitoring could be an example.

These new initiatives would build on earlier actions our government has taken to advance reconciliation through constructive engagement and collaboration. In May 2014, for example, our government announced a series of measures to strengthen the engagement with first nations where resource development is concerned. These included establishing the Major Projects Management Office–West, a single window for the Government of Canada to coordinate activities on energy infrastructure development with British Columbia first nations and industry in British Columbia and Alberta.

In July 2014, in response to other key recommendations in the Eyford report, we initiated action to promote reconciliation in advance of and outside the formal treaty process. These measures range from engaging on a new version of the guidelines on consultation for federal officials to new guidance for industry, including an overall public statement to clarify roles and responsibilities.

We have committed to entering into more consultation protocols with aboriginal groups, which would support more efficient consultations in key priority areas such as resource development. We are also acting to ensure aboriginal communities have the resources they need to participate in consultations in a meaningful way. In economic action plan 2014, for example, we provided $13.6 million over two years for that very purpose.

With the pipeline safety act, our government is again providing a commitment to respect the interests of aboriginal people. I encourage all members of this House to support Bill C-46.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on this issue.

However, I must admit that one part of his speech bothered me, and that was when he talked about the fact that Canadian taxpayers would not be left holding the bag in the event of an accidental spill caused by a break in a pipeline. That is what the member claimed. However, the reality is that this liability is limited to $1 billion if it is proven that there was no fault or negligence with respect to the spill. In the case of a major spill in an urban area where the damage surpasses $1 billion, taxpayers will be on the hook for costs over and above that liability limit.

Why does the member claim that, in all cases, Canadians will not have to pay a cent if ever there is a spill?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just to put this into perspective, I would like to give the hon. member some background as to why the figure of $1 billion was chosen.

The $1 billion figure was chosen based on an analysis of historical examples demonstrating this level of absolute liability, and the financial capacity provides this world-class coverage. Major pipeline spills in North America have resulted in clean-up costs in the range of $20 million to $50 million. That is well below $1 billion. That is the average cost. Therefore, it is needless to say that most of these spills are well below the $1 billion, which raises the bar very high to ensure that taxpayers will not carry the liability for these spills.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, also on the billion-dollar question, which is the billion-dollar question here, does the member know offhand, or do his background notes tell us, how much the Enbridge Michigan spill was? I doubt it is within the range of the $20 million to $50 million that he suggested.

Also, is the member concerned about spills in certain areas? For example, there are pipelines that run through the heart of downtown Toronto. A spill in the heart of downtown Toronto would be a fairly significant spill and would be far more significant financially than a spill in some other parts of Canada, such as remote parts, so in some respects the average spill does not mean too much. It is the catastrophic spills that do.

I would be interested in the member's thoughts with respect to the catastrophic spill in Michigan, as well as a potential catastrophic spill in major cities such as Toronto, Vancouver, et cetera.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, in our country we have world-class pipeline facilities. I want to give the hon. member an inkling of what that means. Between 2000 and 2011, federally regulated pipelines in this country had a safety record of 99.999%. The rate of spills in Canada was 57% lower than in Europe and 60% lower than in the United States for the 2000 to 2011 decade period.

As a government, we cannot designate or legislate laws that would account for an absurd occurrence. We live our lives as best we can and we account for as much as we can, but we do not plan on the absurd occurrence. That is what we have to do in this case.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to pick up on what the hon. member just said, we actually do have to account for the absurd catastrophic experience, which is why this kind of money has to be provided.

I was disappointed that the member was not able to respond with respect to the Michigan spill, because it was a huge hit on Enbridge's bottom line. I do not know what the number was, but I would have hoped that he would have been able to share that number with the House so that we could talk about these “absurd” spills, which is what the subject of the legislation before us is all about.

The Liberal Party largely supports the bill, so my remarks are offered in that light. It is a necessary piece of legislation. We might think it is a bit incremental, but nevertheless a step in the right direction is a step in the direction. There is no gainsaying that.

My first remarks have to do with the $1 billion liability insurance. As it has been previously explained in the House, this is no-fault liability insurance, meaning that no matter how the spill occurs, there would be insurance to cover it. The reasonable expectation is that it is simply a cost of doing business, whatever the premiums are. Since none of these companies is in the business of trying to lose money, I daresay that the ultimate end user of the product will pay for the cost of this insurance one way or another.

The late and great C.D. Howe was a cabinet minister in the Mackenzie King government and in the St. Laurent government. This was in the era when cabinet ministers were serious people. They did not need to refer to talking points each and every day in order to find out what the prime minister of the day thought about any subject. C.D. Howe was a legend, and as he was presenting a budget towards the end of World War II, which was a budget with an appropriation of about $1.3 billion for the war effort—a pretty significant sum of money at the end of World War II—one of the opposition members asked him about a million-dollar item.

Mr. Howe apparently replied, “Well, in the context of a $1.3 billion appropriation, $1 million is not a significant sum of money.” Out of that came the political lexicon that has been attributed to C.D. Howe, namely “What's a million?” Conservatives being Conservatives, they were never given to accuracy or truthfulness back then, so despite the fact that C.D. Howe did not actually say that, it still became part of the lexicon.

Conservatives then and Conservatives now are basically the same entity as far as truthfulness and accuracy might be concerned. I might appropriate that political lexicon and say “What's a billion?” If “What's a million” at the end of World War II was a significant sum of money in the minds of many, then “What's a billion?” in 2015, for many people, would still be considered a significant sum of money.

A liability of $1 billion in certain areas of the country seems to me to be perfectly adequate. In fact, I would say that in maybe 95% of the areas where pipelines are located, $1 billion might very well be a perfectly adequate sum of money. However, a pipeline running through downtown Toronto—as does Line 9, which runs through through Finch and Yonge, right beside a subway station—poses a significant risk.

Similarly, pipelines that run over watercourses that provide drinking water for millions of people pose a pretty significant risk. That is again the case in Toronto. A spill there would be of far greater significance than, say, a spill in a remote region in northern Ontario, possibly in Haliburton, although it would be a shock to have a spill in Haliburton. In sum, the risk from a spill in downtown Toronto, downtown Montreal, downtown Halifax, or downtown Vancouver is of a far greater magnitude than the risk in the more remote regions of the country.

The other issue is the content of the pipeline. One of the real reasons for the problems that occurred in Michigan with Enbridge was that the content was diluted bitumen, dilbit as it is known. The way I understand it is that when it hits water, it simply sinks to the bottom. That makes it very difficult to clean up, because one is then cleaning up something that is below the surface of the water, as opposed to, say, a gas line spill where the spill is on the surface of the water and because the spill largely evaporates before it does any serious environmental damage. Thus the contents of the pipelines vary and carry a significant sum of our gross domestic product with them. The contents of the pipelines are as relevant as the location of the spills.

I also have some concerns about the unlimited liability aspect. The first billion dollars of liability is no fault, and that is covered by an insurance policy. After that, in theory, either an energy company acquires further insurance at some presumably significant cost or it does not carry that insurance, and it in turn in effect pledges its own value as the assurity or its ability to clean up that risk beyond one billion dollars. My colleague across the way thought that that might be an absurd idea, but Enbridge in particular does not think it is such an absurd idea.

I want to point out to those who might be interested that pipelines are creatures of the stock market. Some days pipeline companies are worth multiple billions of dollars, and at other times, as multiple billions of dollars melt rather quickly, they become worth multiple millions of dollars, and there is nothing like a spill to shed value on a stock market.

I recommend, Mr. Speaker, that you not be in the doorway when an energy company spill occurs, because you will be crushed by the run of stockholders out the door because, frankly, they do not want to stand around and pick up the tab for anything that is potentially beyond one billion dollars.

The concept of unlimited liability beyond one billion dollars in theory sounds pretty good, but in practice may actually be quite a challenge, because the very fact of a spill or other catastrophic market events such as what we have witnessed in the last few months literally melt billions of dollars off the bottom line of a company.

These are issues that I think and hope a committee will take into consideration and get some expert advice on so that members know what they are voting on.

My colleague from Halifax West expressed a concern about the discretion allocated to the National Energy Board and cabinet to proclaim and enforce more robust regulations. I share his concern. I know the government wishes us to think, and I would like to think myself, that inspections will increase by 50%. I hope that is true. I am also hopeful that safety audits will double. I have no reason to doubt the good faith of the government.

However, I also want to be assured, and I hope the minister and the Conservatives members on the committee will be able to assure other members of the committee who might be a touch more skeptical, that the cabinet and the NEB would engage the robust powers they would be given under the legislation and that it would not simply be in appearance rather than anything else.

We are talking about a very serious amount of money on an annual basis. Pipelines ship roughly $100 billion of product on an annual basis. I will put that into perspective. That is just slightly below the budget at Queen's Park, the budget of the second biggest government in Canada. That is a significant sum of money.

I know that the members and the minister opposite have repeatedly said that 99 point whatever per cent is shipped safely. I am prepared to believe that. However, it is a little like saying that 99% of the time my brakes work. It is kind an absurd statistic, because I am not expecting perfection. Short of some other place, there is no perfection in this world, and so I do not anticipate perfection. However, I do think that every possible measure needs to be taken to assure Canadians' safety, not only the safety of their air and their water, but also of the food chain, et cetera.

I would say that, ultimately, Bill C-46 is a move to restore public confidence and, in that respect, it is a tiny step in the right direction.

Regrettably, Canadians have come to learn not to trust the current government on any point of intersection between the economy and the environment. Unfortunately, where there is a point of conflict between the environment and the economy, the environment loses. This is a bill that would try to restore that confidence, but, regrettably, the current government has established a reputation that it is not serious about environment issues and, as I say, whenever the economy and the environment come into conflict, it is the environment that loses.

Unfortunately, we have seen in this past week a consequence of its not being serious about the environment and the consequence of its not being serious about damage to our economic best interest.

When President Obama vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline, he did so for a good reason. He does not think the current government is serious about the environment. His perception, like the perception of many, is that the current government is not serious. The most obvious example is the ever-inclining trend in GHG emissions.

The charts put out by the government itself and audited by the Commissioner of the Environment show that in 2020 we will have historically high emissions of 720 megatonnes. The goal that was set by the government after Kyoto was 607 megatonnes.

There is, I know, a fantasy life over across the way that we are on track to meeting our emissions targets, and there may actually be someone in this country outside the Conservative caucus who actually believes that. However, the simple facts of the government's own charts, as audited by the Auditor General, show that there are 113 megatonnes that need to be made up. There is no chance that the Prime Minister would meet his own watered-down Copenhagen targets.

As I said, President Obama has noticed, many members of Congress have noticed, many of the American public have noticed, NGOs have noticed, the world has noticed, the Europeans have noticed and, as a consequence, we have established this reputation for not being serious about the environment. The consequence of having established that reputation has been a serious hit to our own economy.

Just this week in the main estimates there were major cuts to sustainable development technology, $25 million; the sustainable development technology fund, another $6.5 million; major cuts to species at risk, $12.5 million; major cuts to meteorological services, $5 million; cuts to project management, $2.3 million, et cetera. Moreover, a 44% cut to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency was jammed into an omnibus bill. Environment Canada's budget has gone from $978 million two years ago to $961 million for the fiscal year ending March 2016, a difference of $17 million. It is not as if Environment Canada has less work to do; it actually has more work to do with fewer resources.

President Obama could be forgiven if he expressed a bit of skepticism about Canada and the current government's commitment to environmental issues, particularly greenhouse gas emissions. As I said, NGOs have noticed, Canadians have noticed, other Americans have noticed, and Europeans have noticed. Therefore, the credibility gap is quite significant; hence, the reason for this bill being on the table today. This is a tiny incremental step to regain some of that credibility. The government is, in effect, digging itself out from its own credibility hole.

It is hard to do that when the government runs around saying that the people who protest pipelines are eco-terrorists. I respectfully submit that that pretty well killed the chances of ever obtaining a reasoned decision on the northern gateway pipeline. That has affected our economic interests. The absence of credibility in the government has made Kinder Morgan a much more difficult pipeline to obtain. It has left the TransCanada east pipeline essentially orphaned in the hope that somehow or another something will happen for that pipeline to go through. Keystone XL, at least for the foreseeable future, has no life in it.

When we lose the credibility in the larger marketplace, we lose our social licence. If we lose our social licence, we will not obtain the pipelines that we think we need. When we lose that, we therefore lose our economic ability to generate revenue and GDP, and that has very serious economic consequences. This faux fight between the environment and the economy is just simply that: a faux fight.

I hope that Bill C-46 will get a good airing in committee. I hope there will be clarification of the audit and inspection powers of the NEB. I hope there will be a commitment coming out of that. I hope there will be a mechanism for ensuring that pipeline companies remain responsible for their abandoned pipelines. There are a number of things that could potentially come out of this, such as requiring a portion of each company's financial resources to be readily accessible, or providing the authority to take control of incidents. All of these things could come out of this.

I want to make note in my closing comments that I can hope, but I do not expect. I can see that we have 12 weeks left on the parliamentary calendar. To get this bill from here to royal assent in 12 weeks is mostly hope, but I think it will end up as a talking point for the government, that we had the best of intentions, but Bill C-46 died on the order paper.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech. A wise person once said that we should never confuse a fence with a chair because we might get hurt. That is true.

My colleague talked about what a terrible piece of legislation this is, and yet he will support it. He has denounced pipelines, and yet he bemoans the fact that we have not built the northern gateway pipeline. I thought that maybe he should talk about a good news story, such as getting our energy products to market. The member should know that about half of our exports are energy products, and we cannot have exports without getting those products to market, and we all know that pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to get those products to market.

Also, the other piece of good news is that there are significant numbers when it comes to the employment of first nations. It is the largest private sector employer of first nations people in the country.

Perhaps the member could talk about some of the positive aspects with respect to getting these pipelines built but also ensuring that they are safe.

Incidentally, the liability amounts are very much in line with and are stronger than what the rest of the world has. This is a world-class pipeline safety regime that we are putting in place, but it also enables some positive aspects for the Canadian economy, for regular Canadians as well as for first nations.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that when a Conservative offers us a chair we should ensure that all of the legs are in place.

The issue is that we would not be having this conversation or the opposition would not be expressing some skepticism had the government established its environmental credibility over the past nine years. However, it has not established its environmental credibility; rather, it has lost its social licence to do things.

I am forever puzzled by the pathetic way in which the Conservative members ask for affirmation, such as, “Tell us what good things we have done today.” Well, what did they have for breakfast? I am sure that was a good thing.

I like and respect my hon. colleague across the way. However, the regrettable fact is that each and every pipeline I have mentioned has a considerable pushback from people who are very concerned about the safety of pipelines.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my Liberal colleague.

Indeed, it is a step in the right direction to bring in absolute liability in situations where the company is at fault. That is a key part of the polluter pays principle. It is also an improvement that the bill would increase the liability to $1 billion when the company is not at fault.

However, my colleague mentioned something really important, which is social licence. Prevention is needed so that pipeline leaks do not happen. That is the problem with Canadian legislation.

The Conservatives have been gutting the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act since 2012, and people in Quebec are upset that they are not able to participate in the National Energy Board's consultations and cannot know the full route of the energy east pipeline, for example.

Would my colleague like to tell us more about the fact that environmental assessments are no longer adequate?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the offence is limited to Quebec. It is an operative fact that the purview and the ability of the NEB to consider various issues that are of relevance to the very people the member is talking about has been quite circumscribed, and so the hearings themselves are limited and the access to the hearings is limited. The problem with that is that the project has basically been destroyed before one can get to it. If that pattern continues, then regrettably, this industry will have some serious problems.

The current government wishes to act like a cheerleader. It is not a cheerleader; it is a regulator. When a regulator operates properly, it operates in the best interests of the Canadian public.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could pick up on his comments in which he made reference to the length of time we are in session. There are another 11 weeks after tomorrow, keeping in mind that we have not had a debate on the budget—the budget has been put off—there are other pieces of legislation, and this is at the beginning stage of second reading.

Reflecting on that, maybe the member could speculate on why the government might have even considered introducing the legislation. Could it possibly be because we are going into an election a little bit later this year?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the 2015 calendar. We have two sitting weeks in March. We have three sitting weeks in April. I imagine that the three sitting weeks in April will pretty well be used up by the budget. We then have three sitting weeks in May, and one and a half sitting weeks scheduled for June.

If the government were committed to a lightning-like process, it could do this bill, but that is just getting it through the House. From there, we have to move it over to the Senate, which has its own process.

I respectfully suggest that the chances of this bill seeing royal assent are about the same as the chances of the Maple Leafs winning the Stanley Cup this year. I have hit a pretty sensitive point, but as a lifelong Leafs fan, I have had a tonne of realism hit me this year.

I do not think this will happen. My only speculation, and it is entirely speculative on my part, is that this bill was introduced for window dressing.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member look more to the Toronto Raptors this year than the Maple Leafs, and so to a similar positive outcome for this legislation as it passes through the House.

I must say that I was left somewhat breathless by my colleague's wandering away from the topic at hand. It is quite clear that in the United States there is support in Congress. The labour movement in every state across which the Keystone XL pipeline would eventually cross is in favour of the pipeline. The problem is at the White House; it is the difference of opinion between a president and his state department and Congress.

When it comes to puffing out one's chest, this government is indeed proud that it is the first Canadian government in history to actually reduce greenhouse gases. I would remind the member of the commitment to Kyoto, which saw emissions rise to 35%.

Finally, the point I would like to make to reassure my colleague is that in questioning and raising the spectre of the Kalamazoo spill, he wondered about the cost. The cost is on the record. Enbridge says that it is $1 billion and running. However, Enbridge has taken responsibility there, as it would here if there were a similar spill, heaven forbid. With this legislation, the liability provided for and the coverages, Canadian taxpayers would not cover those costs. The polluter would pay. There are measures for the NEB to enforce better safety precautions, and this is probably the best pipeline safety legislation and liability coverage in the world.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder sometimes whether they eat the talking points or have them mainlined.

I am told that the cost of the Enbridge spill is at about $1.3 billion and growing. That is a huge hit on Enbridge's bottom line. I do not know what the insurance was for Enbridge's spill. Were that to happen here, I assume that the first $1 billion would be picked up by the no-fault insurance. That is good. That is a good point.

Having said that, not all companies are Enbridge. There are companies that are in free fall as far as the value of their assets is concerned. I have watched stock markets in the past. The stampede of the shareholders out the door when bad things are happening to a company is amazing. The poor old taxpayer gets stiffed with the bill. I would just point that out.

There is only person whom we had to make happy with the Keystone XL pipeline. That one person is the most powerful man in the world. The government blew it. It was a no-brainer.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, Health; the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Social Development.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I will share my time with my esteemed colleague from Drummond. This is a good idea, as always.

This may sound strange, but I have looked forward to some version of such a bill for many years. With Bill C-46, the government has finally come to acknowledge a principle that for more than 20 years the New Democrats thought was important for the energy sector and industry at large. This is the principle that we commonly now know as the polluter pays. It is a very simple concept. It is a concept that should be embedded in all of our economic thinking about resource development and the potential for pollution, which is the company that causes the pollution should pay for the pollution.

This is an important concept for us because we also believe in pricing pollution across the board. We have heard the Prime Minister recently muse about the idea of perhaps putting a price on carbon similar to the Alberta model. It has some faults, but the very concept that pricing carbon, a known pollutant in causing climate change, is now something to which the Conservative government may be open. However, we hear Conservatives day after day ridicule and rile the opposition for any hint of the very same policy, which the Conservatives rain on.

Juxtapose that with the strange crossing of ideologies where the Liberal leader now says that pricing carbon should not be up to the federal government at all. It is odd to watch those two leaders cross themselves. More important, in Bill C-46 and the liability around spills from pipelines, we recall that the Prime Minister in an economic forum declare that Canada would quickly become a world energy superpower. This vision was outlined by the Prime Minister in very forceful terms. What one would have expected to be behind such a declaration was a plan or a strategy to achieve that vision.

As we have seen in the last eight or nine years, that commitment has been nothing but an unmitigated failure for the government. We have not seen the approach taken by the Conservatives enhance Canada's standing in the world when it comes to energy in any measurable way, not with our largest trading partner in the United States.

As pointed out by my Liberal colleagues, not only has the relationship around one particular project, in this case Keystone, caused all sorts of tensions between the government and the White House, but it has caused tensions in our trading relations in general. I recently had meetings with some trade department officials and investors from the United States, They wondered about the Conservative government's obsession with one project to the detriment of so many other important trade relations with the United States.

In making the declaration, when the Conservatives said that we would be an energy superpower, one would have thought there would have been some foundational elements included. One of them would have been the polluter pays principle. It is an important and key strategy in bringing the public along to any development, like a pipeline development. If there is a spill, it should not be the public who is on the hook for cleaning up the costs.

As has been pointed out in this debate already, Enbridge, which has proposed the northern gateway pipeline that will go through my region, had that exact experience just south of the border, when 3.5 million litres of diluted bitumen was spilled in the Kalamazoo River. It has spent north of one billion dollars cleaning that up.

In Canada, we had this perverse incentive in that the companies were never on the hook for that money for the cleanup. The companies receive the profit; the public gets the pain when there is an accident. There are spills. There have been several hundred spills across Canada over the last couple of years, some small and some quite a bit larger. The idea that the public would foot the bill for a company's mistake and damage to our environment is indeed perverse.

Several things in the bill remain lacking in a true energy policy from the government. If becoming an energy superpower were so important, one would have thought the government would have sincerely, and with great dedication, sought what would be a very important principle for any company operating, and that is the social licence to operate.

This is a commonly used term by industry today, particularly by extractive industries, heavy industries, that in order to be profitable and to remain viable, having a social contract with the public, an agreement on how companies conduct themselves, supported in the communities in which they operate would be foundational of any investment.

When I talk to the investment banks, the major banks in Canada, and some of the other investors who invest heavily in our country, the social licence of any particular project is paramount to the investor's rational to invest or not invest. If a company is facing protracted legal battles, if a company is in the face of strong public discontent, that affects the investor's decision.

Even with the Conservatives government, which is particularly fixated, having put so many of their eggs in one particular resource extraction basket, on oil, we would have thought that bringing forward legislation, working policies that would increase the level of public support would have been job number one. The efforts by the government to treat and negotiate with first nations in Canada would be job number one. The Prime Minister hired a special investigator, Doug Eyford, to go British Columbia to consult with first nations and find out what was lacking. In his report, Mr. Eyford stated that there was a lack of federal leadership in treating and negotiating with the first nations of British Columbia in particular .

Having lost almost 180 consecutive Supreme Court decisions that deal with first nations rights and title, we would think the federal government would have woke up to the idea that rights and title maybe matters, particularly to a resource like this one.

The bill is missing the ability of the government to understand, to respect and to negotiate with the first nations people of Canada. In provinces like British Columbia, rights and title have been confirmed again and again in the federal courts and at the Supreme Court level, and the government considers it an option to ignore those rulings, as if anything will get built, as if anything will get done by ignoring our Constitution and first nations rights and title.

We have also seen the government utterly ignore another foundational question that Canadians have with respect to any resource development, which is risk versus benefit. The benefits are generally seen in two areas: one through taxation and the other through job creation. What have we seen from the Conservatives? We saw the whole temporary foreign worker fiasco where they drove loopholes so big through the program that companies were firing Canadians working in the banking and energy sector and then hiring temporary foreign workers to the point where the Conservatives had to swing the pendulum back so hard that they essentially shut down virtually all of the temporary foreign worker program.

We have also seen a government absolutely ambiguous about the notion of value-added. Particularly when we deal with a one-time, non-renewable resource, we would think the government of the day would have some interest one way or the other as to whether companies are adding value or shipping the product out in its raw form. We know the true job components in any oil and gas project is when we add value to it.

The proposed projects, which heavily supported by the government, all purport to export raw bitumen in its most raw form. That leaves the risks with Canada and exports the lion's share of the benefits elsewhere.

The economy of the people I represent in northern British Columbia is primarily based on resource extraction. We understand the resource industry, we are support of it and are particularly supportive when it works with the values in the communities in which it seeks to operate.

Conservatives have ignored this time and time again and have lost public support, not just in their wild enthusiasm for projects that do not help the Canadian economy and certainly risk the Canadian environment, but they have run roughshod over first nations rights and title. The record shows they are not getting anything done. All they are doing is increasing conflict and uncertainty, which drives away investment and the ability of the Canadian economy to be more than just a raw export economy.

Time and time again we see the government make the same mistake. The Conservatives suggest that doing the same thing again will get them somehow a different result. We know the definition of someone who believes that doing the same thing repeatedly will get a different result: insanity. Increasing uncertainty, increasing conflict has done so little to even advance the agenda the Conservatives had.

What else do we miss from the Conservative government? It is not just a diversification of our trading partners, but also the diversification of our energy resources. The support for oil has been so outweighed by no support whatsoever for the clean energy sector.

The good news for Canadians is that globally last year, and we look forward to 2015 being similar, the advancements and the investments in clean energy technology, with the costs of production dropping and the acceptance and encouragement by the public writ large across the world for clean technology, solar, wind, geothermal and rest, has only grown and investments are outpacing investments in carbon energy.

Canada should be embracing this enthusiastically, with a government that understands we need to have a balance between these things. However, to put all of the attention on one energy source alone, we see what happens. The Conservatives have had to delay their budget. They have no plan B. All they have is this, and it is not working.

The bill is a small and important step in advancing a more balanced approach to the energy sector in Canada. We look forward to its passage. We will see if the calendar allows for its passage and how much enthusiasm the Conservatives have for it to become law.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is related to motivation more than anything else.

One of the benefits of enshrining in legislation the polluter pays principle is that it can be an incentive for companies building future pipelines, or even current ones, to ensure the final product that will carry our oil or natural gas is of a high standard. We would have limits, potential fines or mechanisms to recover the cost of damage that might be caused to the environment and so forth, Thereby, hopefully, we would have a better system going forward.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, and it is not from lack of paying attention, but I am not sure I totally understood my friend's question.

I will add that the act would enhance the National Energy Board, the regulator in this case, or the police judging whether it should go ahead or not.

However, the government has retroactively, in the midst of an NEB process dealing with gateway, politicized the decision of the National Energy Board. The decision as to whether pipelines should be approved or not has been given to the Prime Minister and the cabinet. The Conservatives did this and then said that they would rely on evidence and science and not politics. However, they changed the NEB Act to allow only the cabinet and Prime Minister to have the final say.

The NEB now no longer requires a company like Kinder Morgan to release its full safety plan and cleanup operations in Canada. However, the same company is operating a very similar pipeline 50 miles south of where it plans to operate in Vancouver and the American regulator is happy to disclose that information. Our regulator, the NEB, seems to think the public does not have the right to know what cleanup the company is sponsoring.

We can see how the public loses faith in the referee. The government has consistently tried to bias the results and skew and torque what should be an apolitical process. Instead, it has become something that has lost the support of those in the broad sector of the Canadian public. When they lose that faith, they lose faith in the government's broader agenda.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when our government has made changes in the past regarding pipeline safety systems, members in the opposition have always voted against them.

Would the member be able to explain to the House why those members voted against increasing the number of inspections by 15%, doubling the number of comprehensive audits and bringing in new fines for companies that break our strict environmental regulations? It seems quite inconsistent.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what is inconsistent is that the same government gutted the environmental assessment process through much of those same acts. It is a government that took fishery habitat protection out of the Fisheries Act.

Many of my friend's constituents from Wild Rose Country love to come up to B.C. and fish its rivers. One would think that habitat protection would be important. However, under the government, the Conservatives thought it was not so important.

As well, the Navigable Waters Protection Act existed for over a century in our country to protect the navigation of our rivers and waterways. It is something one would think the public had interest in and thought was important. It balanced out the conversation about what damage could and could not be done.

After gutting the Environmental Assessment Act, after getting rid of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, except for Muskoka and cottage country for the minister's sake, and after gutting the Fisheries Act, to stand and say that somehow the Conservatives are the proponents of strong and tough regulation, no one believes them. This is a problem for the Conservatives. When they say they want to protect the environment and are not completely in the pockets of the big oil companies, the facts deny it all.

The reality is that their plan is not working. The Conservatives cannot bulldoze their way through the country. Some people demand and insist on having a voice in the conversation, that is Canada, and we will continue to do so.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley on his excellent speech. He clearly set out the premise of this debate. He clearly explained why we have difficulty trusting the Conservative government and believing in what it does.

However, Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, is obviously a step in the right direction. The NDP has been asking the Conservatives to abide by the polluter pays principle for a long time. We believe that it is a basic principle of sustainable development. Of course, we will support this bill, but we will be proposing some amendments in committee.

In short, the change that the bill makes is to seek absolute liability for all pipeline projects regulated by the National Energy Board when the company is at fault. We support this excellent measure.

However, the maximum liability is $1 billion, which is much better than the few tens of thousands of dollars that it was before. However, $1 billion is still not very much when it comes to a big oil spill and all of the consequences that has. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction. We are talking about liability of $1 billion without proof of fault or negligence. In such a case, the problem is that Canadians are the ones who will have to pay. People in Drummond and everywhere else in Canada who pay their taxes will have to pay for the problems caused by companies and the bad job that the Conservatives did. Why am I talking about how the Conservatives did a bad job? My other colleagues mentioned it. It is not enough to make a company pay when there are spills and leaks. We also have to prevent spills from happening. The Conservative government is very weak in that regard. That is a serious problem, which they made worse in 2012, when they amended the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

We are all well aware of this change to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Participation in consultations has been severely restricted. Now people can participate in consultations only if they are directly affected by a pipeline project. Many people in Quebec are upset about that because they were expecting to be able to participate in the consultations on TransCanada's energy east pipeline proposal. Unfortunately, it is very hard to get in because the Environmental Assessment Act, which was amended in 2012, severely restricts people's access. There is also another problem I have to raise. Right now, the National Energy Board is starting to ask people to register for consultations even though the final route is unknown. People have to sign up without knowing whether the pipeline will go through their area or not. This is utterly ridiculous. Quebeckers, environmental groups and citizen groups have demanded that the National Energy Board's hearings be suspended until the pipeline's exact route is known. Without that information, how can people register and how can the assessment process involving individuals and organizations be started?

This shows how Bill C-46 is heading in the right direction. However, we need environmental bills that will enable us to prevent disasters rather than clean them up after the fact. That would be much better.

We know that the energy east pipeline will cross dozens of rivers and bodies of water as well as the St. Lawrence. These are strategic places that municipalities draw their water from to treat for drinking water.

We need to be careful and focus on prevention. A report from an RCM in the region that will be affected pointed out flaws in the TransCanada project. We expect much more from the government. It is not enough to repair the damage afterward. We need to focus on prevention. That is very important.

In 2014, the Commissioner of the Environment released a report pointing out the problems with the reform of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. For example, she mentioned that the criteria are unclear, which explains why some projects are subject to an assessment while others are not. She also indicated that it is very difficult for the public to participate in these consultations. If the public cannot be heard and listened to, that leads to a social licence problem. That is the problem with many of the projects on the table right now that could be good for our economy. There is a lack of information and transparency.

Ottawa commissioned a report on the aquatic environment in 2013. We were not given access to that report until a group of environmentalists submitted an access to information request. How can we trust a government that hides a report about the oil sands and the impact they will have on the aquatic environment for two years? That is unbelievable. The report indicates that there is a serious lack of information on the impact of an oil spill on the aquatic environment. There is a lack of information on how we could clean up the oil that spilled into the St. Lawrence River, for example. This report shows the lack of competence of the Conservatives, who do not take the importance of preventing accidents seriously. Introducing this bill, which of course is a step in the right direction, will not be enough if a spill occurs.

Oil spills have happened in the past and, unfortunately, will continue to happen. We must be ready to prevent them insofar as possible and to take quick action when one occurs. We need only think of the ExxonMobil pipeline spill in Arkansas in 2013. In 2010, there was the notorious Enbridge oil spill in the Kalamazoo River, where four million litres of oil were spilled in 14 hours. The cleanup of this environmental disaster is ongoing. So far, it has cost $1 billion, which is just the start. That is why I am saying that the $1 billion limit is not enough when oil companies are not directly responsible.

In conclusion, this bill is a step in the right direction. The NDP has been asking for a long time that the polluter pays principle be applied and that the companies be responsible for safety. However, we have a major problem with respect to preventing oil spills. I mentioned it in my speech. That is why we are asking for a clear long-term vision for sustainable development. The NDP has the strongest vision. We do not pit the economy against the environment; they are compatible. If we do it right, the economy and the environment will be the most profitable sectors. They create the most jobs and will help us improve the Canadian economy.

The NDP plan is to have a good economy based on sustainable development.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie]

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

We have been listening to this debate on the pipeline safety bill for a few hours now, and we have heard all kinds of crazy plans to completely reorganize Canada's oil industry. People have talked about various ideas for oil refineries. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Pipeline safety is absolutely essential to the Canadian economy. The sector does not account for the entire Canadian economy, but it is a big part of it.

I did not hear my colleague say where he stands on this bill in his speech. If he does not support it, it is a little hypocritical of him to criticize the Conservative's management record for this sector. Since this is an asset to the Canadian economy, we need a distribution system and safe pipelines. That is why this is a good bill.

Will the member support it?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore for his comments.

Indeed, this bill is a step in the right direction and we will support it. We will propose some minor amendments in committee, but those are details.

Would my colleague agree that it is important to prevent spills, like in Kalamazoo, for instance? That is the weakness of the Conservative government. They amended the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to limit not only public participation, but also environmental assessments.

I want my colleague to be honest, because the Conservatives have done nothing to improve environmental legislation. However, that is the NDP's plan. We want to harmonize the economy and the environment, the principles of sustainable development. That is what we believe in and what we will do in 2015.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I quite enjoy working with him on the environment committee. I wish we would actually accomplish something at the environment committee, but it is what it is, unfortunately. Members might be interested to know that the environment committee is now engaged in a study on hunting and trapping. Of all the issues the environment committee could be studying, such as climate change, fracking, or whatever, hunting and trapping is the one that has been chosen. It is of critical interest to us all.

I am pleased to hear that the NDP will be supporting the bill. I would think it should be at committee sooner rather than later, but I am also, as I outlined earlier, a bit concerned about the parliamentary schedule. I know that there is a lot of make-work stuff going at other committees, but this actually could be a real piece of work.

Does he think there is a real chance that, with what is left, this will actually get to royal assent?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I agree with my colleague. This bill is long overdue, when it should have been a priority.

As we have been saying from the beginning of the debate and as I just said in my speech, since 2011, instead of introducing such a bill on the polluter pays principle, the government has been undermining environmental assessments and environmental protections.

Earlier I talked about how the government amended the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. As my colleague mentioned, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where we have seen some terrible amendments made to that act.

There is also the issue of social licence. The public and organizations need to be consulted so they can share their opinions, tell us about their science and have their say. Those kinds of consultations have been very limited. Like my colleague, I am very concerned about what the Conservative government plans to do with this bill.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will first say that I will be sharing my time with my neighbouring colleague, my good friend from Macleod.

It is a pleasure to rise today in support of our government's pipeline safety act. As all hon. members know, Canada's natural resource industries play a vital role in supporting the quality of life we enjoy in this country. In my province and all provinces across this country, we owe our quality of life and the strength of our economy to the important natural resource industries.

Taken together, these industries actually account for more than 13% of our gross domestic product and more than one half of our merchandise exports. When we include the supply chain that provides goods and services to the resource sectors, these industries actually account for almost one-fifth of all economic activity in this country, almost 20% of the economic activity in this country. They create and sustain jobs from coast to coast to coast and in every region of every province in this country.

Directly and indirectly, the jobs of some 1.8 million Canadians depend on our natural resource sectors, and our natural wealth continues to be developed to create opportunities for Canadians. There are hundreds of major natural resource projects under construction or planned over the next 10 years, representing as much as $675 billion worth of investment.

Canada's energy sector is a key part of this. It contributes $175 billion annually to our economy and generates more than $25 billion a year in federal and provincial revenues. While the NDP would like to ignore this fact, these are the same revenues that help to pay for social programs like health care, education, and infrastructure. However, for Canadians to benefit fully from the potential of our energy sector, it requires world-class transportation and infrastructure, including pipelines, to get our energy products to market.

Fortunately, building and operating safe pipelines has been a Canadian tradition for decades. Canadians have the experience and the know-how to move more than three million barrels of oil across our country every single day. As we have heard, 99.999% of the oil and products transported through federally regulated pipelines in Canada have arrived safely. That is why I can stand here and proudly claim that Canada already has an extremely impressive environmental record with regard to pipelines. Indeed, few sectors can boast such an outstanding safety record.

One of the characteristics of this strong, world-class safety regime is that it continually evolves and improves. It is a safety record that is enhanced with every technological advancement and innovation and with every regulatory improvement, and that is the way it should be.

As we look ahead to the many major resource projects still on Canada's horizon, our plan for responsible resource development is more important than ever, because it is focused on getting things right for Canadians, for our environment, and for our economy.

Under our plan, we are focused on four key objectives: first, making the regulatory review process for major projects more predictable and more timely; second, reducing duplication; third, strengthening protection for the environment in marine transportation, offshore development, and pipeline safety; and fourth, enhancing engagement with aboriginal communities in every aspect of resource development.

The pipeline safety act is part of this comprehensive approach. The legislation would build on our government's plan for responsible resource development. Bill C-46, the pipeline safety act, would further strengthen our robust pipeline safety system around the pillars of incident prevention, preparedness and response, and liability and compensation. It features concrete measures to improve our pipeline safety record and to ensure that it remains truly world class. That is why it focuses on prevention, preparedness, and response as well as on liability and compensation.

It offers real action to strengthen pipeline safety, including by modernizing the National Energy Board Act.

Of course, prevention begins with the design and construction of pipelines. In additional to our new legislation, the government is seeking guidance from the National Energy Board on the use of best available technologies in pipeline projects. This includes the materials, the construction methods, and the emergency response techniques.

The legislation would clarify the rules and responsibilities for pipeline operators, including measures to prevent pipeline incidents, to increase safety for Canadians, and to better protect the environment. That is in addition to new regulations that recently came into force and that provide the National Energy Board with the power to directly administer tough new penalties, penalties that will address contraventions quickly so that larger issues do not arise in the future.

Concerning matters of preparedness and response, our proposed changes would ensure that companies know exactly what they are liable for. They would need to demonstrate their ability to meet minimum financial requirements. For example, companies operating major oil pipelines would now be required to demonstrate that they have $1 billion in financial resources.

With regard to liability and compensation, the legislation would enshrine the polluter pays principle in law. This would ensure that Canadian taxpayers will not foot the bill in the unlikely event of a major oil spill. The pipeline safety act would also protect Canadians by providing a financial guarantee, or backstop, to address damages from a major spill. It would authorize the National Energy Board to recover cleanup costs from pipeline operators. We are also taking steps to ensure that pipeline operators are responsible for any potential costs or damages when their pipelines are no longer in use or have been abandoned. No other country in the world requires a $1-billion guarantee from companies operating major oil pipelines.

On top of these improvements, we will continue to work with aboriginal communities and with industry to enhance the participation of aboriginal peoples in all aspects of pipeline operations, from planning and monitoring to responding to incidents. This will ensure that aboriginal peoples participate fully in related employment and business opportunities.

With the passage of this legislation, Canada's pipeline safety system would be truly world class. Members may ask what that means exactly. We define world class as being equal among our peer nations, countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Norway. Also, in many cases, Canada would be world leading. No other country in the world has absolute liability so that industry, and not Canadian taxpayers, would be held financially responsible, even before fault or negligence were proven.

Today Canada's regulatory and safety regime for pipelines is among the best in the world. However, when it comes to protecting Canadians and protecting our environment, there is no room for complacency. Pipelines are crucial to the safe transportation of oil and gas across our country and to markets beyond our borders.

With this legislation, we would make existing and new pipelines in Canada safer than ever before. It would ensure that Canada keeps setting the bar when it comes to the safe transport of our energy products. That is why I want to urge all hon. members to support this very important piece of legislation.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government members have been repeating the 99.999% figure, and my first analogy is that I hope my brakes are 100% rather than 99%, because the 1% when I actually need them, I really will need them.

The second point is that if in fact pipelines are as safe as he says they are, 99.999%, then really, the bill is a bit unnecessary. It is a risk where there is no risk at all. How is it, therefore, that we need a bill to insure that 0.0001% of risk? Were I an insurance company I would be more than happy to charge a premium for a risk that was of that order of magnitude.

I cannot quite square his argument. Either the bill is necessary, which I think it is, or the risk is higher than whatever is left over after 99.999%.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am left with two thoughts after listening to the member's question.

Here is the first. I have listened to him today throughout the debate, both to his questions and his comments. I suppose it is typically Liberal, so I should not be surprised, but there is such inconsistency in the position I am hearing. First I heard some comments from the hon. member about how this is too little too late. Then it was why do we really need it. Then it was that we should have done it sooner. He just cannot seem to come up with a position that is coherent. I guess that is very typical of a Liberal, so I should not be too surprised.

Having said that, what I can tell members is that our government's position is very clear. Yes, Conservatives believe that our pipeline safety record in Canada has been quite strong. As I said, 99.999% of the products moving through are arriving safely. However, we can always strive to do better. That is important.

We always want to make sure that we are doing everything we can to help protect our environment, our economy, and the interests of Canadians. That is what we are doing, and I hope we will have support for it, despite all the inconsistencies on the part of the Liberals.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague across the way to explain two things.

First, why is the Conservative government imposing a $1 billion cap on the polluter pays principle? Why is the polluter pays principle not unlimited?

Second, this bill is a step in the right direction, but it was introduced after the Conservatives dropped all environmental assessments and amended the Fisheries Act. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was changed too. All these environmental protections were diminished.

On the one hand, this is a step in the right direction, but on the other hand, protections are lacking. Prevention is being reduced and the principle is not being fully applied.

Why are Conservatives taking this tack?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, although I thank the member for the question, I have to say that the assertions I just heard the member make are completely false. I know that the NDP is a party that does not understand the importance of ensuring, in what we are doing in terms of responsible resource development, that the environment is protected and that the economy can continue to move forward. These are things that are important. They are both important, and they are both taken in concert by this government.

The NDP does not seem to get that. We have people from the NDP going down to the United States to lobby against our energy industry. New Democrats do not understand the importance of protecting the environment and ensuring a strong economy. That is the basis of the falsehoods I just heard in the question, and it is the basis of the New Democrats' poor position on these issues. It is why they have been so poorly received in terms of the position they have taken on our attempts in the past to improve things like pipeline safety and environmental protection, and they have even voted against them.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Wild Rose for sharing his time with me, and for his presentation.

I am delighted to participate in this important debate today. This is an important discussion because pipelines are one of the lifelines of our economy. They get the energy we use every day to Canadians across the country.

By amending the National Energy Board Act, Bill C-46 proposes a number of new measures to make our pipelines across Canada even safer.

For many Canadians the National Energy Board, the NEB, may not be something they are very familiar with, so I would like to take some of my time today to focus on what it does, the role it plays, and some of the changes to it that we are proposing.

Established 56 years ago, the National Energy Board has a very clear mandate: to regulate international and interprovincial pipelines, power lines, and energy trade. Today, that means overseeing 73,000 kilometres of pipelines and transporting more than $100 billion of natural gas, oil, and petroleum products each year.

The NEB boasts a staff of about 450 highly skilled experts with a wide range of experience, from engineers to inspectors, to environmental specialists and economists. Their expertise makes the NEB one of the most renowned regulators in the world. I want to make that very clear: it is one of the most renowned, respected regulators in the world.

Equally important, the NEB is independent. It reports through Parliament but is independent of it. Quite simply, it operates at arm's length and has full autonomy. The board uses that independence to rigorously apply science-based analysis to every review it conducts. Those reviews, which are among the most robust in the world, are based on a number of criteria, including the environmental, economic, and social aspects of each and every proposal.

Canadians may ask, what is the end goal? What is the overarching goal of the National Energy Board? The goal is to keep our pipelines and the public safe while, at the very same time, ensuring that the environment is protected.

If an application is successful, and only then, it is still subject to further conditions established by the board.

To enforce its rulings, the NEB has a number of important powers. It can impose administrative penalties on pipeline companies, lower the amount of product allowed through the pipelines, or even shut them down entirely. In some cases, prison sentences from one year to even five years could be imposed for violations to the National Energy Board Act.

Only when the board is confident that a pipeline can be built and operated safely does the company earn the right to proceed with that project. However, the board's role does not end there. It oversees the full cycle of a pipeline, from concept to construction, to operation, to eventual abandonment of that pipeline. That means ongoing audits, inspections, and emergency exercises, with some 300 such compliance actions being conducted in 2013 alone. These ongoing audits and inspections are important. It also means that they continue to raise their standards, requiring more of pipeline companies, imposing stricter conditions, and also conducting rigorous testing.

Under this regime, the board has performed exceedingly well. For example, between 2008 and 2013, 99.99% of oil and other products transported through federally regulated pipelines was moved safely.

Let me be clear here again. That is an outstanding safety record, a record that any country in the world would be envious of. It is a wonderful tribute to the work of the National Energy Board and Canada's pipeline operators.

While we are gratified, we are certainly not satisfied. Our goal must be to have no incidents whatsoever. One incident is one incident too many. That is why, as part of our government's plan for responsible resource development, we have already strengthened the NEB, enabling it to increase its annual oil and gas line inspections by 50% and to double the number of annual comprehensive audits. These inspections and audits are critical proactive measures, because they can identify potential issues and prevent incidents from occurring, which we heard quite a bit about today.

The changes proposed in the bill are another good step toward ensuring that these accidents do not happen. We have provided the NEB with new powers to improve prevention by imposing tough monetary penalties against pipeline operators who do not comply with those regulations. These penalties, which range from $25,000 to $100,000 per day per infraction can also be cumulative, should the infractions not be addressed.

Now, with Bill C-46 we would go even further. Additional amendments to the National Energy Board Act would set a new standard for pipeline safety, ensuring that we have world-class protection. New measures would focus on preventing incidents from occurring, improving our ability to prepare and respond to events, and ensuring that the polluter pay through a tougher liability and compensation regime. In terms of prevention, we would tap into the expertise of the National Energy Board by seeking the board's guidance on the best available technologies for constructing and operating pipelines. As new technologies are developed, we want to ensure they are put into practice. We want to ensure that our safety systems remain evergreen and ever on the cutting edge.

We would also clarify the audit and inspection powers of the NEB, as well as the obligations of the pipeline companies to respond to requests arising out of these actions.

Moreover, we would modernize the damage-prevention regime to further harmonize it with provincial guidelines to prevent accidental damage through digging or other activities.

On preparedness and response, we would amend the National Energy Board Act to require companies that operate major pipelines to have a minimum of $1 billion in financial resources, a portion of which must be readily available to quickly react to any incident.

If a company is unable or unwilling to respond immediately, the NEB would have, in exceptional circumstances, the power to take over response operations and to recover the costs of those operations from the industry. In other words, the Government of Canada would provide the NEB the authority to respond and provide a financial backstop, in addition to giving the NEB the authority and funds to complete any cleanup. The bottom line here is that in the unlikely event there is an incident, the response would be swift, it would be thorough, and it would not be paid for out of the pockets of Canadians.

This bill would also strengthen our system of liability and compensation. Not only would pipeline companies now face unlimited liability when found to be at fault, but companies would automatically be responsible for damages up to a set amount. This is called “absolute liability”. It would not matter who or what caused the incident; the company would be responsible regardless. In the case of companies operating major oil pipelines, once again, that liability would be $1 billion, more than in any other country in the world.

What is more, this bill would allow the government to pursue pipeline operators for the costs of environmental damage, and it would empower the NEB to order reimbursement of cleanup costs incurred by either government or individuals. Finally, the NEB would be able to recover its own costs by stepping in to coordinate a response.

These are among the most sweeping changes to the National Energy Board Act since it was passed in 1959. This is a clear indication of how committed this government is to ensuring that Canada can safely transport the energy Canadians need and use every day.

Canadians understand that the energy sector is a critical part of our economy. It provides jobs and opportunities from coast to coast to coast. Canadians know how important the energy sector is to our quality of life and to our communities. However, they also want be reassured that our environment will be protected. Our government shares those priorities. That is why we are bringing forward this bill and I urge all members to support it.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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

I agree with him that there is some improvement in the polluter pays principle, but we are only halfway there. Nonetheless, one of the troubling aspects of this bill is that low-capacity pipelines, the ones that move less than 250,000 barrels of oil a day, are not covered by the liability. That is troubling because that type of pipeline, often in small sections, is the most common in or near urban centres.

Why was this type of lower-volume pipeline not included in the same way as higher-volume pipelines?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason that was not included is that we want to focus on the major pipelines, the ones that would be the most damaging to the environment if something happened to them. That is why the $1 billion liability was put in place. It far exceeds any other regime in the world. We looked at the numbers and the average cleanup, if anything ever happens, is between $20 million and $50 million. So the $1 billion is more than enough to cover the vast majority of any accidents that would happen.

However, with these changes to the act, there will be funds there for the National Energy Board so that it can step in and address some of these cleanups, should there be a spill. I hope that answers his question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the large pipeline that could and should have been given more attention by the government, and that is the Keystone XL pipeline. Where the government has been found wanting is on the issue of the environment and what it has been doing to protect the environment and dealing with issues related to the security and safety of our pipelines and so forth.

One of the Prime Minister's greatest failures is not being able to work with the President of the United States, Mr. Obama, to get this on the right track. This legislation has been needed for a number of years now. On the eve of an election only months away, here we are at second reading and, as has been pointed out, there is a very good chance that the legislation will not even be passed and given royal assent before that election. Why did the government take so long to present this legislation to the House?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not recall anything in this legislation about Mr. Obama or the Keystone pipeline. This is specifically about pipeline safety. We can go off track if the member likes, but I would like to bring it back to what we are talking about here.

We have had a world-class safety regime in place. Opposition members may not like the fact, but the fact is that we have a 99.999% safety rating already, which goes to show that we have had an unbelievable safety record. However, that does not mean that we have to stop there. As I said in my speech, one incident is one incident too many. We want to make sure that every avenue is available so if there ever is a spill from a major pipeline, there will be regimes in place to address it. That is why the $1 billion dollar liability was put in place, so that if anything ever happens in the future, there will be is a strong safety net to ensure that it is cleaned up.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the environment is the economy. Nearly two years ago, on May 10, 2013, I stood in the House next to the environment minister to declare what British Columbians and Canadians believe: that the environment is the economy.

Every time we consider whether environmental and economic factors are in balance, we are suggesting that the environment and the economy are in conflict with each other. Some would argue that we must sacrifice one to advance the other. In other words, we tend, wrongly, to start our discussion from the notion that the economy and the environment are at war with each other.

As a member of Parliament, I am increasingly required to consider the impact of industrial projects on the economy and environment, especially in the riding I represent. Throughout the year, conversations at events, in coffee shops, and in the homes of constituents are often related to responsible resource development. Constituents of mine, as individuals and in groups, have consistently expressed their support for Canada's economic success, but have also stood for responsible environmental practices befitting of a riding that many call the most beautiful place on earth.

Some of these proud Canadians include former fisheries minister John Fraser, Carl Halvorson of the North Vancouver Outdoor School based in Squamish, Squamish first nation elder Randall Lewis, and David Bromley, a world-renowned environmental engineer. The environment is the economy. This is the message we Canadians are increasingly taking to our Prime Minister, the natural resources industry, and the environment, fisheries, and other ministers. Bill C-46, the pipeline safety act, shows that our government is listening.

The environment is the economy. This is best illustrated in the context of value-added projects both in the riding I represent and elsewhere in Canada. This government has created a challenging review process for natural resource projects, where proponents have a high standard to meet. They must increasingly show better productivity and value to Canada, with less waste, more efficient use of resources, and a respect for the environment we cherish. These projects have a significant impact on the quality of life in Canada, providing financial and infrastructure inputs. Canada needs these projects.

The automatic reaction of “stop” is a simplistic approach, characteristic of special interest groups that just want to stall projects. This Conservative government believes in the need for continuous improvement in project implementation and impact mitigation. However, we are opposed to the simplistic hands-down rejection by people who would just say no to industry, who forget Canada's entrepreneurial roots, and who would leap to negative conclusions without due process, sound data, or information to support their position.

More and more, we Canadians are learning the benefits derived from a focus on the environment. Specifically, less use of resource inputs such as water, energy, and land has made us more efficient, leading to higher productivity and economic sustainability. As a government, we have emphasised the need for a science-based, independent, objective approval process that keeps us focused on the real objective of less impact, greater efficiency, and sustainability.

This government's focus on these principles has driven a culture of responsibility to improve continuously. The result has been the growth of jobs in the environmental sector, which now supports employment levels that dwarf even the automotive and oil and gas sectors. According to the organization ECO Canada, as of 2013, some 682,000 jobs in Canada are directly related to the environment. The focus on the environment is a change agent, not a simplistic “stop” agent. It is why I continue to say that Canada's environment is our economy.

Our government continues to rely upon independent, objective scientific assessments before approving any project. We saw this approach at work recently in our government's rejection of the Taseko New Prosperity mine project in northern B.C., an ambitious proposal to create thousands of jobs and large economic stimulus, but nevertheless rejected for environmental reasons. Many British Columbians supported the Taseko initiative, but environmental considerations prevailed. As demonstrated by that decision, our government has pledged that natural resource development will only proceed if the project is proven to be safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

The pipeline safety act would complement a number of measures previously implemented by our government to strengthen pipeline safety, which provided the National Energy Board, for example, the authority to levy administrative monetary penalties and increase the number of inspections and audits.

Bill C-46 would build on this work and provide a world-class regulatory regime for Canada's pipeline sector, while strengthening protection for Canadians and the environment. Bill C-46 addresses three main areas, which are incident prevention, preparedness and response, and liability and compensation.

Today, as a lawyer, I am focusing on the area of liability and compensation, particularly emphasizing the bill's strengthened measures to compensate for environmental damages in keeping with the polluter pays principle.

Under Bill C-46, our government would deliver on the promise to enshrine the polluter pays principle in law, to make it an important foundation for the pipeline safety regime. It would place accountability on industy and protect Canadian taxpayers from having to pay for damages and cleanup costs in the unlikely event of a spill or accident. The polluter pays principle assigns responsibility to the polluter for paying for damage to the environment, as well as the associated cleanup costs.

One of the key features of the proposed law is that it would raise the cap for absolute civil liability up to $1 billion for pipeline owners, even where there is no fault or negligence on the part of the proponent. On the other hand, liability where the pipeline owner is at fault or negligent would remain unlimited. Another key feature is that the legislation would establish the legal right for various parties to seek environmental damages. This would ensure that any damages to wildlife, waterways, or other public resources could be addressed.

The absolute or no-fault liability regime created under Bill C-46 would be one of the most robust and comprehensive in the world. While the U.S. and the U.K. have similar legislation in place, the $1 billion minimum financial capacity, and absolute liability limit would be unique to Canada. Canada would also be unique in having a cost recovered financial backstop model that provides complete coverage for cleanup and damages.

Our country has a world-class pipeline safety system. Between 2000 and 2011, federally regulated pipelines boasted a safety record of over 99.999%.

The natural resources sector is the largest private employer of aboriginal people in Canada. The plan described in the pipeline safety act was developed closely with industry and aboriginal communities to provide training for aboriginal communities on pipeline monitoring and response. This would allow aboriginal people to continue to make important contributions as full partners in the development of our natural resources.

In conclusion, Canada's environment is the economy. This government supports robust processes that take into account all considerations relevant to British Columbians and Canadians: a sustainable environment, value-adding jobs, and thriving economic growth.

Let us put an end to the “stop” mentality, which is characterized by not having sound data, and let us start encouraging open dialogue that considers all of the evidence, starting with this question of pipeline safety.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member who just spoke and whose riding has a very long name, but one that is very beautiful and evocative.

He mentioned the safety statistics for pipelines. However, it should be understood that there are risks nonetheless. The more pipelines that are built and the higher the volume of oil transported, the greater the risk of oil spills. We cannot overlook these risks because they also affect drinking water, for example.

I would like him to go into more detail about how the government plans to use science and technology, for example, by encouraging innovative projects in this field so that Canada is a leader in safety and how it plans to ensure that we have robust laws that will address the risks associated with the transportation of these goods.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question, which I am very pleased to answer.

In fact, greater pipeline safety will also encourage investment in a sector that is extremely important to the Canadian economy.

For example, the oil sands alone support more than 275,000 jobs across Canada. According to the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, in 2013, pipeline companies invested $6.5 million in aboriginal communities and paid $1.1 billion in property and corporate taxes.

Therefore, the result is not only to increase safety, build on world-class safety, and increase liabilities for polluters beyond anything known elsewhere in the world, but also to encourage investment in a sector that is very much the engine for growth in Canada, which we must do with the best of environmental protections.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a number of the Conservatives like to stand up and talk about this world-class safety record. I do not think it is fair for the government to assume the credit for either other governments or, more importantly, companies that have long-established responsible attitudes toward ensuring that we have good standards, at least in part. When I look at what is being proposed in the legislation, it talks about 70,000-plus kilometres just on the federal responsibility side. I do not know the actual kilometres, but there are many additional kilometres of non-federally regulated responsibilities for pipelines.

I wonder if the member might want to provide his comment with respect to the National Energy Board's role to align federal and provincial pipeline safety as a whole, because it is not—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to respond to my colleague's questions.

First, I am sure my colleague would agree that we as Canadians cannot afford a situation where tens of billions of dollars are lost per year because we cannot get our petroleum products to tidewater.

Second, I am sure my colleague would agree that, when looking at the disaster in Lac-Mégantic, we cannot afford to transport those petroleum products by rail or by truck when we have world-class, safe pipelines.

I am sure my colleague would also agree that, if we can continue to build on that great 99.999% safety record of federally regulated pipelines, we should do so. That is what this bill is about. We want to get it passed so we can build on that excellent record.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues on this side of the House have talked about the importance of job creation. One of the groups with whom we know we need to work is the aboriginal community, and my colleague talked about that. We know that the natural resource sector employs thousands of people from the aboriginal communities. In fact, more than 13,000 aboriginal people were employed in the energy sector in 2012.

I wonder if my colleague would comment very briefly on what opportunities this would offer to our aboriginal youth.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal communities would be partners in the wealth creation and resource exploration that this bill would help unfold. I have three world-class aboriginal communities in the riding I represent: the Squamish, the Sechelt, and the Sliammon. Our government works very closely with these communities. That close co-operation is representative of what we would see, as safe pipelines take petroleum securely to tidewater.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North.

Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act would amend the statutory liability regime for federally regulated pipelines in Canada. The bill includes absolute liability for all National Energy Board regulated pipelines, which means companies would be liable for costs and damages, irrespective of fault, up to $1 billion for major oil pipelines, pipelines that would have the capacity to transport at least 250,000 barrels a day. Companies would continue to have unlimited liability when they were at fault or negligent.

The bill is a much needed and long overdue first step toward a true polluter pays regime for pipelines in Canada. The official opposition, the NDP, has been calling on the government to bring in legislation so we have a true polluter pays system.

I think the Conservatives understand what polluter pays is, however they are reluctant to make it happen in Canada. Canadians understand what polluter pays means. Even my children understand what it means. Unfortunately the Conservatives have chosen not to understand its meaning to protect their friends in the oil companies, friends who are damaging the very environment of Canada.

I think Canadians understand what polluter pays means. As I pointed out, my children understand that if one makes a mess, then one cleans it up. It is not for the next generation to clean up that mess, and I will share a story of my children to demonstrate that.

I have two children, a son, Jaron, who is 8 years old, and daughter, Jessica, who is 18. My son is a typical eight year old. He makes a mess, whether it be with his toys, or paint or a lot of other stuff, as it is the case in every Canadian household. Children make messes at home. However, one afternoon there was a huge mess of toys in the livingroom. My wife asked Jaron to clean up the mess he had made from playing with his friends. He looked at her and then looked at my daughter and said that she would clean it up for him. Jessica looked at him and said, no. He had made the mess and he would have to clean it up. Jaron then went running to his mother and told her that his sister would not clean it up. His mom told him that it was his mess and that he would have to clear it up. He understood that. He knew it was his mess and he needed to clean it up.

This is a very basic concept. Whoever makes the mess must clean it up. Unfortunately if the Conservatives' friends in the oil industry make a mess, or if a pipeline erupts or is damaged, they do not expect the oil companies to clean it up. The Canadian taxpayers have to do that. How fair is that? If most Canadians understand the concept of polluter pays, why can the Conservatives not understand that? I think the Conservatives understand it, but they are trying to protect their friends in the oil industry and are putting the liability on Canadian taxpayers.

The bill before us is the first step with regard to the polluter pays, unfortunately the implementation of many of the proposed changes in Bill C-46 are left to the discretion of the National Energy Board and cabinet, or the details are left to regulations.

Bill C-46 leaves considerable leeway for politically motivated decisions and backroom arrangements between operators and the National Energy Board, a regulator that lacks credibility on the pipeline front. We are therefore left with uncertainty as to whether the bill goes far enough.

I come from British Columbia, and we have seen the opposition to the northern gateway pipeline. We know the mess that the National Energy Board has created where legitimate people were not allowed to testify or make their presentations in front of the NEB. The Conservatives have put in so many roadblocks to have a fair process. If we are going to have pipelines, there has to be a clear process in place to ensure that all of the considerations are taken before a decision is made.

The Conservatives have made a mockery of the process, and they have gutted the very environmental regulations that are supposed to protect not only our environment but also our resource sectors in this country. They have failed to take a leadership role to show that some of these projects are viable and that we take into consideration the environmental regulations and guidelines to ensure we have projects protected. Again, the polluter pay system is something that is not foreign to the Conservatives; they choose to be on the side of the oil companies instead of Canadian taxpayers.

Bill C-46, as a first step, makes some important improvements to Canada's liability regime, but the lack of certainty about the degree to which polluters would be required to pay undermines these improvements and leaves uncertainty as to whether the taxpayer would still be on the hook for cleanup costs when $1 billion in fault or negligence cannot be proven.

The amount of $1 billion is a drop in the bucket when it comes to a major oil spill. We have seen oil spills cost much more than $1 billion. There needs to be more to ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not left holding the bag that Conservatives are passing on from their friends in the oil companies to the taxpayers. That is not fair. Canadians expect parliamentarians to ensure that liability stays with the polluter, not with the taxpayer.

When it comes to profits, the oil companies will gladly make sure that they take those profits, and Conservatives actually help the oil companies. If they lose money, that loss is nationalized on the backs of the taxpayers. People in my constituency clearly would not want that to happen. I have talked to many people in my constituency who want a system where we ensure that liability stays with the polluter and not with taxpayers.

I have a minute left, and I could go on in this subject because it is very much a concern to people in my constituency. Basically, there is no doubt that Canada's natural resources are a tremendous blessing and the energy sector is a driving force of our economy. The NDP vision for leveraging those resources to create wealth and prosperity does not sacrifice social or environmental sustainability.

The vision of the official opposition can be summed up in three key principles: first, sustainability, to make sure that polluters pay for pollution they create instead of leaving costs to the next generation; second, partnerships, to make sure that communities, provinces, and first nations all benefit from resource development, and that we create value-added, middle-class, high-paying jobs in Canada; and third, long-term prosperity, to leverage Canada's natural wealth to invest in modern, clean energy technologies that will keep Canada on the cutting edge of energy development and ensure affordable rates into the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite noted that this legislation is a step in the right direction, as many of his colleagues have already done. In fact, one even stated that they have been looking forward to legislation like this for some time.

My question will be directly put: Will the member and his colleagues be supporting this legislation?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, it is a small step in the right direction.

We have been calling for this legislation for a long time. During the four years I have been here, the Conservatives have failed to see that the polluter must pay. They are more interested in protecting their friends in the oil industry than in actually protecting taxpayers.

This bill does not go far enough. We are hoping for some amendments to be brought in at the committee stage. I hope the Conservatives will accept those amendments to make the legislation better, to protect Canadians and not the oil companies.

At this second reading stage, I will be supporting this bill. However, it is on the condition that we will make this bill stronger so that Canadians are not left with the liability, that polluters are left with the liability. The polluters have to pay.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague rightly noted that the liability cap at $1 billion is a problem. In Kalamazoo, Michigan, close to where we reside, there was one oil spill into the river there that cost $1.2 billion to clean up.

My question for my colleague is, why is it the liability capped at that rate? If that circumstance took place in our country, for that one incident alone, taxpayers would be on the hook for $200 million.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hard-working member for Windsor West is absolutely right.

Who are the Conservatives trying to protect with the $1 billion liability? We all know it costs much more to clean up some of the messes created by oil spills. Conservatives have continued to protect their friends in the oil industry and are burdening future generations with the polluter costs.

We have been asking the Conservatives to ensure that the polluter pays. The very people who pollute the environment and who cause damage to the pristine environment around Canada should be the ones who pay. We should be taking preventative measures. This is something we need to invest in to ensure that these oil spills do not happen in the first place.

Time after time, whether it is on crime prevention or on taking preventative measures to ensure we have a solid network of secure pipelines, Conservatives have failed to invest. If we are going generate the natural wealth we have in this country, we need to ensure that we have secure, safe pipelines in place. Conservatives are not looking out for Canadian taxpayers. As usual, they are trying to protect their oil company friends.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the question from my friend from Windsor West about the Kalamazoo pipeline spill.

However, I rise to put this to my friend from Surrey North. Actually, the $1.2 billion was spent after the Enbridge corporate culture was described by the U.S. regulators as a culture of corporate negligence. The $1.2 billion did not result in the cleanup of the Kalamazoo River. The Kalamazoo River remains contaminated with bitumen and diluent because they have been unable to figure out how to clean up this particular type of mess.

The pipelines that are under consideration for Canada are all being proposed to carry this mixture of raw bitumen mixed with fossil fuel condensate called diluent or dilbit.

Certainly it would be far more preferable not to put dilbit in pipelines at all, but to process it in Alberta. I wonder if the hon. member agrees.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I like the “culture of corporate negligence”. That is the very culture that the Conservative government has been trying to protect. Canadians expect better. They expect our government to stand on their side. The government has failed to protect taxpayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in my place and speak to this important piece of legislation.

The pipeline safety act is another example of our government's commitment to protecting both Canada's economy and the environment. Our government knows that the two do go hand in hand.

As Canadians know, our government is dedicated to creating jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity for everyone across this great land. That is our first priority. However, we also recognize that jobs and economic growth cannot come at any price. As the Minister of Natural Resources has said repeatedly, no project will proceed under our plan for responsible resource development unless it has been proven safe for Canadians and for the environment.

In fact, we have spelled it out very clearly as a commitment in our Speech from the Throne:

Our government believes, and Canadians expect, that resource development must respect the environment. Our Government's plan for responsible resource development includes measures to protect against spills and other risks to the environment and local communities.

The pipeline safety act is one more example of our government's promise made, promise kept approach to governing. I would like to read two more sections from our throne speech, because they outline the necessary action we promised to take on pipeline safety:

Our government will: Enshrine the polluter-pay system into law; Set higher safety standards for companies operating offshore as well as those operating pipelines, and increase the required liability insurance.

With Bill C-46, we are delivering, just as we promised and just as Canadians would expect from their government. I am truly proud of that. We are doing exactly what we said we would do.

Specifically, this new legislation for pipeline safety focuses on prevention, on preparedness and response, as well as on liability and compensation.

As the Minister of Natural Resources said when he launched this debate, the amendments in this act send a clear message. The Government of Canada will ensure that Canada's pipeline safety system is world class, that first nations are involved in pipeline safety operations, and that taxpayers are protected. These are fundamental responsibilities for a federal government, and we are fulfilling our obligations fully and directly.

I am also pleased to see that members opposite have agreed that Bill C-46 is another important step in our efforts to ensure that Canada is a world leader in pipeline safety. As the member for Hamilton Mountain said, “I would be less than honest if I did not acknowledge that the amendments appear to be a step in the right direction”.

Moreover, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley said, “This may sound strange, but I have looked forward to some version of such a bill for many years”. It is strange, since New Democrats are completely opposed to all form of resource development. However, we appreciate that they recognize an excellent piece of legislation when they see one.

Just as important, it appears that all sides of this chamber have finally acknowledged that Canada's energy sector is the key engine driving our economy. The oil and gas industry alone contributes almost 8% to our gross domestic product. It employs 360,000 Canadians directly and indirectly, and it generates more than $23 billion annually in government revenue to help pay for social programs like health care, education, and infrastructure.

At the same time, pipelines are crucial to the safe transport of oil and gas across our country and to markets beyond our borders. As we have heard many times during this debate, Canada has an enviable record on pipeline safety. Of all the oil and product transported through about 73,000 kilometres of federally regulated pipelines in Canada, 99.999% of it has arrived safely.

My colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni captured this point very well with a reference to his home province of British Columbia. He said:

We had a pipeline going through Burnaby for more than 60 years, and most people in Burnaby did not even know it...

As my colleague for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry said:

...most homes in Canada are heated with natural gas, all of which is delivered by pipelines, but Canadians do not need to give it a second thought because it all happens so safety and seamlessly every single day.

Canada has a reputation for building and operating pipelines safely. This is one of our country's many strengths, and our government is determined to keep improving upon this record. That is why we have already implemented other important measures. For example, we gave the National Energy Board new authority to levy administrative monetary penalties and additional resources to increase its inspections and audits each year. As a result, oil and gas pipeline inspections have increased by 50% a year and comprehensive audits of pipelines have doubled.

The pipeline safety act would move those yardsticks even further. I would like to highlight a few examples. At the top of the list is the proposal to enshrine in law the polluter pays principle, to ensure that polluters would be held financially responsible for any costs and damages they cause. The legislation would also introduce absolute no-fault liability and require companies operating pipelines to hold minimum financial resources for incident response. For companies operating major oil pipelines the requirement would be set at $1 billion. As well, the pipeline safety act would, in exceptional circumstances, provide the NEB with the authority and resources to take control of incident response and cleanup when a company is unable to do so. Also, the new legislation would expand NEB authority to recover costs from industry for that backstop.

Furthermore, we are working with aboriginal communities and industry to enhance the participation of aboriginal peoples in all aspects of pipeline operations, from planning and monitoring to responding to incidents. This would ensure that aboriginal peoples participate fully in related employment and business opportunities.

These are all right and good measures. They are perfect examples of how our government is leading the way in protecting the well-being of Canadians, our communities and the environment. They also remind us of how safety standards can and should be enhanced as technologies evolve and regulations are improved.

The pipeline safety act delivers on all of these fronts. It ensures that Canadians keep setting the bar when it comes to the safe transport of oil and gas. I urge all members to support this valuable piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know it is a degree of precision, which we do not often get in this place but references to pipelines generally, in this place and in the media, refer to oil pipelines or gas pipelines. In fact, as far as I know, all the pipelines that are currently being promoted, whether Keystone or Enbridge, Kinder Morgan or energy east, are actually about shipping raw bitumen to tidewater to get it sent to other countries for refining. It is actually not even crude oil. It is pre-crude. It is bitumen mixed with dilutant, otherwise called dilbit. It does pose different threats in the case of a spill and because of those different threats, the cap at $1 billion would be unlikely to recover the costs for polluters.

I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary if there has been an analysis, with which she is familiar, of the different costs between cleaning up dilbit, dealing with crude and dealing with refined product.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that between 2000 and 2011, federally regulated pipelines boasted a safety record of over 99.99%. Pipeline companies would remain fully liable when they are found at fault or negligent in the unlikely event of a spill.

An analysis of historical examples demonstrates that this level of absolute liability and financial capacity provides world-class coverage. The average cost of major pipeline spills in North America has resulted in cleanup costs in the range of $20 million to $50 million.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a bit about the engagement that the government wants to have with aboriginal communities as we move forward with pipelines. I wonder if she could talk just a little more about the opportunities that this is going to present for our aboriginal youth, employment opportunities and moving forward with new places and new careers.

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

Mr. Speaker, the natural resources sector is the largest private employer of first nations people in Canada. In the next decade, over 400,000 aboriginal youth will be entering the workforce, creating an unprecedented opportunity to address the need for new workers in the oil and gas industry. In 2012, more than 13,500 aboriginal people worked in the Canadian energy sector. We have developed this plan closely with industry and aboriginal communities to provide training for aboriginal communities on pipeline monitoring and response. This would allow first nations to continue to make important contributions as a full partner in the development of our natural resources.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague quoted her colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni and said that he thinks people in Burnaby did not realize that a pipeline ran through their community. I am not sure how my colleague made this determination. However, putting that aside for now, I can assure her that after the 2009 Kinder Morgan spill, she would be hard-pressed to find a resident in Burnaby, in fact the Lower Mainland, who does not realize that a pipeline goes through that community in the Lower Mainland.

My question to my colleague is why smaller pipelines are exempt. These are important, as she is pointing out, in the transportation of oil. Why are the small pipelines exempt and why is there so much discretionary authority being given to the NEB and the Governor in Council instead of creating the certainty that even industry would want and require?

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we are doing exactly what we said we would. We have been very clear that through this legislation our government is ensuring that Canada's pipeline safety system is world class, that first nations are involved in pipeline safety and operations, and that taxpayers are protected. We held a technical briefing, at which time that question was asked, and it is my understanding that regulations will provide further precision for companies that are transporting less than 250,000 barrels per day.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this important bill to have the polluter pays principle apply to some of the government's legislation, which has been long sought after in this chamber. Therefore, Bill C-46, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, will be receiving our support to send it to committee.

There are some issues with this bill. It is lacklustre in some components, whether that be with respect to the clarity of the National Energy Board's oversight or liability. We have talked a bit about that today. However, the significant Achilles heel of the bill is the determination of the cleanup costs for companies that reach the $1-billion liability limit. That might sound like a lot of money on the surface, but in reality we have had spills that have cost more than $1 billion in terms of cleanup. I will speak to one in my area. Although it is an American example, our energy is integrated and it happened in a river that is connected to the Great Lakes tributary system. It affected the largest clean water supply. This is important not only with respect to the environment and water consumption for individuals but also to the general economy. We have ships that service all of the Great Lakes right out to the oceans, as well as tourism worth hundreds of millions of dollars with respect to the ecosystem. To give some perspective, over 800,000 U.S. gallons of oil escaped into the Kalamazoo River from a 30-inch pipeline. It got into the water system and required $1.2 billion U.S. to clean up. Given the value of our dollar today, that would be much higher than it was at the time. The reality is that it affected us.

To give those who are listening to the debate today an idea, a lot of effort and public money was spent to clean up the Great Lakes and other ecosystems. Therefore, it is not just about the damage and the problems that are caused at the moment a spill occurs, it is also about undermining all of the public investment that has been done to try to restore some of our ecosystems because we have treated them poorly so many times.

Most recently, we were able to celebrate the release of the sturgeon back into the Kalamazoo area, which is important to both the ecosystem and tourism sectors. A lot of hard work has been done to improve the terms and conditions by which we can use those and we have turned a negative into an asset. Therefore, when a spill takes place we cannot think of it in the context of that one moment, that one spill and that one time. When we look at the spills we have had across the country, there have also been legacy costs due to other related effects on the community, with respect to loss of use of water resources or land. Canadians have been quite clear and have consistently shown poll after poll that they do not have any confidence with respect to companies being able to clean up and contain oil spills affecting land and, in particular, water. A few years back, we saw some more modest spills that had shown up unexpectedly in the Detroit River when people found oil washing up on the shore. The company had no idea there was a spill.

Ironically, at one point in time if companies were fined for an oil spill or received a corporate fine or penalty, they could claim it as a tax deduction. I am proud that in 2004 the New Democrats fought to get that law changed so that they could no longer write off the costs of polluting. Not only did the polluter not pay, it was rewarded because it was a business-related expense at the time. That can no longer happen and is a step forward.

However, we are still left with some problems related to this bill. As I have noted, Canadians do not have confidence in the cleanup. Part of the problem that we have with the bill is that the National Energy Board's ability to act and investigate would not be sufficient.

I would point to the poor track record of the Conservative government. It is important that we did some see some action related to the horrible incident in Lac-Mégantic, but for some time now, we have been warning about some of the problems that the government has in relation to self-regulation.

I was on the transport committee when we tabled a report on rail safety in this chamber. I cannot say what was done when we were in camera, but I can say that the report did not have a dissenting opinion put with it. That was odd, because there were things that were clearly missing in the report that we tabled. A report prior to that talked about the safety management systems and how there was a culture of fear at CN and CP.

With a self-regulating body, are people going to feel strong enough and confident enough to go forward and challenge some of the industries that clearly have the ear of the Conservative government? This is a concern that I have with the National Energy Board. As we move to the self-regulation aspect, having seen cuts to the regulatory oversight, is that going to be enough? I do not think that it will be. That is what causes me major concern about this bill. It is the liability and accountability.

I would like to conclude with this. As I mentioned, in terms of their confidence in cleaning up oil spills, only 27% of Canadians are confident that the Government of Canada is able to respond effectively to a significant oil spill on water. That is significant. That lack of confidence from Canadians would be felt from coast to coast to coast and on our inland operations where we get our freshwater supplies.

We will move this bill to committee, but we will be asking significant questions to try to figure out why there is a $1 billion cap and why taxpayers should be on the hook for negligence.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some clarity on the issue of pipelines, because it depends on who we talk to within the New Democratic Party about the energy east pipeline. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition has commented to the effect that he is somewhat bullish regarding the development of the energy east program. Some of his colleagues have even been a little bit bolder in their opposition to it.

Can the member provide some clarification? It has a lot to do with pipeline safety. There is no doubt about the need for energy east. Could the member provide some clarification on the whole project? What is the NDP's position?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear. Generally speaking, our position on natural resources is that we should be in control of them by appropriately managing them and making sure that when we use them, it is done with the polluter pay principle and is sustainable. That is how we believe Canada's natural resources are best suited for use.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, among the provisions in the bill that have caused me a little bit of concern is one that limits the prescription period for liability claims to an absolute cap of six years. The limitation is three years from the time damage appears and materializes, which is a principle that we tend to recognize in tort and liability law generally. However, no matter when damage may materialize, whether health or environmental, there is an absolute cap of six years.

I wonder if my colleague feels that this is a problem, in that it seems to cut off at the knees the idea that medium- and long-term damage could materialize. That damage would not be claimable.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is a point I had written down but never did bring up in my comments.

This is a very important point, because we would be limiting the window in which damages can be claimed. That window should be open. If damages take place, the polluter should pay for them. Whether the damage is discovered sooner or later should not be a factor.

It could take years to determine the source point of environmental damage or leakage. It may not be as obvious as in the case of the Kalamazoo River. It could be a longer-term problem with a pipeline that could basically be absolved from the process. Again, it is similar to that of setting $1 billion for damages. Why are we setting these caps with arbitrary numbers?

What we should be doing is making sure that the funding is going to be there to pay for it and that the proper insurance is in place. Second, no matter when the damage takes place, the company must be held responsible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Windsor West for his speech and for again raising this issue of the pipeline rupture and spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I think it is particularly instructive to look at that, because it was a pipeline carrying dilbit.

Certainly this was the first dilbit spill that the United States Environmental Protection Agency ever had to deal with. It reported that it was basically impossible to clean up and it brought Enbridge back to the site over and over to try to clean it up.

I referred earlier to Enbridge's culture of negligence. U.S. regulators referred to Enbridge's response as Keystone Kops. Enbridge had a pipeline spill alert with high-tech equipment that would ring in a control room the minute there was a rupture. In fact, the alarm bells did ring, but the Enbridge guys in the control room went around shutting off the alarms because they did not believe them. They did not believe there was a rupture. They thought there was a malfunction somewhere else in the system. When the next shift came on, they did not warn them that all these bells had been ringing. The next shift came on and started pumping raw product right out through a broken pipeline, and that is when most of the spill occurred.

The legislation is fine as far as it goes, but I would like my friend's comments. Now that we know that dilbit is virtually impossible to clean up, why would we put it in pipelines at all?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising in greater detail what took place in Michigan, because I think it is important.

Coming from that area, I know how much work has been done over the years to try to clean up the Great Lakes and the tributary systems that feed the Great Lakes. It has been a real challenge. We have all heard the stories of the Hudson River being on fire and a series of things like that, but we have had a series of other problems in the Michigan area as well.

There has been a lot of public investment, not so much on the Canadian site but on the American side, because we share this treasured resource. When we have a spill like this through the negligence of Enbridge, it undermines all the other taxpayer-funded initiatives that try to make it a better place to live.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to what is in many ways groundbreaking legislation, because today we are setting a gold standard. This is a gold standard of environmental protection in the energy business, and that is something all Canadians should be proud of.

The measures we are introducing in Bill C-46 would have a positive impact on everything, from international energy markets to setting technical standards to fostering continued public confidence in Canada's world-class pipeline safety system. Yes, it would impose some hardship on energy companies—something we are cognizant of, particularly in the low oil price environment we are living in right now—but it would reap rewards in public trust, because the public needs to understand that in the unlikely event that there was need for a cleanup, taxpayers would not be left paying the bill. That is something this legislation would do.

As the minister has said many times, we cannot deliver our vast energy resources to global markets if we do not first garner public support in our own backyard. I want Canadians to know and spread the word to their neighbours, friends, co-workers, and relatives—and this is important—that Canada ranks in the top four countries in the world in environmental standards around our energy industry. We are number one in many areas, and this is something that we need to know and should be proud of. Bill C-46, the pipeline safety act, would add another gold standard to our environmental protection record in this area.

I want to talk now about supply and demand.

As Canadians, we understand the importance of the oil and gas sector. Certainly in my riding of Calgary Centre, that is what people live and breathe. All of us across Canada know how essential it is to have such things as natural gas delivered to our homes to light our furnaces and heat our houses when we have the brutal weather we have had in areas of Canada recently.

We also know that we need gas when we go to local service stations when we are taking our daughters to ballet or baseball or our sons to hockey. We understand that somebody, somewhere, will have to fuel the planes to fly us to see our loved ones living three provinces or three time zones away. All of us are consumers of this great resource.

The pipeline safety act was designed to address both our need and our desire for energy to be delivered safely to our communities and beyond. Every single one of us in this country utilizes this resource, and to pretend otherwise is simply not accurate. The bill also recognizes that Canadians inherently know that the demand for energy at home and abroad is a fact of modern life. In fact, energy is essential to move people out of poverty.

We have to develop our energy resources with a strong, world-class environmental safety system. According to the International Energy Agency, the world will need 37% more energy in 2040 than it consumes today, and that is going to include some of our resource.

Canadian pipelines currently are moving about three million barrels of oil every day. If we were to turn off all those pipelines, we would be adding 15,000 tanker trucks to our roads every day or putting another 4,200 railcars on the rails every day just to meet the current demand. Of course, these other modes of transportation go right through towns and cities and consume more energy, which in turn increases our greenhouse gas emissions.

Simply put, pipelines offer a very clean and efficient way to deliver the energy that all of us need every day. In Canada, they represent the safest way to transport oil and gas. As the Minister of Natural Resources has also said, Canada boasts one of the most enviable safety records in the world when it comes to transporting oil, gas, and petroleum products by pipeline. I thought it was interesting that in his speech, the member opposite was talking about an oil spill that did not occur in Canada, where we have among the safest pipelines in the world.

Between 2008 and 2013, for example, 99.999% of the oil and gas products transported through federally regulated pipelines arrived safely. Pipelines are clearly the way to go. The only question is how we keep building on our world-class safety system, and the pipeline safety act is our answer. We want to create the safest energy transportation system in the world. That might sound overly ambitious to some people, but we know that with political will and Canadian engineering, we can help make it happen.

The legislation before us will get us there by strengthening pipeline safety. It has three key pillars: first, incident prevention; second, preparedness and response; and third, liability and compensation.

Looking at prevention, we have committed to responsible resource development in Canada. We are delivering it. That demands that we take every possible measure and precaution to prevent incidents from even occurring. That is why we are proposing amendments to the National Energy Board Act that would build on other recent improvements, such as increasing the number of inspections and audits conducted every year and giving the National Energy Board the authority to levee penalties for non-compliance. Why? It is because we want to further improve the transparency and operation of the NEB under its enabling legislation.

Prevention starts even before that. It starts with the design and the construction of pipelines. In addition to this new legislation, the government will seek guidance from the NEB on the use of the best available technologies. Canada is really at the front end of many of these technologies. They are very exciting. They are being used in pipeline projects. They include materials, construction methods, and emergency response techniques, one of which is a really cool SmartBall. It rolls through a pipeline and can detect the slightest little change in pressure or a hiss to detect a pipeline problem almost before it occurs. These are really exciting developments.

On preparedness and response, the bill would ensure a robust response in the very unlikely event of an incident. It would require companies operating pipelines to have a minimum level of financial resources. It would not be just insurance. Pipeline operators would be required to keep a portion of that money, $100 million, readily available for rapid response if an incident should occur.

On liability and compensation, the third pillar, the bill would enshrine the polluter pays principle. We believe that polluters, not Canadian taxpayers, should be financially responsible for any cleanup costs. This would also give our companies skin in the game. They would know that in the unlikely event that they had a leak or spill, they would be paying the bill. That would give them even more incentive to use the best environmental safety practices they could find and would give the public confidence that they would not be picking up the tab.

We are proposing absolute liability, which is something no other country in the world has. Truly, this is a gold standard. The no-fault liability would mean that companies would automatically be responsible for damages. They would not have to wait to see who was at fault. It would be $1 billion for major oil companies, regardless of who caused the incident. It would require companies that operate pipelines to have matching financial resources to deal with any incidents.

Finally, the bill would allow, if necessary, the government to pursue operators for environmental damages over the entire life cycle of a pipeline, including abandonment. This ability would be truly world leading.

In conclusion, when it comes to moving oil and gas, government and industry must strive for the highest safety standards possible. We are aiming for a world-class standard that all Canadians can trust, the gold standard.

I am supporting the pipeline safety act. It will help us set that gold standard for safety. The Liberals and the NDP often vote against increased pipeline safety measures. They certainly have in the past. I am hoping for their support on this particular bill. It will make Canada number one in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Centre, who is quite familiar with oil since her province is known for its oil, said that it was a matter of trust.

I disagree, because this is more than a matter of trust. Residents who live 4 km away were endangered when 30 to 35 train cars derailed in Gogama over the weekend, early Saturday morning.

This bill is about pipelines. However, how can we ensure safety from beginning to end when oil is transported through a pipeline? It is not just a matter of trust; it is also a matter of responsibility.

My question for the member is the following: When damages exceed $1 billion, who will foot the bill if not the taxpayers?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course the derailment is very regrettable. It is a derailment by train. This pipeline safety act is designed to allow Canadians to utilize the safest system in the world for transporting oil and gas by pipeline. I think that portion of the question was certainly answered.

Canada will be the leader in the world in pipeline safety when this comes through. We have the safest pipelines in the world. It has been said that if the Keystone pipeline were to have been approved, it would be the safest pipeline in the U.S. We have the technology in Canada, and we are utilizing it to show Canadians.

People who live in Alberta, who deal with the energy industry every day and where pipelines are an everyday fact of life, understand how safe they are. My niece's partner works in the industry. He is called out at night if there is a leak of more than one litre.

This is an industry that has a 99.999% safety record. The opposition members should start letting Canadians know that this is an industry they should be behind, and I find it unconscionable that they increasingly vote against very good legislation like what we are seeing here today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians appreciate the importance of our environment, and they have certain expectations that I believe the government should be attempting to meet.

The member talked about 99.999% and said that it is the best in the world. It is fair to say that it is not because of the government that the pipeline industry as a whole is going out of its way to make sure that it is as safe as possible. I believe that it has a lot more to do with the expectations Canadians have and the companies, at least in part, trying to meet those expectations.

Would the member agree that there is still a great deal of room for improvement? In fact, that is the reason we are bringing the bill forward. If she agrees to that, would she be sympathetic to the idea of having possible amendments that would give the legislation that much more strength so that we could reinforce just how important safety is when it comes to our pipelines?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there were components of that question I could agree to. However, one of the things we need to understand is that we are at the top of the world. Canada is now at the top of the world. We are pushing the level of environmental safety in this industry above all other countries in the world.

One of the push-backs from industry is that they are worried that they are going to be uncompetitive because of other competitors that are supplying oil, such as Algeria. The number one source of oil for Quebec right now is Algeria. Are the pipeline safety standards in Algeria similar to those we are implementing here in the bill today? Absolutely not. This is state-of-the-art legislation that will give us state-of-the-art environmental standards in our pipeline industry. I look forward to the opposition's support.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-46, the pipeline safety act.

As I pointed out in my question, Canadians have a reasonable and high expectation that industry will ensure that our pipelines are safe and secure, not only today but well into the future. The Liberal Party is committed to ensuring that this is the case. If at all possible, it would be wonderful to say that we have a 100% safety and security record. We need to at least set that bar very high.

In her response, the member for Calgary Centre made reference to Algeria. We do not need to compare Canada to Algeria. We have our own standards and expectations. I hope the government, in going to committee, is not going to take the approach that because we have a 99.999% record there is no room for improvement. There is room for improvement. The government has recognized this, at least in part, by bringing forward the legislation. Hopefully, if amendments come forward through the committee process that would improve the safety of our pipelines, it will listen and respond accordingly. That is an important aspect as we get ready to go to committee. As the Liberal Party critic has clearly indicated, the Liberal Party will support the bill going to committee.

Bill C-46 does a number of significant things. The most important is that it enshrines the polluter pays principle. If we were to canvas, I think we would find that there is virtually unanimous support for that principle. It is something that is long overdue, and it is great to see it being incorporated in Bill C-46.

Bill C-46 deals with a few more issues I would like to quickly point out. It would better enable the National Energy Board to provide direction on using the best technologies available for building and operating pipelines. The NEB would also have a role in aligning federal and provincial pipeline safety.

We often hear about the 70,000 km plus of pipelines the federal government is, in essence, always watching over indirectly. I would suggest that in some areas, it is doing it more directly.

There are also other pipelines out there, and there needs to be coordination with our provincial counterparts. Many, including me, would suggest that it should go beyond that to include first nations and others.

Bill C-46 would give the National Energy Board the authority to take control of an incident if deemed necessary. I think most people would have anticipated that this would have been the case. The bill provides more clarity in that whole area.

The bill would provide for unlimited liability when at-fault or negligent actions are taken. There would be an expectation that the NEB would ensure that the companies responsible would actually have the funds necessary, which would lead to insurance contracts and so forth.

The bill also deals with an important point on which there has not been much debate, and that is the area of abandoned pipelines. There are, in fact, some abandoned pipelines, and the bill deals with that issue.

It is one thing to talk about pipeline development, and I will spend a bit of time on that, and pipelines that are fully commissioned and bringing product to market. However, there are, at times, decommissioned pipelines we need to spend some time, energy, and resources on to ensure that the environment where those decommissioned pipelines are is protected.

There are reasons to believe the legislation, which will ultimately pass through committee, will be of benefit, both to our environment and to the industry as a whole.

My understanding is that even industry stakeholders, in particular companies, are at the very least understanding of why the legislation is here today. If they have any understanding of public opinion and want to address the high standards that have been established by Canadians, they will be supportive of the legislation. There will be some areas of concern, but at this point I believe there is substantial support for the bill going to committee.

There is a great deal of need to ensure we get this right. Over the last number of years, the Prime Minister has invested a great deal of his political capital on one issue at great cost: the development and exportation of oil. It has cost tens of thousands of jobs in other sectors. He has made Canada more dependent on the price of oil, to the degree that the government indefinitely put off presenting its budget, which is somewhat bizarre.

The Prime Minister's inability to deal with the needs of future exportation of oil, whether it is to other provincial jurisdictions or to the United States, and his failure to work in consultation to develop pipelines that will be in the long-term interest of Canada will cost hundreds, if not billions, of dollars in the future. This means good quality jobs will be lost because of the incompetence of the Prime Minister on the file. We all need to be somewhat concerned about that.

On the one hand, we have the inability within the Conservative Party to get the job done. On the other hand, the New Democrats talk about pipeline safety, which means no pipeline development or just no real interest, from my point of view. We saw that in part when the leader of the official opposition went to the United States to tell Americans to say no to the Keystone pipeline. In the Prairies we understand how anti-west the leader of the official opposition can be at times.

With the development of our natural resources, the economic opportunities and how that improves the quality of life for all Canadians, it is to the benefit of the House to get this right. We in the Liberal Party recognize there are economic opportunities, but there are also environmental responsibilities. We believe we are in a position to say to Canadians that we understand the issue, unlike the approaches of the current government and the New Democrats.

It is the attitude of working with our counterparts, understanding the needs of industry, understanding the needs of first nations and those of other stakeholders, and our environment. In the right situation, working in consultation, it can be done. The alternative, as others have said, is this. If we do not do what is necessary, and we want to at least attempt to meet the markets, we would have phenomenal percentage increases in rail line and semi-truck transportation of oil and gas, which is no safer than our pipelines.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech of the member opposite a little amusing. He has criticized the Leader of the Opposition and his party for being anti-west when we know the Liberal leader has been against the gateway pipeline and west coast tanker traffic. He had members of the Liberal Party lambasting Alberta MPs for speaking out to help our energy industry keep moving and continuing to make the contributions it does to Canadians. However, that is an aside.

The member for Winnipeg North talked about wanting some amendments to the bill. I find this somewhat typical of the Liberals. It is airy-fairy. They have no amendments to put forward. They have nothing specific that they can suggest, unless it is more taxes, a fact they are hiding from Canadians. We know the Liberals are all about taxes.

Do the Liberals have specific amendments, even one? Do they have any clear ideas whatsoever on the bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will address the member's first comment. It is interesting that the Conservative spin tries to get out messages which are just not true. The reality is that the Conservative government, and the Prime Minister and the member for Calgary Centre need to be sensitive to this issue, especially as they are members of Parliament for Calgary, has failed completely in its development of the pipeline needs of the future. There has been a huge vacuum of leadership under the government. As a direct result of that, we have lost thousands of good quality job opportunities, not to mention the potential that could have been achieved in market growth.

We in the Liberal Party are not fearful of market growth on condition, and I said this when I spoke. We need to have balance. We have to protect the environment. Canadians demand that of us. The Liberal Party is prepared to deliver on both of those counts.

In terms of potential amendments, the member should listen to my colleague from Halifax West, who has spoken on the bill and this issue, not only today but at other opportunities. I am sure he would be happy to sit down with her and explain a lot of wonderful ideas.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have what I think is, ultimately, a simple question for our colleague. When did he and the Liberal Party get religion?

When the Liberals left power, the liability limit was a mere $40 million. It was not as if the oil industry was not robust. It was not as if the shape of it was not more or less the same as it is now. Yet now, we have the Liberals standing up and saying okay, because of popular pressure, somehow the government is doing the right thing.

Where were the Liberals the entire time of their tenure, until roughly eight years ago?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the thing about time is that things change. I suspect that we did not see the New Democratic Party jumping out of its seats during question period, saying “let's increase the limit to a billion dollars”. In time, there is a need for change.

Within the Liberal Party, we believe that as things evolve, we need to bring forward legislation to improve upon the system we have in place. How wonderful it would be if we could pass legislation today that would cater to all the needs in 10 or 20 years from now.

When issues come to the floor of the House, or when stakeholders come to the table to talk about the importance of issues, there is a need for us to at least try to deal with them. Here we have an issue in which I believe there is virtually unanimous support on aspects such as the polluter pays principle. We should continue to look at how we might improve upon that principle.

The NDP opposes any sort of real development of a pipeline. As I indicated, pipeline safety to the NDP is no pipeline. We in the Liberal Party do not believe that. We believe there are environmental and economic concerns, but there is also the potential for development and getting our product to the market. All of us as a society would benefit from that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak today to a bill that addresses the concerns of many of my constituents in Laval—Les Îles, Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. Although this bill is a first step toward a true polluter pays regime for Canadian oil companies—which is what the NDP wants—this is something the government should have done a long time ago.

The bill also amends the statutory liability regime for federally regulated pipelines in Canada. Bill C-46 includes absolute liability for all pipelines regulated by the National Energy Board. That means that oil companies will be liable for costs and damage, irrespective of fault, up to $1 billion for major pipelines, that is, pipelines with the capacity to transport at least 250,000 barrels of oil per day. That is definitely an improvement over existing laws. However, there are significant improvements to be made to this bill and grey areas that we feel need to be clarified, as is always the case with this government.

First of all, the bill before us does not include absolute liability, which I mentioned earlier, for natural gas companies and other operators of non-oil pipelines or for small oil pipeline companies. Under this bill, that will be determined by future regulations or by cabinet.

I am honoured to be a member of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. My colleagues on the committee, including the members for Honoré-Mercier and Beauharnois—Salaberry, would be able to talk about how extremely slowly this government, like the Liberal governments before it, deals with certain regulations. The committee regularly scrutinizes regulations from 1980 and 1990. Believe it or not, we recently dealt with a regulation that has been pending since 1976. I am therefore very suspicious of this government's ability to manage a matter of such great importance and to act efficiently and quickly when it comes to regulations.

The Conservative government has a reputation for being slow to respond to urgent situations, unless they are politically advantageous and can be used to appease its political base, as we have seen many times, including with Bill C-2 and more recently with Bill C-51. Since the Conservative base does not consider defending the environment to be sexy, this government has taken years to act—and it has not done nearly enough, if you ask us—in order to solve the problem of liability in the event of an oil spill if a pipeline breaks.

Ian Miron, a lawyer with Ecojustice, sees the $1 billion liability limit as insufficient. According to him, no liability regime can truly be considered a polluter pays regime unless and until polluters are made absolutely liable for the full costs of environmental harm. While the $1 billion limit may be considered an important first step for some companies, just look at what happened in the case of the Kalamazoo River spill in Michigan. Cleanup costs can quickly add up to $1 billion in the case of a major spill, and that does not even include compensation for damage.

The bill for the Enbridge spill in the Kalamazoo river is $1.2 billion. That does not include any damages or losses. In that type of case, we realize that the liability limit set at $1 billion is hardly enough and that the taxpayer will likely have to cover the rest of the bill yet again.

It is therefore quite understandable why so many people from Laval in my riding and my colleagues in the region are so concerned about Enbridge wanting to go through the area. The consultation process is flawed and does not include any consultation or fulsome discussion with the public and various stakeholders. There is just as much concern over the idea that in the event of a spill, the companies' liability is limited.

I already hear my colleagues opposite saying that we are anti-oil and anti-pipeline. That is pure rhetoric. The NDP wants responsible and sustainable development. There is no doubt that the natural resources we have in Canada are a real boon.

The energy sector is an essential driver of our economy. However, our vision for enhancing these resources and creating wealth and prosperity must not come at the expense of the social and environmental sustainability of our economy. For far too long, the Liberals and the Conservatives have been telling Canadians that they must choose between the environment and the economy. That is not true. They do not have to choose.

A new vision is needed for the future of our energy resources. The NDP has such a vision, and it is based on three key principles. The first is sustainability. We must ensure that polluters pay for the pollution they create instead of leaving those financial and environmental costs to future generations.

The second is partnership. We must ensure that our communities, provinces and first nations all benefit from resource development and that we create value-added jobs for the middle class here in Canada.

The third is long-term prosperity. We need real long-term prosperity, not just meaningless words from the Conservatives. We need prosperity to leverage Canada’s natural wealth to invest in modern, clean energy technology that will keep Canada on the cutting edge of energy development and ensure affordable rates into the future.

Bill C-46 is a step in the right direction when it comes to companies' financial liability. It is important to note that the bill also has some serious shortcomings, which I mentioned earlier and which we truly hope that the government will consider and fix in committee, in the spirit of collegiality. One particular shortcoming is the exclusion of gas companies from the absolute liability process. These companies are absolved in the current version of the bill.

However, it is even more important that in the future—at third reading, we hope—the bill include provisions that are nowhere to be found in this version of the bill. This includes, for example, the need for oil and gas companies to hold extensive consultations with communities, like my own community of Laval. This would ensure that the public can have its say and that the company that wants to put a pipeline through a particular area is accountable to the public in the region with respect to the security of the facilities and environmental standards.

Unfortunately, under this government, the environmental assessment process has been literally gutted, as have so many other environmental regulations since 2011. We are still holding out hope that the Conservatives will finally listen to reason and that they will listen to the people who have concerns, as we are doing in the NDP.

In conclusion, the bill before us today is an extremely important one. It is crucial for all of us, no matter the party, to do things the right way. Over the past four years, this government has rushed vitally important bills through the House, without meaningful debate and without being open to amendments that would improve bills or even address potential flaws.

Unfortunately, Bill C-51 is very representative of this reality. Therefore, I hope that Bill C-46 will mark a new way of doing things for this government, because as parliamentarians we must work in the interest of those who elected us, not in the interest of those who contribute to the Conservatives' campaign fund.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague tell us a bit more about sustainable development, which he mentioned in his speech?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth for his question.

We know that oil reserves will run out one day. We must invest oil profits in new technologies. As we know, oil will not last forever.

I went to Dubai about two years ago. New technologies are being developed even there. When I asked the people in Dubai why, even there, they were developing other technologies, they told me that they know the oil will not last forever and that now is the time to start looking for alternative solutions.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laval—Les Îles for his excellent speech and for saying that there are, in fact, some good points in this bill. We will support it and try to improve it with appropriate amendments.

Still—and this is important—he did refer to what this bill does not contain. This bill does not mention the environmental laws that have been attacked, diminished and weakened during the years of Conservative rule.

That does not help to build pipelines; quite the opposite. We have a serious problem if the necessary consultations are not carried out. For example, in the case of the energy east pipeline, there is a slapdash rush to finish the consultations in a way that makes no sense, without doing the environmental assessments needed to ensure that the project is solid, environmentally responsible and safe for the public. No one has asked for public approval or social licence.

I would like the hon. member to tell us what is missing in this bill with respect to environmental assessments and social licence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question.

For more than a year we were both members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. While I was on that committee, the government made cuts to environmental assessments. Now they have added time limits. When someone asks for approval of a pipeline or similar project, there is a time limit and even if the environmental assessments are not complete, the government can decide that the time is up, whenever it likes.

Of course, that worries me. Also, even though the members on the other side of the House tell us that pipelines are 99.99% safe, people will not be happy if the remaining 0.01% happens in their back yard.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to tell us more about social licence for the pipeline project. I would like to know if he can add some information on this subject and tell us, for example, what the mayors of various cities say about pipelines in their areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, we in Laval know that a pipeline will be going to the riding of Honoré-Mercier, where I lived for several happy years.

Everyone, including the mayors, is worried and wonders what will really happen. Are we adequately prepared in case of a spill? Neither this bill nor our current resources will be enough to respond to a spill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to wish you a very happy retirement. We have all appreciated your time in this House.

I have a lot of worries and questions as I enter this debate on the bill. The pipeline safety bill is a contemporary issue that links transportation and safety.

In recent years, a number of serious incidents all over North America have repeatedly brought this issue to the forefront of many citizens' concerns, including the people of my riding, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. For example, many of my constituents have said they are worried about the oil terminal proposed for the port of Cacouna. Pipeline safety and security are under close watch by the Canadian people.

Moreover, this is a crosscutting debate that affects several levels of government, such as municipalities, provinces, territories and other social groups and communities, including first nations.

As I speak today, I hope the government will listen to my fears, take note of my questions so it can answer them, and show its good faith and its openness to dialogue and to the amendments we will be proposing later.

I want to tell the House about three main aspects of this bill: the importance of favouring prevention over reaction; the cap of $1 billion on the polluter pays principle applying to private companies' spills; and the future of our energy resources.

I have a lot to say about the importance of favouring prevention over reaction. After a decade in power, the Conservatives are looking tired, or maybe even lazy. They are tired of having to meet the needs of the population and the middle class and tired of facing criticism. Their masks are beginning to slip, and we can see what lies behind.

The Prime Minister's stubbornness has caused considerable damage to our environment and our economy. Why did he not seize the opportunity afforded by this legislation to be proactive? The Conservatives always seem to be in reaction mode, as if they have to wait for the very worst, for things to hit rock bottom, before they will take action. It should not be that way. Canadians expect better.

There is a total lack of leadership when it comes to pipeline regulation in Canada. However, the real question we need to ask ourselves is this: is that because of laziness or is it because it is in the Conservatives' interest to help oil companies? The statistics, data and testimony about the effects of spills are compelling.

The Conservatives are dragging their heels on this. Pipeline incidents have been happening for a long time now. Maybe they should stop by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada's website a little more often. The website posts monthly statistics on pipeline incidents, and there are incidents every month.

The Conservatives also introduced disturbing new standards for reporting incidents. This is what a Radio-Canada article had to say:

Until July 2014, any spill, no matter how small, had to be reported to the TSB. On July 1, the federal body harmonized its regulations with those of the National Energy Board, the NEB. From now on, only spills of 1.5 cubic metres or more have to be reported.

That means that pipeline-related incidents need to be reported only if they are in excess of 1.5 cubic metres. Our government agencies do not record spills that are smaller than that.

Am I the only one who finds that disturbing? The Conservatives have kept us waiting quite a while when it comes to figuring out who is liable for oil spills resulting from broken pipelines.

I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasize the dire need for more inspections and more monitoring, as well as measures to prevent oil spills. We cannot allow this government's lack of leadership to endanger communities, infrastructure, wildlife and plants.

It is also important to talk about the polluter pays concept.

The NDP has been defending this principle for quite some time. Since the Conservatives are stuck working with us, our ideas seem to have inspired them. Still, it took a tragedy for them to act.

The Lac-Mégantic tragedy served as a lesson for the Conservatives. We cannot allow companies to operate on Canadian soil if they cannot respond appropriately in the event of fault or negligence. However, we must realize that it does not take long to spend $1 billion in the event of a spill. Consider the costs associated with decontamination, compensation, damage to infrastructure, and so on.

A number of experts shared their concerns regarding this $1 billion limit, indicating for instance that a spill in an urban setting could easily cost $5 billion or $10 billion. We have to make sure that polluters pay for the pollution they create, rather than pass the cost on to future generations, namely, our children and grandchildren.

Ian Miron, a lawyer with Ecojustice, has said that no liability regime can truly be considered a polluter pays regime unless and until polluters are made absolutely liable for the full costs of environmental harm.

As for the cap, it will certainly be the taxpayers who end up paying cleanup costs over $1 billion when fault or negligence cannot be proven.

We admit that Bill C-46 does make some important improvements in the liability regime for pipelines in Canada. However, why should the taxpayers have to pay the bill if there is a spill or some other accident?

I am also worried that the bill does not include absolute liability for gas companies and other operators of non-oil pipelines and small oil pipeline companies. Why not? The Conservatives want to do this later, through regulation or a cabinet decision. Why not do it now, while we are having an open, transparent, public debate?

We know that the government likes to work behind closed doors. Too many aspects of this bill are left to the discretion of the National Energy Board and the cabinet. The Conservatives seem to be leaving a lot of leeway for politically motivated decisions and secret agreements between the operators and the National Energy Board, a regulatory body that lacks credibility regarding pipelines.

That is why we are not certain this bill goes far enough to protect the safety of all Canadians.

Finally, with regard to the future of our energy resources, the NDP has a vision of long-term prosperity. The Conservatives are trying to make people believe that a New Democratic government would not be good for the economy, but that is completely wrong.

Canadians have been told for too long that they must choose between the economy and the environment. That is a false choice. We propose a different course that will favour economic growth and protect the environment.

I would like to say something about something that is very close to my heart, and that is the principle of sustainable development. When we talk about sustainable development, we are talking about social licence, environmental protection and economics. If more attention had been paid to social licence, there would not have been so many failed pipeline projects. No one is making the effort to consult people and make sure that Canadians are safe.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

She is probably already aware that there was another explosion last weekend in northern Ontario, as another train exploded. Over the past three years, the transportation of petroleum products on our railways has increased by 1,600%. This size of increase is completely overwhelming. By 2024, even if we build the three oil and gas pipelines that have been planned, there will be an additional 1 million barrels of oil that cannot be transported through the pipeline system and that ultimately will be carried by rail, by train.

Perhaps she could tell us how she views this increase and the fact that there is only $1 billion in freight liability? We have seen that the cost for Lake Mégantic has now reached $600 million.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Indeed, there was another oil spill and this time the trains were involved. It happened on Friday night. It was called a “Lake Mégantic 2.0”, because it happened 4 km outside an urban area and it could well have resulted in another human disaster.

Clearly, our railways, our tracks and our crossings, are in a terrible state. Canada is responsible for making sure the system is safe. The system is in fact far from being safe. I travelled across Canada on the train and I hoped to arrive at my destination without having an accident, because I think it is unsafe.

Regarding the pipelines, we must ensure that they are safe, in terms of oil spills and terrorist activity. That is what we are looking at now. However, a pipeline that goes from one end of the country to the other means that there are great distances to be monitored and secured. Social acceptance is related to the environment, security and the economy. We are therefore asking the government to look into this issue again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her excellent speech.

I wonder whether she knows why the Conservatives have been telling us for some time now that the pipelines are 99.99% safe, and why they are so resistant to increasing the liability to more than $1 billion if they are so sure it would never be used.

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

Mr. Speaker, previously, just before the excellent leader that we have currently, we had a leader who went to war against the major oil companies, big business and the banks. There was a reason for that. It is true that we see a problem in terms of social acceptability and safety.

The $1 billion cap is not sufficient. These days, $1 billion is the same as $1 million was back in the 1980s. It is proportionally the same in terms of accidents. There are far too many claims and the consequences of an accident are too great to put limits on liability. We should have a polluter pays regime and it should be paid for entirely by the users and operators.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have a situation in northern Ontario right now, in the Gogama region, where there has been a third derailment. Crude oil is burning in the Mattagami River. We know there is a major environmental impact from the movement of bitumen and crude. Questions are being raised in terms of the Gogama accident about oversight and safety. This is the same argument that is being dealt with on the pipelines.

We have a government that has stripped the environmental protection laws of this country to push the pipelines through, which has created a serious backlash in the population who do not trust the government to put the interests of environment ahead of the very narrow interests of the Alberta oil lobby.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what she thinks needs to be done to ensure that, however we are transporting crude oil, whether it is through pipelines or on trains, we ensure that public safety is first and foremost a priority.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is another ecological disaster just a few kilometres from people's homes. The people living there were really very close to a major disaster. The consequences are enormous. We really have to look into the issue of safety, as I was saying earlier. In this case, the cause was not a pipeline but a railway. The railway tracks and crossings are in an absolutely deplorable state.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the bill on pipeline safety. In my view, it is a good first step toward ensuring pipeline safety, but there are still problems.

I want to speak to the overall scheme of pipelines in Canada, acknowledging, as I said, that this is a good first step. There is much more that needs to be done. There are some areas of vagueness in this piece of legislation. Overall we still have the problem, which I will start with as an overarching concern, with the current energy strategy that sees us wanting to get raw bitumen out of the oil sands, particularly when the price of a barrel of oil was trading internationally at levels that allowed this to be a profitable activity. The strategy appeared to be to get as much raw bitumen out of the ground as fast as possible and ship it quickly to other places for processing and refining.

I take issue with some of the comments that were made earlier in this place by both Liberal colleagues and Conservatives. The assumption that getting raw bitumen to other countries is in Canada's best interest or even in Alberta's best interest is, in fact, opposed by the major trade union that represents workers in the oil sands. There are far more jobs to be created in the oil sands if the material is upgraded near the resource and preferably refined near the resource before being diluted with a diluent, fossil fuel condensate, which is shipped to Alberta to make the bitumen flowable.

It is this combination of bitumen and diluent that would be the product to be shipped under all the controversial current pipelines that we hear about, whether energy east or Keystone heading south, or the two very controversial and unacceptable projects that British Columbians do not want to see, the Kinder Morgan project, or the so-called Enbridge gateway project. All of these pipelines are about getting raw bitumen to tidewater for refining in other countries. Therefore, we should be questioning the whole strategy.

What is missing is actually having an energy strategy, having an energy policy in Canada that allows Canadians to know that we are maximizing the benefit of our natural resources and reducing the environmental impact of their exploitation. To maximize value, one of the first principles should be that we get as many jobs as possible out of every ounce of raw material, whether we are talking about shipping out raw logs from the forest industry, which we should oppose, or whether we are talking about shipping out raw bitumen from the fossil fuel industry, which we should oppose.

That also speaks to the dangers of pipeline spills and tanker spills. Under previous legislation, Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, the current administration has brought up the liability levels for tanker traffic as well. I just want to note parenthetically that around liability and the Green Party's larger concern around tanker safety, each supertanker is independently and individually incorporated. Therefore, in the event of a catastrophic accident, we can have all the laws in the world that say that they are going to be absolutely liable and they will pay for their damage, but the reality of tanker traffic is that, in the case of a major accident with billions and billions of dollars of damage, they are much more likely to go bankrupt and leave Canadians holding the bag.

I do not want to overlook that there is an international fund into which the industry pays for tanker safety, the ship-source oil pollution fund, but that is only accessible for up to $250 million per incident. Again, we know from the experience with real disasters that tanker accidents can be in the billions of dollars. That is speaking to our previous history with tankers carrying conventional crude, the Exxon Valdez being the most notable and still not cleaned up. We know now from Enbridge's gross negligence in Kalamazoo, Michigan, that a pipeline rupture with dilbit is virtually impossible to clean up. Dilbit does not behave the way conventional crude does in freshwater environments. We have no experience whatsoever, and I underscore that, with dilbit in the marine environment.

As an intervenor on the Kinder Morgan hearings, I read through its evidence. It claims it has done experiments that show how dilbit will behave in a marine environment. It took large free-standing tanks in Alberta, added salt to the water, stirred, as they said to replicate wind and wave action, and then poured in dilbit to see how it behaved. That is the sum total of the knowledge base in Canada for how dilbit would behave in a marine environment.

Unalterably, the Green Party will oppose putting dilbit in tankers and open waters. We oppose putting dilbit in pipelines, not just because it will be hard or impossible to clean up and because the liability limits will not cover the damage, but because every pipeline is intended to take this stuff into tankers where we know the liability regime will not work because of the corporate structure of offshore oil tankers. The liability for Kinder Morgan, Enbridge, TransCanada and the like for dilbit stops at the end of the pipeline. Once they ship it into a tanker, it is not their problem.

Getting back to the bill, let me cover briefly why it is a good first step in a couple of areas and needs strengthening in others. Where it is a good first step is by enshrining the polluter pays principle into law. It is also good to see what is called “non-use value” for public resources being a compensable category. Non-use value basically means that environmental damage can be compensated. That is a good step as a principle. Some of the later clauses as to how this would come into force are unfortunately rather vague; there are still gaps in terms of how environmental damage would be compensated. I want to commend the administration for putting forward the concept of non-use value as a compensable form. It might create the potential for the National Energy Board to create new tools to go after polluters to get the money back as a result of a spill.

I do support the work of an environmental law group called Ecojustice, which has done a good synopsis of the bill for anyone who wants a quick review without having to go through the bill in detail themselves. The bill is too discretionary. It leaves a lot for the National Energy Board to develop its own rules and regulations around how this would be implemented. It does have significant gaps. For instance, oil pipelines carrying less than 250,000 barrels a day would not be covered under this regime. That is the scale of pipeline that would have the absolute liability.

Again, as has been evidenced by quite a bit of the debate earlier today, the $1 billion cap is not sufficient to cover the full costs of a spill involving dilbit. We know that from the Kalamazoo, Michigan spill, which hit $1.2 billion and has not cleaned up the spill, as parts of the Kalamazoo River remain contaminated.

The other part of the bill that needs more work is that it does not impose unlimited absolute liability. There are ways in which that would be limited with the capping, and additionally with other provisions that the NEB can bring forward. Bear in mind that is taking away what existed under the Fisheries Act where the government had the ability to recover the cleanup costs for a pipeline spill to the full costs. In certain circumstances, we already had some provisions that would make a pipeline owner face unlimited absolute liability. That liability regime is now gone.

I will quote from the legal opinion of Ecojustice, which states:

No liability regime can truly and comprehensively be termed a polluter pays regime unless and until polluters are made absolutely liable for the full costs of environmental harm.

This bill represents a good first step, even with the criticisms that I have included in this presentation this afternoon. I want to make it clear that I will be voting for this bill. However, I would like to see the work done to improve and fill the gaps to make it less discretionary.

Overall, I would like us to focus more in this debate, which is often a dialogue of the deaf on the subject of what is in the pipelines. If it is dilbit, we should not be shipping it at all. Dilbit requires a two-way flow of toxic substances. First, the diluent has to be shipped. In the submission by Enbridge to the NEB, it said it would be buying its fossil fuel condensate from the Middle East. Therefore, tankers from Saudi Arabia would come all the way around and go through the tricky channels into Kitimat to put it into the western end of the twin pipeline, ship the diluent from Kitimat into Alberta, stir it in, and then ship it west. That is a cockamamie scheme.

I appreciate the attention of this House. This bill is a good first step, but the whole scheme needs to be reviewed.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for, as usual, setting the global context in very environmentally sensitive terms.

I have a very specific question because the member appears to have read the Ecojustice summary that I have not yet had the chance to read.

There is one provision in the bill where it says the Governor in Council cannot make regulations that “...provide that the loss of non-use value”, which the member has already said means environmental damage, “...in relation to damages to the environment caused...is a loss for which the [pipeline claims] Tribunal may award compensation”.

It seems that it is saying that the pipeline claims tribunal cannot be charged with assigning compensation for non-use value damage. Is that a correct reading, or is there something else going on here to her knowledge?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is correctly reading that, but there is also a liability section that I would direct him to, proposed section 48.12, that does allow for loss of non-use value. I think it is when they set up the special claims tribunal that they are limited. However, I believe the member understood that exactly right, and it is a weakness.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That will bring the debate to an end at this time. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will have approximately three minutes of questions and comments when we resume debate on this bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands still has 3 minutes and 30 seconds for questions and comments.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if she is familiar with the work of scientists, technicians, and academics on double-walled pipelines with sensors in between, which are close to being spill-proof. Of course, they are not mentioned in this bill, but an increasing number of experts feel they are necessary to prevent the kinds of problems to which the member has already referred.

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

Mr. Speaker, speaking to Bill C-46 relating to pipeline safety, I thank my colleague in the Green Party, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

There have been a lot of advances in the technology, particularly for double-walled pipelines. None of the current pipelines being proposed across Canada are double-walled. There is no question that if there are two walls with sensors between each of the two walls in a pipeline and sensors to detect leaks, that it is far more likely to operate a system where leaks are less frequent. It would be a significant improvement on the safety measures for the currently proposed pipeline.

What I want to stress, as I did in my speech, is that the Green Party opposes any of the currently proposed pipelines, whether they are heading west or east or south or potentially north, any pipeline determined to deliver raw bitumen to tidewater, to ship overseas, carrying the very dangerous mixture, the very environmentally damaging mixture of bitumen mixed with dilbit. That is something we would oppose.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech.

There are categories of liability in the event of a spill. If fault or negligence is proven, there is unlimited liability; if it is not proven, liability is limited to $1 billion.

I would like my colleague to tell us more about the problems this could create, because there would obviously be a legal process to determine liability, which, in my view, would delay compensation.

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

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

The $1 billion cap is really a problem because there is the possibility, and even the probability, of pipeline disasters where the costs would exceed $1 billion. For example, there was the Kalamazoo River disaster in Michigan caused by Enbridge. More than four years later, the river is still polluted.

Dilbit spills, as far as we know, cannot be cleaned up, at any cost, and the attempts so far to clean up in Kalamazoo have exceeded the $1 billion cap set out in Bill C-46. That means that whatever is left over in terms of cost within Canada would be absorbed by the Canadian government, Canadian taxpayers.

I know that Conservative members have pointed out that the Kalamazoo, Michigan spill occurred in another country, but it was still caused by a major Canadian company.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be rising to speak to Bill C-46, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. We know the bill deals with the whole question of liability for pipeline spills.

My riding of Toronto—Danforth is a very strong environmental riding. The environmental consciousness of the average citizen is exceptional. Constituents are very concerned about the serious environmental risks associated with pipeline projects in Canada, including oil spills. It is also important to say they also understand that pipelines are directly tied to the facilitation of accelerated oil extraction and oil export that is at cross purposes to the urgent need to fight climate change, the single most important challenge the world faces and, indeed, the single most important challenge that we have faced for decades without acting properly on it.

Many also realize the particular risks of localized pollution of diluted bitumen once it spills in any form, whether from a tanker or from a pipeline, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has been emphasizing in today's debate. My constituents have very little faith that the government is taking steps in general to ensure that these kinds of environmental concerns are thoroughly addressed. They need to know that the environment is being protected and that necessary preventive and response measures are going to be put in place.

Of course, I take these concerns seriously. When it comes to major resource projects like pipelines, the NDP believes that proper community consultation, respect for the rights and title of aboriginal peoples, and rigorous environmental assessments are the bedrock of any kind of viable sustainable development approach. This has not been the approach taken by the government, by and large, in the review, for example, of northern gateway, Kinder Morgan and Keystone XL, and in the same flawed process that was applied to Line 9 and is now being applied to Energy East.

The legislation we are debating today is, however, a step forward. Bill C-46 seeks, among other things, to ensure that some polluters will be absolutely liable for harm caused by a pipeline spill, including environmental damage, what is termed in the bill as non-use harm. The bill includes absolute liability for all National Energy Board regulated pipelines. That means companies would be liable for costs and damages, irrespective of fault, up to $1 billion for major oil pipelines, which are pipelines that ship or transport more than 250,000 barrels of oil a day. Where there is fault, including negligence, there is no cap, and that is a good feature of this bill. For those under 250,000 barrels a day, it is left to regulation. Therefore, there is lack of clarity as to what the liability cap will be for smaller operations.

It is a good start, as I have said, and that is why, of course, I will support it at second reading. From what I have heard, most of my colleagues, if not all of them, also will be. We need to send it to committee for further study and amendments, and this is exactly the kind of bill where there will be real expertise brought to bear from across the spectrum. I honestly hope the committee will have enough hearings to go into the finer details of the bill to get it right. There seems to be a cross-party consensus that it needs to be done right, by and large, and it is not the kind of bill that should be overly politicized.

We in the NDP have long been consistent in our position that companies, corporations, and not taxpayers and not citizens who call on the public treasury for other government programs, should cover the cost of pollution. The bill is long overdue as a first step toward a polluter pays regime for pipelines in Canada.

There are some other specific provisions I should briefly point out by way of being somewhat laudatory of what the government has put forward in Bill C-46. One is that aboriginal governments, termed “any Aboriginal governing body”, in the bill, are treated similarly to other governments, municipal, provincial and federal, in terms of the role they play in cleanup and being compensated for any kind of cleanup they have to do. Other powers and rights are given to them as well, and that is something.

Additional remedies, as part of the judgment that a court can give under offence provisions in the National Energy Board Act, include such creative possibilities as ordering the creation of scholarship funds for environmental studies. This is written into the bill.

Interim compensation is possible as one of the orders from the new pipeline claims tribunal, which can be called into being in cases of so-called designated companies. The system set up by the bill would have the ability to access as much of the pooled liability reserve funds as the National Energy Board would deem needed in the case of designated companies. Therefore, when a company is sharing a pooled fund, to ensure it has enough money, it is not just its share of the pooled fund that can be accessed, but the entire fund, at least on my reading.

Also, in terms of the kinds of fines that come with the offence provisions that already exist in the National Energy Board Act, there are a number of new headings under which aggravation of damages could be sparked, or what kind of extra factors would mean higher fines. One of the aggravating factors is where there is evidence that shows that the corporation allowed the spill to happen essentially as part of an economic calculus in order to save costs, in order to make more money.

All of these things are to be commended in the bill. There are, however, more than a few problems.

The first problem has been mentioned a few times, and that is setting the limit on liability in cases of so-called non-fault at $1 billion, which may not be sufficient. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has already indicated clearly that we know it has already cost more than $1 billion for the cleanup in the Kalamazoo River area. We also know the cleanup has not actually worked and to some extent the attempt goes on, whether a real cleanup will ever be possible given the nature of diluted bitumen.

Second, much of the bill is heavily laden with regulatory and discretionary provisions. An awful lot of power is given to the cabinet and the National Energy Board to set out detailed regulations. This includes, for example, that this new pipeline claims tribunal exists in the act in a very general way. The Governor-in-Council, however, would be given the power to make regulations on virtually everything to do with this tribunal, including in subclause 48.47(a) “prescribing the terms and conditions of appointment of its members”. There is nothing in the act—we have nothing to look at—to know what kind of tribunal this would be. Where are these members going to come from? How are they going to be appointed? How do we know this tribunal will be a fair and adequate replacement for the courts, for example, in the stream of cases that might go to it? There is actually a lot of room for manipulation of that pipeline claims tribunal by virtue of so much being left out of the act.

Other problems are more in terms of how things are left to regulation, even as the act has taken care to ensure some things cannot be regulated. For example, it appears from my reading that the Governor-in-Council cannot prescribe higher amounts than the $1 billion on a company-by-company basis. It is allowed to say yes for a certain kind of pipeline that carries much more than 250,000 barrels per day that the liability limit should be more than $1 billion. However, it cannot do that on a company-by-company basis, although it would be specifically allowed to do it on a company-by-company basis for pipelines involving under 250,000 barrels. Therefore, if there is a company that is notorious for having problems, notorious for non-compliance, notorious for being a greater risk and yet still is in the game so to speak, there seems to be a prohibition on treating that company differently. There is a kind of formal equality idea here, which is a problem.

In terms of the amount of cash on hand that a company has to keep in order to cover liability, the National Energy Board is not required to ensure that the money on hand includes enough money for any potential loss of non-use value, which is code in the bill for environmental damage relating to a public resource. This is part and parcel of a couple of features we discussed earlier in questions and answers in relation to an earlier speech. There are a couple of areas in which, although the act starts out by saying so-called “non-use value”, environmental damage is covered as one of the three major heads of damage that the bill's liability provisions are meant to go to, but there are other provisions in the act that seem to claw that back.

In conclusion, this is a good start for sure, but at the same time it is a bill that needs close scrutiny in committee. It is the kind of scrutiny that will be very easy to understand in terms of what is necessary to improve the bill. I hope all parties will gather together to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member has made.

The Conservatives will often talk about the safety record of our pipelines. One of the things I have come to know over the years is that Canadians see the value of the transportation of our oil and gas through pipelines, but at the same time they do have an expectation, justifiably, to ensure there is a high sense of security and safety related to the pipelines. To that extent, it is good we have the legislation before us.

The member might want to provide some comment on living up to the expectations that Canadians have as a whole when it comes to protecting our environment and so forth, when we talk about the whole issue of pipeline security.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I understand, from one set of figures that I have, Canadians have differential confidence in different means of transporting oil. Twenty-nine per cent feel confident that rail is safe. After Lac-Mégantic, we know why that figure is so low. Thirty-seven per cent believe that oil tanker transport is safe, which is still low. Closer to 50% think pipelines are safe. It is absolutely true: part of the premise of the question is that there is some sense that Canadians understand that pipelines, as compared to other methods, may be safer.

At the same time, I want to emphasize one thing that again the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has been emphasizing. Diluted bitumen is a very different commodity from other forms of oil, whether it is semi-processed or more refined. The specific problems that can be caused by spills of diluted bitumen have to make that kind of transportation by any means, but especially by pipelines, across anything resembling environmentally sensitive areas a special consideration.

When we throw into that the idea that refining at source or upgrading enough at source—that is in Alberta—is itself going to add so much more to the value of the economy in Alberta, such that less has to be taken out of the ground in order to generate the same revenues, there seems to be a good case to be made for the fact that pipelines should not be used in what is ultimately a rip and strip and ship understanding of getting bitumen out of Alberta at all costs.

There are ways for a transition to a post-carbon economy—keeping as much of that in the ground as possible while allowing higher value-added oil to come out of Alberta—to be achieved as we are moving toward that greener economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Toronto—Danforth spoke about how important the environment is to him and his constituents. The people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles feel the same way.

They care about the environment and about protecting it. The Conservatives seem to be the only ones lagging behind in responding to disasters. They take one step forward after a disaster happens. There have been three recently in northern Ontario.

Does the member not think that public safety should be a higher priority for the current government? Should this government not act more quickly and better protect Canadians?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we really need to focus on the participation and role of the people in the communities these pipelines are going through and of the people in the communities where the oil is extracted.

It is also important to note that Bill C-628, introduced by our colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, deals with this very topic, which is the need to give people and communities a stronger voice in the environmental assessment process.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay, and speak on the issue of Bill C-46, the so-called pipeline safety act, the amendment to the National Energy Board Act. As I rise today, back home there is great concern in my region about the third derailment in this past month in our region. There were two tanker derailments in the small community of Gogama, one at Hornepayne. Twenty-nine cars carrying heavy crude went off the tracks. A number of them are still burning out of control in the Mattagami River right now. The Mattagami River runs from that part of northern Ontario right through the heart of the city of Timmins, through communities like Smooth Rock Falls up into the Missinaibi and the Moose rivers in James Bay. A huge drainage area of 37,000 kilometres is affected.

This heavy crude is burning in a fish habitat very close to the community of Mattagami First Nation and very close to Gogama. We need to look at these issues in terms of government policy. We saw the horrific tragedy at Lac-Mégantic this past summer and we saw the failed safety measures. We saw the promises that have been put in place allowing companies to look after themselves, that somehow Canadians would be better protected in this privatized world and that if we let corporations look after themselves without oversight, everything will be fine. Many good people in Lac-Mégantic died because of that.

If the train had derailed just a few kilometres from where it did, not into the river but into the community of Gogama, we could have had a repeat of Lac-Mégantic. For all of us across so much of Canada and across the north, our communities are built on the rail lines. Across the street from my house, the Ontario Northland carries its heavy duty sulphuric acid from the smelter in Rouyn-Noranda. In fact my street address is Mileage 104, on the railway line. We are so closely tied to the issues of safety.

I speak of that in terms of the huge economic impact the oil industry has on our country. It is a huge driver, but also we need to start addressing the growing environmental impact to make sure that there is a balance. There will be some people who say “we will not ship by rail anymore, let us get the pipelines through and once the pipelines are through, we will not have to worry anymore”. The problem is the lack of a long-term vision of the government where, as my colleague from Toronto—Danforth said, they only believe in the rip-and-ship philosophy.

There is something fundamentally, economically wrong when the vision of our national economy is to take raw bitumen out of the ground, ship it 2,000 kilometres to a port in Quebec so it can be shipped off to China or someplace else to be processed. That is an abomination. That is not an economic plan. The people who carry the risk are the people living along that pipeline because the government stripped all the environmental protection acts, stripped the Navigable Waters Act so that the need to have the shut-off valves along the rivers does not exist anymore.

We are told that somehow this is in all our interests. I see oil industry ads all over Ottawa say “It's your oil, it's our oil, let's do the right thing”. It is not our oil. It should be Canada's interest. No, it is our risk. The benefits are going to the Koch brothers in the U.S. They are going offshore. Ask any northerner at the pumps, for all the damage they suffered in the economy lately, when have they ever had a break on gas prices. We never had one.

We need to look at this. There are some good things in the bill about issues of liability. I ask people back home about the processes that are in place to protect the public. If I look at the National Energy Board, I do not feel much comfort. I guess if I were an oil lobbyist, I would feel great. If I were a big Suncor or Sunoco, I would think the National Energy Board is good. Energy east is a major project that is happening. The public has a right to participate because if we talk about moving bitumen through pipeline, there needs to be public buy-in and they have to understand what is at stake.

The National Energy Board needs to hear from the citizens about what is at stake. However, citizens do not get to write a letter to the National Energy Board. They have to get approval to write a letter in order to be able to write a letter. The National Energy Board does not accept unsolicited letters. People have to apply and then it will decide whether or not their opinion counts. That is not how to build public trust. That is not social licence. The National Energy Board will decide whether the letters will be posted or whether to outright refuse them.

Therefore, granting or refusing a project application impinges on whether or not there is a direct effect on the interests of the person, the degree of connection between the project and the person, the likelihood of severity of harm that a person is exposed to, and the frequency and duration of a person's use of an area near the project. I am trying to interpret what that means. Maybe if I live right on top of the pipeline I get to go to the hearings to say whether or not I like it. If I am like the citizens of Timmins, in the case of the Gogama derailment, if I am part of the larger population of 37,000 square kilometres who has been impacted by this present derailment and if it was a pipeline blowout, would any of those people be allowed to speak at the National Energy Board hearings?

The issue we are dealing with here with crude, with oil, are about a national vision that says that there is no point processing and upgrading in our own country where we can create value-added jobs and ensure the great gifts we have in terms of resources of oil, gas and mineral production. There is no national vision to upgrade, to make sure there is value added, so we are taking less out of the ground because we would see more in our economy. However, we are being told that somehow we should trust the pipeline agenda because the government has turned our country into a petrol state and, like all petrol states, it is corrupt. We see its attack on birdwatchers, on environmental organizations, on anyone who speaks up against its agenda.

We are supposed to believe that bitumen is just like oil, but it is not. I am looking at Bill C-46 that talks about a $1-billion liability, which was surpassed in terms of the damage that Enbridge did to the Kalamazoo River. It is still being ordered by the Environmental Protection Agency to go back and fix the damage it did to the Kalamazoo River. It may not ever be able to fix the damage it did to the Kalamazoo River because it did not have the proper oversight.

I am thinking of a pipeline running through northern Ontario like the train that ran through Gogama. If there is a blowout and it is carrying bitumen, is there enough protection in this bill to offset the billions of dollars in damage that would accrue? If this northern gateway pipeline had ever gone through and it was blowing bitumen out through the B.C. mountains, how would anyone be able to get to that? When one drives up through the mountains in B.C., sometimes there are trucks at the bottom because it was too difficult to get down to the trucks that went off the edge. How would we be able to somehow get the bitumen off those rivers? That is why President Obama rejected Keystone, contrary to the demands of the Liberal Party and Conservative Party leaders. He said it was not in America's interests to take the risk without the benefit.

Therefore, I am looking at where we need to be as an economy. Our natural resources are vital to us but there has to be social licence. It has to be done safely and with the long-term implication that if companies will be moving products like bitumen out of the ground they are doing it in a safe way. They failed with our rail. We have had too many accidents and we need accountability there. However, if we are supposed to trust that this bill would protect us on pipelines, when we see the collusion of the oil interests and the Conservative government, I do not believe them for a moment and I do not think Canadians do either.

We are interested in this bill and want to bring it to committee, but there is a bigger issue with respect to environmental accountability that has to be addressed by this nation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes significant reference to rail, and points out the many deficiencies. His colleague just gave some percentages in terms of what Canadians really believe. It is clear that there is a great deal of concern related to safety in regard to the shipping of oil and gas products via train. However, it is nowhere near the same concern in regard to pipelines. Canadians as a whole tend to give more support to its transportation through the pipelines.

My question for the member is related to trains. If the marketplace here in Canada or abroad is, as is being projected, continuing to grow in its demand, what are the member's thoughts in terms of train transportation of this natural resource versus pipeline? If he wants to add on the issue of the security component, that would be nice.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that up to this point in Canada there has been a higher comfort level with pipelines because we are used to pipelines in Canada. The natural gas pipelines that run across this nation are part of the economic engine and we are used to them. However, we are dealing with something different here when we are talking about high-pressure bitumen, and when we are talking about pipelines that are 40 years and 60 years old. These raise serious questions. When we see the stripping of the environmental protection laws that has happened in this country, it undermines people's confidence and the confidence of our international partners.

I do not know why President Obama would ever stand up with the current Prime Minister and say, “Yes, we love your oil agenda because you stripped all the environmental laws; you act like a gang of ruffians when you talk about anything about the environment, you insult the environment; you act like you believe you're in the end times and you want to get the oil out as quickly as possible”. None of our international partners are going to want to be close to that.

If we are going have confidence, whether in rail or in pipeline, there needs to be, number one, some sense that the Conservatives actually care about what is happening with the environment; and number two, that they care about safety.

At the end of the day, we are a resource-based nation. We need to develop our resource, but we need to develop it in a way that is safe, environmentally progressive and that respects the overall world movement to try to deal with this carbon and climate crisis.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned the fact that the Liberal Party supports Keystone XL. This pipeline safety bill is long overdue. I can add to the support of Keystone that in my region of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Enbridge Line 9 was outside of regulations since 1999. It shows that each of these two parties here in this House have been equally irresponsible in their care of the nation's pipelines.

Could my hon. friend expound on why we are standing opposed to Keystone, and how that differentiates us from the Liberal Party?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Keystone does not make sense. We have been told about the thousands of jobs by the Liberal leader and the Conservative leader. We are talking about building a pipeline to the Montana border. Then the resources leave us. We are talking about exporting the product so it can be value-added elsewhere, so other countries make the most of it. What we need to do is move beyond this crazy idea of shipping raw product thousands of kilometres to a port, and we actually do the value-added in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, in Canada so we are creating the most and we actually benefit as a nation from it. Right now, the Keystone plan is dead in the U.S. Nobody wants to talk about it except the Koch brothers, the Republicans, and the Conservative and Liberal leaders. People have moved on.

We need to get our heads around moving toward a progressive, economic, environmental plan that will create long-term jobs; and that when we are using natural resources like dirty oil that we are doing it within a limited capacity so we are actually lessening the impact on our planet.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak in the debate on this bill.

As most of my colleagues have said, this bill is important because it is a further step toward applying the polluter pays principle, and I sincerely believe it is fundamentally essential, considering the unbridled increase in the development of various oil and gas resources in Canada and the potential consequences of that. We are aware of all the debates and reactions that oil and gas development and transportation by a variety of methods, including pipelines, give rise to among the general public. It is really important to move forward and take at least this step in the best way possible.

Like all my colleagues in the New Democratic Party—I have not heard any dissenting voices on this issue—I support this bill at second reading, both because of its basic principle and because it contains some really positive elements. However, our support is of course conditional on the fact that we must be able to consider the bill in depth at the committee stage and that ultimately we can look at what is good, what has to be improved and what improvements can be made, in the hopes that the debate can be as broad and as deep as possible.

Moreover, I am taking this opportunity to say that I welcome the fact that the bill is not currently the subject of a time allocation motion. I do not know if that will happen. I may well be in dangerous waters just by bringing it up. I hope I am not giving my Conservative colleagues any ideas about moving a time allocation motion, but it is quite significant. It is also important that we have a very comprehensive debate on this bill and especially that we listen to the views from all parts of Canada. We represent very diverse populations that are sometimes spread over huge areas. As my colleague mentioned earlier, he represents a riding whose vast size is beyond all measure in comparison with the riding that I represent, which is much smaller and very urban. However, in view of some of the pipeline routes, my urban riding is likely to be very deeply affected if there were an accident.

The thing that is really important about the polluter pays principle is that it makes it possible to use an encouraging approach, that is, prevention, which relies on companies’ best practices. Companies wishing to build and operate a pipeline will go much further with their safety measures, doubling or tripling their monitoring and taking containment measures to ensure that they prevent spills as much as possible. If ever there were a spill, they would take steps to keep damage to a minimum.

As some of our colleagues have stressed, deplorable accidents have happened; just a few years ago there was a well-publicized accident along the Kalamazoo River, which was deeply contaminated following a large-scale spill. According to the findings of an investigation, the spill is worrying because of the way in which these types of pipelines are operated. At the end of the day, a company that provides minimum services in order to carry a crude or refined product has too little control and too few teams close by in order to ensure that when something goes wrong with the pipeline, it is identified and then corrective measures are taken as quickly as possible.

This is far from being useful because obviously we can develop our natural resources in a responsible manner.

We can do this without sacrificing environmental sustainability and social acceptability. I am talking about these concepts precisely because environmental development and economic development are two elements that are far from being incompatible. We have discussed, among other things, the idea of having a value-added product, for example, refining crude oil and offering derived products. Furthermore, we might well develop some expertise, which is also value-added and can be exported, not to mention using it here in Canada, in a way that creates high-quality jobs, in order to prevent accidents and reduce the risks and the footprint of the facilities that are already operating.

After discussing environmental sustainability, the other very important aspect is social acceptability, and especially participating in the partnership that can be created with the communities directly or indirectly affected by the movement of equipment, for instance, in the case of a pipeline that goes through a community or at the very least passes close to it. This is of course very demanding. Everybody realizes it. However, it is an essential practice because if the people’s voices are heard and they are convinced that their concerns will be taken into consideration, it is much easier to gain their co-operation in reaching a solution or a result that will preclude unilaterally imposed measures. In fact, imposing measures unilaterally could well lead to fractious disputes and perhaps even to certain excesses. We cannot blame people for this. When people feel that their safety and the safety of their families is under direct threat, how can anyone criticize them for reacting strongly, for making demands, for challenging or wanting to block the project? Some parts of our country are currently going through this situation with projects that are up in the air, under consideration or being developed.

Once we have satisfied these questions of environmental sustainability and social licence, we will be able to ensure real long-term prosperity and, most of all, prosperity that is shared among all segments of society, with everyone's involvement. That is why it is very important for this bill to be thoroughly examined in committee and for the committee to hear a broad range of witnesses. I do not mean only expert witnesses, but also witnesses from civil society and the communities near pipelines and existing facilities. That will help us understand how some of the more controversial aspects of this bill need to be improved.

Of course, one of the aspects I want to touch on is the $1 billion cap on liability when no fault or negligence is proven. This may seem like a very large amount; a billion dollars is an enormous sum. Still, would it be enough for a community like Quebec City, which includes my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, if there were a pipeline project with the potential to affect major sources of drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people? Those sources include the St. Lawrence River and a number of large lakes and rivers. What would happen if they were seriously affected over months or years? Losses would go far beyond that level, even if no fault were proven, the company was not liable and it was truly an accident.

Beyond Beauport—Limoilou and Quebec City, what meaning would that level of liability have if natural environments were permanently soiled?

It is possible to do the simple accounting, but it is essential for companies to realize that their liability must be absolute and that they must take every precaution to avoid accidents.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the potential development of the Keystone pipeline would provide all sorts of opportunities. There have been a number of stakeholders. The member's own party indicates that the Liberal Party supports it and the NDP opposes it. At the local and provincial levels, governments want to move forward with the Keystone project. There needs to be a lot of work done on it. The current government has dropped the ball on the issue.

If the pipeline does not go ahead, it would mean that we would have to find other modes of transporting that natural resource to the United States. Does the member believe that we should be looking at alternatives to pipeline construction and moving it through a pipeline, such as rail, which is not as safe as a pipeline, or does he believe that we should be limiting the amount of oil that is exported? I know that the standard line the NDP often gives is to go to refineries and refine it. Refineries are not being built. Is the NDP proposing that if it was in government, it would actually build a refinery?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting question. Beyond Keystone XL, there is a debate in our society about what we are doing with our natural resources and what course we should be prepared to follow.

The Conservatives favour massive exportation of our raw natural resources. We wonder why the Canadian people are being asked to look at this as the only solution, since raw bitumen, along with the chemical mixture that makes it dilute enough to transport by pipeline, is a terribly dangerous cocktail. In Canada, we are not only facing these risks ourselves, we are exporting them to other countries. In the case of Keystone XL, that is the United States, but China and Europe could also be affected.

Why, then, do they want to proceed without any added value and without much thought as to the optimum solution?

Many other countries have shown the way with a much more sensitive approach that respects their own citizens and the whole world.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for his excellent work and his excellent speech.

This bill is certainly a step in the right direction, but its shortcomings are leading it the wrong way. That needs to be said. Since 2011 the Conservatives have been attacking environmental legislation. They have weakened environmental protections and limited public consultation. That especially worries people in Quebec because the energy east project is going to be approved.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks of this bill's shortcomings.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond for his question. I want to recognize the work that he does as environment critic, because he is asking a very good question.

Beyond this bill, the Conservatives are undermining Canadians’ potential support for a pipeline project such as energy east by getting rid of the pipeline review process, when everything is in the hands of the National Energy Board, an agency in which Canadians unfortunately do not have much confidence.

Everything appears to be aimed at cramming a project that has not been properly reviewed down Canadians’ throats, without any assurance that the project will be acceptable and without providing any information about the operator's record on greenhouse gas emissions, which lead to climate change. Everything has been streamlined and people feel like they are being held hostage by a project over which they have no control. It is absolutely deplorable.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the bill. I think it is important, when public safety issues are before us, that we get them to committee as quickly as possible. I think we all have faith or hope that the committee process will improve safety issues when there is a discrepancy or a concern that they are too soft. However, we also recognize that the government on this measure is attempting to correct a problem that has been left long standing for far too long.

The issue of moving volatile substances safely through this country will be with us regardless of which side of the climate change debate we end up on, regardless of which side of the pipeline debate we are on, and which side of the rail lines we come down on because of one simple fact: moving resources to market requires us to manage some difficult chemicals and some difficult substances. Getting it right gives us peace of mind but also protects people. It also protects the environment if we do it properly.

The concerns we are starting to hear about the bill are not so much about the intent. We support that. They are not so much about the provisions to strengthen our already lax laws, as we can see from past pipeline incidents; the concerns are about oversight.

This parallels another conversation that is happening in this building, which is again about public safety. Oversight works when it is independent and when it is vigorous and when it is well supported by research, facts, and investigative powers but also with accountability models.

The concerns at present about the bill reach those same areas I just listed. For me, who represents a riding in the city of Toronto where the rail lines move through at the south end and the north end of the riding, getting pipelines right is extraordinarily important for the safety of the residents I represent and am speaking for today.

Every one of the derailments that has been listed in this House during the debate, including the one that happened over the weekend in Gogama, the second derailment this month, would have made it through the heart of the city of Toronto but for the poor luck to have happened where they did. They could have happened in one of those densely populated parts of Toronto, one of the most densely populated parts of Canada, and the impact would have been beyond catastrophic. I do not think there is a word to describe what the scenario would have looked like.

We have huge issues, and it is precisely because of the lack of public oversight and of independent oversight over these public safety issues that even though we support the general intent of these sorts of bills, we get shy about them. We get very nervous about them. We can start to hear the corrections we think, if tabled and accepted, would make it a better bill. If we start giving voice to those suggestions, hopefully they will be heard inside the parliamentary committee.

In particular, on rail, if we do not move volatile chemicals by pipeline, they will move to market by rail. Quite clearly, accident after accident, allowing the industry to self-regulate and diluting the accountability models is having a devastating impact on the quality of transportation and the quality of our resource management system.

It is precisely because of the way we have walked away from enforcement, regulation, and accountability, in particular around oil, in particular around pipelines, that our trading partners, in particular the United States of America, have moved away from trusting us to manage these files properly. As a result, even the most enthusiastic supporters of the oil sands now cannot get that product to market efficiently. With the rail accidents right now, there is actually no way of getting it to the east coast.

It is thought that somehow not providing good government, not providing good oversight, and not providing independent accountability models is going to make things better. It has made things worse.

While we watch this pipeline proposal move through the House and on to committee, this is exactly the time and exactly the opportunity the government should be seizing to show us that it can listen, that it can take the good ideas coming from industry, the environmental movement, parliamentarians, and ordinary citizens, and actually craft legislation that gives people peace of mind that there will not be a major accident, and if there are accidents, that containment strategies are in place, and if containment strategies fail, that accountability is there.

Losing the drinking water for a small town, or losing the capacity to manage the environment for the long term because of a catastrophic spill, is an unacceptable outcome of economic development. Surely in this day and age we are smart enough to manage the resources more effectively.

Part of it is about exploring upstream possibilities for refinement. I hear members of the opposition party talk about doing all the refining in Canada. We know that the refining capacity of North America is stronger than the supply right now. The challenge is that unless we are prepared to subsidize the oil and gas industry to provide new forms of refinement and new forms of downstream processing, there is no way of realizing the vision they have placed on the table as an alternative to pipelines or rail.

Therefore, with the economic reality staring us in the face, with the understanding that the resources are going to move to market, the issue falls to us to find the right balance. Refine what we can, absolutely. Move it when we have to; we must accomplish this. To move it safely is the issue.

The challenge we are having with the legislation again comes down to oversight. If we take a look at the National Energy Board, it has become a de facto rubber stamp for decisions that have already been made by the government. The quality of the people appointed is not sufficient to give us the sense of confidence that if there is an issue that needs to be addressed we are going to get a response in both a timely and proactive fashion but also in an accountable way. That is the issue that concerns us.

Therefore, as the bill, with our support, makes it to the parliamentary committee, please do not do with it what has been done with so many other bills: refuse to listen to opposition ideas, refuse to listen to expert opinion, refuse to listen to the concerns of ordinary Canadians, and refuse to act in the interest of all of us together in concert. Please, hold meaningful hearings, change the accountability model, create independence in the accountability model, and go forward.

I think we will find that all of us can support moves like that that would strengthen the capacity of the current government to do what it is suppose to do, which is not just to stand back and eliminate government but to in fact push government forward into a position where it can be effective and can deliver the economic results we all want it to.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals were in power before the Conservatives.

Why did the Liberal government not conduct a thorough reform of the National Energy Board? What changes would it consider necessary for this to be done today in order to give the government concrete proposals?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an evolving issue. I think one of the things that has happened in the last 15 years is that the rate of change within the oil fields has been very hard to keep pace with, so the scope of the challenge has grown.

If we look at rail alone, in 2011 there were only 68,000 carloads of resource coming out of Alberta and moving through the rest of the country. Within two years, it doubled to more than 120,000 carloads. The rate of increase, the technological change, and what is being shipped is changing. Looking back 20 or 15 years does not provide a blueprint for the future.

We know that the product is more volatile than it used to be. We know that the direction it is moving is changing as we speak. We know that the rate of extraction and the rate of shipment has multiplied by at least double since the start of this decade. Going back and asking us what we would have done in 2008 or 2009 is not the issue.

The challenge in front of us now is that so much of this is moving by rail. We could shift to pipelines, but the pipelines do not have the capacity and are not technically sufficient in their structure to carry it. With that volatility now in play, it requires a response.

Looking to the future is where we need to focus. Looking backwards in time is not going to resolve the issue we have in front of us today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague, which were very well said.

I wonder if the member could provide further comment on the importance of having strong federal leadership on pipelines, whether it be Keystone or others, given the importance of our environment and our economy. That is something that we have seen has been somewhat lacking. It is critically important to work with the first nations and provinces. It is very important to get that social contract. Perhaps the member could provide some comment in regard to that.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the role of the federal government is not just to make decisions but to build consensus around decisions to make sure that what we do benefits as many people as possible, in the most efficient way possible, while protecting the environment. They are not exclusive dynamics. They are dynamics we actually have to keep in balance.

One of the things that concerns all of us as we see the pipeline issue get raised is the “my way or the highway” attitude of the government. Listening and learning from one's critics is the best way to improve a policy. The absence of that consensus, the absence of reaching out to create partnerships that work, is a huge challenge. It is as big a challenge as arbitrarily saying that we will build a new refinery on the east coast and create jobs. If the market is not there, if the capacity already exists and we try to replicate that capacity in Canada, we are offering false promise to the east coast. We are not telling people in central Canada the truth, because there is not necessarily a market or a way of getting it to the east coast. At the end of the day, it is not something that will necessarily get buy-in if we are going to simply tax the resource to pay for the downstream expansion.

We have to work in partnership. The absence of that collaborative process and perspective and the inability to listen in committee are the hallmarks of the government. One of the reasons it is not getting progress on this file, and so many other files, especially on the international front, is that it refuses to collaborate. We can see it in the cities of this town and in the capitals around the world. A failure to collaborate is hurting the Canadian economy, and ironically, and sadly, it is defeating the interests of the very province that seems to elect nothing but Conservatives.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Montcalm, Health; the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North: The Environment; and the hon. member for Québec, Quebec Bridge.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an aside at the beginning of my speech to point out that it is Quebec Intellectual Disability Week. As this will last the entire week, I hope that we are going to talk a lot about it and that there will be less prejudice against people with intellectual disabilities. I wanted to take this opportunity to mention this week here in the House.

I rise today in support of Bill C-46, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act at second reading.

Bill C-46 amends the statutory liability regime for federally regulated pipelines in Canada. The bill includes absolute liability for all National Energy Board regulated pipelines. Under the new law, a firm's liability for oil leaks and spills would be augmented to $1 billion for major oil pipelines to cover costs for a large-scale rupture, regardless of fault. These are pipelines that have the capacity to transport at least 250,000 barrels of oil per day. A company would continue to have unlimited liability when it was at fault or demonstrated negligence.

The National Energy Board is set to take control of oil spill cleanups. As policy makers, it is our duty to have an in-depth analysis of all of the provisions that are part of a bill and to shed light on dark corners. Although this bill contains important measures that would allow for greater liability in the event of a disaster or an oil leak, there remains a serious cause for concern, mainly due to a lack of clarity and a lack of certainty. There is a lack of clarity because if the cleanup costs surpass $1 billion dollars, Bill C-46 does not provide clear indications as to who would assume the cleanup costs where there is no proof of fault or negligence. There is lack of certainty because the implementation of many of the proposed changes would be left to the discretion of the National Energy Board or cabinet.

Although identifying those responsible for cleanup is important when polluters are to pay the bill for the pollution they caused, we must ensure at the outset that all prevention measures are meticulously developed and adequately strengthened, so that fossil fuels are transported under the best possible conditions. Our first priority should therefore be to prevent oil spills from happening. It is essential that the production and transportation of crude oil is accompanied by an improvement in safety measures, regardless of the method of transportation used.

Today, a large proportion of Canadians do not have much faith in the way in which we transport oil. Only 29% of Canadians think that rail transportation is safe. Take, for example, the Lac-Mégantic disaster or the derailment in northern Ontario this past weekend. In my riding, there are many railways and this is of concern to my constituents. A great deal of oil is transported using these rail lines and people are worried about it. Here are a few more statistics: in Canada, only 37% of Canadians think that tanker transportation is safe, and only 47% of Canadians think that pipelines are a safe way to transport oil. I do not think this is very many.

These perceptions are shaped by the growing number of accidents over the past decade. The latest Transportation Safety Board of Canada report shows that pipeline accidents have increased significantly, from 71 in 2004 to 118 in 2014. The number of accidents has gone up by 47 per year in 10 years. In 2011, the Commissioner of the Environment pointed out that the National Energy Board had not managed to fix a number of known problems or to ensure that pipelines were properly maintained. The Conservatives have still not implemented an adequate monitoring and inspection system.

To address these problems, the NDP believes that the government must introduce solid regulations, increased monitoring and stricter inspection of the infrastructure in use. We believe that rebuilding a strict environmental assessment process to repair the damage done by the Conservative government should be a top priority. We also need strict legislative provisions for environmental assessments instead of the environmental regulations that the Conservative government is constantly contravening. This process must be carried out in collaboration with communities, government organizations, the provinces and territories, and first nations, which must be consulted and involved in a meaningful way.

Bill C-46 represents significant progress towards improving the liability regime, particularly by strengthening the powers of the National Energy Board, which, if the bill is properly enforced, will protect taxpayers by applying the polluter pays principle. However, the bill remains rather vague and does not address some crucial issues.

Indeed, the bill leaves some doubts about whether taxpayers will have to bear the cost of cleanups over $1 billion when fault or negligence cannot be proven. Furthermore, too many provisions create uncertainty because their implementation will be left up to the discretion of either the National Energy Board or cabinet, not to mention that very few of the provisions in Bill C-46 are mandatory, and the application of many of them will depend on measures that the government will take.

From that perspective, Bill C-46 allows quite a bit of flexibility in terms of decisions made for political reasons and in terms of secret agreements between operators and the National Energy Board.

Many stakeholders in civil society have already expressed reservations about this bill, and the NDP shares those concerns.

For example, Ian Miron, a lawyer at Ecojustice, said that Bill C-46 is too discretionary in that its influence depends on how the NEB and cabinet decide to implement certain provisions. It is possible for some measures to be implemented for political or other reasons, which would leave Canadians without the protection and peace of mind that this bill purports to provide them.

An NDP government would give Canada a sustainable industry, enforce environmental laws, and take into account cumulative repercussions, public safety and respect for first nations in all of its decisions.

The NDP understands the need to stop excessively relying on fossil fuels. Our vision for development promotes economic growth and job creation, while ensuring social and environmental sustainability.

On this side of the House, we place particular emphasis on the development of renewable energy resources, such as solar energy, hydroelectricity, tidal energy, and biomass energy. Through this approach, we will create a significant number of well-paid jobs and make Canada a leader in the field.

The NDP has repeatedly criticized the government's lack of action and leadership on green and renewable solutions. By investing in renewable energy and energy independence, Canada will not only reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, but it will also foster innovation and create green jobs.

Canadians deserve to be represented by a government with a vision, a government that looks to the future and that wants to strike a balance between economic development and environmental protection.

The NDP promises to better manage our natural resources, invest in renewable energy and clean technologies and improve energy efficiency in order to build a more sustainable economy. Canadians know that they can count on the NDP.

Since becoming an MP, people have been telling me in their many emails and phone calls, and when I meet them going door-to-door, that the environment is a priority for them. They are concerned about what will happen to future generations. They tell me that we are heading towards a world where we are so reliant on fossil fuels that it will be difficult to change course.

I think this is a very important topic. As my colleagues have mentioned, this is a step in the right direction. I hope we will be able to improve the bill in committee. We believe in the polluter pays principle, but I showed that there are some shortcomings and we must absolutely fix them.

I hope that all parties in the House will be willing to work together, since this is very important for Canada and for our global environment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are at an interesting point in the debate with regard to our natural resources, and I think it is worth pursuing it in the form of a question.

Members of the member's party have brought forward opposition and outright denial in saying that we do not need Keystone. The NDP tends to say that we should look at ways to reduce worldwide potential consumption of oil-based products, as an example. My question for the member is this: does she believe that Canada should be looking at reducing its exportation of bitumen and other oil products?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

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

I based my entire speech on the fact that I think we are currently using too much fossil fuel. This is not something that can be changed overnight. There are certainly a number of questions to be asked about Canada's exportation of bitumen.

Every Canadian needs to consider their own consumption. As a government and as parliamentarians, it is also up to us to ask where we are going. Whether it is a matter of our exports, our consumption or our development of natural resources, we are a very lucky country. We have natural resources that we must use wisely, because future generations will suffer if we do not make good choices today.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this bill is a step in the right direction. The government is finally waking up. It is implementing the polluter pays principle. That is very good. We have been wanting to apply this principle, which we believe is the very foundation of sustainable development, for a long time.

However, there are some improvements to be made, and one of the biggest problems is what has been left out of this bill. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development since my election, and year after year since 2011, I have seen environmental protections being weakened instead of improved. As such, it is hard to have a pipeline that will be socially acceptable, given that these projects are moving forward without a rigorous environmental assessment process. People have doubts about the safety of these pipelines.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the importance of what is missing from this bill, in other words, rigorous environmental protections and assessments in order to make pipelines in Canada socially acceptable.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the good work he is doing for the environment. I know that he is passionate about it and has worked very hard on it since being elected.

The member mentioned two things. Social acceptability is very important to me. Right now, the public does not trust the government when it comes to the environment, and has so many misgivings about the National Energy Board that it is alarming. Everyone has doubts because that trust is not there. A little earlier, I talked about Canadians' confidence with respect to transportation of natural resources. That is another important aspect.

My colleague talked about the environmental assessments that are being done. We saw that with the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal. The people had to rally for months to achieve the outcome we have now. There were demonstrations, and many individuals, environmental groups and marine biodiversity experts joined forces to make the government listen and halt the project.

People should not always have to rise up so much and work so hard to make the government listen. The point is, did the government do its job by conducting suitable environmental assessments for this project? I do not think so, and now it is responsible for regaining the public trust. It is the government's responsibility to prove that it truly wants a suitable environment for Canada and that it wants to do environmental assessments that people can really rely on, believe in and appreciate.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of debating Bill C-46.

Our party will support the bill at second reading, because we want to go further. We feel this is a good step forward, but we must continue because we dream of a country that, like Sweden, Denmark and Finland, is capable of living with clean energies, which serve people well and reduce the harmful effects of pollution.

We are saying that this bill is a step forward, but a lot of proposals and amendments will be necessary in order to make it a really good bill. Bill C-46 leaves a great deal of leeway for politically motivated decisions and secret agreements between pipeline operators and the National Energy Board.

I am a member of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, and we can see that sometimes many things are left up to the ministers, who will end up making regulations. In some cases, they do not necessarily keep to the intent of the law. I would therefore prefer to have a bill that is clearly drafted and leaves no grey areas. Unfortunately, this is not the case with this bill. It is a little bit too general for my taste.

This bill does not necessarily include absolute liability for gas companies and other non-oil pipeline operators or for small-scale oil pipeline companies. This will also be established through future regulations or by cabinet. However, cabinet is the executive branch. Cabinet is not the legislative branch. Here again, partisan politics will be at play. It is a very sensitive area.

For us, as members of the NDP, it is important to begin by making it mandatory for companies to be liable for what they do to the environment. We are well aware that they are transporting raw materials by the means they have available to them, that is, pipelines, trains and so forth. There is always a risk. However, safety is fundamental and Canadians must be reassured. We feel that Canada must take measures to ensure that natural resources, these resources that are so dangerous, are developed and transported safely, because we must protect our constituents. Communities must be consulted and engaged in a meaningful way.

We always keep in mind what happened in Lac-Mégantic. Last weekend, we learned that there was another accident involving the transportation of oil and that a fire was caused. Fortunately, this time, no one was killed. However, it is frightening. We talk a lot about security in our country, but this is also a security issue.

If oil companies really want to get Canadians’ support, they must consider public opinion and provide information. They cannot do this by sitting back and discussing issues solely with the groups that want to make money. Canadians must be truly informed and their views must be considered in the decision-making process. Since information has not been flowing very smoothly and some has been hidden, people have begun to stand up against the pipelines. For instance, there is an article in Le Devoir that describes the municipal revolt against the energy east project. It states that, “At least 75 cities have voiced concerns about the TransCanada pipeline”. That is 75 cities in Quebec alone.

Guillaume Tremblay, mayor of Mascouche, said, “We do not want this project in our city”. In his view, there are a number of elements that point in favour of simply rejecting the pipeline that the oil company wants to build in the municipality, which is located north of Montreal.

He said that he is really concerned about protecting the artesian wells that many residents have, as well as safeguarding natural habitats. It has been said that if the oil companies cause damage, they will pay for it. However, that is not enough. It is not enough to simply repair the damage that has been done. We must consider producing sustainable energies that will eliminate people's fears. The mayors are already against the project; not all of them, but most.

Other citizens’ groups are concerned, not just the ones that are involved in the decision-making. Another article was published in Le Devoir on Tuesday, March 3, entitled “early childhood centre concerned about Enbridge project”. In this case, the centre is concerned about the reversal of the flow in line 9B, which passes through its backyard. Think about the parents that send their children to this centre. If a spill happens there, the children will be paying for it.

The director of the Gamin Gamine day care centre in Terrebonne is very concerned about the reversal of the flow in the pipeline, which will soon be sending 300,000 barrels of oil toward Montreal every day, because the pipeline passes through the centre's backyard.

People are asking us what is going to happen, and we politicians are obliged to give them real answers. We have to take this seriously. Schools are also concerned. These people fear for the safety of their children. This is a serious matter.

The Montreal metropolitan community believes that there are still unanswered questions. People do not feel as though they have been consulted and they are of the opinion that many of the answers they have received are not clear, primarily those concerning emergency plans. There is nothing about this in the bill.

Enbridge states, however, that meetings with the first responders in the municipalities concerned should be held in the next few weeks. It is as though the company is saying that it had planned to look into this later and that people should just trust it. Canadians should not be taken for puppets who can be manipulated into just about anything because they need gas for their cars. It goes beyond that.

Hydro-Québec has also sounded the alarm. It wants its concerns about the possible route of TransCanada's energy east pipeline to be heard at the National Energy Board public hearings to be held later this year. There are concerns about the proven phenomenon of corrosion.

In its letter, the crown corporation pointed out that the preliminary route proposed by the Alberta company runs along its high-voltage power lines for about 700 kilometres. Hydro-Québec is concerned that the project will limit the operation and growth of its network. However, electricity is a clean energy.

Hydro-Québec is concerned about what a pipeline leak would do to its own infrastructure. It mentions the risk of the presence of power lines, which could lead to corrosion problems for the pipeline. We really need a more in-depth study.

TransCanada acknowledges that it had similar problems with its Keystone pipeline in western Canada, after it went into service in 2010. However, the company's spokesperson, Tim Duboyce, says that the company has developed a technique called cathodic protection, which protects steel structures. That is a step forward.

Environmental groups such as Greenpeace are concerned about all these issues: “Hydro-Québec is very clear: there are risks.”

As legislators, we cannot simply settle for supporting the polluter pays principle. We need to be more ambitious than that. Radio-Canada published an article on this topic. It said:

Pipeline operators are required to report any oil spills to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

The most recent report states that the number of accidents has decreased, but if you look at the number of accidents in relation to the volume of oil transported per pipeline, it is clear that the number of accidents has been consistently increasing for 10 years.

I invite everyone to take a little trip with me as we take a look at European countries. Since the oil crisis in the early 1970s, Sweden has invested massively in research on alternative energy sources, and it is working. Sweden is a huge consumer of energy per capita—about 16,000 kilowatts per person per year—but its carbon emissions are comparatively smaller. The country primarily uses wind energy and hydroelectric energy.

We need to continue to dream and go further. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it is not the last step. We need to take this very seriously. We are talking about our health and the health of our children and our planet.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize in the House that if my colleague drives, flies, heats her house, or eats, she is part of the consumer demand. All of us here are a part of that, so we all bear a responsibility.

One of the things I would like to do first of all is recognize the incredible innovation of the engineers who are building these pipelines and have actually done the construction.

I was very privileged when I was a university student to work in an engineering office where there was both a civil and an industrial end. One of my responsibilities in the drafting office was to work under the design draftsman who prepared the drawings. We had to go out and inspect the pipelines that were being put in for the water, sewer, and gas lines. I often had to tell contractors that they needed more granular B down there to put the pipeline in place. I feel that I was privileged to have the opportunity to do that.

I wonder if the member knows how much incredible engineering has gone into the construction of the actual pipeline. Does she know that when they send these intelligent pigs through to investigate the integrity of the pipeline, they can detect a piece of corrosion that is the size of a piece of rice? There is such incredible engineering that goes into it. I compliment our engineers for the design work they have done.

I wonder if the member would be prepared to hear from some of the engineers who have done the design work in our universities and construction companies here in Canada, and ask them for their opinion on the safety of our pipelines going across Canada.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments. I want to point out, however, that I use public transit a lot and I heat my house with electricity.

Of course, many engineers look after many pipelines, but we have to remember that a lot of engineers work with green energy sources. We should be focusing more on those kinds of energy. That is one way to look after our planet and take care of it. I also think we need to listen to people who are talking about hydroelectric power and wind turbines. On CBC the other day, I even heard about power that we can harness from waves, from the ocean. These are all powerful forms of energy that we can tap into. There are so many opportunities. We have the ability to use them. Young entrepreneurs and young engineers could make very significant contributions, but we are not giving them enough opportunity to do so. They are being told that only oil matters. We already have electric cars.

This does not mean that we will not support the bill at second reading. We are saying that this is first step. Oil is a reality; it is there. However, other sources of energy also exist, and we need to open the door to them and use them for everyone's well-being.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am a big fan of hydro energy. After all, in Manitoba, as in Quebec, hydro energy is very important.

The member is not the only individual who has made reference to Keystone and energy east as projects that the NDP does not appear to want to support. I wonder if she could confirm that and tell us why she feels they are not worthy of support.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

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

If he listened carefully he will know that when I talked about energy east, it was to show that we have to listen to Canadians. Social acceptability is fundamental to the economic development of our country and of society in general. We have to stop thinking there is just a small group of people who make decisions and who have absolutely all the knowledge needed for making economic decisions. We have to listen to the people in order to avoid another Lac Mégantic. I gave examples earlier of people who work in a child care centre placed right next to where the pipeline will run. If our children or grandchildren went to that centre, we would be praying every day before they left.

We have not said absolutely “no”. If we want to agree to something, Canadians must also agree to it. We are merely the representatives of our constituents. We listen to them when we make decisions. That is true democracy. I speak here for the people who are not even being listened to. That is my job as a politician. I voice the opinions of the mayors of the towns. All those people are part of the decision-making. They are closer to the public than we are. That does not mean that we are saying categorically “no”. The answer is one that we will all give together, with Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to a very important bill that is at the second reading stage. At the moment, this bill is very controversial, even though the NDP plans to support it at second reading.

I am going to read the title for the people who are kind enough to be listening to us on CPAC. It is the Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. The bill is at second reading. To ensure that people are able to follow us, second reading is not the final passage of a bill. Some of us are considering supporting a bill that is extremely flawed so we can send it to committee where a host of amendments will certainly be proposed. We will see how things go in committee in order to decide whether the bill then deserves support at third reading. That is the point at which it might be enacted into law for Canada.

In 2013, 1.3 million barrels of crude oil were transported through pipelines under federal jurisdiction in Canada. That shows the importance of this subject. In Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, we are currently having to deal with the presence of the National Energy Board, because at the moment, the processes that have been initiated are hugely problematic. As the entire country now knows, there is an oil port project in my riding that is directly associated with a very large pipeline project, energy east. We are in a completely ludicrous situation in my constituency, where, on the one hand, the promoter has unilaterally decided not to clarify anything about its project before the end of March, while, on the other hand, the National Energy Board is requiring that community stakeholders decide now whether they are going to be included in the consultations in a few months. Therefore we have very competent people who are spending hundreds if not thousands of hours preparing to participate in a consultation that is probably going to be about something other than what is being presented by the promoter at this point. That makes this project a hot topic for the people I represent.

I am going to offer some explanation about the bill that is before us today. The bill includes absolute liability for all pipelines regulated by the National Energy Board. That means that the companies will be liable for costs and expenses and for damages regardless of fault, up to a maximum of $1 billion for high-capacity pipelines, that is, pipelines that transport at least 250,000 barrels of oil per day. That is a very high capacity. For a middle-class person sitting quietly in Tourville, Longueuil or Trois-Pistoles, $1 billion may seem like a large amount. Someone might say $1 billion is wonderful, and if something happens, we will be protected.

I would remind people that things are relative here. I will take Lac Mégantic as an example. People have to understand that Lac Mégantic would not have been covered by this bill. We are talking exclusively about accidents associated with pipelines. In a situation like the one in Lac Mégantic, the money that was distributed to the families of the victims as compensation totalled $200 million. That is just the money paid to the victims’ families. The cleanup of the downtown area cost $190 million. Of the 7.5 million litres of oil the train was carrying, 80% mostly leaked into the river. The cleanup is going to take years, and we do not yet know exactly how much it will cost, but it will be several hundred million dollars. Just by looking at the situation in Lac Mégantic, we realize that in relative terms, $1 billion is virtually a minimum. We have not received assurance that the amount that must be available for protection in the event of an accident is sufficient.

I will give another example, a very tough one. It is the worst example in North America at this point, and it has been cited by at least three of my colleagues in the last few hours. It is the accident in Kalamazoo, Michigan. It involves the Canadian company Enbridge and 4 million litres of heavy crude that were spilled into the Kalamazoo River and wetlands. The last time I saw the figures, the damage amounted to over $1 billion and there had been more than five years of cleanup. More than 80% of the bitumen spilled into the Kalamazoo River is still there in the environment, after over $1 billion was spent. That is another example that puts this $1 billion into perspective.

I also wonder where the $1 billion comes from. Why $1 billion?

This $1 billion looks like a vote-getting figure, if you will pardon that term. The Conservatives seem to be using something easy to understand, something that looks big. However, if they had sat some experts around the table to estimate the kind of minimum guarantee needed for an oil spill, the experts would not have come up with $1 billion. They might have come up with $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion. This $1 billion is completely arbitrary; it is a round number, easy to remember. I hope that some very direct questions will be asked during the committee meetings where the bill will be considered.

The companies’ liability would be unlimited only in the case of fault or negligence. What will happen in a case where fault is not clear or is disputed? We are talking about billionaire proponents here. If, literally, they want to hire an army of lawyers to try to prove the fault does not lie with them, how many years will it take to see the end of a court action disputing fault, with resources like that? Mr. Speaker, I think your training makes you an even better judge of that than I am. It may really be a very long time.

That runs counter to another aspect of the law that I question, which puts a limit of six years after the event on the right to seek compensation, if a person is a victim of the consequences. That does not work. In Kalamazoo, they have been cleaning up for five years, and there are still pollutants. In the years to come, people are therefore going to have to take stock again to determine whether their property and their health have ultimately been affected by that. The cleanup is not yet finished. It is not that people do not want to determine, in six years, whether they are affected or not; rather, the phenomenon is still in a state of flux. The victims are not acting in bad faith. Someone may realize only after seven or eight or nine or 10 or 12 years that they have been negatively affected by the event. Why suddenly impose a six-year limit?

The energy east project will carry 1.1 million barrels a day. That means 173 million litres every day. We all remember the damage caused by 4 million litres of crude in the Kalamazoo River. That cost over $1 billion. Now, operators want to build a pipeline that will carry 173 million litres a day, or 120,000 litres every minute. Pipelines are relatively safe at the beginning of their life cycle, but often, near the end, tragedies or other serious incidents happen more regularly. An accident like the one in Kalamazoo, where managers took some time to close the valves, must never happen. Literally millions of litres of oil spilled into the environment. Think about it: that is 173 million litres a day. The same question remains regarding the $1 billion.

There is another question I have not yet heard. Perhaps an esteemed colleague, a minister across the way, could answer this. Is the $1 billion indexed? At the rate costs grow with inflation, in five or 10 years, $1 billion will not be worth the same amount. A major accident could happen in my region over the next 40 years and we are told there will be a $1 billion limit. If an accident were to happen tomorrow morning, it might already cost more than $1 billion, and I did not see any anything about indexing or mechanisms to guarantee that this will follow the cost of living, considering the astronomical costs associated with cleaning up these kinds of accidents.

I would like to finish on a more positive note and talk a bit about one of the NDP's key principles. What distinguishes us from the current government is, first and foremost, sustainability. We believe it is crucial that polluters pay for the pollution they create, rather than passing on the cost to future generations.

I have one last example. Now that the toxic effects of mines on the environment cost billions of dollars, laws require environmental protection funds to be set aside during mining operations so that we do not end up at the end of a project with a company that maybe made less profit, or left for another country, or suddenly disappeared at the end of a project to avoid paying to clean up the mess it left behind. That kind of mechanism is missing here, and neither I nor most of my constituents find that reassuring.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec City's south shore for his heartfelt speech. I know how hard he worked on the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal file. I have to say that my colleague raised some very important issues.

I would like to comment on what some people might consider a bold remark he made about the Conservatives' vote-seeking approach. I am talking about the billion-dollar indemnity that might seem enormous, but is really quite inadequate in relative terms.

I remember everything about the saga—the ongoing saga—involving the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal and the Conservative government's lenient attitude toward the proponent. Despite the very serious objections raised by various stakeholders, including scientists, the Conservatives kept saying there was no problem and it was nothing to get worked up about.

Can my colleague comment on how that kind of leniency can ultimately result in a staggering cost to us as a society?

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

Mr. Speaker, something I meant to talk about today was breach of trust, which goes back to what my colleague was saying.

In 2011, the environment commissioner said that the National Energy Board had not managed to secure better measures to protect the environment and the public when it comes to pipelines. It is now 2015. Nothing was done until this small step. It took years for a small, extremely questionable step to be taken.

Indeed, my colleague is right. First, the $1 billion is highly questionable. Another major deficiency in this entire process of the Conservatives' bill is operational safety.

It is all well and good for the government to tell people that it will raise the ceiling in the event of a major accident, but what my constituents really want to know is what will be put in place to ensure that there are no major accidents. This is an unbelievable oversight.

It is akin to saying that it is a huge industry, this has to go through and if the pipeline breaks, then damage will be paid for. If we are talking to the farmers in my riding or the people in the municipalities who are concerned about their water supply, then we cannot use that argument.

These people want to know what guarantee there is that beyond the oil, their resources will be protected during operations, because those resources could be threatened by a major spill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the transportation of oil and gas, we hear a lot about pipelines, and that is what we are talking about today. When Canadians compare transportation methods in terms of security and safety, they view pipelines as probably the strongest transportation method, followed by rail and then possibly long-haul trucking.

If Canada were to increase its overall petroleum export market, whether it is in Canada or south or wherever else it might be, does the member believe that the best way to get oil and gas to market is through pipelines, or does he believe we should be looking at alternatives?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong in that paradigm with respect to rail transportation.

Right now, there are long-term contracts—from five to seven years—for products to be transported by rail. The industry tells people they must choose, when in fact, there is no choice. The industry says that it wants to move forward on both fronts. There will be more tankers filled with bitumen on the tracks. In addition, the industry wants more pipelines to transport and probably export the majority of the resource, especially in the case of the energy east pipeline. This is something made up by people who, I imagine, want to avoid a fundamental debate on whether we truly want to base our economy of the future on maximizing the transportation of a non-renewable resource. There is something wrong there.

Something really blew me away, especially because it was that a Liberal colleague who just asked me a question. He said that one positive aspect of the bill was that the National Energy Board could now focus on the people affected by the pipelines. He said that its mandate was not limited to the safety of the pipeline itself. This means that during the time of the Liberals, the act provided only for the protection of the pipeline and not the protection of those who lived around it. They allowed that to go on for decades. Unbelievable.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to debate Bill C-46 today.

I am delighted because for once, this is a bill that has some good elements. Also, we cannot deny that oil transportation is a major issue and among those that most concern the public. People are worried and they have reason to be.

The figures given here speak for themselves and reiterate what I have heard before in many conversations. The public’s confidence in the methods of oil transportation is very low: 71% of people believe that rail transport is dangerous. After what happened again in Gogoma on the weekend, that opinion may become more entrenched.

In addition, 63% of Canadians believe that shipping oil by sea is too risky. Quebeckers are terrified at the idea that a tanker might capsize in the St. Lawrence. An incident like that would cause widespread and irreparable harm to Quebec, since the river is such a unique and fragile environment, and of such crucial importance to us all. Pipelines are seen by the public as the least dangerous method, with 47% support.

Overall, nobody is really happy. People fear the worst. They are right to be worried, if we consider that the consequences of an accident are catastrophic and irreversible. The number of barrels of oil per day that travel by pipeline is enormous. When we talk about huge figures like billions of barrels a day, it is to be expected that the idea of a spill would immediately take on incomprehensible and terrifying dimensions.

Canada is first and foremost a country with natural resources that can be exploited. This has always been the source of our well-being and our affluence. The diversity of our common resources positions Canada and its provinces on a number of economic fronts at the same time. It is also the source of our tremendous technical knowledge, built over decades in response to the needs associated with resource development, for which we are internationally renowned.

In short, we are blessed with incredible good fortune, and that fortune belongs to all Canadians. This is our real national treasure. However, while it is certainly a blessing, that treasure sometimes looks like a curse. Tragic events have happened in the past. The risks of inadequate regulation of the oil shipment methods are clear. The Lac Mégantic disaster is so serious and so clearly connected with the federal government’s complacency that I am surprised at how lax the legislative initiatives are.

In fact, the public has little faith in the government when it comes to its ability or desire to regulate the energy sector. If not the government, who should do it? The industry itself? Of course not. What we are seeing is a very serious legitimacy deficit. Canadians do not believe that the Government of Canada is going to protect them, or wants to protect them. That hurts.

I believe the people of Canada are entitled to expect that members of Parliament will make not just good decisions about pipelines, but the best possible decisions. All of us here have a duty to think about public safety, the sustainability of resource development and the resilience of the environment. Development of our natural resources that is responsible and scientific, the Conservatives’ favourite adjective, is what will guarantee our survival as an affluent society. Of course, we have to assume that everyone here wants our society to survive and does not imagine that the world is going to end next week with the second coming of the Saviour. That remains to be seen, however.

I am well aware that we must not expect too much. The government has now taken a step toward a polluter pays scheme, which is encouraging. Holding the industry accountable is essential. It comes a quarter-century late and it was not very difficult to put forward, but we will take what we can get.

Bill C-46 introduces absolute liability for all pipelines overseen by the National Energy Board. This is a good initiative and it is the reason behind our support. Absolute liability in the case of fault or negligence means that the operator will have unlimited liability.

In the case of any other incident, the operator is liable up to a maximum of $1 billion. By taking that approach, the government is clearly thinking only of physical damage and the repair costs that may be incurred. This initiative seems to be valid, but there are two points in Bill C-46 that are still vague. It is important that the public know that they might easily have to make a financial contribution in the event of a disaster.

First, if the case could not be made for negligence or fault, the government might have to absorb the costs. In addition, if the costs incurred exceed $1 billion, we will have to pay anything above that amount. In some cases, the bill adds up very quickly and can easily exceed that limit. As several of my colleagues have done already, I would also like to refer to the accident caused by Enbridge in Kalamazoo, Michigan, which has cost nearly $1.2 billion.

Second, as we suspected, environmental damage is not really part of the calculation.

In the end, the potential irreparable damage to the very fabric of our country, which is priceless, will not be worth it.

What the government is counting on can be easily explained: considering Canada's size, the government hopes that accidents will happen in the middle of nowhere, where environmental oversight has already been eliminated by budget cuts, and that the public will quickly forget contamination of the hinterland. Out of sight, out of mind.

Although this may be an ideological government, it certainly is not a sentimental one. Bill C-46 strengthens some of the powers of the National Energy Board to ensure that the transport of oil by pipeline meets certain standards and that the public is protected. However, the operator will still have a say and the bill leaves room for backroom arrangements. Ultimately, cabinet will decide whether there should be sanctions.

If the operator does not comply with the NEB orders, the board will not have the powers needed to take action, unless it is dealing with an abandoned pipeline. We will all agree that an empty pipeline is rather safe.

I would like to reassure those who thought that the Conservatives had suddenly discovered the merits of environmentalism. Bill C-46 is all about the economy. Accidents are expensive and it is unfair for the public to pay for the negligence of corporations. Naturally, we agree.

Because the “teeth” that Bill C-46 gives the National Energy Board are merely molars, if the government does not see fit to crack down on an operator, the only thing the board can do is chew on its reprimands.

The government began reviewing its liability regimes for oil and natural gas development last year. Bill C-46 is a first step that we find acceptable even though we would like the regulation to go much further. We want to protect the environment because we believe that the ecosystem is non-negotiable. Other countries do this and are more prosperous than we are.

The government refused to consider it and brought forward legislation that might not even serve the purpose if evidence of fault is lacking or if the government decides to act in favour of the operator.

Is it any surprise that public confidence is so low under the circumstances?

In addition, as we might have expected, this bill did not involve in-depth consultation with the members of Confederation or first nations. This is yet another example of the omniscience we see so regularly in the Langevin Block.

I am fascinated by the Prime Minister's telescopic vision, his effortless ability to see and understand everything across the country. That sense of direction is amazing—superhuman, even. The only thing the Prime Minister needs to complete his image is a central Asian republic.

At the end of the day, what people want is strict, guaranteed regulations. People want pipelines to be extra safe—no loopholes, no risky measures—as well as responsible, environmentally sound and sustainable management.

What Canadians want is for us to act like adults, not teenagers.

I can therefore guarantee that the best environment minister Quebec has ever had will not accept any “ifs” and “maybes” when he considers approving pipelines once he becomes prime minister of Canada.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am old enough to remember there was a radical wing of the New Democrat Party called, of all things, the Waffle, which is perhaps an appropriate name.

I am trying to understand this. When the members on the government side of the House fail to understand climate change, we criticize them for failing to understand science. However, when they talk about pipelines being safe, they suddenly embrace science and we get nervous about it.

At the same time, the NDP members talk about why we should believe scientists on climate change, but that we cannot trust scientists to build good pipelines. Why?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I did not fully understand my colleague's question.

Clearly, however, science should be at the core of any initiatives like this one. I do believe it is possible to have safe pipelines. I do not think that is what we are talking about here. One thing I do not believe is that this government will bring in any regulations that really make sense, or that it will listen to the scientists who are telling us that measures must be put in place to ensure that our pipelines are as safe as possible.

I sincerely believe that if the Conservatives are faced with the fact that the company has to pay more, and the company tries to convince them that, in the end, safety measures are not all that important, they will not necessarily pay much attention to the scientific opinion at that point.

I completely agree that we need to listen to scientists who can explain the safest ways to build pipelines and move oil. That seems obvious to me.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for her speech and especially her diligence in debating this bill.

I cannot help but respond to the rather bizarre question from the member for Trinity—Spadina. No one is challenging, except perhaps for the radical elements opposite, the science behind the safety of pipelines or their potential safety. However, setting that aside, we should not forget the interests promoting the pipelines and the fact that people could decide, in the end, to disregard rules, common sense and science. The Liberals provided one of the best examples, namely their purchase of used and defective submarines that have been very difficult to put into operation. In fact, following massive investments, the submarines were dangerous. That has nothing to do with science.

I would like my colleague to talk about the fact that no matter the scientific facts, the political decisions that may be made could well result in immeasurable danger.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his comments.

There is something that our government often forgets: as legislators, we are responsible for passing bills that are not simply drawn up to get rid of problems that might occur. As members of Parliament, we are responsible for protecting the public and protecting our society as best we can with the tools we have.

At present, problems with oil transportation have absolutely disastrous consequences. Should that prevent us from moving oil at all? Of course not. That is not realistic in our current society. However, as members of the House, can we pass the best bills possible to ensure the utmost safety when oil is transported? I believe that is our responsibility and that is really what we must do.

[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.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. At the end of his speech, he said that his party will be supporting the bill. He certainly explained the importance of having tough measures to ensure that pipelines are safe.

At the same time, he mentioned that his party would be proposing amendments. Could he be a little more specific about his concerns and tell us what kind of amendments his party plans to propose to improve the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. In my speech, I mentioned a few things that are of concern to us.

First of all, there is the limited liability of $1 billion. That is probably not enough given that there are several aging pipelines running through our communities. In the event of a pipeline break, the damage could far exceed $1 billion. That is a concern for this side of the House. If the damage is well beyond that amount—and damage caused by past environmental disasters has topped $2 billion—Canadians would be on the hook. That makes no sense. Thus, our first concern is the $1 billion liability limit.

Second, the National Energy Board should make inspections mandatory. This bill does not deal with inspections of aging pipelines. Thus, we have serious concerns about the lack of oversight of aging pipelines. We should be more concerned about that.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my colleague my question, I have to mention something that I just learned from the Radio-Canada website. Unfortunately, the riding office of our colleague, the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, was also sent a letter containing a suspicious substance. My thoughts are with the staff of the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. I hope the police will once again find that the substance was not dangerous. This is an absolutely sickening situation.

My colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant was talking about public trust in the process, beyond the law and the structures put in place, and the political will that has to be shown in order to earn the public's trust. It is nice to have encouraged the development of pipeline transportation, which is an indisputably safe method, but beyond that, the public has to trust the legislator and the executive power and trust that it will be fair and serious in implementing the law. I would like to know what my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant thinks of how much the Conservative government can be trusted in this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his question. He raised a very important point about environmental assessments, a process that the current government has completely gutted. The National Energy Board had a comprehensive and well-defined framework for assessing new pipeline projects across Canada, and there are many of them.

The government, thinking it would help the oil companies, did away with the whole environmental assessment process and did such a thorough job that Canadians' confidence is at an all-time low with respect to environmental assessments of these types of projects. We have to wonder what the government has to hide. As this process eroded more and more, Canadians lost more and more confidence. That is the result of the Conservatives' policies. The government thought it was helping the oil companies but I think its decision to do away with the environmental assessment process is hurting the companies instead of helping them.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I got into politics I was one of the founding members of the Conseil de bassins versants de la région de Vaudreuil-Soulanges. This organization was responsible for coming up with a master plan for water in my region.

For anyone who is not familiar with the concept of watersheds, this term refers to the entire area drained by a main stream and its tributaries. It is delineated by its upstream and downstream boundaries. All waterways are connected to one major waterway.

I mentioned watersheds because the watershed area is responsible for the quality of our water, which depends on the health of a watershed. Water is the most important resource.

That is one reason why I decided to run in the 2011 election and to join Jack Layton's team on the NDP, a progressive party that supports the right to live in a healthy and sustainable environment.

That is because seven generations from now our successes will be measured not in terms of GDP, economic growth, oil consumed or produced, or the consumption of a nation; no, our successes will be measured in terms of how well we have done in terms of keeping the ecological balance.

Our resources must be developed sustainably. A polluter-pay model needs to be put in place. We need to move away from our over-reliance on fossil fuels. The NDP vision is that economic growth and job creation go hand in hand with social and environmental sustainability

My riding is downstream from here on the Ottawa River. Here, upstream, the government is making decisions that are troubling the people in my region. They are concerned and rightly so. My region is the country's transportation hub. The Canadian National Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway, Enbridge's line 9 and the TransCanada pipeline all pass through Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

For 16 years, line 9B did not meet safety standards. This problem was ignored by a Liberal MP and a Bloc MP. It was only when the people of my riding elected an NDP member that they discovered that there was a problem with line 9B. I raised this problem at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources after reading an article on the subject.

Canadians want better inspections, appropriate regulations and enforced standards. Public safety and environmental protection must be priorities for any government. The Conservatives are lagging behind. The Liberals had 13 years to solve the problem, but they did nothing. The risks are too great.

Liberals and Conservatives, for instance, now support the Keystone XL project.

I talked with David Suzuki in 2011 and I told him that Canadians worry a lot about pipelines. I asked him what the biggest thing that Canadians should worry about is. He said that we often worry about these big spills we see or about trains derailing. He said that the major problem with pipelines is pinhole leaks. One of the Conservative members mentioned the technology. Certainly there have been advances in technology, but 2% of those pinhole leaks still are not detectable by the instruments that are in Keystone. This means that because of the corrosion in a pipeline and a pinhole leak, oil could leak out without being detected for days or months. It could contaminate the water table, and we would not know it because we would not be able to detect it.

The other question we have to ask is this. Yes, with new pipeline construction we are looking at this new engineering to detect pinhole leaks. What about all the other pipeline infrastructure? Are we saying that we will implement the same safety instruments through all the pipelines across North America? It is a good question to ask, because if one pipeline implements it, should we not implement it in all pipelines? Should we not update all the infrastructure? These are questions I have and that the citizens I represent have.

Energy policy in this country for years has been managed by successive Liberal and Conservative administrations. They have lit so many fires it will be hard too put them all out, all these problems, all this negligence that has gone on over the years. Just opening the paper in a given week we can find five different energy projects that might be going on that have problems that are not being addressed.

Let us look at the seismic testing in the Clyde River. There are problems with the narwhals. The company exploring for oil wants to use seismic testing, which is basically making explosions in the water in habitat where narwhals are. This is going to court in Toronto. The mayor of Clyde River has an injunction against the testing.

We see this again and again.

We also saw this with the St. Lawrence belugas. It is the same thing.

Several fires have been ignited. It is up to us to identify all of the problems and propose solutions.

There has to be greater consultation with communities and with first nations.

First nations activist Chickadee Richard, from Winnipeg, says,

As indigenous people, we still use the lands. We still gather; we still hunt; we still use the forests and the waters. So, what this pipeline would do to us, we may never recover. It's in a crisis mode right now and we all have a responsibility to future generations.

She is a part of a greater coalition in Winnipeg hoping to broaden the scope of National Energy Board consultations. Another member of this coalition, Mary Robinson, of the Council of Canadians, Winnipeg chapter says, “Without...listening to people’s voices, any review of the pipeline will be incomplete and illegitimate".

These are voices of one part of Canada. I bring them up because I hear the same things in my region, and I have heard the same things from other members in this House. Citizens in their ridings have the same preoccupation. These things keep coming up, and we have to address these problems.

Although I am happy to see that there is a bill addressing this, I do not think it goes far enough, and I do not think it answers all the questions and worries citizens might have in my riding and in other ridings.

There is no doubt that we have a wealth of natural resources in this country, and I would not be one to say that we should not use those resources. They are there to be used. We are really blessed with them. They are a blessing to this country, but we have to approach the exploration and the development of these resources in a different way. We have had 40 or 50 years of irresponsible management of these resources by successive Liberal and Conservative administrations.

The NDP's vision is based on three principles. The first is sustainability. We want to ensure that a polluter pays model is in place so that polluters pay for any spills and for the resulting pollution instead of leaving those costs to future generations.

The second is partnership. We want to ensure that our communities, provinces and first nations all benefit from resource development and that we create value-added jobs for the middle class here in Canada.

The third is long-term prosperity, not short-term prosperity that would create jobs tomorrow that will be lost after two weeks. We are seeking to build long-term prosperity by investing and relying on modern technology in order to strike a balance between the economy and the environment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech. In as gracious a form as I can, I would say that I am a little disappointed in the tone. I do not think that is the kind of negativity I am accustomed to hearing from him.

This is a bill that is fairly important, and I understand the NDP will be supporting it. It is not perfect. It is as imperfect as any bill I have seen here in ten and a half years. It is capable of being improved, strengthened, and amended. For a moment, I thought maybe the member was debating Bill C-51.

I know the NDP is raising some important concerns about the liability limit of $1 billion. Lac-Mégantic has hurtled to a cost of $600 million, the Gulf of Mexico spill has pushed $40 billion, and Exxon Valdez is in the tens of billions and still has not been completely cleaned up. There are some important points there. However, perhaps the member could cut to the chase and instead of being overtly political or partisan, he could tell us what two points he would specifically like to see improved in the bill.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I served together on the natural resources committee, and I always found him to be a very reasonable member on that committee with very good proposals.

I have to say that we have to live by the record we create. I will start with that. We cannot make poor decisions and then attempt to say they do not belong to us. Unfortunately, for years the Liberals rubber-stamped these projects as well. Another member pointed out that during the Liberals' tenure, they did not take the people living around a pipeline into consideration and only protected the pipeline itself in legislation. There were great problems with that approach.

To answer the member's question, I will give him one point. The idea of who is responsible in terms of pollution, whether it is through an operator error or otherwise, has to be clarified in this bill, because we often see a shared guilt with respect to accidents and we have to clearly address the point that in those kinds of cases, the operators cannot just pass the buck and say that it was not their fault. We have to be a lot more clear on that aspect.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the NDP is asking for is not very complicated.

We want social accessibility and environmental protections to be respected when major pipeline or economic projects are proposed. We want the government to show a little more respect for Canadians, as Mr. Suzuki does; he pours his heart and soul into the fight to ensure that we can leave future generations with a great place to live.

The bill talks about a $1 billion cap when fault or negligence cannot be proven. This means that taxpayers will once again have to bear any cleanup costs that exceed $1 billion, when fault or negligence cannot be proven. How can fault or negligence be proven in situations like Lac-Mégantic? Who will pay for that?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we are worried. In the event of a spill, in 99% of cases, the proponent is not the only one responsible. The responsibility is shared. These statistics are very troubling, because this means that a company will do everything it can to avoid responsibility for a spill. It will try to pass the bill onto taxpayers. My constituents are very worried about this. We need to amend the bill to address this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the constituents in Newton—North Delta. After spending a week in our ridings, we hear so much from our constituents. From my constituents I hear a great deal of concern with what is happening with our resource development.

Before I get into that, I want to acknowledge the work done by Kultarjit S. Thiara, the president of the Surrey-Newton Rotary Club. I was so impressed when the community raised $50,000 to build a school in the Philippines over this weekend. When we are in our ridings, it gives us so much pleasure when we go to events and people, despite all the economic challenges and being worried about their jobs, donate so generously and when local leaders are willing to play a part in making a difference around the world. I went to about 20 other events, but I will keep those for another time.

I am going to be supporting the bill at second reading so that we can send it to committee.

The bill is not perfect by any means. As a teacher, I like to give some credit when good work is done, and I believe this bill is a baby step in the right direction. I believe the regulations we have right now are just not adequate, but Bill C-46 does take a long-overdue first step toward a true polluter pay regime for pipelines in Canada. I say it is only a baby step because we know it does not go all the way. It is like going to the ocean to dip one's toes in it and then just waiting there. There is a lot more work to be done on the bill, and I can assure everyone that we will be doing the hard lifting at committee stage.

We are also very proud that our NDP leader has been a champion of polluter pay and has very practical plans to grow the economy while protecting the environment. There are those who will tell us we have to choose between the two, that it is either the environment or jobs. When I speak to the smart young people in my riding, I find that they know that is not a choice. In order to have jobs and development, we need to also make sure that we are protecting our planet and developing our resources in a sustainable way.

Over and over again, we have seen the government putting the interests of big oil companies ahead of the interests of hard-working Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. Our middle class is feeling squeezed, and we are hearing through different studies that the quality of jobs and therefore the quality of life are being impacted.

Something else I hear in my riding is that hard-working middle-class people trust the NDP to be able to fix some of these challenges, because they know that over the decades of mismanagement and rubber-stamping by the Liberal Party and now the Conservatives' love-in with big oil companies, they have been squeezed out. Their children's future has been left out. There has not been due consideration.

We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We are truly blessed with not only amazing geography from coast to coast to coast but also with the richness of our resources. Once again, we absolutely have to get out of this mentality of rip-and-ship. I watch that in my province, where we see logs leaving the country on trucks, which is environmentally not that great, and then coming back as two-by-fours, which we then buy. In resource development, no matter which area we are looking at, we really need to take a look at those value-added jobs.

Once again, we need to start developing decent paying jobs for our kids and our middle class right here in Canada. I can tell members that the leader of the NDP has a very practical plan to add value to our natural resources, get away from the rip-and-ship mentality, and support family-sustaining jobs right here at home.

Let us look at what is in the bill. Often what we hear about when my colleagues across the way explain the bill is not what is actually buried in it.

There is an element of polluter pay, but what disturbs me about the bill is that it would vest all kinds of powers to the National Energy Board and the cabinet to make some of these decisions. I think that is the kind of policy-making that leads to confusion. We need to have very clear guidelines, and it should not be left up to the cabinet or cabinet ministers to decide which way it would go, and which parts would be implemented and which would not. It is very disturbing for us in the NDP.

I live in one of the most beautiful provinces. I am sure that every MP says that, and they would be absolutely right. However, we all know of British Columbia's pristine lakes and coastline. Its coastline not only provides an incredible amount of great seafood for local consumption, it is sold overseas, and it is also a great tourist attraction. We bring in billions of dollars through tourism, and we are very worried about the impact of an oil spill, be it from a pipeline or a tankard on our pristine coastline.

I have to give credit to one of the hardest-working members of Parliament in the House, the member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He is our finance critic right now, but his passion and campaign to save our coast is truly inspirational. I have watched the audience, whether they are 90-year-olds or 14-year-olds, be absolutely inspired when he speaks from his heart about the importance of protecting our waterways, our beautiful coastline, and the kind of lifestyle we have out in B.C.

There is a linkage to this because as members know the northern gateway pipeline is a project that is going to be crossing over many of our key rivers. It will be going through some of our most pristine lakes, through vast territory, and will end up in the ocean through some very dangerous territory. Therefore, we are very worried. However, the linkage here is that the northern gateway is an Enbridge pipeline.

I will pause here for a moment to share with members what happened at the Kalamazoo River, in Michigan. On July 26, 2010, there was an oil spill, and 843,444 U.S. gallons of crude oil came out of a 30-inch pipeline into a prime wetland. That pipeline was owned by Enbridge. The cleanup for that spill alone, not taking account other damages or loss of non-use which has to be considered, came to $1.2 billion. However, here we would be setting a target of up to $1 billion. We can see that is inadequate, but it is without taking into consideration the non-use and all of that.

Therefore, we are very worried about any kind of leakage, whether from a pipeline or tankard into our ocean. We are absolutely committed to polluter pay, and we have to start making realistic legislation that considers the real cost of the cleanup and not leave it up to cabinet ministers or other bodies to do this at their discretion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many other aspects to the legislation. The part that is rather positive are the improvements to the National Energy Board, where it would have more of a vested interest and to a certain degree a mandate to assist in protecting Canada's environment. There are a series of amendments that would empower the National Energy Board to do more.

I believe everyone within the chamber is going to be voting in favour of the bill going to committee. Does the member advocate for any amendments to potentially to give National Energy Board greater responsibilities to protect our environment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the bill at second reading so it can go to committee stage.

One of the major concerns I have with the bill is the discretionary power that would be handed over to either the National Energy Board or cabinet. We will bring in amendments along those lines.

The other concern I have is that even though this is a baby step toward polluter pays, the step is not large enough to cover the full cost. I am still worried about the huge cost the public would end up paying, while the profits would be reaped by the big oil companies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta for her very interesting speech.

Pipeline companies are asking for authorization to do things that can be extremely worrisome. For example, energy east wants to cross the St. Lawrence. Never before has an enormous heavy bitumen pipeline crossed a waterway as large and as dense as the St. Lawrence. The transshipment point for the northern gateway pipeline project, which was approved by the National Energy Board, has been challenged by several experts. They say that this is a dangerous place to navigate enormous oil tankers.

The proponents want to transport a million barrels of oil a day across the St. Lawrence and select a transshipment point that was severely criticized by marine safety experts because it opens the door to the possibility of major accidents. A billion-dollar liability is not enough because the damage caused by a catastrophe of that nature would cost much more.

Can my colleague comment on that aspect of the problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hard-working colleague. He does an incredible job in his riding and he represents his constituents with a great deal of passion in the House.

He has raised a really good question, and we need to be really clear about it. The bill only covers those pipeline spills or accidents that happen if the barrels of oil per day are over 250,000. If they are less, this does not apply. That is of a great deal of concern. Also, looking at history and what we know about the cost of cleanup, $1 billion are totally under the amount that is needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the opposition appears to have changed its tune. It would seem that an epiphany has occurred. It now believes what we have been saying all along, that Canada is a country blessed with natural resources and that we can grow the economy, while protecting the environment.

Bill C-46 builds on previous actions taken by our government to prevent incidents. These actions include increasing the number of annual pipeline inspections and audits conducted by the National Energy Board, as well as strengthening the board's enforcement capabilities by giving it the authority to fine pipeline operators for smaller incidents, all of which the NDP voted against.

Could the member explain why the New Democrats voted against those very important measures?

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

Mr. Speaker, ever since I have been in the House, I have seen the government take away more and more of the regulations around the protection of the environment. When the government cleans up the red tape, or fast tracks, it does not pay attention to the details.

We have not had an epiphany. Even when I was teaching in the classroom, I talked about our country's wealth. We are not against development. We want sustainable development and we want development that protects our environment and leaves our children with a planet. We do not want the kind of development that endangers our sustainability and ensures our children are left with a very damaged Canada.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the opposition has had an epiphany.

In one of my questions earlier, I mentioned my respect and regard for engineers in Canada. I grew up in the home of a chemical engineer, who has done an enormous amount of industrial work across Canada. Waste water was a specialty of my father's. I also have a son-in-law who is very concerned about the environment and providing energy for Africa. He has a doctorate in electrical engineering, and he is currently in Ghana building solar fields to provide electrical energy for a country that is so desperately in need. I have never met people who are more concerned about the environment than the engineers of Canada.

When I was looking at some of the websites and learning a bit about what our engineers were doing in Canada to preserve the environment, I looked at the Schulich School of Engineering. It is active in research that crosses all departments in the engineering school, including civil, chemical, mechanical, geomatics, and electrical engineering, and it collaborates with all departments of geoscience and biological sciences. It says that it is a leader in pipeline integrity, maintenance and management.

One of the things we do know is that there are occasionally some difficulties with the pipelines, but those problems are miniscule in comparison with the problems with the pump stations. We know the engineers are exceedingly diligent in the work they do to keep the pump stations active and working properly. That is their job.

One of the NDP members talked about sustainable jobs in our economy. The Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada is made up of people who have very reliable and well-respected companies in Canada. They are prominent people in our society who work hard to ensure the integrity of those pipelines. They talk about some of the job opportunities. They are looking at skilled occupations and trades, and jobs in the transportation industry, logistics, equipment operating, management, and supply testing and inspection.

If we take a look at the opportunities that the Energy East pipeline would provide in the development phase alone, we are talking about more than 8,300 full-time direct jobs and 5,300 indirect jobs. In the operational phase, there would be 900 full-time direct jobs and thousands of indirect jobs. It will look at local hiring for the most part.

We need pipelines. We need to ensure that the people who have the demand for energy in their homes, automobiles and businesses across the country have the fuel they need to keep them going. This is an economic driver for Canada.

We said earlier that we were blessed with enormous resources. Our country has been blessed with resources beyond comparison. Those resources are there to be the economic driver for our country.

The bill would bring safety and security to our pipeline management. In the process, it would create jobs for Canadians, jobs for our young people and jobs for our engineers. That is good news for every one of us.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #343

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)