Debates of May 1st, 2013

Language Skills Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member will have four minutes to finish her speech, if she wishes, when debate resumes.

The time provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Environment

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to speak and to ask two questions of the government.

The first is about liability for accidents at offshore drilling installations and at nuclear power plants. The liability limits, in the case of an accident at an offshore drilling operation, are only $30 million in the Atlantic and $40 million in the Arctic. I think the government members would agree with me that these liability limits are too low. These are caps on the amount a company is liable for in the case of an accident.

The Conservatives have hinted that legislation may be forthcoming to increase these limits. Let me just give a simple illustration of why these limits need to be increased. The current limit is $40 million in the Arctic. The cost of the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico was $40 billion. That is 1,000 times more than the current liability limit.

I know that the Conservatives have hinted that some legislation may be forthcoming. When is that legislation forthcoming? Could it not have been introduced in Bill C-60, which has a number of pieces that did not appear in the budget?

The second place liability limits need to be increased is at nuclear power plants. Currently the liability cap is only $75 million. I know that when we had a minority Conservative government, legislation to increase the liability limits on accidents at nuclear power plants from $75 million to something like $650 million or more was introduced three different times. All three bills died for one reason or another, whether it was an early election, prorogation or simply that the bill was not advanced by the government. However, now that we have a majority Conservative government, and have for two years, I do not understand why the government has not introduced stand-alone legislation that could be examined carefully and debated.

Why could the Conservatives not simply reintroduce legislation they were willing to introduce in a minority government? I challenge the government to explain why it has not done so. I think people will ask whether the Conservatives, which now have a majority government, really wanted to increase the liability limits when they were in a minority government. That is my other question.

In response to my initial question in question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, speaking for the government, said, “the foundation for our liability regime is the polluter pay principle”. That is something that perhaps all members of the House could agree on.

Now that the current government is spending a lot of time going to the United States to lobby the government there to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and to claim that Canada is strong on environmental protection, would the government extend the polluter pay principle, and would it apply it to other things that damage the natural environment? They are lobbying the United States government and claim to be protecting the natural environment and caring about climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for asking about financial liabilities regarding Canada's regulatory regimes for nuclear operations and offshore oil and gas activities.

The health and safety of Canadians and protecting our environment are the government's top priorities. We recognize that accidents can happen anywhere, regardless of our laws and safety measures.

We are also very confident in our safeguards. We have strong environmental laws and standards, and a robust safety regime for offshore exploration and drilling. Oil and gas rigs used in the Canadian offshore industry, as well as the equipment and training required to operate them, must all meet strict regulatory standards that are among the highest in the world.

The National Energy Board evaluates each drilling application in the northern offshore for compliance with federal regulations. On the east coast, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board have similar responsibilities. Drilling cannot occur unless the responsible board is fully satisfied that the drilling plans are safe for workers and the environment. It is important for everyone to understand that when it comes to offshore activities, decisions are made with great care and only after much scrutiny.

We have been working closely with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia to identify gaps in the current legislation on cost recovery in the offshore.The accord acts are the cornerstone for all oil and gas activity offshore. They provide the legal authority for the boards to regulate oil and gas activity on behalf of the provinces.

Canada's liability regime is founded on the polluter pays principle. As noted in the recent report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, the responsibility rests with operators to immediately take all reasonable measures to clean up a spill and prevent further damage.

Clearly our government recognizes the value of financial assurances as an important tool for protecting the environment and taxpayers. We are taking action to address the commissioner's recommendations, and work is under way to increase the liabilities required of industry.

Our government also intends to modernize the Nuclear Liability Act and increase the operator liability limit to an amount in keeping with international standards. Proposals will be brought forward for updating the legislation in the coming weeks and months.

Our government is fully confident that the offshore boards will continue to provide comprehensive oversight of oil and gas operators. We will continue working with the National Energy Board, the offshore boards, and the provinces and territories to ensure our regulatory regime remains one of the strongest in the world.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will restate my question. I know my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, does not need his notes to answer this question.

Why has the government, in its two years of majority, not been willing to reintroduce the legislation that it introduced three times when it was a minority government to increase the liability caps on nuclear power plants?

My second question is on whether the government is willing to apply the polluter pay principle. I think we will all agree it is very good that the foundation of our country's liability regime be the polluter pay principle. Is the government willing to apply this when it comes to climate change and greenhouse gases?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague listens to the answer.

It is no exaggeration to say that the offshore oil and gas sector has transformed the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. Thanks to the royalties and other revenues generated by this industry, Newfoundland and Labrador has become a “have” province and an economic force in our federation for the first time in history.

One of the reasons for its remarkable success is Canada's robust regulatory regime for offshore oil and gas activities. Our regime helps to ensure the highest level of safety, protection of the environment and management of our petroleum resources.

Our government takes sustainable development of Canada's natural resources very seriously. That is why offshore oil and gas activities must meet tough standards that are among the highest in the world.

Canadian regulators will not allow any drilling to start until they are convinced that the environment and the safety of workers will be protected. In the event of a spill, the polluter pay principle is the foundation of our liability regime.

Ethics

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not here tonight to talk about the abuses of the partisan and patronage dumping ground also known as the Senate. The abuses that have happened are well known, the improper expenses of Senators Duffy, Wallin, Harb and other senators in the past who abused their position. These are the facts, and I am not here to address that.

What I would like to discuss are the arguments that members and people use in defence of the relevance of the Senate. Often, members will refer to the work that Senate committees do and the reports that come out of those committees as a useful use of the Senate.

If members recall, a few years ago the Canadian dollar reached parity with the U.S. dollar. People wondered, if our dollar was worth the same, why we still paid more than American consumers did south of the border. The Senate finance committee had a look at the issue and studied it quite extensively. It wanted to get to the bottom of this question, and it came up with a report called, “The Canada-USA Price Gap”.

Senator Smith participated in this. He lives in the same town as I do, even though he is the senator for Saurel and Vaudreuil-Soulanges is quite far away from there.

I am sure that most Canadians have not heard of this report, but I looked at it with interest. Basically, the Senate looked into the Canada-U.S.A price gap and found some interesting recommendations. It found that higher tariffs were responsible for the price difference, and I will cite from the report. It states:

The officials from the Department of Finance said that, although there are some examples of differences in tariff rates between Canada and the United States that could contribute to price discrepancies for certain products, most tariffs rates are low.

This would seem to confirm the government's present position, although later on it says:

Almost all the other witnesses who appeared before the Committee disagreed with the opinion expressed by the officials from the Department of Finance, according to which tariff differences between Canada and the United States are not a major factor contributing to prices discrepancies between the two countries.

Who disagreed with the department officials? Well, the Retail Council of Canada, Canadian Tire Corporation Ltd., Reebok-CCM Hockey, the Canadian apparel Industry and representatives from Deloitte and Touche, which members may recognize as the firm that did the audit on the Senate and its abuse of expenses.

Basically, the Senate committee told the government that its recommendation was to lower tariffs on products to help Canadian consumers and to bring prices on both sides of the border closer to each other.

What did the government do? It looked at the report and raised tariffs. It did not even listen to the Senate committee. Therefore, all the work that was done to produce this report, all the senators who put hours in and the witnesses who appeared before the committee, resulted in a completely useless report because the government did not take its recommendations. We can multiply this a hundred times where members of the House have not paid attention to the work the Senate has done.

Therefore, I think it is quite clear. Other countries have abolished their upper House when they did not see the relevance of it, and they have been fine. Other countries have Houses that are truly representative. However, our Senate is neither, and it must be abolished.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to follow where the member was going with his question. His original question was basically about Senate expenses, so I would like to let him know that our government has committed to ensuring all expenses are appropriate, that the rules governing the expenses are appropriate and that the Senate will report back to taxpayers, and it has done so.

As far as the rest of his comments go, I would like to state that since I have been in the House, I have actually come to respect the Senate much more in seeing the work that it has been doing as very valuable. It is always nice to have the checks and balances.

Regardless of what the member just said, the government actually does take into account many of the Senate reports that are reported and given to the Canadian people as information. We certainly do rely on its expertise.

I hope my colleague has some type of follow-up, but this was not meant to be a debate on abolishing the Senate.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I came here to debate the relevance of the Senate in light of the expense abuse. I wanted to highlight that the abuse of expenses was not the only problem with the Senate, that there were other problems involved with it, and that was its relevance.

This is not an old report. It came out in February 2013, one month before the budget.

Why did the government not take the recommendations of the Senate report and lower tariffs so prices could come in line and Canadian consumers could be spared? What the government has prepared is a policy that encourages cross-border shopping. Merchants and salespeople in my area want to promote the Canadian economy, not the U.S. economy.

Why did the government not take the Senate recommendations into account? The report was done a month ago. The member has not addressed the issue at all. He says that he takes Senate recommendations into account, but it appears his government has not done so.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely do take Senate recommendations into account.

It is interesting to listen to my colleague. When this government has put forward recommendations to modify and modernize the Senate, each and every time the NDP has stood and voted against them.

We are certainly in favour of modernizing the upper house. It is a variant part of our parliamentary system. I would be happy to discuss it at another time with my colleague.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine not being present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:38 p.m.)