House of Commons Hansard #141 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was offshore.
The House resumed from September 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton today.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today on an extremely important piece of legislation: the energy safety and security act. The act would ensure the continued safety and security of Canada's offshore oil and gas and nuclear energy industries, helping to make a world-class regulatory regime even better while strengthening protection for Canadians and the environment.
Bill C-22 would modernize Canada's laws to ensure accountability in these industries and to protect taxpayers if a serious incident resulted in cleanup costs and compensation.
Our government has made a firm commitment, under our plan for responsible resource development, that no major resource project will proceed unless rigorous environmental protection measures are in place. Bill C-22 reflects this commitment by strengthening safety and security in Canada's energy sector by focusing on prevention, response, accountability, and transparency.
The energy safety and security act would give Canada one of the strongest liability regimes in the world, providing a solid framework to regulate Canada's offshore and nuclear industries into the future.
The legislation would also support the responsible promotion and development of our offshore and nuclear industries, which are essential to Canada's economy.
I would first like to speak about the strong regulations we have in our nuclear sector.
Canada has a proud and distinguished history in the development and application of nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes. Canada has been involved in almost every aspect of the nuclear industry, from uranium mining and processing to the development of our CANDU reactors for clean power generation to the production of medical isotopes. As well, in many aspects of nuclear science, including our regulatory regime, we have been world leaders.
The task of overseeing Canada's safety in the nuclear sector falls to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or CNSC, Canada's nuclear regulator. As hon. members are aware, the CNSC is independent with respect to licensing and regulatory matters. It reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources.
Our government places the highest priority on the protection of health, safety, security, and the environment in relation to nuclear activities in Canada. That is why we have ensured that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has the resources it needs to do its mandated job.
The CNSC's compliance and enforcement system includes a number of enforcement actions, such as increased regulatory scrutiny, licensing, decertification, and prosecution. As part of our government's plan for responsible resource development, the CNSC has received an additional tool to ensure safety and environmental protection in Canada's nuclear sector: the Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations. These new regulations authorize the use of financial penalties for violations of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.
Our Canadian nuclear industry is strong. Unlike the NDP, our government is committed to taking the necessary steps to make it even stronger. If the NDP had its way, it would shut down the nuclear industry entirely, putting 17,000 highly skilled Canadian workers out of work and bankrupting Canadian businesses. This is obviously unacceptable
The government supports a strong and safe nuclear industry, and Bill C-22 further demonstrates our commitment to nuclear safety.
A key feature of Bill C-22 is the $1-billion protection it would provide. In the case of Canada's nuclear industry, we would be strengthening the liability regime to increase the amount of compensation available for civil damages from $75 million to $1 billion
Canadians can be assured that the CNSC would continue to diligently oversee all aspects of the Canadian nuclear industry to ensure that public health, safety, and security, as well as the environment, were protected.
I would now like to briefly touch on other parts of the bill that deal with the offshore.
Bill C-22 would also apply to oil and gas companies operating in the offshore, where we would be raising the absolute liability to $1 billion from its current levels of $30 million in the Atlantic offshore and $40 million in the Arctic.
With these measures, the energy safety and security act would reinforce, in unprecedented fashion, the polluter pays principle, which would protect Canadian taxpayers.
As hon. members know, on our east coast there are two independent offshore boards: the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. The accord acts give these boards the legal authority to regulate offshore oil and gas exploration and development activities.
Members of the offshore boards have professional expertise in various disciplines, including environmental protection, law, economics, engineering, and business. They are supported by highly qualified management teams and staff with extensive experience, including in the fields of environmental protection and safety. Each board ensures that operators exercise due diligence to prevent offshore spills. As a result, drilling cannot occur unless the responsible board is completely satisfied that drilling plans comply with federal regulations and are safe for workers and the environment.
With this in mind, we have worked closely with Nova Scotia and with Newfoundland and Labrador to update and expand legislation to ensure that Canada's offshore regime continues to be world class. Offshore installations and the equipment and training required to operate them must meet strict regulatory standards that are among the highest in the world. The Offshore Health and Safety Act, which received royal assent last spring, will further strengthen Canada's safety regime by giving the offshore industry a clear occupational health and safety framework that is enforceable by law and is free of jurisdictional uncertainty.
Bill C-22 would mean that companies operating offshore would have to have the financial capacity to meet the higher liability obligations. Before any offshore drilling or production activity could take place, companies would need to prove that they could cover the financial liabilities that could result from a spill. This legislation would also establish a cost-recovery regime for the operations of the offshore boards, oblige new requirements for transparency, and create new enforcement tools, such as administrative and monetary penalties.
In conclusion, our government knows that economic prosperity and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. We are committed to protecting the safety of Canadians and the safety of the environment. Through our plan for responsible resource development, we have taken action to ensure that Canada's vast resource wealth can be developed responsibly by putting public safety and environmental protection first. With the passage of Bill C-22, Canada would have in place one of the most modern, efficient, and stringent offshore safety regimes in the world.
Our world-class standards are supported by strong environmental laws. We have worked closely with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to modernize this legislation to make Canada's already world-class safety regime even better.
Bill C-22 is yet another example of our government's commitment to being a leader in safety and environmental protection while ensuring that all Canadians benefit from the jobs, opportunities, and economic growth created by Canada's natural resources. I urge the New Democrats to stop their ideological opposition to resource development and urge all hon. members to allow the passage of Bill C-22.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the importance of offshore activities on the east coast, the number of jobs that have been generated, and the economic wealth that is being created because of the amount of exploration and drilling that is taking place.
The government is bringing forward legislation that would have a significant impact on the activities in that region. I am sure the member is sensitive to the fact that a number of stakeholders would want to participate in any discussion on legislation of this nature. Can the member indicate to the House to what degree the government has actually worked with different stakeholders in bringing forward this legislation?
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, our government absolutely works with stakeholders across the country, especially in these areas that are affected to make sure that the plan works for everybody. We understand that natural resource development is key for our country and has been since Canada started as a nation. Absolutely, we will continue to consult with stakeholders, as we have in the past, to make sure that it is a good plan for everybody.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.
In his opinion, why have the Conservatives done nothing to comply with international standards before now? This bill will not allow us to catch up to our international partners. The Conservatives often brag that they want to be more like the United States, but the American government has adopted an absolute liability regime of $12.6 billion U.S.
Why, then, do the Conservatives not want Canada to adopt a regime that offers at least the same amount of protection as the U.S. regime? They are always saying that Canada is ahead of the United States, so why are they not showing leadership and attaining or surpassing the level of protection in the United States?
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to be ashamed of on this side of the House. Absolute liability of $1 billion is significant, and there are further measures to capture more funds if it goes beyond that.
Canada is one of the top countries in the world in terms of the environment and developing natural resources. We care about them. I am from British Columbia. People in my province want to make sure that we can balance both, but we absolutely need natural resource development, as a country, to continue to prosper.
Again, $1 billion in absolute liability is significant and is among the top in the world.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments on this bill. I know that he and his party are great advocates of the free market. I wonder why, in this case, they are putting forward a bill that relieves the nuclear industry of some of the pressures of the free market by, in a sense, subsidizing the risks involved in that industry. Why should the nuclear industry, just like any other industry, not bear the full cost of the risk? Why should the public pick up this expense for the nuclear industry?
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I fully understand the question. In my speech I mentioned that we went from a $75-million liability to $1 billion. To me, that is a dramatic increase in liability for the proponent. I see it as quite an improvement to what existed before.
Again, Canada has nothing to be ashamed of. We care about the environment and resource development, and we will continue to do so.
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, my friend who previously spoke about liability for the nuclear industry was quite right in saying that we have gone from $75 million to $1 billion. I wonder if my friend could expand a little further. Among countries that have nuclear reactors, we recently saw with Fukushima that the government of Japan essentially took over the nuclear industry in that country because of the billions of dollars involved. I think it is now in excess of $12 billion.
Could my friend tell the House about the procedure in circumstances where liability exceeds $1 billion? I wonder if he could talk about it coming back to the House so that the government could ensure that the industry complies with the additional costs.
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, the shift from $75 million to $1 billion in absolute liability is significant, but there is also a requirement that any proponents that go beyond that have to come up with the difference.
I would like to state again how important the nuclear industry is to Canada. It supports 17,000 jobs for Canadians and their families. We support the industry and want to make sure that it is environmentally sound but also competitive.
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Prince George—Peace River for sharing his time with me.
It is my privilege to speak to Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. This legislation would ensure continued world-class safety and security for Canada's offshore oil and gas, and nuclear energy industries. It would enhance regulation and ensure that development is done in a manner that is safe for Canadians and safe for our environment.
Our government has been very clear, taxpayers should not be liable in the highly unlikely event of an incident in either of these industries. It is the company that must be held liable. The bill would deliver on the promise made in the Speech from the Throne to enshrine the polluter pays principle into law. As well, it would fulfill our commitment to provide $1 billion in protection to Canadians by raising absolute liability limits in both these sectors. Absolute liability holds the company responsible regardless of fault.
Canada has an enormous wealth of natural resources that generate significant economic benefits for Canadians. It is not an exaggeration to say that the resource sector is the cornerstone of Canada's economy. Natural resources account for nearly 20% of our gross domestic product, and 50% of our exports.
In fact, the energy, mining and forestry industries provide over $30 billion a year in revenue to governments, money that supports critical social programs such as health care and education. Furthermore, 1.8 million Canadians currently work in the natural resource sectors or in industries that service these sectors. Put another way, one in 10 Canadians work directly or indirectly for the natural resources sector.
Natural resource jobs are in every part of Canada from coast to coast to coast. Today, more than 30,000 aboriginal people work in energy, mining and forestry jobs throughout Canada, making the natural resources sector the largest private sector employer of aboriginal people.
There is true potential for massive investments in resource sectors in every region across Canada. It is estimated that hundreds of major resource projects are currently under way in Canada or planned over the next 10 years, worth approximately $650 billion in investment.
These investments will generate enormous economic growth and create hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs in communities across Canada. Responsible resource development achieves the right balance to unleash the potential of our resource sectors to create high-value jobs across Canada while strengthening safety and environmental protection.
The legislation before us today will strengthen the growth of Canada's energy sector, and will protect Canadians and the environment. With respect to Canada's booming offshore oil and gas industry, the economy of Atlantic Canada has been truly transformed.
Over the past 15 years, Nova Scotia offshore oil and gas production has generated over $2.4 billion in government revenues and annually supports some 750 jobs. At the same time, Newfoundland and Labrador production has generated over $9.2 billion in government revenues and provides over 12,800 direct and indirect jobs annually.
Every stage of offshore petroleum activity, from exploration to production, is subject to strict regulations and oversight by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
Canada's environmental record is strong, and we are making it stronger by focusing on what matters to Canadians: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Our government manages Canada's offshore oil and gas resources jointly with the provinces. We worked in collaboration with Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador to develop these changes.
Bill C-22 would hold companies to account in the case of an incident. By fulfilling our promise in the Speech from the Throne and enshrining the polluter pays principle into law, we are ensuring the continued success of offshore development.
In the Atlantic offshore we are increasing absolute liability from $30 million to $1 billion. We are also increasing the offshore absolute liability in the Arctic from $40 million to $1 billion. This means that companies are responsible for damages up to that amount, regardless of whether they are at fault for the incident. As is currently the case, we would continue to maintain unlimited liability where fault or negligence is proven.
Additionally, companies would need to demonstrate that they have $1 billion in available financial capacity. The bill would make companies responsible for their product and require them to pay for any damage caused. The bill would also strengthen the transparency of our safety regime by giving the public access to emergency planning, environmental plans and other documents filed with regulators. We feel strongly that the public deserves access to this important information and we will make sure that they have it.
Through our government's actions, oil and gas companies operating in the Atlantic and Arctic offshore would be subjected to the highest safety and liability standards in the world.
As my colleagues have mentioned, the energy safety and security act would also strengthen Canada's system for nuclear liability. It places Canada in line with internationally accepted compensation levels and significantly increases the operator's absolute liability for civil damages from $75 million to $1 billion. This increase brings Canada in line with modern western nuclear power generating countries.
This is an important aspect for Canadians because they want to be assured that nuclear power generated in Canada is done safely. Of course, the safety and security of this sector is paramount to the bill and I am proud that we are taking steps to update the liability limits for nuclear.
It is unfortunate that the NDP continues to oppose thousands of jobs in the nuclear sector and the non-emitting electricity generated by nuclear power. I do not need to remind Canadians of the importance of our energy sector. Most willingly acknowledge the huge role that it plays in our national economy and many Canadians would even suggest Canada is blessed with an abundance of resources. The question is why any responsible party would attempt to minimize or negate the importance of one of the most important players in the energy sector, the nuclear industry, as it relates to the overall economic well-being of Canada.
While other parties refuse to support hard-working Canadians or the creation of high-paying jobs across the energy sector, our government is moving forward to ensure that we have world-class safety standards for the benefit of all Canadians, which will in turn lead to even better economic opportunities for all.
In conclusion, the energy safety and security act offers Canada a solid, modern framework to regulate the offshore and nuclear liability systems in Canada for decades to come. Despite the divisive nature of the debate against Canada's development of our various natural resources, the truth that many Canadians realize is that economic prosperity and environmental protection can both be achieved.
Canadians trust our government to grow the economy, create jobs and responsibly develop Canada's resources.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right in her assertion of just how dependent Canada is on our natural resources, which employ a good number of people from every region of our country. She also put emphasis on our aboriginal and first nation communities. There is no doubt there is a great deal of reward economically.
My question is with regard to the idea of having a social contract related to the development of our natural resources, and therefore, being able to have sound environmental laws, but along with that, ensuring that there is a sense of working with the public as a whole. When we look especially at some of the pipeline issues, we have found that the government has fallen short on getting that social contract with Canadians.
Could the member provide some thoughts as to why she believes the government has not done as well on that aspect of developing our natural resources?
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to that member's question.
We need to remember that Bill C-22 would do four important things. It would raise the absolute liability for companies operating in the Atlantic offshore. We talked about that. It would also raise it in the Arctic. It would amend the agreements that are in place with both the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. In the nuclear sector, it would increase the absolute liability amount to $1 billion. It would also take steps to replace the 1976 Nuclear Liability Act.
There are other things that this bill would do. Coming from an area such as Sarnia-Lambton, I am well aware of the importance of the energy sector to our economy and the safety and environmental issues that are inherent in that energy sector. I am also well aware of pipelines. We probably have an inordinate number of pipelines in my area, far more than in any other area in this country.
Bill C-22 also puts in place some other measures that would provide an improved response, a stronger accountability and greater transparency. Therefore, I am looking forward to all members supporting the bill and getting it passed quickly.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, of course a $1 billion liability seems like a lot. It is an improvement.
Nonetheless, my colleague surely knows the estimated cost of the 2011 nuclear disaster in Fukushima. In case she does not remember, I will remind her that it is $250 billion. There is a huge difference between a $250 billion liability and a $1 billion liability, a $249 billion difference, to be exact. The federal government would have to subsidize the rest of the repairs and upgrades, and that means it would fall to Canadian taxpayers and the people of Drummond. I do not think the people of Drummond would be pleased to learn that.
How will my colleague explain to her constituents that if there were ever a nuclear disaster like the one in Fukushima, it would be up to Canadians to pay $249 billion?
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, this is a point that we need to be clear on. Bill C-22 would raise the liability limits for the operator to $1 billion. We know we needed to do that. We were operating under a nuclear bill that was several years old and needed to be updated. We know when we compare the billion-dollar operator liability to other countries that this will put Canada among the highest limits in the world.
The United Kingdom, France, Spain and other European countries are moving to an operator limit of $1 billion. They are not there yet but they are thinking of going that way. Other non-European nations, including South Korea, South Africa and Argentina, have lower liability limits.
We ask, “Why not move it higher?” We know that in the aftermath of Fukushima the Japanese government had to step in and bail out the operator. In the highly unlikely event of an incident that exceeded the billion dollar limit, the Minister of Natural Resources in Canada would be required to table a report before Parliament containing estimates of the costs of the damages from the nuclear incident. That report would provide government the opportunity to make recommendations on the desirability of additional compensation beyond the liability limit based on relevant consideration at that time.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in opposition to Bill C-22. It is called “an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts”. I suppose, compared to some other names I have seen for bills coming before the House, this one is not as reactionary or volatile.
I have a major concern. We are dealing with a piece of legislation that is critical, and I am hearing that from colleagues on the other side. First, it took them forever to bring the bill here. They could have done it a long time ago. Now they keep moving time allocation on it. Here we are, once again, speaking to a bill, and it is one out of eighty bills that has had time allocation.
This is getting to be ridiculous. I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at that. Not only has the government placed time allocations in the House, but at committee stage it prevented a full array of experts and other witnesses from coming forward to present testimony so that the legislation can be well thought out and based on opinions of those in the field. It prevented experts from talking, who know a lot more about this issue than many parliamentarians in the House.
Once again, we, as parliamentarians, have been denied access to that kind of expertise and science. Knowing the government's allergic reaction to science and expert opinion, I should not be surprised, but I am still very disappointed.
I have heard a number of times today that the bill is an improvement on what we have. I agree.
Mr. Speaker, I forgot to say that I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. My apologies to her.
The bill has taken a long time to come here. The changes are long overdue, but once again my colleagues across the way have failed to address fundamental issues that need to be addressed.
I always hear from my colleagues about how the U.S. does it, and that if the U.S. is dropping missiles into Iraq we have to follow because we are very close friends. However, it seems in this case that they are quite willing to ignore what the U.S. is doing in this area, and what other countries are doing. Germany, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, and Switzerland have unlimited liability for nuclear power plants. We are not talking about one or two countries;.this is a series of countries that I have listed.
The Conservatives have set the bar even lower than the U.S., the closest to us border-wise. That causes me major concern. When it suits us, we have to be like the U.S. and follow it here and there. However, when it does not suit us and it concerns the pocketbooks of Canadians and our future well-being, then they are quite willing to look the other way.
Even the U.S. has standards that are much higher than the ones proposed in the bill. The U.S. has an absolute liability regime of $12.6 billion U.S., compared to $1 billion. We can all see, even my grandchildren in school would be able to see, that there is a huge difference there.
However, if the companies are not paying, guess who is paying? It is the taxpayers. The current government, which is always talking about being good managers of taxpayers' assets, in this case is willing to land the taxpayers with billions and billions of dollars worth of liability. I am not exaggerating. We only have to look at what has happened in the past when it came to cleanup.
It is not as if we do not have any examples. We can look at the cost of cleanup around Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. The Japanese government estimates that the cleanup for the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant could be over $250 billion.
I am not grabbing these numbers out of the air. This is a country that has experienced that reality, and it is giving us its best opinion. Japan has already spent well over hundreds of billions on this.
What do the so-called smart economic managers for our Canadian taxpayers do, who are sitting on the other side? They are proposing a total liability of $1 billion. That does not speak well for being good managers of taxpayers' money.
We are pleased to see that the bill would bring some changes, which include unlimited liability for gas and oil companies. Coming from beautiful British Columbia and being very proud of our pristine coastline, we are very concerned. We want to see obstacles put in the way so that the business community, oil explorers, and other companies, will make sure that they take every precautionary step possible to avoid a leakage, spill, or any other kind of disaster.
If this measure is good enough for the oil and gas industry, it should be good enough for the nuclear industry as well. I am finding it very hard to get my head around why we would treat two industries so very differently. Neither industry is new; they are both well established.
After years of experience as the environment minister in Quebec, I believe that the NDP leader knows environmental protection and sustainable development inside and out. I absolutely believe that he would not support, nor would he bring forward, legislation that would put liability for nuclear companies at only $1 billion.
Subsidizing the most profitable industries in the country and leaving taxpayers on the hook for a massive nuclear disaster or oil spill does not make sense. However, the Conservative government would do exactly that.
I would say that the Conservatives are going against the common sense test. If I were to put this idea forward to a grade 5 class in my riding, they would say “Really? That's not fair”. It is not right, and it concerns me. I think it is shameful that we have a bill before us that does not put the interests of the taxpayers before narrow corporate interests, and that is what we are seeing here.
I will finish with wishing everyone in the House a happy and productive week in their ridings. I know that all of us will be participating in Remembrance Day ceremonies, which are always filled with pathos, sadness, and memories as we honour those who sacrificed for us. However, this year, in light of the events we have personally experienced here, they will take on a different level of poignancy.
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the remarks that my colleague made. If I heard her correctly, she stated at the beginning of her speech that this legislation was long overdue and she was wondering why it has taken the government so long to bring it forward. I am a bit curious about that comment. If I recollect correctly, this is about the fifth time that we have introduced legislation on this important issue, and each time it has been opposed by the NDP.
Does the member opposite not agree with stronger accountability, improved response, and greater transparency when it comes to nuclear operations?
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear about transparency and accountability from that side of the House. It is absolutely because we want accountability and transparency, and because we want the polluter pay principle applied to the nuclear branch as well, that we are opposed to the bill. The bill is deficient. We would not be doing our homework.
I hear about the minister. This legislation proposes to give discretionary power to the minister that could lower the amount from $1 billion. That seems asinine to me.
This is not about transparency or accountability. This is about doing favours for the government's corporate friends.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the issue of liability insurance could be of great interest to many people with regard to the cost of acquiring it. There is a need for government to get engaged sometimes, and the best example I can come up with was after the 9/11 disaster when the government had to get involved in terms of insurance in order to secure air flights.
Does the member believe that at some point limits should be put on liability insurance, or should it be 100% recoverable through insurance? I am referring to companies that want to drill or export or transfer oil, or deal with nuclear material.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, I feel that it should be polluter pay, and at no time should taxpayers be burdened with the cost of cleanup, whether it is nuclear material, oil, or gas.
Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague two or three questions.
Assuming there is no limit to how much an oil company can get out of the ground, if an oil deposit contains $20 billion worth of oil, the oil company will take that $20 billion worth of oil. Since the resource potential is unlimited, why should the company's liability be limited? What are we supposed to tell people if a company causes damage in excess of $1 billion?
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the insightful conversations that I have with my colleague and his thoughtful contributions in the House.
If we believe in the principle of polluter pay, then that has to be applied consistently. We cannot pick and choice and say that it will apply to one industry but not the other.
My friends across the way have commented that a report will be made to Parliament. What difference would that make? It would be great to have a report that says it costs more than $1 billion, but at the end of the day, who is going to pay for the cleanup? Companies are not going to pay. Taxpayers are going to end up paying, and that is unacceptable.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the public is well aware that we are debating Bill C-22, an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.
This legislation has a number of sections, but the part that I will focus on is the fact that it would modify Canada's civil liability regimes for the offshore oil and gas industry and it would notably increase the absolute liability threshold to $1 billion to operators of offshore oil and gas and nuclear facilities. The current threshold for offshore oil and gas operations are $40 million in the Arctic and $30 million for all other offshore areas.
Offshore drilling does not take place in all parts of Canada. The legislative summary points out that, in addition, offshore exploration activity is currently being conducted in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Offshore petroleum wells may also be drilled in the Beaufort Sea. Drilling programs there are undergoing a regulatory screening process. In addition, offshore basins near Nunavut's high Arctic islands and in the eastern Arctic may be developed in the future.
Currently, there is a federal moratorium on oil and gas activities in place on the offshore of British Columbia. In Quebec, a provincial moratorium exists on the oil and gas offshore activities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. A permanent prohibition on such activities applies in waters northwest of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and its estuary.
What we have heard from the other side is that the New Democrats should approve and support whatever bill the government brings forward. One member talked about the fact that this was all about jobs. Any responsible member of Parliament must, first, do their due diligence. However, second, when we talk about resource development and issues pertaining to resource development, we need to consider them in the economic, environmental and social contexts. We would be irresponsible if we did not take a very broad view of any resource development that happens in Canada and the consequent liability.
The NDP has been critical of this bill on a number of fronts, but there are three principles of sustainable development: equity, precautionary principle and broad inclusive participation. Bill C-22 would not uphold the polluter pays principle in the nuclear part of the bill and it would fail to create an inclusive consultation process for projects. It would allow the minister to be subject to lobbying, thus reducing the minister's accountability.
Bill C-22 would not mandate a solid inclusive consultation process for specific projects, which is essential, given the potential impact these projects could have on the quality of life and well-being of concerned communities and regions.
The government's proposed $1 billion cap for offshore drilling would apply to no fault liability, while operators would continue to face unlimited liability should they be found at fault or negligent. Companies would also be required to demonstrate to the regulators their financial capacity to cover $1 billion in cleanup costs should it become necessary. It would also increase coverage for exploratory drilling operations offshore, production operations, the loading of tankers for transport and undersea pipelines, such as natural gas from Sable Island to the Mainland in Atlantic Canada.
Here is the sticker. The bill would provide for ministerial discretion to reduce absolute liability levels to below the legislative level of $1 billion. This discretionary provision could undercut the advantages of the legislative increase in the absolute liability limit contained in Bill C-22.
The legislative summary refers to section 2.1.4.2 under “Public Hearings”. Bill C-22 would add new sections to the Canada oil and gas operations, allowing the National Energy Board to conduct a public hearing in relation to the exercise of any of its powers or the performance of any of its duties and functions under the act.
The New Democrats absolutely support a public process with regard to reviewing applications that come forward around resource development. However, I want to highlight the fact that the National Energy Board has been subject to some pretty severe criticism with regard to its operations. Simply because it is in this bill that the National Energy Board would be able to conduct a public hearing, it does not give us any confidence about how that public hearing would be conducted, who would be involved and whether the information would actually be considered.
I want to turn to a letter dated October 30, that was sent to the secretary of the National Energy Board. It is about an intervenor making a licence withdrawal from the hearing on the Trans Mountain expansion project. I will read an excerpt from this letter, because again, if the legislation mentions it but we do not have confidence in the process, why would we support it? In this letter, the intervenor says:
The unwillingness of Trans Mountain to address most of my questions and the Board’s almost complete endorsement of Trans Mountain’s decision has exposed this process as deceptive and misleading. Proper and professional public interest due diligence has been frustrated, leading me to the conclusion that this Board has a predetermined course of action to recommend approval of the Project and a strong bias in favour of the Proponent.
In effect, this so-called public hearing process has become a farce, and this Board a truly industry captured regulator.
If the government is to review applications in sensitive offshore areas like the north and if this is the kind of process to which these reviews would be subject, it does not leave us any confidence that we will end up with the best kinds of decisions.
The letter goes on to say:
In addition to gutting the oral-cross examination feature of a public hearing process that supports proper questioning and an adequate level of due diligence, there are other Board decisions that have been made over the course of this hearing that reflect a pre-determined outcome.
The evidence on the record shows that decisions made by the Board at this hearing are dismissive of intervenors. They reflect a lack of respect for hearing participants, a deep erosion of the standards and practices of natural justice that previous Boards have respected, and an undemocratic restriction of participation by citizens, communities, professionals and First Nations either by rejecting them outright or failing to provide adequate funding to facilitate meaningful participation.
Certainly in British Columbia that continues to be an ongoing source of irritation, which is probably too light of a word. However, many people who want to intervene in an NEB process simply do not have the capacity to review the thousands of pages of documents and to present a finding, so funding becomes critical, particularly with regard to first nations communities that will be directly impacted by projects.
It is a lengthy letter, so I cannot read it all, but further in the letter the intervenor indicates:
The Board had stated that the elimination of cross-examination of the Proponent’s evidence can be evaluated through the two scheduled Information Requests. But we have a Kafkaesque outcome. Trans Mountain refuses to answer questions and the Board does not compel them to do so.
We have a proponent that can say whatever it wants, yet intervenors have no ability to question it, because the board will not allow the questions.
The intervenor goes on to say:
The Province of British Columbia stated that “Trans Mountain’s failure to file the evidence requested by the Province in Information Request No. 1 denies the Board, the Province and other intervenors access to the information required to fully understand the risk posed by the Project, how Trans Mountain proposes to mitigate such risk and Trans Mountain’s ability to effectively respond to a spill related to the Project.”
The National Energy Board is not fulfilling its obligation to review the Trans Mountain Expansion Project objectively. Accordingly it is not only British Columbians, but all Canadians that cannot look to the Board’s conclusions as relevant as to whether or not this project deserves a social license. Continued involvement in the process endorses this sham and is not in the public interest.
One of the reasons the NDP has objected to the bill is the lack of clear process around public consultation. The government continues to say that Canadians should not worry, that the National Energy Board will look after their interests. When we have had a very credible intervenor raise questions about the NEB's independence, we need to do a far better job of telling Canadians how projects would be evaluated.
We need that openness, transparency and accountability so Canadians have confidence that when a project is approved, that it has been tested for the environmental, economic and social impacts. It is with very good reason that the New Democrats do not support the bill at this stage. We attempted to make a number of amendments at committee stage and of course to no surprise, those amendments were rejected by the government.
I point out, once again, that we are under time allocation and that limits the amount of time and the number of witnesses who can be called to review the bill. With very good reason, the New Democrats oppose the legislation.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
There will be five minutes for questions and comments for the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan when the House next turns to debate on this question.
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, for Canadians, November 11 is the day we remember the brave men and women who helped build our nation and gave us strong democratic foundations.
In Poland, November 11 is independence day. Poland shook off its oppressors and regained its independence in 1918. Since that time, Poland has served side by side with Canadians in World War II and suffered through decades of Soviet rule.
The Solidarity trade union helped break Communism's back, and today Poland has served by Canada's side in Afghanistan and on other missions. Poland has fought for its freedom for centuries, and Poland's democratic drive is deeply rooted.
Today Poland again stands alongside Canada in helping Ukraine in its struggle, and Poland stands stalwart as Vladimir Putin threatens global security and makes threats towards the Baltic States. Canadian and Polish soldiers are presently serving in Poland as part of Operation Reassurance, and our pilots are patrolling the skies over the Baltics together.
I am proud that Canada has an ally like Poland, which shares our values and love of freedom. I ask all Canadians to join me in congratulating Poland on its 96th anniversary of independence.
Jeszcze Polska jeszcze nie zginela.