Debates of May 29th, 2014

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing we have to reflect on is what benefits Canadians receive from cleaner energy technology. I am not so inclined to deal with the worse-case scenarios because what we have, as was noted, is a mature, responsible, well-developed, and extremely safe industry that happens to provide tremendous benefits to Canadians from coast to coast to coast with clean energy generation.

An increase in the limited liability from $40 million up to $1 billion is a substantial increase. It is remarkably higher than other countries.

If we are going to talk about the unfortunate and very unlikely event of a disaster, then we have to be realistic about the clean-up and the capacity to do that. We can look at Fukushima for example, as the member for Wetaskiwin pointed out. Despite the unlimited liability that Japan carried, there was no way the corporation could cover those costs, and Japan ended up having to step in and pick up those costs.

It does not matter what we set the liability amount at. If we make it so outlandish that there is no capacity to deliver it, then it is an unrealistic point we are making in legislation. We are ensuring we strike that perfect balance so as to invite that development, invite that industry, so Canadians can enjoy the benefits of safe, clean, green energy technology at an affordable rate with reasonable and sensible protection for Canada and its environment.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill, which ironically is titled the energy safety and security act. I say ironically because nothing in the bill actually talks about energy security, which is something that residents in my riding and across Canada have been asking the government to protect for many years. Energy security means actually providing that we have a reliable and secure source of energy in our homes, in our businesses, and in our workplaces.

The bill is weaving its way through and has taken forever. There are portions of the bill that are to ratify international obligations. It was introduced by the government on several previous occasions, and each time the government was the cause of the bill actually not proceeding. First, it was the quick call of an election in 2008 before the four years was up, then a prorogation actually eliminated the ability for that bill to go forward, and finally, an election was called before the bill finished wending its way, so it has been on the books for several years.

There is some importance to the speed with which the bill goes through, but obviously the government wants to take its time and discuss it over a long period of time. However, another bill, Bill C-24, was voted on in an absolutely tearing hurry just this afternoon, and yet I was not able to speak on it.

I have had meetings with constituents who have expressed serious concerns and serious reservations about the core of a bill that would give the minister the ability to take away the citizenship of persons born in Canada, which is an unprecedented thing in Canada and should have had a considerable amount of opportunity for members to discuss. Yet the government moved time allocation with only about five hours of debate on this subject. It boggles the mind why that is so much more necessary to be hurried along than this bill, on which the government has taken years and years.

I will focus mostly on the nuclear side of this, because I have some personal concerns about the nuclear side of it. There have been a number of serious events on this planet involving nuclear power generation. Those events involving nuclear power generation have brought, I think, into crystal clear relief the fact that we have completely underestimated the costs of an actual disaster in these things. We are treating these nuclear power plants as just a piece of the landscape, but when in fact they go wrong, the cost is absolutely enormous.

Three Mile Island was a relatively small disaster. It was the first of the biggies, but it was a small disaster in terms of what actually happened. Nobody was killed and there were no bodily injuries, but the cleanup took 14 years and $1 billion, starting in 1979. A billion dollars was what was needed in 1979 for a small problem. Now we are in 2014, 35 years further along, and $1 billion is all that the nuclear industry has to put up if there is a liability involving a nuclear problem at a nuclear plant.

Let us fast-forward just seven years to Chernobyl. Chernobyl had $15 billion in direct losses. That is the plant itself, direct losses at the time on the site, a number of deaths, a whole lot of injuries; and over the next 30 years, it is estimated that because of the thousands upon thousands of residents of Ukraine and Belarus who will develop cancer, those costs could be over $500 billion.

We are not suggesting that the nuclear industry in Canada is capable of covering a cost of $500 billion, but to suggest $1 billion is all that is necessary is laughable, particularly when this industry is now quite robust and has been around a long time in relative terms.

The government is suggesting only $1 billion. That is actually a subsidy to this industry. We do not need to be subsidizing the nuclear power industry in this country, particularly when just two years ago the government gave away the CANDU licence to SNC-Lavalin. Now, a private corporation is actually in control of the development of our nuclear reactor system. It is not a corporation that is getting a whole lot of good reviews lately.

Then we come to 2011 and Fukushima. This is by far the worst of the nuclear disasters. It really brings home just how bad things can get when things go wrong in ways that are not expected. That is the essence of what nuclear designers are trying to do: figure out what we can do to protect against the unexpected.

Fukushima will probably cost between $250 billion and $500 billion when it is done. Nobody is absolutely certain. There is an untold human cost of Fukushima. They have had to evacuate and evict 159,000 people from the area around Fukushima. Though those people have not been told this, they can probably never go back to their homes.

Caesium-137, radioactive caesium, has a 30-year half-life. That radioactive material is now all over the ground, in the water, and in the air, in the area around that reactor. Because of a 30-year half-life, that means it will be centuries before those places are safe to inhabit again. Those people are still paying mortgages on their homes, but it will be centuries before they can go back to them.

That is the magnitude of what a nuclear disaster is really all about. I am afraid the government really does not understand just what it is dealing with in terms of tossing out the number $1 billion as if it is somehow an appropriate number to suggest the nuclear industry would have to come up with.

I am of two minds on the whole notion of nuclear energy as being a good thing for Canada. My father-in-law came back from World War II. He was a pilot in the RAF. He went to Chalk River and helped build those first few reactors at Chalk River. He was part of the design team that designed the CANDU system. His name was Roy Tilbe. He has passed on now, but he had a fierce loyalty to the nuclear industry generally and a fierce dedication to trying to make it a safe industry.

He would be appalled to think that the taxpayers have to pick up the ball if the industry is not safe enough. That is essentially what the government is suggesting to the industry, after six or seven years of dithering on what to do, by offering a paltry $1 billion as all that is required. The costs are of such magnitude that $1 billion is dwarfed by what those costs really are in the sense of a nuclear accident.

Let me talk about another cost that nobody here has talked about. Nuclear reactors in Canada and elsewhere have effluent, an output, waste. Nuclear waste is very toxic. It is something that people should not go near.

I was up on a little tour of Chalk River, where they showed us their nuclear waste management site. They did not call it a disposal site, but a management site. We went on a little bus. There was a bunch of Japanese and German tourists on the bus with us. We went around to the management site, and we were told that inside the steel cylinders encased in concrete was the waste. We know that the steel lasts about 150 years, and the concrete lasts about 75 years. So every 75 years, the concrete has to be replaced, and every 150 years the steel has to be replaced.

I asked the guide how long that would have to be done. I was told 75 years for the concrete and 150 for the steel. No, I said; I asked how long we had to manage the waste. I was told 500,000 years.

Has anybody really recognized what that means? What will $1 billion be worth in 500,000 years? Who will be around? Will SNC-Lavalin still be around? Will I still be around? The safety of Canadians should be paramount, and the industry should be held accountable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the nuclear industry, we see it is ultimately the responsibility of governments to work hand in hand with other governments, so that we achieve the safest possible environment where there is nuclear waste or byproducts from using nuclear energy.

One of the products we use extensively is isotopes for X-rays and so forth. It needs to be acknowledged that there is a very real practical need in medicine. Having those isotopes is of critical importance for scans and so forth. I wonder if the member could comment on that. There is a lot of discussion about nuclear reactors, but there are other aspects of the nuclear industry of which we need to be aware.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who fired the nuclear safety officer when she declared that the reactor that was preparing these much-needed isotopes was operating in an unsafe way because some procedures had not been followed with regard to earthquake-proofing that reactor. The answer from the government was, “To hell with safety; let's fire the regulator”.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Seriously? Watch your language a little.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Sorry; “To heck with safety; let's fire the regulator.”

Nuclear energy is perhaps a good thing, but we need to understand it and we need to understand just how dangerous it can be if it goes wrong, and that is something I do not think the government understands.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the argument we sometimes hear that there is little chance of such events ever occurring. Our colleagues opposite say it is strictly theoretical.

I was living in Europe when the Chernobyl disaster struck. The media told us we had nothing to fear since the clouds stopped at the borders. That is actually what the media reported at the time.

Ukraine was heavily criticized at the time for its deplorable management of nuclear power plants. However, even a country like Japan, with its advanced safety mechanisms and technologies, had to deal with a major incident like the one in Fukushima.

Can my colleague speak to that part of the argument we keep hearing, about the unlikelihood of a nuclear accident?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the point I have been making throughout, that we and the companies running these things need to be prepared for the absolute worst-case scenario. To avoid the worst-case scenario is obviously the best course of action. These corporations are not public; these are corporations whose bottom lines are to make money for their shareholders. Therefore, managing risk means asking what corners they can cut. If their liability is only $1 billion, then they might be more inclined to cut corners in the design or operation of a reactor, and that cannot happen.

We must insist that the operators be completely responsible for whatever they do, which would, in turn, make them much more conscious of avoiding the absolute worst-case scenario.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-22.

We recommend supporting the bill in principle at second reading and calling for greater liability and global best practices. Our position at third reading will depend on the government's response.

This bill warrants further study in committee to see whether it can be improved. It will be hard to sit down with the Conservatives and improve a bill because they think they have all the answers. We know how that goes. We have seen it before.

Bill C-22 updates the Canadian nuclear liability regime and sets out the victim compensation procedures and conditions in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant. It maintains the principles whereby operators have limited, exclusive, no-fault absolute nuclear liability, except in the event of war or terrorist attacks.

The bill increases the limit of absolute liability from $75 million to $1 billion. It extends the deadline for filing compensation claims for bodily injury from 10 years to 30 years to address latent illnesses. The 10-year deadline is maintained for all other types of damage.

The changes in terms of nuclear liability apply to Canadian nuclear facilities such as nuclear power plants, research reactors, fuel processing plants and facilities for managing used nuclear fuel.

Bill C-22 also updates the offshore regime for oil and gas operations, in order to prevent incidents and to guarantee a rapid response in the event of a spill. It keeps the idea of an operator's unlimited liability in cases of demonstrated fault or negligence. It raises the absolute limit of liability for offshore oil and gas exploration projects and sets it at $1 billion, without proof of fault. The current limit is $40 million in Arctic waters and $30 million in the Atlantic. The bill explicitly mentions the polluter pays principle and clearly and officially establishes that polluters will be held responsible.

The bill strengthens the current liability regime, but it does nothing to protect the environment, or Canadian taxpayers, because it still exposes them to risks.

The Conservatives are constantly behind our international partners and they ignore best practices when it is a matter of recognizing the dangers of an inadequate liability regime.

We have already expressed our opposition to the inadequate limits in the matter of nuclear liability. The provisions must be considered a step in the right direction in terms of the current limits, but this bill does not adequately consider the real dangers that Canadians are facing. We hope that we will be able to deal with this point in committee, if the Conservatives let us work in committee, as I was saying.

Only the NDP takes the protection of Canadians' interests seriously, while the other parties take a cavalier attitude to nuclear safety and the safety of offshore oil and gas operations.

If the nuclear energy industry is a mature one, it must pay its way. This bill continues to subsidize the industry by making taxpayers assume any financial risk in excess of $1 billion.

Taxpayers should not have to subsidize the nuclear industry instead of subsidizing other sources of renewable energy. Other countries feel that their citizens deserve better protection in the case of a nuclear accident.

Bill C-22 has come before the House before. It was then Bill C-5, which went through the committee stage and was passed at report stage in 2008. However, it died on the Order Paper when the Prime Minister called an election, ignoring the fact that it was supposed to be held on a fixed date.

Bill C-20 made it through second reading to committee stage in 2009, but it died on the order paper when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. Bill C-15 was introduced in 2010 and then nothing happened for a year, until the 2011 election. This government claims that this is an important bill. Now, we have to sit until midnight until the end of June because the government says this bill is important, even though we have been talking about the same bill since 2008. All of a sudden this bill is important to the Conservatives.

The latest version of the bill does not give the public the protection it needs. Its biggest flaw is that it puts an artificial $1 billion limit on liability, even though the costs of a serious accident can be much higher than that. Taxpayers will be stuck paying for the remaining cleanup and compensation costs. In reality, the $1 billion limit is not enough, and imposing an artificial ceiling amounts to subsidizing energy corporations, since they will not have to cover the full costs of the risks associated with what they do.

I want to share some figures. The figure of $1 billion for liability may seem like a lot, but it is an insufficient, arbitrary amount if we consider the costs of cleaning up nuclear disasters and marine oil spills, which have happened in the past.

In Germany, for example, nuclear liability is unlimited, fault or no fault. Germany also has financial security of $3.3 billion Canadian per power plant. The United States has set an absolute liability limit of $12.6 billion U.S. Other countries tend toward unlimited absolute liability.

A nuclear liability limit of $1 billion would not have covered a fraction of the costs of the 2011 nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. The Government of Japan estimates the cleanup costs at more than $250 billion.

The government still brags about saving money for taxpayers and giving them a break. This same government is prepared to protect major corporations by setting the limit at $1 billion. However, we have seen that the disasters in other countries have cost more than $1 billion. When a disaster happens, someone has to pay. Why should Canadian taxpayers have to foot the bill for a disaster?

The NDP says that amendments will have to be put forward in committee to improve this bill. We are not against this bill, but we have to protect Canadians, who pay enough taxes already. That money is supposed to cover their own needs. The government is cutting funding for health care and all kinds of other things. Our roads are full of potholes. Everyone is mad because the government is not investing enough money in programs that people need.

The government is ready to let oil and nuclear companies get away with one heck of a deal. Their insurance should cover those costs. We cannot let them get away with not paying for insurance or paying only half as much as they should. If we do, and if a disaster happens, they will declare bankruptcy, and taxpayers will be on the hook for the bill. We have seen companies do that. As soon as the price gets too high, they declare bankruptcy. They should be the ones paying. They believe in the industry because it is profitable, so they should set money aside for possible disasters. Canadians are not the ones who should foot the bill, but that is exactly what they have to do.

The 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could cost the company $42 billion to clean up. The company has been sued, and there will be criminal penalties.

Is Canada ready to foot the bill for these companies? My answer is no.

Bill C-22 does not go far enough. We will recommend changing the numbers.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I have been hearing today reminds me of the philosophy of the Titanic's owners: the ship is big enough and unsinkable, so we do not even need to have enough lifeboats for everyone because there will not be a disaster.

The Conservatives' solutions seem to be wishful thinking. For example, contaminated water from the oil sands is mixed with bentonite and a polymer. Instead of having a pond full of contaminated water, you get a solid mass that you can walk on. Bentonite and all kinds of toxic substances will have to be treated. I am trying to imagine what they will do in 50 to 75 years when they want to do something with this toxic material that will be produced in unimaginable quantities. There could be millions or billions of cubic metres.

You cannot improvise when dealing with nuclear waste, which will pile up for 40,000, 50,000 or 80,000 years. We have to look beyond the immediate future. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

When it comes to nuclear energy, we are still dealing with the unknown. No one wants nuclear waste in their backyard. That is not the case with electricity, which is a clean energy. No country wants to take another country's nuclear waste. Just try asking the Americans if they want our nuclear waste. They will say no. Just try asking Canadians if they want the Americans' nuclear waste. They will say no. Just try asking a province if it wants another province's nuclear waste. Everyone will say no. No one wants nuclear waste.

That will cause a problem. They have never found the answer. In the future, when we are stuck with something that we cannot get rid of, there will be no money to deal with it. That is why we have to protect ourselves.

If disaster strikes, things are even worse. Just think of what happened in Japan. Let me remind people that taxpayers had to pay for that, not the company. It is nice to own a company that can cause damage without any repercussions. The people will pay for the cleanup. However, who reaps the profits? None other than the company, which does not share the profits with the public. It shares them with its executives, who receive huge bonuses and treat themselves to millions of dollars in salaries. Nonetheless, if the company is not careful and causes damage, the taxpayers will pay.

The same thing is true of spills that can happen at sea. A spill could occur in Chaleur Bay or anywhere else. It can destroy an entire fishing industry. This is not Mexico. If a spill occurs in Chaleur Bay, it will stay in Chaleur Bay for a long time.

I say that the government must be careful and take action before this happens in order to protect the interests of Canadians.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for his speech.

My colleague is a former miner. That makes me think of the mines being closed. The taxpayers are stuck with the waste. They have to pay to clean up the mines. The Conservatives are keen on the nuclear system. They like to beat their chests and say that they are the ones protecting taxpayers.

To describe what they are trying to do to taxpayers, there is one word I would like to use, but I will not because it is unparliamentary. I will just say that what they are trying to do is coax taxpayers into paying for nuclear waste.

Could my colleague attempt to explain why the Conservatives, who say they want to protect taxpayers, are trying to make them pay for nuclear waste?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

What Canadians do not understand, in my opinion, is that the Conservatives ask for their votes and then, when they get them, they answer to Bay Street in Toronto. That is where their employers are, on Bay Street, in Toronto, just like the Liberals, actually.

As an example, I would like to talk about the paper mill in Bathurst. It had been in existence for 100 years, and someone was making money with it. The Bathurst Power and Paper Company then became Smurfit-Stone. It is incredible. The bosses exploited the forests in our area so much that there are no forests left.

When the mill closed, the bosses in question signed a contract to sell the steel, but they forgot to include disposing of the cement buildings. Now, in East Bathurst, New Brunswick, we have six cement silos and a lot of cement walls. It looks like the landscape in Iraq after the war.

The government has completely washed its hands of the matter. Now the residents are going to have to pay to get rid of it all. I am not even talking about anything nuclear. It is a simple job and it is going to cost $3 million to get rid of, though it should have been in the contract. Normally, you get rid of the steel, you close the plant, you clean up the site and you put down some green grass so that people can at least look at something nice. Instead, we are left with a place that looks the war in Iraq was fought there.

That is what the Conservatives' bill does today. That is what we are going to get, when all is said and done. They are trying to make us believe that going from $40 million to $1 billion makes for a good bill. All along, though, it is a present from them to the industry. That is what they are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke to speak to Bill C-22, which some of my colleagues have already discussed today. I will obviously echo what has been said. As I usually do, I will say at the outset that I will be supporting the bill at second reading. I think the first thing to do is to announce how I will be voting when the time comes.

This bill is a step in the right direction, as many bills are, admittedly, although that is not always the case. Once again, there are a few flaws. The purpose of debate in the House is to discuss, debate and try to convince the people in the other parties that the bill can be improved.

Several points of interest to us will have to be examined in greater detail with experts. One of the best ways to examine a bill is to invite experts to discuss it. The other members and I often have some knowledge, but we are not experts in all fields, although every member has his or her own expertise. We cannot be experts on every subject, but we represent the people who elected us to come here and speak on their behalf. I believe the people of Sherbrooke are very interested in this because we are talking about their protection. We are talking about people who want to feel safe when they are at home and when they travel across the country. They want to be sure they are safe.

It is with that in mind that I rise today to speak to Bill C-22. It addresses two matters that are very simple on the surface, but more complex when we examine them further, as I had a chance to do before taking the floor. This bill concerns nuclear liability and therefore everything pertaining to nuclear energy, the way we generate energy that may at times be dangerous and for which necessary precautions must be taken to ensure that it is developed properly and as safely as possible. It also concerns liability for offshore oil and gas development, another topic of obvious interest to the people of Sherbrooke.

There are a few other details, but I will focus mainly on those two topics. We have already addressed nuclear liability and the potential dangers of nuclear energy development. Everyone watching is aware of those dangers because unfortunate accidents have occurred in the world, most recently in Fukushima, Japan. I imagine everyone here has heard about that. Another accident that dates back further occurred in Chernobyl, in eastern Europe, and caused a lot of damage, some of which is still being felt today.

The unique thing about this industry, and the danger associated with it, is this: the fallout from an accident lasts tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years. It is therefore important that we implement mechanisms to protect people, not only those currently living in the affected area, but the future generations who will live there as well. They expect today’s decision-makers to live up to their responsibilities. Obviously I will not be around in 50,000 years, even though I would very much like to be. The reality is that human life is finite.

I hope that humanity will always exist. If we fail today to address the long-term consequences, future generations will be left to deal with an ecological debt resulting from our mismanagement.

Unfortunately, the government is sometimes guilty of having a short-term vision. It focuses on elections and on the next five years because it wants to be re-elected. This often puts the welfare of future generations at risk because they are left to bear the consequences.

It is therefore critical that the government live up to its responsibilities in the area of energy development, more specifically the development of nuclear energy. It bears mentioning that this highly dangerous resource can be developed very responsibly. I am confident that most nuclear energy companies conduct their operations responsibly. I am not saying that they all shirk their responsibilities or try to cut corners with no regard for the consequences of their actions. I am confident that companies are mindful of the dangers associated with the resources they are handling. I hope they do everything possible to avoid unfortunate accidents.

However, human error is practically unavoidable. Mechanisms must therefore be implemented to secure the resources needed to prevent disastrous long-term consequences for future generations. Companies have a financial responsibility to protect the public and future generations when accidents occur. Serious accidents can cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Mention was made earlier of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The cost of the cleanup is estimated at around $40 billion, proving the importance of having mechanisms in place that require companies to cover costs when they are at fault.

This past summer, in Lac-Mégantic which is close to where I live, a company was negligent in following the rules, and perhaps the government was negligent as well. An accident occurred and once again, the taxpayers are the ones left to pick up the tab. The government is forced to cover the cost of these accidents. Private corporations think only about their profit margins and do not want to be held responsible for any accidents that happen. Governments are left to pick up the tab.

The bill now being debated makes nuclear, oil and gas companies liable for $1 billion. It is a step in the right direction. However, in other countries, liability ceilings are much higher, or even unlimited.

There is thus a lot of room to improve this bill and at least try to bring in the same standards seen elsewhere around the world or, better yet, to make Canada a country that leads by example. It would be good for Canada to set an example for other countries and protect its citizens in the process.

I will be happy to answer any questions.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague clearly pointed out that $1 billion in liability may seem like a lot to ordinary Canadians. However, in reality it is an arbitrary, insufficient amount. Other jurisdictions throughout the world have much higher limits.

My colleague may be aware that the German bank WestLB has stopped financing offshore oil projects in the Arctic. A spokesperson for the bank said:

The further you get into the icy regions, the more expensive everything gets and there are risks that are almost impossible to manage. Remediation of any spills would cost a fortune.

Could my colleague speak to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which is very relevant and echoes somewhat what I was saying at the end. I did not have the time to conclude.

Yes, $1 billion is a step in the right direction. However, some governments elsewhere are living up to their responsibilities much more than ours is and making sure that corporations pay the bill for the cleanup.

She referred specifically to the fact that some banks no longer even want to insure a corporation for the cleanup, fearing that it will cost too much money. If liability is only $1 billion, we have to ask ourselves some questions. For example, if it costs $3 billion or $4 billion—for the Gulf of Mexico it was over $40 billion—and in Canada liability is $1 billion, who is going to pay the difference when the cost is higher? These are questions we have to ask experts. They may be able to answer.

There are other solutions as well. If I am not mistaken, in the United States they have a kind of group fund for all the companies. I cannot go into detail because I am not sufficiently familiar with it, but there are other solutions to make sure that even if the corporation goes bankrupt, there are alternatives other than having the government pay the bill.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to what my colleague from Sherbrooke was just saying. He referred to the possibility that in some jurisdictions, a purely private corporation might go bankrupt and thus might have limited financial liability.

Let us take the opposite argument. Members on the other side of the House—I know my colleague followed the debates earlier—argued that some countries have much lower limits on financial liability, in the order of a few hundred million dollars. In reality, those financial liability limits are found in countries in which the corporations producing nuclear power are not private enterprises; they are often public or indirectly public. I would give the example of France, where it is Areva, formerly Framatome, which is 70% owned by the French government.

I would like my colleague from Sherbrooke to explain why it is a fallacy to use foreign examples that cannot apply, because the jurisdictions and levels of state liability and involvement are not comparable to what they are in a country in which the corporations are purely private and have to cover their financial liability themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question that I would have liked to address in my speech, but now that I have been asked it, I have the opportunity to talk about it.

In fact, we could make clumsy comparisons with certain countries, because not all countries have the same energy resources. We therefore cannot compare apples and oranges.

The Conservatives tell us that these scenarios are very unlikely, that we should not worry because it will never happen, or there is virtually no chance it will happen. However, there have been times when it has happened.

I think the anecdote that my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle recounted was excellent. He said that the people in charge of the Titanic had not provided enough lifeboats because they said it was invincible. The ship was so big that nothing was ever going to happen to it. In the end, something did happen. They were caught short, and that led to the tragedy we all know about.

The government has to live up to its responsibilities and protect the public. That is what the people of Sherbrooke are asking for, and I hope we are going to achieve that during the study of this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. Before I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I will let him know that we only have about a couple of minutes, but we will get started, at least. Of course, he will have the remainder of his time, I would suspect, maybe in an hour or so, once we get the other business of the House dispensed with.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the notice on that.

It is interesting. Bill C-22 has been long in coming. One could argue that it has been in negotiations and under discussion since prior to the Conservatives taking office. It was initiated by the Liberal government a number of years ago. In fact, members will find is that this is, I believe, the fourth rendition of—

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

Fifth.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been corrected. It is the fifth rendition of this particular bill.

It is not overly controversial. It is something that, in principle, Canadians would get behind. There are some areas that we could maybe explore, such as the possibility of giving it some additional strength. We will have to see, once it gets into the committee stage.

It really adopts the idea of the polluter pays principle. We hear quite often about its importance when we have these massive industrial developments and when we talk about the issues, such as nuclear power, the way nuclear energy is used, and how we dispose of the remnants of it. They are very serious issues. International attention is given to how one should dispose of it and under what sort of conditions, but there is one thing that bears repeating, which is that we need to adopt this whole idea of polluter pays.

This is something that I hope to continue with once we have finished with private members' business.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Of course, the hon. member for Winnipeg North will have eight minutes remaining for his comments when the House next resumes debate on the question and, of course, the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

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.

Energy Efficiency Program

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should implement an energy efficiency program to encourage owners of houses, residential buildings, shops and businesses to reduce their energy consumption, with a view to: (a) combatting climate change; (b) lowering the energy bills of Canadians; and (c) creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be here to move Motion No. 497 to support the energy efficiency of Canadian real estate owners. I have been consulting Canadians and working on this motion for a long time. I am very proud of this moment. This is why I am in politics: to bring about tangible change for my fellow citizens, as well as for my children and my future grandchildren. That is what is behind every bill I put forward, as well as this motion.

I would like to thank the member for Trois-Rivières for supporting this motion on energy efficiency. He does very good work. As it happens, Trois-Rivières is the poetry capital. The member is a singer and musician, and he is part of a group called Les Bons Jack. That makes me think of Jack Layton, whom I will talk about during my speech. This is all connected.

As I was saying, in my three years as a member, I have had the honour of meeting the people of Drummond by going door to door on several occasions. I noticed they always had three major concerns: the high cost of living, the shortage of good jobs and the environment.

They told me that the cost of living was high, particularly heating and gasoline, that they were worried about jobs and that climate change, the extinction of species, biodiversity and the loss of forests and green spaces were also concerns. People are increasingly troubled about all that.

After listening to those people, I thought of a motion that might make them happy. I also recently held a luncheon meeting on energy efficiency. Some 20 people attended, and we discussed heating costs. Last winter was very hard and very cold, and heating costs were a major concern for my constituents. Consequently, they were pleased that I was moving this motion on energy efficiency to help them pay their energy costs. They told me it would be a good idea to introduce an assistance program to help them lower their energy bills.

I am really interested in hearing what the Conservatives and Liberals will have to say in a moment. I hope they will support this very broad motion, which will help establish a free program for those who adopt it. It could be a tax credit program like eco-energy retrofit-homes, some kind of incentive measure, or it could be designed to support organizations, which I will discuss in a moment. All options are open. Consequently, I cannot see why anyone would vote against this motion. That is why I am anxious to hear from my colleagues.

That is the reason why I decided to move a motion on energy efficiency, to address the concerns of the people in Drummond and across Canada. This could help Canadians make ends meet while lowering energy costs and creating jobs for the future.

When it comes to energy efficiency, we need innovation and construction jobs. These are green jobs for the future. We must also reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, which requires a drop in energy consumption. Greenhouse gases are a very serious problem.

I came up with this motion because the greater Drummond area is teeming with expertise and innovation. It has many renowned entrepreneurs and SMEs that do good work in the area of energy efficiency.

There is Annexair, a leading manufacturing company that specializes in the design and construction of air handling equipment with energy recovery technologies.

Last year, I toured my riding, which has 18 municipalities, 17 of which are rural. I used the summer break to take this tour and visit this company, which has been working on energy efficiency and doing good work for a long time.

Another company that everyone probably knows is Venmar. They are known across North America. Venmar is a company from Drummondville that offers many energy efficient products, including heat recovery air exchangers for homes. The lastest developments in air exchangers provide equipment that is even more energy efficient and can cut annual consumption in half. That is really very good.

There are other companies. For example, there is an excellent, innovative new company called Aéronergie that manufactures heat recovery units. I will quote its founder, Carl Binette, who conveys fine values. He explains why he started his company. This goes to show that you can start a green business—the way of the future—and be successful, create jobs and care about the environment. This is what Carl Binette had to say:

Our mission is to reduce our clients’ energy consumption and consequently their greenhouse gas emissions. To that end, we use heat recovery devices that enable us to recover up to 65% of the energy consumed. We also install solar walls and collectors that recover an additional 15% to 40% of the energy...

All of this translates into significant energy savings. Companies are now equipping themselves with energy recovery devices and use them with solar panels. This technology of the future is truly fascinating.

While travelling on parliamentary business in Canada, I visited a number of other agencies and met with other individuals working in the field of energy efficiency. In particular, I met with Tim Stoate, vice-president of impact investing at the Toronto Atmospheric Fund. I mention this because I had the good fortune of meeting this individual, who had a great many ideas. He told me that when I drafted my motion, I should leave room for innovative people like the ones at the Toronto Atmospheric Fund. That is why my motion is open-ended, rather than specific. I wanted to give the government the opportunity to support initiatives by municipalities and provinces that are already doing a good job. That is what is needed from the federal government.

I would also like to mention that one of the presidents of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund during the 1990s and 2000s was the late Jack Layton. He did an excellent job and worked diligently on energy efficiency issues. I am very proud to have met them. They shared their expertise with me.

I also met with Eleanor McAteer who is involved with Toronto’s tower renewal program. The focus of this very interesting and inspiring program is the creation of sustainable development and energy efficiency projects. Energy efficiency is part of a sustainable development plan. Moreover, as everyone knows, the leader of the official opposition is the father of Quebec’s Sustainable Development Act.

When the NDP forms the government in 2015, it will table a federal sustainable development act that will include provisions for a sound energy efficiency program, something we really need. There is nothing to prevent the Conservatives, who will still be in power for another year, from passing this type of legislation and bringing in sound energy efficiency measures.

I will give a thumbnail sketch of what the energy efficiency program used to involve. From 2007 to 2012, there was the eco-energy retrofit-homes program at the federal level. Unfortunately, there has been no program, no initiative, and no support from the federal government since 2012.

As I mentioned, I have deliberately left my motion open to allow the government in power to set up whatever kind of energy efficiency program it wants.

Back in the day, 640,000 homeowners benefited from that program. They received a grant of 1,400 on average. An investment of $934 million was made in the program over five years. It was not really very much. However, what we should bear in mind, and this is very important, is that this investment is enabling Canadians to save $400 million a year on their energy bills.

This kind of program is not a waste of money. In fact, it is an investment that helps Canadian families.

As we know, members of the NDP have gone door to door to tell Canadian families about their plan to help them have a higher quality of life and make it easier for them to make ends meet.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives shelved that program. This is a shame because, even though it was not perfect, there were good things in it. It would really be a good idea to have a decent energy efficiency program in partnership with the provinces and municipalities. It would also be in partnership with agencies such as the ones I had a chance to meet with.

In addition, there was a significant reduction in greenhouse gases, something else that should not be overlooked. Furthermore, this program makes it possible to create jobs. Heaven knows that jobs need to be created everywhere in Canada. This is very important.

There was a reduction of 1.75 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions between 2007-08 and 2010-11, while the program was in effect. The program works, and more should be done in this regard. Furthermore, every dollar invested in an energy efficiency program generates economic benefits that are as substantial, if not more substantial, than those that come from building new power generation facilities.

It has been found that for every million dollars invested in energy efficiency measures, a minimum of 30 direct and indirect jobs are created.

A comprehensive program would help Canadians with financial difficulties to have a higher standard of living. This program would create jobs and lead to economic growth, as well as support companies with innovative products. The program could support agencies that have a lot of new ideas and that would create jobs for the future, green jobs and sustainable jobs. Furthermore, it would make it possible to improve our record on the environment.

We must improve our current environmental record. Even the officials at Environment Canada have warned the Minister of the Environment that we will not even reach the low target that the Conservatives set in Copenhagen by 2020. We must therefore put many new measures forward, and we must be more innovative. We cannot just focus on a single policy, sector by sector. We must have a wide array of tools that will allow us to meet much more ambitious targets in terms of reducing the greenhouse gases that lead to climate change.

I would like to thank my whole family, as they are supporting me on this motion. As I mentioned, I am in politics first and foremost for my children, like everyone here.

We have to think about the future and our children’s future. That is what is important, and that is why I am moving this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate at the outset that we are quite supportive of the hon. member's initiative. We think it is a good initiative. It is a parallel to many of the initiatives we have had over the last few election cycles. Anything that goes to reduce each Canadian's carbon footprint is a good thing.

This is one of the more obvious ways in which we can reduce carbon footprints: by encouraging and incenting people to have their own living structures as energy efficient as possible.

I would be interested in knowing whether the hon. member has given some thought to how this would be costed, because frequently that is what it comes down to, and how that would have an impact on the federal budgeting process.