Debates of May 29th, 2014

Energy Efficiency Program

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, who is doing good work on the environment.

It is indeed difficult to cost a program. We can use the eco-energy figures. As I was just saying, the eco-energy retrofit-homes program cost $934 million over five years. We can therefore use that figure as a starting point, but that aspect of the motion is left deliberately open so that the government, which is in place for one more year, can decide what it wants to do and with what money. For example, it can choose to support the initiative on a technical aspect or with a tax credit. Everything is open.

What is important is that the program be offered in partnership. There are provinces, municipalities and organizations that already have programs. That is why it would be important for the future energy efficiency program to be offered in partnership. There is nothing better than being able to benefit from innovations right in the community.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the unintended consequences of governments cutting their energy efficiency programs was this. A business just outside my riding employed 30 employees who installed solar hot water systems for residents all through the city of Toronto. The company trained them, and they became efficient. They were very busy, and then both the federal Conservative government and the provincial Liberal government cancelled the assistance that went to homeowners to have this done. All 30 of these people were laid off because the market dried up. We ended up not only not having more efficient homes, but with 30 more people looking for EI.

Would the member comment on that?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the very good work he is doing and for his question.

That is indeed what we are saying. The support that the federal government could offer would enable other small businesses to grow, and to grow in a field that is developing for the future.

We give about $1.3 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels. If we transferred a portion of that money to an energy efficiency program, we would create far more jobs.

We are talking about 30 direct and indirect jobs for every $1 million invested in energy efficiency. It is said that $1 invested in an energy efficiency program generates economic benefits that are as great as, if not greater than, the benefits generated by building regular energy facilities.

That is why we have to rethink how we see the economy. The economy and the environment go hand in hand, and beyond that, the economy and the environment are the future. They are the jobs of the future, and sustainable jobs.

If an energy efficiency program is put in place by the NDP government in 2015, I am certain that the program will support initiatives like the ones my colleague talked about in the solar industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really am happy to be rising today to speak to the NDP member's motion on improving energy efficiency in homes.

I want to say that I do not really know yet whether I am going to support his motion, but at least it is a more substantial type of motion for improving energy efficiency as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than some of the other ideas that have been put forward by his own party. For example, the carbon tax proposal would cost Canadians $22 billion and would probably do nothing, or very little, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This would be a much more concrete and beneficial type of program. It is certainly better than what the former Liberal government did, which was sign on to Kyoto, which was supposed to save the world, save the environment, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade, they proceeded to increase greenhouse gas emissions by 30%.

That kind of an idea really does not cut it. At least this idea is something worth debating and worth talking about. I am looking forward to the debate over the next few hours in the days to come.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk about what our government has done to make Canada a global leader when it comes to responsible energy use. Our government has a strong track record in improving our country's energy use and in putting money back in the pockets of Canadians.

It is not just me saying that. In 2013, the International Energy Agency recognized Canada as a world leader in improving energy use. Canada tied for second, with the United Kingdom, right behind Germany, as leading the world in energy efficiency improvements between 1990 and 2010.

Through the eco-energy efficiency initiative, the Government of Canada is investing $195 million to help Canadians use energy more efficiently at home, at work, and on the road to continuously reduce energy consumption across the country. That is something we are doing already.

The goals of the initiative are simple: more energy-efficient homes, cleaner transportation, improved energy standards for products and appliances, and better building codes. In addition, the initiative creates jobs, stimulates the economy, helps protect the environment, and delivers enormous cost savings for business and consumers. For example, vehicle consumption labels are helping Canadians by providing more information about the fuel consumption of vehicles when they buy cars. This is a much needed improvement.

Our government has announced that we are introducing new fuel consumption ratings for cars and light trucks for model years starting in 2015, which is the next model year. These new ratings will better simulate everyday driving conditions and cold weather operation, which significantly affect fuel consumption. In addition, an updated label will be posted on the model year 2016 to provide more accurate fuel consumption information. The new label will provide the estimated fuel consumption and the expected annual fuel consumption for a vehicle. This will put in very simple terms what a particular vehicle a consumer may be planning to purchase can be expected to cost in terms of fuel consumption costs from operating that vehicle.

Canadians will be able to use the label to compare vehicle fuel consumption information and to identify the most fuel-efficient new vehicles. The 2016 label will also be tailored to address new emergent technologies, such as battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, extending it beyond the internal combustion engine.

We know that the transportation sector currently generates nearly one-quarter of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions. That is why our government is already taking action by introducing world-class emissions standards for cars and light trucks. These new regulations will greatly improve fuel efficiency.

By 2025, new cars will consume 50% less fuel and emit 50% less greenhouse gas emissions than similar 2008 models, so it is a reduction of 50% from 2008 to 2025. That is a real reduction, and it is very meaningful indeed.

Our strategy is working. Canada's 2020 greenhouse gas emissions are projected to be 128 megatonnes lower than if no action were taken.

We are also providing Canadian drivers and truckers with fuel-saving tips through the autosmart driver training program. Another program involves taking steps to help consumers make more informed choices about energy when they purchase home appliances by referring to the Energy Star labels. Energy Star labels now identify more than 65 product categories, including appliances, electronics, heating and cooling equipment, lights, and so on. These labels are for the top 15% to 30% in energy performance. We continue to introduce higher energy performance standards and better labelling to help consumers make smart energy choices.

Another way the Government of Canada promotes responsible energy use is by encouraging Canadians to make energy-conscious renovations to their homes. We are already doing this. Since 2007, our government has provided more than $934 million in grants under the eco-energy homes program. This is something our government has already done. One in 20 Canadian households, or 640,000 homeowners, received an incentive to make their homes more energy efficient. Collectively, these Canadians are saving $400 per year on their energy bills.

When we look at the package this Conservative government has put together, we see it is similar in many ways to the packages former Conservative governments have put together. These packages are different from what was put out and implemented by the former Liberal government, and of course we have not had any former New Democratic governments federally in this country, but they would have the same type of programs, which say nice things but really accomplish very little.

The proof of this is that the Sierra Club chose as the greenest prime minister in Canadian history former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. That is because the type of program he put in place to deal with environmental issues and not just say nice things really did make a difference. That is why the Sierra Club, which was an organization that pretty much beat up on Conservative governments when they were in power, had to admit after the fact that in fact it was these Conservative governments that had actually done the most when it came to improving the environment.

I am willing to make a friendly bet that 20 or 30 years down the road, when a group like the Sierra Club chooses the next greenest prime minister in Canadian history, it will choose the current Prime Minister of Canada. That is who they will choose, because the reality is that Conservatives put in place programs that really work. We do not necessarily say words that sound pretty, but we get the job done and we protect the environment, and that is what we are going to continue to do.

In closing, I want to say that I certainly will consider this motion by this member, because it is far above what has been presented by former Liberal governments and so far above other ideas, like the carbon tax, that have been put forward by the NDP and by the member's party. At least this is something we can truly look at, debate, and make a decision on.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. His speech was really quite interesting, and I am—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I am sorry, there will be no questions or comments. I apologize.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

May 29, 2014

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 29th day of May, 2014, at 5:03 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace

The Secretary to the Governor General

and Herald Chancellor

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 497.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I want to commend my hon. colleague for his initiative in putting this motion forward.

Having listened to the hon. member from Vegreville, I feel as though I am living in some parallel universe. I do not know if you are a fan of Harry Potter, Mr. Speaker, but Lord Voldemort is the arch-enemy of Harry Potter. Lord Voldemort's name cannot actually be mentioned. He is referred to as “he who must not be named”. Similarly, with this government climate change is the phrase that must not be named under any circumstances. We will never hear that phrase pass from the lips of the Prime Minister or a minister or a member of the Conservative caucus, because they are in full-bore denial. That has had huge consequences for us.

May I suggest the hon. members read Mr. Waldie's article in The Globe and Mail, headed “Canada dead last in ranking for environmental protection”?

CBC news says, “Canada's reputation worsens: global poll”. As well, there is “Canada receives a “C” grade in environmental performance and ranks 15th out of 17 peer countries”.

The Canadian Press says, “Canada ranks worst on climate policy among industrialized countries: reports”. Another headline says, “Canada's Climate Policy Worst in Developed World”.

What is next, Ezra Levant in Sun Media? Even he might actually recognize that climate change is a very significant issue.

I just came from the environment committee, where one of the hon. members on the Conservative side was basically saying that we are only 2% of the problem, so why do anything? That is, frankly, the government's attitude: why bother with anything, because we are only a small part. It is kind of beggar your neighbour: I am not going to do anything, so he is not going to do anything, and as a consequence nothing gets done.

The consequence of the consequence is that we sit in a kind of stunned silence while climate change descends upon us.

The insurance industry, on the other hand, has figured it out and is actually re-pricing insurance products based upon the reality of climate change, the reality that the government wishes to deny.

Interestingly, Conservatives are still in full denial mode, even though they shelled out $2.6 billion last year in order to cover off the climate-induced catastrophic weather events in Calgary, Toronto, and other places.

If we look at the trend line put forward by the insurance companies, we will see that it is just going straight up, yet rather than actually dealing with mitigation and adaptation measures, the Conservatives would rather be shelling into the disaster relief fund and paying out that way. This is going to keep on keeping on until the taxpayers just get so weary of these guys that they give them the heave-ho.

One of the reasons the government was not able to balance its budget last year, and it should have been able to, was that it had to shell out $2.6 billion, which ended up as a $2 billion hit on the fiscal framework.

Going back to the motion, what I like about it is that it is an encouragement for us all to reduce our carbon footprint.

Climate change is a bit difficult for people to get their heads around. These great honking chunks of ice in Antarctica and the Arctic are dropping into the sea, and it is difficult to understand what that actually means. One would have thought that the Minister of the Environment would figure it out, since her riding is in a low area and one of the consequences of rising sea levels, which NASA, National Geographic, and pretty well any learned scientist say are going to be in the order of four metres, is that the low coastline areas will be flooded.

I congratulate the minister on her creation of parks, but she will discover fairly shortly that a lot of those parks will become marine parks. That will be a consequence of not in any meaningful way addressing climate change, which is upon us regardless of what the Prime Minister and the ministers of the Conservative caucus actually believe.

I particularly like the emphasis on the lowering of energy bills for Canadians. When there was a program, my wife and I took advantage of it. We did some replacement of windows and some extra insulation. I think we either got a tax credit or a significant sum of money to compensate for that initiative. We did see a change the quantity of heat that we used over the course of the year. I suppose the quantity of energy is a better way of putting it.

In this past year we also did more insulation of another property that we own by installing sliding doors and things of that nature. Of course, there is no grant program available. The hon. member said that the government put all this money into a grant program, but he neglected to mention that government killed the program in 2010. Here we are in 2014, and there is no program available. The consequence is that Canadians are largely on their own in trying to improve energy efficiency.

The other interesting aspect of this motion is with respect to creating jobs and stimulating the economy. I had the good fortune recently to be in Prince Edward County, which is just near the Trenton-Belleville area. I did a tour there, and members would be interested to know that there is a half a billion dollars' worth of installation of solar panels in that county alone. It is half a billion dollars' worth, and it feeds into the grid.

The Conservatives in Ontario get all bent out of shape because of the cost of hydro. Of course it is escalating. There is no denying it. Trying to pull out of coal-fired energy generation costs money. One of the ways of getting that energy replaced is through solar. In order to be able to make it a viable program, it has to be paid for, and here we have half a billion dollars' worth of installation of solar panels that will feed into Ontario's energy tariff. That would be one of the areas where I would see this motion could be helpful and useful.

Once we get past the motion, the real issue is the will and the design of the program, whether it is writing a cheque or creating tax credits or things of that nature. That gets us into the nitty-gritty of proper policy design. The hon. member was quite candid in saying that what he wants to do is encourage the House and the government to set up a realistic program that will encourage and incent taxpayers, homeowners, and business owners to do something about their carbon footprint.

All of that is to be lauded and encouraged. I like the idea of a retrofit program. I see that we are carrying one on here in the parliamentary precinct, and my guess is that it is costing more than a million dollars. We are taking energy-wasteful buildings and turning them into energy-efficient buildings. I am assuming that the design of the program here on Parliament Hill will ultimately save the Parliament of Canada significant sums of money in energy.

I like this motion. I encourage hon. members to support the motion. It does get climate change out of the dirty little closet that the government wishes to put it in. It may change the dialogue from the silliness about a carbon tax and all that nonsense that the Conservatives regularly spout. It may help reduce the carbon footprint of Canadians, and it certainly will create jobs. Prince Edward County is a classic example.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, please interrupt me when my time is up, because, with such an exciting topic as this, which deals with energy efficiency, of course, and all the other environmental aspects, the old teacher in me is back. I feel like I could go on for hours.

In passing, I would like to commend my colleague from Drummond for introducing his motion and say hello to all the people of Drummondville, particularly those I had the opportunity to work with during my four years there. I have fond memories of that time.

To come back to the motion, just this once, I will start my speech by quoting a Conservative minister. His remarks support the motion before us. In 2013, the former minister of natural resources, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, wrote:

From 2007 to 2012, the ecoENERGY Retrofit—Homes program provided incentives to more than 640 000 homeowners. As a result of this program, these homeowners are now...lowering their energy consumption by an average of 20 percent. It is estimated that this program...created or protected thousands of jobs...

That is an excellent summary of this motion. They say the simplest things are often the most effective. Here is an excellent example of that saying. This is an utterly simple motion, but one that allows for numerous applications and offers many positives. I will have occasion to talk about that more.

Of course, it all hinges on monetary incentives. We are living in a time when we have never been more aware of environmental issues or discussed them as much, unless perhaps you are a Conservative. However, people around the world are talking about them. When the time comes for action, money often talks.

If you ask Canadians who are getting ready to buy a new car whether they are interested in a hybrid model, most will answer yes. However, when financing a hybrid car, they are forced to run the calculations over several years to determine whether, given the energy costs of a conventional vehicle, they can come up with the extra money they need to buy it. That is where a government that really has an energy vision designed to reduce greenhouse gases, but also to develop a society of the future, can put major incentives in place.

The eco-energy retrofit–homes program was a very successful program. I say that in the past tense because the Conservatives decided in January 2013 to terminate it. That is a strange policy. The Conservatives had a functional program for once, and I thought they could have continued in the right direction.

In an evaluation in 2010, the head of the program concluded that its residential component had been successful because it had helped reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions while boosting the economy. That is pretty important, particularly when we are talking about renovation work in homes, apartment buildings or any type of building.

However, private homeowners in particular often have the same problem as people with the hybrid cars I mentioned a moment ago. Sometimes they are tempted to do the work, but when they see the size of the bill—let us not deny the fact—some absolutely have to do the work and will try to find someone who will do it for cash. That is where things go downhill and people start dealing with the whole underground economy that escapes us. However, we can get it back by introducing incentives to encourage all people who do retrofit work to do business in the legal economy.

Why did they cancel it? What reason did they have to abolish a program that worked so well? Perhaps it was to save money. That, in a word, is the Conservative government’s policy: saving money. I should say making cuts. In normal circumstances, however, savings should be used for good programs. It looks as though Conservative government has not really understood that. The fact remains that the Conservatives’ record on energy and the environment is terrible. We all know it.

Need I remind hon. members that there are some specific policy issues that Canada has backed away from? Canada is still the only country to have pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol at the UN Conference on Climate Change in 2011, is it not? That feat did not do our country proud.

The elimination of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy in 2012 is a clear reflection of the Conservatives’ position. They are willing to talk about the environment if they are asked a question, but it is not an area in which they are truly willing to take action.

The NDP, on the other hand, wants to move forward, particularly in terms of investing in measures to fight climate change and to help Canadians reduce their energy consumption and lower their energy bills. That is the crucial element.

We can engage in a conversation with each citizen and clearly show them how, by spending some money and with a little help from the program, they can lower their energy bills over the next few years. What is more, not only will they be able to recoup the investment they made in renovations in the short term, they will also be able to benefit from lower energy bills for years to come, while doing their part to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

With this reasoning, it will not be difficult to convince people who have to do some renovations or who are building a new house to adopt higher environmental standards.

The purpose of the motion is not new and does not require a radical shift in policy. The motion simply calls on the government to adopt a real policy for the future, a policy that takes into account the environmental challenges of tomorrow.

We, on this side of the House, are convinced that climate change is tied to human activity. Some of the activities that contribute significantly to global warming include heat loss and energy waste. Every study bears this out—as if we needed studies to know this is true. The cheapest kilowatt hour or energy is the energy we manage to save because it has already been produced and can be used later.

What the motion is proposing today is therefore very simple. By contributing to improving the energy efficiency of houses, residential buildings, shops and businesses, we will be contributing to combatting climate change.

In light of the global climate crisis, reducing greenhouse gases by putting an energy efficiency program in place will reduce our ecological footprint.

If there is one idea that I often talked to my students about, it was the importance of reducing our ecological footprint. If there is one generation we can count on to truly change things, it is the younger generation. There are many examples of this throughout history.

For example, how did we manage to reduce smoking rates in our societies? It was because of the children and teenagers who were able to persuade their parents to stop smoking, and because young people did not start smoking. How did we manage to increase our recycling rates? It was because of the children and teenagers who persuaded their parents to recycle.

Today, I think it would return the favour very well if we, the politicians, stood up when the time comes, after the second hour of debate on this motion, and voted unanimously to send a clear message to all those generations who are prodding us forward. We would be telling them that we have understood the message and that we want to leave them a society and an environment that is as clean as the one we received from our parents, or even cleaner, in terms of both air and water quality.

In conclusion, the NDP has long been a party that looks to the future. We put forward this motion, that we implement an energy efficiency program to encourage homeowners to reduce their energy consumption, as part of our effort to combat climate change. This strategy will also make it possible to reduce Canadians’ energy bills and create jobs. This is another important element: whenever we talk about creating jobs in the energy sector, we are no longer necessarily talking about creating jobs in the service industry that are often part-time, minimum-wage jobs. Rather, we are talking about full-time, high paying jobs.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yukon. I advise the member that he will have just five minutes for his speech before time expires for the debate this evening.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to this topic. It is great to follow on the heels of the opposition members when they talk about our government's record on care and concern for the environment.

I am just going to take the five minutes I have to highlight some of the things we have done, and maybe refresh the member's memory on some of the excellent initiatives our government has made in terms of energy efficiency, climate change, and the work we have done as a government to ensure that our environmental priorities remain high in this country, and to remind the members that, in each and every case that we have put those initiatives forward, the opposition has voted against those measures.

The member who just spoke talked about the home retrofit program. He said it was a beautiful program. It was so beautiful that when it was introduced the New Democrats voted against it. Now of course they are calling for its return. It is ironic that they will talk about these programs that they voted against as though they were part and parcel of the development of them, and clearly that is not the case.

I am proud to say that as Yukon's member of Parliament, just last year I was able to announce half a million dollars over two years out of the eco-energy fund for projects in our communities, and some of those projects were for climate change adaptation. When those initiatives were put forward in this House, the opposition members voted against them. They voted against the funds for those excellent projects. Therefore, while they say that the Conservative government has not done anything for the environment or is not interested in energy efficiency, that is absolutely not the case. What is the case is that every single time we put those initiatives forward, the opposition members vote against them.

I have travelled around the Yukon, opening up excellent and much-needed affordable homes across our territory, homes for seniors in communities like Dawson City, Watson Lake, and Haines Junction. Each one of those large property developments not only created jobs, economic opportunity, and valuable home projects, but they were also built to SuperGreen standards. High-energy-efficiency homes, the latest in technology, are great for the Yukon, great for the community, great for Canada, and a great standard to set. Sadly again, when the government put forward those initiatives to build those homes in economic action plans 2010, 2011, and 2012, the opposition members voted against that critical spending.

They voted against affordable homes. They voted against eco-energy retrofit programs. Then they stood in the House today and said that, first, we should resurrect those programs, and second, that we are not doing anything. However, the record is clear. Those SuperGreen standards for those homes have been great.

Let me quickly mention the national conservation plan. We heard the member opposite talking about climate change being just man made, just from human influence. Of course there are factors, and we take this into account. However, there are natural factors that can contribute to climate change; water vapour and volcanic eruptions are good examples. Also there are natural forces that can help reduce climate change. I will talk about that quickly, but if volcanic eruptions have some contribution, I am sure the whole House is wondering what on earth bozo eruptions could do in terms of GHG emissions in our country. We will save that discussion for a later day, and I will just say this.

On that national conservation plan, we are protecting wetlands, which are important carbon sinks. Since 2010, our government has increased boreal forest protection right across this nation, and boreal forests are important carbon capture mechanisms in the climate change discussion. However, when we made investments in boreal forest protection, opposition members voted against it. When we make investments in the national conservation plan and as we move forward under strategies to fund eco-energy programs and natural conservation programs, we can bank on it that time and again, sadly, that the opposition members will vote against those strategies and the government will stand behind them.

I am just proud to say that the work we are doing today will continue into the future. It is great work for Canadians and most certainly great work for my territory.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Energy Safety and Security Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North will have eight minutes to complete his speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I began by talking about how important it is that we have legislation of this nature brought forward. I talked about how the government has been really sitting back and doing very little in terms of advancing the legislation, and this legislation has been needed for a good number of years. In fact, the government has attempted to introduce it in the past, but to date it has consistently failed to ultimately get it passed through the chamber.

We, within the Liberal Party, have been very supportive, in principle, of getting this legislation to the committee stage because there are many different aspects of the legislation that have a great deal of merit. In fact, the record will show that back in the days when Paul Martin was the prime minister, there was a great deal of discussion, and that is when the negotiations started with respect to really moving forward with the legislation we have here today.

However, they have been somewhat moving at a turtle's pace, if I can put it that way, in terms of advancing this type of legislation.

That is not to say that the legislation is perfect. In fact, it is far from perfect. However, we do believe the principle of it justifies our acknowledging and allowing the bill to go to committee.

It is one of those bills on which the government was determined to put time allocation, and we are not too sure why, because, at least from within the Liberal Party's perspective, we were quite content to see it move on without even having to require time allocation or the government's decision to move closure on it.

I just want to point out a couple of aspects of the legislation before I make some general comments on it.

In part 1, for example, it expresses and includes the whole idea of the polluter pays principle. This is something that is consistent in terms of the whole notion of liability of fault of operators, and in fact something very important for us to recognize.

Another aspect of it is that it provides that an applicant for an authorization for drilling or development of production of oil and gas must demonstrate that it has the financial resources required to pay the greatest amount of limits of liability that could apply to it. It is very important that we recognize that.

It is one thing to say to a company, “You know, if things go wrong, you're going to be held liable for it”, only to find out that, in a worst-case scenario, something does go wrong and the company folds or does not have the ability to adequately compensate.

There would be substantial increases put into place through this legislation, so we have to ensure that it is in fact doable.

I have had the opportunity to listen to a number of New Democrats speak to the bill. Do they want to see it ultimately pass? I am not sure. I will have to wait to find out what their position is on the legislation.

The reason I pose that is that I think it is important that we recognize that certain industries would be profoundly impacted by the legislation.

I will start off, at this point, by talking about our oil and gas sector and how the legislation would have an impact in our Atlantic provinces that want to see this development.

Within the Liberal caucus, we have, I would say, super fantastic members of Parliament from that Atlantic region. They are concerned about the environment. Let there be no doubt about that. However, they also are concerned about economic opportunities. They want to see jobs for their constituents, jobs for their provinces. We recognize that the oil and gas industry has just phenomenal potential for generating economic opportunities.

This is something that we take quite seriously within the Liberal Party. We believe that through these opportunities, the biggest benefactors would be all Canadians. It would be our middle class. Everyone would benefit from it.

We want to ensure that we have good, solid laws and regulations that would protect our environment and our taxpayers through ensuring that we have larger fine capabilities and more consequences for companies that are irresponsible. We want to ensure that when disasters occur, there is going to be a break so that the taxpayer is not going to foot the bill. Equally, we want to see economic development in the regions across Canada materialize and improve the quality of life for all Canadians.

This is a very important issue. Members will see that there are provincial governments and agencies watching what is taking place on this issue. They are even looking beyond the legislation, at what else the government is doing to foster that.

The legislation would harmonize the environmental assessment process for projects for which the National Energy Board, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, or the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board is the responsible authority, as defined within the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012.

The point is that we need to take a look at environmental assessment and how it is conducted in Canada. How do we make sure that we are able to move forward in that area?

I see that I only have one minute left. I wanted to make a personal comment regarding the nuclear industry. I have done this, and I will hopefully continue a little bit more this evening, because we need to recognize the benefits of our nuclear industry. At the same time, we have to ensure that the safety of Canadians and our environment are a high priority. We are not convinced that this is the case with the government.

I would like to conclude my comments by emphasizing the importance of nuclear medicine and how that is growing at a rapid pace. It is literally saving lives. Whether it is radiation for cancer treatment or diagnostic work, we will find that medical needs that depend on our nuclear research and industry as a whole are absolutely critical. Our nuclear plants play a critical role as well, and it is important that we have the right safety environment for all of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is very pleased to see Bill C-22 introduced. We have major concerns that will have to be examined in committee.

In Canada, the liability limit for nuclear plant operators has not changed since 1976, so it is 38 years old. The liability limit for offshore oil and gas operators has been the same for more than 25 years. We need to amend our laws so that they are modern and better suited to our present situation.

I would like to know why the Liberals waited decades without doing anything on this issue and without amending these laws to provide better protection for our environment. I would also like to know whether my Liberal colleague is in favour of giving subsidies to the nuclear power industry to reduce the risks associated with it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a comment often given by New Democrats on any and all pieces of legislation. It is almost as if they get a star if somehow they can incorporate the Liberal Party into their question in a negative fashion.

It is important to recognize that, with time, things do change. I could equally ask my colleague if the New Democrats introduced a private member's bill on this issue 20 years ago, or was it not an important enough issue back then?

The point is, things change through time. I pointed out that it was a Liberal administration that initiated the discussion and brought forward the idea that we needed to look at how we could make these changes. I believe the record would show that the Liberal Party has been fairly supportive of this legislative going through in a more timely fashion, because we recognize the government has not done a good job in passing the legislation. This is the fourth time that we are seeing legislation of this nature. Some suggested it is maybe even the fifth time. I know it is at least four times and the government has not been able to do it.

The session does come to an end, at least to a summer break. It would be wonderful if we tried to get something in place to modernize this.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I was engaged in this debate going back to one of the first iterations of the bill. It became very clear on the nuclear side that we were trying to establish a liability limit that would fit with what the international community would accept rather than what Canadians need for their own protection.

That is what was going on at the time in 2007 when this first came out. We were trying to establish the lowest possible liability limit that would satisfy the requirements of the U.S., especially the U.S., because if a U.S. company invests in another country and its environmental standards are not high enough, then the U.S. company is judged under the U.S. standards, which are much higher, so there was a problem at the time in trying to move nuclear industries into foreign hands.

Does my colleague think that this type of situation, where we are more concerned about what is the least possible liability that this nuclear industry can bear in order to satisfy international standards, is the way to go with this legislation, or should it be actually looking at what is proper liability for Canadians, to protect them and to protect the government in the event of a nuclear calamity?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my biggest concern is that we make sure that whenever we see the development of it, that there is enough there that we can draw out the money that is required.

This, I understand, would bring Canada in line with the International Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, which was fairly recently established, back in December 2013. I believe that to be the case.

Is that enough? We will find out. We hope we will not find out because of a disaster.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the House may very well know that my riding of Pontiac is across the river from Chalk River, so this particular issue is of concern not only to me personally but also to all my constituents who would be, in the eventuality of some kind of failure at Chalk River, affected quite drastically. We have to think, of course, of the events of several decades ago in Chernobyl and more recently Fukushima. There is probably no Canadian in this country who does not feel like those types of events should not happen in Canada.

The reality is that we need to make sure that our legislation is robust and that there are liability provisions that make sense and would ensure that Canadians like the good Pontiackers I represent would be protected.

This legislation would do a number of things. It also talks about offshore oil liability, which is perhaps a bit less of a concern in the Pontiac, given that we have lots of lakes and rivers and great fishing, but the ocean is quite far away.

Nonetheless, I remember watching television one night with my two beautiful daughters. One of those commercials came on showing a number of animals struggling under the weight of oil from an oil spill. They were smeared with oil. What is interesting and maybe even innate in human beings is their sympathy with animals in that situation. Both of my daughters were immediately concerned because it was a small seabird. They said, “Dad, that's terrible.” They immediately recognized that this kind of tragedy should not occur.

Oil spills of that magnitude have ecological consequences, but they have human consequences as well, particularly on those living near shores and those who are affected either by the fishery or economically.

It is clear that the reasoning for liability is strong. While this particular legislation is an improvement upon the current liability regime, I certainly feel that the proposal is insufficient to protect Canadians and the environment. In fact, it will continue potentially in its incrementalism to continue to put Canadian taxpayers at risk because the amounts here for liability are just too low. There is a financial dimension to the bill, and it is clear that the Conservatives have given it somewhat of a token treatment. The government has consistently fallen behind our international partners and has ignored best practices that are already in place when it comes to recognizing the dangers of inadequate liability regimes.

I would like my Conservative colleagues to tell me what research went into this. What consultation went into this? Where is the science to show that these measures may do something to help? It is hard to oppose oneself to a good thing when it is not good enough, but at least it is good.

The NDP has opposed the insufficient nuclear liability limits in the past. We have a long history of doing so. While the provisions in the bill should be considered a step forward compared to current liability limits, the bill does not significantly address some real risks facing Canadians and facing, as I mentioned, some of my constituents. We on this side of the House and my particular political party are serious about protecting the interests of ordinary Canadians.

The Conservatives have a cavalier attitude toward this type of nuclear safety and offshore oil and gas development. Their intimate relationship with the oil and gas industry in our country opens them up to a certain amount of influence with regard to keeping some of the legislation minimal. It is kind of a minimalistic approach to regulating the oil and gas sector, which unfortunately puts Canadians in danger.

Nuclear power is a mature industry. If it is a mature industry and a profit-making one, to a certain extent it should pay for itself. The bill continues to subsidize the nuclear industry by making taxpayers liable for a nuclear risk beyond $1 billion. Why is that? It is something that can be profitable and it is something that has proven itself, to a certain extent, with respect to an energy source. Though there are fundamental issues with regard to nuclear waste, there still remain fundamental issues with storing it. Nonetheless, it is a viable and mature industry, so why would taxpayers be liable for risks beyond $1 billion? If the Conservatives were serious about a robust set of liability measures, then they would have liberated taxpayers a bit more from footing the bill with respect to nuclear risk.

Taxpayers should not be on the hook for subsidies to nuclear energy. Despite having been sold off for some reason, in every budget AECL gets millions of dollars. I do not get that. What kind of contract did we have with it from the beginning? The government sells something off, but then it keeps putting millions of dollars into it. Either it has been improved and it has used those dollars in a transitional way to improve AECL installations, or it is corporate welfare. To a certain extent the government has to let go. Those millions could be put into social programs that could affect the lives of Canadians. For example, we just mentioned employment insurance. I do not know how much it is, but we could give $225 million to AECL every day or put it somewhere else. I think one wonders what is going on at AECL that it keeps needing money from the federal government.

Other countries also have deemed that their citizens deserve much higher protection in the event of a nuclear accident. We should obviously be following the international norms and best practices with respect to liability.

If the government truly believed in the polluter pays principle, then taxpayers should not hold the risk for these types of energy projects. If we measure risk accordingly and assign liability, then industry will improve its safety practices. That is a logical two plus two equals four calculation.

We need to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic events, which nobody wants in our country. The suffering of the people in Fukushima indicates the severity of what can go on in any country that uses nuclear energy. Heaven forbid that anything like that would happen here.

As I have said before, we need to study global best practices and ensure that the federal government puts Canadians first.

Also, the Canadian government should prepare a comprehensive assessment of the risks posed by nuclear power plant operations in Canada, the opportunities for reducing that risk and the accompanying risk costs and risk reduction costs. We have not seen any of that study brought to parliamentarians and Canadians.

The Canadian government should be engaging publicly with a wide range of stakeholders to discuss risks and options to improve nuclear liability. I am sure the constituents in my riding would approve and would like to be consulted with respect to what they think the risks are. We must review the liability regime regularly. Therefore, there have to be some regularly scheduled reviews.

It is completely unacceptable that the Conservatives and Liberals waited decades to address this issue.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

He mentioned a number of points, and I would like to hear his views on the fact that economic development and increased liability are not contradictory; in fact, the opposite is true. Norway, a leader in offshore oil development, is an example of this. The unlimited absolute liability regime that Norway has established does not appear to have paralyzed its industry.

Does my colleague agree, and can he comment further?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. One would say that the Conservatives assume that if we bring in this kind of measure to protect Canadians, we will be making our industries less competitive, which is not necessarily the case.

The people in these industries simply want to know what rules they have to follow and how to follow them. They will follow the rules and find a way to be competitive within these measures that are intended to protect Canadians.

The Scandinavian countries are proof of this. It seems to me that we should take the time to study best practices at the international level and perhaps we could even be inspired by them. Unfortunately, it is difficult to do this with a time allocation motion, which I deplore, on an issue that is as fundamental and as important as the safety of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to what my colleague has just said about international comparisons, I have heard a wide range of comments this afternoon. One Conservative member was saying that the limited liability in certain countries was lower, financially, than $1 billion of liability. He was making a comparison between what may be true in certain administrations or certain legislative frameworks and Canada.

However, what this argument overlooks, and what is a complete fallacy in my view, is that in some countries safety, including nuclear safety, is provided by companies that are not privately owned, but belong to the government through government agencies that take care of nuclear safety or state-owned companies, depending on the legislative framework. These companies allow these states to take full responsibility. These are countries where the government has decided to take responsibility for an energy source that, to them, is much more important than in Canada.

I would like to hear my colleague’s comments on the fact that we cannot compare levels of financial liability in countries where the administrations are organized differently. In one country, the nuclear industry is private, while in others, it is almost a public resource.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question, which is very clear and well balanced.

Clearly, we must pay attention. Regardless of the situation, we cannot compare apples and oranges. This shows the extent to which the government has not conducted the necessary research and the extent to which it does not understand the specificities or the subtleties of the issue or the practices in place beyond Canada’s borders. Clearly, the private and public sectors cannot be compared in this way.

Of course, a much more in-depth analysis, not just a superficial one, must be conducted. This bill must be improved to ensure that it is more rigorous and that it really protects the interests of our constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House this evening to participate in the debate on Bill C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts.

As we can see, the bill has quite a long title, but I will explain a little of what it contains. I am going to support the bill at second reading, but not because it is perfect, far from it. Actually, it is typical Conservative work, never perfect. However, it can be sent to committee so that amendments can be proposed.

Specifically, we are going to call for broader responsibilities and the implementation of best practices from around the world. Our position at third reading will depend on this government's willingness to work with us in committee and to consider the amendments proposed by the official opposition.

People watching at home on CPAC are probably aware that we are sitting until midnight tonight. We are very pleased to be working until midnight; my colleagues often work very hard. What bothers me is that the Conservatives never seem to want to listen to our concerns. This evening, I see that the benches opposite are almost empty. Our feeling is that there is no real willingness on the part of the Conservatives to participate in this debate in a constructive manner.

The Conservatives did not ask very many questions about any of the most recent speeches. Unfortunately, no more Conservatives will speak tonight. Conservative members are not seizing the opportunity they have to speak about Bill C-22, which is going to have a considerable effect on Canadians' quality of life.

Bill C-22 has two major parts. The first deals with nuclear liability. Bill C-22 updates Canada's nuclear liability regime and specifies the conditions and the procedure for compensating victims in the event of an accident at a nuclear power station.

This decades-old regime must be updated; Canada's nuclear liability regime must be modernized. I warmly welcome the changes that Bill C-22 will make, but, as I will explain later, I have some concerns about the details.

The second part of Bill C-22 updates the Canadian liability regime with respect to offshore oil and gas development in order to prevent incidents and ensure rapid response in case of a spill.

Even though we support the changes that Bill C-22 would make to a decades-old regime, I want to raise some concerns that my NDP colleagues have already raised in the House.

We are especially concerned about the fact that the Government of Canada is adopting much weaker regulations than those in effect in other countries. We have already expressed our opposition to inadequate nuclear liability limits. Unfortunately, this bill does not really take into account the real risks facing Canadians.

As everyone knows, the NDP is in favour of the polluter pays principle. This means that companies, individuals and organizations that pollute our environment are liable for the cost of cleaning up environmental damage.

The NDP is the only party that is willing to stand up for Canadians' interests. The other parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, do not seem all that concerned about nuclear safety and offshore oil and gas development.

If the nuclear power industry really is mature, it should pay its own way. As written, this bill continues to subsidize this industry by passing the financial risk in excess of $1 billion on to taxpayers.

If the government really believes in the polluter pays principle, then taxpayers should not have to bear the risk related to these energy developments. I strongly believe that. Proper risk assessment and assignment of liability will force the industry to improve its safety practices. That alone will reduce the likelihood of catastrophic incidents.

My colleagues in the House have encouraged the government to study global best practices to ensure that it is putting Canadians first. It is important to look at several models to see what the Government of Canada can do. Many countries have much stricter nuclear liability regimes than Canada.

For example, in Germany, nuclear liability is absolute and unlimited, and financial guarantees go up to $3.3 billion per power plant. In the United States, absolute liability is capped at $12.6 billion U.S. Other countries around the world lean toward absolute and unlimited liability. I will not take the time to name them all.

The bill contains a $1 billion liability in the event of a nuclear accident, which would cover only a fraction of the cost of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. A billion dollars may seem like a lot to most Canadians, but the estimated cost of the accident in Fukushima Daiichi was more than $250 billion. As you can see, when an accident of that magnitude occurs, $1 billion does not go very far. If something like that were to happen here, Canadian taxpayers would have to make up the difference.

In closing, I want to mention that a number of stakeholders support our position. I will quote Greenpeace Canada because I think they are a rather significant stakeholder:

From the beginning of the use of nuclear power to produce electricity 60 years ago, the nuclear industry has been protected from paying the full costs of its failures. Governments have created a system that protects the profits of companies while those who suffer from nuclear disasters end up paying the costs.

I am very pleased to support Bill C-22, but I hope that the Conservatives will take certain things into account when this bill is in committee and that they will adopt some meaningful amendments to this bill.