Debates of Feb. 26th, 2015

Pipeline Safety Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my Liberal colleague.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received, which is as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

February 26, 2015

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that Ms. Patricia Jaton, Deputy Secretary to the Governor General, in her capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 26th day of February, 2015, at 3:20 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace

The bills assented to on Thursday, February 26 are Bill C-47, An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect; and 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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