Debates of March 9th, 2015

Pipeline Safety Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec City's south shore for his heartfelt speech. I know how hard he worked on the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal file. I have to say that my colleague raised some very important issues.

I would like to comment on what some people might consider a bold remark he made about the Conservatives' vote-seeking approach. I am talking about the billion-dollar indemnity that might seem enormous, but is really quite inadequate in relative terms.

I remember everything about the saga—the ongoing saga—involving the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal and the Conservative government's lenient attitude toward the proponent. Despite the very serious objections raised by various stakeholders, including scientists, the Conservatives kept saying there was no problem and it was nothing to get worked up about.

Can my colleague comment on how that kind of leniency can ultimately result in a staggering cost to us as a society?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, something I meant to talk about today was breach of trust, which goes back to what my colleague was saying.

In 2011, the environment commissioner said that the National Energy Board had not managed to secure better measures to protect the environment and the public when it comes to pipelines. It is now 2015. Nothing was done until this small step. It took years for a small, extremely questionable step to be taken.

Indeed, my colleague is right. First, the $1 billion is highly questionable. Another major deficiency in this entire process of the Conservatives' bill is operational safety.

It is all well and good for the government to tell people that it will raise the ceiling in the event of a major accident, but what my constituents really want to know is what will be put in place to ensure that there are no major accidents. This is an unbelievable oversight.

It is akin to saying that it is a huge industry, this has to go through and if the pipeline breaks, then damage will be paid for. If we are talking to the farmers in my riding or the people in the municipalities who are concerned about their water supply, then we cannot use that argument.

These people want to know what guarantee there is that beyond the oil, their resources will be protected during operations, because those resources could be threatened by a major spill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the transportation of oil and gas, we hear a lot about pipelines, and that is what we are talking about today. When Canadians compare transportation methods in terms of security and safety, they view pipelines as probably the strongest transportation method, followed by rail and then possibly long-haul trucking.

If Canada were to increase its overall petroleum export market, whether it is in Canada or south or wherever else it might be, does the member believe that the best way to get oil and gas to market is through pipelines, or does he believe we should be looking at alternatives?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong in that paradigm with respect to rail transportation.

Right now, there are long-term contracts—from five to seven years—for products to be transported by rail. The industry tells people they must choose, when in fact, there is no choice. The industry says that it wants to move forward on both fronts. There will be more tankers filled with bitumen on the tracks. In addition, the industry wants more pipelines to transport and probably export the majority of the resource, especially in the case of the energy east pipeline. This is something made up by people who, I imagine, want to avoid a fundamental debate on whether we truly want to base our economy of the future on maximizing the transportation of a non-renewable resource. There is something wrong there.

Something really blew me away, especially because it was that a Liberal colleague who just asked me a question. He said that one positive aspect of the bill was that the National Energy Board could now focus on the people affected by the pipelines. He said that its mandate was not limited to the safety of the pipeline itself. This means that during the time of the Liberals, the act provided only for the protection of the pipeline and not the protection of those who lived around it. They allowed that to go on for decades. Unbelievable.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to debate Bill C-46 today.

I am delighted because for once, this is a bill that has some good elements. Also, we cannot deny that oil transportation is a major issue and among those that most concern the public. People are worried and they have reason to be.

The figures given here speak for themselves and reiterate what I have heard before in many conversations. The public’s confidence in the methods of oil transportation is very low: 71% of people believe that rail transport is dangerous. After what happened again in Gogoma on the weekend, that opinion may become more entrenched.

In addition, 63% of Canadians believe that shipping oil by sea is too risky. Quebeckers are terrified at the idea that a tanker might capsize in the St. Lawrence. An incident like that would cause widespread and irreparable harm to Quebec, since the river is such a unique and fragile environment, and of such crucial importance to us all. Pipelines are seen by the public as the least dangerous method, with 47% support.

Overall, nobody is really happy. People fear the worst. They are right to be worried, if we consider that the consequences of an accident are catastrophic and irreversible. The number of barrels of oil per day that travel by pipeline is enormous. When we talk about huge figures like billions of barrels a day, it is to be expected that the idea of a spill would immediately take on incomprehensible and terrifying dimensions.

Canada is first and foremost a country with natural resources that can be exploited. This has always been the source of our well-being and our affluence. The diversity of our common resources positions Canada and its provinces on a number of economic fronts at the same time. It is also the source of our tremendous technical knowledge, built over decades in response to the needs associated with resource development, for which we are internationally renowned.

In short, we are blessed with incredible good fortune, and that fortune belongs to all Canadians. This is our real national treasure. However, while it is certainly a blessing, that treasure sometimes looks like a curse. Tragic events have happened in the past. The risks of inadequate regulation of the oil shipment methods are clear. The Lac Mégantic disaster is so serious and so clearly connected with the federal government’s complacency that I am surprised at how lax the legislative initiatives are.

In fact, the public has little faith in the government when it comes to its ability or desire to regulate the energy sector. If not the government, who should do it? The industry itself? Of course not. What we are seeing is a very serious legitimacy deficit. Canadians do not believe that the Government of Canada is going to protect them, or wants to protect them. That hurts.

I believe the people of Canada are entitled to expect that members of Parliament will make not just good decisions about pipelines, but the best possible decisions. All of us here have a duty to think about public safety, the sustainability of resource development and the resilience of the environment. Development of our natural resources that is responsible and scientific, the Conservatives’ favourite adjective, is what will guarantee our survival as an affluent society. Of course, we have to assume that everyone here wants our society to survive and does not imagine that the world is going to end next week with the second coming of the Saviour. That remains to be seen, however.

I am well aware that we must not expect too much. The government has now taken a step toward a polluter pays scheme, which is encouraging. Holding the industry accountable is essential. It comes a quarter-century late and it was not very difficult to put forward, but we will take what we can get.

Bill C-46 introduces absolute liability for all pipelines overseen by the National Energy Board. This is a good initiative and it is the reason behind our support. Absolute liability in the case of fault or negligence means that the operator will have unlimited liability.

In the case of any other incident, the operator is liable up to a maximum of $1 billion. By taking that approach, the government is clearly thinking only of physical damage and the repair costs that may be incurred. This initiative seems to be valid, but there are two points in Bill C-46 that are still vague. It is important that the public know that they might easily have to make a financial contribution in the event of a disaster.

First, if the case could not be made for negligence or fault, the government might have to absorb the costs. In addition, if the costs incurred exceed $1 billion, we will have to pay anything above that amount. In some cases, the bill adds up very quickly and can easily exceed that limit. As several of my colleagues have done already, I would also like to refer to the accident caused by Enbridge in Kalamazoo, Michigan, which has cost nearly $1.2 billion.

Second, as we suspected, environmental damage is not really part of the calculation.

In the end, the potential irreparable damage to the very fabric of our country, which is priceless, will not be worth it.

What the government is counting on can be easily explained: considering Canada's size, the government hopes that accidents will happen in the middle of nowhere, where environmental oversight has already been eliminated by budget cuts, and that the public will quickly forget contamination of the hinterland. Out of sight, out of mind.

Although this may be an ideological government, it certainly is not a sentimental one. Bill C-46 strengthens some of the powers of the National Energy Board to ensure that the transport of oil by pipeline meets certain standards and that the public is protected. However, the operator will still have a say and the bill leaves room for backroom arrangements. Ultimately, cabinet will decide whether there should be sanctions.

If the operator does not comply with the NEB orders, the board will not have the powers needed to take action, unless it is dealing with an abandoned pipeline. We will all agree that an empty pipeline is rather safe.

I would like to reassure those who thought that the Conservatives had suddenly discovered the merits of environmentalism. Bill C-46 is all about the economy. Accidents are expensive and it is unfair for the public to pay for the negligence of corporations. Naturally, we agree.

Because the “teeth” that Bill C-46 gives the National Energy Board are merely molars, if the government does not see fit to crack down on an operator, the only thing the board can do is chew on its reprimands.

The government began reviewing its liability regimes for oil and natural gas development last year. Bill C-46 is a first step that we find acceptable even though we would like the regulation to go much further. We want to protect the environment because we believe that the ecosystem is non-negotiable. Other countries do this and are more prosperous than we are.

The government refused to consider it and brought forward legislation that might not even serve the purpose if evidence of fault is lacking or if the government decides to act in favour of the operator.

Is it any surprise that public confidence is so low under the circumstances?

In addition, as we might have expected, this bill did not involve in-depth consultation with the members of Confederation or first nations. This is yet another example of the omniscience we see so regularly in the Langevin Block.

I am fascinated by the Prime Minister's telescopic vision, his effortless ability to see and understand everything across the country. That sense of direction is amazing—superhuman, even. The only thing the Prime Minister needs to complete his image is a central Asian republic.

At the end of the day, what people want is strict, guaranteed regulations. People want pipelines to be extra safe—no loopholes, no risky measures—as well as responsible, environmentally sound and sustainable management.

What Canadians want is for us to act like adults, not teenagers.

I can therefore guarantee that the best environment minister Quebec has ever had will not accept any “ifs” and “maybes” when he considers approving pipelines once he becomes prime minister of Canada.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am old enough to remember there was a radical wing of the New Democrat Party called, of all things, the Waffle, which is perhaps an appropriate name.

I am trying to understand this. When the members on the government side of the House fail to understand climate change, we criticize them for failing to understand science. However, when they talk about pipelines being safe, they suddenly embrace science and we get nervous about it.

At the same time, the NDP members talk about why we should believe scientists on climate change, but that we cannot trust scientists to build good pipelines. Why?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I did not fully understand my colleague's question.

Clearly, however, science should be at the core of any initiatives like this one. I do believe it is possible to have safe pipelines. I do not think that is what we are talking about here. One thing I do not believe is that this government will bring in any regulations that really make sense, or that it will listen to the scientists who are telling us that measures must be put in place to ensure that our pipelines are as safe as possible.

I sincerely believe that if the Conservatives are faced with the fact that the company has to pay more, and the company tries to convince them that, in the end, safety measures are not all that important, they will not necessarily pay much attention to the scientific opinion at that point.

I completely agree that we need to listen to scientists who can explain the safest ways to build pipelines and move oil. That seems obvious to me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for her speech and especially her diligence in debating this bill.

I cannot help but respond to the rather bizarre question from the member for Trinity—Spadina. No one is challenging, except perhaps for the radical elements opposite, the science behind the safety of pipelines or their potential safety. However, setting that aside, we should not forget the interests promoting the pipelines and the fact that people could decide, in the end, to disregard rules, common sense and science. The Liberals provided one of the best examples, namely their purchase of used and defective submarines that have been very difficult to put into operation. In fact, following massive investments, the submarines were dangerous. That has nothing to do with science.

I would like my colleague to talk about the fact that no matter the scientific facts, the political decisions that may be made could well result in immeasurable danger.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his comments.

There is something that our government often forgets: as legislators, we are responsible for passing bills that are not simply drawn up to get rid of problems that might occur. As members of Parliament, we are responsible for protecting the public and protecting our society as best we can with the tools we have.

At present, problems with oil transportation have absolutely disastrous consequences. Should that prevent us from moving oil at all? Of course not. That is not realistic in our current society. However, as members of the House, can we pass the best bills possible to ensure the utmost safety when oil is transported? I believe that is our responsibility and that is really what we must do.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-46 on behalf of my fellow constituents in Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. This is a bill that deals with issues as important as energy resources and the protection of our environment.

Bill C-46 amends the rules governing oil companies’ liability. That consists of establishing a principle under which the party responsible for an oil spill will pay up to $1 billion for the damage caused. This bill is part of a broader government review of the liability rules that apply to various aspects of oil and gas development.

Canadians are aware of the potential risks of extracting and transporting oil, and they need to know that their government is going to oversee the industry properly and also protect our environment. Canadians do not have to make a choice between economic development and environmental protection. We need to take both aspects into consideration jointly.

When it comes to projects like northern gateway, Keystone XL or energy east, it is important to make judicious decisions that promote economic development and employment in Canada, while at the same time minimizing the risks to our environment. We need a new vision when it comes to the future of our energy resources, a vision that is guided by three very simple principles.

The first is sustainability, to ensure that polluters pay the bill for cleanups associated with a spill and the pollution caused, rather than passing the bill on to the next generations.

The second is partnership, to ensure that the First Nations, the provinces and local communities genuinely benefit from resource development and to create reliable and value-added jobs here in Canada.

The third is the long-term prosperity that comes from investing the proceeds of our natural resources in modern, ecological technologies, to keep Canada on the cutting edge of energy innovation and keep energy prices affordable for all Canadians.

We are disappointed that in spite of all our calls for urgent action, the Conservatives have taken so long to introduce this bill. In 2011, the Commissioner of the Environment pointed out that the National Energy Board had been unable to solve a number of known problems and ensure adequate maintenance of pipelines. The government has still not implemented an adequate monitoring and inspection system.

Last year, Bill C-22 was also introduced. It dealt with liability relating to offshore drilling and the possibility of spills in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. Because of this narrow vision, the government did not conduct consultations on the liability regime applicable to rail transportation. The Conservatives did not take that issue seriously until they had to limit the political fallout or consequences from the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.

The bill we are currently considering includes absolute liability for all pipelines regulated by the National Energy Board. In other words, the companies will be liable for the costs and damage caused by a pipeline spill, regardless of fault, up to a maximum of $1 billion for high-capacity pipelines. However, in the case of fault or negligence, liability will be unlimited.

I welcome this measure. It is a good start, but that figure could be reached quickly, since the cleanup of some tragedies that have occurred in recent years has significantly exceeded the $1 billion ceiling provided by this bill.

Bill C-46 also limits the time Canadians will have to claim compensation for long-term damage to their health or the environment caused by an accident. The claim must be made within three years of when the damage occurs or six years, at most, after an oil spill. This is debatable, since it is highly probable that some damage will be discovered well after the six years provided by this bill.

The bill gives the National Energy Board the authority to order reimbursement of any cleanup costs incurred by governments, communities or individuals. It also grants the National Energy Board the authority and resources to assume control of a response to any incident, in exceptional circumstances, if a company is unable or unwilling to do so. The NEB would also have new tools for recouping cleanup costs, which could go so far as charging the entire industry.

Unfortunately, the government left some leeway here with decisions that would be left in the hands of cabinet and the National Energy Board, an agency that, on occasion, has demonstrated a lack of credibility. Instead of establishing a responsible regime, with a strict framework, the government is leaving too much leeway for politically motivated decisions, cabinet decisions and backroom agreements that would obviously not be made public between operators and the NEB. Of course, we will question the government about these discretionary measures. It is important to hold the government accountable to Canadians. We are disappointed in the scope of the bill. I hope the Conservatives will be open to the amendments that will be proposed in committee.

Given the limited scope of the bill, we are concerned that polluters will not have to bear the full cost of the damage and that Canadians will end up footing the bill. If so, that casts doubt on the true scope of this bill. What happens if there is a problem establishing fault or negligence? Will Canadians have to pay in such cases? We are talking about possibly billions of dollars. That is a lot of money, and it is not up to Canadians to pay the bills for companies that may have been negligent in their operations. It is all well and good to introduce a bill that focuses on figuring out who is liable, but we also have to be proactive and do as much as possible to prevent oil spills. This bill does not do that.

We need better regulations and increased monitoring of pipelines. In addition, we need to rebuild the robust environmental assessment process that has been dismantled by the current government over the past few years. With the huge expansion in the production and transportation of crude oil, we need enhanced safety protection, regardless of the method of transportation. To that end, we need to increase mandatory inspections, implement adequate regulations, and enforce these standards. Public safety and environmental protection must be among our top priorities.

My colleagues and I firmly believe that Canada must take steps to ensure that we are developing and transporting our resources in a safe and secure way that serves the interests of all Canadians. To that end, all pipelines need to adhere to the highest possible safety and environmental standards consistent with the principles of sustainable development. To ensure that oil companies and pipeline operators adhere to the regulations, we need to put in place robust laws and establish credible environmental assessment mechanisms.

Furthermore, given that transportation affects the provinces, municipalities and communities, we must ensure that the government consults them and establishes partnerships with them. If everyone works together, Canadians can be assured that all of these projects will be implemented and will respect the principle of sustainable development and that the approval process will be as fair as possible, in order to strengthen the accountability of everyone involved. The provinces will continue to develop their natural resources. The issue is knowing how to develop those resources sustainably, while protecting the environment and creating value-added jobs in Canada.

In closing, we will support this bill at second reading, and we ask the government to remain open to the amendments we plan to propose in committee.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. At the end of his speech, he said that his party will be supporting the bill. He certainly explained the importance of having tough measures to ensure that pipelines are safe.

At the same time, he mentioned that his party would be proposing amendments. Could he be a little more specific about his concerns and tell us what kind of amendments his party plans to propose to improve the bill?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. In my speech, I mentioned a few things that are of concern to us.

First of all, there is the limited liability of $1 billion. That is probably not enough given that there are several aging pipelines running through our communities. In the event of a pipeline break, the damage could far exceed $1 billion. That is a concern for this side of the House. If the damage is well beyond that amount—and damage caused by past environmental disasters has topped $2 billion—Canadians would be on the hook. That makes no sense. Thus, our first concern is the $1 billion liability limit.

Second, the National Energy Board should make inspections mandatory. This bill does not deal with inspections of aging pipelines. Thus, we have serious concerns about the lack of oversight of aging pipelines. We should be more concerned about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my colleague my question, I have to mention something that I just learned from the Radio-Canada website. Unfortunately, the riding office of our colleague, the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, was also sent a letter containing a suspicious substance. My thoughts are with the staff of the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. I hope the police will once again find that the substance was not dangerous. This is an absolutely sickening situation.

My colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant was talking about public trust in the process, beyond the law and the structures put in place, and the political will that has to be shown in order to earn the public's trust. It is nice to have encouraged the development of pipeline transportation, which is an indisputably safe method, but beyond that, the public has to trust the legislator and the executive power and trust that it will be fair and serious in implementing the law. I would like to know what my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant thinks of how much the Conservative government can be trusted in this.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his question. He raised a very important point about environmental assessments, a process that the current government has completely gutted. The National Energy Board had a comprehensive and well-defined framework for assessing new pipeline projects across Canada, and there are many of them.

The government, thinking it would help the oil companies, did away with the whole environmental assessment process and did such a thorough job that Canadians' confidence is at an all-time low with respect to environmental assessments of these types of projects. We have to wonder what the government has to hide. As this process eroded more and more, Canadians lost more and more confidence. That is the result of the Conservatives' policies. The government thought it was helping the oil companies but I think its decision to do away with the environmental assessment process is hurting the companies instead of helping them.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I got into politics I was one of the founding members of the Conseil de bassins versants de la région de Vaudreuil-Soulanges. This organization was responsible for coming up with a master plan for water in my region.

For anyone who is not familiar with the concept of watersheds, this term refers to the entire area drained by a main stream and its tributaries. It is delineated by its upstream and downstream boundaries. All waterways are connected to one major waterway.

I mentioned watersheds because the watershed area is responsible for the quality of our water, which depends on the health of a watershed. Water is the most important resource.

That is one reason why I decided to run in the 2011 election and to join Jack Layton's team on the NDP, a progressive party that supports the right to live in a healthy and sustainable environment.

That is because seven generations from now our successes will be measured not in terms of GDP, economic growth, oil consumed or produced, or the consumption of a nation; no, our successes will be measured in terms of how well we have done in terms of keeping the ecological balance.

Our resources must be developed sustainably. A polluter-pay model needs to be put in place. We need to move away from our over-reliance on fossil fuels. The NDP vision is that economic growth and job creation go hand in hand with social and environmental sustainability

My riding is downstream from here on the Ottawa River. Here, upstream, the government is making decisions that are troubling the people in my region. They are concerned and rightly so. My region is the country's transportation hub. The Canadian National Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway, Enbridge's line 9 and the TransCanada pipeline all pass through Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

For 16 years, line 9B did not meet safety standards. This problem was ignored by a Liberal MP and a Bloc MP. It was only when the people of my riding elected an NDP member that they discovered that there was a problem with line 9B. I raised this problem at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources after reading an article on the subject.

Canadians want better inspections, appropriate regulations and enforced standards. Public safety and environmental protection must be priorities for any government. The Conservatives are lagging behind. The Liberals had 13 years to solve the problem, but they did nothing. The risks are too great.

Liberals and Conservatives, for instance, now support the Keystone XL project.

I talked with David Suzuki in 2011 and I told him that Canadians worry a lot about pipelines. I asked him what the biggest thing that Canadians should worry about is. He said that we often worry about these big spills we see or about trains derailing. He said that the major problem with pipelines is pinhole leaks. One of the Conservative members mentioned the technology. Certainly there have been advances in technology, but 2% of those pinhole leaks still are not detectable by the instruments that are in Keystone. This means that because of the corrosion in a pipeline and a pinhole leak, oil could leak out without being detected for days or months. It could contaminate the water table, and we would not know it because we would not be able to detect it.

The other question we have to ask is this. Yes, with new pipeline construction we are looking at this new engineering to detect pinhole leaks. What about all the other pipeline infrastructure? Are we saying that we will implement the same safety instruments through all the pipelines across North America? It is a good question to ask, because if one pipeline implements it, should we not implement it in all pipelines? Should we not update all the infrastructure? These are questions I have and that the citizens I represent have.

Energy policy in this country for years has been managed by successive Liberal and Conservative administrations. They have lit so many fires it will be hard too put them all out, all these problems, all this negligence that has gone on over the years. Just opening the paper in a given week we can find five different energy projects that might be going on that have problems that are not being addressed.

Let us look at the seismic testing in the Clyde River. There are problems with the narwhals. The company exploring for oil wants to use seismic testing, which is basically making explosions in the water in habitat where narwhals are. This is going to court in Toronto. The mayor of Clyde River has an injunction against the testing.

We see this again and again.

We also saw this with the St. Lawrence belugas. It is the same thing.

Several fires have been ignited. It is up to us to identify all of the problems and propose solutions.

There has to be greater consultation with communities and with first nations.

First nations activist Chickadee Richard, from Winnipeg, says,

As indigenous people, we still use the lands. We still gather; we still hunt; we still use the forests and the waters. So, what this pipeline would do to us, we may never recover. It's in a crisis mode right now and we all have a responsibility to future generations.

She is a part of a greater coalition in Winnipeg hoping to broaden the scope of National Energy Board consultations. Another member of this coalition, Mary Robinson, of the Council of Canadians, Winnipeg chapter says, “Without...listening to people’s voices, any review of the pipeline will be incomplete and illegitimate".

These are voices of one part of Canada. I bring them up because I hear the same things in my region, and I have heard the same things from other members in this House. Citizens in their ridings have the same preoccupation. These things keep coming up, and we have to address these problems.

Although I am happy to see that there is a bill addressing this, I do not think it goes far enough, and I do not think it answers all the questions and worries citizens might have in my riding and in other ridings.

There is no doubt that we have a wealth of natural resources in this country, and I would not be one to say that we should not use those resources. They are there to be used. We are really blessed with them. They are a blessing to this country, but we have to approach the exploration and the development of these resources in a different way. We have had 40 or 50 years of irresponsible management of these resources by successive Liberal and Conservative administrations.

The NDP's vision is based on three principles. The first is sustainability. We want to ensure that a polluter pays model is in place so that polluters pay for any spills and for the resulting pollution instead of leaving those costs to future generations.

The second is partnership. We want to ensure that our communities, provinces and first nations all benefit from resource development and that we create value-added jobs for the middle class here in Canada.

The third is long-term prosperity, not short-term prosperity that would create jobs tomorrow that will be lost after two weeks. We are seeking to build long-term prosperity by investing and relying on modern technology in order to strike a balance between the economy and the environment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech. In as gracious a form as I can, I would say that I am a little disappointed in the tone. I do not think that is the kind of negativity I am accustomed to hearing from him.

This is a bill that is fairly important, and I understand the NDP will be supporting it. It is not perfect. It is as imperfect as any bill I have seen here in ten and a half years. It is capable of being improved, strengthened, and amended. For a moment, I thought maybe the member was debating Bill C-51.

I know the NDP is raising some important concerns about the liability limit of $1 billion. Lac-Mégantic has hurtled to a cost of $600 million, the Gulf of Mexico spill has pushed $40 billion, and Exxon Valdez is in the tens of billions and still has not been completely cleaned up. There are some important points there. However, perhaps the member could cut to the chase and instead of being overtly political or partisan, he could tell us what two points he would specifically like to see improved in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I served together on the natural resources committee, and I always found him to be a very reasonable member on that committee with very good proposals.

I have to say that we have to live by the record we create. I will start with that. We cannot make poor decisions and then attempt to say they do not belong to us. Unfortunately, for years the Liberals rubber-stamped these projects as well. Another member pointed out that during the Liberals' tenure, they did not take the people living around a pipeline into consideration and only protected the pipeline itself in legislation. There were great problems with that approach.

To answer the member's question, I will give him one point. The idea of who is responsible in terms of pollution, whether it is through an operator error or otherwise, has to be clarified in this bill, because we often see a shared guilt with respect to accidents and we have to clearly address the point that in those kinds of cases, the operators cannot just pass the buck and say that it was not their fault. We have to be a lot more clear on that aspect.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the NDP is asking for is not very complicated.

We want social accessibility and environmental protections to be respected when major pipeline or economic projects are proposed. We want the government to show a little more respect for Canadians, as Mr. Suzuki does; he pours his heart and soul into the fight to ensure that we can leave future generations with a great place to live.

The bill talks about a $1 billion cap when fault or negligence cannot be proven. This means that taxpayers will once again have to bear any cleanup costs that exceed $1 billion, when fault or negligence cannot be proven. How can fault or negligence be proven in situations like Lac-Mégantic? Who will pay for that?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we are worried. In the event of a spill, in 99% of cases, the proponent is not the only one responsible. The responsibility is shared. These statistics are very troubling, because this means that a company will do everything it can to avoid responsibility for a spill. It will try to pass the bill onto taxpayers. My constituents are very worried about this. We need to amend the bill to address this issue.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the constituents in Newton—North Delta. After spending a week in our ridings, we hear so much from our constituents. From my constituents I hear a great deal of concern with what is happening with our resource development.

Before I get into that, I want to acknowledge the work done by Kultarjit S. Thiara, the president of the Surrey-Newton Rotary Club. I was so impressed when the community raised $50,000 to build a school in the Philippines over this weekend. When we are in our ridings, it gives us so much pleasure when we go to events and people, despite all the economic challenges and being worried about their jobs, donate so generously and when local leaders are willing to play a part in making a difference around the world. I went to about 20 other events, but I will keep those for another time.

I am going to be supporting the bill at second reading so that we can send it to committee.

The bill is not perfect by any means. As a teacher, I like to give some credit when good work is done, and I believe this bill is a baby step in the right direction. I believe the regulations we have right now are just not adequate, but Bill C-46 does take a long-overdue first step toward a true polluter pay regime for pipelines in Canada. I say it is only a baby step because we know it does not go all the way. It is like going to the ocean to dip one's toes in it and then just waiting there. There is a lot more work to be done on the bill, and I can assure everyone that we will be doing the hard lifting at committee stage.

We are also very proud that our NDP leader has been a champion of polluter pay and has very practical plans to grow the economy while protecting the environment. There are those who will tell us we have to choose between the two, that it is either the environment or jobs. When I speak to the smart young people in my riding, I find that they know that is not a choice. In order to have jobs and development, we need to also make sure that we are protecting our planet and developing our resources in a sustainable way.

Over and over again, we have seen the government putting the interests of big oil companies ahead of the interests of hard-working Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. Our middle class is feeling squeezed, and we are hearing through different studies that the quality of jobs and therefore the quality of life are being impacted.

Something else I hear in my riding is that hard-working middle-class people trust the NDP to be able to fix some of these challenges, because they know that over the decades of mismanagement and rubber-stamping by the Liberal Party and now the Conservatives' love-in with big oil companies, they have been squeezed out. Their children's future has been left out. There has not been due consideration.

We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We are truly blessed with not only amazing geography from coast to coast to coast but also with the richness of our resources. Once again, we absolutely have to get out of this mentality of rip-and-ship. I watch that in my province, where we see logs leaving the country on trucks, which is environmentally not that great, and then coming back as two-by-fours, which we then buy. In resource development, no matter which area we are looking at, we really need to take a look at those value-added jobs.

Once again, we need to start developing decent paying jobs for our kids and our middle class right here in Canada. I can tell members that the leader of the NDP has a very practical plan to add value to our natural resources, get away from the rip-and-ship mentality, and support family-sustaining jobs right here at home.

Let us look at what is in the bill. Often what we hear about when my colleagues across the way explain the bill is not what is actually buried in it.

There is an element of polluter pay, but what disturbs me about the bill is that it would vest all kinds of powers to the National Energy Board and the cabinet to make some of these decisions. I think that is the kind of policy-making that leads to confusion. We need to have very clear guidelines, and it should not be left up to the cabinet or cabinet ministers to decide which way it would go, and which parts would be implemented and which would not. It is very disturbing for us in the NDP.

I live in one of the most beautiful provinces. I am sure that every MP says that, and they would be absolutely right. However, we all know of British Columbia's pristine lakes and coastline. Its coastline not only provides an incredible amount of great seafood for local consumption, it is sold overseas, and it is also a great tourist attraction. We bring in billions of dollars through tourism, and we are very worried about the impact of an oil spill, be it from a pipeline or a tankard on our pristine coastline.

I have to give credit to one of the hardest-working members of Parliament in the House, the member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He is our finance critic right now, but his passion and campaign to save our coast is truly inspirational. I have watched the audience, whether they are 90-year-olds or 14-year-olds, be absolutely inspired when he speaks from his heart about the importance of protecting our waterways, our beautiful coastline, and the kind of lifestyle we have out in B.C.

There is a linkage to this because as members know the northern gateway pipeline is a project that is going to be crossing over many of our key rivers. It will be going through some of our most pristine lakes, through vast territory, and will end up in the ocean through some very dangerous territory. Therefore, we are very worried. However, the linkage here is that the northern gateway is an Enbridge pipeline.

I will pause here for a moment to share with members what happened at the Kalamazoo River, in Michigan. On July 26, 2010, there was an oil spill, and 843,444 U.S. gallons of crude oil came out of a 30-inch pipeline into a prime wetland. That pipeline was owned by Enbridge. The cleanup for that spill alone, not taking account other damages or loss of non-use which has to be considered, came to $1.2 billion. However, here we would be setting a target of up to $1 billion. We can see that is inadequate, but it is without taking into consideration the non-use and all of that.

Therefore, we are very worried about any kind of leakage, whether from a pipeline or tankard into our ocean. We are absolutely committed to polluter pay, and we have to start making realistic legislation that considers the real cost of the cleanup and not leave it up to cabinet ministers or other bodies to do this at their discretion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many other aspects to the legislation. The part that is rather positive are the improvements to the National Energy Board, where it would have more of a vested interest and to a certain degree a mandate to assist in protecting Canada's environment. There are a series of amendments that would empower the National Energy Board to do more.

I believe everyone within the chamber is going to be voting in favour of the bill going to committee. Does the member advocate for any amendments to potentially to give National Energy Board greater responsibilities to protect our environment?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the bill at second reading so it can go to committee stage.

One of the major concerns I have with the bill is the discretionary power that would be handed over to either the National Energy Board or cabinet. We will bring in amendments along those lines.

The other concern I have is that even though this is a baby step toward polluter pays, the step is not large enough to cover the full cost. I am still worried about the huge cost the public would end up paying, while the profits would be reaped by the big oil companies.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta for her very interesting speech.

Pipeline companies are asking for authorization to do things that can be extremely worrisome. For example, energy east wants to cross the St. Lawrence. Never before has an enormous heavy bitumen pipeline crossed a waterway as large and as dense as the St. Lawrence. The transshipment point for the northern gateway pipeline project, which was approved by the National Energy Board, has been challenged by several experts. They say that this is a dangerous place to navigate enormous oil tankers.

The proponents want to transport a million barrels of oil a day across the St. Lawrence and select a transshipment point that was severely criticized by marine safety experts because it opens the door to the possibility of major accidents. A billion-dollar liability is not enough because the damage caused by a catastrophe of that nature would cost much more.

Can my colleague comment on that aspect of the problem?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hard-working colleague. He does an incredible job in his riding and he represents his constituents with a great deal of passion in the House.

He has raised a really good question, and we need to be really clear about it. The bill only covers those pipeline spills or accidents that happen if the barrels of oil per day are over 250,000. If they are less, this does not apply. That is of a great deal of concern. Also, looking at history and what we know about the cost of cleanup, $1 billion are totally under the amount that is needed.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition appears to have changed its tune. It would seem that an epiphany has occurred. It now believes what we have been saying all along, that Canada is a country blessed with natural resources and that we can grow the economy, while protecting the environment.

Bill C-46 builds on previous actions taken by our government to prevent incidents. These actions include increasing the number of annual pipeline inspections and audits conducted by the National Energy Board, as well as strengthening the board's enforcement capabilities by giving it the authority to fine pipeline operators for smaller incidents, all of which the NDP voted against.

Could the member explain why the New Democrats voted against those very important measures?