Leon Benoit

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member opposite for his presentation today. In fact, he was doing really well until he got to the part about Justice Wells' recommendations.

I say that because we had Justice Wells before a committee on this bill. That question was asked of him in several different ways, about the fact that recommendation 29 was not included in the legislation.

He made it really clear that the protection he referred to in recommendation 29 was covered by this bill, and covered extremely well. He said, and this is a quote from the committee:

Somebody has worked hard—more than one person, I suspect—on this bill. I know that it's been under consideration for a number of years. Quite honestly, I think it's a good job and I think it will help to formalize some of the concepts that people knowledgeable about the industry and the regulatory people have thought about for some time.

That is his comment, and it was in response to a question about recommendation 29.

I would like to ask the member why he does not take Justice Wells' word for it, that in fact, the concerns he expressed in recommendation 29 have been covered in other ways?

[Energy Safety and Security Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it just has a different name. I just wanted to make that clear for the Liberal members across the floor who were responding.

The nuclear industry is of course safe. But still, in case there is an incident, it is really important to have the protection in place and provision for the cleanup needs in place. That is why we have the $1 billion absolute liability and unlimited liability. So if there is $10 billion in damage, the company is responsible for paying the $10 billion in a situation—

[Energy Safety and Security Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question that the voters should take a very serious look at in the next election. When the voters in British Columbia looked at that, they rejected the NDP, which had been way ahead in the polls, and elected a Liberal government again, even though the Liberals were very unpopular. The Liberal government in B.C. is of course the conservative government.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a good one and a very important one. It is rare that all of the recommendations of any inquiry are accepted by government, but I believe there is only one or maybe two items from that study that the government is not including in this legislation.

However, the judge who carried out that review came before committee and indicated that in reality what we are doing with this legislation really does the job. So there are other ways of doing the job than exactly through the recommendations the judge and the review presented. He made that very clear. He said that he had made that recommendation, but that the problem was being solved and the situation was being dealt with in another fashion.

I would argue that all of the concerns of the study have been dealt with in this legislation.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is second reading of the bill, which is a general look at the legislation, but the situation is such that the company itself is liable for the actions of the contractors. So the $1 billion absolute liability and the unlimited liability actually do apply to contractors working for the companies, and the companies themselves are held accountable. I think that issue is covered. It was a good question.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to speak to Bill C-22. In my presentation I will answer some of the questions that I have asked of the members across the floor and that they have completely avoided answering; the first one being that, under this legislation, companies would have absolutely unlimited liability. If the cost of cleanup, for example, is $10 billion and if the company is found to have been negligent in some fashion, it would be responsible not only for the $1 billion absolute liability but also for the unlimited liability of $10 billion. The member across the floor, and in fact the last two members, completely refused to acknowledge that, even when questioned on it. I do not mind criticism on legislation, and in fact I appreciate it, if it is fair criticism based on reality. However, that is not what has happened and I am somewhat concerned by that. So in my presentation I will answer some of those questions.

I would like to speak to the offshore aspect of this bill. It does of course cover nuclear liability as well.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, and I look forward to hearing her presentation.

As most hon. members know, the importance of the natural resources industry in Canada's economy cannot be overstated; it is extremely important. When we take the direct and indirect impacts into account, the natural resources sectors represent nearly 20% of Canada's GDP and employ 1.8 million Canadians. Together, the energy, mining, and forestry industries produce an average of $32 billion a year in government revenue to fund things like education, health care, and other social programs, including seniors' pensions.

These numbers suggest one thing, that the development of our natural resources sectors is central to the goal of improving the lives of Canadians right across this country. The critical social programs that benefit Canadians—including health, education, and public pensions, as I mentioned—are all partly funded and sustained by government revenues gained from our natural resources sectors. Our willingness to invest in our natural resources sectors provides continued opportunities for Canadians to live a high quality of life.

We are discovering more opportunities to invest in natural resources, specifically in the energy sector, particularly in Atlantic Canada where there are more than 8,000 people working directly in the offshore sector. As we continue to expand the offshore industry, we will open up even more opportunities for employment. This means more Canadians will be able to provide for their families and invest in their future.

“Future” is the key word here. In fact, at our natural resources committee just today, we are carrying out a study on the cross-country benefits of the oil and gas sector, and in our committee today we had the mayor of Saint John, as an example, expressing the importance in Saint John, New Brunswick, of the oil and gas sector. We had the head of the economic development group there, who expressed very clearly the importance in New Brunswick of the oil and gas sector. They also expressed the potential future if resources in Atlantic Canada and in Newfoundland and Labrador are developed completely. There are many real positives coming from this study, and it is exciting to hear the benefits across the country and the potential benefits into the future.

We cannot do that without also considering the future of our environment, and we all agree with that. That is why, under our plan for responsible resource development, our government intends to ensure that the expansion of offshore resources is done safely and responsibly. It is why we are introducing Bill C-22, new legislation to increase the safety and accountability of Canada's offshore regime. We can say with confidence that our offshore regime is already extremely strong. Companies operating in the offshore are strictly monitored today, even before this legislation.

In the two offshore areas in Atlantic Canada, both the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board ensure that no offshore development proceeds unless rigorous environmental protections are in place. It is already there.

Our government believes that industry must be accountable in the event of an accident. We have been working together with our two partners, our provincial governments in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, to establish an offshore regime that is not only strong but truly world class and world leading. When I speak about holding industry accountable, I am referring to the polluter pays principle, which has already been acknowledged by members in the House as being something they support. I think we all do. This principle holds industry liable for environmental damages incurred in the unlikely event of an incident offshore.

The industry is already subject to unlimited liability, which is what I was talking about, if the parties are found at fault or negligent in the case of an incident. We would not be changing that legal fact with this legislation. What we would be entrenching with Bill C-22 is the principle of increasing the amounts of absolute liability. Absolute liability ensures that operators have the resources for the cleanup costs of an accident or damages to others, regardless of fault or negligence. Right now absolute liability is set at $30 million for the industry operating on either of the two Atlantic offshore areas. That applies to the nuclear sector as well. It is set at $40 million elsewhere in Canada's offshore. Under Bill C-22, the minimum would be set at $1 billion for all areas of the offshore, bringing us in line with international standards, and in most cases exceeding them. That is absolute liability. Some members who have spoken to this legislation have not differentiated or understood that there is the $1 billion absolute liability and also unlimited liability, which would go beyond that in the case of negligence and that type of thing.

With the passing of this legislation, companies operating in the offshore would be subject to among the highest absolute liability thresholds in the world. To ensure compliance with this new standard of liability, companies wishing to operate in these areas must show proof of financial capability equivalent to their absolute liability. It is not some airy-fairy thing; rather, it is based on a careful review of the companies involved.

As part of the assessment, the regulator must be assured that the company has the financial assets to cover the $1 billion absolute liability requirement. We would also require the operators to provide regulators with rapid and unfettered access to at least $100 million that may be used in the rare case of an incident.

Industry would also have the option of setting up a minimum $250 million pooled fund. Operators could choose to use membership in such a fund to serve as their financial responsibility. This would ensure that all companies have the capacity to respond quickly in the unlikely event of an incident. Bill C-22 would also provide the offshore boards, which regulate these operators, with the increased authority and infrastructure to ensure the standards are upheld.

I would like to close by saying that our offshore industry is expanding rapidly, providing Canada with more opportunities than ever before. Canada is well placed to benefit from these opportunities. However, our government is committed to doing so in a responsible and safe fashion. That is the way we are approaching the development of all natural resources. Because of that, Canada is viewed as a country that has the regulatory regime that could be a standard that other countries strive to meet.

I welcome any comments or questions from members across the floor.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech demonstrated that she has not really looked at the bill and that she certainly does not understand it.

The member talked about liability. The reality is that this legislation proposes $1 billion absolute liability, which means whether companies were at fault or not they would have to pay up to $1 billion for cleanup. However, there is also unlimited liability. It is still there, unlimited liability for companies, so if they are found to have been negligent in any fashion, any costs would have to be covered by the company, and those costs could go well above and beyond $1 billion. The member certainly did not indicate that she understood that. Maybe the member had not got to that part of her speech, or maybe she just decided not to include that in her speech. Does she understand that is the situation?

[Committees of the House, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in relation to Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Grain Transport, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman across the floor for his presentation. He did ask some important questions and made some important comments about how farmers, if they cannot move their grain, are going to manage repaying loans from this crop, from seeding this crop over the past few months, and then moving into buying inputs for this next crop. They are valid questions.

I do know that our government has talked to the farm credit corporation and it has indicated it is going to work with farmers as much as it can on this.

I do know that banks understand very well that they are going to have to be patient with repayments, and they will work with farmers on this. They know it is not to their advantage to start pressuring farmers at this point. It does not make any sense. We have been encouraged by that.

We do know that only 40% of the farmers have taken advantage of the cash advance that is available to them. It is maybe slightly more difficult than it has been in the past to apply, but it is not particularly difficult. Once a person has applied once, it is certainly easier the next time. The reality is that this cash is available to the 60% of the farmers who have not used it. I think it is up to $400,000 a year maximum.

However, in the past, governments have delayed that repayment. I believe our government even delayed the repayment requirement. I am not saying we will do that. We are willing to look at anything that has to be done to help farmers through this.

[Grain Transport, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that excellent question by my colleague, as he is certainly familiar with farming. He understands the industry and it is an extremely important question.

The reality is that this was a monopoly Wheat Board, and monopolies just do not work. I had professor in my third year of university teach me my first marketing course and explain why a monopoly would never work, and a government monopoly is the worst kind, which is what the Wheat Board was. It was put in place, for Pete's sake, under the War Measures Act to get cheap grain from farmers. It was not to get more money for farmers; it was to get cheap grain from farmers for the war effort in 1942-43. That is when it was put in place. Then they forgot to get rid of the monopoly. We had to do it, and we finally did.

However, the other thing the opposition members forget about when it comes to the Wheat Board is that farmers did not receive all of their money until more than a year after the time they shipped the grain. How does that help farmers? How is that going to help in a situation like this? It took up to a year and a half sometimes, from the time farmers shipped the grain until the time they get their final payment. That simply does not work.

Farmers still have the option. They can use the Wheat Board if they choose. It is their choice, nothing is forced on them. As I said, I am really starting to see a competitive Wheat Board as one that will help farmers in the years ahead.