OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 126 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, October 9, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 9, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 126 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 126 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 126 (Version officielle) 147 126 09 10 2014 2014/10/09 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Committees of the House Natural Resources Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) Motion for concurrence moved that the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, presented on Thursday, November 28, 2013, be concurred in. The Speaker : Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Impaired Driving Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by citizens of Canada who want to see tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the Criminal Code of Canada to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present a petition from over 1,600 residents of the riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands. The petitioners are calling upon the government to ensure that Saanich Inlet be designated as an area in which boaters and any other vessels are not permitted to discharge raw sewage. They are calling on the House of Commons to work with the Province of British Columbia to protect Saanich Inlet by immediately adding it to the list of designated zones where such discharge is not allowed.

Mandatory Labelling of Products Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands who are concerned about their right to know what is in the products they buy. They are calling on the House of Commons to put in force mandatory labelling of products containing genetically modified materials.

Prostitution Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have close to 2,000 signatures that continue to come in to ask Parliament to decriminalize the selling of sexual services and criminalize the purchasing of sexual services. This is from all provinces across Canada.

Falun Gong Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have another petition calling on Parliament to pass a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs and to amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 646, 647, and 648. [ Text ]

Question No. 646--

Ms. Joyce Murray :

With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Prince Edward Island, providing for each (

i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (

v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, owing to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding she would like the requested information and to ask the corresponding question.

Question No. 647--

Ms. Joyce Murray :

With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Manitoba, providing for each (

i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (

v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, owing to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding she would like the requested information and to ask the corresponding question.

Question No. 648--

Mr. David McGuinty :

With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Saskatchewan, providing for each (

i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (

v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, owing to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding he would like the requested information and to ask the corresponding question.

[ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Business of Supply [ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil Terminal Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) Motion moved: That, in the opinion of the House, the proposed Port of Gros-Cacouna oil terminal, which will be used for the sole purpose of exporting unprocessed Canadian oil, will have a negative impact on the Canadian economy through the loss of well-paid jobs, will constitute an unacceptable environmental threat to the St.

Lawrence ecosystem, including the beluga whale population, and therefore, is not consistent with the principle of sustainable development, and must be rejected. He said: Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour , who will be giving an excellent speech once I have finished. This debate and this motion are very important. They will showcase the foundation of the NDP's sustainable development plan when it forms the government in 2015. It is very important that we get back to basics and define sustainable development.

It is built on three pillars. The first is economic. Of course, development is first economic. We need to determine how a project can benefit the Canadian economy. The Port of Gros-Cacouna project is not economically beneficial. In fact, the economy in this region already relies on ecotourism, fishing and marine resources. An oil spill would be catastrophic for all of those jobs. In addition, this project focuses solely on exporting. There is no opportunity to process the raw material; therefore, there is no possibility to add value or create jobs. That is why this project makes no sense economically.

The second pillar is environmental. The beluga whale, a symbol of Quebec, lives there. The beluga is a symbol not just of Quebec, but of Canada. The beluga is also a threatened species. In 2010, there were about 1,000 belugas, but the latest figures show that in 2012, there were only 880. Protecting the ecosystem and the environment is a very important aspect of sustainable development, but that protection will be impossible in this case. The third pillar is social acceptance. I will explain why later, but I travelled around the Lower St. Lawrence and across Quebec twice, and there is no social acceptance.

The Conservatives have made a real mess of this file, and my colleagues who have been working on it can talk about that later on. For one thing, the Maurice Lamontagne Institute is in the region, and in 2012, the Conservatives made draconian cuts there. Some two-thirds of the scientists who worked at the institute, in fields such as ecotoxicology, lost their jobs. Environmental science was absolutely eviscerated there. In addition, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act has been completely watered down. It has been hacked to bits.

Right now, this act is a problem because environmental assessments and public consultations are no longer reliable. That is what prompted my colleagues and me to move motions in committee. We have been concerned about belugas for a long time. As I said, belugas are a threatened species. They fall under the federal government's Species at Risk Act. That means the federal government is required, under its own act, to protect this species and come up with a recovery strategy, but that has not happened. The species is not recovering. On the contrary, from 2010 to 2012, the number of belugas dropped.

As we approach 2015, the species is probably even more threatened. In the past few years, many young belugas have washed up on the beach and died. Protecting young belugas is critically important to the recovery of this species. That is why, in June, I moved a motion in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup moved a motion in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

We were very concerned about the work that was going on then and we wanted to know if the seismic survey and exploratory drilling work was happening with no regard for species like the beluga and the ecosystem in general off the coast of Cacouna.

(1010) We moved this motion in our respective committees. Unfortunately, the Conservatives decided to proceed in camera. I therefore cannot tell you what was discussed during those in camera meetings, but I can tell you that the motions are no longer on the order paper. Members can figure out what happened. Then, there was a request to conduct exploratory drilling. I went to the Quebec Superior Court to hear the injunction application filed by the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement and other environmentalists who are very concerned about the environment in that area.

I listened to the arguments made by the lawyers for the Centre québécois de droit de l'environnement. The Conservatives' actions on this issue are truly shameful. First, the Government of Quebec asked for clarification so that it could respond to the concerns about the protection of the ecosystem raised in response to TransCanada's request for authorization to conduct exploratory drilling off the coast of Gros-Cacouna. The Conservatives did not bother to respond through Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Then, rather than answering the questions they were asked, they said that they would send a letter.

They did not send a scientific opinion. In the letter, they said that everything was going well, that people should trust them and that the project could go forward. We know what happened next: the Quebec Superior Court granted the injunction. Right now, no exploratory drilling can be done because of the injunction. TransCanada can no longer move forward with that request. The Liberal leader visited the Lower St.

Lawrence region and said that drilling and seismic testing could be done and that he supported the oil port project in Gros-Cacouna, without knowing what was happening and that the project was not backed by scientific evidence. An hon. member: He did not know that? Mr. François Choquette: No, Mr. Speaker, he did not. It is truly shameful. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville even told him that he was disappointed that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was refusing to share scientific information. That came from the September 29, 2014, Hansard. The Liberals do not seem to be on the same page.

In fact, it seems that the Liberal leader is not familiar with the basic principles of sustainable development. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville had to set him straight. I hope that the Liberals will set the Liberal leader straight, explain the basic principles of sustainable development to him and vote in favour of our motion since it is based on those basic principles, namely, environmentally sustainable economic development and the social acceptance of the surrounding community. We moved this motion for all of these reasons, and we are asking the Conservatives to stand with us.

They need to understand that they cannot build an oil port in that location without going against their own species at risk legislation, and the project is not good for the economy either. I hope the government will one day realize that the words “environment” and “economic development” are not mutually exclusive. This proves that the Conservatives do not take environmental protection seriously. They do not understand what sustainable development is. When the NDP forms the government, we will ensure that Canada has not only a sustainable development strategy but also legislation in this area.

In fact, my hon. colleague from Brome—Missisquoi has introduced a bill on sustainable development, and we will continue in that direction. The principle of protecting sustainable development—in other words, the right to clean air, clean water and clean soil—will be written into the charter. We will fulfill these promises once the NDP forms the government. I would also like to draw attention to what the Liberals are doing in this area. The NDP is the only party that has a clear position on sustainable development and the Port of Gros-Cacouna.

(1015) [ English ] Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I will have a chance to respond in my own speech, to provide a little more accurate background. However, I do have a couple of questions. I want to be very clear that he understands that the work that has gone on so far is only exploratory work and that there would in fact be a comprehensive proposal submitted to the National Energy Board that would include a comprehensive environmental assessment.

My first question is to ask if he understands that, because the motion does not sound very clear on that point to me. The second question is this. We have been led to believe that the west-to-east pipeline, energy east, is the centrepiece of NDP energy policy. This exploration is with respect to that, so I would like to know if he still agrees with his leader on that point. [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette : Mr. Speaker, I know very well that we are talking about exploratory drilling.

Now, does he know that his own department was asked for scientific advice on this exploratory drilling, and instead of sending the proper documentation to the Government of Quebec, his department simply sent a letter saying everything was fine, without doing a proper scientific study? This is outrageous. When we asked for studies in committee, they were done in camera. When we asked the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to hold an emergency meeting, that was also held in camera.

The Conservatives cannot say that they support environmental protection and then do everything behind closed doors, without any scientific advice. As for the member's other question, it is important to understand that this part of the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal is used for export only, so there is nothing here to create jobs or protect our fishery resources. (1020) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a very important issue for us to discuss today. I for one am very fond of the beluga.

It is a wonderful whale and contributes immensely to Churchill, to tourism, and so forth. Having said that, I have a question in regard to his own leader. I am sure he is familiar with the fact that his leader used to be the environment minister under the Liberal government in the province of Quebec. When the leader of the New Democratic Party was the minister of environment in Quebec, he had an opportunity to do a lot of things the member referenced. Why does he believe his leader today seemed to ignore the issue back then when he was the minister of environment? [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette : Mr.

Speaker, I am very proud of our leader's record as Quebec's environment minister. He is the father of Quebec's sustainable development legislation. He is the one who added the right to clear air, water and soil to the charter. That is what we are going to do when we form the government in 2015. It is not over. I have a big problem with the position of my colleague's party across the way. This summer, I went to the Lower St. Lawrence twice. When the leader of the Liberal Party strolled around there, he said the Port of Gros-Cacouna oil terminal was a good thing.

He was not even aware that the decisions were not backed by science. Even his member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville had to set him straight. The other Liberal members will have to set their leader straight to get him to make sound decisions. Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with my esteemed colleague's speech. He provided us with some very interesting details. When it comes to endangered species as interesting and invaluable as belugas, we have to do scientific research before we proceed.

My colleague's speech made me realize that there is no indication that any scientific research was done. Why? Mr. François Choquette : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague very much for the question. This is a prime example of the Conservatives muzzling scientists and showing an utter lack of transparency. The Conservatives requested in camera meetings at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development three times instead of listening to the advice of the scientists at Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

If they have nothing to hide, then why request in camera meetings and why muzzle the scientists? Never before had public servants, scientists, demonstrated in front of the House of Commons. This was unprecedented. Frankly, the Conservatives have to take responsibility for protecting sustainable development. The basic principles of sustainable development are good for the environment and for the economy. When the NDP forms the government, it will respect the principles of sustainable development. [ English ] Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, it is a pleasure and privilege to engage in this debate. I thank my colleague, the member for Drummond , for his remarks on our motion regarding the proposed Port of Gros-Cacouna oil terminal. It is something about which we are very troubled on this side. Let me first acknowledge my colleagues, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup , the member for Drummond , and the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques , for the incredible work they have been doing on this issue. The Port of Gros-Cacouna and the St.

Lawrence are extremely sensitive ecosystems, not to mention the extraordinary danger we would be putting the beluga whale under, a mammal that is covered under the Species at Risk Act. I want to spend a few minutes talking about why it is we are so concerned about what the government is doing. Just this week the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development released a report that confirmed our fears, which have been increasing over the past 3.5 years, that the Conservative government only seems interested in minimalizing the federal government's involvement in environmental assessments.

Time after time, it is doing everything it can to ensure that proper assessments are not being done, assessments in terms of the environment, whether it be for the transportation of oil or other forms of development. The government is neglecting its responsibility and trying to turn over responsibility to the proponents in many cases. What it fails to realize is that, by conducting proper environmental assessments, not only would it protect the environment but it would also be good for the economy. Surely, in this day and age, we have to recognize that we must commit to ensuring that we deal with the environment.

We must begin to address the question of climate change that is right there in front of all of us in real terms. It needs to be addressed. If we do not deal with these issues, then we are turning our backs on the economy; we are turning our backs on the sustainability of our country and, frankly, of our world. In that respect, on this side the New Democrats believe in two particular principles.

One is that proper community consultations need to be done so that not only do the communities on the ground get involved and understand what the impacts are but also the government authorities understand how the communities feel, how the people in those communities that would be most directly affected feel. Also, environmental assessments are the bedrock of sustainable development. The government has told us not to worry: it is not that far along, and there is no need to be concerned.

Let me remind members that it was just in March of this year that TransCanada submitted a project description to the National Energy Board for the energy east pipeline, which includes the proposal to export unprocessed oil at the Port of Gros-Cacouna. We know that an official application for the entire project is expected in the coming weeks.

(1025) Our concern stems from what we learned time and again, whether it is from the commissioner of the environment or whether it is with respect to coast guard capacity to deal with problems that may arise: the government is just simply not ready. A decision was reached recently in this regard by the court. In September 2014, a decision forced TransCanada to stop all work in Cacouna because it was revealed that the Conservative government had shunned all collaboration with the Government of Quebec. Maybe the parliamentary secretary would explain that.

The judge in this case was concerned about the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had refused for some reason to share with its provincial counterparts the results of studies it had conducted. Quebec asked to see the scientific advice on several occasions, but the Conservatives failed to make this information available. The Conservatives refused to hear what specialized marine mammal scientists have had to say. They refused to hold special fisheries and oceans committee meetings to discuss the issue.

My colleagues mentioned earlier that there were special motions brought before the fisheries and oceans committee and the environment committee to try to deal with this issue. We understood that the Government of Quebec was not able to get at this information, but its members thought, as responsible members of Parliament for this particular area of Quebec, they could perhaps use their role as members of Parliament with participation on the various standing committees to try to bring officials before our committee to ask them those questions, try to get at that information.

Those motions went into private, in-camera meetings. We do not know what was discussed in those in-camera meetings, except to say that no information has been shared with members of this House on this particular matter, and the issue has disappeared from the agendas of those particular committees. I also cite the issue of marine protected areas. The government signed on to a UN commitment to achieve 10% protection of our coastline by the year 2020. Here we are in 2014 and we are at less than 1%.

That is important in this regard because of the marine protected area initiative safeguarding the area around the Saguenay-St. Laurence Marine Park. The government has failed to more forward on that. This particular initiative aimed, first and foremost, to protect the St. Lawrence belugas' full range of habitat, but we found out that the Canada-Quebec committee looking into the establishment of this marine park area has never even met. How can the Conservatives claim to be protecting beluga whale habitat when they are clearly, at every opportunity, torpedoing the area's marine conservation projects?

The Conservatives are not up to the task. They are not doing what needs to be done to protect our environment, to ensure that the species at risk that are covered by legislation are in fact protected. They are not doing the work that ensures a principle in which we believe is maintained and strengthened, and that is the principle of sustainable development. At every opportunity, the Conservatives have been passing up on opportunities to protect our environment, as they are hell-bent to develop our natural resources in a way that, frankly, puts our ecosystem at risk.

(1030) That is why my colleagues and I will be standing in the House to debate this issue throughout the day: because we believe it is another example of how the government has fallen short, another example of why we need to elect a party to form a government that is actually committed to sustainable development. Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question for the member while it is early in the discussion. I listened to the member's speech, which was very clear, but one area that I still do not quite understand is the NDP's biggest concern.

Is it the pipeline, or is it the oil tanker traffic, or is it both? I wonder if the member could clarify that so that as we begin this discussion, we know what footing New Democrats are on.

(1035) Mr. Robert Chisholm : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, which is a good one, and I will be clear: New Democrats are concerned on a number of levels. With respect to the St. Lawrence ecosystem, we are concerned about endangered wildlife species such as the beluga. The government is failing to put in place the necessary protections and has failed to disclose information that would help local communities understand what the impacts are.

It is failing to address the concerns being brought forward to the point where the Quebec court finally had to issue an injunction to stop it and ordered the release of this information. Let me be clear. New Democrats think that bitumen should be upgraded in Canada, that jobs should be created in this country, that it should not be exported offshore. The work should be done here. However, all this particular project is proposing to do is to ship more— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. [ Translation ] Mr.

Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out, the way this motion was written covers up the problem. In other words, this government has not disclosed all the scientific facts known to the minister's office or to marine mammal experts. Why does the motion not explicitly mention this problem which, to my way of thinking, is this government's main problem regarding this issue? [ English ] Mr. Robert Chisholm : Mr. Speaker, the motion clearly spells out the concerns we have with the proposal to develop a crude oil exporting port at the Port of Gros-Cacouna.

Now it is time for that member, as New Democrats will, to explain the issues at the heart of this situation and why we are so concerned. He raised the point that the federal government has failed to release information. That failure is a very key ingredient, and one that I hope we will hear him expound on some more. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I think we need to look more broadly at the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

At this point, the Green Party is the only party calling for a full moratorium on oil and gas exploration and development in this very sensitive ecosystem, although I know that historically there has been quite a bit of interest from New Democrats, and I hope they will come out in favour of a full moratorium. My question for the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour is this: is it his understanding that what will be shipped to this port is going to be bitumen mixed with diluent—in other words, not even at the level of synthetic crude, not upgraded, but bitumen mixed with diluent?

That is my understanding, but I would like that point to be confirmed. Mr. Robert Chisholm : Mr. Speaker, what is going to be shipped is part of the issue. We do not know, and we do not know what the ramifications will be, but we do know that this proposal has been presented. We have been demanding, and continue to demand on behalf of the citizens of that region, this country, and Quebec, that the government understand the potential impact on the ecosystem and on the beluga, the species at risk, and that it be much more demanding in terms of what information is required.

Then the government must ensure that the information is provided to Canadians.

(1040) Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate today. I hope we will get some clarity as we go throughout the rest of the day. Let me begin with a

summary of my thoughts. Our government is committed to responsible resource development. DFO's mandate is to ensure that when proponents want to implement projects, specific criteria for the protection and recovery of species at risk, such as the beluga whale, are respected. I can assure everyone in the House that our government remains committed to the protection of species at risk and that DFO takes this responsibility seriously. In addition to the measures under the Species at Risk Act, commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries are protected under the Fisheries Act.

This means that areas that support such fisheries are protected against serious harm, which includes protection of habitat and protection against the death of fish. TransCanada Pipeline's proposed energy east project includes the construction and operation of a shipping terminal near the port of Gros-Cacouna, Quebec. The project involves the conversion of an existing pipeline and the construction of new pipeline sections to transport oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to eastern Canada.

The project includes the construction and operation of two shipping terminals, one in Cacouna, Quebec, and the other in Saint John, New Brunswick. It is well known that the area around Cacouna is at certain times of the year inhabited by beluga whales. I should mention at this time that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's . The project application has not yet been filed with the National Energy Board. TransCanada has not submitted a proposal for review, contrary to what my NDP colleagues have said.

Therefore, complete details of the proposed development at Cacouna are not available. Although the National Energy Board will be responsible for conducting the environmental assessment, DFO will intervene in the National Energy Board hearing process and will review the project and provide advice with respect to our mandate in accordance with well-established processes that rely on scientific information. In conducting the review, DFO will assess the project under both the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act.

Under the Fisheries Act, experts will assess whether the project is likely to result in harm to fish and subsequently determine if potential harm can be alleviated with appropriate avoidance, mitigation, or offsetting measures. This is a robust process to ensure the ongoing productivity and sustainability of Canada's commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries.

Under the Species at Risk Act, DFO will assess whether, first, all reasonable alternatives to the activity that would reduce the impact on the species have been considered and the best solution has been adopted; second, whether all feasible measures will be taken to minimize the impact of the activity on a species or its critical habitat; and third, whether the activity will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species. As we are all aware, and as I have already said, the St. Lawrence estuary beluga whale is a species at risk, and all efforts should be made to avoid impacts on the species.

It is for this reason that DFO has been actively engaged since the early stages of this project. DFO has provided information with respect to the requirements of the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act to the proponent and has shared existing scientific reports and analyses with the Province of Quebec. The proposed TransCanada energy east project is currently in the exploratory phase.

In preparation for the proposed terminal at Cacouna, TransCanada submitted a proposal to Fisheries and Oceans Canada to conduct seismic testing and exploration drilling in order to define the geological structure of the proposed terminal site. The department reviewed the proposal to determine whether it would adversely impact listed aquatic species at risk and whether it was likely to cause serious harm to fish, which is prohibited under the Fisheries Act. Again, the proposal was reviewed in accordance with well-established science-based processes.

Following the review, a Species at Risk Act permit was issued for the seismic survey project, but the survey was limited to a less sensitive time when beluga whales were less likely to be present. The permit required that the seismic testing be completed by April 30 of this year, which has been done.

(1045) Following the review of the proposed exploratory drilling project, DFO officials provided a letter back to TransCanada that included measures to avoid potential impacts on the St. Lawrence beluga. Measures included the presence of a marine mammal observer, ongoing monitoring of beluga presence, and the creation of a protection zone around the work site such that if belugas were observed within 500 metres of the work, then work would stop.

DFO advised the proponent that provided these mitigation measures were incorporated into TransCanada's plans, DFO was of the view that the exploratory drilling would not result in serious harm to fish, nor would it contravene the Species at Risk Act. This determination was based on a wealth of existing knowledge and scientific information. The project proponent committed to avoiding impacts to the species by undertaking activities during less sensitive periods as well as by implementing mitigation measures during drilling to ensure that the St. Lawrence beluga whale is protected.

The Province of Quebec issued two authorizations for the exploratory drilling. In reaching its decision, the province relied on the same scientific information used by DFO. As an example, on September 17, as per the protocol, drilling operations were shut down because of beluga presence in the area. In fact, this was exactly how it was supposed to work. Since that time, on September 23 the Superior Court of Quebec issued an interlocutory injunction halting the drilling until October 15, 2014. However, let me be clear that the impact of that decision would not change anything concerning DFO's advice.

This decision was entirely related to Quebec provincial laws and a provincial review and authorization process. I remain confident in the expertise of DFO staff and the review process that was followed at the federal level. Throughout the upcoming review process, DFO will continue to be actively engaged in the environmental assessment to ensure the protection of the St. Lawrence beluga whale. To demonstrate the thoroughness of our project reviews, I will highlight some of the steps implemented by DFO.

Upon receiving a project for review, DFO officials review the project in accordance with the requirements of the Fisheries Act and the Species At Risk Act. These reviews rely on the best available scientific information. Officials review the information provided to determine whether additional information is needed to make a determination on whether serious harm to fish is likely and whether there are potential impacts to species at risk that must be considered. To ensure a complete analysis, consultation with other experts in the department, including our scientists, is performed.

If it is determined that the project is not likely to result in serious harm or to require a Species at Risk Act permit, the biologist notifies the proponent through a letter of advice, which may include measures to mitigate potential impacts to fish and fish habitat, including species at risk. If this determination cannot immediately be made, the biologist has discussions with the proponent on appropriate mitigation and offsetting to determine whether an authorization can in fact be issued.

For the review of the energy east project, including the proposed project activities at Cacouna, the National Energy Board review process will involve a hearing. DFO will have intervenor status at the hearing and will provide expertise to the process related to the department's mandate. This includes expertise with respect to marine mammals such as the St. Lawrence beluga. Let me conclude by saying again that projects do not move forward unless they are safe for the environment and safe for Canadians. [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's commendable speech. He said that everything will be done so that this is safe for the environment. However, there has been an initiative to protect marine areas around the Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park for 15 years now. There is also a committee of people from Canada and Quebec. What did we learn this year? We learned that, as long as the committee has been around, it has never met. Never.

How does he explain the fact that he wants to protect the belugas and that the recovery plan recommends creating a marine protected area, but that the committee has never met? (1050) [ English ] Mr. Randy Kamp : Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat what I said in my speech. The activities that have taken place are exploratory activities in preparation for TransCanada PipeLines potentially submitting a proposal to the National Energy Board. The National Energy Board approval process will be a very rigorous, robust process in which DFO will participate.

In terms of the exploratory activities, DFO has carefully followed its normal processes in terms of consulting scientists and the scientific information that is available, and in doing due diligence in this case. Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, but does he realize that he is contradicted by the Superior Court of Quebec ruling that shows very clearly that DFO did not communicate to the Quebec department the information that the scientists at DFO were not favourable toward drilling during the fall? It did not share this information.

How did the minister do that? That is bad federalism, it is bad for the protection of species, and it is bad for the project. Can we have an answer to this very simple question? Mr. Randy Kamp : Mr. Speaker, let me provide a simple answer. The Province of Quebec had its own obligation to conduct its own review in order to provide its authorization. I cannot speak to the work it did.

However, I know that on August 8, in response to a letter from the Quebec ministry, DFO sent the ministry both documents it produced on the geotechnical work and all the supporting documents used to produce its analysis and make a decision about the project. I could provide the list. I will not bore the member with that list of documents, but I can tell him that this is exactly what happened. Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his great intervention.

Members may know that I have the honour of chairing the environment committee, but the environment committee is called the environment committee and sustainable development committee. It has both of those obligations. Yesterday officials from Environment Canada came before our committee. I was really encouraged to hear about the great work our government is doing on the environment. For example, our greenhouse emissions between 2005 and 2012 decreased by over 5%, while the economy grew by 10%.

In fact, our per capita greenhouse emissions are lower than at any point since records have been kept, so Canada is certainly doing its job. However, as I mentioned, the committee is called the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We all know that the NDP sometimes uses the acronym for the “no development party”, but just recently, in a 2012 speech at the Canadian Club of Toronto, the Leader of the Opposition called the shipment of western oil to eastern Canada a pro-business, common sense solution. Maybe there is hope.

However, I want to ask my colleague why the NDP is putting this motion before us to reject this project before it has even been submitted to the National Energy Board. Mr. Randy Kamp : Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague raises a very good question. I am not sure I know the answer to it. I was actually quite puzzled by the motion, at least the wording of the motion, because it would seem to me that we could read this motion as not supporting the notion of an energy east pipeline.

In particular, it is weighing in on this before a proposal has been submitted to the National Energy Board and submitted to that rigorous process. It is mind-boggling to me.

(1055) Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise in debate on this motion today. It is very clear that Canada is blessed to be home to an abundant array of natural resources. Without question, our government is committed to protecting Canada's diverse marine ecosystems and to the conservation of the species contained in those ecosystems. I want to talk about that further, because one level of government cannot do that alone.

We have to collaborate with other levels of government, with all three levels of government in this great country, quite frankly. There is no good in the opposition getting up to make wild accusations that somehow one project that has been very closely monitored is going to destroy an entire species or an entire ecosystem. I would just like to bring up the fact that some 3,000 ships pass through this ecosystem every year.

I would suspect that if the NDP were to get its way, it would want to shut down all that shipping, every last ship that goes through the belugas' ecosystem, which is a large and substantial ecosystem. Let us talk about reasonable and responsible development and how we go about that. We are honoured, as the government, to have the responsibility to be stewards of these resources, to protect them, to enjoy them, and to benefit from them. The Species at Risk Act, SARA, is a key component, given the many variables to consider in effectively protecting aquatic species in our waters and in helping them to recover.

The Species at Risk Act is one of the federal government's key conservation tools. Given the variety and the geographic distribution of protected species, the Species at Risk Act has the potential to involve many Canadians, from commercial fishers and the aquaculture industry to recreational fishers and individuals. The act supports biodiversity and the long-term sustainability of Canada's aquatic species and fisheries: commercial, aboriginal, and recreational. We know that healthy fish stocks and aquatic systems are the key to stable and prosperous fisheries.

The purpose of the act is to prevent threatened wildlife from becoming extinct and to provide for their recovery. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, along with Environment Canada and Parks Canada, are responsible for the implementation of the Species at Risk Act. The Minister of the Environment has primary responsibility for its administration and is the responsible minister for all species on federal lands as well as migratory birds. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the minister responsible for aquatic species other than those found in areas administered by Parks Canada.

The Species at Risk Act establishes a process for conducting scientific assessments of the status of individual wildlife and aquatic species. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, is a non-government committee of scientific experts that identifies and assesses wildlife and aquatic species at risk in Canada. The committee undertakes assessments of wildlife and aquatic species on an annual basis. On receiving these assessments, the Governor in Council must make a decision as to whether a species will be included on

schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act. When it is decided to list a species under the Species at Risk Act as extirpated, endangered, or threatened, recovery strategies and action plans are prepared. Recovery strategies identify threats to the species and its habitat. These strategies also identify critical habitat to the extent possible and set population and distribution objectives for the species. I say that to let all Canadians know that there is a process, and the process is adhered to and followed by every department of the government.

Action plans outline the steps to be taken to meet the objectives in any recovery strategy. For species listed as a special concern, the act requires the preparation of a management plan, including measures to be taken for the species' conservation. These are just some of the steps DFO takes to protect these species.

On top of that, they have a duty to consult with various stakeholders on designated species, to provide advice to the Minister of the Environment on whether the species should be listed for legal protection under SARA, and to work with affected stakeholders to develop recovery strategies and action plans for species protected under SARA.

(1100) On top of that, they have a responsibility to conduct additional scientific research on the impact of fisheries and other activities on listed species and their habitat; to update fisheries management plans, where applicable, to include new conservation measures; and to develop a compliance plan. When they develop a compliance plan, they base that on sound scientific research and stakeholder conversations. The Species at Risk Act emphasizes, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, co-operation and stewardship of the species at risk. No single government or entity can recover species at risk by itself.

In particular, co-operation between the federal departments and agencies is required. The Species at Risk Act also emphasizes co-operation with the provincial and territorial partners, aboriginal organizations, landowners, resource users, and Canadians in general. From our perspective, there can be no success without the work of everyone involved. The scope, scale, and importance of this process demands a collaborate effort. A key component in the government's collaboration and consultation with Canadians is the SARA public registry.

The public registry is a key source of news, information, and documents related to species at risk in Canada. What this does not mean is that we stop all development in this country every single time there is an issue. I have just explained that there is a very thorough process. We allow the process to take place, listen to the scientific advice that is given by all the stakeholders, and then make a decision based on science. That is exactly what the Government of Canada, with the advice of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, does.

We recognize the importance of shared stewardship and taking action at a local level to recover species. Our investments ensure that Canadians can take steps to protect the habitats of species at risk. With respect to the St. Lawrence beluga whale, this government has been active in support of the recovery of this species. In March 2012, a recovery strategy for the species was finalized. The recovery strategy was developed in close collaboration with our partners, which included marine mammal experts, representatives of the Government of Quebec, Parks Canada, and other interested stakeholders.

We realize that aquatic ecosystems need a wide variety of species to remain robust and productive and to provide economic benefits to Canadians. The greater the variety of species within an ecosystem, the more able it is to withstand threats and pressures. The more simple an ecosystem is, the more vulnerable it will be to degradation, loss of species, and loss of productivity. Species such the beluga whale are essential components of the aquatic ecosystem and provide significant benefits to coastal communities and to Canadians.

Recovery efforts can take time, but significant progress is being made, and species are being recovered. The Pacific humpback whale is a recent example of this. Its status has improved from “threatened” to “special concern”. We are confident that more success is forthcoming in the future. In closing, I again ask for continued collaboration across all levels of government and with all Canadians. Our government will continue to provide leadership in the conservation and protection of Canada's aquatic systems and in the recovery of aquatic species at risk. Finally, we have a motion here.

The motion was brought in good faith, but we have to listen to what the proponent of the motion is actually saying. What I am hearing is that there should be no development, no interaction, in this area whatsoever. We have very clear guidelines and limitations on what industry and ship traffic can do in the area. Those are sound, reasonable, and responsible regulations that control shipping traffic in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The alternative the member seems to be proposing is simply to stop all traffic and all development in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and to simply do nothing.

(1105) [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my honourable colleague for speaking about this very important and very worrisome issue of sustainable development in general, and the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal in particular. He mentioned several times that he believed in science, among other things. This is funny, though, because the Quebec Superior Court just mentioned that it had to respond to an injunction that there was no scientific basis for allowing drilling off the coast of Cacouna.

Where are these scientific opinions that the hon. member is claiming to have and to be submitting? Why did the Quebec Superior Court grant a request for an injunction if there was scientific evidence? I just do not get it. Perhaps the hon. member could clarify things for me. [ English ] Mr. Gerald Keddy : Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. As my hon. colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has already said, the injunction only came after all activities had already stopped.

There was collaboration between the federal government, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Province of Quebec on this issue. As to the drilling activity in the seabed, that was looked at early on. There was no scientific evidence to put any mitigation measures beyond what were put in place to begin with to limit that drilling. There were very clear parameters of what they could and could not do, all of them falling within the regulatory regime and all of them not being harmful to the belugas. Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague is contradicted by the court ruling. He contends that there was co-operation between governments, but I want my colleague to listen to paragraph 88 of the ruling in French: [ Translation ] ...[the Department of Fisheries and Oceans] is withholding the requested scientific information.

It did not respond to the two questions asked by the [Quebec ministry]...It simply reiterated information that the Quebec minister already had and that was cause for concern, but provided no additional explanation. [ English ] This is why an injunction has been made: because the federal minister did not communicate the scientific information to the provincial minister. This is a court ruling. How can he explain this mess? Mr. Gerald Keddy : Mr. Speaker, I have to respectfully disagree with my hon. colleague's

interpretation of what actually happened. On August 8, DFO sent to Quebec both documents it produced on the geotechnical work and all supporting documents that were used to produce its analysis and make a decision on this project. It is very clear that the information was shared and it was shared in great detail. Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue 's explanation about the process that is followed is very helpful.

He has been here longer than most of us, so I would like to ask him, based on his experience and I know he is well informed on fisheries issues having been the chair of that committee in the past, if it seems strange to him for a motion to be brought before the House for the House to pronounce on the outcome of a proposal that has not yet been submitted to the National Energy Board. Mr. Gerald Keddy : Mr. Speaker, it is not just strange, it is bizarre. It truly is.

I understand that the member for Drummond brought this motion mostly in good faith, but one has to extrapolate what we are actually talking about here. This is the thin edge of the wedge from the NDP, shutting down all traffic in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I say again that 3,000 ships pass through this habitat every single year, so all the rest of these ships, I assume, are a risk to the habitat as well. Again, I go back to the question from my Liberal colleague. There was collaboration between the Government of Canada and the Province of Quebec.

What we need here is a clear debate on a real issue, but let us be clear that there is no application at this point. (1110) [ Translation ] Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by our NDP colleague, the hon. member for Drummond , calls on this House to speak out against the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal project. This motion is premature since a comprehensive environmental assessment of the project has not been done yet.

However, what is troubling is that the Conservative government is not showing any signs that it is interested in moving ahead with a comprehensive environmental assessment. That is unacceptable and must be condemned. That is what I hope to do on behalf of the Liberal caucus in the 20 minutes I have been given. First, what is this project? [ English ] TransCanada's energy east pipeline project is a planned 4,600-kilometre crude oil pipeline, which would run west to east from Alberta to existing refineries in new terminals in Quebec and New Brunswick.

The marine terminals would be used to export oil to international markets. The Cacouna terminal area near Rivière-du-Loup on the St. Lawrence River is one of the project's potential marine terminals. TransCanada has not yet submitted the energy east project to the National Energy Board for review and approval, and thus the project has yet to receive an environmental assessment. That is why we cannot rule on this project now. We do not yet have the environmental assessment.

However, as part of an eventual National Energy Board application, TransCanada is conducting exploratory work around the feasibility of developing a port in Cacouna. To do this, TransCanada filed an application with the federal government and with the Quebec environment ministry, which issued a permit allowing the company to drill into the seabed in order to decide where to place the terminal. On September 23, 2014, Quebec's Superior Court granted a temporary injunction to stop seismic surveys in Cacouna until October 15.

The court found that the province never had the information required to assess whether or not the belugas would be put at risk, because the environmental science division of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans withheld scientific information. Those are the facts. The first observation is that Canada needs new infrastructure to move our energy resources to domestic and global markets. The second observation is that these projects must earn the trust of local communities and cannot ignore the implications for coastal economies and for the environment.

That is why we Liberals are deeply concerned that the Conservative government deliberately withheld the information needed to assess the impact of the explorations being conducted at Cacouna. This is yet another example of the Conservative government preventing scientists and evidence from informing decision-making on project development. [ Translation ] In that respect, the Quebec Superior Court ruling is damning for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I want to share with you the main thrust of the Quebec Superior Court ruling. Last spring, TransCanada began conducting geophysical surveys in Cacouna.

Before the permit was granted, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans consulted with its beluga experts, including Ms. Lesage, Mr. Hammil, Mr. Cyr, Mr. Gosselin, Mr. McQuinn and Mr. Simard. There were at least six experts.

(1115) Their verdict was that the work could not be carried out after the spring, because summer and fall are critical to the birth and nursing of belugas. However, in May and July, Fisheries and Oceans Canada issued an opinion and a permit without consulting the previously mentioned scientists regarding the second phase of work, the drilling that was supposed to take place in the summer and fall during the critical period for the birth and nursing of belugas. Why are they no longer experts all of a sudden? They are experts in the spring, but not in the summer and fall.

No, the minister no longer consults with these experts. Perhaps she was afraid of their recommendations. Instead, the minister is satisfied to issue an opinion in favour of summer and fall drilling, drafted by Alain Kemp, who is not an expert on belugas. That is the sad truth. That is what is happening in the department, and we must denounce it today. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans then sent a letter in favour of drilling to the Quebec ministry of sustainable development, the environment and the fight against climate change.

This letter was not signed by an expert, but by the director of sciences, Yves de Lafontaine, an administrator who knows nothing about belugas. However, Robert Michaud, an independent scientist—and unquestionably one of the best experts on the St. Lawrence belugas in Canada, if not in the world—prepared an affidavit basically saying that the opinion of Fisheries and Oceans Canada does not meet the legislative requirements in terms of having the best scientific information available, and that the operations will certainly harm the belugas.

Has the minister seen the affidavit of one of our best experts, Robert Michaud? Has my colleague seen it? Why did he not talk about it in his speech? Ms. Jean, who was responsible for the file at the Quebec ministry of sustainable development, the environment and the fight against climate change, was faced with conflicting advice. Knowing that under Quebec and Canadian law a permit can be issued only on the basis of the best scientific advice, she asked, virtually begged, for a scientific opinion from Fisheries and Oceans Canada several times. She has been unfairly judged in the last little while.

However, this was not her fault as she did everything she could. She was not satisfied with the advice from Mr. Kemp or the letter from Mr. Yves de Lafontaine, and rightly so, because he is not a beluga expert but an administrator. Ms. Jean never got what she asked for from the department. Why did the minister not facilitate the exchange of scientific information between governments, which is a good practice of federalism essential to the common good? I will quote

article 88 of the Quebec Superior Court ruling: [The Department of Fisheries and Oceans] is withholding the requested scientific information. Let us be honest, no scientific advice was provided. The ruling then says: It did not respond to...questions asked by the [Quebec ministry]....It simply reiterated information that the [Quebec] minister already had and that was cause for concern, but provided no additional explanation. Quebec already had the bundle of documents my colleague mentioned, and that was not what it was asking.

The Fisheries and Oceans experts had the information, but the minister refused to let them talk. She muzzled them and did not consult them. Too bad for the belugas and too bad for the project. That is how the Conservatives do things, and that is why we have to be very worried about their approach. That is not good federalism, good environmental policy or good economic policy. In a last-ditch attempt, Ms. Jean called Dr. Véronique Lesage, an expert on marine mammals at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, directly and more than once. The record of their conversation is in the court documents. It shows that Ms.

Lesage was not consulted by her department, even though she is an expert. It also shows that she referred Ms. Jean to her superiors and she said that Mr. Michaud's affidavit was accurate. In other words, the best scientific information was consistent with Mr. Michaud's opinion, which contradicted the opinion of Fisheries and Oceans Canada drafted by Mr. Kemp, who is not an expert on belugas. This opinion supported drilling in the fall.

(1120) Quebec then issued a permit, which the judge suspended by means of an injunction. The judge was of the opinion that the process was dubious, since Fisheries and Oceans Canada had not issued any scientific advice from which to proceed. None of this would have happened if the federal minister had listened to her scientists and shared that information, in the spirit of federalism, with the Government of Quebec. By doing what she did, she hurt the environment and showed how little she cares about the survival of the iconic beluga.

The minister weakened the credibility of the assessment and consultation process, which is essential to moving forward with the project. Does the minister at least realize that the St. Lawrence beluga has been a threatened species for more than 20 years, pursuant to the Species at Risk Act? According to this act, a scientific committee must be formed and a recovery strategy must be drafted. This strategy must identify the critical habitat to be fully protected. Does the minister realize that all of this was done and that the revised strategy was completed nearly three years ago?

The sector in which TransCanada/energy east wants to build its port is in a critical habitat, deemed to be essential to the survival of the beluga species. For the recovery strategy and critical habitat to work, the Minister of the Environment has to acknowledge receipt of the strategy, recognize it and recognize the critical habitat defined in the strategy. For the past three years, however, the Minister of the Environment has not acknowledged receipt of a single document concerning any marine mammal species at risk in Canada forwarded by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Why?

Why has she not acknowledged receipt and recognized the importance of protecting belugas off the coast of Cacouna? What is going on? What is the government trying to protect at the expense of sustainable development here? Why all the secrets? Why refuse to take action? Why the lack of transparency that is having such a detrimental effect on sustainable development? Why refuse to listen to scientists?

It is not surprising that in her latest report released this week, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development concluded that under the Conservatives, environmental assessments have lacked clarity and transparency. [ English ] To conclude, the Liberals have been consistent in calling for stronger environmental protections and in pushing for a more substantive project review process. That is what our leader, the MP for Papineau , is determined to deliver for the sake of our environment and our economy: sound, sustainable development for all Canadians. [ Translation ] Mr.

François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. His analysis of the lamentable situation at Fisheries and Oceans is bang on. However, there is a huge problem within the Liberal Party. Many members knew that none of the scientific opinions deserved to be called that in this government's process.

While many of the MPs on our side criticized what was going on and called for a moratorium on drilling, his leader came to eastern Quebec, to Rimouski, the moment the injunction was called for, to tell people that it was a wonderful project that should go ahead right away. While we were fighting for justice in the case of Fisheries and Oceans Canada experts who were muzzled, his leader was in my region telling people there was no problem. That is the problem with the Liberals. Hon. Stéphane Dion : Mr. Speaker, if we are to have sustainable development, we need a process and it must be followed.

Asking the House to vote against a project before we have any environmental assessments is like saying that we do not care about the process let alone following it. Our leader is not against this project, but he cannot say he supports it until he sees the environmental assessments, and this is what we are asking for. Today, we must denounce the government's refusal to work transparently or in partnership with the Government of Quebec and its refusal to rely on scientific advice. That is the issue here. (1125) [ English ] Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, over the past 10 years, I have been surprised when people in this place, who have no background or training on fisheries issues, make decisions and disagree with trained scientists in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. These scientists have done due diligence on an issue. Let me make a comment and then ask a quick question. The member needs to understand that there were two proposals. One was to do seismic testing. In fact, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans knows less about the impacts of seismic testing on beluga whales.

That is why it conducted a very robust scientific research project to get that information. At the end of that process, it decided it had the potential of causing harm and that a permit was required under the Species at Risk Act, and that was done. The other option was drilling. In fact, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has much more expertise and experience with the impacts on aquatic habitat. It determined that it did not require a permit and gave that advice to the proponent. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : We have run out of time. We have a 10-minute spot, but we have to move along. Hon.

Stéphane Dion : Mr. Speaker, I guess there will be another opportunity to hear the question. The problem is that I did not receive answers to my questions. Does my colleague think that the proper process is being followed? Does he agree that he is contradicting the Superior Court ruling that made the case? I read it, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada never provided the scientific information that was requested by the Quebec government. The scientists in his department have that information. They were willing to provide it, but they were not asked by the minister to do so. That is what happened.

I do not have the time to read the two questions, but they are at the core of whether the project is dangerous for beluga. It is awful and should be condemned by everyone in the House. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville for laying the case out very clearly that the government has withheld crucial information. The whole idea is whether the public can accept that sustainable development can occur under the Conservative government.

If the government hides crucial scientific information, how can the public ever have confidence that sustainable development will occur with this project? Hon. Stéphane Dion : Mr. Speaker, my colleague is so right. It is a matter of trust. If we think the government is hiding something, then the process will become very cumbersome and difficult and, at the end of the day, cannot succeed, not in Canada. That is what is happening under the Conservatives, not only at the expense of the environment but also the economy.

Projects are blocked everywhere because the confidence in the government does not exist when we see it tries to muzzle its scientists and it does not consult them when it fears their recommendations will not be what it wants to hear. The Prime Minister is responsible for that pattern. [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I found one remark made by my colleague at the beginning of his speech a little strange. He said that the motion was somewhat premature.

As my hon. colleague mentioned a little earlier, the leader of the Liberal Party outlined his position on the project a month ago. He did not say he was not against it; he said we should go ahead with it. That was very clear. I have to wonder about the Liberals' real position. I hope my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville will be able to convince his leader that he has some work to do to clarify his position. Aside from that, I want to come back to another point. In British Columbia in October 2012, the leader of the Liberal Party spoke out against the Enbridge pipeline.

He talked about the precautionary principle and lamented the fact that the pipeline was to go through one of the most vulnerable and most beautiful ecosystems in the world. Does he not think that the same is true of the Gulf of St. Lawrence? This is a rich resource that belongs to all Quebeckers. It belongs to all of us. I do not understand why the Liberals are so reluctant when it comes time to stand up in the House and defend this project.

(1130) Hon. Stéphane Dion : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. The answer is that we need to move forward with a science-based approach and a very rigorous auditing process, with ministers who want to work together. The federal minister refused to co-operate with the provincial minister, and a Quebec public servant is being blamed. I find that entirely unfair. The guilty person in this process, the one who should be condemned by all of Canada is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans . The court's ruling makes this very clear. I invite my colleague and everyone else to read it.

That is what we are talking about today. We must move forward, but not using the approach that the minister imposed on Canadians, an approach that is anti-environment, anti-economy, anti-belugas, anti-people and anti-everyone. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville for his speech. I have a clear and simple question for him. [ English ] I will put it in English to make it easier. In Bill C-38 , at

section 165, and I think most members of the House did not notice it, that administration put the National Energy Board in charge of endangered species if they happened to be in the way of a pipeline. In other words, it has put the mandate for bitumen and diluent as a higher priority over endangered species, taken protection of species in the case of a pipeline, trumped the Species at Risk Act, and handed it to the National Energy Board. That makes everything else we see in this one instance entirely consistent with a policy that puts bitumen first and belugas last. Hon. Stéphane Dion : Mr.

Speaker, I share all the concerns my colleague has mentioned. What the Conservative government has done over the years to environmental assessment in Canada is a mess. We have seen the report of the commissioner this week. It is awful, not only for the environment but for the economy. It is why all these projects go nowhere in Canada. The Conservatives have tried to get rid of the environmental process and, at the end of the day, they cannot go ahead and build the trust they need to be sure that our economy will be able to export our resources around the world.

That is bad for the environment and bad for the economy. [ Translation ] Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will share my time with my colleague from Halifax . I have the honour to rise in the House to speak to the motion I put forward today. We are all very concerned—I say “we” because Cacouna is in the riding I have the honour to represent—because this problematic Cacouna oil terminal initiative is taking place in our community.

I am doubly concerned about the issue because I am on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, where we tried to act in response to the Conservative government's behaviour. I will talk about that later. I will quickly read the motion before us because I will organize my next five or six minutes around the main points of the motion.

That, in the opinion of the House, the proposed Port of Gros-Cacouna oil terminal, which will be used for the sole purpose of exporting unprocessed Canadian oil, will have a negative impact on the Canadian economy through the loss of well-paid jobs, will constitute an unacceptable environmental threat to the St. Lawrence ecosystem, including the beluga whale population, and therefore, is not consistent with the principle of sustainable development, and must be rejected. The first thing that is mentioned in the motion is the notion of an “oil terminal”.

What exactly does the oil terminal planned for Cacouna consist of? The oil terminal is a facility that will have the ability to dock two Suezmax tankers at the same time and load them with oil. That will not happen right in the port. There are plans to build a jetty about 500, 700 or 800 metres out into the river. A sort of second dock will be built there, almost in the middle of the river, where these huge oil tankers with the capacity to carry over 700,00 barrels in transshipments will be able to dock. The pipeline itself will be able to carry 1.1 million barrels.

TransCanada therefore wants to build a port that can hold 75% of the pipeline's capacity, and that oil would be used exclusively for export. That is why the motion indicates that this project could have a negative impact on the Canadian economy. The more oil sands crude that is not processed in the country, the more our economic activity is focused on the good of a single industry. That puts pressure on the Canadian dollar. Pressure on the Canadian dollar is bad for the manufacturing industry, particularly in Ontario and Quebec.

Approximately 400,000 well-paid jobs have been lost in the manufacturing industry in less than six or seven years. The unemployment rate is still relatively decent, but many of those who lost their jobs found precarious part-time jobs and no longer have access to good jobs in the manufacturing industry. Building a pipeline only to export 75% of its contents from a single transit point, a single terminal, is not in keeping with the principles of sustainable development. Another aspect of the motion deals with the threat to the ecosystem. One issue is the beluga whales.

I will come back to that later when I talk about the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and everything that happened, particularly at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. However, what members need to know is that there are also four other types of endangered marine mammals that regularly visit that zone. This project therefore poses a rather serious threat. Another very important aspect is that the Baie de l'Isle-Verte National Wildlife Area is just a few kilometres east of the project.

Reliable experts, even the most pragmatic, who are not predicting that we will have one major tanker accident and oil spill every other week, say that eventually there will be at least a few minor spills during transshipments The thing is, if there are even minor spills at low tide during the transshipments, as every study confirms, the Isle-Verte marsh, which is the last of the great saltwater marshes of the southern St. Lawrence, would be completely swamped by diesel, oil or whatever else might be lost during the oil transfer in a matter of two or three hours. That leaves less than three hours to respond.

(1135) This is a serious problem. What is more, we cannot bury our heads in the sand. There is no technique for responding in the event of a spill, minor or otherwise, on a frozen surface. The river is covered in six inches to two feet of ice during several months of the year. The oil will freeze in the ice. There is no technique for cleaning up the ice on the St. Lawrence. It is huge. When the ice breaks up and melts, these large chunks of oil will stick to everything in the river all the way to the Magdalen Islands. There is no response technique to handle a spill on the ice. However, there is ice on our river.

If we add on the wind and the current it becomes impossible to manage the slightest spill. Hon. members will agree that these are serious threats to our ecosystem. Last of all, the motion states that the project is not consistent with the principle of sustainable development. It is estimated that the Port of Cacouna will create about 20 unskilled jobs. The proponent was asked about this during a number of interviews and was unable to say otherwise. However, the activities at this port would endanger several species of marine mammals. The presence of these marine mammals attracts tourists.

Many Europeans and others come to observe them. The direct spinoffs for eastern Quebec amount to over $160 million a year. Thus, we have to consider 20 or so unskilled jobs created for an activity that will threaten direct spinoffs of $160 million in the medium and long term. When discussing sustainable development, we should not be confronted with such scenarios. On the contrary, we are supposed to ensure that we create value-added jobs with minimal risk to the environment. We should be putting sustainable development first.

In the case of the Port of Cacouna, the more we delve into the issue, the more difficult it is to conclude that this project will result in sustainable development. I would like to talk about the Fisheries and Oceans Canada fiasco. I am a member of the committee, and starting last May, I could see that there was a certain tendency. We made a relatively simple request to meet the department's experts so they could explain to us how they were going to assess the preliminary work. However, we were never able to obtain a shred of evidence from a science branch expert.

I told myself that something unacceptable was happening. The Superior Court demonstrated that the provincial government's biologist repeatedly requested the opinions of experts in the science branch. Unfortunately, the Conservative administration prevented the real marine mammal experts from expressing their opinions on drilling. Instead, the government produced a sort of mathematical calculation in two days that only looks at the distance required to avoid killing the belugas. The calculation on the habitat and how to ensure the survival of the species at risk was not included in what was sent.

The document was not even signed by a marine mammal expert. Mr. Kemp has no specific knowledge in this area. It is absolutely absurd. A Superior Court judge upheld an injunction. Could there be any stronger demonstration? Locally, this government's series of administrative boondoggles on the issue now stands at seven or eight. About a year ago, Transport Canada pressed to have the port transferred to TransCanada Pipelines right away and without consulting the major stakeholders. That has not happened yet, because many people back home questioned that action. Why did they want to do it all wrong and in 30 days?

I thought it was another administrative boondoggle in the making. However, I do not blame the proponent as much as this government's administration, which is completely partisan and obsessed with the oil sector.

(1140) I previously talked about the refusals in committee. The muzzling of scientists is now demonstrated by the decision of the Quebec Superior Court. They decided to eliminate a proposed marine protected area, which had been 15 years in the making. What bad judgment. Coincidentally, this proposed protected area included Cacouna. The list of administrative boondoggles shows that by its very nature, the project cannot achieve sustainable development objectives. In addition, when the Conservatives are in charge, the situation takes on alarming proportions. We cannot let them do this. [ English ] Mr.

Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. It exemplifies again the NDP's anti-development stance. The New Democrats would sooner never develop any of Canada's natural resources. A report came out today in the press saying that the entire Canadian economy is largely dependent on the development of our natural resources. Why the NDP wants to make this a poorer country is beyond me. The member used the phrase “sustainable development” and he clearly does not understand what the phrase means.

It is a development concept, as enunciated by the Brundtland commission in 1986. We have not gotten our oil to tide water yet, and because we cannot export our oil, our Canadian economy loses $27 billion a year because we cannot access the world price. How many social programs could we fund with that kind of money? Almost every single environmental indicator has improved under the watch of our Conservative government. Could the member explain to me why he is so anti resource development, anti the Canadian economy and anti jobs? (1145) [ Translation ] Mr. François Lapointe : Mr.

Speaker, I am going to take a deep breath and imagine that I am speaking to my eight-year-old son. We are not anti resource development. We want two fundamental things that have not been done. That is why major national projects will never move forward. They have no common sense. First, we must ensure that we are getting the maximum value added. The economy must not be entirely focused on natural resources. Having all the eggs in one basket is not good for a modern economy. I hope that Canada's economy will remain modern.

That will not be case the case if the Conservatives remain in power for another 10 years, but we will work hard to get rid of them as soon as possible. We need to do processing and to have value added. This means that we need to enforce the best environmental standards. This is the 21st century, and leading experts are predicting environmental crises. We need to do our job incredibly well. For the past seven years, the Conservatives have been doing the opposite of what I just said. It is not complicated. Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague knows that I share his concerns, even though we do not agree about today's motion. We find the motion premature, since the full environmental assessment has not yet been completed. One thing needs to be clear today. There was a bungling that led the Superior Court of Quebec to issue an injunction that blocked the project for a number of weeks. The main person responsible for the bungling is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans . So far, she has come out of this relatively unscathed, because everyone focused on a public official who appeared to have little experience.

However, that is not what happened. That poor public servant did her job. She did everything in her power to request scientific expertise from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. However, the expertise was never sent. Is my

interpretation of the facts correct? Mr. François Lapointe : Mr. Speaker, it is odd because I can tell that my colleague is sincere about environmental issues. He has to hide behind the principle that people expect the process to move forward. In the early stages of drill testing, the process was completely muzzled by the current government. What more does he need in order to conclude that there will be no reliable process? I know that my colleague was the champion of sustainable development when he was his party's leader. Sustainable development was the main focus of his platform.

I invite my colleague to speak to the press later and give two aspects of the Cacouna oil terminal initiative that would allow us to include it in a sustainable development policy. If he can do that, we will see if he can be consistent. I think it is impossible. Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from Drummond and Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup . Can my colleague explain why people are again worrying about a derailment, like the one in Lac-Mégantic? The rail industry was deregulated and let loose.

Rail safety has been seriously neglected. The government is about to make the same kind of analysis and agree to let a project go ahead. The Conservatives are even challenging Supreme Court rulings. It is clear that they are going to disregard the Quebec Superior Court. Is the government not worried about another derailment? Mr. François Lapointe : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Of course, if one were to read the ruling carefully—and I have also read everything that happened when the evidence was being presented before the Superior Court—it says in black and white that when the proponent was asked to return in a few weeks with a scientific opinion from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' science branch concerning exploratory work, it came back empty-handed. The proponent brought in its own experts, saying that it had an expert present and asking why it was necessary to have an expert opinion from someone at Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

When the province told the federal government what had happened, those people should have immediately turned to the science branch to prevent the industry's phantom self-assessment from becoming established from the very beginning of the project. It does not work, and it makes no sense.

(1150) Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleagues, the hon. members for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and Drummond , for their hard work on this issue. It is a great example of the outstanding work accomplished by members who are engaged in and committed to real consultations in their communities. It is impressive, and I am proud to work with them. [ English ] I will start by picking up on some of the criticism that we have heard from the Conservatives about our motion today.

They are trying to tell us that two plus two equals zero, and that zero is zero environmental protection. The NDP has been really clear. Our leader, who was minister of environment in Quebec, is a man with an incredible environmental record. He gets economy. He gets it full well. He has talked, and so have we all, very clearly about the fact that New Democrats are in favour of the movement of Canada's energy from west to east. There are certain lenses that need to be applied there. Why would we be in favour of that? First of all, we are in favour of it for energy security.

Let us look at this through the lens of energy security. Right now on the east coast, we are importing oil while we are exporting bitumen. It does not make sense that we are an importing and exporting nation of the same product. Let us look at it through the lens of domestic energy security needs. Let us look at it through the concept of Canadian jobs. We will not support projects like Keystone XL that will export our jobs to the U.S. We would like to see value added happening here, creating jobs here in Canada. We have unmet refining capacity in Montreal and Saint John, for example.

We have the ability to do upgrading here in Canada. Why would we not seize on those opportunities? That is the second lens, Canadian jobs. The third lens is, of course, environmental protection, making sure we have robust environmental legislation for any big energy project, including pipelines, including terminals like this one. When we have that environmental protection in place, we know that any project is going to meet a certain standard. We can feel comfortable with that standard. We can know that this is a project that has met certain tests, stringent tests, and that can go forward.

Unfortunately, we do not have that sense anymore. We do not have that social licence when it comes to big energy projects, because we have seen a lot of our environmental regulations gutted and, in the case of the Environmental Assessment Act, actually repealed. It was not tinkered with; it was actually taken off the books, with a new and inadequate, I would argue, piece of legislation put in its place. All of our thinking about west-east has to be with those lenses applied. Here we have a situation where we are not talking about that pipeline. We are talking about a terminal that fails every possible test.

If an energy company were thinking about creating a terminal for the export of raw bitumen—and, first of all, we would not have our value-added criterion met—where would it put it? It might think about putting it in a beluga nursery, possibly picking the worst spot in Canada. The St. Lawrence River is a delicate ecosystem. It is an iconic river, but it is also one of the most biologically diverse marine environments in the country. In addition to it being biologically diverse, we see a species at risk. The beluga whales are there. This is a nursery for the baby belugas.

All of us in English Canada know that song by Raffi, Baby Beluga . This is where the baby belugas are, baby belugas in the deep blue sea. This is where they are. This is where they are being calved and raised. It is incredible to me that a company would think that this is an appropriate place to put an oil terminal that would export raw bitumen and not create those value-added jobs and not consider energy security for Canadians. It fails on so many levels that there has actually been an injunction issued by the Superior Court of Quebec.

It halted exploratory drilling, proving that the Conservatives have failed to provide scientific answers from Fisheries and Oceans Canada to the Quebec government.

(1155) When looking into the belugas and the impacts of not just drilling but a potential terminal here, I actually went to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans website and looked at what it is saying about belugas. It is a species at risk, but maybe I was missing something here. Maybe there is some kind of exception, to threaten them in some cases. I was looking for answers. This is from DFO's own website, and it talks about the threats to the beluga. It says: Hunting is certainly the main cause of the dramatic declines in beluga populations.

However, contributing factors could include alterations to habitats—such as damming of rivers—and possibly noise pollution caused by ships and pleasure craft. The boats might interfere with the belugas’ echo-location method of hunting. As well, dredging, shipping, industrial activity and environmental pollution have degraded the quality of the water in which the beluga lives. This could also lead to a decline in food supply. Shipping, noise, industrial activity, and pollution are all potentials in this spot. It is mind-boggling that anybody thought this was a good idea. Here is a really interesting part.

DFO actually has a

section titled “What can you do?” We realize it is not just about government; it is about each and every one of us taking responsibility and doing what we can to help. Listen to what our government department suggests that we do. It says: Beluga whales will get the protection they need only if all Canadians work together to reduce threats. Find out more about beluga whales and be aware of man-made threats. Do your best .... I am laughing because I cannot even believe this is the advice, when we are looking at this terminal being built.

It says: Do your best to reduce these threats wherever possible to better protect the whales' critical habitat. Get involved with the habitat stewardship program for species at risk or another conservation organization. We should take that advice, and that is why my colleagues from Drummond and Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup have come up with this opposition day motion. They have taken to heart the advice from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and they have put forward this motion. Where is the hook here for the federal government? What are we asking?

Is this just a statement saying we would oppose this kind of terminal? There actually is a role for the federal government here because, once a species is listed under the Species at Risk Act, it becomes illegal to kill, harass, capture, or harm it in any way. Critical habitats are also protected from destruction. The act requires that recovery strategies, action plans, and management plans be developed for all species. That is not happening here. Again I go back to the fact that the Conservatives need to take advice from DFO when it comes to this project.

The federal government can step in if a province is failing to protect a species in its habitat, but it also has an obligation to act. Our federal government has been taken to court several times for failing to put in plans to protect species at risk; notably sage grouse in western Canada, where I think there are 12 sage grouse left in all of Alberta. The government has failed to protect species in the past, and it is failing now. The Conservatives need to take the advice of their own government department and they need to act. It is not often that we get to quote Raffi Cavoukian, better known as Raffi.

He is a singer-songwriter who focuses on social and environmental causes. My generation and folks younger than I grew up with Raffi, and he actually calls us “beluga grads”. That comes from his Baby Beluga song. He calls us “beluga grads”, and he wants us to change the world. Raffi is saying to us: Baby Beluga in the deep blue sea Swim so wild and you swim so free Heaven above and the sea below And a little white whale on the go As Raffi says, we need to act. We need to protect this endangered species and stop putting our blinders on when it comes to how environment and economy can work together.

(1200) Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to one of the things the previous speaker said, when he insulted the natural resource economy and the workers in the natural resources economy. He said that we need to go beyond it, we need to go into the modern economy. I represent a natural-resource-producing community, and those kinds of words and phrases I find extremely insulting.

Given that the natural resource economy and the natural resource workers in this country—the farmers, the miners, the loggers, and the oil workers—are a major part of the Canadian economy, why that other side would insult these workers, industries, and communities is simply beyond me. I would like to ask this for my hon. friend from Halifax . Why is the NDP so opposed to all resource development? Given that it is the basis of our Canadian economy, how would she ever expect Canada's social programs to be supported, although I am assuming that she does not really care? Ms. Megan Leslie : Mr.

Speaker, I do not think that the member meant to say that last thing. We serve on the environment committee together, and I do not think he meant to say that I do not care. I do not think he believes it. The one thing I would say back to him is, why is it that the Conservative government refuses to acknowledge jobs and other aspects of our energy sector? Do members know that right now in the oil sands there are 22,340 direct jobs? Do members know that in the clean energy economy right now in Canada there are 23,700 jobs? Do members know that right now in the Gulf of St.

Lawrence region there are thousands of jobs in ecotourism, whether they are in whale watching or kayaking? People go to this region to see the belugas. That is a legitimate part of our economy. I would argue that the green energy economy is a legitimate part of our economy, but the government is so hyperfocused on only fossil fuels that it is refusing to even treat the green energy economy equally, never mind promote it. Oil and gas continues to get subsidized, while the green energy economy is left to fend for itself. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I am a little surprised that the NDP motion today asks the House to reject the process and not simply let the scientists speak and make an evaluation of whether this is a sustainable project or not. I believe that this NDP motion is really short-circuiting the process, which we certainly should be trying to make as rigorous as possible.

Taking into account the government, would my hon. colleague from Halifax agree that it is a double-edged sword to be saying that the House should be pronouncing on a project which is more properly considered in a process that is rigorous and that can and should be made more rigorous? Could the government not use this motion against the idea of sustainable development? Ms. Megan Leslie : Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is a thoughtful one, and one that we put some work into before we actually drafted this motion.

I go back to SARA, the Species at Risk Act, and the fact that under species at risk, the federal government has an obligation to identify habitats that are needed for these species for their survival and their recovery. The federal government has the ability to step in if a province is failing to protect a species and its habitat. I would say that if a province is about to build an oil terminal in the middle of a beluga nursery, it is probably failing to protect the habitat.

I see this as a good motion for us to say that, no, this is not an acceptable project, and in fact the government does need to take action here. Mr. Rodney Weston (Saint John, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette . It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague across the floor. In my comments today I want to focus on a particular part of the member's motion. The member talked about how the proposal will constitute an unacceptable environmental threat.

I want to talk about what our government has done to mitigate any of the concerns that might come from the environmental threats that the member talked about. Our government, in support of a world-class tanker safety system, has announced $31 million over five years for the Canadian Coast Guard to establish an incident command system, which is commonly referred to as an ICS, across the Canadian Coast Guard.

This forms a crucial part of the world-class tanker safety system initiative by offering standardized on-scene, all-hazard management methodology, which is designed to ensure the effective command, control and coordination of response efforts to all maritime incidents. Implementation of the incident command system will increase the Canadian Coast Guard's ability to work collaboratively with other emergency responders who currently use this system.

Therefore, it will allow multiple stakeholders to participate in important decision-making processes simultaneously and also for effective planning and response initiatives in order to address all marine pollution and all hazard incidents in a predictable and structured fashion. By 2018 the incident command system will be fully implemented, strengthening the existing response regime.

Simply put, the Canadian Coast Guard and its partners will be better positioned to respond to oil spill events and other marine emergency incidents in co-operation with key partners and other departments and agencies in a timely and effective manner. The incident command system is another example of how Canada's world-class tanker safety system is being strengthened to protect Canadians and our environment.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, including the Canadian Coast Guard, is pleased to have the opportunity to partner with Transport Canada, Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada on a suite of important initiatives that are being implemented to support our world-class tanker safety system. Under Canada's marine pollution preparedness and response regime, the polluter is responsible for cleaning up and paying for its own marine spills.

Private sector response organizations play an important role by maintaining effective response plans and an inventory of equipment to respond to spills from ships in Canadian waters south of 60. In May 2014 the government announced the implementation of area response planning, which will provide a new and improved method for preparing and responding to marine oil pollution incidents.

Area response planning is a new and dynamic risk-based model that allows for spill preparedness and responses to be tailored to the level and types of risk in a given region based on certain factors such as marine conditions, environmental sensitivities, tanker size, and traffic levels. This new and improved response planning approach will replace the current regime where private sector response organizations are mandated to maintain the same response capacity across Canada.

Our government is seizing an opportunity to ensure the appropriate frameworks and safeguards are in place and enhanced to protect our environment now and for generations to come. This new area response planning process will be piloted in four initial areas: the southern portion of British Columbia; Saint John and the Bay of Fundy in New Brunswick; Port Hawkesbury in Nova Scotia; and the St. Lawrence Seaway from Quebec City to Anticosti Island, Quebec. As one can imagine, transitioning to an area response planning approach is a significant undertaking.

This is why we are focusing significant effort on the planning process to ensure the pilot projects successfully demonstrate the future of our world-class tanker safety system. The Canadian Coast Guard and our federal colleagues acknowledge that we cannot develop the area response plans alone. To this end, beginning in 2015, a series of engagement activities will be planned to ensure stakeholders' views are reflected in the process.

The Canadian Coast Guard is the lead federal agency in developing the local area response plans, using a collaborative approach to involve aboriginal communities, other levels of government, and a broad range of local stakeholders. Safety is the top priority of the Canadian Coast Guard. In fact, Canada has one of the most advanced and comprehensive search and rescue systems in the world and is regularly consulted by other countries seeking advice and training on how to establish and maintain a system as effective and efficient as ours.

The Canadian system is made up of multiple layers that provide an effective response capacity to any search and rescue incident within Canada and our surrounding waters.

(1205) The Canadian Coast Guard and National Defence are the principal pillars of the federal system. They provide the primary response to aeronautical and maritime emergencies with specialized equipment and highly trained professionals who remain ready to respond to incidents 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. The Canadian Coast Guard continues to maintain a maritime rescue sub-centre in Quebec City which provides bilingual search and rescue coordination services for mariners in distress.

The search and rescue system can be activated by the professional search and rescue coordinators at any of the three joint rescue coordination centres in Canada. These search and rescue coordinators are highly trained and can coordinate additional response capacity from other government resources, the highly committed volunteers of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association, and commercial vessels and aircraft in the vicinity of mariners in distress.

The final but no less important piece of the search and rescue system is the multitude of plans and exercises that ensure that all the layers of Canada's search and rescue regime are ready to respond effectively and efficiently to real-life distress situations. The federal government continues to invest in the assets and the modernizing of systems to ensure the ongoing high level of service that Canadians expect and deserve.

Billions of dollars have been invested in new Coast Guard, naval, and air force assets that will not only ensure the present level of service but also improve our capacity and capabilities to respond to incidents anywhere in Canada well into the future. Finally, the federal search and rescue system regularly reviews and re-evaluates Canada's capacity and capability in relation to the risk. This entails working closely with our provincial and private partners to ensure that our plans are up to date and as comprehensive as possible to serve and protect all mariners in Canadian waters.

In closing, the Government of Canada will continue to support the brave men and women of the Canadian Coast Guard by equipping them with the resources required to protect Canadians and our environment. It is exactly because of initiatives like these that I cannot support the motion brought forward by my colleague today.

(1210) Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the capacity of the Canadian Coast Guard. On the west coast the Conservative government has shut down the Kitsilano station, which was the busiest station in the country. British Columbians were extremely angered about this decision. There was a huge outpouring of support for the station, yet it fell on deaf ears. As if that was not enough, the Conservative government has now also shut down five MCTS centres on the coast.

I agree with the member's comments about the Canadian Coast Guard's search and rescue capabilities. However, if it is stripped of the resources that are needed to do the job, how is it going to get the job done? Mr. Rodney Weston : Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have worked very closely over the years on the fisheries and oceans committee. I certainly enjoy working with him. With regard to his question, I think I outlined it very specifically in my speech when I said that we have invested $31 million over the next five years when it comes to world-class tanker safety systems. That is what we are committed to.

We are committed to ensuring that the Coast Guard has the tools it needs to do the job that we ask of it. We would not ask it to do any more than it can do without having the proper tools in place. We are continuing to invest in that purpose. Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for the mess that happened with the ruling of the court.

I will again quote the ruling of the Superior Court of Quebec, which is very striking. [ Translation ] This is what paragraph 103 says: The [Quebec] minister then decided that an opinion from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' science branch was required. That opinion was not obtained. There it is, in black and white.

Here is what paragraph 106 says: ...nobody from TransCanada or DFO's science branch answered the [Government of Quebec's] perfectly legitimate questions about whether carrying out the work on the dates proposed by the proponent could cause a significant disturbance or have a significant impact on marine mammals... [ English ] Is it good federalism to not work with their counterparts to know that what they would do would hurt the environment and the economy? This is the question. I hope I will have an answer before the end of the day. Mr. Rodney Weston : Mr.

Speaker, the member's question was very specifically related to the injunction brought forward by the Quebec Superior Court. I want to point out very clearly that this court case was in regard to provincial laws and provincial officials. It has nothing to do with DFO or DFO's process. We are confident that DFO's process is diligent, thorough, and based on the best available science.

(1215) Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I think what has been lost sight of in this motion is the human factor and the importance of the natural resource sector to our economy, especially in some of the areas in eastern Canada and the Maritimes. Could my hon. friend talk about the positive economic benefits that would result if this project were to go ahead? Mr. Rodney Weston : Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is no doubt aware, my area is very excited about the possibility of this energy east pipeline project.

We are excited about the construction of a marine terminal in our area because we know the value of this industry. We know the value to the economy in our local area. We have seen it. We have the largest refinery in all of Canada in Saint John, New Brunswick. We have the Canaport marine shipping terminal, which brings oil into and out of the Bay of Fundy. Over 400 tankers a year have been traversing the Bay of Fundy for over 40 years now without incident, so we know how to get the job done. We know that those jobs bring real economic benefit to our region, and we are excited. Mr.

Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government relies on the scientific expertise of our fisheries biologists and researchers to ensure the effective management, sustainable development, and protection of our aquatic resources. Our government has ensured that funding to science has remained consistent in recent years.

DFO has made a number of important investments, such as refurbishment of over a dozen laboratories, construction of three science vessels for the Coast Guard, mapping of the continental shelf for Canada's UNCLOS submission, support to commercial fishing in the Arctic, research to support a sustainable aquaculture sector, and research on oil spill behaviour and effects. I would be remiss if I did not mention one of my favourite programs, the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program, which provides $25 million to work with local communities to improve, protect, and enhance fisheries habitat.

The funds will be expended on some 400 fisheries conservation projects across the country, surely a remarkable achievement. Our government is committed to making sure this science is accessible to Canadians and that our record is solid. For example, over the past two years, DFO scientists participated in more than 600 media interviews in addition to approximately 1,000 science-based media inquiries in writing. That is some muzzling.

As well, DFO issues approximately 300 publications each year, documenting science advice and government research for the management of Canada's fisheries and oceans, and our government will continue to make decisions based on the best science available and ensure that it is accessible to Canadians. A key component of DFO's science program is the peer review process. This is a fundamental principle that allows scientists to thoroughly challenge and validate scientific information and associated conclusions. At DFO there is a rigorous peer review process in place.

DFO's Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat coordinates the peer review of all scientific advice for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This process is transparent, as all of DFO's science advice is published to its website and made publicly available to Canadians. DFO is well aware of the importance of the St. Lawrence beluga, most notably for the tourism and whale-watching industries. Belugas in Canadian waters have been grouped into seven populations, and six of them live in the Arctic. I should note that in my home province of Manitoba, every summer thousands of belugas gather in the Churchill River.

I would recommend to members, if they have the opportunity, to go and see this remarkable natural sight. The remaining beluga population lives in the St. Lawrence Estuary. The beluga is a typical cold-water marine mammal. It has a long life expectancy, bears young at an older age, and produces relatively few young. An adult beluga can weigh up to 1,900 kilograms and grow to between 2.5 and 4.5 metres in length. The beluga whale is a predator. Its diet consists of many species of fish and invertebrates. In the St.

Lawrence estuary, there are a number of key species available to it as prey, including Atlantic herring, sand lance, squid, capelin, Atlantic cod, hake, and redfish. Our government has done and will continue to do considerable work on the beluga whale and on the St. Lawrence population in particular. For example, fisheries researchers do regular monitoring and assessment of this population. As recently as the fall of 2013, DFO scientists have been reviewing the status of the population.

To continue work on studying this population, DFO conducted a population survey in the summer of 2014, and the results will be available in 2015. This information will allow DFO scientists to track any possible trends in population growth or decline. When a population assessment is completed, DFO scientists also look at the various factors that may affect the population. These factors include food availability and environmental conditions. This is clearly a complex ecosystem, which is why DFO scientists are working on important research questions to increase our knowledge of this species.

DFO has also supported a long-term necropsy program for beluga whales conducted by the University of Montreal. This information will allow DFO to better understand the cause of any beluga mortality, and any results will be considered in future DFO science advice.

(1220) Conscious of the importance of achieving recovery objectives for the St. Lawrence beluga and conscious that a growing and healthy population is key to the species' recovery, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans initiated a research project to investigate the birth rate in wild female beluga. To support management decisions, DFO scientists analyze the most recent data available and, to the best of their ability, aim to provide the best available science advice, using their data and the data of others, while at the same time factoring in uncertainty.

Over the years, DFO scientists have produced dozens of scientific publications on the St. Lawrence beluga covering all aspects of its biology, such as its distribution, abundance, population trends, diet, key habitat use, cause of mortality, recovery potential, and many more. In addition, DFO scientists, as well as many researchers from other federal departments and academia, have added and continue to add to our knowledge of the St. Lawrence ecosystem and factors affecting it. This information is accessible and used by DFO when providing advice related to the beluga whale.

Our government is focused on taking real action to protect beluga whales. Last spring, based on DFO's expert advice, strict conditions and mitigation measures were given to TransCanada to adhere to in order to undertake exploratory drilling and seismic testing. Such conditions included a requirement for an exclusion zone of 500 metres, meaning that all work was required to stop if a whale was observed in this area. Beyond 500 metres, the sound level is too low to cause harm to marine mammals.

Another important condition with regard to seismic work was to cease operations by April 30, before the whales return to the area. We have been clear that we are focused on ensuring that projects are safe for Canadians and the environment. Based on the expert science advice available, our government set strict conditions for work and ensured they were followed. The science work done at DFO on the beluga whale is substantial, and our government is confident in the quality and value of this work.

The work is transparent and available to all Canadians, either in publications and science journals or on the DFO website. Today I have demonstrated the critical role that expert tr