House of Commons Hansard #126 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was project.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member is out of time anyway, which allows me to remind him that we do not use each other's proper names, just ridings or titles.

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Official Languages.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière Québec

Conservative

Jacques Gourde ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the honourable member’s concerns. However, I also know how critical safe shipping is to ensuring Canada’s economic prosperity.

The simple fact is that Canada is a trading nation. We depend on doing business with other nations to ensure that we can maintain our high standard of living and that Canada can continue to grow. Trade accounts for more than 60% of our annual gross domestic product. One in every five Canadian jobs is directly linked to exports.

Natural resources—including oil, minerals, and agricultural and forestry products—remain essential to Canada’s economy. The petroleum sector alone employs over 550,000 Canadians and provides over $18 billion in tax revenues, which keep Canadians safe and healthy and allow us to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Marine shipping is a critical part of that. However, let me be clear: marine shipping, especially of oil, must be done safely and in an environmentally responsible manner. I am proud to say that Canada already has a robust tanker safety system. Oil has been transported along Canada’s coasts for decades without major incident.

This is due to an extensive range of prevention measures including our strong regulatory and oversight regime, collaboration with our international partners and efforts by the shipping industry. Although Canada has a strong marine safety record, we need to be prepared to take advantage of trade opportunities as global markets and trade patterns change.

As we pursue our trade agenda, we need to ensure that Canadians and the environment continue to be protected.That is why our government has already taken action to put in place a world-class tanker safety system.

The world-class tanker safety system is a comprehensive suite of initiatives that aims to prevent marine oil spills from happening in the first place, clean them up quickly in the event that they do occur and ensure that polluters pay.

As announced last year, our government is already taking action to increase tanker inspections so that each and every foreign tanker that enters Canadian waters is inspected the first time it arrives at a port and annually afterwards. We are expanding aerial patrols under the national aerial surveillance program to deter polluters and identify any marine incidents early. We are conducting leading-edge research on new oil products to build our knowledge of how they behave in different marine environments. We are implementing the internationally recognized incident command system to help coordinate response efforts with multiple partners in case of an incident.

Our government also appointed the independent tanker safety expert panel to identify more ways to strengthen Canada’s marine oil spill preparedness and response regime. We also heard from people and stakeholders across the country, and we have listened. We listened to Canadians, the provinces, industry, first nations and environmental organizations.

Earlier this year, we announced new actions under the world-class tanker safety system. In addition to the actions mentioned earlier, we are modernizing Canada’s marine navigation system by taking a leadership role in implementing e-navigation and investing in state-of-the-art technology and services. This will provide real-time marine safety information to vessel operators to help avoid navigational hazards and marine accidents.

We are also establishing area response planning in four areas across Canada, including the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Quebec, which will cover the Port of Gros-Cacouna. This will lead to response plans that are tailored to local conditions, such as the regional geography, vessel traffic, and environmental sensitivities.

We will also be expanding the response toolkit for oil spill cleanup by lifting legal barriers to using dispersants and other alternative response measures when they will have a net environmental benefit.

Our government will also be conducting and supporting research and development on new oil products, the pre-treatment of heavy oil products at source and a range of response techniques so that we will be equipped to respond in the event that there is an oil spill.

As well, we will be strengthening the polluter-pay principle by introducing legislative and regulatory amendments to enhance Canada’s domestic ship-source oil pollution fund through Bill C-3, Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act. These amendments would remove the current per incident limit of the fund and make available, if necessary, the entire amount. When you add this to the amount available from international funds, about $1.6 billion would be available to cover cleanup costs and provide compensation due to a marine oil spill. Although it has never happened in Canadian history, if all domestic and international funds were exhausted, our government would top up the ship-source oil pollution fund on a temporary basis to cover any remaining claims and cleanup costs, which would be recouped from industry through a levy.

I would like to take the opportunity to update the House on Bill C-3 and advise my colleagues that this important legislation has completed second reading in the other chamber, and will soon be studied at committee stage. By implementing a world-class tanker safety system, our government will continue to meet its commitment to protect Canadians and the environment, while responsibly transporting our natural resources.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

October 9th, 2014 / 3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, Simon Fraser University did a report for the group Evidence for Democracy indicating there was a muzzling of scientists in many government departments. The environment commissioner has also expressed other very serious concerns recently about the government's actions.

In this case, apparently, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not ask its scientists for information, or perhaps did not give the province of Quebec the information it was asking for about the belugas in the Saint Lawrence. Here again we see that the government is not letting the scientists speak. How can we accept this decision of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The work he refers to was analyzed by scientists in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and was approved after strict conditions were attached to mitigate the risks for marine animals, particularly the belugas.

As the project is still in its exploratory phase, no formal proposal to build a marine terminal has been submitted to the promoter for consideration.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my honourable colleague, who is very familiar with the situation in Quebec, whether he agrees with the injunction issued by the Quebec Superior Court saying that drilling cannot continue because there were no scientific opinions from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Alternatively, does he have doubts about the decision of the Quebec Superior Court? I do not understand anymore.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. If there were such a proposal, it would involve a comprehensive process of environmental review, as is the case for any major infrastructure or development project. No project will be permitted unless it is determined that it is safe for the environment and for Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, i would like to ask my colleague whether he believes that a spill or an accident would be a blow, not only to the St. Lawrence River ecosystem, but also to the entire tourism industry and to the economic benefits flowing from the sustainable development on the banks of the St. Lawrence River.

This is one of the world's jewels in terms of its ecosystems and navigable waterways. We are on our way to ignoring all the studies that have been done on the port of Gros-Cacouna and to letting the oil companies do what they want once more. We are going to let them determine what the law is in one of the most beautiful places on the planet.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I would like to allay his concerns by reminding him that, for decades now, crude oil has been shipped safely by sea from east to west in compliance with our regulations.

I feel that those same regulations will allow us to ship crude oil safely from west to east for decades to come.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the motion moved by my colleague from Drummond. I will read 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.

Everyone has heard of this issue. It has gotten a lot of media coverage over the past six or seven months. The Port of Gros-Cacouna would become a marine terminal for shipping oil on the St. Lawrence.

I am against this bill for a number of reasons. I am primarily against it because of the beluga nursery in the St. Lawrence. What is more, there will be environmental repercussions. All the ballast water from all those tankers will be discharged into the St. Lawrence.

The ships carrying oil to Asia or India or anywhere else return to the St. Lawrence filled with ballast water for increased weight and stability. When they get close to the Port of Gros-Cacouna, they discharge that water.

Under Canadian law, that water has to be discharged before entering the estuary and the gulf. However, the transporters are certainly not going to waste their money stopping to discharge ballast water before entering the gulf. As a result, it is discharged in the gulf and the estuary on the way to the Port of Gros-Cacouna.

What is more, that ballast water ends up in a completely different ecosystem. It might contain algae or other species when it is discharged into a completely different ecosystem. This may have consequences for the St. Lawrence, such as introducing exotic species. They are called exotic species when they are not normally found in an ecosystem. Unfortunately, that will happen in the St. Lawrence. That is one of my concerns. Increasing tanker traffic on the St. Lawrence, will increase this exchange of water and that will cause problems.

We have also heard a lot about the belugas, a species at risk in Canada. Last week, I read in a report by the World Wildlife Fund that wildlife species have dropped by 50% in the past 40 years. That is very worrisome.

The beluga is species at risk and it is our responsibility, and that of the government, to ensure that the conditions necessary to this species' survival are met.

Here are some troubling numbers: in 2000, there were approximately 1,000 belugas. That is not very many. There was another census in 2012 and there were 889. In one decade, 10% of the beluga population was decimated. Their numbers are even lower today, and that is cause for concern.

It was reported in the news last week that newborn beluga carcasses were being found on the shoreline of Kamouraska.

In 2012, 16 young beluga carcasses were found on the shoreline. A total of 10 have been found so far this year, and the year is not yet over. That is disturbing.

The reason why the Port of Gros-Cacouna initiative is troubling for the belugas is that the noise of the drilling can seriously harm them. As we know, marine mammals' hearing is far more developed than ours and the noise is amplified. I think we have every reason to be concerned.

In addition, there are all the problems that come with an oil spill. If this project goes ahead, heavy crude will be transported to the port. It will sink to the bottom of the St. Lawrence, unlike other crude, which normally floats. We are very concerned about oil spills.

A number of experts have spoken out against this project. Environmental experts have said that we need to be very careful. They raised concerns about an accident and oil spill in the St. Lawrence. I would like to read a quote from Équiterre from August:

Tar sands oil sinks when it comes into contact with water (unlike light crude, which floats). A spill in the St. Lawrence would have disastrous consequences for the dozens of municipalities that get their drinking water from the river.

That is another concern. There are about 80 waterways connected to the St. Lawrence. Can we really run the risk of that happening in this iconic Quebec river? This is a question we need to ask ourselves. I think this is a reflection of what happens when the Conservatives withdraw protection from waterways.

I want to make an aside to talk about an issue specific to my riding. My riding is home to one of the last uncovered creeks on the Island of Montreal, Bouchard Creek. A number of groups in my riding are trying to clean it up, since it contains a lot of ethylene glycol, the de-icer used by Aéroports de Montréal to de-ice airplanes. These products end up in the creek. It should freeze over in the winter but it does not. I think it is a problem that Canada allows companies to shirk their environmental responsibility to protect waterways. I have already spoken to the minister about this. The creek runs into Lac St-Louis, which is part of the river. The creek is polluted and it goes through my riding. We are talking about the St. Lawrence, the iconic Quebec river, and the government is allowing all kinds of oil tankers travel along it without any real scientific study.

There is currently an injunction. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was to submit a scientific report in order for the work to start, but it was not submitted to Quebec. That is why the work has stalled.

I thank my colleague from Drummond for moving this motion. It is very important.

There is something else that I have not mentioned, and that is the topic of jobs. All of the crude oil in Canada could help to create jobs. The government says that it does not want to do anything in Canada. The energy east project is meant to start in Saint John, New Brunswick, where there are refineries and where we could have created jobs. As of now, we are being told that the crude oil will be exported.

That is another good reason why we should all support this motion. I hope that the government and the other parties will vote with the NDP.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out what I think is a real concern that Canadians should have with regard to the NDP's approach to this motion.

If we really stop to think about it, what the New Democrats are saying is that even though there has been no scientific study to say that this is a bad idea, we should making a political decision, not one based on science or on facts but, rather, based on the whims of the New Democratic Party in this case. They are the ones who have made the decision that this is a no-go. It causes me concern because I am from the Prairies. The development of our natural resources is not only in the best interests of the Prairies, but all of Canada.

Would the member not acknowledge that when we talk about economic or sustainable development, it is the wrong road to take if decisions are based on one's political party and what the party wants versus scientists, what studies will prove and the facts to demonstrate whether it should be a go or no-go?

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think this is unbelievable.

As one of my colleagues said, unlike the Liberals, our party will certainly not be giving the government a blank cheque. The Liberal member apparently thinks that there is nothing to prove this project is harmful to the environment, since the two-page report from Fisheries and Oceans Canada was not accepted.

Nevertheless, no expert has told us that this project would be good for the environment or for the whales, or that the ballast water would be a positive addition to the St. Lawrence River. According to the hon. member, since no experts have told us this is a bad project, we should not be discussing it here today.

I am proud that my party has introduced a motion to force a debate in this House to discuss the impact of the Gros-Cacouna project, something of great concern to Quebeckers. The St. Lawrence is an important river. I am pleased to learn that the hon. member is concerned about it, but I am worried about what is going to be added to the St. Lawrence's waters. Thus, it is important for us to talk about it today.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Winnipeg North, who made some excellent points. He opened the door to a question I always want to ask.

Knowing that their economic policies have failed completely and knowing that their socialist left wing ideology has failed, which happened when the Berlin Wall fell, what the New Democrats have done, through their politicization of the environment and science, is look around for something and they settled on the environment.

I have never heard such a rambling, incoherent, disconnected speech on the environment from my colleague in my entire life. She went from ballast water to de-icing fluid, on and on, completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding the situation itself.

Why is her party supporting a motion against this project long before the proposal has even been approved or any assessment has been done?

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member, I believe science and the environment go hand in hand. Here we are talking about job creation. It would be a good thing if the oil from the west could get to Saint John, New Brunswick, in order to create jobs. I did not say I was absolutely opposed to oil. I said I was worried about the millions of tonnes of oil that would be shipped on the St. Lawrence River every day.

In making such comments, the hon. member shows he does not know what ballast waters are. I would be very happy to educate him about ballast waters and their harmful effects on ecosystems like that of the St. Lawrence.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Independent

Jean-François Fortin Independent Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the NDP supporting the position that many people in the region have been arguing for since June. I will be supporting the motion.

I would like my colleague to clarify one simple point. The project includes a fork near Rivière-du-Loup. I understand that the NDP does not want an oil port at Gros-Cacouna, but is it opposed to the pipeline that goes all across Quebec to get to New Brunswick?

In my opinion, the whole project should be abandoned; it should not be happening in Quebec. I am worried, since the leader of the NDP indicated, on June 18, that he supports shipping oil to the east.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, indeed, my leader said he was open to the possibility of having such a pipeline. Right now, there is a job deficit in Canada and this can create good job opportunities, if the refineries in New Brunswick can provide employment for a lot of people. Right now, many municipalities are opposed. We will have to study the final project once it is submitted. Still, my leader did say he was open to the idea, for now.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker,

In the beginning, it lay sleeping.... A gigantic mantle of pure ice awaiting the coming of the Earth's spring. Then, cataracts of water gushing forth from the glaciers, rolling towards the ocean, gouging in the northerly soil of the Americas the bed of a colossal river and the greatest estuary on the planet.

Freshwater whirlpools collide with the vast salt waters flowing from the Arctic, overwhelming. And then, the miracle. Life explodes, microscopic and luxuriant. Hosts of fish, mammals and birds. Season after season, tide after tide, the harvest is renewed. Drawn by the inexhaustible wealth of these waters, creation's bravest and best gather to feed and to bond.

Humpbacked, bowhead and blue swim alongside dolphins and giant turtles, salmon, smelt, halibut, infinite schools of herring and cod.... The river is a torrent of life.

Magtogoek.” The mighty river. So named by the first peoples.

These are the lyrical opening passages of Frédéric Back's 1993 animated film masterpiece.

Oh, my beautiful river, my immense St. Lawrence, with your tidal flats, your crosscurrents, your bars, reefs and shoals, your villages like beads on a rosary along the coast still remember, in their foundations, the shaking from the cannonballs of conquest, in your mists and gusts, your shields, your funnelled winds, your fogs and your ice covers.

Today I have listened to people speak the whole day. I have heard speeches by members of Parliament who do not know you, my river, in the heart of the valley of valleys where my nation lives, my mighty river, the artery that is vital to Quebec’s development.

While I listened to them, I told myself that they have closed their eyes to Quebec’s soul, and the soul of Quebeckers. There are no Quebeckers who at some point in their lives have not gone to admire the aquatic ballet performed by whales off the coast of Cacouna or Tadoussac. There are no Quebeckers who have not admired the flowing maritime beauty in the Lower St. Lawrence and the Saguenay fjord. The St. Lawrence is a precious and fragile legacy that Quebeckers want to safeguard for the generations to come. It is a unique and magnificent river, but a river at risk, a river that is choking, a river that has been polluted, mistreated and plundered, a river in need of oxygen and in dire need of love.

Of all the paths I have taken in my life, the road along the St. Lawrence River is the most beautiful and the most evocative. When I reach Île Verte, my present meets my past and all the generations who watched me grow up come to mind.

In the middle of the river, facing Tadoussac, at the slack water, the current never takes long to turn. The currents at the mouth of the Saguenay can reach 7 knots at the ebb tide. When the St. Lawrence tides turn, the water runs back up the current and rushes into the clear tributaries: the majestic Saguenay, the Sault-à-la-Puce, the Sainte-Anne-du-Nord, the l'Ombrette, the Gouffre, the Malbaie, the Sud and the Loup, the Escoumins and the Sault-au-Mouton, the Cèdres and Sault-au-Cochon, the Betsiamites and Papinachois, the Outardes and Manicouagan, the Franquelin and Godbout, the Trois-Pistoles, the Rimouski, the Mitis and the salmon-filled Matane.

The St. Lawrence is a great liquid lung that breathes water.

Today, the threat to the belugas' reproduction off Cacouna from the construction of a supertanker terminal port is only a prologue to a much broader issue—that of the environmental protection of the St. Lawrence, its tributaries, its marine life, and the coastal life and economic activity of an entire region.

What is the oil industry proposing, in fact? What are they offering us? To impose the burden of a long-standing and unimaginable threat over this fragile, unique and irreplaceable ecosystem against a few dozen jobs.

Accepting this offer would be like selling our soul for a mess of pottage, especially since the means we have today to respond to an oil spill in the St. Lawrence and in the Gulf are pitiful. According to a panel of experts, the resources available to us today would enable us to recover only between 5% and 15% of the oil that might spill into the St. Lawrence.

Every year, there are no fewer than 82 150,000-tonne ships, one every four days, sailing up the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the estuary to supply the Ultramar refinery in Lévis. This is in addition to the 10,000 commercial ships that make their way along the St. Lawrence river channel annually.

We have been told that the project would triple the number of supertankers that sail from the St. Lawrence estuary to the oil-importing countries. There are already too many hazardous materials on the St. Lawrence. What would remain of this mythical river after a major oil spill? What would be the impact of 150,000 barrels of oil spilling over the waters and the ice of the St. Lawrence and spreading for kilometres through its tributaries? And who would then go spend their vacation in the Charlevoix, in Tadoussac, Trois-Pistoles or Bergeronne, to look at a black tide full of dead seagulls, belugas and whales? Who would go fishing in the St. Lawrence estuary or in the salmon rivers polluted by an oil spill?

We will save the belugas because they must be saved. They will become the very symbol of this government’s pro-oil stance and its defeat in the coming elections. Like the canaries that miners carried into the mines with them to warn them of danger, the belugas are warning us today that our development strategy is hazardous to our health.

Only an NDP government under the leadership of the member for Outremont will be able to reverse the trend and ensure that Canada will develop in a way that is respectful of the environment.

I have listened the whole day today to our opponents claiming that we are against development. We are not against development; we are in favour of sustainable development, as part of a sustainable approach, in favour of development where projects are approved by the communities, projects that safeguard natural resources for the generations to come—everything that this project is not.

This project threatens the most fragile ecosystem in Quebec, and it is not Canadian oil companies that are going to threaten this ecosystem. We are going to protect the St. Lawrence estuary, and the flowing waters of its rivers and tributaries. This is why we have tabled this motion to prevent the construction of a port terminal in Cacouna.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anyone who undervalues the importance of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Whether it is the Nelson River in my own home province, or the Churchill River, or the Fraser River, they are all a very important part of our environment, our economy, and so forth. I am sure a number of the member's comments were an expression of his passion for our rivers. He really underscored how oil could cause so much harm. There are a number of tankers. We are talking about dozens of tankers that travel the St. Lawrence every year.

Am I to take from his comments that he would like to see the number of tankers reduced on the St. Lawrence maybe in favour of some other mode of transportation?

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has understood quite well. Quebeckers need to be given the opportunity to be supplied with Canadian oil and prevent transshipments and the transport of oil on the St. Lawrence. Indeed, if we started using oil from the oil sands heading to Montreal, we would no longer need tankers bringing oil from Algeria, Mexico and Venezuela. We would ensure a Canadian supply from Canada's natural resources.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, there were many inaccuracies in not only the member's intervention today, but those of many of his colleagues.

I have the honour of serving as the chair of the environment and sustainable development committee, and I want to underline the fact that it is both. It is environment and sustainable development. I am proud of the record of our government when it comes to protecting our environment. In fact, the greenhouse gas emissions alone since our government took office have been reduced by over 5%, during a period of time when the economy grew by over 10%. That is a big contrast to the Liberal record when greenhouse gases rose by over 30%.

Why would the NDP oppose a proposal that has not even gone to the National Energy Board yet? Also, is my colleague implying that we should shut down all boating and shipping on the St. Lawrence Seaway?

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, too much oil is being currently moved on the St. Lawrence. Last week, Suncor announced the movement of 350,000 barrels from its facilities in Sorel, which poses an incredible and incalculable threat to ecosystems, not only in Cacouna, but also in every region along the St. Lawrence.

We need to find ways to move oil other than on the St. Lawrence because we cannot clean it up if there is a spill. There is currently no way to clean up the oil if it spills into the ice. Spills happen regularly. Our colleagues opposite pretend they do not. There are many oil spills in Canada, and there have been many in the St. Lawrence. If there were a major spill, and that does happen, we would not be equipped to deal with it. Only 5% to 15% of oil spilled into the St. Lawrence could be cleaned up. The rest would flow practically to the mouth of the tributaries, would pollute the entire gulf and would threaten the economy. Currently, the tourism industry generates $250 million annually in that region. The Conservatives are not going to threaten that income.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this motion. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Halifax West.

The Cacouna port project is no small potatoes, as the saying goes. According to Le Devoir:

TransCanada has ambitions of building...nothing less than the largest infrastructure in history for transporting and exporting oil from the oil sands.

As an aside, let me say that if this energy project is seeing the light of day today, that is partly because the government has failed with the Keystone XL pipeline. We are still waiting for a positive answer from the U.S. government. We have reached this stage because of the Conservative government's clumsy diplomacy, and now it is talking about building a major port on the St. Lawrence.

I will continue quoting the article from Le Devoir. TransCanada “actually wants to build a port that is unprecedented in the history of Quebec”. That is no small thing. To better understand the scope of this project, the ships that will come to the port to take on cargo, “will carry two to five times more oil than the amount spilled by Exxon Valdez in Alaska in 1989”; this is according to Le Devoir once again.

It must also be noted that navigation in this part of the river will necessarily be complex. If the project gets the green light, and this was mentioned by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, we would also be facing the problem of the discharge of enormous quantities of ballast water. As we all know, ballast water is a kind of conduit for invasive species that come from elsewhere and fundamentally and irreversibly alter aquatic ecosystems, in particular the Great Lakes ecosystem.

I will not say more about the potential impact of this gigantic project because the real nub of the question we are debating today, as far as I am concerned, is the process that will be used to either confirm or dispel the concerns about a future port in Cacouna. In other words, we are talking today about the quality and rigour of the environmental assessment process that will be used to reach a decision about this project.

We know that the assessment is coming and I have serious doubts about it. To begin with, I do not have a lot of confidence in the assessment, and that is partly because of one of the mammoth bills the government introduced in the House, a budget bill that, as we know, completely changed the rules for federal environmental assessments in this country. In other words, since 2012, energy projects such as pipelines are assessed not by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, but by the National Energy Board.

We are entitled to wonder whether that board has the expertise needed for properly assessing the impact of projects like these on the environment; we might also wonder whether its priority is to protect the environment or simply to advance the private interests of companies in the oil industry.

We know that because of that bill, in 2012, apart from the fact that responsibility for environmental assessments of these projects has now been handed to the National Energy Board, the number of stakeholders with the right to present their views on the potential environmental effects of an energy project has been reduced. That bill, which is now law, also shortened the time allowed for doing an environmental assessment. And last but not least, under the new law, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will now be acting as a mere consultant to the National Energy Board, and has had all its decision-making powers on this kind of project taken away.

I would like to draw a parallel between the environmental assessment that will be done for the energy east pipeline and the one that has already been done for the northern gateway pipeline project. In British Columbia, there is talk about the impact of a pipeline on whales. In that case, they are not belugas, they are humpback whales, off the coast of British Columbia.

In that environmental assessment, the issue was the risks that the pipeline project posed to the whales. According to a professor at the University of Calgary, the report and recommendations of the assessment committee frankly left a lot to be desired, because they seem to have disregarded the concerns about the fate of the whales in the context of the northern gateway pipeline project.

In recommending the approval of the project, Professor Shaun Fluker said that the National Energy Board panel erred by

...accepting that known threats to the humpback whale will occur from tanker traffic in critical habitat and [yet] by concluding that this will not be a significant adverse effect on the species.

Then he went on to say that:

Enbridge [the project's promoter] submitted that knowledge on whales is sparse, vessel strikes and other impacts on whales are unavoidable....

However, in the end, the panel wholly accepted Enbridge's view that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the humpback whale. Therefore we see that, yes, the Energy Board does do assessments now, but when it comes to the impacts on wildlife and, in this case, on whales, it just seems to skirt the issue a bit.

Even if we can assume a rigorous environmental assessment process, we have to have good information, and we see that the government is not really forthcoming with good information that is the product of research by scientists. We know that scientists are muzzled; that is pretty clear. We have seen in the court case that imposed an injunction on the exploratory wells at Cacouna that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was not very forthcoming with very important information needed for the decision on whether to allow exploratory wells. I am just saying that I am not very confident that the environmental review will be as rigorous as it should be.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and his contribution to this debate. However, I cannot help but point out the contradictions that we have seen over and over again in his leader's position on the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal project.

Regarding the Cacouna oil port, the member for Papineau said that we need to move forward. What about the lack of scientific evidence?

I would like to know how my colleague's leader can justify proceeding so blindly.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, we are open to economic progress. We do not close the door on every industrial project in the oil and gas sector. We must move forward with the pipeline.

However, the law and common sense dictate that we must proceed with a rigorous environmental assessment before making any final decisions regarding this project.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague is aware of the ruling handed down by the Quebec Superior Court, which issued an injunction against the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which issued advice and a permit without consulting its scientific experts on the issue of beluga whales?

As we already knew from a recent report by Simon Fraser University, many departments are muzzling their scientists. In this case, the department gave advice without consulting its experts.

What does he think of the government's way of doing things?

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil TerminalBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, a certain culture has been created within federal departments. Scientists are being muzzled and management is being given carte blanche to issue advice without consulting the experts.

It is as though the government gave its permission for departments to give non-scientific advice that appears scientific for all development projects, without having to consult any scientists.

A culture has been created where everyone believes they have this right. Officials in these departments feel they have the right to issue an opinion on subjects without having any evidence to back it up, in order to please the political higher-ups.