Debates of Oct. 9th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil Terminal

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

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.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

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.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

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.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

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.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

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, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have run out of time. We have a 10-minute spot, but we have to move along.

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

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.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

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?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

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.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

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.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

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.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

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.

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.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

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?

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

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.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

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?

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

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.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

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?

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

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.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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.

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.

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.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

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?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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.