Randy Kamp

[Anniversary of Maple Ridge, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to celebrate the 140th anniversary of Maple Ridge, my hometown.

In September 1874, a group of settlers gathered at John McIver's farm and decided to incorporate as a municipality. The stunning view of maple trees running along the ridge on the edge of the McIver farm gave this new community its name, Maple Ridge. What began as a rural community with fewer than 50 families now has a population of almost 80,000, and it is one of the fastest-growing areas in the metro Vancouver region.

There is more good news. On September 12, 140 years to the day after its incorporation, Maple Ridge became a city. I want to congratulate Mayor Ernie Daykin and his council on this important achievement.

Maple Ridge has a blend of rural charm and urban sophistication. I am proud to say that I am from the city of Maple Ridge, which I think just might be the best place to live in Canada.

[Petitions, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, given that tomorrow is the International Day of the Girl, I am pleased today to present a petition signed by British Columbians that calls upon the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

[The Environment, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that the court case to which he referred regarded provincial laws and provincial officials. It had nothing to do with DFO, DFO officials or DFO processes.

We are confident that the DFO process is diligent, thorough and based on the best available science.

[The Environment, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the member is a lawyer not a fish biologist. However, I can assure him that DFO allowed this exploratory work to go ahead because it was clear that it would not result in harm to marine life.

DFO has scientists who are specifically devoted to marine mammals, including the St. Lawrence belugas. They were involved in this file. One of DFO's key priorities is the protection of marine life, and that has been the priority in this case as well.

[The Environment, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest in this issue. I can assure him that projects will only go forward if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

However, the fact is that TransCanada has not yet submitted an application for the construction of a marine terminal. If it does, it will be carefully reviewed by the National Energy Board.

At this stage, the only work being done is exploratory in nature. That work was carefully reviewed and authorized by departmental experts contingent on very strict conditions.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my well-informed colleague for the information he has provided, which is very helpful.

The motion says that in the opinion of the House, this terminal must be rejected. What does he think about a motion for the House to consider about a project proposal that has not yet been submitted to the National Energy Board?

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

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.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

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.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

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.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

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.