Randy Kamp

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

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.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

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.

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.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

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.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his interest in this issue. He might recall that in May 2012 our government made an investment of $17.5 million in the Asian carp program. Also in 2012, we made changes to the Fisheries Act that allowed our department to work with the provinces and territories to develop a regulatory framework to include prohibitions against import, transport, and possession of specific invasive species. In fact, we are working on that now. I do wish the member had voted for both of those initiatives.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the member will know that under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, there was a process in place for local groups to take over the ownership and maintenance of lighthouses that are surplus to the needs of the Canadian Coast Guard. I assume that is what is happening in this situation.

[The Environment, September 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have been clear that the Province of Quebec had its own responsibilities, under its own laws, to conduct a review and reach a conclusion. We did our own review, and we are quite prepared to defend it based on scientific evidence.

The NDP knows this, but chooses to muddy the water, if I can use that expression, because it suits its anti-development ideology.

[The Environment, September 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

It needs to be very clear that there were two reviews taking place here, one by DFO, and one by the Province of Quebec. The Quebec court decision has nothing to do with the review conducted by DFO; Quebec conducts its own reviews under its own laws.

DFO conducted its review and delivered an authorization based on scientific expertise and under the strictest conditions. It did provide the results of that review to the Province of Quebec, but the province is responsible for conducting its own review and defending its results.

[Fisheries and Oceans, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let me just review the facts. DFO conducted a thorough scientific review of the work. All of this information was made available to the public and media, and work is only proceeding under strict conditions, which include constant monitoring for beluga whales.

However, it is important to note that TransCanada has not yet submitted the construction of the marine terminal for review to the National Energy Board, but when it does, the work will be carefully reviewed. Our government has been clear that projects will only move forward if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

[Fisheries and Oceans, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to provide a little more background on this particular question.

I can assure the member that the Government of Canada is committed to the protection of species at risk, and DFO takes this responsibility very seriously.

As we are all aware, the St. Lawrence beluga whale is a species at risk, and when proponents of projects want to undertake activities, the department's mandate is to ensure that specific criteria for the protection and recovery of species at risk are respected.

It is important to note that in addition to the measures under the Species at Risk Act, beluga whales are also afforded protection under the fisheries protection provisions of the Fisheries Act as well as the Marine Mammal Regulations, which prohibit disturbance of whales and other marine mammals.

As the member may be aware, TransCanada Pipelines proposes to construct its energy east project to transport oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in eastern Canada. This project includes the construction and operation of a shipping terminal near Cacouna, Quebec. The proposed location for the shipping terminal is in a part of the critical habitat for the St. Lawrence beluga whale used by the animals to calve and nurse their young.

In preparation for the proposed terminal, TransCanada submitted a proposal to Fisheries and Oceans 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. The proposal was reviewed in accordance with well-established science-based processes.

Following the review, a SARA permit was issued for the seismic survey project specifically in the critical habitat of the St. Lawrence beluga whale, but was limited to a less sensitive time when whales were less likely to be present or would be present in reduced numbers. The seismic testing was completed by April 30, 2014, to ensure that beluga whales would not be impacted.

Following the review of the proposed drilling project, DFO staff provided a letter back to TransCanada that included measures to avoid potential impacts on the St. Lawrence beluga and its habitat. 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 site, that 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. No formal approval was required from DFO under the Fisheries Act or the Species at Risk Act in order to proceed with the drilling.

The project proponent committed to avoiding impacts to the species by undertaking seismic activities during less sensitive periods as well as implementing mitigation measures during drilling to ensure that the St. Lawrence beluga whale was protected.

Drilling is currently ongoing, and DFO officials are closely monitoring the activities. In fact, on September 17, yesterday, as per the protocol, drilling operations were shut down because of beluga presence in the area.

This is an example of how a successful review and approval process should function, whereby impacts to species at risk are considered and avoided and human activities are allowed to proceed in a sustainable manner.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise one point. I know he and other members have referred to supposed cuts to DFO's enforcement powers, but the figures they are using are not accurate.

I wonder if he knows that DFO has sponsored the fourth annual global fisheries enforcement training workshop. That is important because we need to realize, in the context of this issue, that fishing takes place on the high seas, outside of the 200-mile limit of any country, as he alluded to in his comments, and there is IUU fishing taking place there. This agreement would help regulate that fishing. If there is no place where fishermen can legally land it, eventually the illegal fishing will dry up.

However, a greater percentage of the illegal fishing actually takes place within the 200-mile limits of largely developing countries. Canada is playing a very significant role in the training of other jurisdictions because countries around the world look to us as a good example in terms of protection, conservation, and enforcement. That is a good thing, and I think he would agree with me on that.

I would ask him if he thinks there are any specific areas that would require amendment in committee, so that we can begin to think about those.