Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2010

Opposition Motion—West Coast Oil Tanker Traffic

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member across the way looks at Hansard for December 1, he will see that every member of the NDP is recorded as voting against the federal sustainable development bill. What does that mean? The question is, why did they vote against it?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The issue before the House today is the motion that has been brought forward by the NDP, not the issue of what was voted on yesterday. I appreciate that the hon. parliamentary secretary raised the issue in his question and that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley raised a point of order disputing the facts.

At this point, the hon. parliamentary secretary has spoken.

I give the floor to the member for Nickel Belt to respond, dealing with today's motion.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member from the government is getting his facts. We certainly did not vote against that. He can say whatever he wants about the way we voted on that, but it is not true.

Obviously he was not listening to what I was saying. We want to create jobs in Canada. He wants to create jobs in Asia and the U.S.A. We are talking about good-paying jobs. We could build a pipeline to Thompson where another foreign company is eliminating hundreds of jobs. We could build a refinery in Thompson and create good-paying Canadian jobs, instead of creating them in the U.S. and Asia.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day this is going to be a dead deal in terms of the pipeline being built because the tanker traffic is just too risky, based on the route we are talking about, as the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley indicated before.

In addition, the government has changed the Marine Liability Act under Bill C-7, tripling the amount for victims' compensation from $500 million to $1.5 billion. Since insurance is the grease that runs business, when the underwriters for reinsurance companies in London, England, discover how risky this tanker route really is, they are going to refuse to insure these ships.

As an example, for a number of years in Manitoba we had a problem getting ships into the port of Churchill. In that day, the premier and the cabinet had to go cap in hand to London, England to explain to the underwriters why insurance should not be denied. That is the only way we were able to get those ships through. When the underwriters find out how risky this route really is, how risky pipelines are, because pipeline accidents have been hidden over the years, the insurance industry itself will shut down this operation.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was talking about underwriters and getting insurance for these tankers. If we were to refine our oil in Canada, creating good-paying Canadian jobs, we would not have to worry about the underwriters. Instead of having to underwrite these tankers to process the oil in the U.S.A. and Asia, creating jobs over there where it does not benefit our economy, we want to benefit the Canadian economy and create good-paying Canadian jobs.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I always welcome an opportunity to speak to environmental protection and conservation. I am particularly proud to be able to speak today concerning Canada's magnificent west coast.

I do not need to be convinced of the priority to protect its ocean ecosystem, preserve its marine resources, which sustain the economies of coastal communities, and honour first nations rights and titles in the process.

Conservation is the foundation of a strong environment, and Canada has a very proud record on conservation. We have taken action to protect nearly 100 million hectares of land, nearly 10% of Canada's land mass, and 4.6 million hectares of ocean.

We have the best national park system in the world and have grown it by 30% in just four years. We have established the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve and Haida Heritage Site in respectful collaboration with the Haida Nation.

This is a remarkable achievement, one this House envisioned some 23 years ago when it passed a unanimous resolution supporting the protection of the lands and waters around Gwaii Haanas. It is a protected area that extends from the alpine tundra of the mountaintops to the deep ocean beyond the continental shelf. This is a first in the world. It is a living legacy of lands and waters that will endure for generations to come. It is an example of the international leadership Canada is taking when it comes to conservation efforts.

This new national marine conservation area, it should be noted, will now be protected forever from oil and gas exploration and development, in part because of the foresight of the petroleum industry. The need to conserve the marine waters of Gwaii Haanas and the nearly 3,500 marine species found within this archipelago was recognized first by the petroleum industry. The four major oil companies who possessed third-party petroleum rights to much of the seabed in the Hecate Strait relinquished all of them in 1997 by working with the Nature Conservancy of Canada. It was a significant action on their part, which cleared the way for the establishment of this national marine conservation area.

We are taking significant steps to conserve lands and wildlife across Canada. We are doing that through funding programs and strong enforcement with new tools and fines, and we are doing it by reviewing our legislation to make protection for species at risk stronger.

Protecting our lands and wildlife is everyone's responsibility. Many governments, organizations and individuals are involved and all of us are making important contributions. Together we are protecting, conserving and restoring our lands and wildlife.

With a well-articulated approach to national conservation, one with clear goals, ambitions and targets, we can do even better and together make Canada a world leader in conservation. Over the coming months we will be engaging all of our partners to establish a common approach for the development and implementation of a national conservation plan.

Protection of our environment is also essential. Canadians expect us to protect our environment, and Canada has a proud record on protection.

The Scott Islands is a group of five small islands off the northern tip of Vancouver Island, which supports more than two million breeding sea birds between March and September, the highest concentration of breeding sea birds in the eastern north Pacific. About 40% of the sea birds that breed in British Columbia nest there. The area also attracts between five million and ten million sea birds, which may travel thousands of miles across the Pacific to feed in the rich waters around the Scott Islands. The black-footed albatross is one of these long-distance travellers. It is listed as an endangered species, at risk of extinction.

Environment Canada is now working to establish the Scott Islands marine national wildlife area. We are doing this together with the Government of British Columbia, other federal government departments, first nations, regional governments and representatives from the marine transportation, energy, commercial fishing, marine conservation, sport fishing and tourism sectors. We are all working together to plan for this national wildlife marine area.

Environment Canada is actively contributing to an important initiative under the lead of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, which is the Pacific north coast integrated management area. This is an area situated in British Columbia's central and north coast areas, encompassing 88,000 square kilometres.

Environment Canada officials are at the table with their counterparts from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, Transport Canada, the Province of British Columbia and representatives of the Coastal First Nations, North Coast Skeena First Nations Stewardship Society and Nanwakolas Council to find ways together to ensure a healthy, safe and prosperous ocean area by developing an integrated management plan for the area.

This groundbreaking collaborative process will provide opportunities to address concerns being raised in the House today with respect to safety and to safeguarding a unique ocean ecosystem while resolving tensions among potentially conflicting activity when it comes to protecting and conserving our environment, honouring first nation rights and title, and preserving the resources that have sustained communities along British Columbia's central and north coasts.

The Great Bear Rainforest is located just south of Kitimat, along the north coast of British Columbia. It is the largest tract of intact coastal temperate rainforest left protected. It comprises more than 30,000 square miles and is home to three kinds of bear, grizzly, black and the rare spirit bear, six million migratory birds, 3,000 genetically distinct salmon stocks and many species of plants unique to the region.

This government has contributed $30 million to a not-for-profit fund for sustainable and community-based first nations economic development in the Great Bear Rainforest, as did the B.C. government. Known as the economic development fund, the total of $60 million is being used to support conservation, sustainable job creation and business development initiatives for coastal first nations. This is an example of the Government of Canada's investment in sustainable development in the region.

Environment Canada's birds oiled at sea program covers the entire Pacific coast, including the Queen Charlotte Basin, Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait areas, with similar program coverage in other parts of Canada.

In partnership with Transport Canada's national aerial surveillance program, we are engaged in compliance monitoring and enforcement with respect to chronic small-scale oil events associated with marine vessels.

The primary goal of this program is to assess the extent of and predict in space and time the risk of marine birds encountering oil pollution off the Pacific coast.

As well, this program models other impacts on marine ecosystems resulting from maritime activities, such as shipping and commercial fishing, and forms of pollution other than oil, such as plastic and other forms of anthropogenic marine debris.

Members of the opposition have introduced a motion asking the government to propose legislation to ban bulk oil tanker traffic in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound as a way to protect the west coast's ocean ecosystem, to preserve the marine resources that sustain communities and regional economies of that area.

The Pacific coast is one of the most highly regulated jurisdictions in the world for tanker traffic. These laws and regulations promote the safe and secure use of Canada's waters and govern the safe transport of petroleum products to protect the marine and coastal environment.

With respect to coastal drilling, there has been a federal moratorium on oil and gas exploration activities off the coast of British Columbia since 1972. This moratorium, however, does not apply to tanker traffic.

Under federal law and in accordance with international conventions, crude oil and oil product tankers and barges are permitted to navigate in Canadian waters and to enter designated ports, including Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Vancouver and several minor ports.

Currently, southbound oil tankers carrying Alaskan crude oil to refineries on the U.S. west coast travel in shipping lanes off the coast of B.C. beyond what is known as the tanker exclusion zone. This zone is a voluntary measure agreed to by the U.S. and Canadian coast guards to enhance the safety of shipping along Canada's west coast. It prevents oil tankers from entering the inside passage or travelling close to the western coastlines of Haida Gwaii or Vancouver Island.

Petroleum shipments currently transiting the inner coast of British Columbia consist mainly of barges carrying oil products, such as gasoline, lubrication oil and diesel fuel to British Columbian ports and to Alaskan destinations.

Enbridge's proposal to construct and operate a new twin pipeline system and marine terminal on the north coast of B.C., at Kitimat, has been subject to considerable public debate, including concerns expressed by aboriginal communities.

Our government is well aware of the concerns with a possible increase in tanker traffic through a number of areas that the environment department and others have identified as having a very high importance to migratory birds, whale pods, Pacific salmon and coastal rainforests.

We are aware, too, of concerns of any harmful impacts on critical sectors of British Columbia's northern and coastal regional economies.

I want to assure the House that the proposed Enbridge northern gateway project is being assessed by the independent joint review panel mandated by the Minister of the Environment and the National Energy Board.

The panel will assess the environmental effects of the proposed project, and Environment Canada is fully engaged in this process.

The department is also participating in an assessment of vessel movements and safety relating to the proposed project under the technical review process of marine terminal systems and transshipment sites.

Environment Canada is fully aware of its responsibilities to ensure the honour of the Crown is met and its constitutional obligations fulfilled when we engage with first nations.

Regarding aboriginal consultation for the joint review panel process, the federal Crown's duty to consult with aboriginal people is being co-ordinated by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. We are relying on the joint review panel process and the applicant's own consultation efforts to the extent possible to meet the Crown's duty to consult with aboriginal peoples.

Currently oil tankers and barges ply virtually all of British Columbia's coasts and rivers, including all major ports and the Fraser River. Fortunately, accidents involving vessels carrying petroleum products are extremely rare. Despite a global increase in the shipment of oil, both the number of incidents and the quantity of spilled oil has decreased steadily since the 1970s. Rest assured, the Government of Canada has a dedicated and funded regime in place for the prevention of, preparedness for, response to and recovery from marine oil spills.

The Canadian Coast Guard, together with other government departments such as Transport Canada and Environment Canada, form Canada's marine pollution preparedness and response system, a multi-agency approach that sees a network of federal, provincial, territorial, industry and international partners working collaboratively to prepare for and respond to marine pollution events.

Before concluding, I want to point out as well that Environment Canada has an important preventive role to play in producing reliable weather forecasts for all Canadians, particularly in areas where their livelihoods and safety are highly dependent on the weather. Environment Canada closely monitors weather conditions on British Columbia's north coast by observing and reporting on the weather directly from a number of locations in the area.

With support from the Canadian Coast Guard, Environment Canada maintains a network of moored weather buoys that report observations of real-time wind and wave conditions in Hecate Strait, Douglas Channel, Queen Charlotte Sound, Dixon Entrance and offshore right out to the Bowie Seamount. These stations regularly report some of the highest winds and waves in Canada.

A network of weather autostations in remote locations reports the weather every hour throughout coastal British Columbia. On Haida Gwaii and the north and central coasts, these stations can be relied on to provide valuable information for mariners and for marine forecasters. As well, many ships are equipped with weather equipment and can send weather reports directly from those ships.

The public, marine and aviation interests up and down British Columbia's north coast rely on Environment Canada's weather website, Weatheradio, and automated telephone service to receive daily forecasts and timely warning bulletins. The emergency management community along the north coast and Haida Gwaii has direct access to Environment Canada's warning preparedness meteorologists in the event of an emergency.

Prevention is critical to avoiding the kinds of incidents that lead to catastrophic consequences for our environment.

I hope I have put to rest any concerns that the opposition might have about this government's commitment to protecting Canada's natural environment, its biodiversity and the well-being and prosperity of Canadians, particularly those living and working in communities along Canada's west coast. I believe our record speaks for itself.

When we consider the extent to which British Columbia relies on oil and oil products for its economy, supplying heating oil and diesel for generators to remote communities, providing airports with fuel for air travel and servicing an important economic sector in the import and export of petroleum products, we realize to what extent the transportation of oil is a necessary component of livelihoods and economy in British Columbia.

We must continue to proceed, as we are, to balance conservation and protection of the environment with attention to our regional economies, and we do so in partnership with those who are most affected by the decisions we take.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I need to make a correction, Mr. Speaker. The discussion here is about the transportation of bitumen, not oil.

This debate is a critical one for many reasons, including the control that we as Canadians ought to have not only over our resources but over good-paying, processing, value-added jobs in our own country. We are seeing a pattern here, a failure of the government to stand up for Canadians and the kinds of jobs that hold up our communities. Could the member explain that pattern?

More specifically, not only in terms of this discussion, could he tell Manitobans, people in his own province, why his government is failing to stand up for the good-paying jobs that are being taken away from them by one more foreign-owned company that is taking advantage of our resources? What does the member have to say to hard-working Manitobans who are losing their jobs?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I want to remind all hon. members that the matter before the House today is the opposition day motion. The hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this government takes the development of the oil sands and the possible future upgrading of bitumen very seriously. It still comes down to the fact that there will still be a need to move that upgraded product, whether it is bitumen or whether it is refined, into the marketplace. That means that it still has to go via pipelines to where that product is needed, whether it is to the United States, Europe, or Asia.

The reality is that Environment Canada is on top of this process, that this government supports those types of industrial roles that will be played out by the private sector. We are going to be there to regulate and ensure that it is done under a strong environmental platform that we already have established here in Canada and ensure that we meet all those environmental regulations.

I find it a little rich that the NDP members are here today preaching about the environment and at the same time they want to create jobs, which plays completely against what is happening in Manitoba right now.

They are making a comment about what is happening by a foreign-owned mine in northern Manitoba. Yes, workers are being laid off but they are getting laid off because of environmental permitting that is about to expire on their smelter. If we can fix that smelter or extend the environmental permitting we can save those jobs.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening this afternoon to the debate. I listened to the members of the opposition coalition talk about why they do not want tanker traffic off the west coast. One of the reasons they give is they want the bitumen to be upgraded in Canada.

I know from past experience with these members of the coalition that in fact if there were more upgrading in Canada they would be the first ones to be complaining about that happening. They would be speaking out against that happening. They cannot have it both ways.

I want to commend the member on his speech. It was a very important speech in this debate. It was an accurate speech and there were not very many today that had that kind of accuracy, so I thank him for that.

Does the member know there are about 475,000 vessels that move up and down the west coast each year and that about 1,500 of those are in fact tankers? Does the member know how many shipping incidents there have been off the west coast since 2003 that have resulted in pollution? Does the member know how many tankers that move through Canadian waters are inspected by Canadian inspectors?

These are tough questions for the member, but I think he can handle them.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with the member on his comment about the NDP. I chair the environment committee. When we studied the oil sands it seemed to me that every time we had witnesses who were supporting the development of the oil sands the NDP was always opposed to it.

Now the NDP members are talking about how they want to have bitumen upgraded. That is going to create even more greenhouse gas emissions, which they think we produce way too much of. They want to shut down the oil sands because they want to get rid of all these greenhouse gas emissions, which really do not amount to that great a quantity of greenhouse gas emissions coming from Canada in our overall total GHG emissions.

It seems extremely hypocritical when I listen to them saying that they want to protect the environment, they want to create jobs and they want to refine oil, but everything that we do in the House, everything that we do in committee, they are always opposed to.

Yes, I realize that we have a lot of tanker traffic happening, mainly because we have this relationship with Alaska and the tanker zone that we have established. There are petroleum products moving every day up and down the coastline to be upgraded as they hit refineries in the United States. We know that there has been a significant reduction in instances since 1970 of any major oil spills.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, when the member talks about the need to upgrade bitumen, regardless of where we do this in the world there will be greenhouse gas emissions.

If Canada thinks it is going to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by transferring the upgrading of bitumen to other countries, it is really a no-win situation in terms of greenhouse gases in the world. It is also a no-win situation for Canadian jobs, plus taxes, plus royalties, and the dollars that are involved in this are massive.

Does my hon. colleague really think that by transferring bitumen out of the country he is going to reduce the greenhouse gas profile of the tar sands? No.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that if the bitumen was upgraded in Canada under our regulations it would be done in a much more environmentally friendly way than what could possibly happen in other jurisdictions.

We are not saying that we are opposed to the upgrading of bitumen. The member for Western Arctic knows that the government supports the development of our natural resources and that we support the investment in the natural resources that we have in this country.

If those types of investments are going to be made here, our government will go through its fiduciary duty and ensure that those investments are being made along the rules and lines that we have in this country. Then it will also make sure that they fit into all the environmental regulations and plans of the government.

It is important when those opportunities present themselves that we capitalize on them. At the same time, it still requires that the product, after it has been refined or if it has gone out as bitumen, get to the final export market, and that means it still has to be transported down pipelines to either get to U.S. or Asian markets or even over to Europe.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully this afternoon to the speech by the member for Selkirk—Interlake.

I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his outstanding work on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The committee does terrific work. I know the member is an excellent presiding officer of that committee.

I was intrigued by the opening comments of the member's speech this afternoon. He talked about some of the work the government was doing in the area of conservation, particularly, as he called it, the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area. He talked about that briefly.

I wonder if the member could take a moment to expand on that kind of work and some of the other things that the government is doing with projects like that marine conservation area, particularly on the west coast?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we did have an opportunity earlier this year to actually deal with the act of establishing the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area and ensuring that all the players at the table, including the Province of British Columbia and the Gwaii Haanas first nation, had all of their issues met.

We are working, after we go through the appropriate process, towards turning that into a park. Now that we have the agreement in place, we do have the Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment, working together.

This is a very beautiful area, a large archipelago of islands. There has to be management board that oversees all that. We are going to continue to work to make sure that that reserve gets all the attention it needs, all the resources from Parks Canada, and that we continue to work to protect that area and expand all other future marine reserves and lands to go into the park system.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on a subject that I believe needs much more debate than what we were able to accomplish here today. Judging by many of the comments that were made by my colleagues from the Conservative Party, they should be taking a good primary course on the development of the tar sands to understand how these tar sands actually are constituted and what these tar sands mean as they are developed.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I will be sharing my time with the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam. He is an excellent new member of Parliament who understands completely the ecological system of the west coast, and I trust he will carry that message forward here today.

In 2007, in response to her constituents, environmental groups such as the Dogwood Initiative and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, the member for Victoria, who unfortunately cannot make a speech here today, tabled a motion to ban tanker traffic in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. I remember her telling me how shocked she had been when paddling in Prince William Sound, years after the Exxon Valdez disaster, she saw there were still remnants of crude oil gummed onto the rocks.

When introducing her motion in 2007, she said that it was time to end the ambiguity, that there was a simple fix to make certain this would never happen again, and that was to formalize the moratoria.

That is what were are here for today.

My purpose here today is to talk about an area of concern that I have. I live downstream from the development of the Athabasca tar sands. I have lived there most of my life. I share with many other community members the concerns that we have over the rampant expansion of these tar sands. Having said that, I recognize the importance of this resource to Canada. I recognize that this resource will be there and producing bitumen for 100 years. That is what is going to happen. That is the nature of the Athabasca tar sands.

We have to face up to that and try to make those tar sands the very best for Canada that we can. That is our purpose as well, when we stand in this Parliament as the New Democratic Party. We have had the opportunity on many occasions to tell the House that. Our opposition to bad management of the tar sands is just that. Let us get on to good management of the tar sands and we will solve some of the issues that we have with that, and we will protect my constituents living downstream from those same tar sands.

Right now the tar sands are at about 1.4 million barrels a day. They are expecting that this will rise by the middle of the next decade to almost three million barrels a day. Those barrels of bitumen need upgrading. Every single one of those barrels needs a very complex process, requiring expensive installations in the order of billions of dollars to make that happen.

In this world right now, we are considering exporting that bitumen from Canada with the net value per barrel, confirmed to me today by the CAPP, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, representative in our meeting, in the neighbourhood of $20 to $30 a barrel. That is the value to the Canadian economy for every single barrel that is upgraded in this country.

When we talk about shipping a million barrels a day of bitumen out of this country, we are talking about a net loss to the Canadian economy every year of $10 billion. If the Conservative government cannot understand the nature of that impact on our economy, then I do not know where it thinks it has some kind of hold on the economy. It does not, if it does not understand that this is not the proper thing to do for Canada, to export bitumen out of this country.

Why is the government exporting the bitumen? Why does it want to export it down to the Gulf of Mexico? It is because the U.S. right now is in a political battle with Venezuela, and the heavy oil that was brought from Venezuela to the Gulf of Mexico is no longer something that the U.S. desires. It is not something Venezuelans want to do for the U.S. if we have a problem there.

These large upgraders in the Gulf of Mexico region are now a cheap alternative for the multinational companies to bring our bitumen from the tar sands down to the Gulf of Mexico and upgrade it there. That is what is driving that move, not value for the Canadian economy.

When we think of exporting bitumen to China, what will happen in China? China will set up upgraders there at a cost of billions of dollars. We will establish a supply link that delivers raw bitumen with huge investments at the other end and huge pressure on us to continue to make that the staple of that industry, moving raw bitumen.

This is not something we can just pick up and give up. What are we going to do for the years we are going to establish another? Will China stand around while we build another upgrader so that in the future the bitumen is not available for its upgrader? No. Once we build a pipeline to the west coast and start shipping bitumen, Canadians will be struck with that for 100 years. That is the future we will see for our children, which is not appropriate.

What we need to think about is what we use our bitumen for? Right now in Canada conventional oil is declining in production. According to Natural Resources Canada, 1.5 million barrels a day was the total in 2006. It is predicting it down to about 750,000 barrels by 2020. Canada will have a less secure oil supply. Transferring bitumen out of the country will not help Canada's energy security.

Right now we are importing one million barrels of oil a day from the Middle East. The oil is put in a tanker in the Middle East and it is sent over to Canada. We put the raw bitumen in the tanker and we send it over to China. Is there some consistency to what we do as Canadians? Is there any sense in what we are proposing for ourselves? For five years I have been standing in Parliament asking and pleading with the government to develop a national energy strategy that can deliver for Canadians. Instead, we get action like this.

The government is continuing to allow multinational oil companies to set the tune for the direction and future of Canadians. What a disgrace. Why does the government not get onboard with most of the industry in this country, most of the Canadian companies, the chief executives who have come out for a national energy strategy and do the work for Canadians and produce a national energy strategy? If it were to do that, it would realize very quickly that a good Canadian company like Enbridge, in the absence of any direction from the federal government, is moving ahead with a project that is not in Canada's interests. When will that happen? When will the government wake up, smell the roses and get on with a national energy strategy so all of these issues can be properly debated and properly put in context for Canadians?

It would deliver jobs and energy security for Canadians. Those are real things that Canadians want but the government is not delivering on them. It is blindly going along with every whimsical project that will change the nature of our country without doing its homework. It is a disgrace. This sort of debate, which we had to plead for and had to use up our opposition day for, should be an intelligent, careful debate with industry and stakeholders across the country so we can come to some conclusions about the nature of our energy supply.

If the government does not do that, it should be thrown out at the next election because it is really doing nothing for Canadians.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with one thing the member said. It would be nice if we had some intelligent debate in this place because we are certainly not getting it from the NDP.

I would like to remind people that, in its policy manual, the NDP said that it would like to improve the public sector's role as a wealth creator and major provider of jobs. NDP members want a command economy that is completely out of step with the modern world. The other thing they are very good at is wedge politics and fear-mongering.

The Exxon Valdez is how the member started his speech. The Exxon Valdez was a single hull tanker. There has been no double hull tanker in the world that has had a spill in the last 50 years.

I would like to hear the member comment on those observations.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member across the way is reading NDP policy documents. Perhaps some of the telephone calls that he listens to as well could give him some insight into the NDP.

Nonetheless, we have just gone through a process in this country to stand up for our potash industry in a very serious fashion. The government did that as well under pressure from industry and the provinces all across this country. It did the right thing in the end by realizing that our resources are precious and must be protected. When we develop resources, we must develop them for the best possible outcome for Canadians.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Western Arctic has been working long and hard on a Canadian energy strategy. He brings a lot of expertise to the table from his many years of work as a municipal councillor and as a consultant in this area. I appreciate his input and contribution to the debate.

The government has said that it will not take action to reduce greenhouse gases in this country until China steps up to the plate. However, the ludicrous thing is that the government is promoting the export of our raw bitumen to China for processing. If that bitumen were processed in Canada, if the government stepped up to the plate and required the strongest possible environmental controls and controls on greenhouse gases, we could ensure that the bitumen would be upgraded appropriately. However, by shipping the bitumen to China, we cannot control the kind of process they will follow or the environmental measures they will look at.

The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. If they want to ship our bitumen to Asian countries, then they should not complain about the fact that their pollution is rising. Which way do they want to have it?

I would like to have the member's opinion on that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting when we consider the idea of exporting raw bitumen to China. We create a system that we cannot get out of. If this were an upgrading process with synthetic oil produced and that went into a tanker, we could put that to any destination in the world. By doing it the way this company has proposed, we have limited ourselves to a specific market. That is not a good idea in any case. The job loss is so incredible it baffles the mind. When we mention the kind of job loss that comes with moving this product out in the fashion it is., every group that I have talked to across the country asks why we are doing it.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the motion to ban the transportation of oil by supertankers off British Columbia's north coast.

We must take action now to protect British Columbia's magnificent coastline and coastal waters, its diversity of fish species, abundance of mammals and the coastal communities that depend on a healthy fishing industry and profitable ecotourism sector.

On March 26 of this year, I introduced Bill C-502, a private member's bill that would amend the Canada Shipping Act to prohibit the transportation of oil in supertankers in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound.

It would also allow the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to designate other areas of the sea in which transportation of oil by oil tankers is prohibited. British Columbians have been very clear on this issue: 80% want to see a permanent oil tanker ban on B.C.'s north coast.

I would like to acknowledge some of my colleagues who have done quite a bit of work on this topic: the member for Vancouver Kingsway, the member for Victoria and the member for Winnipeg Centre, just to name a few.

My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway drafted and introduced similar legislation to what I have proposed. My colleague fromVictoria has also introduced legislation, as has my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre. Both have worked hard in the past to protect this incredible area of the B.C. coast.

I would like to acknowledge the work of my hon. colleague from the north coast whose riding this falls within, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. We know of his tireless efforts working toward a progressive change in this area. He knows better than any in this House how devastating an oil spill in this area would be to these coastal communities.

In October of this year, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities voted in favour of a resolution to petition the federal government to enshrine in legislation a permanent ban on oil tanker traffic in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. In its resolution it states:

...a crude oil spill will have devastating and long lasting effects on the Pacific North Coast area that is recognized for its unique and diverse ocean ecosystems, which provide critical marine habitat and marine resources that sustain the social, cultural, environmental and economic health of coastal communities, including First Nations communities.

B.C.'s first nations have been vocal in their opposition to this proposed oil tanker traffic through their traditional territories. In March of this year, the Coastal First Nations, an alliance of first nations on the north coast and central coast, including Haida Gwaii, declared a ban on oil tanker traffic using their traditional laws.

In fact, today there was an historic announcement, which brought together 61 indigenous nations that have come together in an alliance to protect the Fraser River watershed and to declare their opposition to the proposed Enbridge northern gateway pipeline.

Signed in Williams Lake last week and published in a full-page ad in The Globe and Mail today, the Save the Fraser Gathering of Nations declaration is based on indigenous law and authority. It states:

...[we] will not allow the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, or similar tar sands projects, to cross our lands, territories and watersheds, or the ocean migration routes of the Fraser River salmon.

The declaration is the second major first nations declaration banning tar sands pipelines from B.C. this year. It makes it clear that the nations see the federal review process for one project as a violation of their laws and rights under international law, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada just recently signed.

First nations in this area have long advocated for sustainable employment opportunities for their members, along with proper environmental stewardship. They live in B.C.'s coastal temperate rainforest and are working hard to create a conservation-based economy, with emphasis on sustainable fisheries, forestry and ecotourism. Allowing more than 200 supertankers a year to enter these waters does not fit with their objectives.

I believe we need to be forward thinking. A ban on tanker traffic in this area makes economic sense. Our coastal communities have been hard hit over the years with a global recession, a downturn in commodity prices, a collapse of industrial forestry and a struggling fishery that, aside from this year, has faced some of the lowest annual returns in the past decade.

With that in mind, there is still renewed hope in coastal communities. Our wild salmon fishery experienced a record sockeye return this year. In British Columbia, our wild salmon are considered an icon species and an integral part of our identity and what it means to be west coast. As well, salmon are integral to the environment, our culture and our economy.

The waters off B.C.'s north coast are a significant salmon migration route, with millions of salmon that come from the more than 650 streams and rivers along the coast in this area. The impacts of an oil spill would be devastating. The commercial fishery on the north coast catches over $100 million worth of fish annually. Over 2,500 residents along B.C.'s north coast work in the commercial fishery. The fish processing industry employs over 3,900 people.

The north coast fishery is a major economic driver in the region and for the province of British Columbia. Our coastal communities and fisheries simply cannot afford the risk of an oil spill. We all witnessed what happened with the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 and the devastation that caused, including the complete collapse of pink salmon. We all witnessed the destruction of the shrimp and fishing grounds after the BP spill in the Gulf Coast.

We cannot allow even the possibility of a similar occurrence to the north coast fishery. Thousands of people's livelihoods rely upon us making the right decision to protect our fishery, and one way to do that is to legislate a ban on oil supertanker traffic.

The wild and rugged north coast is one of the most beautiful places on the planet. It is a place where the legendary kermode bear, more popularly known as the spirit bear, resides and is an intrinsic character in first nation mythology and culture. This elusive white bear can be spotted roaming around the dense forests gathering salmon and was even the mascot for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics.

The magnificent beauty of this region has led it to become a world-renowned destination for ecotourism. The burgeoning tourism industry has been a major catalyst for employment, economic growth and opportunity in British Columbia. People from all over the world come to the north coast to witness the annual migration of the more than 20,000 grey whales that traverse the waters from Mexico to the Bering Sea.

B.C.'s north coast shoreline is dotted with sports fishing lodges as fishing enthusiasts flock to experience the natural environment, the world-famous fishing grounds and the wild ocean. People are often left awestruck after spending even a day kayaking, bear watching, or enjoying a guided trip that showcases the marine habitat. They come to photograph sea otters and bald eagles and to experience, in some cases, the untouched natural environment of the Pacific coast.

I suggest, if members have not done so already, that they take the opportunity to visit this incredible area one day soon. I am sure that they will come away with a much better understanding of the sheer beauty and raw nature of this area.

Eco and recreational tourism in this area has been a growth industry for some years now. Businesses in this region have worked hard to promote their location as a major tourist destination. As other resource-based jobs have taken a hit, tourism has provided a much needed economic boost, both in direct and indirect jobs.

According to the Living Oceans Society, there are approximately 10,000 jobs in the cruise ship and recreational tourism industry. This industry has provided jobs and economic spinoffs in a region that a decade ago faced significant unemployment and job loss.

The right thing to do for our economy is to protect and grow existing jobs on the north coast and legislate a ban on oil tanker traffic in this area immediately.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's presentation and that of his colleague before him. I just have one question on which I need some clarification.

There was a discussion that Canada should do a better job of being in the refining business of raw bitumen before it gets on a supertanker and heads somewhere else. Does that mean that if that change happened, they would support the supertankers pulling up, taking on refined fuel, refined product, and shipping it to customers? Is it okay to have refined product on supertankers? Where do they think that fuel is going to go? Do they not think we need to be able to get it to customers so our businesses can survive?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question here has to do with energy security. What we need to focus on is our domestic situation, Canada's energy security, and we need to move to protect our environment, which we so depend on, the environment that provides us with clean water, clean air, healthy soil and a stable climate, all the ingredients necessary to build healthy communities and continue strong, viable economies.

Why not upgrade and refine the bitumen from the tar sands on this continent, in our country, and use the royalties from this industry to fund a transition to a clean energy future and a greener economy? I know that is what Canadians want and I know my constituents in New Westminster, Coquitlam and Port Moody want to see this happen. They want to see us get on with the job of making this transition, of protecting our environment and developing a clean energy economy.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the previous members raised a question to one of my colleagues, I believe it was the Minister of Indian Affairs, and advised that there are no issues with oil spills from tankers so why should we worry.

I would like to put to my colleague in the House in response that in May of this year, a double-hulled tanker spilled 2.9 million litres of crude off Singapore when it was hit by a freighter. This past January, 1.7 million litres were spilled in Texas after a collision with a barge, again a double-hulled crude freighter. In 1992, 76 million litres were spilled off the coast of northern Spain by an oil tanker.

In Alberta, it is reported by the energy board there that out of the 8,000 pipeline spills, a large proportion of them are due to external causes, where something else interacts with the pipeline.

I wonder if the member could speak to this issue where it appears that even where we have double-hulled freighters, which is not always the case, there can there be an amazingly large potential risk to the critical fishery off the west coast.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hard work that my colleague does as environment critic for the New Democrats, raising issues such as this on a constant basis in the House, and I do appreciate the question.

On the issue of whether it is a single hull or a double hull, whether it the most reinforced pipelines that we could imagine, we are always going to face risk. The question then is, how do we mitigate that risk, and what kinds of factors do we consider when we make plans in terms of our energy security and our environment? I would suggest that we consider a full cost account of any and all new proposals that would threaten our environment and threaten jobs.

This threatens the health of our environment, just as it does our economy, and it threatens our way of life. I believe we need to start making the transition from this old world economy, this oil-based economy, to a new world economy based on clean, green jobs. That is something that I am working hard for and that I want to see happen in Canada.