Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2010

Opposition Motion--West Coast Oil Tanker Traffic

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague and my NDP colleague for their warm welcome.

I am pleased to speak today on this opposition day to discuss an NDP motion. I want to take a few seconds to read the motion before us:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately 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 unique and diverse ocean ecosystem, to preserve the marine resources which sustain the community and regional economies of British Columbia, and to honour the extensive First Nations rights and title in the area.

First of all, I would like to say that we will support this opposition motion for several reasons. First, we cannot have economic development without considering the people who live in or near marine areas. The first nations were quick to oppose oil tanker traffic. These communities, which are the primary residents and inhabitants in the area, feel that this type of transport and oil tanker traffic could have a considerable impact on them. Furthermore, nearly 80% of the population of British Columbia is against oil tanker traffic in this coastal area. The people of British Columbia and all first nations clearly want us to take action to avoid increasing oil tanker traffic.

Why are we here debating this motion today? First, because Enbridge, a large multinational oil company, plans on building two pipelines to transport oil from the oil sands in Alberta from a terminal to a port complex in British Columbia. Two pipelines approximately 1,170 kilometres in length will link the oil terminal in Alberta to the port terminal in Kitimat, British Columbia.

This will mean that once Alberta has produced oil from the oil sands and it has been transported through the pipeline to the port in British Columbia, it will then be exported. On average, tanker traffic will increase by approximately 225 ships a year. So, 225 ships will be transporting crude oil that is destined, most likely, for Asian markets.

Essentially, it is a question of economics, but we need to look beyond that. We need to recognize that the Pacific coast and this marine area are fragile. In nearby marine areas, the government has created national marine reserves to protect these areas of high biodiversity.

Today we are having a hard time understanding the government's attitude. It seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth in terms of a moratorium on tanker traffic. Why are we having trouble understanding?

It is because the environment minister told us a couple of months ago that this zone is fragile and rich in biodiversity and that it must be protected. Today, the Conservative government is refusing to take a clear position, while the environment minister is announcing that protected world reserves are a huge step forward in the protection of biodiversity and incredible resources.

On the other hand, our government wants to ensure that oil from the oil sands finds an export market, from north to south and east to west. It is not true that we will accept putting oil interests first. The people want this ban and it is necessary in order to protect our ecosystems. Over the last number of years, particularly in the port of Vancouver in British Columbia, there has been an increase in tanker traffic. I looked at some numbers. Between 2008 and 2009 alone, there was a 48% increase in the number of oil tankers. That represents a 77% increase in the volume of crude oil transported. In that period, tanker traffic increased by 48% and the volume of oil transported increased by 77%. There has already been an increase in traffic, but the public wants a ban on it.

We need to think about this, because there is a rich biodiversity in the zones that border on the zones mentioned in the motion. For instance, there is the Straight of Georgia, the stretch of sea between Vancouver Island and mainland British Columbia, which is home to 200 species of fish, five species of wild salmon and 500 species of marine plants. This rich biodiversity must be protected because that is what communities want.

Basically, we know that this zone, including the Burrard Inlet among others, is one of the main gateways for transporting the oil and, as I said, the rich biodiversity there must be protected. It needs to be protected because shipping traffic has increased 48%, and this is raising some concerns among the local population and local and municipal authorities.

A few months ago, in response to the increase in tanker traffic I mentioned earlier, the mayor of North Vancouver, Darrell Mussatto, said:

We hope we never have to deal with anything like what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico.

It seems that economic pressure on ports and ecosystems is growing. This has to slow down. When it comes to shale gas development in Quebec, our artists have said, “Wait a minute.” Indeed, we can only go so far so fast. Seeing as how there has been a 48% increase in traffic and two more pipelines are going to be built, which will bring an average of 225 oil tankers a year to these fragile zones, the precautionary principle must prevail. This precautionary principle should help us ensure that all necessary guarantees will be given to the public. We are saying this for environmental as well as economic reasons. The people of Îles-de-la-Madeleine are facing the same reality as the people of British Columbia regarding oil tanker traffic and oil and gas development.

Mr. Speaker, I toured maritime Quebec this fall. What did the people in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands have to say? An industry that causes so much pollution should not be favoured over our fishery and local economy.

Quebec's coastal areas are built upon exactly the same foundation as British Columbia's. And what is that foundation? The fishing and tourism industries. I have some figures here. On the Pacific coast, 13,000 jobs are related to commercial fishing, which generates $1.7 billion in revenue. Ten thousand jobs are related to the cruise ship industry and recreational tourism. Since the local economy is essentially based on these two industries, why would we want to run the risk of moving backward?

History speaks of the catastrophic effects of oil spills. I am thinking of the considerable costs associated with the Exxon Valdez disaster, which totalled between $3 billion and $9 billion.

Why would we risk jeopardizing local communities? This would merely be an attempt to satisfy the insatiable needs of an industry that contributes to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. And how many long-term jobs would this project create? According to Enbridge, the company that wants to build these two pipelines, 200 long-term positions would be created. And yet there are already 13,000 jobs in the fishing industry and 10,000 jobs in the tourism industry. Are we going to risk sacrificing 23,000 existing jobs for 200 long-term positions in a polluting industry? The answer is clear; the answer is no.

Who will ultimately pay in the event of an oil spill? In theory, and Enbridge will agree, Enbridge will take full responsibility. In practice, in the event of an oil spill, Enbridge's responsibility is limited to land. In the event of an oil spill, shipping companies are responsible. There is indeed a compensation fund, but it limits redress to $140 million. If the disaster is on a larger scale—like the Exxon Valdez catastrophe, which caused between $3.5 billion and $9 billion in damage—the Canadian government, therefore all Canadians, will be on the hook. What is Enbridge's responsibility in that case? It has no responsibility, but the cost is passed on to the public.

Most importantly, we need to ensure that this ecosystem is protected. It needs to be protected because of the unique conditions in this region mentioned in the motion. We know that in the event of an oil spill, it will be impossible to clean up the entire affected site. Cleanup is limited to roughly 15% of the area; the rest of the oil is left behind.

Another important aspect is the climate conditions in the area mentioned in the motion. This area is quite unique. It experiences high winds and that needs to be taken into consideration. We know that with winds of over 45 km/h it becomes impossible to clean up sites. That is precisely the average wind speed calculated over the past few years in the area mentioned in the motion.

We have to take these factors into consideration. We must also take into consideration that in the winter in this area, we cannot guarantee cleanup in the event of an oil spill.

This is also the case in the Arctic. In the event of a spill, we cannot guarantee that cleanup operations will take place during the winter. This is another factor to be taken into consideration when making decisions. We also have to consider the strength of the winds, winter conditions, the fragility of the ecosystems and the threat to some economic sectors, such as fishing and tourism. And why, exactly?

The production of oil sands oil transported by this pipeline will increase greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, 6.5 megatonnes of GHG emissions will be produced by the construction of this pipeline. That is equivalent to 1.6 million cars on our roads.

This puts local economies and biodiversity at risk, contributes to increased greenhouse gas emissions, makes the rich even richer, and economically consolidates an energy position we do not want. In the end, our taxes and accelerated write-offs will help pay for the associated construction and infrastructure.

Canada does not have a green tax system. On the contrary, the oil industry receives subsidies through more than 50 programs even though the government told the OECD and the G20 summit that it would eliminate this assistance. But no, through tax incentives we will help fund the development and construction of the pipeline infrastructure.

In closing, we must remember that local populations want to preserve the biodiversity of their environment and strengthen their economy. We must respect the wishes of the population and the first nations if we want to continue to hand down to future generations resources they can continue to use, with a view to sustainable development. For these reasons we will support the motion before us.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague and my Liberal colleagues. Perhaps the House will support our motion.

I have a question for my colleague. If the pipeline moves forward, what effect will it have on climate and on the Canadian dollar? That question is very important to Quebeckers. There is something called Dutch disease. When the value of the dollar significantly increases in the oil sector, for example, it has an effect on the manufacturing sector and other sectors of the economy. A very dangerous project like this one on the northern British Columbia coast will surely affect not only the people of British Columbia, but also all Canadians.

My last question has to do with the will of the public regarding this project. If the public disagrees with the Conservative government regarding oil companies, will this affect the government's thinking?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member answered part of the question himself. The economic phenomenon he described is indeed Dutch disease. Basically, investing a lot of money in certain resources creates pressure, boosting the value of the dollar artificially, which is bad for companies and industries in the export sector, particularly those in the manufacturing sector. That applies to Quebec, and also to Ontario. That answers the first question.

The second part of my colleague's question had to do with global warming. When I saw the numbers, I just about fell out of my seat: 6.5 megatonnes of GHGs. To most ordinary people, the proposal before us might not mean much, but to put things in perspective, it is the same as 1.6 million cars.

Do people realize that, on the one hand, the government is in Cancun talking about how it wants to help fight climate change, while on the other hand, it is going to refuse to implement measures to achieve greenhouse gas reduction targets? Not only will this be a bad thing for the manufacturing industry economically, but it will also contribute to rising greenhouse gas emissions. That is the opposite of sustainable development.

The government needs to understand that sooner or later, it will have to implement what I call “strategic environmental assessments”. The government's plans, policies and programs have to undergo environmental assessment. For this kind of project to go forward, it should include a strategic environmental assessment. This is not just about assessing the consequences for a small, specific area. This is about determining how such a project complies with Canada's international commitments to fight climate change.

The government cannot tell the international community one thing, then come back to Canada to implement policies and programs and authorize projects that will negate all efforts to fight climate change.

Clearly, that approach is bad for both the economy and the environment.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is quite interesting to see that the Conservatives have no opinion on this today. I do not know why. I have no idea. Anything having to do with the oil companies is always very important to them—or perhaps not. In fact, they might not be such good friends right now.

I have a question for the hon. member about the boycotting of the oil sands. Again today in the news it was announced that one Canadian company, Concord Trucking, a large company, Avon, and yet another company, Lush, will never again use energy from the oil sands in northern Alberta, Fort McMurray and other places. It has become a trend and we are seeing it on the free market. People and companies have said they do not want to be associated with something that is very bad for the environment.

Canada used to have a rather good international reputation with respect to the environment. Now, year after year, the Conservative government—like the Liberal government before it—keeps doing things that undermine that reputation. It is devastating to hear Canadian, American and international companies say they will continue to support the oil sands industry.

As far as Enbridge's plans and those of other companies are concerned, what is my colleague's opinion on the future of Canada's reputation and the future of our economy if this keeps up, if we allow this to continue with this government?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, as parliamentarians, we have the opportunity to speak with European parliamentarians on a regular basis. For example, during a recent meeting of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association , we learned that Europeans are very concerned about how energy is produced in Canada. We are suffering on the international stage because of that.

But even worse is the fact that members of this government act like real lobbyists for oil companies on the international scene and try to convince foreign countries that the path Canada is currently on is the right one. It is incredible.

I agree with the hon. member. Businesses want a more sustainable future. Businesses no longer believe that environmental protection is a burden, quite the opposite. Environmental protection stimulates innovation and development. If Canada cannot understand that, the entire Canadian economy is inevitably at risk of being at the bottom of the pile. That may not be the case for a short-term outlook, but it is definitely the case for a medium- or long-term outlook.

Canada's outlook and economic development plans focus solely on the short-term, while other countries have decided to invest in the high-value-added renewable energy sector, for example, which will create many jobs. China is one example; it will become a champion of renewable energy. In the meantime, we are stuck in the stone age in terms of economic development because we continue to invest tax dollars in outmoded energy sources. In the short term, Canada may be proud to say that it is creating jobs, but future generations will pay for the government's inaction and its lack of confidence in the job-creating renewable energy sector.

That is a problem for Canada's international reputation and it will become a problem for Canada's economic development in a few years if we do not reverse the trend and, for one thing, make taxation greener.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. I would like to thank the Bloc member for his remarks and especially for his support. There are sometimes profound differences between our parties, but we tend to agree on subjects like this.

I would like to begin my remarks by reading today's opposition motion by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately propose legislation to ban bulk oil tanker traffic in [a number of places on British Columbia's west coast] as a way...to preserve the marine resources which sustain the community and regional economies of British Columbia, and to honour the extensive First Nations rights and title in the area.

The commission chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland produced the famous report entitled Our Common Future for the United Nations. It defined sustainable development as the obligation of every government to consider the effect that all of our actions will have on future generations. Every time a government has to deal with a problem, it has to take into account economic considerations, of course, but also social considerations and, most importantly, environmental considerations.

If one thing has become increasingly clear, it is that the obligation to consider environmental, economic and social elements has been anything but a priority over the past few years in Canada. Yes, things got worse when the Conservatives took power, but let us look at the facts with respect to the Liberals. While in power, they signed the Kyoto protocol. Then, during their 13 years in power, they were responsible for the largest increase in greenhouse gas emissions of all Kyoto signatories. That is why we now get very suspicious when the Liberals say that they understand the merits of this proposal.

In 1972, British Columbia's New Democratic government—led by Premier Barrett—asked Ottawa to impose a moratorium. The Liberals, who were in power, agreed to do so but never put it in writing. It was never put down on paper, and that is a fact. That lasted a few years, but then in the 1980s, a right-wing government wanted to lift the moratorium, and everyone was worried. The only good thing to come out of the Exxon Valdez tragedy was that after the accident, the government abandoned any thought of letting oil tankers near British Columbia's coastline.

As I recall, even Eddie Goldenberg, former chief of staff to Jean Chrétien, said in a famous speech in the spring of 2008 in London, Ontario, that the Liberals had signed the Kyoto protocol purely for public relations purposes. His exact words were, “to galvanize public opinion”. That is about as cynical as can be. The Liberals signed the Kyoto protocol for PR purposes, but they never followed through on it. As the current leader of the Liberal Party said to the previous leader of that party, “They didn't get it done.”

It is true that the Liberals cannot be trusted when it comes to the environment. They will always signal a left turn, but turn to the right. They will always present themselves as great defenders of the environment and serve up fine speeches. They had the chance to really do something when they were in power, yet they did nothing.

My colleague who will speak after me today, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, like the Acting Speaker and like my colleague who moved the motion, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, is from British Columbia. These people know the local geography and the extremely fragile nature of the ecosystems in question, and they will be able to tell us more about them. In the few minutes I enjoy here today, my speech will deal mainly with the three aspects of sustainable development.

I will focus on the economic aspect. I am the NDP finance critic. In response to a question, the Bloc Québécois member who spoke right before me referred to something known as Dutch disease.

It is interesting to note that Andrew Nikiforuk's book on oil sands was just translated into French. I must admit, I had the honour of writing the foreword for the French version. When I was writing it, I again concentrated on the economic aspect because the book gives an extraordinary account of all the social and environmental considerations. Of course, it also touches on the economic aspect, as we are doing.

I really want us to look at this aspect. All too often, the environment and the economy are seen as opposites. The Conservative and Liberal arguments are outdated, including these: progress cannot be stopped; the economy has to grow, no matter what; and are you against job creation?

I submit that the entire debate is false. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley spoke about this earlier when he talked about the Enbridge pipelines. That same company, need I remind the House, seriously damaged the Kalamazoo River in the United States not long ago. After Enbridge guaranteed the U.S. government that the pipeline would not pose a problem, that river in Michigan was contaminated. It is the same company.

Before letting them begin playing with these ecosystems, we must examine the past. We should pause, take a step back, and look at the effect this is having on our economy in general.

In the summer of 2006, Statistics Canada published a report. It was rather odd to see Statistics Canada on the defensive. It reported that Canada was not suffering from Dutch disease.

For our audience at home, here is the abridged version. In the Netherlands in the 1960s, large offshore gas reserves were discovered. They thought this discovery would result in a huge windfall for the country. They were right about that. However, they had not predicted one thing: the influx of foreign currency had a large impact on its currency at the time, the guilder. The value of the Dutch currency spiked and paradoxically caused great harm to the economy of the Netherlands, because it was increasingly difficult to export the goods manufactured in that European country.

Two years later, the same organization—Statistics Canada—was forced to change its tune. In 2008—before the current crisis hit, it should be noted—Statistics Canada had to report that its 2006 statement was wrong because, in the four-year-period between 2004 and 2008, Canada had lost 322,000 manufacturing jobs, mainly in Ontario and Quebec, the industrial heartland of Canada.

These were jobs with salaries high enough to support a family. Given the nature of this sector's structure, these jobs often came with a retirement pension.

When it comes to sustainable development, it is easy to think first and foremost of the environment. However, sustainable development actually involves all the obligations that we are in the process of dumping on future generations.

When we replace a well-paid job in the industrial sector with a job in the service industry that pays $12 an hour and does not have a retirement pension, we are burdening future generations with the responsibility of taking care of hundreds of thousands of people who, when they reach the age of retirement, will not have enough money to take care of themselves because they do not have pensions. This is part of the challenge. Sustainable development includes not only environmental and social considerations, but also economic considerations.

Moreover, as the motion indicates, there already is economic activity off the coast of British Columbia. This is the same false argument and the same false dichotomy between jobs and the environment that we heard when I signed the ban on seismic testing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

People were saying that I wanted to prevent them from conducting exploration. I said that was not the case and that we were going to do things right so those who were already making a living in industries that might be affected would not have to suffer any long-term, negative effects of what some people wanted to do.

The problem is that the Conservative government's activities and choices are destabilizing the balanced economy that we have been working to build since the second world war. Going ahead with the proposed action and allowing oil tankers off the coast of British Columbia will serve only to exacerbate this economic, social and environmental problem.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Outremont for his speech.

I have a question about energy security. In general, energy-exporting countries like Canada have a plan. They tend to have a plan for energy security because in today's world, energy is one of the deeper questions.

We currently have the Enbridge project and other projects like the ones in Quebec for shale gas, and so, energy security issues are very important to Canadians.

My question for the member is the following. Since this government does not have a plan, what economic problems will Canada encounter without a plan and without thinking about the future of the energy economy and the future of the economy in general?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley provided a good summary of the situation.

There is a total lack of long-term vision in what the government is doing. It is leaving the cleanup to future generations because of the way the oil sands have been developed. The next generations will have no energy security because, with projects like Trailbreaker to the east and Keystone, Alberta Clipper and Southern Lights, the government is opening the taps to the United States as quickly as possible. The North American Free Trade Agreement will do the rest. With the proportionality rule, we could not even cut back if we wanted to keep some for ourselves. We will be forced to impose proportionally the same reductions on ourselves as we do on the United States. That is what is going on in Canada.

These are the choices we are talking about. There will be a legacy of huge debts and nothing else. There is nothing sustainable and nothing long-term. We could at least have a vision for developing clean and renewable energies and at the same time finding ways to properly develop the oil sands and perhaps even shale gas. But the techniques currently being proposed for shale gas are very dangerous in the long term for groundwater and for soils.

It is ridiculous to move forward like this without any guarantees that this will not contaminate groundwater and harm farmlands.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, last week the Conservatives used the unelected Senate to kill a climate change bill. They have done everything in their power to undermine both international and domestic climate change action. They are turning Canada into an international pariah because they are acting as a front for the tar sands.

What does my hon. colleague think Canada's reputation is at this stage given the government's continual refusal to make even the most modest advances in dealing with the serious issue of climate change in our country?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, our biggest problem on the world stage on a host of topics, ever since the Conservatives came to power and, as I mentioned, even when the Liberals were in power, is that Canada has lost its credibility with regard to the Kyoto protocol.

It is rather like the balanced economy we have built since the second world war. Our enviable international reputation was built over decades and generations. People used to say that if Canada signed something, then it must be important because Canada is a country that respects domestic and international law.

Unfortunately, especially since the Conservatives came to power, we have seen that Canada no longer has that respect on the world stage. We saw that quite clearly very recently when Canada's bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council was massively rejected. All of this is interrelated. One does not exist without the other. It is part of a whole.

It is sad, but reversible. And reverse it is precisely what the NDP government will do when the NDP comes to power.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Outremont for sharing his time with me today.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for bringing forward this very important opposition day motion.

This has certainly been an issue with the NDP for 40 years. We were very happy to hear that, although they are Johnny-come-latelies, the Liberals and the Bloc are now willing to join with us on something that the NDP has been fighting for.

It is important to note that it was the Dave Barrett NDP government back in 1972, freshly elected as the first NDP government in British Columbia, that pushed for this moratorium and was able to succeed in pushing the federal government at the time to announce it. However, what we have seen subsequently, and what the member from Skeena—Bulkley Valley said so eloquently earlier, are Liberal and Conservative governments trying to undermine that moratorium.

The reality is that in looking at the impact of just one accident, the Exxon Valdez, over 20 years later we are still talking about nearly 2,000 species that have not fully recovered. We talk about the fact that the environment continues to be impacted a generation after that accident.

We then have to wonder what the Conservatives are thinking in trying to bring hundreds of ships that are monster tankers, twice as large as the Exxon Valdez, to the B.C. coast. It is absolutely absurd that anyone would contemplate something that could be so destructive to the B.C. economy, whether we are talking about tourism, the fisheries, or other industries within our natural resources. To contemplate that a government would seriously consider bringing monster tankers to the coast is something that defies reason.

What we have heard so far from Conservative speakers in this House is that they are very clearly contemplating this incredibly risky, imprudent action. That is why it is so important that the member from Skeena—Bulkley Valley has brought this forward today. Of course, NDP members in this House will all be standing together to vote for this motion and to push the government to introduce legislation.

In a very real sense, we talk about B.C.'s alienation from the Conservatives, which is so manifest to the Conservative Party itself that it is refusing to call a byelection in Prince George—Peace River. It is doing a great disrespect to the people in northern British Columbia, since other byelections have been held. However, the Conservative Party has been holding off on Prince George—Peace River for the simple reason that it knows there is going to be a backlash for a whole number of reasons that I will get into in a moment. We have been saying all along to hold that byelection, but it is refusing to do so.

Why would that be?

Part of it is the broken promises. British Columbians remember, of course, that when the Conservative Party was running for election it said it would provide support on leaky condos. That was a promise to British Columbians that it promptly betrayed after forming government.

We also have the pine beetle epidemic and the fact that this government continues to use smoke and mirrors in announcing funds but never paying out. In fact, some estimates have been that only 10% to 20% of the pine beetle funding has actually been paid out to support the communities across British Columbia that have been impacted by this epidemic.

The Conservative government keeps churning around money that it is not willing to pay out, even though it is certainly willing to pay out tens of billions of dollars to their friends on Bay Street, to the banking industry and to the big energy industry.

Of course, we have seen the Conservative government's lack of action with the collapse of the salmon fishery. We do have a fourth year of the cycle that took place this year that continues to maintain a healthy fishery's return of sockeye salmon, but we have not seen any substantial increase in resources allocated to rebuild the fisheries in British Columbia.

Those are broken promises, but I think it is more important to talk about the pending third strike against the Conservatives in B.C.

The first strike was the softwood lumber sellout. In this corner of the House, the NDP was the only party who actually read the agreement, spoke out about the agreement and knew that it would cost thousands upon thousands of B.C. jobs. Yet Conservatives from B.C. helped to push something through that was enormously destructive to our softwood lumber industry.

It is well documented. If we go back in Hansard, we will see New Democrats speaking up against that. The Liberals and the Bloc, sadly, supported this Conservative initiative. What happened is exactly what we predicted: the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in British Columbia and a permanent restructuring that has led to massive raw log exports. So British Columbia logs are now fuelling jobs in the United States, thanks to the Conservatives.

The second strike is even more reprehensible; that is, forcing the HST on British Columbians. That is why, as I mentioned earlier, the Conservatives are so scared to call a byelection in Prince George--Peace River. They simply know that what was a solid Conservative riding is not anymore, because in the Peace River region particularly--

I hear some Conservatives denouncing Peace River people and Prince George people. I would say, do not show contempt for people from Prince George and Peace River, because those individuals, those British Columbians, have the right to parliamentary representation. They have the right to call for a byelection, as many residents of that area have. It is simply disrespectful to British Columbians in northern B.C. that the government refuses to hold a byelection there, even though it wanted to hold byelections in Ontario and in Manitoba.

Of course, the HST is--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member.

On a point of order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on a point of order on the substance of this debate.

I thought, having sat here for the last hour or so, we were talking about an important discussion around oil tankers along the B.C. coast.

This is amounting to nothing more than, for the third time in five minutes, apparently taunting this government about holding a byelection. He ought to know that there are technical elements to this and it is not part of the debate. I would encourage you, Madam Speaker, to advise him of such.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member for his comments. I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster will bring back his comments to the point of the debate.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, as you know, the point is respect for British Columbians. For the parliamentary secretary to say that for people in Prince George--Peace River, for a byelection that could have been called yesterday or last week or could be called tomorrow, the government is showing some kind of respect by trying to play around with that byelection, is, to say the least, disingenuous.

The Conservatives want to interrupt this question about British Columbia. They are showing disrespect--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I regret to interrupt the member.

On a point of order, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That may have been his best attempt at a rebuttal. He used the word “disingenuous”. It does not fit into this debate. There are technical elements to this process.

Quite frankly, I would ask the member to move on and make substantive contributions to an important discussion that has nothing to do with the byelection.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member has one minute left to bring his arguments to a conclusion. I am assuming that he will--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hope that you are increasing my time, based on these deliberate interruptions by Conservatives, again showing disrespect to British Columbia.

So the second strike was the HST. As Conservatives know, they are responsible for inflicting that on British Columbians.

Now we have a third possible strike; that is, these monster tankers that the Conservatives want to bring to British Columbia. Those monster tankers that these Conservatives are trying to inflict on British Columbia would have an enormous negative impact on our environment, on our economy, on our way of life. We have not heard a single British Columbia Conservative MP stand in this House and say this is wrong.

What we have had for 40 years is a moratorium that was pushed by the NDP and supported by 80% of British Columbians against these monster tankers. The proposal that the Conservatives seemingly support, because not a single one of them has stood in this House and said, “We oppose it”, is to bring in a couple hundred monster tankers, twice as large as the Exxon Valdez, with twice as much impact. When we talk about the Exxon Valdez, a generation later we are still feeling the impacts, yet Conservatives are not standing and saying they oppose this project and they are not--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member. He may be able to continue in questions and comments.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think what is becoming very clear here is that the government is choosing certain winners and losers in Canada's economy.

When serious issues about the use of supertankers through the Dixon Entrance and along the Queen Charlotte Islands is brought forward, we do not see the government standing with members from British Columbia to talk about the effects that is going to have on British Columbia. It has the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca stand up.

The government is there to defend, at whatever risk to the rest of the Canadian economy, the absolute pillaging of the tar sands. Meanwhile, serious questions are being raised in this debate by the opposition parties about the effect of this reckless development, particularly on the B.C. coast.

We have a letter from February 15, 2007, from then Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson, hardly a socialist in anybody's world view, who said that allowing these tankers would pose an unacceptable environmental risk. This is a position that has been taken by numerous organizations, first nations and businesses all across British Columbia, yet the government is willing to take unacceptable environmental risks if it means the quick exploitation of raw bitumen from the tar sands to ship overseas.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the government is deliberately ignoring the wishes of the people of British Columbia in order to advance the pillaging of these natural resources.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have seen a huge indication of the lack of respect for British Columbia here today with Conservatives members interrupting B.C. members who are rising to speak and B.C. Conservatives not speaking out on this issue.

When we look at the overall economic impacts, over 50,000 jobs in British Columbia are threatened by these monster tankers. The best economic impacts of this in terms of long-term jobs for the project is maybe a couple of hundred. We can do the math.

New Democrats always do the math in this corner of the House. That is why the ministry of finance, over the last 20 years, has said NDP governments manage budgets better than anyone else, any other party. It is because we always get into the figures and we do the math.

The math shows that to threaten 50,000 jobs for 200 jobs makes absolutely no economic sense whatsoever. We have to wonder when the Conservatives are pushing this project and have stood up in this House seemingly to continue to push it. None of the Conservatives have yet risen to say they support the motion, which I think is a matter of real concern to the 80% of British Columbians who feel that this motion should go through and that the government should be proposing legislation to ban these monster tankers from the B.C. coast.

We have to wonder to just what extent the Conservatives are willing to disrespect B.C., to take B.C. for granted, to continue to think that B.C. is a source of votes they can milk without doing anything to actually deserve or merit the votes of British Columbians.

I think the economic ramifications, particularly of this project, seem to indicate that we are in a situation where the Conservatives, almost surrealistically, do not seem to be listening to British Columbians or keeping the interests of B.C. in mind and are certainly not thinking about the B.C. economy. The net loss of jobs is in the tens of thousands.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member from British Columbia to explain to me why the oil companies would not refine the oil right here in Canada so that we would not have to ship it in tankers to other foreign countries.

We could create well-paying jobs in Canada, yet we are creating well-paying jobs in foreign countries. Could the member expand on that?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question from the member for Nickel Belt who has been a very strong advocate in the House for Canadian jobs.

What we have is a Conservative government that has overseen the greatest loss of our manufacturing capacity and manufacturing jobs in the nation's history, half a million manufacturing jobs lost. The government seems completely incapable of putting in place an industrial policy that allows Canadian resources to fuel Canadian jobs.

What we have now through the softwood lumber sellout is exports of raw logs, exports of raw bitumen, exports of our raw resources and loss of Canadian jobs. It is unprecedented and that is how irresponsible the Conservative government is.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Okanagan—Shuswap happens to be in British Columbia. I would like members to know that. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would lead the House to believe that there are no safety regulations and no oversight of marine traffic on the B.C. coast. My presentation will dispel this false perception.

Transport Canada is the lead federal department responsible for ship-source pollution. The department uses a number of measures to prevent ship-source spills, including regulations, enforcement of regulations through its inspection regime and surveillance, just to name a few.

While oil tankers have been transiting safely along British Columbia's coast for many years, Transport Canada ensures operators comply with the latest in vessel construction standards such as double hulling requirements for tankers, the International Safety Management code and mandatory port state control inspections if visiting a Canadian port. It ensures that they carry onboard shipboard oil pollution emergency plans and maintain an arrangement with a certified response organization in Canada in case of a pollution incident or threat of a pollution incident.

The 2001 Canada Shipping Act and its associated regulations and standards demand that the vessel owners operate well constructed and maintained vessels, crew those vessels with professional certified seafarers, have a safety management system onboard and maintain an appropriate level of preparedness at all times.

Transport Canada recognizes that because of the international nature of shipping, action to improve safety and pollution prevention in marine operations is most effectively carried out at an international level through the IMO. Global standards established at the IMO are prescribed in regulations under the 2001 Canada Shipping Act and apply to all vessels operating in waters under Canadian jurisdiction. In certain cases, stricter environment controls than the global standards may be required and implemented in our domestic regulations.

The provisions in annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, also known as MARPOL, have been incorporated into Canadian legislation through the regulations for the prevention of pollution from ships and for dangerous chemicals under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. Transport Canada establishes regulations under the act and also under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. Canadian ships must be built, maintained and operated according to regulations that help to prevent accidents and oil spills at sea.

Transport Canada's ship inspections are also an important means to prevent spills from ships. The department's marine safety inspectors board and inspect foreign ships at Canadian ports regularly. Those that do not meet safety standards are detained until their deficiencies have been corrected.

As per an International Maritime Organization agreement, Transport Canada has established regulations and standards requiring tankers to have double hulls, following international focus on mitigating the risk of oil pollution in the event of a tanker running aground.

These requirements are based on tanker tonnage, the year built and a phase-in schedule. As of January 1, 2010, all tankers except those less than 5,000 dead-weight tonnes built before July 1993 must be of double-hulled construction.

In addition to the double-hull requirements, under Canada's port state control program, Transport Canada inspects foreign ships and that includes tankers in Canadian ports.

The international port state control agreement requires Transport Canada to inspect 25% of all foreign vessels visiting Canadian ports by way of a port state control inspection.

Transport Canada also has a national policy that requires each region to inspect 100% of all tankers coming into ports on their first visit and at least once a year thereafter.

In the past five years, Transport Canada inspected 390 tankers and 1,600 other vessels in the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Kitimat.

Aerial surveillance by Transport Canada over all Canadian waters allows for detection of pollution from ships. Under the national aerial surveillance program, crews help to enforce domestic and international laws and gather evidence against polluters so that charges can be laid under the regulations. Regular aerial surveillance is a widely recognized and effective deterrent that reduces oil discharges in our waters, because potential polluters are aware that Canada has heightened surveillance.

During the last two years, crews observed some 11,000 vessels, more than 100 pollution sightings, of which approximately 20 were from ships, and just over 8,000 litres of oil on the ocean surface, a significant decrease compared to the two previous years. Three marine polluters were prosecuted in fiscal year 2008-09 as a result of the evidence gathered under the national aerial surveillance program. This demonstrates Transport Canada's commitment to the prevention of ship-source pollution.

In the Arctic, enforcement occurs through aerial surveillance reports from government ships and reporting through the long-range identification and tracking system, which automatically transmits and identifies the positions of vessels to authorities. Larger ships that intend to enter Canada's northern waters must report their position under the northern Canada vessel traffic services zones regulations.

Transport Canada works with pilotage authorities across Canada, which are responsible for providing safe, reliable and efficient marine pilotage services at ports in all geographic areas of the country. On the west coast, the Pacific Pilotage Authority is responsible for British Columbia's coastal waters, including the Fraser River. The authority also has five compulsory pilotage areas in place, where vessels must use certified pilots.

The prevention of oil spills is a priority of Transport Canada. Regulations, standards and programs demonstrate Transport Canada's commitment to prevention as well as preparedness and response capabilities in the unlikely event of a spill.