House of Commons Hansard #109 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was columbia.

Topics

Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--West Coast Oil Tanker TrafficBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging the very good work that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has done on this. He has been a passionate advocate for the motion that is before the House and has been tireless in doing appropriate stakeholder work throughout communities, environmental, business and first nations. I really need to put that on record.

I want to remind people what we are talking about today. We are calling on the government to protect the environment and Canadians by legislating a ban on bulk oil tanker traffic in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. The important part of this is legislating a ban.

My hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley talked about certainty. It is critical that we have this legislative ban so there is certainty, so that people in Canada and British Columbia know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we will have a ban on bulk oil tanker traffic. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley ably outlined a number of concerns, and I am going to focus just on the first nations aspect of it because I have only a very brief period of time to speak about this.

I want to start with a news release that was done on November 30. I am quoting Art Sterritt, the executive director of the Coastal First Nations, an alliance of nine first nations. He says:

Our nations have declared a ban on oil tankers through our waters because a spill would kill our livelihoods and wipe out our culture. We have used our ancestral law to ban tankers from our territories. ...now it's time for Parliament to join us in legislating a federal ban on tankers in this region.

He goes on to talk a little bit about why this is so important. He says:

...the region is home to the Great Bear Rainforest, humpback and killer whales and a vibrant coastal economy and ecotourism industry that employs literally tens of thousands of Canadians.

He is joined by a number of other first nations, and I want to put this into the record. On Wednesday, March 24, 2010, several first nations people on the central and north Pacific coast and Haida Gwaii issued a declaration banning tar sands crude oil tankers from their territories. I will not read the whole declaration, but it ends up by saying:

Therefore, in upholding our ancestral laws, rights and responsibilities, we declare that oil tankers carrying crude oil from the Alberta Tar Sands will not be allowed to transit our lands and waters.

In analyzing that declaration, West Coast Environmental Law made a couple of key points. It said that a decision by the federal government to disregard the Coastal First Nations' declaration and give oil tankers a green light would infringe Coastal First Nations' constitutionally protected aboriginal title and rights and Canada's international law commitments.

It goes on to say that:

Many First Nations have voiced well-substantiated concerns that the federal government's proposed review process fails to meet the Crown's constitutional duties to them. ... The government's review process for the Enbridge project does not accommodate First Nations governance and decision-making rights, which are inherent to their Aboriginal Title.

In addition, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs also opposes both the Enbridge pipeline and the tanker traffic. It says that:

The short-term economic gain promised by government and industry proponents of mega-projects like the Enbridge pipeline...are being opposed by First Nations who are thinking of the long-term impact on their territories and on their communities.

Grand Chief Phillip goes on to say:

It is abundantly clear, B.C. First Nations will not put their territories and waters at risk caused by the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and crude oil tanker traffic. As Indigenous Peoples, we know first-hand when third party interests are granted access to the resources of our territories, government and the courts protect those industry interests at great cost to Aboriginal Title and Rights and of the environmental values that many British Columbians share with First Nations.

I could go on about the number of first nations. It is unprecedented, the number of nations that have stood up and said that they oppose this bulk oil tanker traffic. They do not like what it is going to do to the environment, to their cultural rights and to their livelihood. They too are calling on a legislated ban.

To put this into an international context, I want to briefly quote from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, article 32, section 2. It says that:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

We recently have had the Conservative government saying that it now endorses the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In that light, I would say that nothing can happen around oil tanker traffic unless the first nations are appropriately consulted.

I want to touch on some case law here, because the Canadian courts have enshrined in their decisions the fact that there is a constitutional obligation for the government to consult.

Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP did a paper, a focus on aboriginal law, back in 2004 that talks about an important decision, the Haida decision. I am just going to quote a bit from this. It says:

Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice McLachlin held that the Crown's duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples is grounded in the principle of the honour of the Crown, which must be understood generously. ...

In the Haida case, British Columbia had knowledge of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and made decisions that might adversely affect these rights. Therefore, the honour of the Crown mandated consultation prior to making a decision that might adversely affect the claimed Aboriginal title and rights. The strength of the case for the Haida title and the Haida right to harvest trees suggest that the honour of the Crown may require significant accommodation to preserve the Haida interest pending resolution of their claim.

They go on to outline a number of key points. I do not have time to read them all, but I want to touch on a couple.

The obligation arises when the Crown has knowledge of the potential existence of the Aboriginal right or title and is contemplating action that may adversely affect those interests.

Clearly, with the number of nations that are involved around the oil tanker traffic and around the Enbridge pipeline, the federal and provincial governments are fully aware of that aboriginal right or title.

Another point this paper makes is “...the seriousness of the potentially adverse effect upon the right or title claimed“.

Of course the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley talked about the potential adverse effects on the coast of B.C. should there be an oil spill, and we only have to look to the Gulf of Mexico to see that potential adverse effect. Clearly it is another element where first nations need to be consulted.

It goes on to say:

Good faith in the consultation process is required on the part of both the Crown and Aboriginal groups....

The obligation to consult with and, where indicated, to accommodate Aboriginal concerns lies with the Crown alone. There is no independent legal obligation on third parties such as project proponents.

That is important, because sometimes people have tried to shuffle off the duty to consult to industry, and it clearly lies with the Crown. Although this paper is dealing with mining, it raises some interesting points around the duty to consult and economic benefits.

The Harvard Law mining project made a number of recommendations for the kinds of changes that governments need to make. It also said that, although there are allegations that mining and other projects like this one would provide revenue:

It also, however, frequently interferes with First Nations' use of their traditional lands and significantly harms the environment to which their culture is inextricably linked.

That is a very key point in this particular issue.

Of course I have much more material, talking about case law and analysis around the government's duty to consult, to accommodate, around the issues of rights and title for first nations, and of course the whole issue regarding employment. We know that in many first nations territories in this country, projects have come in and the first nations have not been the beneficiaries of the supposed economic spinoff. Often what happens is that they are left with the devastation of their lands and territories after the company has packed up its bags and gone away or polluted the environment.

Therefore I am calling upon all members of this House to support this very important motion and to call upon the government to legislate a ban on the bulk oil tanker traffic in this northern coastal area.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, for the calendar year 2011 in the present Parliament, Standing Order 81(10)(a) be amended as follows:

81.(10)(a) In 2011, seven sitting days shall be allotted to the Business of Supply in the period ending not later than March 26; eight additional days shall be allotted to the Business of Supply in the period ending not later than June 23; and seven additional days shall be allotted to the Business of Supply for the period ending not later than December 10; provided that the number of sitting days so allotted may be altered pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. These twenty-two days are to be designated as allotted days. In 2011, no more than one fifth of all the allotted days shall fall on a Wednesday and no more than one fifth thereof shall fall on a Friday. For the period ending not later than March 26, commencing on the first sitting day of this supply period, no less than two and no more than three allotted days shall be designated in each ten sitting day period of the said supply period and for the periods ending not later than June 23 and December 10, commencing on the first sitting day of these supply periods, no less than one and no more than two allotted days shall be designated in each ten sitting day period of the said supply period, except pursuant to paragraph (c) or section (11) of this Standing Order.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

(Motion agreed to)

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for interrupting her questions and comments.

Since we have just had that motion, I would also like to propose a motion. There have been consultations among the parties and I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member from Skeena--Bulkley Valley, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, December 7, 2010, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--West Coast Oil Tanker TrafficBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

December 2nd, 2010 / 10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I both live on beautiful Vancouver Island, so this is a very important issue for us.

I would like to ask my colleague a question and it revolves around twinning. If the pipeline cannot go in an east-west direction, perhaps there is an opportunity for discussions to take place with the private sector to see if the pipeline could be transferred to a north-south direction through Vancouver. I know it is extremely important that we lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. I would like to know if she thinks that would be an option.

The Cancun conference is taking place right now. The government has tragically taken a series of stands with respect to the environment, whether it was COP 10 in Japan or now in Cancun. The government is really not providing Canadians with any kind of demonstrable, doable and effective plan to deal with climate change.

What are the two things my colleague would suggest that the government do right now with respect to global warming?

Opposition Motion--West Coast Oil Tanker TrafficBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reverse the order of the member's questions.

With respect to the two things the government could do, it could immediately look at implementing Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, and implement the environmental bill of rights put forward by the member for Edmonton—Strathcona. Those would be two good steps in demonstrating Canada's position on climate change.

With regard to the twinning of the pipeline, I will come back to the first nations' perspective. I know we are talking about twinning here, but any additional construction is going to have an impact on territories. Before any consideration of expansion of even existing projects is considered, first nations must be at the table, must be appropriately consulted, must be included in any implementation of any decision. That is the appropriate step to take on that particular project.

Opposition Motion--West Coast Oil Tanker TrafficBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if this is part of a pattern of blatant disregard for British Columbians by the Conservative government?

We certainly lived through the first strike that the Conservatives forced on B.C., the softwood lumber sellout, which cost us thousands upon thousands of jobs. The HST was imposed as well on British Columbians. Now the Conservatives seem intent on imposing monster tankers going up and down the coast with the incredible risk that it poses to the B.C. economy and to our environment and our quality of life.

Is this the third strike of the Conservatives' blatant disregard for British Columbians, for B.C. interests and for British Columbians' quality of life?

Opposition Motion--West Coast Oil Tanker TrafficBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I remember a couple of throne speeches ago when the Minister of Finance actually said that this budget was good for Canadians from the east coast to the Rockies. Those of us on the other side of the Rockies said, “Wait a minute; we are part of Canada. At least the last time we checked, we were still part of Canada”.

I think the interests of people in British Columbia have sadly been left out by the Conservative government. As the member for Burnaby—New Westminster rightly pointed out, the HST has had devastating effects on, for example, the restaurant industry. That industry has taken a huge hit over the last couple of months.

When we look at things such as oil tanker traffic and the impact that the Exxon Valdez had in Alaska and we see what is happening in the Gulf, why will the government not listen to British Columbians? The majority of British Columbians say they do not want these giant oil tankers in these waters. They do not want to have to deal with the aftermath of a potential oil spill. The industry itself has often said that it cannot guarantee that there will not be an oil spill.

Why would we do it? We have often talked about the precautionary principle. Why would we not use the precautionary principle when we are talking about these oil tankers?

The impact is unimaginable. People who have not visited this part of the country have no idea of the geography and the weather patterns. It would be a catastrophe if we had an oil spill in the middle of winter when we could have 90-foot waves.

Opposition Motion--West Coast Oil Tanker TrafficBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Fort McMurray—Athabasca Alberta

Conservative

Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about this topic, which is very important to Canadians. I will be sharing my time with the member for Abbotsford.

I was actually born in British Columbia and I spent a lot of time on the water. I do have a full understanding of what this entails. I have to say, listening to the NDP, one would think Chicken Little was running around and the sky was going to fall.

The reality is that oil tankers have been trading safely and regularly off British Columbia's coasts for many years. In fact, for more time than I have been alive they have been trading safely. I do not believe there has been one oil tanker incident at sea in that period of time.

Measures actually exist to prevent this kind of thing and to ensure the safe transportation of petroleum products, not only to prevent possible ship-source spills but also to ensure preparedness and an appropriate response in the unlikely event of a spill. So there is actually a dual way of dealing with it if it does happen.

As I said, there has not been one incident at sea since before I was born. The likelihood is very remote indeed. We have had additional things happen, double-hull tankers and things such as that. Of course, we have our pilots who make sure that our ships get to where they are supposed to go, and safely in places where it might pose a danger.

Transport Canada's marine mandate is related to navigation. Navigation is very important. Shipping and protection of the environment from ship pollution are also included, and that includes response and enforcement. As I mentioned, we have a lot of different ways to make sure that this does not happen, not only to avoid it but to take care of it if it does indeed happen.

Transport Canada's goal as the lead federal department responsible for Canada's national ship-source oil spill preparedness and response regime is to ensure a national response capability is in place and to be ready to respond in the event of an incident wherever it is in our nation.

That is where we are today. Notwithstanding what the New Democrats claim, we all know that they would like to shut all our borders and shut down Canada. That is not the position of this government. It is about jobs and creating jobs for Canadians. At the same time, it is about making sure that future generations, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, have a safe and great environment in which to live. That is what this government is going to do and actually is doing.

Operators of oil-handling facilities in fact must maintain a minimum level of preparedness and have oil pollution prevention and emergency plans in place.

The government has a strong regulatory regime that encourages and demands that people who handle this type of fuel are ready to take action if necessary and that they avoid it in all possible cases through better equipment and through investments by them.

As I mentioned, Transport Canada is also mandated to regulate the ship-source oil spills regime. Offshore oil and gas exploration and environmental response for such activities fall under the mandates of some other departments, particularly Natural Resources Canada and the Atlantic and Newfoundland offshore petroleum boards.

The national ship-source oil spill preparedness and response regime was established in 1995, following increased public attention on high-profile oil spills in North American waters. The regime is built on a partnership between government and industry, with the respective responsibilities of each party set out in the Canada Shipping Act.

The key underlying principle of the regime is that polluters pay, that polluters are responsible, as they should be. Canadian taxpayers should not be on the hook for the negligence of a polluter.

In this particular case, this is the situation with this government and our strong response in relation to industry. Industry is accountable for both areas: the prevention of oil spills and the actions necessary to prevent them, as well as the response to its own ship-source oil spill, subject to government oversight and regulations.

So even though we require industry to pay for this, to be prepared and to clean it up, the government has a strong regulatory regime to make sure they actually do that and are held to account.

Private sector funds deliver the operational elements of the regime, which ensure that industry has the capability to respond to individual ship-source oil spills of up to 10,000 tonnes in Canadian waters south of 60° north latitude. A network of four Transport Canada-certified response organizations provides this coverage.

Response organizations are required to ensure that there is response capability in place should a ship-source oil spill occur.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the NDP's attempt to drag me away from my speech to talk about the great things the government is doing and what the NDP is trying to stop us from doing, I am going to continue on with my speech, but I appreciate the clatter across the way, though.

Under Canadian legislation, the Canadian Coast Guard is the lead agency responsible for ensuring the appropriate response to spills in Canadian waters. In this respect, the Canadian Coast Guard maintains a national response capability to supplement that of the private sector response organizations and to provide coverage where there is no clearly identified polluter or response organization responsible for that area.

Where most of these incidents could occur, which they have not in decades, at least in the water, we have organizations we can look to in the private sector. However, when we are not certain as to which organization is responsible for the clean up in a certain area, the Coast Guard is in place to provide coverage where there is no clearly identified polluter.

Canadians want the government to be responsible if no private organization is held to account in that area, for whatever reason, either it is something that happens without our knowledge or the knowledge of the Coast Guards or it just suddenly appears. That does happen. Where that is the case, the Coast Guard will come in and take care of the situation, such as in the case of ship source mystery spills or spills in the Arctic, which is north of 60° latitude.

Environment Canada is responsible for providing environmental, scientific and technical advice to the Canadian Coast Guard. Therefore, the government relies on it for its expertise, as does the Coast Guard, for a certified response organization to effectively respond to a marine oil spill.

In the case of oil handling facilities located south of the north of 60° latitude, Transport Canada requires that each facility have on-site plans, equipment, personnel, training and exercise programs that enable them to deploy an immediate response in the event of a ship source oil spill. Also, it has an agreement in place with a certified response organizations, so we would have an immediate response. Therefore, if there were to be any damage, it would not be of any substance.

Transport Canada manages the national aerial surveillance program, which is the primary tool for detecting any illegal discharges at sea and for environmental monitoring.

I had an opportunity to see a facility like this in eastern Canada. I was impressed with the detail and its ability to track oil pollution and ships in all of our waters. I think most Canadians would be impressed with the initiatives this government has taken.

Therefore, polluters should be aware that we can see what they are doing and where they are. We can see oil coming from a ship.

We have a strong regulatory regime in place in relation to the ability to see what goes on in our waters. There are currently six regional advisory councils on marine oil spill preparedness and response across Canada. These councils serve as advisory bodies to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and make recommendations on oil spill preparedness for ship source and oil handling facilities spills in accordance with the Canada Shipping Act.

The membership of these advisory councils includes a cross-representation of individuals, groups and companies whose interests could be positively or negatively affected in the event of a ship source or oil handling facilities spill. That is because this government takes very seriously the issue of pollution and protecting our environment.

These interests might include fishing, aquaculture, aboriginal and environmental interests, port authorities, businesses and tourism associations and shipping interests. This varied and balanced representation allows the advisory council to offer valuable and pertinent information to Transport Canada. Clearly on all the bills and initiatives the Conservative government has put forward, we have consulted widely with stakeholders to ensure we strike the right balance, and this is no different.

We also have the ship source oil pollution fund, which is available to pay compensation for spills of all types of oils from ships of all classes. The House may not be aware of this, but we almost tripled the financial consequences of spills. In 2009 the Marine Liability Act was amended by the Conservative government to further protect Canadians from those financial consequences, up to $1.3 billion. That is because the government cares about the environment. We will ensure that we continue to trade and do a good job for Canadians on the environment, in the industry and in the economy. We will continue to create jobs.

Opposition Motion--West Coast Oil Tanker TrafficBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is curious that the government could not find anybody from British Columbia to talk about this other than the member from the source of this oil in the tar sands. It is fascinating.

He mentioned in his speech that Canadians could rest assured because the Coast Guard was well-equipped to handle any major oil spills from supertankers of the B.C coast, which is what we are talking about today. There have been two major spills from ships in the last five years on that very coast.

Opposition Motion--West Coast Oil Tanker TrafficBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Not in B.C.