This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

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

Question No. 477Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Durham Ontario

Conservative

Bev Oda ConservativeMinister of International Cooperation

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), following the January 12, 2010 earthquake, CIDA allocated $150.15 million in humanitarian assistance. In March 2010, at the International Donors Conference on Haiti in New York, Canada committed $400 million over two years, 2010-11 and 2011-12, for the reconstruction of Haiti to support the Government of Haiti action plan and priorities. The $400 million is in addition to Canada's long–term development assistance in Haiti, $555 million from 2006 to 2011. In total, the Government of Canada's current commitment to Haiti is now over $1 billion, 2006 to 2012, making it the largest development recipient in the Americas. The bulk of this amount flows from CIDA.

In response to (b), while some projects are targeting specific regions, such as Nord-Ouest, Nord, Nord-Est, Artibonite, Centre, Ouest, Sud-est, Nippes, Grande-Anse, and Sud, most projects are active across the country.

Post-earthquake projects are present in earthquake-affected regions and “host regions”, where displaced persons are relocated.

In response to (c), Canada has been providing official development assistance to Haiti since 1968. Based on preliminary data, CIDA allocated $227 million in official development assistance to Haiti in 2009-10.

In response to (d), in response to the earthquake, Canadians generously donated a total of $220 million to registered charities. The Government of Canada matched their donations through the Haiti earthquake relief fund.

This fund is financed partly through the $150.15 million provided for humanitarian assistance and the $400 million commitment over two years for recovery and reconstruction.

To date, the Government of Canada has earmarked through CIDA more than half of the Haiti earthquake relief fund through the provision of $65.5 million in humanitarian assistance, $20 million for a school feeding project, $30 million for a call for proposals from Canadian organizations, and $5 million for climate change adaptation initiatives.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 462 and 485 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 462Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

With regard to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC): (a) what is the current total number of full- and part-time staff at the Department; and (b) what are the projected number of full- and part-time employees at HRSDC for fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 485Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON

With regard to the government’s aid funding for Pakistan in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, and for every project funded, what is: (a) the name of the project; (b) the location of the project within the country of destination; (c) the amount of funding received by the project broken down as (i) grant or contribution, (ii) interest-free loan, (iii) repayable loan, (iv) non-repayable loan; and (d) the department where the funding originated?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am requesting that we revert to reports.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Does the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul have unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from committees?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

HealthCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled, “An Examination of the Potential Health Impacts of Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation”.

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

December 2nd, 2010 / 10:20 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

The very important reason that New Democrats decided to bring this particular debate to the House now is to suggest to other members in this place and to Canadians at large that there is an imminent risk and threat to B.C.'s north coast. Even the current Conservative government acknowledged the unique and fragile nature of the ecosystem when the current House leader, along with support from New Democrats and others across the country, enabled the protection of the Great Bear Rainforest. It is also true that the former environment minister, Jim Prentice, announced the Gwaii Haanas marine conservation park in the same body of water that we will be discussing today.

Even the Conservatives have acknowledged there is something unique about British Columbia's central and north coasts, something fragile, something world renowned. At the same time, the Conservatives are proposing and encouraging the passage of 225 supertankers that are bigger than the Eiffel Tower and which contain three times as much oil as the Exxon Valdez did before it spilled, through those same waters.

We hope to illustrate today through our arguments, questions and comments that the nature of this project, the nature of running supertankers off B.C.'s coast, particularly the north and central coasts, poses such significant cultural, economic and environmental risk that the government must remove the uncertainty to this question.

We heard as recently as earlier this week the government profess that there is already some type of ban on supertankers through these very same waters, but in fact, that is not the case. All of the comments from the government have been verbal. Nothing ever has been written down in more than 40 years of discussion.

We all know that in Ottawa this place loves paper. It loves documents. It loves to write things down after things have been said. However, in this case, to simply suggest that a verbal moratorium or some sort of voluntary exclusion zone is enough to satisfy the good people of British Columbia is misleading, dangerous and has to be ended now. The NDP is calling for clarity and certainty over this question.

We already know the numbers on the side of the oil and gas game. There are a number of people who go to work in the fishing, tourism and ecotourism industries. We are talking about a multi-billion dollar industry on B.C.'s central and north coasts, when it comes to commercial sport fishing, recreation and tourism of all kinds. We know that all those jobs will be at risk as well as the billions of dollars that are created through those industries.

We also know on the ecological side that this is one of the most important and precious ecosystems in the world. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans knows this because she has been in the region. She knows that this has unique value not just to Canada and British Columbia, but to the entire planet. To put it at risk for very narrow, and I would say misguided, interests is wrong of any government of any political persuasion.

Two summers ago I took a boat ride through the route that is being proposed by the Enbridge gateway project. I was with three northern MLAs: Gary Coons, Robin Austin and Doug Donaldson. We all got on a 35-foot fishing boat and followed the route of these supertankers. Supertankers are massive and very difficult to steer through tight turns. We followed the route through to the ocean.

For those who have not been to B.C.'s coast, it is stunning geography with mountains rising to the sky, deep waters and narrow channels.

Along the proposed tanker route, there are three hairpin 90° turns in succession. At one point I turned to the captain of the little boat we were on and asked if this was a point where tugs would guide the supertankers because it is so dangerous to manoeuvre through. The captain said that there were no tugs planned to guide the supertankers. I said that they would have to slow down. Clearly to make these hairpin turns one after another in imperfect conditions would be dangerous. The captain said that the supertankers could not slow down as the only way they have steerage is if they have some momentum. The supertankers have to take the turns at full and proper speed. That is the only way.

This is a part of the ocean that experiences some of the strongest waves, biggest winds and biggest storms in the world. There have been two major accidents within the last five years alone. Everyone will remember the sinking of the Queen of the North.

Industry will tell us that technology has improved. We heard this in the case of the Exxon Valdez, that it was a mistake, that the captain was drunk, that things have improved so much since those dark days.

I will remind everybody of that tragedy which occurred just north of the area we are talking about today. Some 3,500 square kilometres of ocean were polluted. Some 750 kilometres of the Alaskan coast were covered in oil. That oil is still there today. It can still be found on the shore and in the marine animals. Traces of that oil spill from so long ago still exist today. What is notable about the Exxon Valdez spill is that it ranks 32nd on the list of major oil spills in the world from tankers alone. It was not considered very big on a global scale.

The ships that are being proposed by the Enbridge project are much larger and are of a much more dangerous nature.

It is not just New Democrats who are calling for this ban to finally be formalized in law. The allies that are lining up one after another are significant and important for the current government to pay attention to.

The first group that must be mentioned, because they have been in a leadership role from day one, would be the first nations communities along the coast and along the proposed pipeline route through to Alberta. First nations one after another have stood and said, “Not on our watch. Not in our lifetime or the lifetime of our children will this be allowed to take place because so much is put at risk”. For people who rely on the oceans and rivers for their culture and their very sustenance, the question of a few petrodollars over a couple of years versus an entire way of life since time immemorial is not a question that can even be considered deeply simply because the risks far outweigh the benefits.

In British Columbia at the most recent gathering of mayors and councillors, the municipal leaders voted, without dissension, that a tanker ban must be put in place for the north coast. Not a single one of British Columbia's mayors and councillors has raised any opposition to this idea. It passed. The coastal first nations, the first nations summit, all the environment groups in British Columbia and an increasing number of businesses in the tourism, commercial and sport fishing sectors and other sectors have said that the risks are not worth it. The benefit to British Columbia is almost nil, so why would they consider taking on this type of risk.

We have also seen in poll after poll that a minimum of 75% of British Columbians want this formalized into law. They want this done. For the Conservatives representing British Columbia, they know this too. They do not campaign on this. They do not say, “Vote for me and I am going to put more and more supertankers on the coast, 225 of them a year”. British Columbians have spoken clearly. If the Conservatives are so committed to the idea of actually representing the west, here is an opportunity to do so.

Throughout the last 50 years, about every 10 or 15 years, industry with its friends in government makes an attempt to break the notion of supertankers on this coast, of oil and gas coming. Every 10 or 15 years another committee is set up and another proposal is put forward. The committee goes out and talks to communities and asks them what they think. The communities overwhelmingly say no and the government proceeds anyway. Then unfortunately, there is a disaster somewhere in the world.

That is what happened in 1971. It happened in 1975. It happened again in 1982. It happened again in the early 1990s. It happened again in 2010 with the British Petroleum spill in the Gulf of Mexico. People at large woke up and said, “You have got to be kidding. We are going to put all of this at risk for what?”

Now, let us look at the specific project the government has been encouraging since day one, the Enbridge pipeline, 1,100 kilometres in length, out of the tar sands to the coast, to put in 225 supertankers per year, some 12,000 over the lifetime of the pipeline.

This project is proposing to put risk in front of British Columbians and those on the coast with minimal to no benefit. Time and time again, British Columbians have united on this issue. I was speaking to oil executives just this morning and put forward this notion. I said that while publicly it may look as though the Conservative government is a friend of the oil and gas industry, it is in fact the worst enemy because it creates uncertainty. The industry responded in our meeting this morning by saying, “Uncertainty is killing us, because we don't know what is going to happen to carbon pricing. We don't know what the government's plans are for climate change”.

There is no national energy strategy whatsoever, which industry has been calling for. The heads of Suncor, Syncrude, Exxon Canada, Shell Canada have all said that a national energy strategy, a security strategy, is needed so that Canadians can rest assured there is some kind of plan. What is happening right now is all risk, no benefit. British Columbians, west coasters, are saying “Enough is enough. Put this into law. Make this happen”.

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

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, we know that the first nations along the proposed pipeline's pathway said no. I want the member's opinion on twinning the pipe down to Vancouver and allowing the oil to leave Canada through the port of Vancouver.

Does the member believe the twinning process is an option? Has the member discussed this with the companies involved?

Another question I have revolves around marine protected areas. Does the member support the notion that the government should significantly expand the number of marine protected areas?

We are one of the world's laggards in this area. It is absolutely crucial to protect our marine ecosystems in order for this to happen.

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

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, when the government announced the Gwaii Haanas marine protected area, it congratulated itself extensively, noting the unique nature of this part of the marine environment. It is located off the southern tip of Gwaii Haanas, at the very end of what was formerly known as the Queen Charlotte Islands. Jim Prentice, the environment minister at the time, and the current environment minister have both said how important it is to have this marine protected area for all sorts of reasons, cultural, economic and environmental.

However, the government is proposing to overlay on top of that marine protected area supertanker traffic, oil tanker traffic, which then leads, as industry has told us, to offshore drilling in the same area.

This should not surprise Canadians too much. Canadians can be forgiven for being a little cynical of the government's plans around the marine protected environment because last year, the Prime Minister was up in the Arctic announcing a beluga sanctuary. What a lovely idea. No one would argue against that. However, the Prime Minister neglected to mention that the government had issued oil and gas drilling leases completely around that little postage stamp of a sanctuary. The belugas will be ducking oil and gas rigs on their way to the sanctuary. And by the way, oil and gas drilling is also permitted in the beluga sanctuary.

That is what the government perceives as conservation. It is clearly not.

In terms of Vancouver, I can get into it a little later, but consultation is needed there as much as it is needed on the north coast. Everybody who will be impacted must be involved. The first nations will be speaking loudly and strongly to this.

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

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's passionate and very credible description of the threats we are going to face with this tanker traffic through the straits and what the threat could be to the British Columbia coast.

What concerns me is the pattern we see from the government. The Conservative government has consistently done anything in its power to advance reckless development in the tar sands. It has undermined Canada's international credibility on anything to do with climate change.

Just last week the government used its bagmen and party hacks in the Senate to override the democratic right of the House of Commons on legislation on climate change. It is pretty clear that the government is little more than a front for big oil.

Given the Conservative government's absolutely abusive attitude toward anything to do with climate change, should Canada even be allowed to participate in Cancun or any of the climate change talks?

It seems that the government's plan is to consistently advance whatever reckless plans for big oil there are to the detriment of—

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

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Order. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, by creating such an element of uncertainty, this is actually doing harm to the very industry the government hopes to support.

On one hand, the government is saying there is some sort of tanker moratorium, be it voluntary or otherwise. On the other hand, it is telling Enbridge to please apply for a pipeline project that is going to enable 225 tankers in the same place the government says there may be a moratorium. That uncertainty is a killer to business. Everybody knows that.

Another element of this project which is important to my colleague from Timmins—James Bay and anybody in this House who happens to represent a resource constituency, a place that draws from our natural environment, is that this is all for raw export, export of raw bitumen to other places to do the upgrading. This represents thousands of jobs.

It also helps create, as the finance minister will well know, the precarious nature of what is often called Dutch disease, where the Canadian dollar in fact becomes a petrodollar. Every time another tar sands operation is developed, the dollar incrementally rises and manufacturing in places like Quebec, Ontario, even in Alberta itself, becomes harder and harder to do. It becomes harder and harder for us to compete.

This is a known economic reality, and it is being perpetrated by a government that agrees to everything if it has the name “tar sands” attached to it.

(Bill C-47. On the Order: Government Orders)

November 30, 2010—the Minister of Finance—Third reading of Bill C-47, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures.

Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, all questions necessary to dispose of the Third Reading stage of Bill C-47, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, 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.

Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Does the hon. government House leader have unanimous consent to present the motion?

Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.