House of Commons Hansard #134 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jobs.

Topics

Assaults Against Public Transit OperatorsPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to committee.)

The House resumed from October 21 consideration of the motion that Bill S-211, An Act to establish a national day to promote health and fitness for all Canadians, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Health and Fitness Day ActPrivate Members' Business

7:20 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, October 23, 2014, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S-211 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #265

National Health and Fitness Day ActPrivate Members' Business

7:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

I wish to inform the House that because of the late hour, there will be no private members' business today. The order is therefore deferred to a future sitting.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to revisit a question I asked on September 24. I will remind the public of what that question was about.

A Superior Court judge had to suspend drilling off the coast of Cacouna. In her decision, she criticized Quebec, which never received the scientific opinions requested from the Science, Oceans and Environment Branch at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The scientists' inability to speak up resulted in the premature commencement of an oil company's operations, with complete disregard for our environmental obligations. Contrary to what the minister said, they were drilling in beluga habitat without knowing what beluga experts thought of the undertaking. Will the minister finally let the experts speak and will she provide the scientific opinions?

A lot has happened since I asked that question. Many things directly related to this file have happened since then. Let us have a look back at those events.

There was drilling at the time. In mid-September, drilling had begun off the coast of Cacouna and a large number of experts pointed out that the decision to authorize those activities was made by the provincial government. This was test drilling ahead of planning for the construction of a potential oil terminal off the coast of Cacouna. Many experts said that authorization was given without the backing of any credible scientific expertise, in other words, advice from Fisheries and Oceans Canada experts in marine mammals and species at risk.

Something rather uncommon in the history of our environmental obligations in Canada happened here. A group brought this matter all the way to the Quebec Superior Court, which is the highest court in Quebec. The group demonstrated that, despite repeated requests for months by the biologist in charge of the project at the provincial level to obtain credible scientific opinions, the Fisheries and Oceans Canada administration acted in such a way that a scientific opinion was never submitted. Something was submitted, namely some sort of briefing that was one and a half pages long, which is not considered to be a credible scientific opinion by any expert whatsoever. That is what was used as grounds to authorize the drilling. Nonetheless, the Superior Court decided to prohibit the drilling and issued an injunction.

That was the context for my question. Nevertheless, the minister replied—and I will give the broad strokes—that the ruling had to do with the provincial government, as though Fisheries and Oceans Canada was not a key player and the source of the problem.

Had Fisheries and Oceans Canada done its job, had it fulfilled its responsibility with respect to international agreements on species at risk, had it provided the necessary information, the Superior Court would never have been involved. The problem is the fault of Fisheries and Oceans Canada alone, but the minister is telling us that it is the fault of the provincial government.

With her incredible ignorance of the file—which continues because the problems have been compounded and she repeats the same empty answers every time—she told me that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had conducted a review of the project and approved it based on scientific evidence. The government cannot say that the day after the Superior Court imposes an injunction on a project because the judge realized that the scientific advice had not been provided.

That is just not good enough, and that is why I asked for an adjournment debate. I hope we will start to get answers that, at the very least, will suggest to Canadians and Quebeckers that someone in government is starting to understand the fundamental problem with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and this file.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission B.C.

Conservative

Randy Kamp ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the interest of the member opposite on this issue, I think the minister has been quite clear on this. She has said at every opportunity, as have I, that projects will only move forward if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. We are committed to the protection of species at risk, and we take this responsibility very seriously. Science is an integral part of this responsibility and is in fact the backbone of all our decision-making processes.

As the member said, and as we are all aware, on September 23, the Quebec Superior Court granted an interlocutory injunction against TransCanada's exploratory work off the coast of Cacouna. It is important to understand, and I think the minister was clear about this, that the object of the ruling was a review and issuance of a certificate of authorization by the Quebec provincial government under provincial laws in Quebec. The Quebec Superior Court's decision did not deal with the federal government process, federal laws, or federal officials.

As explained before, DFO conducted its own careful review of TransCanada's exploratory work. The departmental experts concluded that the work could proceed, contingent on strict conditions.

TransCanada submitted a proposal to conduct an exploratory program, which in addition to seismic testing included drilling and standard penetration tests, to define the geological structure at the proposed terminal site near Cacouna. The department reviewed the proposal to determine whether it would adversely impact listed aquatic species at risk and whether it was likely to cause serious harm to fish, which is prohibited under the Fisheries Act.

These reviews are undertaken by the department in accordance with well-established processes and rely on scientific information. A review of the information provided is undertaken by experts to determine whether additional information is needed to make a determination as to whether serious harm to fish is likely. As well, it must be determined whether there are potential impacts to species at risk. This involves consultation among expert sectors in the department. This is followed by an analysis of potential impacts, means to mitigate those impacts, and consideration of whether an authorization under the Fisheries Act or a permit under the Species at Risk Act is required, and if so, if it should be issued.

Following the review of the proposed exploratory work, Fisheries and Oceans Canada experts provided a letter to TransCanada indicating that mitigation measures, as included in the amended project proposal, had to be implemented to avoid potential impacts on the St. Lawrence beluga and their habitat. These measures included the presence of a marine mammal observer, ongoing monitoring of beluga presence, and the creation of a protection zone around the work site such that if belugas were observed within the zone, work would stop.

DFO advised TransCanada that provided these mitigation measures were implemented, DFO was of the view that the exploratory work would not result in serious harm to fish, nor would it contravene the Species at Risk Act.

We are committed to working with our provincial partners. In response to a request from the provincial ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and the Fight against Climate Change, DFO provided copies of a number of existing scientific reports and analyses. These reports included a publicly available Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science response entitled “The Impacts of Geophysical Surveys at the Cacouna Harbour on the St. Lawrence Beluga”.

We remain confident in the steps taken during the review of this proposal and the subsequent issuance of our letter of advice.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start. Members opposite spend a lot of time hiding behind the fact that there were strict conditions.

First of all, the strict conditions were set out by a signatory who was not even a marine mammal specialist at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and they were not supported by any scientists in the field.

What is more, if the Conservatives were up to date on this matter, they would know more about these so-called strict conditions. We now know that the noise from the drilling exceeded 120 decibels. We know that, even though the company was only authorized to conduct drilling, it was doing other exploratory work that exceeded the noise limit of 120 decibels at a distance of 540 metres by five times. The 120-decibel noise carried over an area five times larger than what was authorized. Has the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not been following this issue?

Furthermore, we know that three boats were being used at the same time, when the company had been limited to one vessel.

Even the unsatisfactory strict conditions were not met. The Conservatives need to come up to speed and get their heads out of the oil sands because, in this case, the strict conditions were not met. None of them were met.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC

Mr. Speaker, with respect to my colleague, and my colleague on the fisheries committee as well, I am inclined to take the advice of experts. Many of them are Ph.D. scientists who are experts on beluga whales. They did the review of the proposal. They concluded that given the strict conditions this work could go ahead.

Our department's mandate is to ensure that activities that proponents propose to undertake do not contravene the Species at Risk Act, and that if permits are needed, specific criteria for the protection and recovery of species at risk are respected. This is the case with this particular review conducted by the department, and as I said, we remain confident in the steps that were taken for the issuance of the letter of advice.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, it was my honour to ask a question in the House about Environment Canada's National Pollutant Release Inventory.

The inventory tracks polluters in Canada. It lists a number of facilities in Beauport—Limoilou, such as the Quebec City incinerator and the White Birch Paper mill in Stadacona. It also lists the IMTT-Québec liquid bulk terminal at the Port of Quebec, which releases volatile pollutants, and the Bunge grain storage facilities, which are not in the riding of Beauport—Limoilou, but are nearby and can have an impact.

I was therefore surprised to see that Quebec Stevedoring was not in the inventory. Quebec Stevedoring handles tens of millions of tonnes of bulk solids that are exposed to the open air. It is hard to imagine that the warehousing and operational activities do not release pollutants.

This inventory is very important because it serves as a benchmark across the country. It is even used by the three trade partners—the United States, Mexico and Canada—to understand the impact of pollutants released by industrial, mining and other facilities.

I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment for promising to get back to me. I received an answer in a letter. I have a copy of it here. It clearly indicates that Quebec Stevedoring is not included in the National Pollutant Release Inventory, but that Environment Canada officials have contacted the company.

At present, Quebec Stevedoring's activities may not strictly require the company to report to the inventory. However, given the volume of its operations and the pollutants that could be released, including particulate matter, dust and nickel, Quebec Stevedoring could have to submit a report and be included in this famous inventory.

Now that I have gotten this very interesting answer from the office of the Minister of the Environment, I would like to know what will require Quebec Stevedoring to comply and report to the inventory. How and when will it happen? Clearly, measures and benchmarks will have to be established.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

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

This government is playing a leadership role when it comes to protecting our environment.

The National Pollutant Release Inventory is a key tool for the Government of Canada to identify and monitor sources of pollution in Canada and to provide information to Canadians on sources of pollution in their local communities. In place since 1993, it has resulted in mandatory annual reporting on pollutant releases and disposals to Environment Canada and publication of this information for all Canadians.

It is important to remember that it is not a list of all companies operating in Canada; rather, it is an inventory of pollutant releases and disposals reported by industrial facilities that meet specific reporting requirements as issued under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Quebec Stevedoring has not reported to the National Pollutant Release Inventory in the past; however, Environment Canada officials are following up with the company to provide additional information on the reporting requirements. If Environment Canada officials determine that Quebec Stevedoring meets the reporting requirements, then they will be required to submit an annual report to Environment Canada.

To determine whether they are required to report to the National Pollutant Release Inventory, companies must take into account the types of activities that take place at their facilities as well as the number of employees who work there. If the threshold is exceeded for one of the over 300 substances listed on the inventory, reporting is then required on releases and disposals of that substance.

The primary activity at the Quebec Stevedoring facility in the port of Quebec appears to be the transfer of bulk materials containing nickel, a substance listed on the National Pollutant Release Inventory and a potential concern in the environment.

If the facility is only unloading and loading this material and is not releasing dust into the air or spilling material into the port, then they would likely not meet the criteria for reporting to the inventory. lf, on the other hand, the total quantity of nickel released to the environment or disposed of by the facility is greater than 10 tonnes per year, a report would be required for nickel. Reporting could also be required for particulate matter, a key air pollutant, or other listed substances.

On an annual basis, Environment Canada publishes the information collected under the National Pollutant Release Inventory. Canadians access the information through a variety of mechanisms, including an online search of the data. For the latest reporting year, over 7,500 industrial facilities across Canada reported on over 300 substances.

I want to thank my colleague for bringing this to my attention.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer.

I cannot say that I learned much more than what was in the letter I received.

I will not hide the fact that I am frustrated, since the inventory has been around since 1993 and Quebec Stevedoring has been in operation for about 30 years.

Twenty years ago, when the inventory was created, around 15 million tonnes of mostly dry bulk materials were being transferred. Now, that figure is 30 million tonnes. Environment Canada should already have been following up, monitoring and requiring that Quebec Stevedoring report to the inventory.

Why was Quebec Stevedoring not required to report pollutant releases and disposals up to now?

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, the National Pollutant Release Inventory represents over 20 years of reporting from industrial facilities across Canada.

As part of ongoing efforts to improve the completeness of the National Pollutant Release Inventory and achieve and maintain a high level of data quality, Environment Canada routinely contacts facilities across Canada to provide information about the requirements for reporting. These efforts help to ensure that companies are meeting their reporting obligations.

Information collected through this program is used to support the department's chemicals regulatory program and is made publicly available to Canadians each year.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:49 p.m.)