Debates of Oct. 9th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil Terminal

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I will have a chance to respond in my own speech, to provide a little more accurate background. However, I do have a couple of questions.

I want to be very clear that he understands that the work that has gone on so far is only exploratory work and that there would in fact be a comprehensive proposal submitted to the National Energy Board that would include a comprehensive environmental assessment. My first question is to ask if he understands that, because the motion does not sound very clear on that point to me.

The second question is this. We have been led to believe that the west-to-east pipeline, energy east, is the centrepiece of NDP energy policy. This exploration is with respect to that, so I would like to know if he still agrees with his leader on that point.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know very well that we are talking about exploratory drilling. Now, does he know that his own department was asked for scientific advice on this exploratory drilling, and instead of sending the proper documentation to the Government of Quebec, his department simply sent a letter saying everything was fine, without doing a proper scientific study? This is outrageous.

When we asked for studies in committee, they were done in camera. When we asked the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to hold an emergency meeting, that was also held in camera. The Conservatives cannot say that they support environmental protection and then do everything behind closed doors, without any scientific advice.

As for the member's other question, it is important to understand that this part of the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal is used for export only, so there is nothing here to create jobs or protect our fishery resources.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a very important issue for us to discuss today. I for one am very fond of the beluga. It is a wonderful whale and contributes immensely to Churchill, to tourism, and so forth.

Having said that, I have a question in regard to his own leader. I am sure he is familiar with the fact that his leader used to be the environment minister under the Liberal government in the province of Quebec. When the leader of the New Democratic Party was the minister of environment in Quebec, he had an opportunity to do a lot of things the member referenced.

Why does he believe his leader today seemed to ignore the issue back then when he was the minister of environment?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of our leader's record as Quebec's environment minister. He is the father of Quebec's sustainable development legislation. He is the one who added the right to clear air, water and soil to the charter. That is what we are going to do when we form the government in 2015. It is not over.

I have a big problem with the position of my colleague's party across the way. This summer, I went to the Lower St. Lawrence twice. When the leader of the Liberal Party strolled around there, he said the Port of Gros-Cacouna oil terminal was a good thing. He was not even aware that the decisions were not backed by science. Even his member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville had to set him straight. The other Liberal members will have to set their leader straight to get him to make sound decisions.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with my esteemed colleague's speech. He provided us with some very interesting details.

When it comes to endangered species as interesting and invaluable as belugas, we have to do scientific research before we proceed. My colleague's speech made me realize that there is no indication that any scientific research was done.

Why?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague very much for the question.

This is a prime example of the Conservatives muzzling scientists and showing an utter lack of transparency. The Conservatives requested in camera meetings at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development three times instead of listening to the advice of the scientists at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. If they have nothing to hide, then why request in camera meetings and why muzzle the scientists? Never before had public servants, scientists, demonstrated in front of the House of Commons. This was unprecedented. Frankly, the Conservatives have to take responsibility for protecting sustainable development. The basic principles of sustainable development are good for the environment and for the economy.

When the NDP forms the government, it will respect the principles of sustainable development.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and privilege to engage in this debate. I thank my colleague, the member for Drummond, for his remarks on our motion regarding the proposed Port of Gros-Cacouna oil terminal. It is something about which we are very troubled on this side.

Let me first acknowledge my colleagues, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, the member for Drummond, and the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, for the incredible work they have been doing on this issue.

The Port of Gros-Cacouna and the St. Lawrence are extremely sensitive ecosystems, not to mention the extraordinary danger we would be putting the beluga whale under, a mammal that is covered under the Species at Risk Act.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about why it is we are so concerned about what the government is doing. Just this week the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development released a report that confirmed our fears, which have been increasing over the past 3.5 years, that the Conservative government only seems interested in minimalizing the federal government's involvement in environmental assessments. Time after time, it is doing everything it can to ensure that proper assessments are not being done, assessments in terms of the environment, whether it be for the transportation of oil or other forms of development. The government is neglecting its responsibility and trying to turn over responsibility to the proponents in many cases. What it fails to realize is that, by conducting proper environmental assessments, not only would it protect the environment but it would also be good for the economy.

Surely, in this day and age, we have to recognize that we must commit to ensuring that we deal with the environment. We must begin to address the question of climate change that is right there in front of all of us in real terms. It needs to be addressed. If we do not deal with these issues, then we are turning our backs on the economy; we are turning our backs on the sustainability of our country and, frankly, of our world.

In that respect, on this side the New Democrats believe in two particular principles. One is that proper community consultations need to be done so that not only do the communities on the ground get involved and understand what the impacts are but also the government authorities understand how the communities feel, how the people in those communities that would be most directly affected feel. Also, environmental assessments are the bedrock of sustainable development.

The government has told us not to worry: it is not that far along, and there is no need to be concerned. Let me remind members that it was just in March of this year that TransCanada submitted a project description to the National Energy Board for the energy east pipeline, which includes the proposal to export unprocessed oil at the Port of Gros-Cacouna. We know that an official application for the entire project is expected in the coming weeks.

Our concern stems from what we learned time and again, whether it is from the commissioner of the environment or whether it is with respect to coast guard capacity to deal with problems that may arise: the government is just simply not ready.

A decision was reached recently in this regard by the court. In September 2014, a decision forced TransCanada to stop all work in Cacouna because it was revealed that the Conservative government had shunned all collaboration with the Government of Quebec. Maybe the parliamentary secretary would explain that. The judge in this case was concerned about the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had refused for some reason to share with its provincial counterparts the results of studies it had conducted. Quebec asked to see the scientific advice on several occasions, but the Conservatives failed to make this information available.

The Conservatives refused to hear what specialized marine mammal scientists have had to say. They refused to hold special fisheries and oceans committee meetings to discuss the issue. My colleagues mentioned earlier that there were special motions brought before the fisheries and oceans committee and the environment committee to try to deal with this issue. We understood that the Government of Quebec was not able to get at this information, but its members thought, as responsible members of Parliament for this particular area of Quebec, they could perhaps use their role as members of Parliament with participation on the various standing committees to try to bring officials before our committee to ask them those questions, try to get at that information.

Those motions went into private, in-camera meetings. We do not know what was discussed in those in-camera meetings, except to say that no information has been shared with members of this House on this particular matter, and the issue has disappeared from the agendas of those particular committees.

I also cite the issue of marine protected areas. The government signed on to a UN commitment to achieve 10% protection of our coastline by the year 2020. Here we are in 2014 and we are at less than 1%. That is important in this regard because of the marine protected area initiative safeguarding the area around the Saguenay-St. Laurence Marine Park. The government has failed to more forward on that.

This particular initiative aimed, first and foremost, to protect the St. Lawrence belugas' full range of habitat, but we found out that the Canada-Quebec committee looking into the establishment of this marine park area has never even met. How can the Conservatives claim to be protecting beluga whale habitat when they are clearly, at every opportunity, torpedoing the area's marine conservation projects?

The Conservatives are not up to the task. They are not doing what needs to be done to protect our environment, to ensure that the species at risk that are covered by legislation are in fact protected. They are not doing the work that ensures a principle in which we believe is maintained and strengthened, and that is the principle of sustainable development.

At every opportunity, the Conservatives have been passing up on opportunities to protect our environment, as they are hell-bent to develop our natural resources in a way that, frankly, puts our ecosystem at risk.

That is why my colleagues and I will be standing in the House to debate this issue throughout the day: because we believe it is another example of how the government has fallen short, another example of why we need to elect a party to form a government that is actually committed to sustainable development.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question for the member while it is early in the discussion.

I listened to the member's speech, which was very clear, but one area that I still do not quite understand is the NDP's biggest concern. Is it the pipeline, or is it the oil tanker traffic, or is it both?

I wonder if the member could clarify that so that as we begin this discussion, we know what footing New Democrats are on.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, which is a good one, and I will be clear: New Democrats are concerned on a number of levels.

With respect to the St. Lawrence ecosystem, we are concerned about endangered wildlife species such as the beluga. The government is failing to put in place the necessary protections and has failed to disclose information that would help local communities understand what the impacts are. It is failing to address the concerns being brought forward to the point where the Quebec court finally had to issue an injunction to stop it and ordered the release of this information.

Let me be clear. New Democrats think that bitumen should be upgraded in Canada, that jobs should be created in this country, that it should not be exported offshore. The work should be done here. However, all this particular project is proposing to do is to ship more—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out, the way this motion was written covers up the problem. In other words, this government has not disclosed all the scientific facts known to the minister's office or to marine mammal experts.

Why does the motion not explicitly mention this problem which, to my way of thinking, is this government's main problem regarding this issue?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the motion clearly spells out the concerns we have with the proposal to develop a crude oil exporting port at the Port of Gros-Cacouna.

Now it is time for that member, as New Democrats will, to explain the issues at the heart of this situation and why we are so concerned. He raised the point that the federal government has failed to release information. That failure is a very key ingredient, and one that I hope we will hear him expound on some more.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to look more broadly at the Gulf of St. Lawrence. At this point, the Green Party is the only party calling for a full moratorium on oil and gas exploration and development in this very sensitive ecosystem, although I know that historically there has been quite a bit of interest from New Democrats, and I hope they will come out in favour of a full moratorium.

My question for the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour is this: is it his understanding that what will be shipped to this port is going to be bitumen mixed with diluent—in other words, not even at the level of synthetic crude, not upgraded, but bitumen mixed with diluent? That is my understanding, but I would like that point to be confirmed.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what is going to be shipped is part of the issue. We do not know, and we do not know what the ramifications will be, but we do know that this proposal has been presented. We have been demanding, and continue to demand on behalf of the citizens of that region, this country, and Quebec, that the government understand the potential impact on the ecosystem and on the beluga, the species at risk, and that it be much more demanding in terms of what information is required. Then the government must ensure that the information is provided to Canadians.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate today. I hope we will get some clarity as we go throughout the rest of the day.

Let me begin with a summary of my thoughts.

Our government is committed to responsible resource development. DFO's mandate is to ensure that when proponents want to implement projects, specific criteria for the protection and recovery of species at risk, such as the beluga whale, are respected. I can assure everyone in the House that our government remains committed to the protection of species at risk and that DFO takes this responsibility seriously.

In addition to the measures under the Species at Risk Act, commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries are protected under the Fisheries Act. This means that areas that support such fisheries are protected against serious harm, which includes protection of habitat and protection against the death of fish.

TransCanada Pipeline's proposed energy east project includes the construction and operation of a shipping terminal near the port of Gros-Cacouna, Quebec. The project involves the conversion of an existing pipeline and the construction of new pipeline sections to transport oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to eastern Canada. The project includes the construction and operation of two shipping terminals, one in Cacouna, Quebec, and the other in Saint John, New Brunswick.

It is well known that the area around Cacouna is at certain times of the year inhabited by beluga whales.

I should mention at this time that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's.

The project application has not yet been filed with the National Energy Board. TransCanada has not submitted a proposal for review, contrary to what my NDP colleagues have said. Therefore, complete details of the proposed development at Cacouna are not available.

Although the National Energy Board will be responsible for conducting the environmental assessment, DFO will intervene in the National Energy Board hearing process and will review the project and provide advice with respect to our mandate in accordance with well-established processes that rely on scientific information. In conducting the review, DFO will assess the project under both the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act.

Under the Fisheries Act, experts will assess whether the project is likely to result in harm to fish and subsequently determine if potential harm can be alleviated with appropriate avoidance, mitigation, or offsetting measures. This is a robust process to ensure the ongoing productivity and sustainability of Canada's commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries.

Under the Species at Risk Act, DFO will assess whether, first, all reasonable alternatives to the activity that would reduce the impact on the species have been considered and the best solution has been adopted; second, whether all feasible measures will be taken to minimize the impact of the activity on a species or its critical habitat; and third, whether the activity will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species.

As we are all aware, and as I have already said, the St. Lawrence estuary beluga whale is a species at risk, and all efforts should be made to avoid impacts on the species.

It is for this reason that DFO has been actively engaged since the early stages of this project. DFO has provided information with respect to the requirements of the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act to the proponent and has shared existing scientific reports and analyses with the Province of Quebec.

The proposed TransCanada energy east project is currently in the exploratory phase. In preparation for the proposed terminal at Cacouna, TransCanada submitted a proposal to Fisheries and Oceans Canada to conduct seismic testing and exploration drilling in order to define the geological structure of the proposed terminal site.

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. Again, the proposal was reviewed in accordance with well-established science-based processes.

Following the review, a Species at Risk Act permit was issued for the seismic survey project, but the survey was limited to a less sensitive time when beluga whales were less likely to be present. The permit required that the seismic testing be completed by April 30 of this year, which has been done.

Following the review of the proposed exploratory drilling project, DFO officials provided a letter back to TransCanada that included measures to avoid potential impacts on the St. Lawrence beluga. 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 500 metres of the work, then work would stop.

DFO advised the proponent that provided these mitigation measures were incorporated into TransCanada's plans, DFO was of the view that the exploratory drilling would not result in serious harm to fish, nor would it contravene the Species at Risk Act. This determination was based on a wealth of existing knowledge and scientific information.

The project proponent committed to avoiding impacts to the species by undertaking activities during less sensitive periods as well as by implementing mitigation measures during drilling to ensure that the St. Lawrence beluga whale is protected.

The Province of Quebec issued two authorizations for the exploratory drilling. In reaching its decision, the province relied on the same scientific information used by DFO.

As an example, on September 17, as per the protocol, drilling operations were shut down because of beluga presence in the area. In fact, this was exactly how it was supposed to work.

Since that time, on September 23 the Superior Court of Quebec issued an interlocutory injunction halting the drilling until October 15, 2014. However, let me be clear that the impact of that decision would not change anything concerning DFO's advice. This decision was entirely related to Quebec provincial laws and a provincial review and authorization process. I remain confident in the expertise of DFO staff and the review process that was followed at the federal level.

Throughout the upcoming review process, DFO will continue to be actively engaged in the environmental assessment to ensure the protection of the St. Lawrence beluga whale.

To demonstrate the thoroughness of our project reviews, I will highlight some of the steps implemented by DFO.

Upon receiving a project for review, DFO officials review the project in accordance with the requirements of the Fisheries Act and the Species At Risk Act. These reviews rely on the best available scientific information.

Officials review the information provided to determine whether additional information is needed to make a determination on whether serious harm to fish is likely and whether there are potential impacts to species at risk that must be considered. To ensure a complete analysis, consultation with other experts in the department, including our scientists, is performed.

If it is determined that the project is not likely to result in serious harm or to require a Species at Risk Act permit, the biologist notifies the proponent through a letter of advice, which may include measures to mitigate potential impacts to fish and fish habitat, including species at risk. If this determination cannot immediately be made, the biologist has discussions with the proponent on appropriate mitigation and offsetting to determine whether an authorization can in fact be issued.

For the review of the energy east project, including the proposed project activities at Cacouna, the National Energy Board review process will involve a hearing. DFO will have intervenor status at the hearing and will provide expertise to the process related to the department's mandate. This includes expertise with respect to marine mammals such as the St. Lawrence beluga.

Let me conclude by saying again that projects do not move forward unless they are safe for the environment and safe for Canadians.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's commendable speech. He said that everything will be done so that this is safe for the environment. However, there has been an initiative to protect marine areas around the Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park for 15 years now. There is also a committee of people from Canada and Quebec.

What did we learn this year? We learned that, as long as the committee has been around, it has never met. Never.

How does he explain the fact that he wants to protect the belugas and that the recovery plan recommends creating a marine protected area, but that the committee has never met?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat what I said in my speech. The activities that have taken place are exploratory activities in preparation for TransCanada PipeLines potentially submitting a proposal to the National Energy Board. The National Energy Board approval process will be a very rigorous, robust process in which DFO will participate.

In terms of the exploratory activities, DFO has carefully followed its normal processes in terms of consulting scientists and the scientific information that is available, and in doing due diligence in this case.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, but does he realize that he is contradicted by the Superior Court of Quebec ruling that shows very clearly that DFO did not communicate to the Quebec department the information that the scientists at DFO were not favourable toward drilling during the fall? It did not share this information. How did the minister do that? That is bad federalism, it is bad for the protection of species, and it is bad for the project.

Can we have an answer to this very simple question?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me provide a simple answer. The Province of Quebec had its own obligation to conduct its own review in order to provide its authorization. I cannot speak to the work it did.

However, I know that on August 8, in response to a letter from the Quebec ministry, DFO sent the ministry both documents it produced on the geotechnical work and all the supporting documents used to produce its analysis and make a decision about the project. I could provide the list. I will not bore the member with that list of documents, but I can tell him that this is exactly what happened.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his great intervention.

Members may know that I have the honour of chairing the environment committee, but the environment committee is called the environment committee and sustainable development committee. It has both of those obligations.

Yesterday officials from Environment Canada came before our committee. I was really encouraged to hear about the great work our government is doing on the environment. For example, our greenhouse emissions between 2005 and 2012 decreased by over 5%, while the economy grew by 10%. In fact, our per capita greenhouse emissions are lower than at any point since records have been kept, so Canada is certainly doing its job.

However, as I mentioned, the committee is called the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

We all know that the NDP sometimes uses the acronym for the “no development party”, but just recently, in a 2012 speech at the Canadian Club of Toronto, the Leader of the Opposition called the shipment of western oil to eastern Canada a pro-business, common sense solution. Maybe there is hope.

However, I want to ask my colleague why the NDP is putting this motion before us to reject this project before it has even been submitted to the National Energy Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague raises a very good question. I am not sure I know the answer to it.

I was actually quite puzzled by the motion, at least the wording of the motion, because it would seem to me that we could read this motion as not supporting the notion of an energy east pipeline. In particular, it is weighing in on this before a proposal has been submitted to the National Energy Board and submitted to that rigorous process. It is mind-boggling to me.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise in debate on this motion today.

It is very clear that Canada is blessed to be home to an abundant array of natural resources. Without question, our government is committed to protecting Canada's diverse marine ecosystems and to the conservation of the species contained in those ecosystems.

I want to talk about that further, because one level of government cannot do that alone. We have to collaborate with other levels of government, with all three levels of government in this great country, quite frankly. There is no good in the opposition getting up to make wild accusations that somehow one project that has been very closely monitored is going to destroy an entire species or an entire ecosystem.

I would just like to bring up the fact that some 3,000 ships pass through this ecosystem every year. I would suspect that if the NDP were to get its way, it would want to shut down all that shipping, every last ship that goes through the belugas' ecosystem, which is a large and substantial ecosystem.

Let us talk about reasonable and responsible development and how we go about that.

We are honoured, as the government, to have the responsibility to be stewards of these resources, to protect them, to enjoy them, and to benefit from them. The Species at Risk Act, SARA, is a key component, given the many variables to consider in effectively protecting aquatic species in our waters and in helping them to recover.

The Species at Risk Act is one of the federal government's key conservation tools. Given the variety and the geographic distribution of protected species, the Species at Risk Act has the potential to involve many Canadians, from commercial fishers and the aquaculture industry to recreational fishers and individuals.

The act supports biodiversity and the long-term sustainability of Canada's aquatic species and fisheries: commercial, aboriginal, and recreational. We know that healthy fish stocks and aquatic systems are the key to stable and prosperous fisheries.

The purpose of the act is to prevent threatened wildlife from becoming extinct and to provide for their recovery. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, along with Environment Canada and Parks Canada, are responsible for the implementation of the Species at Risk Act. The Minister of the Environment has primary responsibility for its administration and is the responsible minister for all species on federal lands as well as migratory birds. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the minister responsible for aquatic species other than those found in areas administered by Parks Canada.

The Species at Risk Act establishes a process for conducting scientific assessments of the status of individual wildlife and aquatic species.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, is a non-government committee of scientific experts that identifies and assesses wildlife and aquatic species at risk in Canada. The committee undertakes assessments of wildlife and aquatic species on an annual basis.

On receiving these assessments, the Governor in Council must make a decision as to whether a species will be included on schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act. When it is decided to list a species under the Species at Risk Act as extirpated, endangered, or threatened, recovery strategies and action plans are prepared. Recovery strategies identify threats to the species and its habitat. These strategies also identify critical habitat to the extent possible and set population and distribution objectives for the species.

I say that to let all Canadians know that there is a process, and the process is adhered to and followed by every department of the government.

Action plans outline the steps to be taken to meet the objectives in any recovery strategy. For species listed as a special concern, the act requires the preparation of a management plan, including measures to be taken for the species' conservation.

These are just some of the steps DFO takes to protect these species. On top of that, they have a duty to consult with various stakeholders on designated species, to provide advice to the Minister of the Environment on whether the species should be listed for legal protection under SARA, and to work with affected stakeholders to develop recovery strategies and action plans for species protected under SARA.

On top of that, they have a responsibility to conduct additional scientific research on the impact of fisheries and other activities on listed species and their habitat; to update fisheries management plans, where applicable, to include new conservation measures; and to develop a compliance plan. When they develop a compliance plan, they base that on sound scientific research and stakeholder conversations.

The Species at Risk Act emphasizes, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, co-operation and stewardship of the species at risk. No single government or entity can recover species at risk by itself. In particular, co-operation between the federal departments and agencies is required. The Species at Risk Act also emphasizes co-operation with the provincial and territorial partners, aboriginal organizations, landowners, resource users, and Canadians in general.

From our perspective, there can be no success without the work of everyone involved. The scope, scale, and importance of this process demands a collaborate effort. A key component in the government's collaboration and consultation with Canadians is the SARA public registry. The public registry is a key source of news, information, and documents related to species at risk in Canada.

What this does not mean is that we stop all development in this country every single time there is an issue. I have just explained that there is a very thorough process. We allow the process to take place, listen to the scientific advice that is given by all the stakeholders, and then make a decision based on science. That is exactly what the Government of Canada, with the advice of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, does.

We recognize the importance of shared stewardship and taking action at a local level to recover species. Our investments ensure that Canadians can take steps to protect the habitats of species at risk.

With respect to the St. Lawrence beluga whale, this government has been active in support of the recovery of this species. In March 2012, a recovery strategy for the species was finalized. The recovery strategy was developed in close collaboration with our partners, which included marine mammal experts, representatives of the Government of Quebec, Parks Canada, and other interested stakeholders.

We realize that aquatic ecosystems need a wide variety of species to remain robust and productive and to provide economic benefits to Canadians. The greater the variety of species within an ecosystem, the more able it is to withstand threats and pressures. The more simple an ecosystem is, the more vulnerable it will be to degradation, loss of species, and loss of productivity.

Species such the beluga whale are essential components of the aquatic ecosystem and provide significant benefits to coastal communities and to Canadians. Recovery efforts can take time, but significant progress is being made, and species are being recovered. The Pacific humpback whale is a recent example of this. Its status has improved from “threatened” to “special concern”. We are confident that more success is forthcoming in the future.

In closing, I again ask for continued collaboration across all levels of government and with all Canadians. Our government will continue to provide leadership in the conservation and protection of Canada's aquatic systems and in the recovery of aquatic species at risk.

Finally, we have a motion here. The motion was brought in good faith, but we have to listen to what the proponent of the motion is actually saying. What I am hearing is that there should be no development, no interaction, in this area whatsoever. We have very clear guidelines and limitations on what industry and ship traffic can do in the area. Those are sound, reasonable, and responsible regulations that control shipping traffic in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The alternative the member seems to be proposing is simply to stop all traffic and all development in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and to simply do nothing.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my honourable colleague for speaking about this very important and very worrisome issue of sustainable development in general, and the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal in particular.

He mentioned several times that he believed in science, among other things. This is funny, though, because the Quebec Superior Court just mentioned that it had to respond to an injunction that there was no scientific basis for allowing drilling off the coast of Cacouna.

Where are these scientific opinions that the hon. member is claiming to have and to be submitting? Why did the Quebec Superior Court grant a request for an injunction if there was scientific evidence? I just do not get it. Perhaps the hon. member could clarify things for me.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. As my hon. colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has already said, the injunction only came after all activities had already stopped. There was collaboration between the federal government, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Province of Quebec on this issue.

As to the drilling activity in the seabed, that was looked at early on. There was no scientific evidence to put any mitigation measures beyond what were put in place to begin with to limit that drilling. There were very clear parameters of what they could and could not do, all of them falling within the regulatory regime and all of them not being harmful to the belugas.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is contradicted by the court ruling. He contends that there was co-operation between governments, but I want my colleague to listen to paragraph 88 of the ruling in French:

...[the Department of Fisheries and Oceans] is withholding the requested scientific information. It did not respond to the two questions asked by the [Quebec ministry]...It simply reiterated information that the Quebec minister already had and that was cause for concern, but provided no additional explanation.

This is why an injunction has been made: because the federal minister did not communicate the scientific information to the provincial minister. This is a court ruling. How can he explain this mess?