Debates of Oct. 9th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil Terminal

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I already mentioned the fact that the leader of the NDP has expressed his support for this project on several occasions. Today, the comments made by the members of the NDP show that they are opposed to exporting any oil from Canada unless it has been refined in Canada. The problem is that the industry and even environmentalists have indicated that that will not work. Economically, it is not possible to do all of that in Canada.

In cases where this is possible, the Liberals are certainly in favour of building refineries and creating jobs in Canada. The problem is that a number of Canadian refineries have already closed because of economic problems. North America is one of the few continents where the demand for petroleum products is dropping.

Does the NDP believe that $10 billion should be spent on building one or more refineries? What is the party's position?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather unfortunate that I have to once again explain what the Leader of the Opposition said. He was very clear.

The NDP is in favour of shipping western Canadian oil to eastern Canada, where our refineries are located, in order to create jobs. That is the basic principle that we stand for. However, an oil port project such as the one in Gros-Cacouna threatens marine species that are already threatened and does not take into account the St. Lawrence River ecosystem.

We therefore cannot support such a project. That is the basis of our argument. Before we consider exporting value-added jobs and our natural resources, we need to take the time to develop projects that will benefit the Canadian economy.

That is not what we are seeing with the Gros-Cacouna oil port project.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I strongly agree with my Liberal colleague across the way. If refineries were to be expanded in Canada, they already would have been built. Refining is a low-margin, highly expensive business. For my colleague to insist that we have to value add every export product we have, that is like saying we will not export wheat out of western Canada, only bread, which is clearly ridiculous.

In the member's comments about the natural resource industry and those big, evil energy companies and oil corporations, I hope she realizes that about 450,000 families from right across the country, some in her constituency, are supported by the Alberta oil sands industry. Why is she so against the workers who make their livelihoods in the natural resources and energy industries?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded to hear such a thing from a Conservative government member who rises in the House day after day to attack the rights of workers. To be honest, I think it is shameful that this member is making such hypocritical comments.

The NDP is asking the government to create jobs so that families will have enough money to live on. We are not talking about creating part-time jobs, which is what the Conservatives have been doing from the outset.

Furthermore, they are attacking workers' rights and trying to destroy the labour movement here in Canada. Quite frankly, the Conservative government has nothing to teach us about how Canadian workers should be treated.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is fortunate to have quite a youthful caucus, and a lot of the people in my riding are under the age of 35.

My colleague is also very active in the youth caucus. The regional Conservatives launched a trial balloon in my riding because they really want to persuade people that, in the interest of the economy, it would be best, believe it or not, to get rid of “those damned belugas”.

I hear her. Anyone who looks at me can see that I have quite a few grey hairs. I am no longer in the youth caucus. However, I would like to hear from my colleague who, unlike me, might have another 50 years to live.

How does she feel about living in a country where people say that kind of thing?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say is that I sure hope I have more than 50 years to live.

Frankly, when I hear statements like that, I feel the way I feel every day about this government. I think their policies are discouraging.

I do not yet have children, but I hope to. It leaves me speechless to see the state the Conservatives want to leave this country in. It is horrifying to see them do these things, to see them gut all of the environmental protection provisions we had and undermine Canada's international reputation.

I could go on about this for hours. For my generation and new generations to come, this is just discouraging.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Wetaskiwin.

I appreciate this opportunity to provide the House with an overview of the role our government plays in ensuring the ongoing sustainability of our waterways and oceans, while facilitating the responsible resource development that is creating jobs in communities across this great country.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to safeguarding Canada's healthy and productive aquatic ecosystems, which provide sustainable resources to Canadians. DFO's programs and policies contribute to the conservation, protection and sustainability of Canada's aquatic resources. DFO's efforts are guided by three important pieces of legislation, the Oceans Act, the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act, which together give us the tools we need for effective management of our oceans and inland waters.

This effective stewardship is important to Canadians. Our country is blessed with an abundant supply of natural aquatic resources contributing to the social, environmental and economic well-being of Canadians. By sustaining productive ecosystems, our government is focused on supporting commercial, recreational and aboriginal fishing, thereby helping to maintain economic prosperity for current and future generations.

Under the Oceans Act, we manage Canada's three oceans and the largest coastline in the world. Under the act, we are protecting ecologically and biologically important resources through marine protected areas.

Working together with governments and stakeholders, Canada has adopted an integrated approach to managing ocean activities. Integrated oceans management is a modern approach to managing Canada's ocean resources. It is a collaborative way of making decisions on how Canada's marine resources can best be developed and protected. This approach manages activities to ensure a healthy marine environment and takes into account all ocean users.

In 2012, our government made important changes to the Fisheries Act to ensure the productivity and long-term sustainability of our fisheries, an industry that supports millions of jobs and contributed over $10 billion to the Canadian economy in 2010. Today, this revised legislation is yielding real results. The fisheries protection provisions of the act provide new tools to better protect Canada's commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries and the ecosystem that supports them. These fisheries are the backbone of many rural and coastal communities.

Our changes make penalties tougher to punish those who actually break the law by causing serious harm to fisheries, and require individuals to report violations. In addition, we will now be able to identify ecologically significant areas that require additional protection.

In short, the fisheries protection program better positions Canada to regulate real threats to fish and the habitats that support Canada's recreational, commercial and aboriginal fisheries.

DFO continues to work with its provincial, municipal, industrial and various other stakeholder partners to do their part where it is best suited to do so. This approach is based on clear concepts that are well rooted in science. Our government is committed to focusing on protection of fisheries and their habitat, while managing routine, everyday activities that are known to affect the productivity of Canada's fisheries.

Under the third legislation, the Species at Risk Act, DFO works with partners to monitor the status of aquatic species at risk to prevent further declines in their numbers and set conservation objectives based on the best available science.

Given the variety and geographic distribution of protected species, the Species at Risk Act has the potential to involve many Canadians. Under SARA, Fisheries and Oceans Canada produces recovery strategies and action plans for aquatic species listed as “endangered” or “threatened”.

These recovery strategies and action plans detail the specific steps that need to be taken to protect identified species. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is determined to work with the communities and people in these areas to ensure that strategies and plans are practical, effective and in keeping with the sound fisheries management approach.

DFO also works with provinces, territories and other partners to prevent aquatic invasive species from entering Canada's waterways, where they can cause harm to natural ecosystems in lakes, rivers and oceans and pose significant threats to Canadian fisheries. Invasive species can radically alter habitat, rendering it inhospitable for native species.

Canada has 20% of the world's fresh water and one of the longest coastlines, thereby placing it at high risk from invasive species. Our government committed to fighting the spread of invasive species and remediating the impact of the species already in Canada. Communities from coast to coast rely on fishing, which must be protected from invasive species.

Our government is working to prevent new introductions through research, monitoring and the development of regulations. The most effective approach to dealing with these invasive species involves managing the pathways through which invasive species enter and spread through Canadian waters. For aquatic species, these pathways are shipping, recreational and commercial boating, the use of live bait, unauthorized introductions, and canals and water diversions.

DFO incorporates environmental, economic and social factors in decision making regarding invasive species. DFO is committed to working co-operatively with all stakeholders and using science-based techniques to assess and manage the risk of aquatic invasive species.

Prevention of harmful new invasions is a key priority as it is the most cost effective way to deal with the problem. Once species are established, the task becomes far more complex and costly.

Our government is taking action. For example, DFO works closely with the Province of Ontario and our American partners on the issue of Asian carp. Our government is investing $17.5 million over five years on prevention, early warning, rapid response and management activities.

Just as our efforts to contain aquatic invasive species will rely on scientific research, strong fishery science remains the backbone of every fish management decision we make as a government. We will continue to protect our ecosystems and fisheries through modern and scientifically-based methods.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada conducts research to learn how to prevent, mitigate or adapt to a broad range of impacts on Canada's aquatic ecosystems. This research informs planning for activities such as shipping, energy development and mining projects in Canada's north. DFO's fishery officers monitor and enforce compliance with federal legislation and regulations designed to protect Canada's aquatic ecosystems and the fisheries they sustain, and the Coast Guard responds to all reports of marine pollution incidents in Canadian waters.

Our government's actions and decisions are based on sound science, research and engagement with stakeholders from across Canada to ensure long-term benefits for all Canadians.

Our government is focused on the responsible management of Canada's underwater resources and ecosystems. We have taken real action to protect the environment and create jobs in coastal communities, and we will continue to do so.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to comments made by my colleague, the member for Halifax, who spoke about value-added jobs, ecological integrity and at risk species like belugas. She also spoke about the importance of habitat impacts.

The Conservatives have done away with the Navigable Waters Protection Act, gutted the Fisheries Act, especially when it comes to habitat protection, and completely repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

My colleague across the way knows the importance of resource projects and she also knows they impact wildlife and wildlife habitat. I know she is concerned about that. I sat with her on fisheries committee and I heard her raise those issues.

If the government knows that a species at risk, a beluga nursery for example, is right where a terminal and pipeline project is proposed, why would it not put that terminal somewhere else?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague the member opposite and I sat together on the fisheries and oceans committee and I enjoyed his input as we talked about the different issues that came before that committee.

When we are talking about critical habitat, we need to understand the definition of “critical habitat”, which is the habitat that is necessary for the survival and recovery of a particular species. The critical habitat for the St. Lawrence belugas was identified when DFO produced the recovery strategy in 2012. There has been a tremendous amount of work done on this issue. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is currently completing the process to ensure the legal protection of this habitat; so that is happening. However, critical habitat for the belugas in the St. Lawrence is also time sensitive. It is from June to October when it is used by this species.

The designation of critical habitat does not result in the prohibition of any activity at all times. It is the destruction of critical habitat that is prohibited, not the activity. The effect of each activity is evaluated individually.

We do have protections in place for critical habitat. The belugas in the St. Lawrence fall under that. We do know that under the federal Species at Risk Act it is forbidden to kill, harm, or harass St. Lawrence belugas.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my hon. colleague's speech today. I would like to ask her about what was said by the Superior Court of Quebec in its decision to impose an injunction in this case, because it reminds me of what we heard a few days ago from the Commissioner of the Environment, who expressed deep concern about the muzzling of federal government scientists in many departments across the government. Then we have the decision of the Superior Court of Quebec. I do not know if the member has read it. The only copy I found so far was in French, and I am not sure if she reads French or not. However, I encourage her to obtain it or have it translated, because it makes it very clear that the provincial government in Quebec repeatedly asked the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for expert information, the kind of scientific opinion from real scientists who are experts on belugas, about this project and did not get it. It asked over and over and did not get it.

Why are the Conservatives muzzling their scientists?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing we need to discuss is the fact that the Quebec Superior Court injunction was a court case regarding provincial laws and provincial officials and really has nothing to do with DFO or DFO processes. However, we firmly believe that DFO's process is diligent and thorough, and we know that it is based on the best available scientific knowledge.

We also know that DFO informed the Government of Quebec that it considered that this work and the proposed mitigation measures do not violate the federal Species at Risk Act or the Fisheries Act. There was a letter sent on August 8. I think that has been referred to previously here today in these discussions. That letter went from DFO to the Quebec officials. There were several other documents that went as well. There was an analysis under the federal Species at Risk Act, there were results of previous studies on the impact of noise on aquatic environments, and there other issues. Therefore, there certainly was correspondence and discussion with the officials from Quebec.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to this issue and set the record straight on a number of these issues.

I would like to thank my colleague the member for Sarnia—Lambton for her excellent speech and her excellent answers to the questions. Her riding of Sarnia—Lambton and my riding of Wetaskiwin share many commonalities, including great petrochemical refineries and those kinds of installations, as well as the oil and gas sector and all of the well-paying jobs that this part of the economy supports.

I am glad to be here to set the record straight on this important matter, raised by the member for Drummond. As most members know, Canada possesses one of the largest and most diverse energy supplies in the world. As an Albertan, I know this. Canada is the world's fifth-largest producer of natural gas, with technically recoverable resources estimated to be up to 1.5 trillion cubic feet. Canada is also punching above its weight when it comes to clean energy. It is the third-largest producer of hydroelectricity and the second-largest producer of uranium in the world.

However, of all our assets, perhaps none is more important to Canada than its vast oil reserves. Canada is the world's fifth-largest producer of oil, with the world's third-largest proven reserves. There are 173 billion barrels, of which 167 are in Alberta's oil sands. That is not the best news. As technology evolves, Canada's oil sands reserves could nearly double to over 300 billion barrels to become the largest oil reserve in the world.

As members know, natural resources are a huge part of Canada's economy. When we take direct and indirect impacts into account, the natural resource sector represents approximately 20% of Canada's gross domestic product, and energy resources are a huge part of that equation. Canada's oil sands are creating jobs and wealth right across the country. This strategic resource has attracted more than $215 billion in capital investment and, of that, about $175 billion is in the last 10 years alone.

While Canada's endowment of petroleum resources is immense, we have only one major customer, which is the United States. In fact, Canada currently exports nearly 100% of its natural gas and oil exports to our friends and neighbours south of the border.

The United States is now becoming awash in energy resources, and it is poised to become a net energy exporter itself. New energy discoveries have reshaped domestic production in the U.S., driving down the demands for Canadian energy resources. That is something that we just did not fathom here a few years ago.

While Canada will continue to be a key supplier to the U.S., there is a strategic imperative for our country to access new and growing markets. The growing demand for oil and gas and other resources in new markets such as China and India represent a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Canada.

The International Energy Agency now predicts that by the year 2035, the world will need a third more energy than is currently being consumed today. Non-OECD economies are forecast to account for over 90% of that energy demand growth, with China and India alone accounting for 49%. The world will need more oil and natural gas to drive global economic growth. It will raise living standards and lift millions out of poverty in these countries, and Canada is a safe and responsible supplier of energy.

Right now, the opportunities for growth are unlike anything we have seen in our history. According to analysis by Natural Resources Canada, there are hundreds of major resource projects currently under way or planned in Canada over the next 10 years. These projects represent a total investment of up to $675 billion. Our government wants to ensure that every dollar of that potential is realized.

Expansion and diversification of our energy markets, both within Canada and globally, is a top priority for the Government of Canada. The Conservatives recognize that without the infrastructure needed to move our energy products to tidewater, our oil will be stranded. That is why we need to build pipelines going west, south, and east.

The numbers tell the story. In 2012, 82% of crude oil delivered to Atlantic Canada refineries and 93% of crude oil delivered to Quebec refineries was imported from countries like Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Angola. Our government welcomes, in principle, the prospect of transporting Canadian crude to consumers and refineries in eastern Canada and, ultimately, to new markets abroad. Perhaps most importantly, it would make our country less reliant on foreign oil.

Our government has been clear that projects can only proceed if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. That is precisely what responsible resource development is all about. It sends a clear signal that the Government of Canada is determined to protect public safety and the health of the environment based on sound science and world-class standards.

Looking at our record, we see we have instituted strict rules and regulations governing the development and shipment of products like oil and gas. All federal pipeline projects are subject to an independent and rigorous environmental assessment by the National Energy Board. We have also given the National Energy Board the necessary resources to increase annual inspections of pipelines by 50%. The board is also doubling the number of annual comprehensive safety audits to identify pipeline issues before incidents even occur.

Equally important, the National Energy Board now has the authority to impose substantial financial penalties on companies that do not comply with safety and environmental regulations. It can levy fines of up to $100,000 a day for as long as the infractions go unaddressed. However, we are not stopping there. We have announced plans to give the National Energy Board even greater authority, so we can strengthen incident prevention, preparedness, and response and liability and compensation.

Here is the bottom line. As I said, our government will only allow energy projects to proceed if they are proven safe for Canadians and for the environment. With our plan for responsible resource development, we have increased our protection of the environment and streamlined regulatory reviews. We have enhanced pipeline and tanker safety, and we are working to reach new markets for Canadian energy projects.

Therefore, subject to regulatory approval, our government supports energy infrastructure projects that will create jobs and generate economic growth in Canada now and for decades to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I see what is going on in my own riding. The Conservatives have regularly sent up a trial balloon to advance a particular idea, that is, if there is no other way to eliminate the impediments to developing oil exports, then the belugas can die. If we add that to the many interventions by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, which verge pretty close to this conclusion in public, it is clear that this trial balloon exists. There is development, we have a lot of oil, and if things have to go that way and some threatened species have to die, well, let them die.

I would like to know whether my colleague who has just spoken shares this opinion that, basically, if threatened species are preventing development, they should just die!

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the member's comments about the member of Parliament for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, who I think is one of the most honourable, conscientious, conservation-minded, and environment-minded members that the House of Commons has ever seen. Any disparaging comments from the other side with regard to this individual will certainly not meet any good standing with me.

I have a zoology degree, and I have worked as a conservation officer and as a fisheries biologist in my home province of Alberta. I understand full well that one can have one's cake and eat it too when it comes to responsible resource development.

I enjoy the clean air, clean water, and clean land that I live on in my home province of Alberta, and I know full well that all the protections are given to species in Canada, whether it is through the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act, or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and that no project would go ahead, especially, when there are species and habitat that would be considered fragile or where there could be detrimental effects.

The problem with the entire motion we are discussing today, though, is that the NDP has already pre-positioned itself to oppose the project before the National Energy Board has even received an application, and that just underscores the complete ideological aversion it has to anything to do with oil and gas projects.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member has made, even though the overriding concern of Liberals is with regard to environmental issues. The beluga whale is of great concern. I come from the Prairies, and I know how important our resources are in terms of exports and how all of Canada benefits if we get this right.

For many people, whether they live inside or outside Quebec, there is an air of suspicion with regard to the government not basing decisions on science and fact. There is a genuine concern that the government is not doing its homework in ensuring that the environment is taken into consideration to the degree it should be.

I am wondering if the member would comment on what he believes his government is specifically doing to protect the interests, for example, of the beluga whale.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous answer, the Species at Risk Act has a lot of provisions in it that would prevent the continuance of any activity that would threaten an endangered species or endangered population. This is common knowledge to members of Parliament here who choose to follow those things. Those kinds of protections are already in place.

We have invested in the National Energy Board. We have strengthened the provisions under the National Energy Board. There are many other things that we have done, whether it be tanker safety, double hulls, pipeline inspections, double wall pipelines when they go across areas where there are waterways. These are the kinds of things the government has done and has taken very seriously.

No member of Parliament wants to degrade the environment at the pure expense of growth. However, that does not mean we have to have the exact opposite ideology, which is what the NDP has and regrettably the leader of the Liberal Party has with his idea of a moratorium on tanker traffic on the west coast.

When we strand Canadian assets like oil and gas, it only serves the interests of those companies operating out of the Middle East, Venezuela, South America and the United States. It is about time members of Parliament served the interests of Canadians instead of these other countries.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not say how pleased I am to speak on this issue, as I represent the beautiful riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, which is about 15 minutes up the road from Cacouna. The issue is therefore very important to me. I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

I would like to thank the member for Drummond, who introduced this motion, as well as the member forMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, with whom I have had the pleasure of working on this issue, because it has been of great concern to our two ridings for a number of months already. We have worked diligently to find out what is involved in the project and learn about the economic and environmental issues associated with the Cacouna terminal.

All of this work has been carried out with the people of the area. We have communicated with the people, the media, the businesses concerned and environmental groups. Both of us have held eight information sessions on the energy east project, some of which dealt specifically with the Gros-Cacouna terminal.

The reason why I fully support the motion is that there will be environmental consequences that could be extremely serious, although I would not necessarily claim there will be extremely serious damage.

As everyone has been saying since this morning, the project is in an area that is a nursery for belugas in the St. Lawrence, a species that is at risk in this area. The work that has been done, beginning with the seismic surveys, has been subject to environmental assessments. Despite what government members are saying, there have been no proper studies or scientific opinions on the drilling activities. I will come back to this later.

Why do we believe the belugas’ nursery and habitat are being unduly threatened? It is because we are well aware that the St. Lawrence Seaway is open to merchant shipping. Ships of this size, that will be travelling along a very tricky route through the Seaway, have drafts that have never before been seen in the St. Lawrence, particularly in this area.

For instance, Aframax tankers have a draft of 14 meters and the Suezmax vessels have a draft of 16 meters. Already, this should be ringing environmental alarm bells. Indeed, alarm bells have already been sounded by a number of beluga whale experts.

The issue of ballast waters must also be considered. These kinds of supertankers have to be empty when they enter the St. Lawrence to be able to take on cargo, so they fill their hulls with water at their point of departure. These ballast waters may be from southeast Asia or the Indian Ocean, we do not know. Ballast waters are used to weigh the ship down so it can sail more safely. Under Canadian law, these waters must be discharged before the ship enters the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence estuary. However, for financial reasons, companies discharge ballast waters while continuing to sail and the ships can never fully get rid of the ballast.

That means that, year in and year out, a good 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes of the total of 60,000 tonnes of ballast water remain on these ships. The water is discharged at the port of arrival, along with any invasive species it may contain. The trip is repeated a number of times per week, per month and per year. There is a cumulative effect and it poses a threat to the St. Lawrence ecosystem.

I am going to talk about the possibility of an oil spill, not because I want to sound alarmist, but because it is a serious issue. Even in the case of small spills or leaks, our response capabilities are limited by factors that are not so much human as natural. They include the strength of currents and tides, which reduce the timeframe within which effective action is possible. Furthermore, I am just talking about the summer and fall, when the weather is good.

In winter, the situation is worse. A number of scientists and experts on the St. Lawrence have estimated that, for technical reasons, our response capability would be virtually zero in the case of a spill or a leak in the St. Lawrence in the winter. For these reasons, the port of Cacouna is not the right port to choose for exporting crude bitumen. Ice cover forms quite early in the year in the St. Lawrence and it melts quite late the following year. For that reason, it is a very risky port. We opposed the Northern Gateway project because of the environmental risks, but also because of the geography of the area in question. The same thing applies here.

We probably would not be here if the government had done its science homework. I have heard a number of debates in the House about the muzzling of scientists and about the confusion spread by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and government members with regard to scientific opinions. What must be understood, and I mentioned it earlier, is that when it comes to the seismic surveys that were carried out last spring, the seismic surveys that did in fact have an impact on the beluga habitat, Fisheries and Oceans Canada did its work by asking the department’s science branch to prepare a scientific opinion. The result was a 20-page scientific opinion drafted by six scientists who are experts on the beluga as an endangered species and on the St. Lawrence River. The work was carried out properly and the report indicated that there were risks but that they could be mitigated if certain conditions were met.

We are now in the drilling stage. Drilling was delayed because of the issue of the provincial permit. TransCanada made the decision following threats of an injunction. Then, exploratory drilling began in the fall. Obviously, Fisheries and Oceans Canada should have provided a scientific opinion for the drilling that would also take place, or was supposed to take place, during a period when belugas are found in that part of the river. However, instead of relying on the same approaches and the same scientists whose expertise it knew and who had provided entirely competent advice on seismic surveys, Fisheries and Oceans Canada decided to rely on a single biologist who was not from the departments's science branch, who is not a beluga specialist, and who provided a scientific opinion that, instead of taking up 20 pages like the opinion for the seismic surveys, took up only two. Furthermore, this scientific opinion provided by a single biologist covered a period when drilling was not even going to take place. Drilling was supposed to occur this fall. The scientific opinion, or what the government likes to call a scientific opinion, covered the period from May 19 to August 21, 2014. It is outdated. However, that is what the department put forward as a scientific opinion. Contrary to what the government says and to what the various members say in their speeches or in answer to questions, the Superior Court decision regarding the injunction requested by the Quebec centre of environmental law focused on the government's refusal to provide a true scientific opinion.

I do not want to spend all of my time on this point because I know I do not have much time left. However, paragraph 53 says the following:

...Mr. Kemp, contrary to the request regarding seismic work, did not see fit to forward the question to the science branch of his department.

That led the judge to note the following in paragraph 106 of her ruling—and this has already been quoted but the members of the government would do well to listen closely:

...the fact that nobody from TransCanada or DFO's science branch answered their perfectly legitimate questions about whether carrying out the work on the dates proposed by the proponent could cause a significant disturbance or have a significant impact on marine mammals...

Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not respond to this question. The department did not do its homework and is at the centre of this fiasco, which is embodied in the injunction granted by the Superior Court.

I will conclude by saying that, clearly, we are in favour of this motion. However, that does not mean that we are opposed to the project itself. The project could well continue without the Port of Gros-Cacouna. We will determine that once the project is tabled.

This is an extremely important issue for us. We did our homework; we did our research. We have looked at the economy and the environment. There is no doubt among those of us on this side of the House that the government is primarily responsible for this fiasco. We are also certain that we need to say no to making the port of Cacouna an oil terminal.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was recently engaged in a by-election and was led to believe that the NDP policy on Canada east was that it supported it. It was not the candidate I was running against that delivered that information. It was the leader of the party, after meeting with the Premier of Saskatchewan.

Assuming that we are going to build and support Canada east, which still has to go through several regulatory processes, where would the NDP like that pipeline to land, and is it prepared to accept it being shipped from any shoreline in the Gulf of St. Lawrence?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

I think that he has misunderstood our leader's statement. Our leader mentioned that we were open to the possibility of a pipeline running from west to east. He never said yes to this specific project, just like he did not say yes to the Enbridge Line 9 project either. We are open to the idea, and we examine projects on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, we are examining the project, and we haven't made a decision on the pipeline itself, which should end at an unloading terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick. We will notify you when we see the project. However, in the case of the oil export terminal itself, since there will be no refinery in Cacouna, the NDP's response is no to a port in Cacouna. We will assess the rest of the project once we have had the chance to see it in its entirety.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to follow up on a question asked by my colleague opposite. In his answer, the member said that the leader had said that he was open to a west-to-east pipeline. Is the leader open to any east-to-west pipeline?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a strange question. I'm not sure I know where the hon. member is going.

What is clear is that, yes, we are open to assessing the merits of each situation, as in the case of international trade agreements, for example. Here, what is clear is that one of the elements that I haven't had the chance to mention is driving us to also oppose the Cacouna oil port project. We want these projects to yield benefits for Canada, not only for production purposes, but also for processing. In the case of the oil port in Cacouna, there is clearly no plan for a refinery. What motivates us to study the issue of the terminal in this project is the fact that there are processing possibilities at refineries in Saint John, New Brunswick. Accordingly, our position in that regard is completely consistent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for all the work he has done on this issue. We have done a lot of work on this together.

One particular time, he was in my riding when we requested a moratorium on drilling. Indeed, we were acutely aware that there were no scientific opinions. Later, we noted that the Superior Court had to agree with our reading of events: there was no scientific opinion. While were doing the actual field work based on facts, the Liberal leader was in my colleague's riding saying that what was going on in Cacouna was perfect and that everything should move forward.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks of the Liberal leader's position, at the worst possible time.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party was in fact in my riding on September 3, and more specifically in Rimouski. He was asked about the project. I have a quotation from Le Devoir in which he said the following, after the first injunction: “I think that with the judgment of the Court [in favour of the drilling] and with the support of the provincial government, we should go ahead.”

Shortly after that, during the interview, he was informed that there was controversy about the environmental aspect of the project. At that point, he changed his mind and said that a balance would have to be struck between the environment and the economy, that the transportation would have to be done responsibly, and that the Liberals were concerned about climate change. However, what he needed to understand was that there were serious problems relating to the environment and that there was a major controversy. For the moment, the statement by the leader of the Liberal Party is, as the title of the article says, that he “supports the Energy East pipeline project”.

In the midst of such a controversy, he should have been better informed, because the question was extremely important for the region and for our two ridings.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, any development project must first meet the basic criteria of sustainable development. I find it very funny, very odd and pathetic, to hear the government and the Liberal Party members telling us that they do not understand the distinction between “being open to a project” and “being in favour of a project”. We are open to the project, provided that it meets the basic criteria of sustainable development. That is the question.

Today, I would like to speak to all Canadians, but mainly to the women and men in my riding who have approached me with concerns about the Cacouna oil port project. I am concerned to see that the federal government is refusing—yes, refusing—to face up to its responsibility to protect the complex ecosystem of the St. Lawrence River.

The riding of Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord has the enormous privilege of being adjacent to some of the most magnificent and most biologically diverse areas of the river that is a symbol of our nation.

As I said earlier in the House, whether we are talking about the Charlevoix World Biosphere Reserve, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park or the Group for Research and Education on Marine Mammals, our region can pride itself on having world-renowned organizations that are associated with the wonders of the river.

Those institutions are not only a formidable asset to the environment and to our region, they are also an essential engine for the development of our tourism industry. That is why protecting this ecosystem is particularly important to me. Everyone who has grown up or who lives near the river cannot help but want it to be protected and conserved for future generations. Unfortunately, the Conservative government seems to be abdicating its responsibilities when it comes to the environment, and this leaves many people in our region with serious concerns and a number of unanswered questions.

[An hon. member]

Rightly so.