Debates of April 20th, 2015

Opposition Motion--Coastal Water Protection

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is a prime example of speaking notes that are being read out just to convince themselves of this reality.

It would be very hard for my colleagues across the way to actually acknowledge that the response was far less than satisfactory and nowhere near world class. The minister came out saying that, despite the fact that everybody who was on the ground was actually saying the opposite, including the mayor and the premier of the province.

I put a lot of weight on what I hear from citizens. I have talked to many people who live in English Bay, and they are still disturbed because they are still convinced it is not as clean as it should be.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased and honoured to present my views on the opposition motion on the Kitsilano Coast Guard and the marine traffic centres across Canada.

I have heard repeatedly in the House that the incident in Vancouver was handled properly. Quite frankly, if that is what we consider a proper response in Canada, then we have a problem. People in eastern Canada had similar experiences and understand that we are a long way from handling this sort of thing properly.

I would like to remind members that the environment commissioner was very clear in the report he published in early 2013: when it comes to eastern Canada and the St. Lawrence estuary, we are not at all prepared to deal with an oil spill.

We need to learn from what happened in Vancouver so that people in eastern Canada have a better understanding of what went wrong in the west coast. Western Canada should also remember what happened in the eastern part of the country. I would therefore like to briefly discuss the incidents that have occurred recently and show that, unfortunately, this government is not handling these situations properly.

On the contrary, it is gutting our country's protection system, which is certainly not good for Canadians. I am therefore wondering who will benefit from the dismantling of search and rescue services and protection services for our coastal communities. This jeopardizes the lives of our fishermen and sailors, not to mention the state of our ecosystems and the industries that depend on them, such as tourism and the fishery.

Finally, the Conservatives are saying that they have greatly improved the Coast Guard's capacity since 2005. I would like to give some examples that clearly show that the Coast Guard's capacity has diminished at the expense of safety.

Remember that the NDP went to the mat for the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre, the main eastern Canada centre ensuring the safety of fishers and sailors as well as the environment. We need real resources in the regions so that we can respond to distress situations.

In eastern Quebec, the Rivière-au-Renard marine communications and traffic services centre, which is in my riding near the city of Gaspé, is being shut down. They are talking about shutting down the marine traffic centre in St. Anthony and transferring its functions to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and they also have the centres in Vancouver; Comox; Saint John, New Brunswick; St. John's, Newfoundland; Tofino; and Thunder Bay in their sights. All of those centres are slated for closure, thereby weakening our ability to respond to distress situations.

The people who work at these marine traffic centres are the first line of defence for fishers and sailors. When a fisher is in distress or there is an oil spill, marine traffic centres are the first to respond to the distress calls. Closing these centres will weaken our ability to respond to distress situations.

In Vancouver, the response was extremely slow, even though help was not far away. In eastern Canada, such response teams are located hundreds if not thousands of kilometres away. The marine traffic centres that respond to distress situations are being closed.

When people make a distress call, they are often the ones in distress, and therefore they are unable to give us their exact location. They expect whoever answers their call to know where American Bank is, for example. When a ship is sinking, that is not the time to consult a manual to find out where American Bank is.

The same is true when it comes to a cleanup following a spill. We cannot rely only on the liability that the Conservatives' new bills place on the shipping companies that use our waters when it comes to cleaning up after a spill. No, we also need to protect ourselves.

With the Conservatives saying that they have improved the Canadian Coast Guard's capacity since 2005, I have to ask a question. If that were true, why did the Auditor General and the Commissioner of the Environment each say, in 2010 and 2012 respectively, that we did not have the ability to clean up an oil spill? The situation has not improved, quite the contrary. I would like to see the government show a real interest in improving our cleanup capacity.

Some 82 million litres of oil are transported through the vast region of eastern Canada, and 25 million litres of oil are transported through the St. Lawrence estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence every year, and yet we do not have the capacity to clean up a potential spill.

Once again, although the Conservatives are saying that they are up to the task, on the contrary, the people of eastern Canada know very well that we are not even close. I will use a recent leak as an example. Last year in Cap-aux-Meules in the Magdalen Islands, there was a leak of 100,000 litres, and we had to push really hard to get Environment Canada to issue a statement. We must not forget the recent spill in Vancouver involving 2,800 litres, and probably more.

We fault the government for the fact that the Canadian Coast Guard failed to communicate with local officials in the Vancouver area. The same thing happened in Cap-aux-Meules, where communication capabilities were practically non-existent when 100,000 litres of oil spilled.

With the help of the Canadian Coast Guard and private companies, we were able to put up barriers in an attempt to recover 20,000 of the 100,000 litres. Nonetheless, 80,000 litres dispersed into the water or the ocean. We are not entirely sure.

However, since then, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard have told us that the situation was very worrisome. They are prepared to move forward with a plan of action, but that plan has yet to materialize. We do not know what direction they will take.

Fifty years ago, the Corfu Island ran aground near the Magdalen Islands, and we are still finding oil on the beaches today. In September 2014, Fisheries and Oceans Canada was finally prepared to move forward with a plan of action. As of April of this year, we still have no plan of action. That was 50 years ago. This just goes to show that the successive governments of Canada have not taken huge oil spills in eastern Canada seriously on many occasions. There are oil spills there almost every day. Some are small; some are big.

As my colleague from Surrey North said, there are thousands of spills every year, and we see that the cleanup capacity is abysmal.

When we talk about closing marine communications and traffic services centres, not only are we losing expertise on how to respond to distress situations, but we are also losing people in our regions. Marine communications and traffic services centres are often located in the regions. If we close those centres, people will leave with their families and their knowledge. The regions will suffer tremendously from this attempt to save some money at the expense of fishers, mariners and the environment.

The Rivière-au-Renard Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centre is supposed to close this year. Its services will be provided by Les Escoumins MCTS Centre, which is on the other side of the gulf. It will be a long time before the centre closes because the communications system just does not work.

When the Conservatives tell us that they have made major improvements to the communications system, we need to ask questions. They have been trying to close the Rivière-au-Renard Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centre and transfer its responsibilities to the Les Escoumins centre for two years. However, they cannot do it because the communications system, which was installed at a cost of $40 million, does not work. Les Escoumins and the other communications and traffic services centres are not operating properly. We have to wonder about how well they are functioning.

I would like to point out that the Conservatives are going to buy an European communications system. Perhaps it is time that they invested in Canadians, not just in technology but also in the health and safety of people in their environment.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to reconcile some discrepancies between what government members say and what seems to be the truth of the matter.

When the Kitsilano base was open, it dealt with something in the order of in excess of 300 incidents on an annual basis, which is a little more than one a day. The response time was something in the order of five minutes for all levels of incidents. In this instance, the response time, the notification time, was 37 hours. There seems to be a bit of a discrepancy between five minutes and 37 hours. As a consequence, the response does not seem to be quite the world-class response that members across the way seem to think was operative here.

How is it that 37 hours becomes a world-class response, but five minutes is not?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a question that should be posed to members on the government side, because I do not work with the same math they do, and I do not think my hon. friend works with their math either. Perhaps the Conservatives should go back to using slide rules, because clearly the software they are using is not working properly.

We should be looking at creating real standards. When we adopted legislation recently in this House regarding the responsibility that polluters pay, it was a step in the right direction. However, the problem is that we are solving a problem after the fact.

What we are trying to bring forward here today is that the government is not giving that ounce of prevention that is worth a pound of cure. That ounce of prevention is precious. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that all they are doing is passing the buck to future generations, who will be paying through the nose for all of the bad legislation that the current government has brought forward.

The Conservatives need to stop closing emergency response centres. They need to stop laying off scientists. They need to actually invest in the environment. They need to look back at the bills they have adopted in this House that have seriously curtailed our capacity to protect the environment. They have to start taking what they say for real and actually put some real emphasis on protecting the environment, the environment upon which the Canadian economy depends.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. In fact, our country does extend from coast to coast. The incident we are currently discussing took place on the west coast. However, my colleague described very well the incidents that took place on the east coast.

He clearly explained that one of the stakeholders is not at the table, and that is the government, which has a responsibility to protect the public. I would like him to speak more about the government's role in protecting the public, enacting regulations and better protecting Canadian coasts.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who asked a very relevant question.

It is important to remember that the government likely has no greater responsibility than to protect the public and put rules in place so that people know that they can count on the government in case of an emergency. This government is doing the opposite. It has tried multiple times to dismantle the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre; the marine traffic centres; scientific institutions, such as the Maurice Lamontagne Institute; and protections that people expect.

The government has to stop thinking that it is enough to take action after the fact, or to have the capacity to deal with problems after they occur. Canada is a 21st century country and Canadians expect us to use the technology, knowledge and expertise our country has to protect against foreseeable incidents. We know that there are going to be spills and distress situations at sea.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government is ignoring that knowledge. It is disregarding it. It is time that the government took that knowledge seriously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my hon. colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to participate in today's debate pertaining to the Government of Canada's robust marine safety system and environmental response capacity. All of us agree on the importance of the safety of those at sea and protecting the marine environment.

I will be speaking today to the role of Environment Canada in our nation's emergency response system. Emergency preparedness is a shared responsibility and we all have an important role to play in preventing or acting to mitigate the impacts of an unforeseen event. That is why emergency response planning and coordination of efforts among all levels of government, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal, is so vitally important in dealing with potential disasters.

Environment Canada's responsibilities relating to emergencies include administering and enforcing environmental emergency regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The aim of these regulations is to reduce the frequency and consequences of uncontrolled, unplanned, or accidental releases of hazardous substances into the environment.

The recent oil spill in English Bay, British Columbia, where fuel leaked from the vessel Marathassa, highlighted the importance of having a coordinated approach in handling environmental emergencies. The Canadian Coast Guard, in partnership with its federal, provincial and municipal partners, coordinated a robust response to the pollution of English Bay. As part of the unified command, the Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada and Environment Canada, along with their provincial counterparts and response agencies, worked together to quickly and co-operatively contain and remove the pollution. The team worked tirelessly on the subsequent cleanup and their efforts have been successful. In fact, according to the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, within the first 36 hours, 80% of the recoverable fuel in English Bay had been removed.

Interestingly, when I listen to my colleagues across the way, I listen in vain for any numbers, any measurement of the environment, and what is going on in the environment. I notice how my friends, the NDP and the Liberals, never talk about the environment itself. All they talk about is symbolism, because to both of those parties, the environment is a political football and nothing else. They never look at what is actually going on in the environment. Personally, all I care about is what is happening in the environment itself.

I want to point out to my friends across the way that the environment is about measurement and numbers. According to the numbers, there is no evidence that shellfish and groundfish in the area of the Marathassa incident posed any health danger and DFO is taking due caution in the interest of public safety until all sampling confirms that there is zero risk to public health. Furthermore, recent water samples from Siwash Rock, Sandy Cove, English Bay, and the waters surrounding the MV Marathassa had hydrocarbon levels below laboratory detection limits and meet all federal-provincial guidelines.

I know that my friends opposite are scared of numbers and never use numbers, but on our government's watch, most of Canada's environmental indicators for water quality, air quality, and biodiversity have improved and continue to improve. All that counts are the numbers.

I will briefly speak to the motion before us today as it relates to the Coast Guard response.

The commissioner of the Coast Guard has been abundantly clear that the Kitsilano station would not have made any difference in the response. As well, it is important to note that the marine communications and traffic services centres' modernization will actually improve the safety of mariners through state-of-the-art technology.

Furthermore, on the Kitsilano station, the commissioner of the Coast Guard said, “I would like to respond to speculation in the media and confirm that the Kitsilano station never provided these types of environmental response operations, and its presence would not have changed how we responded to this incident”. The parties opposite want to recreate an edifice which quite frankly had nothing to do with this incident. That proves that in terms of the environment, the parties opposite only care about spending money and building buildings, and the environment does not matter at all. To me, it is the environment that counts, and under this government, Canada's environment has improved markedly.

I want to take this opportunity to recognize the dedicated efforts of everyone who is involved in protecting the waters and the coastline off English Bay, particularly all those who came to the rescue of affected wildlife. Our government believes in and strongly supports the polluter pays principle and that taxpayers are not going to be on the hook for this marine response operation. The owners of the Marathassa were responsible to take action to mitigate any damage caused by their ship, and they will be held accountable for damages and cleanup costs incurred as a result of this incident.

Previous speakers have gone into greater detail about how the three federal departments worked together in this particular instance to contain the risk posed by the fuel spill, and nothing more needs to be said about that.

Instead, I would like to speak briefly to Environment Canada's responsibilities in such emergencies, and discuss its role in the protection of migratory birds and species at risk under its protection during such incidents.

In the case of oil spills such as the one that occurred in English Bay, Environment Canada's role is to provide immediate support to the lead agencies and responders. It does that through scientific and technical advice on how best to deal with specific types of environmental emergencies. As was elaborated on by my colleague earlier today, this was done through the National Environmental Emergencies Centre.

The NEEC operates 24/7 to provide its critical support to responders. It supports all levels of government, as well as industry, by providing scientific advice such as weather forecasting, containment trajectory modelling and determining the fate and behaviour of hazardous substances. The centre also provides environmental sensitivity mapping, supports the establishment of cleanup priorities and advises on the protection of sensitive ecosystems and wildlife such as migratory birds. This program is an effective tool in helping emergency response agencies and industries take immediate and effective action to mitigate the potential impacts to the environment and human health of any pollution incident.

Unfortunately, the impacts of environmental emergencies such as marine pollution are often first felt by our wildlife. Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service is the lead authority for setting emergency response priorities, standards and guidelines in order to protect sensitive migratory birds and species at risk. We take this responsibility very seriously.

Under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and Migratory Birds regulations, Environment Canada has a legislative responsibility for the conservation and protection of migratory birds throughout Canada. As part of its mandate, Environment Canada collects and maintains data on all migratory birds, especially those at risk in areas impacted by marine pollution. It conducts surveys of affected areas, while assisting in the rescue and treatment of affected migratory birds or species at risk. It also offers scientific advice to responders when a critical habitat for a species at risk has been affected.

We are committed, as our record shows, to the protection of Canada's wildlife and to support Environment Canada's key roles in this type of emergency, gathering samples and analysis of affected wildlife for possible legal prosecution of polluters. Environment Canada's enforcement branch is there to ensure that companies and individuals comply with all pollution prevention and conservation rules of environmental and wildlife protection acts and regulations.

I have just skimmed the surface of some of the programs that Environment Canada offers in the protection of our environment, the health of our citizens and sustainability of wildlife. We all have a role to play in reducing the frequency of environmental emergencies and mitigating potential impacts should they occur. Our government remains fully committed to working with its provincial and territorial partners as well as industry to ensure that we will continue to have a strong, effective and coordinated response in the event of any future environmental incidents. We will continue to work diligently on prevention to ensure that these incidents do not occur in the first place.

In closing, I would like to again offer my thanks to all those who have dedicated their time and effort to the successful operation at English Bay. Canadians can be very proud of the strong protection of our shores.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really funny to hear that side of the House. The member just said that the Conservatives would do all they could to ensure that incidents like this did not happen again. They are happening, and they are happening under their watch. Exactly what we had said was going to happen when they started cutting the Coast Guard and attacking the environmental legislation is happening now. It is happening because of the cuts you are doing because you are not doing the proper oversight.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order please. The member knows to address her comments to the Chair and not to individual members.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you are not doing it, they are.

It is very troubling for us on this side of the House, who have been listening to Canadians, to the scientists and the environmentalists who are saying that we have to be very careful when we are dealing with changes to the environment and with these types of cuts, irresponsible cuts with a lack of transparency on that side of the House.

We have noticed that the Coast Guard officials have said that most of the beaches are now open, but yet people still have to be concerned about these tar balls that might be down there. Could the member tell me if it is safe or is it not safe?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a typical rambling, scattered question on the environment, with nothing but hyperbole and speculation.

It is the numbers related to air quality, water quality, biodiversity, fish and wildlife that count. On the other side, they never cite the numbers because the numbers are too good.

Under our watch, in 2010 the sockeye salmon run to Fraser River was the record in history. Lo and behold, in 2014, on the Fraser River again, the sockeye salmon run surpassed the run in 2010. That was a remarkable achievement, done under our watch.

After listening to the members across the way wailing away about things they know nothing about, the only thing that counts is the improvement in the numbers on the environment to the air quality, water quality, fisheries, biodiversity, and almost every one is improving.

In terms of taking the precautions in English Bay, the government is being very prudent in ensuring that everything is absolutely safe before that area can be used again. That is just smart.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member professes to love the environment and love data. Here is data for him. Between 2009 and 2015, the transport budget for marine safety was cut from $82 million to $57.5 million. The environmental emergencies response program was cut by 34% over the last seven years. In the last number of years, 55 scientists were fired from DFO's marine contaminants program in 2012. This is how a five-minute response becomes a 37-hour response.

I love the hon. member's rich fantasy life. He is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to the facts. These are the facts. These are the data. Could he respond to how these facts translate into a world-class response to a contaminant in English Bay?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for giving me this incredible opening. The numbers that he cites are dollar numbers. The only numbers that count are the numbers on the environment, air quality, water quality. I know the idea of actually spending government money and generating real environmental results is foreign to them because for both parties opposite, spending money is an end in itself. If we can spend less money and get greater environmental improvement and protection, this government will do that. In fact, we are balancing our budget and because we are such prudent fiscal managers, Canadians in all walks of life will be receiving tax benefits very soon. That is smart and good government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for sharing his time with me. I appreciate that.

I am pleased to rise today to take part in today's debate. I fully understand the members' concerns about the marine safety and oil spill response. My riding also is surrounded by water, not the salt water of the east coast or the west coast, but the fresh water of the Great Lakes. Any spills in the marine venue are extremely important to all of us across the country.

Let me reassure all members of this place that Canada has one of the strongest marine safety regimes in the world. Canada exceeds international standards and Canadians can be proud of our strong marine safety track record.

I understand the members' concerns regarding marine safety and I also know how essential safe shipping is to ensuring Canada's economic prosperity. The simple fact is that Canada is a trading nation. We depend on doing business with other nations to ensure that we can maintain our high standard of living and that Canada can continue to grow. Trade accounts for more than 60% of our annual gross domestic product. One in every five Canadian jobs is directly linked to exports. This trade is what drives Canada's economy, keeps Canadians safe and healthy and allows us to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. Marine shipping is a critical part of that.

In 2012, total marine freight traffic in Canada reached 475 million tonnes, which is up 1.9% from the previous year. In 2013, marine transportation services carried freight valued at $205 billion in support of international trade. However, let me be clear. Marine shipping must be done safely and in an environmentally responsible manner. I am proud to say that Canada already has a robust marine safety system, a system that meets or exceeds international standards. This is thanks to an extensive range of prevention measures, our strong regulatory and oversight regime, work with our international partners and efforts by the shipping industry.

The cornerstone of Canada's marine safety regulatory regime is our comprehensive safety requirements for all Canadian and foreign-flagged vessels operating in Canadian waters. These requirements cover vessel construction and equipment, such as navigational systems, inspections and enforcement powers, and pilotage to ensure that licensed pilots are on board vessels when in sensitive or busy waterways.

Recognizing that Canada has a strong marine safety record, we need to be prepared to take advantage of new trade opportunities as global markets and trade patterns change. As we pursue our trade agenda, we need to ensure that Canadians and the environment continue to be protected. Our government is committed to the continual improvement of marine safety and Canada's marine oil spill preparedness and response regime. That is why our government is taking action to put in place a world-class tanker safety system.

While a few of my hon. colleagues have spoken to this topic earlier today as it related to the Coast Guard, I would like to take a few moments to review the broader initiative and how it is improving marine safety for shippers.

As one of our first steps, the government appointed the independent tanker safety expert panel to identify how we could build and strengthen Canada's marine oil spill preparedness and response regime so we could be ready for the increased trade and marine shipping. We have listened. We listened to the panel. We listened to Canadians, the provinces, industry, aboriginal communities and environmental organizations.

Based on the advice of the expert panel and Canadians, our government is putting in place a world-class tanker safety system. Once fully implemented, this comprehensive suite of initiatives will address ship-source spills of all petroleum, whether it be cargo or marine fuel, by preventing marine oil spills from happening in the first place, cleaning them up quickly and effectively, and ensuring that polluters pay.

Our government is taking action to increase tanker inspections so that each and every foreign tanker that enters Canadian waters is inspected the first time and annually afterward; expand aerial patrols under the national aerial surveillance program to deter potential polluters; identify any marine incidents early and monitor response operations; conduct leading-edge research to build our knowledge of how petroleum behaves, how petroleum interacts with marine environments and how oil can be cleaned up; and implement the incident command system which is an internationally recognized emergency management system to help coordinate response efforts with multiple partners.

In addition, we are modernizing Canada's marine navigation system by taking a leadership role in implementing e-navigation. This will provide real-time marine safety information to vessel operators to help avoid navigational hazards and marine accidents.

As part of modernizing Canada's marine navigation system, the federal government is investing in state-of-the-art navigational technologies and services so that Canada can remain a world leader in e-navigation.

Our government is also providing up to $20 million to support Ocean Networks Canada's smart oceans initiative. This funding will enable Ocean Networks Canada to transform oceanographic data that it collects into navigational safety information that will help vessel operators and others avoid navigational hazards and prevent marine accidents and predict and warn of natural hazards.

It will also improve overall marine situational awareness near Port Metro Vancouver, Campbell River, Kitimat, the Douglas Channel and Prince Rupert.

Our government is also establishing area response planning in four areas across Canada, including the southern coast of British Columbia, which includes English Bay and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Area response planning will facilitate multi-jurisdictional response planning based on a thorough area risk assessment. Area response planning would emphasize the sharing of information, inclusiveness and collaboration among stakeholders, aboriginal groups and governments. Through area response planning, response plans would be tailored to address the risks and conditions that are specific to a certain area such as the regional geography, vessel traffic and environmental sensitivities, while still maintaining the capacity to respond to a worst-case scenario.

We will also be expanding the response tool kit for oil spill cleanup by lifting legal barriers to using dispersants and other alternative response measures when they will have a net environmental benefit.

We will also be conducting and supporting research and development on new oil products, the pre-treatment of heavy oil products at source and a range of response techniques so that we will be equipped to respond quickly and effectively.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not reiterate this government's commitment to the polluter pay principle. We will continue to take actions to ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not on the hook to pay for costly cleanups in all modes of transportation.

By implementing a world-class tanker safety system, our government will continue to meet its commitment to protect Canadians and the environment, while responsibly transporting our natural resources and supporting our trade agenda for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the member agrees with her colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's who claimed that after the cleanup there was less than a third of a litre of oil left in the water.

The second thing I would like to ask is if she agrees with her other colleagues who said that the Kitsilano Coast Guard base never did any pollution control. I would like to cite the former commander Fred Moxey's statements from last week when he said very specifically, “On-site of the station there was 750 feet of boom, on the pollution patrol boat there was 1,000 feet, and up at Fisherman’s Wharf, in addition, we used to store a container with another 750 feet of boom.”

The other side is now asserting they never did pollution control. Why would they have all these booms at the station if they were never doing pollution control?

Does the member agree there was only a third of a litre left, because I think there is a lot of evidence around, in the form of oil, that would contradict that? Second, does she think the Coast Guard station never did pollution control?

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

Mr. Speaker, as for a third of a litre of oil remaining, I believe he said, it is not my decision to take that measurement. I do not know what it is. I am responding to and taking the word of the experts who are on site and making those determinations.

As far as the Kitsilano station goes, we have a lot of documentation and information that the Coast Guard experts have given us. They have been crystal clear that there is no change in the Canadian Coast Guard's response with the closure of that Kitsilano station. They have been very clear that the Kitsilano station was not an environmental response station and never provided these types of environmental response or operations. The assistant commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard has stated that the Kitsilano station would not have made “an iota” of difference to the response to the Marathassa leak.

We need to pay attention to the experts. We need to state the facts. We do not want to be playing politics with this operation. It is a very serious situation.

When the assistant commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard says that the station was never manned with environmental response experts and would not have been called upon for environmental response in this scenario, we need to heed that remark. We need to move on from this. If there were issues in the response and notification, those are things that will be reviewed by a panel of experts. The decisions to change them, if there are any decisions, will be made on that basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to participate in this debate. As a member for a riding in the southern Vancouver area, I certainly appreciate the official opposition supporting and calling for the reopening of the Kitsilano Coast Guard base. I want to point out to my friend opposite from Sarnia—Lambton that we have also lost Environment Canada's environmental emergency bases that were located across Canada and that we have lost the marine contaminant program within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

There has been a significant curtailing of capacity to handle environmental emergencies. I will just share briefly with the House that when I was a lawyer in Halifax years ago, there was an emergency at the dockside with a container ship where toxic chemicals had spilled into one another. It was an Environment Canada staffer from the environmental emergencies office that has since been closed on the east coast, as we have lost ours on the west coast, who showed up to take control of the operation and make sure that people were properly protected.

There is no longer a command centre to respond to oil spills. It is far too ad hoc. I ask my hon. friend if she would not agree that Environment Canada should have a leadership role when a spill takes place.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that there are protocols in place for those who respond when spills do take place. Those protocols have been put in place with conversations and the co-operation and collaboration among a great many people. It is not just the federal government that is responsible. The provincial governments, municipal governments and local safety response people all take part in setting up what those protocols should be. If there are issues with the way the protocols were handled and how they performed, those people who are the experts in the field will examine them.

I know for a fact that these protocols are extremely important. In my role as a municipal politician for many years in the riding of Sarnia—Lambton, I was heavily involved with putting protocols in place with the collaboration between all of the levels of government. I know for a fact as a local politician that it is extremely important to have that voice at the table.

This will happen if there are issues that were not followed and if the protocols need to be changed. I am quite confident that the experts will recommend that it happens and that it will happen.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this opposition day motion to protect British Columbians from environmental destruction and future oil spills.

I would first like to thank the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam for his tireless work on this topic and bringing this very important motion forward.

Every year I help the Wildlife Rescue Association of British Columbia secure positions on the Canada summer jobs program. It is a very good program. It trains young people about wildlife and does a lot of good for our province. The association is headquartered in my riding, and to date it has helped save almost 100,000 animals from harm.

Last week the volunteers and workers at the Wildlife Rescue Association were busy cleaning oil off ducks and euthanizing them because they had been caught in this spill that the Conservatives are trying to dismiss as nothing, completely cleaned up and handled by some kind of world-class response system. That is simply not true. This has had a real impact, both psychologically and physically, on the people in metro Vancouver. It showed up in Burnaby. It showed up in ducks coated in oil that had be cleaned off. Some of them had to be put down.

I would say this marks a watershed moment for us in metro Vancouver. We have to decide what kind of metropolitan region we want to be. We have to decide what metro Vancouver is going to be.

One of these visions is pleasant and one is not. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to picture yourself sitting on a beach in Honolulu which is a city region with about a million people. It has a very busy port, one of the busiest ports in the United States. When picturing yourself on the beach in Honolulu, think about having a nice time, vacationing, probably with a non-alcoholic beverage, enjoying the sunshine.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like you to picture yourself on a beach in Shanghai. Shanghai has not really achieved the balance between port traffic and livability. These are really the kinds of duelling visions that we face in metro Vancouver, whether we want to become more like Honolulu, which is destination place where people live, work and play next to the shore, or some place like Shanghai where they cannot enjoy the waterfront and it is only dedicated to port traffic.

While you are envisioning those two things, I will let you know that I will be splitting my time with the member for Halifax.

Metro Vancouver is caught between these two visions. I think the government on the other side is on a collision course with how most people in metro Vancouver envision themselves, their future and their children's future. The government, supported by the Liberals, is trying to ram giant crude oil pipelines through our province with no real public consultation. There is a farcical NEB process where even if someone's house is slated for expropriation, they cannot even send a letter to the National Energy Board.

The government has no regard for public safety and no regard for how the pipelines will affect how we enjoy the outdoors. This spill in English Bay is a real wake-up call for people in British Columbia, because it brings clearly into focus the fact that it could have been way worse than it was. It makes people think about whether this is the kind of future they want for the place they live.

It is really a harbinger of what our region could be, and I would say it is pushing us more towards the Shanghai-Rotterdam version of what we want metro Vancouver to be rather than the Honolulu vision.

The plan for the region is to build a giant new crude oil pipeline that will take bitumen from Edmonton to Burnaby and put it on ships, with one tanker a day leaving the port. Now the spill in English Bay was not a crude oil tanker cracking up. It was a brand new ship that just sprung a leak, and 2,700 litres of a very toxic substance was released.

We have been hearing nonsense from the other side, that only a third of a litre is left to clean up. There was more than a third of a litre on the ducks that are sitting in Burnaby recuperating. We have heard nonsense about a world-class response system. We have heard nonsense that the cuts have not made a difference. They have. Everybody in Vancouver, everybody in British Columbia knows they have.

The government has gotten itself into a lot of trouble. It has been cutting, cutting. It has gotten caught with its pants down. Who pays for it? The people in metro Vancouver.

I clearly support this motion, which is to reinvest and reopen the institutions that have been closed down, because as much as we get from this side about public safety, the Coast Guard centres and the marine response centres are for public safety. It seems bizarre to me that they could talk about moving from one oil tanker a month to one oil tanker a day coming through the port of Metro Vancouver but could reduce the capacity to respond to an emergency.

This is a crucial motion to support, which is to reopen the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, reopen the recently closed the Ucluelet marine communications and traffic services centre and that we definitely halt the plan to close the Vancouver and Comox Marine Communication and Traffic Service Centres.

I have to say that the Prime Minister is not a very popular guy on the west coast. I think it is because of actions like this. It is because the interests of large oil companies are being put ahead of the people in British Columbia. Kinder Morgan, for example, if it managed to get its pipeline built to the west coast, would transport close to one million barrels a day of crude oil. None of it is for us. None of it is for refinement. None of it is for Canadians' use. It is simply to ship to overseas.

The pipeline would make about $5 million a day for this company, yet it would only create 50 long-term jobs for the entire country. It would most likely, as admitted by the president of Kinder Morgan and other pipeline companies, be built by temporary foreign workers. The advantages are very slim. Yet we see in English Bay what the risks are, and we know that in Burnaby this could be much worse.

The spill in English Bay was only 10% of the spill we had from a Kinder Morgan pipeline in Burnaby in 2007. That pipeline ruptured. There was a court case. Kinder Morgan was found guilty of causing the spill. We had 270,000 litres run through our neighbourhoods and into storm drains, with half of it running into the Burrard Inlet.

It is a joke that this was some kind of world-class response for cleanup. The Western Canada Marine Response Corporation was right beside the spill. It was literally a stone's throw away from where this oil went into the Burrard Inlet. I went for a tour, and they were boasting, because they got 15% of this oil. It still washes up on the beaches on the shoreline of Burnaby.

The Conservatives and Liberals are playing with fire. They are putting local communities at risk. The Conservatives are making it even worse by making cuts to the Coast Guard and the response capacity in these areas.

We have to do more. First of all, we have to make sure that British Columbians have a voice in these projects. They have been almost completely shut out. In the protests in my riding, 125 people were arrested, because they are not being heard in these processes. Again, the Conservative government is just ramming these things through. Now, of course, with the falling oil prices, who knows where that has left our economy, but I think the disregard for local citizens is astounding.

An Auditor General's report recently noted that Canada is not prepared to deal with even a moderately sized oil spill. This was not even a moderately sized oil spill. This was a small spill of 2,700 litres. It was caught by a sailor who happened to notice it. It took 12 hours for the City of Vancouver to be notified. Volunteers were cleaning up before there was any kind of federal response.

This is not FEMA in the U.S., and it is not something we can be proud of. This is something we should be ashamed of, and the shame falls on that side of the House. The Conservatives have done a bad job and are continuing to do a bad job, and it is even going to get worse. I very much fear for my region, my city, and my constituents if this is allowed to continue.

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

What is shameful, Mr. Speaker, is the NDP's continuing attack on the families and workers of Canada's natural resource industries.

The oil sands in Alberta generate 575,000 jobs, and so his disingenuous comment about 50 jobs is pure nonsense. We are talking about real people and real families. Getting our oil to tide water is critical. Our economy loses some $20 billion per year, which could pay for a lot of social programs if we got the world price for oil. However, in his next breath, the member was complaining about the low price of oil. Which is it?

Again, another speech from the NDP in which no numbers were put out. There was all of this rambling about the environment and where it is at. The member lives in Vancouver where the Fraser River goes through. In 2010 there was a record sockeye salmon run, and in 2014 an even higher sockeye salmon run under this government's watch.

This government is doing what needs to be done to create a sustainable economy, high growth, high-paying jobs, and high environmental quality. How does he square this?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to be lectured by a climate change denier and to get lectured on not having any facts.

This is a disgraceful show, once again, and it is the attitude personified here. We have a plan to ram pipelines through British Columbia, and members who know better are standing up and saying that this is the right thing to do. It is a disgraceful show.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette how he squares a cut from $82 million to $57 million in the transport budget for marine safety, a cut of 55 scientists from DFO's marine contaminants program, a 34% cut in another contaminants program, and instead of a five-minute response time a 37-hour response time. He said that just showed the great efficiency of cutting money out of programs so that we now have a world-class response with respect to the environment, et cetera.

The hon. member loves to have data. Because of the hon. member's status as a legitimate scientist, I am interested as to how these cuts have affected Environment Canada and the response times for spills

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that science has been under attack in Canada, with over 4,000 federal scientists and researchers laid off and over $1 billion cut from the budgets. I hope he will be supporting this motion tonight, because it is an important one.

My question for the member is this. How can his leader support the Kinder Morgan pipeline? He has stated a number of times in the paper that he hopes it is put through, which is disappointing to the people in my riding and in British Columbia.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for his presentation defending his constituents in Burnaby—Douglas.

I am also aware of the work that he does as the science and technology critic. It is all interrelated. With its ill-considered cuts, the Conservative government is destroying Canada's ability to adapt to climate change and better protect the environment.

I would like the member to elaborate on the fact that cuts to Environment Canada and Statistics Canada are increasingly weakening our country's environmental protections.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the work she has done to support science in this country, which has been a lot. It is very much appreciated.

The cuts are astounding. Over 4,000 scientists and researchers have been laid off. Most of those researchers were working for Environment Canada or other agencies or departments that employ biologists to monitor such things as the environment and water. The other is $1 billion in cuts from federal government scientific research. I think the plan on the other side is to wish that it will all go away. However, what English Bay showed us is that it will just get much worse.