Debates of April 20th, 2015

Opposition Motion--Coastal Water Protection

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

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues said they were busy doing advertising. I think that unfortunately may be the answer.

The recreational crab and prawn fishery remains closed in Burrard Inlet, including Jerricho Beach, a very popular spot in Vancouver, until we can do some sampling of marine pollution. That should not take very long, should it? However, a year ago the government completely closed down its only department which had scientists who could do marine pollution samples, laid off the staff, and now it will have to contract that work out to somebody else because it has no capacity to test the results of these spills.

It is not just NDP MPs who are outraged by the spill response. My colleague from Surrey noted that the Canadian Maritime Workers Council, the International Transport Workers Federation, which have endorsed this motion, have gone further to say that one of the other things we need to watch out for is that in the government's mania for free trade agreements, quite often it includes the coastal trade in British Columbia, which right now is reserved to Canadian registered vessels that have far higher safety standards and monitoring. They are not only supporting our motion, they are saying that we should be very careful about letting foreign flag ships into our coastal shipping.

Even the provincial premier has pointed to the failures of the federal government's oil spill response, although once again she shows a lot of nerve, since what the provincial government has done in these areas is also completely inadequate.

Finally, the Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities had its annual general meeting just four days after the spill. It passed an emergency resolution calling for an independent audit of the current state of oil spill preparedness in British Columbia. These are mayors and councils from all across Vancouver Island, and they have no confidence in the current government's assessment of its own ability to deal with oil spills.

I represent some of those coastal communities, and my concerns about the threats to our maritime environment became most acute when I was first elected to Esquimalt Council. Esquimalt is a town with kilometres of shorelines, both on the Strait of Georgia and around the Victoria and Esquimalt harbours. In our first month on council, we began to examine our emergency preparedness, a key municipal responsibility. What did we find with regard to the threat of oil spills? We found that we had little or no capacity to cope with existing threats, let alone those that would result from increased tanker traffic and increased size of tankers.

It became clear that in the face of a major oil spill, we would have little more to rely on than our citizen volunteers down on the beach with buckets and mops. It is the same for other communities in my riding. We have heard discussions of improvements to come in oil spill capacity, but municipalities at this point are left on their own to try to respond to these things, if the federal government bothers to notify them.

The Coast Guard's own audit of oil spill preparedness released in July, 2013 found that our system on the west coast was disorganized and outdated, and most of the equipment on site on Vancouver Island was more than 25 years old.

In October, 2013, a B.C. government report estimated we would be likely to recover little more than 3% to 4% of a modest 10,000 tonnes spill on the north coast, and somewhere between 10% and 30% on the south coast where there was actually more equipment.

The 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska was 34,600 tonnes of the 200,000 tonnes it was carrying. Therefore, it is similar to the very large tankers we can expect to see if more pipelines proceed.

Some argue Exxon Valdez examples are irrelevant because it was more than 25 years ago and technology has changed, but I have to remind the House that the Motor Vessel Marathassa is brand new and on its maiden voyage.

In conclusion, we have seen in 2010 two incidents in Malaysia and Texas of accidents involving new double-hull tankers, and both spilled more than 2,500 tonnes of oil. That is more than 2.9 million litres of oil in each case, not 2,700 litres.

We have some very big problems to deal with as tanker traffic increases on the coast, which was why I introduced a motion as a councillor that we have a moratorium on increased tanker traffic until we had better oil response in place.

To protect the future of our existing fishing and marine recreation and tourism industries in the west coast, we have to take the threat posed by oil spills seriously. We cannot simply declare our response world class and turn a blind eye to the lack of capacity that actually exists.

I will be watching very closely to see where B.C. Conservative MPs stand when this vote is called.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quote here and would not mind hearing some comments on it. It is from the assistant commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, Western Region Canada, who said, “Kitsilano, should it have been in place, would not have been called upon for environmental response in this scenario”.

The members opposite continue to reference Kitsilano as though its closure would have had some impact on the Coast Guard response. We have a direct quote from the assistant commissioner. Is my colleague opposite in effect saying that the assistant commissioner is wrong?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I am sure the commissioner's statement was approved in the minister's office before it was issued.

I am prepared to go with someone who has no dog in this fight, and that is the former commander of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station who said, when he was there two years ago, that they had the capacity, that they could have met the spill in six minutes and that they would have responded.

Again, the government's press releases to the contrary, it is clear that the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station reduced our ability to deal with oil spills in English Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, listened to question period and the debate before question period. I was puzzled by this notion of world class, but also heard at the same time that we could improve on it, which I guess makes it universe class or out of this world. I have no idea how one would improve upon world class, but improvement is possible, apparently.

I also heard that we should not judge the response until we had the facts. I am curious as to how something could be assessed as world class if there was a public admission that all the facts were not available.

I would also like to hear the member's comments about how slow it was to get the mayor of Vancouver notified. As well, the other issue critical to this is if there had been Coast Guard vessels in the harbour, maybe they could have gotten the appropriate people on site sooner, but that without them, that is what the delay was all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, wondered. Out-of-the-world class is probably where the government is heading with this. I do not know.

It is very clear that all the things we are doing along the coast in marine safety and security and all the things that are being cut reduce our capacity. That is common sense. We cannot cut back on the number of stations and communication centres and say that we are improving the ability to respond to these things. It is simply not true.

The ability for municipalities to find out what is going on from the federal government is not just in the area of oil spills. We have heard the same thing on issues of toxic substances being transported by rail, where municipalities are asking for advance notice of this stuff coming through the communities and the federal government is responding that it is way too complicated and that it cannot possibly tell the communities if they are at risk.

We do not see this just in this one area. We see it in all these areas, from food safety to rail safety to oil spills. The government's cutbacks are having a real and direct impact on our ability to keep Canadians safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are concerned about the environment. We are concerned about the protection of Canadians. On that side of the House, they prefer to do a lot of cutbacks.

Could my colleague elaborate on the fact that the health advisories have been lifted on all beaches, but the Coast Guard cautioning beach goers to remain vigilant and avoid contact with any small amounts of remaining oil?

The government seems to be saying that everything is hunky-dory and it is taking care of it, yet the Coast Guard is saying that people still have to be concerned. I know that when people are diving underwater, it is very difficult to figure out whether they are going to be coming into contact with some tar balls.

Could my colleague comment on the impact this could have on tourism and on the state of the situation at this point?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member raises the important point that while the environment is very important, this is also about jobs.

Many people on the west coast work in tourism, recreation and in areas that depend very much on these pristine waters off our coast to maintain those industries. There is very little in terms of economic benefit in our local communities from tankers and other freighters that go in and out of the harbour.

People's jobs depend on ecotourism and water-based recreation. Every one of these incidents harms our tourism industry and harms our ecotourism and recreation industries. It has a much bigger impact on the economy than members might first think.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ahuntsic, Transportation; and the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, Infrastructure.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to discuss the motion put forward by the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam. As my colleagues stated earlier today, Canada has one of the strongest marine safety regimes in the world. It is my pleasure to speak to the dedication and capacity that our responders and partners have to protect the marine environment.

Today, I would like to focus my remarks on Environment Canada's role in these kinds of environmental emergencies. I will highlight the impressive capacity and dedication that Environment Canada specifically provides in the event of a pollution incident. As well, I will speak to the critical support and expertise that Environment Canada provided in response to the marine pollution incident from the Marathassa vessel.

It goes without saying that Environment Canada is an organization that prides itself on its thorough scientific work. In fact, it is one of the largest science programs in the federal government. Environment Canada is a leader, contributing to the Government of Canada's priority of a clean and healthy environment. Its world-class science is the foundation for the department's policies and actions.

Environment Canada's key role is to provide scientific and technical advice, and guidance to reduce the potential consequences of environmental emergencies. The National Environmental Emergencies Centre is Environment Canada's focal point for addressing and managing environmental emergencies. The emergencies centre provides high calibre scientific advice and information to responders and lead agencies in the event of an environmental incident. It advises on issues such as northern and Arctic species, weather and wind predictions, birds oiled at sea, species at risk, pollution dispersion modelling and pollution cleanup techniques.

As members of the House can imagine, this kind of information is critically important in a variety of environmental responses. In order to safeguard the environment and determine the best course of action, lead agencies need access to this kind of strategic, expert advice.

The National Environmental Emergencies Centre also manages the approximately 36,000 environmental emergency notifications that it receives each year. It does this efficiently and effectively. Additionally, it issues directives and takes action as per legislative requirements under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, as well as the Fisheries Act. It also assesses the appropriateness of any remedial actions required under those acts.

Environment Canada's National Environmental Emergencies Centre is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to provide expert scientific advice to responders and other implicated agencies. The National Environmental Emergencies Centre advises federal departments such as Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard, along with various provincial and municipal departments, agencies and environmental response companies. When needed, it also offers on-site advice and coordination.

There is another important role that Environment Canada plays in the event of an environmental emergency response. The department also enforces the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. This includes those provisions that prohibit the discharge of harmful substances into areas frequented by migratory birds and deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish. To accomplish this, Environment Canada provides information on migratory birds and species at risk in the area of a spill and minimizes harm to unoiled birds through deterrent measures. Environment Canada also ensures the humane treatment of migratory birds and species at risk by recommending appropriate response and treatment strategies.

Environment Canada works closely with Transport Canada through a memorandum of understanding in the surveillance of sea-based activities, such as pollution, ice conditions and marine security.

In order to illustrate how Environment Canada helps responders reduce the environmental consequences of polluting incidents, I would like to highlight the actions taken during the cleanup of the Marathassa spill.

Earlier this month, on April 8, Environment Canada was notified of an oil slick in the Vancouver harbour-English Bay area. Environment Canada's trained experts in Vancouver and across the country then worked day and night to help the Canadian Coast Guard and other partners successfully respond to the Marathassa spill.

Environment Canada's national environmental emergencies centre was activated and it offered initial spill trajectory modelling and maps. In addition, Environment Canada co-chaired the environmental unit inside the incident command post along with British Columbia's Ministry of Environment.

Environment Canada experts were able to provide advice to the response team on the water sampling, monitoring and shoreline cleanup plans. Its scientists at the Pacific environmental science centre analyzed water samples from the incident site to help determine the source of the spill and the type of oil involved. Once identified, scientists within the department's emergencies science and technology section provided additional oil spill modelling services to help responders understand the behaviours of bunker fuel in the water.

As well, staff from the Canadian Wildlife Service inside the incident command post provided advice to focus wildlife and other wildlife response organizations in the development and execution of a plan to assist and protect wildlife in the area.

This is an impressive list of actions already, but Environment Canada's strong support of Canada's marine safety system during this response does not end here. In fact, meteorologists within the Pacific and Yukon storm prediction centre provided weather and sea state forecasts, including site-specific forecasts every six hours to incident command. These forecasts included wind speed and direction, temperature, precipitation, wave height, as well as tidal levels.

Officers from Environment Canada's enforcement branch attended the scene and continued to provide assistance to Transport Canada, the lead investigating agency on ship-source incidents. Additionally, Environment Canada experts operating the marine aerial reconnaissance team, which is part of Transport Canada's national aerial reconnaissance program, used remote sensors to help calculate the volume of oil in the waters around the Marathassa.

Finally, Environment Canada kept Canadians informed on the progress in responding to the spill, including information on oiled birds and efforts to rehabilitate them.

As members can see, Environment Canada launched a robust and exhaustive response to this marine incident. It demonstrates how actively engaged Environment Canada is in helping its partners manage environmental emergencies.

The dedicated efforts and scientific expertise provided by Environment Canada form a critical component of our country's strong marine safety program. It provides efficient and effective emergency response advice and expert assistance to protect the environment, and it will continue doing just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was impressed by the hon. member's speech about what a wonderful job Environment Canada is doing, which speaks to a parallel reality. I am not quite sure how Environment Canada actually does a better job when it lets go 55 scientists from its contaminants program. I am not quite sure how Environment Canada does a better job by reducing the overall budget for emergency responses by something in the order of 35%. I am not sure how Environment Canada actually does a better job by lapsing over the last four or five years the equivalent of one entire budgetary cycle. Every year, Environment Canada lapses a portion of its money and the cumulative total is the equivalent of one budgetary cycle.

I would be interested in the hon. member's analysis as to how, given all of those core facts, Environment Canada is actually responding better.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member listened to my presentation and he heard all of the wonderful work that Environment Canada has done, is doing on a regular basis and did in responding to this emergency as well.

I think the member answered his own question by saying that Environment Canada has done a tremendously good job in this particular case in regard to responding to all of the areas of concern, whether it was the density and of the type of oil that was in the water, the quantity of it and the amount of reclamation that was done for the fowl involved. I pointed out very clearly how Environment Canada has dealt with this emergency in regard to the Marathassa. It has been quite effective.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brandon—Souris for his speech, but I cannot help but wonder what planet he lives on.

My colleague's speech was so off base with respect to what the people in B.C. affected by the spill are experiencing.

We had the same problem in the Quebec City area when the Conservative government, despite all advice to the contrary, decided to close the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre. Beyond the outcry, the government was forced to realize that moving those services to Ontario was completely unrealistic if it was to respect the linguistic reality of Quebec in the St. Lawrence sector. The government was forced to reverse its decision.

When will the government wake up and reverse its decision to close the British Columbia centre?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my comments dealing with the good work of Environment Canada, the good work of the Coast Guard in B.C., and the notification of the province immediately whose responsibility it is to notify the city and surrounding areas municipally are targeted totally in regard to the excellent response on the Marathassa spill situation.

I am not surprised that my colleague from the NDP has some questions in regard to this given that there has been 27% higher federal funding in the Coast Guard since 2005 under the Liberals, but the NDP voted against that increase in funds anyway.

I think it is the opposition members who need to look at the type of plans they have for developing the safety in these kinds of situations and that is what I have tried to focus my comments on.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House and speak to this important motion.

Of course, our government is committed to protecting both the safety of Canadians and our maritime environment. We have made that abundantly clear through our continued and unprecedented investments in the Canadian Coast Guard fleet.

A key responsibility of the Canadian Coast Guard is to protect our waters through coordinating responses to emergency pollution incidents. To do so, Canadians rely on Canada's marine safety system, a robust, multi-layered regime built on strong partnerships across industry, all levels of government and stakeholders.

The environmental response regime of this system is what I will be using my time to discuss today. While my speech will focus mainly on the Coast Guard response, I would like to take a moment to highlight the other partners that protect the marine environment. For example, this system is founded on a comprehensive framework that is led by Transport Canada. Transport Canada has a key role in inspecting vessels to ensure that they are compliant with Canada's rigorous safety standards. If pollution ends up in the water, it investigates and when necessary, Transport Canada will prosecute the polluters. Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans also play an important role in supporting this system by ensuring that we have the best scientific information available to support our decision-making.

When it comes to the role of the Canadian Coast Guard, its top priorities are to ensure the safety of mariners and the protection of the marine environment. When a response to pollution on the water is required, it is the Coast Guard that ensures the cleanup happens and that it is done right. This is not an uncommon job at all for the Coast Guard. In fact, each year the Coast Guard addresses and investigates approximately 1,300 maritime pollution incidents.

Depending on the situation, the Coast Guard can have a different response and take on different responsibilities during the cleanup effort. In Canada it is the shipowner's responsibility to ensure they clean up any pollution they have caused. If this is the case, the Coast Guard monitors the situation and ensures that the owner follows through appropriately. When the polluter is unknown, unwilling or unable to step up to the task, as we have witnessed in the early hours of the MV Marathassa operation, the Coast Guard then looks after the interests of Canadians and the environment by taking the lead and ensuring pollution is contained and removed.

I want Canadians to understand that they are not on the hook for the costs to clean up marine pollution. In Canada, polluters pay. Let me reiterate that the response is not on the taxpayer's dime but squarely on the polluter's.

A key component of the polluter pay regime is the requirement that vessels of a certain size have an arrangement with a Transport Canada certified response organization to clean up any pollution they may cause. Those organizations charge a fee to ships by the tonne to fund Canada's robust response capacity. Those response organizations in turn are required to maintain response plans and equipment. The legal requirement is that the certified response organizations maintain a capacity to respond to a 10,000 tonne event, which places Canada at the forefront in terms of spill response. In the case of the Marathassa, it was this kind of response organization with extensive capacity and expertise that undertook the cleanup work under the supervision of the Canadian Coast Guard.

I would like to reiterate the statements made by my colleagues earlier today and address the motion before us.

The commissioner of the Coast Guard has been crystal clear. The Kitsilano station was not an environmental response station and has never provided the kind of environmental response that the Marathassa operation required.

As we have seen, the Canadian Coast Guard has the capacity to manage major ship-source pollution. It plans for these events. It trains its employees and practices the operations with partners to ensure everyone is prepared should such an incident occur. The Canadian Coast Guard has the ability to take these measures and the measures it believes are necessary to minimize or prevent pollution damage to the environment.

In addition to the certified environmental response organizations, the Coast Guard has its own environmental response assets and equipment strategically located across the country.

The Canadian Coast Guard follows a solid and effective response protocol in responding to the thousand-plus reports of pollution it receives each year. When one of those reports comes in, the first thing the Coast Guard does is investigate it. Coast Guard officials want to know where it is coming from, what it is, and what measures should be taken to protect our waters. Once the determination of the right course is made, they activate the response. They inform the polluters of their responsibilities or take over the response if the polluters are not known or are not able or willing to respond effectively.

The number one goal in a response is to protect the marine environment. I cannot stress enough how important that is to the Canadian Coast Guard, and any decision made during an operation is made with this goal in mind.

As I have mentioned, Canada has one of the strongest marine safety regimes in the world. That being said, we cannot rest on our past or on our successes, and our government is committed to continuing to make our response system even safer. The increase in trade and shipping in Canadian waters is an important consideration for our evolving system, and we are taking action to enhance an already robust marine safety system through the implementation of world-class measures.

Being fully prepared to respond to pollution is only part of the equation. The key to protecting the environment is preventing pollution from happening in the first place. The Canadian Coast Guard is implementing several new prevention measures that will reduce the risk of pollution in Canadian waters. The measures will increase the safety of marine navigation. These include improving the information available to mariners on waterways on potential hazards in real time, ensuring that the Canadian Coast Guard officers have the leading-edge tools, equipment, and technology to provide safer navigation services. This of course includes the Coast Guard's modernization of its Marine Communications and Traffic Services centres, which will provide state-of-the-art technology to officers to improve services to all mariners.

Our government has taken and will continue to take action to strengthen our already rigorous and robust environmental protection and response system. The Canadian Coast Guard has been a tireless pillar in the safety of our waters and the protection of the marine environment. We thank it for its work and continued support on that front.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not help hearing the hon. member place a lot of emphasis on polluter pay. My question is to how he understands that. My understanding of polluter pay is that it is just the cleanup costs. It does not account for damage to our tourism industry. It does not account for damage to the fishing industry. In a riding like mine, where we face the extinction of some species, it certainly could never cover the cost of the extinction of species. I wonder if the member would be a little more clear for the public that polluter pay only very narrowly means those costs.

The second part of my question would be this: Which companies are benefiting from the cleanup? Who owns those companies that are doing the cleanup? I think the member knows the answer to that, because it happens to be companies like Kinder Morgan.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as I stressed in my remarks, what is most important to Canadians is that prevention is the first response of the Government of Canada. We are initiating steps to make sure that accidents do not happen in the first place. The polluter pay principle in fact kicks in only once there has been pollution or when there has been an event. Our preference, and the preference of all members in this House, would be that we take measures and we make investments, and the Government of Canada is doing so, to make sure that an event does not occur in the first place. However, when it does, it is important for Canadians to know that they are not on the hook for the cleanup.

The cleanup, at times, can be very costly. The polluter pay principle in this case is one that directs and dictates that the owners and operators of these vessels need to make sure that they have a system in place ahead of time. It is not something they engage in after the fact but ahead of time to make sure that cleanups can be dealt with in an effective, expeditious, and cost-sensible measure that does not impact the Canadian public.

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

Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm for the response to this particular incident seems to be contained only within the Conservative caucus. The Premier of British Columbia was none too impressed. The mayor of Vancouver was none too impressed. In fact, the municipal councils were really irritated in 2013 when they were blindsided by the Kitsilano closing.

I wonder how it is that the hon. member explains that none of the other elected officials, outside of the Conservative caucus in British Columbia, are too terribly impressed by this response. How does he explain that the Auditor General took note of this several years ago, when he said that Canada needs significant improvements in both Coast Guard and National Defence search and rescue equipment and information assistance?

Other than the fantasy world in the Conservative caucus, is there anyone else who actually supports what the response has been to date?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly touch on the Auditor General's comments from several years ago. How I can explain that is that it was certainly because of the Liberals' legacy we inherited and their deficits, and I can say that since 2005--

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that I gave the hon. member the due respect of listening to his question, but he is not prepared to get the answer.

I know he does not like it, but since 2005, our government has increased investments in the Canadian Coast Guard by 27% over what the Liberal government left behind. All the improvements in Coast Guard infrastructure, all the improvements in Coast Guard support and capacity are a direct result of the deficit left behind by the Liberal government. That explains that piece of it.

Is there anyone outside of the Conservative caucus who thinks the response was appropriate? Let me say this. This individual is not a member of the Conservative caucus and is a valued public servant. The Liberal opposition third party seems to have no problem chastising and throwing under the bus the great people in the public service who do good work for us. Michael Lowry, of Western Canada Marine Response, says there was no delay in its response. The time between when it was officially activated by the Coast Guard and when the first boat arrived was an hour and 19 minutes, which is an incredible response time. The assistant commissioner made remarks about the response time.

While the third party feels comfortable chastising the great people in the Coast Guard of Canada, we will stand behind them and continue to support them with investments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hard-working member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine today.

It is my pleasure to stand in the House and it is an honour and a privilege to support the motion put forward by the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, an ardent and passionate champion for our waterways. I know that he has done an incredible amount of work, whether for the Fraser or Burrard Inlet, and now for our pristine coastline. We really appreciate his advocacy.

The motion we have brought forward today is being brought forward as a result of a recent oil spill and a tanker leaking into our beautiful British Columbia, just off the coast of Vancouver. It is an area I know well. I lived there for well over a decade, in English Bay, and I can tell the House that the huge number of people I have talked to from the English Bay area do not feel that the response has been world-class or made up of world-class science.

Just repeating that and hearing the echo from the Conservatives that this response was world-class and science-based does not make it so. Reading out the same phrase over and over again, when they know that it is not so, seems a bit more like electioneering and trying to bury the truth than actually dealing with what really happened.

The oil spill in itself is alarming. It is alarming for those of us who live on the coast, but it is also alarming for those who work on the coastline and for people from coast to coast to coast. What it pointed out was how seriously inadequate our response is and that we are not ready, despite warnings from the Auditor General. The government has had the time to fix it. Instead of blaming a previous government, what it should have done was fix the response. Instead, it has started to make things worse.

Closing the Kitsilano Coast Guard station was a major mistake. Here we have one of the busiest ports for tanker traffic. It is a commercial port. There is high tourism in that area. Taking away the Kitsilano Coast Guard station was ill thought out. Now, with this oil spill, we have seen the consequences.

We have also closed down B.C.'s oil spill environmental response centre and shuttered three of the five Marine Communications and Traffic Services centres, all while marine traffic is increasing. Now there is a call centre in Montreal. Those of us who know our beautiful country know that Montreal is a little bit of a distance away from Vancouver. Even flying across, it takes about five hours. Here we are, allowing our pristine coastline protection to be sent off to Montreal and not having any eyes on the ground right there in B.C.

As I said, the Auditor General was very clear.

I also want us to imagine that this happened on a fairly calm day. There were not those beautiful B.C. storms that we know so well and love to watch, yet it took hours for the response. Imagine if this had been an oil tanker spill or an issue with the refineries in the Burrard Inlet, and imagine the devastation that would have occurred on our coastline.

It is because of all of that that the NDP is asking for some very simple steps for the government to take. Number one is to reopen the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. Number two is to reopen the recently closed Ucluelet Marine Communication and Traffic Services centre. Number three is to halt plans to close the Vancouver and Comox Marine Communication and Traffic Services centres.

We are not alone on this. Other groups are calling for this and are supporting the motion we are debating today 100%. The International Transport Workers' Federation and the CMWC, representing all of Canada's marine workers, are very clear about what is needed. This is what Peter Lahay had to say:

Typically, the captain of the MARATHASSA tried to deny his ship was leaking. Every day, Seafarers' Representatives in Canada claw at the corporate veil shielding Flag of Convenience ship owners.

Then he goes on to say:

This is exactly why domestic shipping must remain a Canadian industry. In our hands, such a catastrophic event is unlikely to occur, and if it did, the owner of the ship is right down the street. They have a stake in their community. Most importantly, we know who they are. They are not some slippery numbered company in the Cayman Islands, Panama or Cyprus.

The other thing that is absolutely shocking to me is that we have an oil spill, and which is the company that is now in charge of the cleanup and responding to the cleanup? Kinder Morgan. I think all Canadians must be giving their heads a shake. It is not as if oil spills are unique and do not happen very often.

It is inevitable that accidents will happen. I was quite shocked to find out that the International Tankers Owner Pollution Federation has recorded nearly 10,000 accidental oil spills globally since 1970. We are not talking about small numbers, and we are not talking about something that has happened once and will not happen again, so we need to make sure we put systems in place.

I hear my friends across the way talking about polluter pays for the cleanup. It is exactly that, for the cleanup, but what happens to our beautiful, pristine B.C. coastline? What happens to our tourism industry, which generates $1.55 billion per year? What happens to our seafood sector in B.C., which generates close to $1.7 billion each year?

We are not talking about small numbers. We are not talking about thousands. We are talking about industries that generate over $3.2 billion per year, and that goes right back into our economy. That is people working at decent paying jobs, and that is also ongoing. It is year in and year out.

These sectors provide permanent sources of income for around 45,000 Canadians. Nobody across on that side, or maybe they could after what I have heard today, could argue that they could guarantee that those sectors would not be affected by oil spills.

The other thing is that in terms of the world-class response we have, it is absolutely the Conservative government that has to wear it. The people who responded were doing the best they could with what they had, but really, it is the government that has to take responsibility, because it has been cutting. Some Coast Guard staff in B.C. have been cut by 25%.

We are not the only ones saying that. The mayor of Vancouver stood up and said that it took not one hour, not five minutes, not ten minutes, not even five hours, it took 13 hours to inform the mayor of the city where a major oil spill has occurred.

There is a Conservative-Liberal coalition in B.C.; that is how they govern. I do not often agree with the premier of my province on many issues, but even she was forced to acknowledge that the response was far below what is satisfactory and expected.

I urge my colleagues in B.C. and the rest of the Conservative caucus to do the right thing and support this motion.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech. I have several questions. All I am hearing is doom and gloom from the opposition. The reality is that the Canadian Coast Guard did a very good job, along with the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, to respond to an oil spill.

From what I can see, the WCMRC was officially activated at 8:06 p.m. and crews arrived on the scene at 9:25 p.m. That is an hour and 19 minutes. That is only three hours after the original sheen was on the water and they could actually locate where the oil was coming from, and the vessel involved.

Immediately a boom was put around that vessel which contained 80% of the spill by the next morning, and recovered 80% of the spill. The next morning, the only oil on the water was estimated by both Canadian and American authorities to be less than a third of a litre.

You can sit over there and criticize the Canadian Coast Guard all you want and you can say that this is the end of the world as we know it, but on the east coast of Canada, you get a response like that from the Coast Guard, you get your oil spill cleaned up, and you get back to work.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would just remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the chair rather than directly to their colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted and almost speechless for the first time in this House to hear the minister make up Kijiji data again.

My colleagues across the way are not really known for knowing the data too well. They even have difficulty knowing how many people live in Canada.

Here we are now, being told that less than a litre of oil was actually out there. The former Kitsilano base commander, Captain Fred Moxey, who is not an NDPer and who does not sit in our caucus, was very clear about what would have happened if the Kitsilano coast guard station was open. He said:

The crew was trained and the ship was ready around the clock for a first attack. Had the base been open and the crew on duty, they would have been out into English Bay in a matter of minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was kind of amused by the response from the member for Yukon when I asked why the premier of British Columbia, the mayor of Vancouver and council members were all upset. The police, fire responders and the emergency responders were all upset because of the timelines.

The member did not respond to any one of them, but cited some person who is not known to me, but possibly is known to the hon. member who just spoke.

Can the hon. member who just spoke tell me how it is that there seems to be such a variation in reality between what the Conservative caucus believes happened, i.e. less than a third of a litre of oil ultimately escaped, and this apparent upset on the part of every elected politician and every representative outside of the Conservative members of the B.C. caucus?