House of Commons Hansard #436 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was plan.

Topics

Main Estimates, 2019-20Government Orders

June 18th, 2019 / 6:30 p.m.

Independent

Jane Philpott Independent Markham—Stouffville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and vote yes.

Main Estimates, 2019-20Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

Independent

Jody Wilson-Raybould Independent Vancouver Granville, BC

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and vote yes.

Main Estimates, 2019-20Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

Independent

Celina Caesar-Chavannes Independent Whitby, ON

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will vote yes.

Main Estimates, 2019-20Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

Independent

Darshan Singh Kang Independent Calgary Skyview, AB

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.

Main Estimates, 2019-20Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

Independent

Erin Weir Independent Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, celebrating the 75th anniversary of the election of our first government in Saskatchewan, agrees to apply and votes yes.

Main Estimates, 2019-20Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

Independent

Raj Grewal Independent Brampton East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.

Main Estimates, 2019-20Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

Independent

Maxime Bernier Independent Beauce, QC

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

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

Vote #1372

Main Estimates, 2019-20Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast, I move:

That the debate be not further adjourned.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Mr. Speaker, while I welcome the opportunity to ask these questions of the minister, it bears repeating that it is quite shameful that the government is imposing yet another closure on very important legislation.

Currently, there is a voluntary moratorium on tanker traffic in the area that would be affected by this bill. Regardless of whether one philosophically agrees with this voluntary moratorium or not, it has been working for over 30 years.

Since Bill C-48 would do nothing to change the current situation in regard to tanker traffic on B.C.'s coast, how is this bill anything more than empty symbolism?

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount Québec

Liberal

Marc Garneau LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that even though there has been a voluntary exclusion zone in place since 1985, the Prime Minister made a promise in June of 2015, and again in September of 2015, that we would formalize that moratorium. That is precisely what we are doing. In fact, when it went through the House of Commons, it was supported by a vote of 204 to 85. In other words, all the Liberal Party, the Green Party and the Groupe parlementaire québécois at the time agreed with it except, of course, the Conservatives.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 1,400 inbound tankers on the west coast per year. Conversely, there are about 4,000 tankers on the east coast per year. When can Canadians expect the same type of moratorium on the east coast from the transportation minister?

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between the northern coast of British Columbia and other parts of British Columbia and the east coast, and that is important to remember.

First, on the north coast of British Columbia, there is no developed tanker export or import market, whilst that is not the case in other places. Therefore, jobs would be at stake and there would be economic implications.

Second, this is home to the last major pristine rainforest in Canada and one of the few in the world. We want to ensure we preserve it.

Third, and this is extremely important, the majority of coastal first nations peoples who live there, and have been there for centuries, and who live off fishing and tourism have told us they want the moratorium to be in place.

Finally, there is not the same level of infrastructure in place in that part of Canada as there is in other parts along the coasts.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. minister that Bill C-48 is opposed by many indigenous groups in British Columbia that want to benefit from the economic activity from oil and gas. Eagle Spirit, Calvin Helin and that project would see huge benefits to local indigenous groups.

What does the minister say to those indigenous groups in B.C. that are going to be left out in the cold as a result of this bill?

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit that there is not unanimity among coastal first nations in that part of British Columbia. However, the majority of coastal first nations support it because they do not want the risk of having their part of the coast destroyed by a major tanker spill.

We saw what happened with the Exxon Valdez, which covered 2,100 kilometres of coast. That was a major oil spill back in the previous century. They do not want to take the risk of seeing that happen.

However, even among those who do not support the moratorium, there is not unanimity. For example, the Lax Kw'alaams hereditary chiefs do not agree with the elected chiefs. I recently read an article that said there was not unanimity within the Nisga'a.

There will always be differences of opinion. It is our responsibility to take the most appropriate response in this case to address very serious concerns from the majority of coastal first nations.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Independent

Erin Weir Independent Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, the government has approved the LNG Canada project, which of course entails a significant number of liquefied natural gas tankers on the north coast of B.C. I appreciate that the government has done its due diligence and put in place safeguards to ensure those LNG tankers can safely navigate the north coast of B.C.

Could the Minister of Transport explain why he does not have confidence that those same safeguards could not be made to enable oil tankers to safely navigate those same coastal waters?

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC

Madam Speaker, that is a valid question. The answer is that the moratorium applies to a specific category of oils known as persistent oils, oils that do not break up or evaporate rapidly, such as bitumen and dilbit, which have the longest-lasting effects.

There is no moratorium on non-persistent oils. That includes LNG, naphtha, gasoline, propane and other materials that are more refined and are allowed on the north coast of British Columbia.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Madam Speaker, when the minister was on this side of the House, he openly criticized these kinds of closure motions and time allocation motions. The Liberals have used these methods countless times now. I wonder what happened to the democratic spirit of my colleague, who used to find these parliamentary tactics shameful.

He just said that dilbit and other types of petroleum products that do not evaporate quickly are dangerous, so why did he approve the Trans Mountain expansion project today, given that it will triple the number of oil tankers on the oceans and in the bay in southern British Columbia?

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague that my democratic spirit is in very good shape.

This bill was studied in the House of Commons. It passed third reading in May 2018. It lingered for a while in the Senate and has finally come back to the House. The only amendment proposed by the Senate has to do with the review of this bill. I believe it is time to make a decision.

As for the increased tanker traffic on B.C.'s south coast, we are putting very significant measures in place through the oceans protection plan to minimize the chances of a spill.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

Madam Speaker, there are two key elements we need to discuss at this moment. The first is with respect to the closure of this debate. It undermines our democracy on something of this nature of significance.

Over 10% of our GDP comes from the resource industry, of which oil and gas is critical. This debate is on how we get our oil and gas to market. Therefore, I would like to understand how we can justify limiting a debate on such a significant issue.

The second point has to do with the bill itself. We have two standards for either ends of the coasts. We have the most environmentally friendly oil practices in the world, yet the government is allowing all kinds of jurisdictions to send oil that is far less environmentally friendly by tanker to our east coast. However, the Liberals are putting a ban on how our west coast would get our environmentally friendly oil to market.

I want to understand how the Liberals are justifying shutting down the debate on something that has such a significant impact on Canada and why—

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. Minister of Transport.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC

Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, this bill went through the House of Commons and received a third reading vote in May, 2018.

Right now we are looking at one amendment that was proposed by the Senate after the bill went through the Senate process. I would be glad to answer a question on that one amendment if my hon. colleague wants to ask me one about that.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedOil Tanker Moratorium ActGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Madam Speaker, this debate is nothing but a blatant attack on Alberta.

My question for the transport minister is this. Transport Canada just commissioned a company to do a report to prove that the risk of oil spills in the Arctic was next to none in order for Canada to continue to oppose the ban on carrying HFO in the Arctic, which has been proposed by the IMO. Why the hypocrisy? Why is Canada paying to prove the risk of oil spills in the Arctic as low enough to oppose the IMO, but is banning tanker traffic off of B.C. and punishing Alberta?