Debates of Jan. 29th, 2021

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of my primary reasons for getting involved in politics was to help protect the environment.

I think we must all set partisanship aside and collectively focus on climate action and on protecting biodiversity. We need to do this for ourselves and for future generations.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have introduced a bill that does not respect this imperative. Canada's natural environments need to be protected, not undermined. Collateral damage from Bill C‑229 would go beyond potential accidental deep-water spills and the predictable environmental disruption; it would ravage the Great Bear Rainforest. The rainforest is a carbon sink that is home to the west coast's iconic biodiversity.

Bill C‑229 would increase crude and persistent oil exports by sea in British Columbia by eliminating the current limit of 12,500 metric tons per tanker.

How can we let oil tankers dock on the shores of this precious forest? When will the Conservatives understand that now is the time for focusing on the energy transition and not for stubbornly fighting for one of the dirtiest forms of oil production in the world? I cannot understand how my colleagues in the official opposition can show such a complete lack of environmental conscience; they have become lackeys for the multinational oil companies.

During this week's emergency debate on Keystone XL, people said that Canada produces cleaner energy than anybody else in the world. One member said, “This oil is better economically, and this oil is better environmentally.” Another said, “Canada's oil and gas sector is already leading the world in ESG performance.” People even talked about environmentally friendly oil.

I invite the official opposition members to look at the work of Calgary's ARC Energy Research Institute, which published a report stating that, of the world's 75 crude oils, the oil extracted from the Alberta oil sands is the third most polluting and produces 24% more greenhouse gases than the average crude oil refined in the United States.

With everyone so focused on the pandemic, it is not surprising to see bills designed to compromise environmental safety or introduce regulatory measures that tone down existing restrictions in ways that help oil and gas corporations.

I wish someone would tell me one thing. Is the lack of consideration for climate reality the result of a misunderstanding of the impending consequences, wilful blindness or general climate change denial? Bill C‑229 is nothing less than an ideological measure whose sole purpose is to extract and sell this resource as quickly as possible.

I would remind members that Canada's record on marine transportation is far from stellar. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development had the following to say about Transport Canada in a report from October 2020:

...there is still important work to be done...including follows-up on violations identified through inspections. ...the department had not finished its work to give final approval to many companies' plans to respond to emergencies.

The commissioner also informed us that, based on the 2011 audit on the transportation of dangerous goods, Transport Canada had not taken all the actions required to address key elements of the recommendation made.

With this kind of information about Transport Canada at our fingertips, what we have to do is simple: We must not allow any regulations to be relaxed and we must tighten inspections. In short, nothing can be overlooked.

Another major issue with this deregulation trend in this sector is self-assessment. Observations by federal scientific researchers published in Nature Communications indicate that the oil sands emit up to 64% more CO2 than the resource companies report. Worse, the data that is sent to government organizations comes from the oil companies. Canada's official record is also inaccurate. Do people truly understand what that means?

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change says things like oil development projects off the coast of Newfoundland will support sustainable development by protecting the environment. The Prime Minister says that for five years we have shown that investing in oil and gas projects and fighting climate change can go hand in hand. How is it possible to say such things knowing full well that drilling oil is incompatible with sustainable development, environmental protection and biodiversity?

I forgot to mention something. The same day it was announced that drilling off the coast of Newfoundland was approved without a federal environmental impact assessment and in a significant biodiversity area, the government committed $55 million for biodiversity at the One Planet Summit. That is how diametrically opposed concepts are made to go hand in hand.

Quebeckers and Canadians should not be shackled to projects that will lead them straight to an environmental or climate disaster or an economic disaster. Since the economic argument comes up so often, let us talk about it.

The organizations that have divested from fossil fuels have been listed many times in the House, but I will list them again: Sweden's central bank, the European Investment Bank, Norway's sovereign wealth fund, BlackRock, the influential British Medical Association, and more than 40 faith groups from 14 countries. We cannot forget the New York State Pension Fund and its $500 billion U.S., whose managers have committed to a net-zero investment strategy within four years. Let us also not forget the largest insurer in the world, Lloyd's, which will stop insuring coal operations and fossil fuel exploration projects.

In 2019, over 1,100 institutions with more than $11 trillion U.S. in assets under management committed to divesting from fossil fuels, a 22,000% increase from the $52 billion originally committed in 2014. These pledges come from 48 countries and major cities with stock exchanges such as Paris and New York City, and 70% come from outside the United States.

The Conservatives can continue to kick up a fuss about the regulation of this industry, as they did when they proposed a bill like Bill C-229. However, the drop in the price per barrel of Alberta oil, which only generates a profit at $45 or more, one of the highest prices in the world, combined with the realities that I just talked about, means that meaningful measures must be taken to immediately expedite the transition to renewable energy.

The existing regulations have nothing to do with the slump this resource is experiencing. The global economy is changing in response to growing environmental awareness. We should be happy about that.

Canada must be part of this essential collective effort. For example, Alberta's geothermal potential is a golden opportunity to join the energy transition. This fledgling industry, which has great potential on Canadian soil, could give workers who already have drilling experience a chance to participate in the development of this sector and thus help diversify Canada's energy mix. What is more, government organizations already have the geological data on areas in western Canada with geothermal energy potential. Workers deserve to see their elected officials working to improve their future and their children's future, do they not?

We have repeatedly heard the argument of economic reconciliation with indigenous peoples used in support of the oil and gas sector. The Bloc Québécois proposes that we start instead by ensuring that indigenous communities have clean drinking water and health care, and then focus on clean resources that are adapted to their geographic regions.

Have we forgotten the demands of the Wet'suwet'en already? Have we forgotten that cancer rates in the communities downstream along the Athabasca River are 30% higher than the provincial rate? Have we forgotten their fight to protect their ancestral lands and traditional resources?

When the energy transition is no longer just an environmental imperative, but also an economic imperative, then why get left behind when we could be leading the charge to a carbon-neutral economy? Every member of Parliament who cares about the well-being of future generations and the sustainability of the environment will refuse to support this bill and instead devote their efforts to meeting the same objective set by other countries around the world, namely to fix the damage to the environment and the climate.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which protects a region in northern B.C. from the devastating impacts of a crude oil spill.

The oil tanker moratorium has overwhelming support from residents along the north coast, and represents decades of work from a coalition of first nations, unions, environmentalists and community leaders. In fact for a half century, people have been fighting to protect this area from tankers.

In 1971 and 1972, the B.C. Legislature and then the House of Commons passed unanimous motions opposing oil tanker traffic on the waters off our north coast. In the late 1970s, there was a federal commission of inquiry into oil tankers on B.C.’s north coast and the commissioner stated:

Despite my familiarity with this history of determined opposition to tanker traffic, I have been surprised to find it so universal.

For anyone who knows the north coast, it is not surprising that so many people are willing to fight to protect this area, especially from the risk of a catastrophic spill.

I was born in Kispiox, near the Skeena River, and while I left very early in life, my partner grew up in Prince Rupert. We now go back to visit the north coast for the holidays, though sadly just by Zoom this past Christmas. Anyone who has spent time in this region knows that it is something incredible. It is a unique and special place that deserves our protection. The Skeena River, the Great Bear Rainforest and the coast itself are areas that future generations are counting on us to protect.

First nations rely on the coastal ecosystem harvest resources that are central to their cultural traditions. Thousands of workers are employed in the tourism and fisheries industries, and their livelihoods would be threatened if there were a spill.

It is not a surprise that the oil tanker moratorium is overwhelmingly supported by residents along the north coast. It is not a surprise that the Coastal First Nations alliance, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union and dozens of other community organizations and environmental groups in northern B.C. and across Canada have fought to protect this area.

My colleague, the MP for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, also recently started a petition in opposition to this bill that would undermine protections, and it quickly garnered over 900 signatures. This month he also hosted a town hall on the oil tanker moratorium, where residents overwhelmingly spoke about the necessity of a ban on tankers. They expressed a need for even stronger protections than currently exist in the act, and dismay at the fact that they once again have to fight against a threat to the place they call home, but they also expressed their conviction and determination to stand together.

I want to take a moment to congratulate the new Minister of Transport on his appointment, and to stress how vital it is that he and his government understand the perspectives of residents along the north coast. The impact of a crude oil spill on the Great Bear Rainforest and some of the last remaining wild salmon fisheries in North America would be absolutely devastating.

Experts describe a successful cleanup rate for a diluted bitumen spill on the north coast as less than 7% recovery. I want members to think about that for a second. A successful cleanup entails 7% recovery, so 93% of the oil spill would remain in the environment. That is diluted bitumen, which sinks to the bottom and wreaks havoc on ecosystems, in a place where communities rely on the rivers and ocean for their very livelihoods and for their culture.

Not that long ago, the Exxon Valdez showed the world the devastating potential of a spill along coastal waters. The shorelines still bear the impacts of that spill. It has been 30 years, and fish habitat and stocks still have not fully recovered. Spill cleanup and coastal recovery cost $9.5 billion, of which Exxon paid less than half.

An Exxon Valdez-style oil spill along our north coast would be catastrophic. It would devastate wild salmon, marine mammals, birds and coastal forests including our treasured Great Bear Rainforest. It would devastate coastal economies, tourism, aquaculture, commercial fishing and first nations fishing.

We know that even a minor spill in this area can cause extensive damage. When the Nathan E. Stewart fuel barge ran aground in 2016 near Bella Bella, right near the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest, it spilled 110,000 litres of diesel into the marine environment. Cleanup efforts were repeatedly hampered by bad weather, and the vessel was not fully recovered until more than a month after it sank. We only need to talk to members of the Heiltsuk Nation to know that this was devastating to the area. It has been over four years and the traditional Heiltsuk clam-harvesting areas have still not recovered.

Imagine if that has been a supertanker instead of diesel diluted bitumen. This should be a no-brainer. The risks clearly outweigh the benefits to the north coast residents, but also to our entire province and, I would argue, to our country. The waters in the northwest are stormy, the passages are narrow and treacherous and supertankers are not designed to navigate these areas.

The fact that the Conservatives are prioritizing this issue, even in the midst of a global pandemic, and bringing forward a bill to try to undo half a century of work to protect the north coast highlights the risk a Conservative government poses. What kind of party would rip up these hard-won protections and put so much at risk?

What do they propose to replace the act they would do away with? There is literally nothing. The bill offers no alternative measures to protect the north coast. It offers nothing to protect the livelihoods of the communities in the area and nothing to protect the rights of indigenous people along the north coast. It takes the exact opposite approach of what is needed right now. Rather than debating repealing the act and removing important protections for our coast, we should be here talking about strengthening it to guard against spills that would devastate marine environments and disrupt vital ecosystems.

The current act does not protect against spills like the Nathan E. Stewart spill. It does not protect against tankers below a certain size. It does not provide any increased spill response or mitigate the risks to the north coast.

We could strengthen the act by limiting arbitrary ministerial powers or lowering the oil-carrying capacity cap. This also raises the issue of the risk of increased crude oil tankers along the entire B.C. coast. The Trans Mountain expansion project is not simply economically unsound, with over 100 economists writing to the Prime Minister to urge him to cancel the project. The energy regulator, the government's own watchdog, has said that it will not be profitable if we take climate action. Even the Conservatives denounced the government's decision to buy the pipeline. It poses environmental risks. It is a disaster waiting to happen. It puts our coast at risk, with a sevenfold increase in tanker traffic. We must say no to TMX.

The risks of having tankers along the north coast are even greater. For those of us who live on this coast, who love this coast, there is no option but to stand up against the bill. There is no option but to fight to protect the places we love. There is no option but to protect the people and the communities we are part of, and protect our oceans, our rivers and our environment for future generations.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of jobs, the environment and the prosperity and dignity of our indigenous people, and to speak against the wrong-headed decision of the Liberal government to ban the shipments of clean, green Canadian energy off the northwest coast of British Columbia.

Before I begin addressing the specifics of this export, I would like to address some of the falsehoods that have been espoused by numerous members of the House, including the preceding member, that have been used to destroy the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of Canadians, including our indigenous people, over the last five years.

Let me start with the first falsehood that has been used to justify this attack on our clean green western Canadian energy sector, that the reason our energy sector is suffering is the world is moving away from oil. That is just the way the world is going we are told. That is factually wrong. In fact, this week the IMF reported that oil prices will rise 20% this year over last. The International Energy Agency projects that oil consumption will average 100 million barrels per day, every day, for the next 20 years. That is not a reduction. The agency predicts that, even if all of the most draconian anti-energy, anti-carbon policies were put in place by all of the governments of the world, for the next two decades the globe will still consume at least 60 million barrels of oil per day. That is why the U.S. oil sector has doubled its production in the last 13 years while our sector has been in full-scale collapse. The question is not if the world will use oil; the question is how and, more importantly, whose oil?

The member for Regina—Lewvan brought to the world's attention an interesting point recently. He said that the trendy anti-development hipsters who are constantly telling us they buy fair trade coffee are not concerned in the least whether or not they are consuming fair trade oil. They see no problem with Canada importing millions of barrels of oil from countries that engage in monstrous human rights violations to produce their oil. At the same time, they denigrate the production of ethical clean, green Canadian petroleum.

That brings us to the next falsehood that opponents of this bill and the energy sector in Canada have espoused, which is that their policies are attempting to help the environment. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Let me first address the tanker ban this bill proposes to remove.

There are some exceptions to the tanker ban in Canada that the Liberal government put in, with the support of the NDP and the Green Party. Those exceptions include that petroleum products can be shipped in northern British Columbia waters. Liquefied natural gas, gasoline and jet fuel can pass through those waters. Of course, all of those fuels are foreign-produced fuels. The ban only applies to ethically produced Canadian oil being shipped out of Canada, but not unethical and environmentally degrading foreign oil being shipped off the coast. The ban has nothing to do with protecting the coast from shipping, as it allows shipping; it just does not allow the shipping of Canadian products. When the Liberals brought in their bill, they only banned Canadian energy from being shipped off the northwestern coast, not the passage of foreign energy through our waters. Obviously, it has nothing to do with protecting the waters or protecting against spills, but has everything to do with shutting in Canadian energy production.

Finally, on this point about the environment, we have the most environmentally friendly oil sector in the world. In fact, if we were to displace a world barrel of oil with an Alberta or Saskatchewan barrel of oil, we would reduce global emissions, because our emissions per barrel are lower than the global average. In fact, some Canadian oil companies are not only proposing to go carbon neutral, but there is also one, Whitecap Resources, a Calgary-based oil company, that is the world's first carbon-negative company. It presently takes more carbon out of the atmosphere than it puts into it. It has found a way to do this by storing carbon beneath the earth, from where it originally came. This is perhaps one of the most promising emission-reduction technologies on earth. In fact, Elon Musk announced just in the last two weeks that he would pay $100 million to the best carbon capture and storage initiative that a company can invent. I hope that Mr. Musk, whom I am sure is listening to this speech, takes a careful look at Whitecap Resources and gives $100 million to that company to create more jobs taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

The next falsehood that opponents of Canadian energy spread is that they are doing this for indigenous people. That is a total and absolute falsehood. In fact, when the Liberal government, under the current Prime Minister, cancelled the Northern Gateway pipeline, which would have shipped western oil to the Pacific and onward to Asia, a statement in response was issued by 31 first nations and Métis communities:

We are profoundly shocked and disappointed by the news that the Federal Government has no intention of pursuing any further consultation and dialogue with our communities on the important issue of the Northern Gateway Project. We are also deeply disappointed that a Prime Minister who campaigned on a promise of reconciliation with Indigenous communities would now blatantly choose to deny our 31 First Nations and Métis communities of our constitutionally protected right to economic development. We see today's announcement as clear evidence of their unwillingness to follow through on his promise....

The economic benefits from Northern Gateway to Indigenous communities are unprecedented in Canadian history. As part of the opportunity to share up to 33% ownership and control in a major Canadian energy infrastructure project, the project's Aboriginal Equity Partners [would] also receive $2 billion in long-term economic, business, and education opportunities for their communities.

All of the left-wing members, the Greens, the New Democrats and the Liberals, who claim that they believe in reconciliation, had no problem vaporizing that $2-billion worth of educational, economic and business opportunities for those communities. They had no problem bulldozing over the constitutional rights of indigenous communities to be consulted before energy and resource decisions are made with respect to their lands, because these parties actually do not care about reconciliation; they care only about using first nation communities as an excuse, a false and dishonest excuse, to block energy sector development and to play to a far left ideology that does nothing for this country. Therefore, it is another falsehood to claim that any of this is being done for the indigenous people.

Next, there is a claim that this sector only matters to western Canada. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Canada's number-one export is oil. It is far greater than auto parts, which is a distant second, and far greater than any other export. Since the attack on our energy sector that began in 2015, Canada has had a trade deficit in every single year. That means we are buying more from the world and are borrowing from the world to pay for it. That is a recipe to indebt and enslave ourselves to foreign lenders, who lend to us so that we can buy from them. They get the money, we get the debt, and forever after we work to pay their bills through interest payments. That is not a future. Our future should be one of energy independence, of reaching foreign markets, getting world prices and getting big powerful paycheques for Canadian workers, especially indigenous workers, to defeat poverty through powerful new job opportunities for pipe fitters, welders, engineers and others.

This is the way that we secure jobs, secure our economy and secure our future.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I disagree with much of what my colleague has just said, I rise on a point of order because of a word that he used when he was categorizing the indigenous positions on this and many other subjects as somehow unanimous or collective. I disagree with that assertion entirely, but my point of order is that the member for Carleton used a possessive noun to describe indigenous people, the word “our”. It is a paternalistic and antiquated way to refer to people, and I would ask that he unreservedly remove that reference from the record.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for intervening. As far as the standing order goes, what we are looking for is whether something unparliamentary has been said in debate. I was waiting to see what the word was that the parliamentary secretary heard that he felt was potentially not parliamentary. In this particular case, the hon. member has a difference of opinion with how a debate has been presented, and that will have to be taken up in debate.

The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank you for allowing me to speak today on Bill C-229, an act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping. This private member's bill would repeal the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act on British Columbia's north coast, and I rise today to defend the commitment our government made when we passed this legislation in 2019.

The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act is a significant and unprecedented measure in protecting British Columbia's north coast. It was a promise made to Canadians by our Prime Minister in 2015 and a mandate commitment that our government proudly fulfilled.

Let me remind members what this act accomplishes.

It prohibits oil tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil products as cargo from stopping, loading or unloading at ports or marine installations in the moratorium area. The act targets crude oil and persistent oils specifically because they are heavier, and when spilled, they tend to break up and dissipate slowly, putting fragile marine and shoreline ecosystems at risk. It represents a precautionary approach aimed at protecting precious coastal habitats, allowing their ecosystems and marine species to continue to flourish. While this legislation is in force, it ensures that there will be no large shipments of crude or persistent oil products off of British Columbia's north coast .

The moratorium area covers almost two-thirds of British Columbia's coast, extending from the northern tip of Vancouver Island in the south to the Canada-U.S. border at Alaska. It includes one of the largest areas of coastal temperate rainforest in the world, along with the naturally and culturally distinct archipelago of Haida Gwaii, which, because of its remoteness, is home to several species of plants and mammals that are found nowhere else on our planet.

The region's nutrient-dense waters make them prime feeding and spawning habitats for a remarkable number and variety of species. Orcas, humpback whales, dolphins and puffins, to name just a few, are all clustered within the region, while some of the largest salmon runs on the entire west coast are found there.

Further beneath the ocean's surface exist stunning ecological communities of seaweeds, kelp, invertebrates and fish. For those who live in and around these cherished ecosystems, there is little doubt of the protection they deserve. Indigenous groups in particular, who have lived here for thousands of years, work to maintain their historic relationship with the waters and land they populate through a fierce commitment to conservation, and the inherent responsibility to protect the environment and the innumerable resources it provides.

That said, populations of northern coastal B.C. remain relatively sparse, which makes responding to potential oil spills challenging. Frequent winter storms with strong winds bring unpredictable swells that will challenge even the most experienced mariners. The shallow waters and high winds of Hecate Strait for example, combined with strong currents emanating from deep water zones like the Douglas Channel can make the north coast a true test for sailors.

The populations in and around these delicate ecosystems know what is at stake and know what the devastating impact of an oil spill in this region could be. A significant oil pollution incident would not only have destructive consequences on the multitude of diverse and exceptional ecological communities that make up this region; it would equally threaten the cultural and spiritual connections between the marine environment and local communities, as well as the continued sustainable use and management of ocean resources.

Commercial and recreational fisheries, processing facilities, aquaculture, logging and tourism represent just a small window of the range of economic activity sustained by the marine environments in this region. This activity is essential to the economic life cycle of many communities within the moratorium area.

Just as important, many of these industries and surrounding communities rely on marine transportation to supply essential fuel products for their businesses and homes. Safe and efficient marine resupply operations are a lifeline given the limited road and rail access for so many coastal communities. The moratorium ensures that these critical resupply operations continue to be permitted by allowing shipments of crude or persistent oil products below 12,500 metric tons.

Canada already has one of the strongest marine safety regimes in the world, with a track record in marine safety that meets or exceeds international standards. Our government is committed to safe, sustainable, and efficient marine transportation that improves responsible shipping, while supporting economic growth. We are, after all, a maritime nation, with more coastline than any other nation in the world.

Our historic $1.5‑billion oceans protection plan is creating a world-leading marine safety system, restoring and protecting marine and coastal ecosystems and habitats, enhancing environmental and local emergency response, and strengthening our ability to trade with confidence and safety.

All three of Canada's coastlines—the west coast, the east coast and the Arctic coast—are targeted for specific initiatives through the oceans protection plan. This is a plan that continues to be built on science, technology and indigenous input to protect Canada's unique marine environment.

Our government knows this cannot be accomplished alone, which is why we are working closely with those who know these environments best. New partnerships are in the process of being built, while existing partnerships with stakeholders, Indigenous groups and coastal communities are being strengthened. These collaborative partnerships represent a new way of doing business. Undoubtedly there are challenges ahead of us, but working together will help get things done in a way that reflects the needs of those who benefit most from our oceans and our coasts.

The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act complements this work and is an additional layer of protection for British Columbia’s north coast, yet the private member’s bill before us today seeks to remove every protection that this act offers for this globally significant region. That is why I am asking all members of the House to continue supporting the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act so that future generations will continue to benefit from and fully appreciate the pristine ecosystems of British Columbia’s north coast as so many have before them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate with the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, I will let her know that to keep enough time in the hour for the right of reply, she will only have about four to five minutes available for her remarks as opposed to the usual 10 minutes.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had an important time here, listening to this debate, and listening to the members of the government and of other opposition parties talk about why Bill C-48, or this bill, Bill C-229, should not be reversed.

Regarding some of the issues and decisions that were made by the previous government, we have seen an incredible negative impact on many of our communities throughout Canada. Specifically, the previous speaker, the deputy House leader, was talking about how we want to focus on western alienation, trying to make this a political matter.

As a member from southwestern Ontario, I can say that I too am very concerned about the direction we are going. In our own communities, we are talking about things such as Line 5. Line 5 is a pipeline that continues to come from Michigan into southwestern Ontario. It provides all of the natural fuels that we need, including propane. On the propane issue, we saw back in 2018-19, when there were some problems with getting fuel by train, our farmers were running out, the people in Quebec were running out, and the east coast was running out of propane to fuel and heat their homes.

These are types of concerns I have because the types of policies we are putting forward today sometimes do not look at the bigger pictures and some of the negative impacts. I have heard and really do appreciate all of the great comments made on the environment because I believe that we do need to make sure that we are leaving this country and this globe better for the future.

At the same time, I am very concerned with some of the decisions that we make that put a trap and handcuffs on our own economy. These are the things that we have to have a balanced approach to. For all the other members who are speaking to this, yes, I hear them and members of the Conservative Party hear them, but we are trying to find a balanced approach where, as our former minister of the environment used to say, the economy and the environment can go hand in hand.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I like that.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kingston and the Islands. Yes, I know that is liked. However, the fact is that what we have actually seen is the huge disconnect between the economy and the environment, so I would ask that we have a more balanced approach.

We have talked about Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 of the 42nd Parliament many, many times. We know that the current government has put through policies that are stopping any of the oil sands work that is being done and not focusing on what we need to do here. We are a country with great resources, and it is very important that we ethically source these resources and then get them out for export.

We are a country that currently is bringing in our fuel from places like the U.K., and I still cannot fathom that, as well as from Algeria, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. We should be looking at what we have in our own backyard. Knowing that it is ethically sourced and knowing that we can do a great job here in Canada, we should be doing made-in-Canada projects.

I respect the members who are talking about this bill and talking about what we can do on the west coast. This has very important impacts on knowing what we need to do to keep on with our environment. When we speak about first nations and indigenous people, we have to understand that many indigenous groups are asking for work like this to be done. They recognize that the environment can be used with environmentally friendly methods.

I hope we can have an honest discussion where we try to find a balance between the economy and the environment, unlike what we are doing right now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

With that, and accordingly, I will invite the hon. member for Edmonton Centre for his right of reply. The hon. member has up to five minutes, and we will go to him now.

The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues who spoke on this bill. Whether they agreed with it or not, I appreciate that they took the time and effort to speak in the House today.

When I ran for office, I was incredibly concerned about the Canadian economy. I am a proud Canadian and a proud Albertan, and I am absolutely proud of our resource sector, which has been fuelling a lot of our economy.

Bill C-48, which would be displaced by my Bill C-229, was never about marine traffic transportation safety or ecological life in northern B.C. It really was a bill that restricted the ability of the strong oil and gas sector to continue to grow. It has become even more apparent now, with the debate over Keystone XL and our ability to get our products to market.

There has been a massive exodus of energy dollars from Canada. We can argue that is world demand, but I am not part of that argument. If we look at recent history, Norway has planned a massive expansion into the Arctic for expanded oil and gas. In Russia, Vostok Oil is planning a massive expansion. The U.S. has become one of the largest exporters of oil and gas, and a lot of that is coming out of Canadian reserves.

Canada has this fantastic position, in that we are the third-largest reserve in the world and we have this enormous opportunity to extract our resources in a safe and environmentally friendly way and play into the market.

Over the last few days, we have been discussing a trade agreement with the U.K. It is interesting to look at the U.K. Where do its imports come from? Norway, the U.S., Algeria, Russia and Nigeria are its big suppliers. Canada is not even a player. Canada is 97% into the U.S. and 3% into the international market.

I firmly believe that we can safely extract oil and gas within our country and ship it in a safe fashion. It is not like we do not have tanker traffic in this country. We have tankers going up the east coast, delivering crude to refineries there, and we all realize that the St. Lawrence has consistent tanker traffic day in and day out. We are able to do that in a safe fashion and protect the environment and our citizens.

Let us not forget that our federal debt-to-GDP ratio is at about 15% and growing. We are looking at a federal debt in excess of $1 trillion by the end of the year. We have the highest unemployment rate in the G7. Oil is one of our largest exports, primarily to one customer.

Does anyone really think that Canada can come out of this massive recession without a strong oil and gas sector and without being part of the international market? We have the opportunity to gain market share. We have the opportunity to displace players who do not follow the same rules we do as Canadians.

This is a bill that would right a wrong and fix an incredibly discriminatory piece of legislation. It is a bill that is essential for an industry that has helped fuel the economy of Canada, and I am incredibly proud of it. It is essential for the thousands of workers who are proud of their work in that sector and the product they produce. It is essential for manufacturing in Canada in a variety of fields. It is essential to the environment. If Canada has the opportunity to displace those bad players, we can do that with some of the most stringent environmental and labour standards. It is essential to respect the right of the provinces to get their product to market.

I live in a province that feels that it has been left out. I believe this is an opportunity for us to right a wrong, get Albertans and Canadians back to work, and be proud of the work that we can do here in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party who is present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them now to rise and indicate so to the Chair.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, and pursuant to an order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)