Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 219 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2008, with 37% of the vote.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns November 18th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 219 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Infrastructure November 18th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite is aware of things that are happening near his constituency. Quite often we do not get that response in the House.
We will take it under advisement and I am sure we will get an answer back to him in the very near future.
Airports November 18th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, Toronto Pearson is one of our great international airports. It has nearly 25 million people visiting it each year as passengers. Our minister is working closely with the members of the greater Toronto caucus to see that the problems at Toronto in terms of finances and landing fees will be addressed in the very near future.
First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act November 18th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, certainly I want to compliment the parliamentary secretary and the department and the minister for the leadership that he is offering in this initiative.
We know that there are over 600 first nations across this country. From our point of view, and probably from their point of view, it is unfortunate that much of the legislation under which they work and live was developed back in the 19th century. Today we live in the 21st century and across this country first nations leaders and people are attempting to improve their economic activity. I know that for too long they have had to try to promote this in this House, but the new legislation that is being introduced today will enable them to make the best efforts in terms of their own initiatives to develop an economy for their people.
In the gallery today we have some of those people who have led this issue. I have met with them before as the parliamentary secretary. We know that they are very much interested in having this legislation move forward.
We have a great number of very important items before this House, this being one of them, and we know, of course, that there are those who want this House to end. I would hope that in terms of the people who are gathered here today and see this as important that we as a group of legislators can attempt to bring this to a vote and that we can see it through committee, and hopefully not only for the five that were mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, because in my own area of Atlantic Canada we have initiatives there and we have leaders who are doing great work in terms of developing the economy for their people.
As a member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, I want to join with those in the other parts of this great nation to see that opportunities are created for the first nations people who are the original people, the indigenous people of Canada. It is great to support Bill C-71. Hopefully it will be fast tracked through this House and we can see the results of legislation which we have approved.
Criminal Code November 14th, 2005
Madam Speaker, the hon. member is from New Brunswick, as I am. He fully realizes that in New Brunswick preparations are already underway for an LNG in the city of Saint John area.
We also know that sites are under consideration and some have been approved in other parts of Canada. In terms of shipping and the fact that tug boats would be used and in terms of our new GPS systems, if there is a possibility it might occur, we want to ensure that we have the proper safeguards in place. However, we cannot deal with questions in terms of what if. The hon. member is asking, “What if the Americans” or “What if the state of Maine decides”.
We have to wait to see what the Americans will do. At present nothing has been filed in with the United States authorities to make an LNG terminal in Maine. It is under consideration and review, but certainly nothing has gone forward in terms of a proper application to American and state of Maine authorities.
Criminal Code November 14th, 2005
Madam Speaker, the government is aware of and recognizes the concerns of local communities related to the proposed liquefied natural gas, LNG terminals, in Passamaquoddy Bay. We would like, however, to assure them that Transport Canada is monitoring the situation closely and that our government has indicated Canada's specific interests in this issue to the United States government. In addition, we will work with the province of New Brunswick to ensure that Canadian interests are respected.
Based on the action taken by the government in the 1970s and 1980s, when an oil refinery was being proposed in the same area, Canadian communities requested that Canada refuse the passage of LNG ships through the Canadian waters of Head Harbour Passage.
Although no proposal for an LNG terminal on the U.S. side of Passamaquoddy Bay has yet been filed with the United States authorities, the Government of Canada is in the process of commissioning a study to determine what the potential impacts will be and it will include various government departments that will do a factual understanding of the possible impacts in order to make an informed decision.
Given the findings as to the risk of pollution and the impact of a significant oil spill in the area, our government some years ago concluded that the environmental risk was unacceptable. Therefore, we did not grant permission for oil tankers to go through Head Harbour Passage.
However, I emphasize that the conclusions of these risk studies are for the most part not applicable to LNG terminals and associated LNG ship traffic, despite the same geographic area. The conditions in terms of environment with an oil slick cannot be compared with what might happen with an LNG spill which is a vapour that would quite easily disappear. It would not affect marine birds, mammals, the fisheries and other shore areas of that specific area of New Brunswick. The cargo, as we mentioned, does not have the same difficulties in terms of dispersing in the prevailing wind, but the fact that a fire could occur would mean that there would be concerns.
The Government of Canada is undertaking a study to determine the potential impacts. We also are considering the fact that most areas of eastern Maine have not approved terminals of this nature, so it is up to further consideration.
I can assure Canadians that the Minister of Transport, the Ministers of the Environment and Fisheries and Oceans are very much aware of this file and will do everything within their power to ensure that if it should occur in terms of an application to U.S. authorities, that we will study the matter with due diligence.
The hon. member lives in that area. It is a tremendous area for tourism. It has a great economy in terms of fisheries. I am sure our government would not want to see anything happen to that very rich area of southwestern New Brunswick.
Pacific Gateway Act November 2nd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I was very much impressed with the first portion of the hon. member's speech. He did speak very effectively of his vision mainly in terms of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. I will make a few comments and let the hon. member reply to them.
First of all, the Pacific gateway is not simply a gateway for Vancouver. It is a gateway for all of British Columbia, a gateway for the three prairie provinces and a gateway for all Canadians. It would appear from my perspective that in terms of what has happened, Vancouver for some time has been concerned with both air traffic and port traffic as it thought in terms of trying to develop an economy facing the Pacific.
With this concept of ports and airports, the improvement of those facilities, and above all the improvement not only of the gateway, the gateway being a gate, but the pathways that lead to that gateway and the opportunities that have to be available to people from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, they too have to participate in this debate. Bill C-68 shows that it is a bigger concept than simply one city or one province. It is a concept for all Canadians. In particular it is a very vital part of the economy of all of western Canada.
Softwood Lumber October 25th, 2005
Mr. Chair, I listened to the NDP position on this but I am not sure if the member was talking about his position or his party's position.
We recognize that in terms of oil and gas, of the various countries from which the United States buys oil and gas, we are the largest supplier. We are a tremendous supplier of energy. We talk about Quebec with its power.
I wonder if the hon. member could tell us tonight what particular avenue he wants us to address first. Should we cut off electricity from Quebec, oil from Alberta or maybe try to get Saskatchewan to turn out a few of the lights that are burning in the United States of America? If he could give that position for us, we could understand better what the NDP wants us to do in terms of its suggestions to this problem we are encountering.
Committees of the House October 18th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the 1976 decision was based upon oil as a pollutant. We know that other ships are transiting that same passage. We know it is narrow. We know that the Port of Bayside uses that for shipping extensively. We know, also, that in terms of LNG there are 136 LNG tankers worldwide. They transit some 120 million metric tonnes of LNG each year. They have done that worldwide for some 40 years. As of this date, we have not had any serious incidents, in terms of the shipping industry and the transmission of LNG.
Committees of the House October 18th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is aware of the proposal to construct liquefied natural gas receiving terminals in Passamaquoddy Bay near the New Brunswick-Maine border and the fact that LNG tankers would have to transit Canadian waters through Head Harbour Passage, New Brunswick to gain access to these terminals in the state of Maine.
The government is also aware of the concerns of the local residents related to the perceived associated risks, the impact on the resource based industries of the area, such as fisheries, tourism and aquaculture, and the protection of our natural environment.
A number of Canadian communities in the area have requested that Canada refuse the passage of LNG tankers through Canadian waters. When considering the question of the risk associated with transportation of LNG, the 1976 decision to restrict the use of Head Harbour Passage by oil tankers carrying more than 5,000 cubic metres of oil was made only after studies conducted at that time by the federal government indicated that there were considerable environmental risks.
It should be noted that LNG is not a specified marine pollutant and does not present the same level of risk to the marine environment as crude oil. LNG is largely composed of methane cooled to its liquid state. Unlike oil, which is persistent in nature, if LNG escapes, it immediately starts to vaporize, leaving no residue. The vapour is colourless, odourless and non-toxic. The main risk would be of fire in the case of a spill.
Across Canada there are currently seven proposed LNG terminals. Two have received federal and provincial environmental assessments and approval, the ones at Canso Strait in Nova Scotia and in Saint John, New Brunswick. There are others under consideration in Goldboro, Nova Scotia, in Beaumont, Quebec, in Gros Cacouna, Quebec, in Kitimat, British Columbia, and in Prince Rupert, British Columbia.
Although LNG is a non-polluting, non-persistent hydrocarbon and is not considered a pollutant under the Canada Shipping Act, the government is initiating a study to examine the full range of impacts that the construction of an LNG terminal would have on Passamaquoddy Bay, and especially its effects on the Canadian side. This study would include environmental, transportation and socio-economic considerations. When the results of this analysis are completed, the government will make a decision based on the findings and other relevant factors.
On the question of whether Canada could prohibit LNG tankers from transiting Head Harbour Passage, section 562.1(1)(e) of the Canada Shipping Act does allow for the prohibition of navigation under very specific purposes, such as promoting safe navigation, protection of the marine environment and protecting persons, ships, shore areas, et cetera. However, justification to support a prohibition under this section is not readily apparent at present, given that cargo ships currently transit the area, LNG is not a pollutant, LNG tankers will be permitted in other regions of Canada, and risks can be reduced through a number of controls.
Nevertheless, our government is planning to undertake a comprehensive risk assessment study to best be able to respond to the current LNG proposals.
I can assure the hon. member that Transport Canada is closely monitoring the situation. Transport Canada will thoroughly review any LNG terminal applications and work in consultation with other federal departments, the provinces, the United States authorities, the project proponents and other stakeholders.
I can assure the member--