Fin Donnelly

[Committees of the House, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned not needing a moratorium on the west coast but he also mentioned that mistakes do happen. I am wondering how the member can square that.

I want to specifically reference one mistake that happened in Bella Bella last year involving the Nathan E. Stewart. It was a relatively small spill of 110,000 litres of diesel fuel into the waters off Bella Bella. It took almost one month because of bad weather before anyone could get to the Nathan E. Stewart and address the fuel that was coming out. This affected the local nation's shellfish fishery and the marine environment. This was a relatively small spill compared to the kinds of spills that happen in the Gulf of Mexico or any other spills into the ocean.

Could the member comment on the impact of this spill on local business and the local economy? Can he imagine what a large spill of bitumen would do to the local economy?

[Committees of the House, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's intervention, but he talked about many things, including the Liberal position on Kinder Morgan, which he says they got right and did consult about. However, I would argue that the Liberals broke their promise. The Liberals campaigned on revamping the NEB process and that they would not make a decision until they had done so, which in fact they did not do. They betrayed the people of British Columbia with what they campaigned on and then what they did.

My hon. colleague also talked about the oil industry's unblemished record, but he conveniently forgets things that are incredibly important, such as the fuel spills that have happened. Here I refer to the Marathassa in my part of the world in English Bay in Vancouver, the Nathan E. Stewart on the mid-coast in Bella Bella, not to mention some of the pipeline spills on land, whether in British Columbia, Alberta, or right across the country, or even in the United States. We cannot forget the spills that have happened. It is this kind of one-sided presentation of information that does not help build Canada's energy future. There are many Canadians who are worried not only about jobs, but also about the kind of environment their kids and grandkids will be left with.

It is to a point where world scientists are telling national decision-makers like those in Canada that the status quo energy systems are just not the way forward with, because these are going to drive ecosystems and our climate to a breaking point. We have seen many examples of that over the last couple of decades.

Consultation is important and we agree with it, but we actually have to listen. Is the member willing to listen to top scientists around the world who have overwhelming evidence about things like climate change?

[Committees of the House, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate going back and forth. We have heard Conservative MPs, and now Liberal MPs, responding and going back and forth about the nature of consultation. I will remind members and those listening that in the past government, the Conservative approach was to create division and to radicalize those who stood up for the environment, the ocean, and the well-being of salmon and watersheds. In fact, we recently heard the current Minister of Natural Resources talking about the need to bring in the army if necessary on energy pipeline projects.

While we talk about consultation and we talk about a nation-to-nation relationship and true reconciliation, we have to take a serious look at how we do this process. We cannot rely on a window-dressing consultation or just listening and checking off boxes. We actually have to engage with others in this process, whether that be first nations, the provinces, communities, or others. It is a difficult process. We definitely want to protect the environment and those things we value truly. We want to have resources we can use in our communities and that power our local economies. It is a tough road forward as we realize that we are absolutely changing our climate.

I would ask if the hon. colleague could comment on the need for consultation but also the need for action.

[Oceans Act, October 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's intervention. I just want to take him back a bit to the global setting in 1992 when the world came together to say that we needed to protect our oceans. The oceans were in trouble. Marine species, especially our predators, were in huge decline. The oceans were acidifying. Fast forward to today, and now we have a huge problem with marine plastics proliferating our oceans, an even greater problem we now have to deal with.

Member states were given 25 and 30 years to protect 5 and 10% of the oceans. In the last 25 years, until last year, Canada had protected only 1% of our ocean. That is inadequate by any standards. Over the last 10 years it was not just Conservative governments but also Liberal governments that brought us to that 1% protection.

Would the member agree that not only do we need minimal standards, but that we also need to intensify this process to achieve our 5 and 10%? As I mentioned earlier, I was just at a conference where the leading scientists were talking about going to half, to protecting 50% of our oceans. Therefore, we are not doing enough in Canada. Would the member not agree that we need to do more?

[Oceans Act, October 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I was recently at a very interesting conference in Malta along with the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard as well as the member for Cariboo—Prince George. We talked about the health of our oceans and the dramatic concerns that we have. One proposal that came out of the conference was that we might need to look at protecting up to half of our oceans because of the impact and the way we are treating them.

One of the concerns with the bill is that while it would allow the minister to look at how we can achieve the targets of 5% and 10% by this year and 2020, which are minimal standards, the bill would allow destructive practices like oil and gas that impact the marine diversity that we are dependent on.

I agree that consultation is critical and that we need to consult with our industries and with those who use the oceans, but we also need to protect them in order to keep our industries thriving. Would the member not agree that we need to set a minimum standard in the legislation as to what we would allow and not allow in those protected areas?

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, October 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's work in the past on some of the values that we share on west coast salmon and the ecosystem, and I appreciated her very specific comments about investing $1.5 billion over 10 years for the oceans protection plan, about $150 million a year. She elaborated on investing in a world-leading safety system and talked about some specific actions, such as tug and barge inspections.

However, my question, which I think she touched on, is about purchasing the two oil-spill response tugs. I am wondering if the member could elaborate on how much those tugs would cost and what it would leave remaining in the $150 million annual budget for oil-spill prevention and other elements she talked about. I would ask her to elaborate on the cost of the tugs and what would be left.

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, October 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my hon. colleague from Drummond in pointing out his concern. I share that concern. I mentioned in my speech that while New Democrats agree with the spirit, intent, and direction of this bill, we are still very concerned with ministerial discretion and allowing the minister the latitude to approve such projects. For instance, large megaprojects that would be harmful to the west coast and coastal communities would be a problem.

The minister acknowledged that those powers do exist. I hope he takes that under advisement and that when we get to committee, Liberals will take the NDP's suggestions seriously and implement those changes in the legislation going forward.

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, October 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, certainly having consultation is critical. Nation-to-nation relationships are critically important to establish and to get right. I think it is up to the federal government to listen, engage, and have a dialogue that results in good decisions. However, it could be said, certainly prior to the current government, that this was not the case. Certainly under the northern gateway pipeline project, that was absolutely not the case.

However it is a good question, and we should, as a government, strive to work towards a full nation-to-nation relationship, so that we get the best decisions for those nations, for Canada, and for Canada's west coast.

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, October 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words from the member for Kootenay—Columbia. I also want to acknowledge his work in standing up for the environment and for standing in for me at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I have appreciated his stand on many issues.

In terms of who I have heard from and who New Democrats have heard from over the years, we have certainly heard from many environmental organizations that are concerned with Canada's west coast. However, there are many others, including fishing organizations, fishing groups, fishermen, first nations, coastal communities, local communities, and labour groups. There are many organizations that know and appreciate how important it is to get it right in terms of what environmental protection means to local community economic development.

Salmon is an important iconic species, but it is also integral to the coastal communities' economy. We can see why many of these groups and individuals come together to ensure that legislation reflects the values they hold dear. They have held these values for thousands of years in some cases, like our first nations coastal communities.

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, October 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I agree, and I did mention in my speech that this is a positive step. We welcome this legislation. I did caution about ministerial powers and exemption, and hope that the government listens to those concerns. I hope my comments will be listened to and taken to committee.

I agree that there has been a shift, a change. However, it is two years later, and we are still waiting for the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and Navigable Protection Act to be restored, as well as the NEB. We have waited for two years. Canadians are tired of waiting. The Liberals promised two years ago that they would make these changes.

Many major energy projects have gone through, including Kinder Morgan, under those same gutted environmental protection laws. While we concede that this is a step in the right direction, the Liberal government has a long way to go before it can say it is moving in terms of true environmental protections, including carrying out the promises it made in the 2015 election.