Joyce Murray

[Commonwealth Games, October 1st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I stand here to wish great success to our Canadian delegation at the Commonwealth Games starting Monday in India.

After the Vancouver 2010 Winter Games, I understand the substantial money, time and effort involved in hosting and on behalf of Canadians I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to India for hosting this year's games.

The first Commonwealth Games were held in Hamilton, Canada in 1930. Thus began a long tradition that has played out every four years since then. These events remind us that sports have an incredible unifying power because they bring people from all four corners of the world together.

Competitive sport has the power to deliver lasting benefits, transforming people, communities and cultures. I applaud our athletes' commitment and perseverance. They inspire our youth to reach further, push harder and achieve personal successes.

We wish our Canadian athletes the best of luck. Our hearts and minds are with them. May the games begin and may they win gold.

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, October 1st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill S-210, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (involvement of Parliament). I am, of course, in support of this act. Its purpose is to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act so as to ensure the full involvement of both Houses of Parliament on these very important issues.

This bill would require that reports tabled to the House of Commons under the current Federal Sustainable Development Act by the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development must be tabled to both Houses of Parliament. Currently, as written, the act does not require these reports to be tabled in the Senate, nor are they required to be referred to committees of the Senate.

The second part of the bill seeks to amend the Auditor General Act to enable the Auditor General and the Commission of the Environment and Sustainable Development to make more than one report in a year. For example, if a key issue comes up on which they wish to report after their annual report, under this amendment, this act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development and Auditor General Act, the Auditor General would have that power to make more than one report.

How did the requirement for this bill come about? The requirement to report to the Senate and Senate committees was in the original bill, as written. Amendments at committee were made to remove the Senate, one of our key Houses of Parliament. I would contend that the committee members who sought those amendments were making two key mistakes. The first mistake was to underestimate the challenge of sustainability, which is the challenge of our generation and of our century. The second mistake was to underestimate and undermine the importance of the Senate and senators in addressing these critical issues of sustainability and sustainable development.

I am pleased that those mistakes would be rectified by this bill. I hope all members of this chamber will support Bill S-210.

I consider this bill not simply to be a housekeeping or correction bill or a technical amendment. I consider it very significant legislation in that it would restore the Senate to its rightful position as being a very important body, an important group of senators who bring wisdom to the table, people who have addressed some of the very complex issue of our time over many generations. Currently, senators address issues as various and complex as equity for aboriginal people, accountability of government, budgets and fiscal management, Canada's role in the world, veterans, human trafficking, the health of Canada's democratic institutions, defence and security, human rights, immigration, official languages, combating poverty, the environment and health care. All of the important complex issues of our day are thoughtfully addressed by senators and the Senate chamber with a view to improving people's lives and making a contribution to the public good. So, restoring the role of the Senate is a very important aspect of this legislation.

Second, sustainable development, as I have named it, the challenge of our generation, is a hugely critical and complex issue. What do we mean by sustainable development? I will reiterate the most common definition. From the Brundtland report, known as “Our Common Future”, sustainable development is defined thus:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Sustainable development, using this definition, requires that we think of the world as a system and our part in it as a system where what we do impacts others and other places and other times.

When we think of the world as a system, we realize that what happens in Alberta with oil sands development can affect the Arctic. We realize that what we do today can affect future generations. It is that realization that drives so many Canadians to be thinking of how we can address this challenge of our times.

The people of my constituency, Vancouver Quadra, are very concerned and engaged in working to meet the challenges of our time with sustainable development. From Southlands to Kitsilano, to Shaughnessy, Kerrisdale and the Musqueam lands, from Marpole through Arbutus, through Dunbar around UBC to Point Grey, the people of Vancouver Quadra are educated and engaged. They care about the health of our democracy, the issues of the day and sustainability.

The challenge of stewarding water for future generations, for example, is complex and it requires both Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate, and the Canadian people to thoughtfully address and meet the challenges and sustain water for our future generations.

For example, in Vancouver Quadra I received well over 1,000 letters, emails and postcards calling on me to assist with ensuring that our Pacific north coast inland waters will be protected from oil spills. This is not about stopping economic development. This is about sustainable economic development. It is about the 56,000 jobs in fisheries and tourism on the Pacific coast that depend on the environment being clean.

In response to this campaign, I have worked with a number of parliamentarians and the Liberal leader has committed to a permanent ban on tanker traffic, where, I might add, there has never been tanker traffic in that area and we want to keep it that way. There are other transportation routes for our products from Alberta to go east to Asia. Those transportation routes will be able to handle capacity for many years to come and, therefore, it is not worth the risk to our waters to have super tankers in those dangerous and vulnerable waters.

The challenges of stewarding biodiversity for future generations is complex and requires both Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate, and the Canadian people to be thoughtfully engaged and meet the challenges of sustaining biodiversity for future generations.

Many people in Vancouver Quadra are concerned about the fisheries and salmon. Runs have been unpredictable and the trend lines have been down. Many top-notch researchers at UBC are addressing the issues of salmon and any people in Vancouver Quadra have come out to my town hall meetings to hear about their research. People in Vancouver Quadra and Marpole have worked for decades to protect the riparian areas of the Fraser River, which is an important salmon habitat. It is not about stopping development or salmon aquaculture. It is about creating sustainable economic development.

These issues are complex, whether it is water, biodiversity, climate change or the involvement of our first nations so that the gap between the achievement of first nations in education and health and non-first nations is closed and those communities are fully engaged in sustainable economic development. These are complex challenges.

We need both chambers, the House of Commons and the Senate, to give thoughtful reflection and address these complex issues for the benefit of Canadians. This bill is directed to ensuring that the Senate fulfills its important role of engaging Canadians to find solutions to these challenges of our generation.

[September 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I find it very sad that when we are speaking about a serious issue of a risk of oil spills from the tip of Vancouver Island to Alaska affecting potentially 50,000 jobs that depend on the coastal environment, that the member takes the time to laughably make partisan shots and talk about completely unrelated issues. That is coming from a member whose government only recently backed down from its plan to implement a job-killing payroll tax increase, thanks to the Liberal Party's input.

What am I to tell the first nations up and down the coast when the member does not even have the courtesy to respond to the serious issue? Does that member not think the environment is important? Does that member not think that the economy of our coastal fisheries is important?

It is completely shameful that the member is not taking seriously the risks to which the Conservative Party is opening the door in terms of potential oil spills on our coast.

[September 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, on May 13 I asked two questions in my quest to have this Conservative government stop weakening the protection of coastlines from oil spill risks.

In December 2009, the government changed offshore drilling regulations to shift government's role away from ensuring that companies properly operate and manage safety and environmental protection. Instead, it placed the responsibility on the companies, thus abdicating government's own responsibility to prevent and manage oil spill response. This is completely unacceptable.

We saw in the Gulf of Mexico just how very damaging to economies and communities oil spills can be and also that the spill response appeared to be really no better and no further advanced than it was decades before. Therefore, I am calling on the government, and the Liberals are calling on the government, to take action and provide better oversight.

The second question had to do with the tanker ban in the Pacific north coast inland waters. I will give a quick history lesson on this, because apparently it is needed.

In 1972, the Liberal government, under Prime Minister Trudeau's policy, put a moratorium on tanker traffic in the channels around Haida Gwaii and extended that moratorium to include a ban on offshore oil and gas drilling. Since 1972, all governments have respected these bans, this moratorium, including two Conservative governments. Millions have been spent, through three federal panels since 2003, to review the moratorium. All referred specifically to the moratorium on oil tankers through Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound, and Dixon Entrance.

Now the Conservative government has backed away, dismisses or even pretends this moratorium does not exist, and apparently is willing to put the coastal economies, jobs, and communities at risk. The Liberals are not willing to do that. That is why the Liberal leader has committed to ending this ambiguity and took decisive action this spring to announce a commitment to formalize the ban through legislation.

I would like to just read a point about this economic action on the Liberals' part. This was from an article in the August 5 Globe and Mail by Eric Swanson. He put it very well. He said:

There is no existing crude oil tanker traffic in the area. The choice to ban these tankers is not one of environment over economy. It is a choice of a sustainable economy over an unsustainable economy. Economies are created by people. We choose, collectively, what they look like and how they function. Sustainable economies allow our children and grandchildren to be born with essentially the same opportunities and resources as now. Unsustainable economies cumulatively degrade and deplete.

Allowing oil tankers would threaten the foundations of a sustainable north coast economy. Where oil moves, oil spills. Even from double-hulled tankers; even with tugboats around; even with pilots on board. Machines break and humans err. If oil were to spill on our coast, if it soaked the beaches of our Great Bear Rainforest, we could not clean it all up. The Exxon Valdez and the BP spill show us that a single spill can devastate lives, economies, ecosystems and cultures.

All of the first nations in that coastal area are united in their opposition to allowing tankers. The Lax Kw'alaams, the Wuikinuxv, the Skidegate, the Metlakatla, the Old Masset, the Kitasoo/Xaixais band, the Heiltsuk, the Haisla, and the Gitga'at are all solidly for a ban on tanker traffic.

I call on the government to come up to our remote areas and to join us in protecting those coastlines from oil spills.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, September 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, over two years ago I was on the international trade committee delegation to Panama and I am pleased to see the progress and support with respect to this free trade agreement.

However, does the member for Richmond Hill believe this focus by the Conservative government on these smaller free trade agreements with smaller potential for trade impedes the ability of Canada to do more strategic larger agreements with Asia-Pacific, for example, or Brazil?

[September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of exactly the obfuscation that has gone on by the Conservative government on this issue all along. Once again, the member talked about the tanker exclusion zone in an attempt to confuse the matter. Yes, the tanker exclusion zone is on the exterior of Haida Gwaii and it is for supertankers going from Alaska to Washington. That has absolutely nothing to do with the policy of a moratorium preventing tanker traffic on the inland waters inside Haida Gwaii in the areas I mentioned. This is just more deception on the part of the member opposite. Sadly, we cannot have an honest answer.

In talking about oil tankers trading oil to the east, of course they have, through the Port of Vancouver, the southern part of British Columbia, not the north coast water. We support the strong economy in Canada. We support the ability to export oil products from Alberta to Asia, which occurs through the port of Vancouver—

[September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on May 11 I rose in the House to get a clear answer from the government respecting the Pacific north coast oil tanker ban in place since 1972. Instead, the minister talked about a plan for offshore oil and gas drilling. In response to subsequent questioning on the same matter, various ministers talked about drilling, and talked about a tanker exclusion zone, which is a completely different policy. At times they said yes and at times they said no. Their answers were very confusing. I had to wonder whether we were witnessing deception or incompetence on this issue.

The government finally acknowledged that it has absolutely no intention of honouring this important policy which has been protecting B.C. and north Pacific inland waters for 40 years.

The Liberals believe it is important to end the ambiguity. We have made a clear commitment to a permanent legislated ban on tanker traffic in the Pacific inland north coast waters. That would cover Douglas Channel, Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. This is a very important area to protect.

Supertankers can carry up to 140 million hectares of crude oil. There is a possibility of a major spill. Modelling shows a spill from a tanker at the wrong time of the year could foul the coastline from the northern tip of Vancouver Island up to Alaska. The habitat of birds, fish, herring, marine mammals and endangered species could be fouled by crude oil from a tanker spill. Human errors do happen. Spills do take place.

The Liberals believe it is important to be clear. We would not allow tanker traffic along that part of the coast. The leader of the Liberal Party stated, “Canada has the longest coastline in the world, and our quality of life is closely connected to our oceans. The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a grim reminder that we must always be vigilant. While the Conservative government has left our coastal communities and oceans vulnerable, the Liberal Party is proposing innovative, decisive action that would make Canada a world leader in protecting our oceans and our coastal communities”.

This is an economic policy, not simply an environmental and social policy, respecting the wishes of all of the coastal first nations in that area.

I want to talk for a moment about jobs. Jobs and the economy always have been important to the Liberal Party of Canada. A proponent that has a project that would require supertanker traffic in that area has proposed that 560 long-term jobs could be created in British Columbia. That is important because jobs are important for that coastal area.

I want to point out that 100 times that many jobs would be at risk. In B.C.'s fishing industry, 26,000 jobs would be at risk. Thirty thousand jobs in B.C.'s burgeoning ecotourism sector depend on a healthy marine environment and those jobs would be put at risk by supertanker traffic in that area.

It is not acceptable to entertain that risk. We call on the Conservative government to join with the Liberals in supporting a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic. British Columbians would support a policy like that.

I appreciated having this chance to clarify my question to which I have received such poor answers in the past.

[Child Care, September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's priorities are completely out of touch with Canadians.

Families in British Columbia are struggling with the high cost of living and day to day concerns like high tuition fees, caring for aging parents, insecure pensions and access to child care. In fact, the day care at UBC alone has over 2,000 children waiting for a space.

I ask the minister, why does the government consider G8 glow sticks and trinkets more important than the basic needs of families?

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Madam Chair, we are aware that every justification just given by the minister has already been debunked by organizations and experts, including the former chief statistician who resigned because he believed he had been misrepresented by the minister.

This costly, damaging change to the census will undermine important information required to provide services. The minister claims to be speaking for Canadians in making these changes. However, we also know that zero privacy complaints were received by Statistics Canada for its 2006 census and only three complaints were received by the privacy commission in the past decade, none of which were upheld. Therefore, there has not been consultation. There has been no record of complaints.

The minister mentioned that this was a principled decision. Is this a decision based on the Prime Minister's principle as expressed in his comment, “I make the rules”?

[Sindi Hawkins, September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, alas, Sindi Hawkins died this week. I rise to pay my respects to a friend, a colleague, and an exceptional human being. She loved and was loved by many, including her Kelowna constituents.

A former nurse turned lawyer, Sindi found her true passion in politics, becoming, in 1996, the first Punjabi woman to be elected to a legislature in all of Canada. She served British Columbians as an MLA and cabinet minister and as an inspiration.

In 2004, Sindi was diagnosed with myeloid leukemia. From that time on, through the roller coaster of cancer treatments, through the wellness and relapses, she raised awareness and blood donations. She raised millions of dollars for cancer, and she raised the spirits of those around her.

Sindi Hawkins was a warm, smart, funny, hard-working humanitarian who always supported and encouraged others, even in her own darkest times.

My deepest condolences to Sindi's family, friends, and community. Her courage and advocacy will live on in her many legacies and in our warm and loving memories.