Marc Garneau

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, June 18th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, may I correct a couple of things there? According to a 2018 analysis by the National Bank, 44% of Quebec's oil is sourced from western Canada, with another 37% from the United States. Only 19% comes from overseas, with the largest chunk, 11%, coming from Algeria not from Saudi Arabia. In light of these facts, would the opposition member like to take this opportunity to thank Quebeckers for helping sustain the oil patch in the west through this difficult period caused by a drop in world prices of crude oil?

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, June 18th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the question. As we all know, my dear colleagues in the NDP have never understood the fact that we take an approach that is balanced between moving forward with the economy, but also taking a very responsible attitude with respect to the environment.

Having said that, I want to thank NDP members who, in May 2018, voted in favour of the moratorium of Bill C-48. I want to also point out one particular member, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who has been absolutely fantastic with respect to mobilizing all the support necessary for us to pass this bill. I thank him for that.

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, June 18th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We certainly did think and reflect carefully on this bill for quite some time. As members know, when the bill went to the other place, the Conservative-led Senate committee tried to kill this bill. We could talk about that for a very long time.

I would like to thank the independent senators on the Senate committee and all the senators who voted to keep this bill alive, because it was one of our campaign promises in 2015. Some senators came back to us with a very thoughtful amendment in an attempt to seek a compromise. We accept a large part of the amendment, which we will send back to the Senate. We hope it will accept it. The main point is that we agree to the proposal for a parliamentary review of the bill five years after it is adopted.

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, June 18th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the suggestion that we are punishing Alberta is absolutely absurd. If my colleague was watching television earlier today, he may have heard our decision to support going forward with the TMX.

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, June 18th, 2019]

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.

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, June 18th, 2019]

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.

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, June 18th, 2019]

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.

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, June 18th, 2019]

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.

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, June 18th, 2019]

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.

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, June 18th, 2019]

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 2015, and again in September 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.