Wayne Stetski

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 17th, 2018]

With regard to plastic pollution, waste and other debris in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas: (a) how much debris has washed ashore, broken down by Park, in the last ten years; (b) how many deaths of seabirds, marine animals and other species in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas have been attributed to plastic pollution, broken down by Park, over the last ten years; (c) what measures does the government have in place to ensure the appropriate collection of plastic pollution, waste and debris in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; (d) what measures does the government have in place to mitigate and address the potential impacts of plastic pollution, waste and other debris on seabirds, marine animals and other species in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; (e) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of plastic pollution, waste and other debris in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas, and what were the results of this analysis; (f) what measures does the government have in place to ensure the timely and coordinated removal of plastic pollution, waste and other debris in, and surrounding, Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; and (g) how often does the government review its policies and procedures regarding plastic pollution, waste and other debris in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas?

[Columbia River Treaty, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the 1964 Columbia River Treaty provided economic and flood prevention benefits, but also caused significant environmental and cultural losses.

Local communities and first nations were not consulted during the original negotiations. The people of Kootenay—Columbia believe that environmental priorities, including the restoration of salmon, must be incorporated into the renegotiation of the treaty. As mayor of Cranbrook, I helped write the report from local government on recommendations for the future of the CRT. Current negotiations must build on the important work that has already been done by local communities and ensure that first nations have a seat at the table. I urge and invite the federal government negotiators to visit our region, and really listen to those impacted so that we can get the best possible deal for British Columbians and all Canadians.

While the CRT will be 54 years old on July 1, my constituent Mary Shypitka of Cranbrook will turn 100 years old on that day. I wish Mary a happy 100th birthday.

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2018]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. When I use Norway as example, my mother's side of the family is Norwegian so I am always proud to quote what is happening there. That money reflects the past. Norwegians have collected a trillion dollars by keeping money rather than having it blown out the door in a variety of different ways. They have a great rainy-day fund that came from oil and gas.

However, Norwegians also have the future-thinking and the vision to know that is from the past and it is time to move into the future, which is why they are investing the amount they are in green energy. In fact, there is some talk about moving strictly to electrical vehicles within about 20 years or so in a number of countries around the world.

I find it disappointing that we are investing all of this money into an industry that absolutely was important to our past, but will play much less of a role in the future and, quite frankly, should play less of a role in our future.

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a real opportunity to be a world leader in green energy, rather than just following along, behind other countries like Norway and Germany where green energy is now very much a part of their everyday lives and their energy systems and their communities. In fact, when we fly over Germany, as I did a while ago, we see wind turbines everywhere, providing local power to local communities.

The choice is really whether we want to stay in the past or whether we want to move into a more positive future. Shipping our raw resources out of Canada keeps us where we have been for many years.

I look at that $4.5 billion, as do my constituents, and I think of the many different ways that $4.5 billion could have been put to much better use for a better future in green energy. Even if people are not into energy, we can look at universal pharmacare and universal day care. There are so many different ways to use that $4.5 billion other than to buy an old pipeline.

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his passion on the subject.

I am proud to rise today to speak to a motion that not only works to protect Canada's environment, but calls on the government to invest in green energy and green jobs. I have heard from many constituents in my riding, Kootenay—Columbia, on this issue. I will say up front that some of these constituents would like to see the pipeline built. They hope to see some jobs come out of this project.

Before we celebrate that, in my opinion that is not so much an indication of support for the pipeline as it is desperation to find good jobs in the construction sector. It is actually a condemnation of the lack of good jobs created by the federal government, but that is a debate for another day.

The Kinder Morgan pipeline, or pipe dream, as some are calling it, will not create the jobs they are hoping for. In fact, it is estimated that between 2,500 and 3,000 jobs will be created in the short-term construction phase. Maintaining the pipeline will employ fewer than 100 workers. That is not enough to make this project valuable to British Columbia workers, compared to the potential job loss from even one coastal oil spill. There are better ways to create jobs.

Last summer, my B.C. colleagues and I hired an economist to study the green energy economy in our province. We have not released the full report yet, but I would like to read some sections of it: “In developing an energy strategy, the first strategic focus should be on efficient buildings via green building codes and retrofit strategies. Efficient building are a low-cost option with high employment potential. Next, the focus should be on increasing the portion of renewable sources in electricity, heat, and transportation. There are feasible energy technologies across B.C. [such as] solar in the Kootenays”.

We have two examples already operating in the Kootenays. One is the 1.05-megawatt Kimberley solar mine, and the other is Nelson's solar garden. That is a great story. The Nelson power company sold the opportunity to residents to buy their own solar panels, and after purchasing the panels they got to reduce their electricity bills over time by the amount of their investment. It is a great story for everyone in the end.

According to the report, there is also lots of opportunity for run-of-river hydro power across the province, geothermal in the Lower Mainland and the interior, biomass energy production in Cariboo and Thompson-Okanagan, and wind on Vancouver Island and the north coast. The report also says that an energy strategy “should include provisions for multiple sources of energy tailored to the geography and strengths of each region.”

Let us imagine that, instead of throwing $4.5 billion at a leaky 65-year-old pipeline to support the carbon industry, and potentially $7 billion to $12 billion more at building a new pipeline, we invested that money in renewable technologies for the future. Canada could be a world leader in the green economy, rather than another follower of the time-tenured fossil fuel industry.

This is an important part of the motion we are debating today. Part (b) of the motion says, “putting workers and skills training at the heart of the transition to a clean energy economy so workers don’t have to choose between a good job and a healthy environment for themselves and their families”. Also, with local energy production, people do not have to leave home in order to make a living.

We call that a just transition. It would provide a fair plan for workers in the traditional energy sector to adapt to a new economy. There are many transferable skills between oil and gas and renewable energy occupations, as well as higher job creation potential in renewable energy streams.

It is important, no, essential, that Canada make the transition to a green economy as quickly as possible. Besides the fact that we are woefully behind in our international obligations to do our part to combat climate change, the environmental risks of completing this pipeline are tremendous. My colleagues who represent the coastal areas of B.C. have spoken very eloquently, on many occasions, about the risks to our fragile marine environment. We hear less about the problems the pipeline could present for B.C.'s interior.

The route of the Kinder Morgan pipeline passes through a national park and a B.C. provincial park. A bitumen leak in either of those places could be devastating for local wildlife, lakes and rivers, and for the people who enjoy those places we have committed to protecting.

However, we do not even need a leak to see harm to these natural areas. When construction equipment and crews move from one site to another, they commonly carry with them seeds and spores from previous sites. They can also carry harmful insects that have stowed away in heavy earth movers or other equipment. This cross-contamination from one site to another creates a very real opportunity to introduce invasive species into our parks. I am not aware of any program or system the government and its contractors plan to implement to prevent the transfer of invasive species from one site to another.

Let us return to the issue of bitumen leaks for a minute. The government and the corporations repeat the same refrain that these pipelines are built to accepted standards, and leaks cannot possibly happen. That is nonsense. Pipeline leaks can and do happen, and it is guaranteed that they will happen again.

Look at Kinder Morgan's record, for example. According to the website, The Sacred Trust, “Since the 1960s, the longest period of time the Trans Mountain Pipeline has gone without a spill is approximately four years.” On July 15, 2005, 210,000 litres of crude oil leaked. On June 4, 2007, 69,500 litres leaked. On July 24, 2007, 250,000 litres of crude oil leaked, contaminating a large portion of Burrard Inlet. On May 6, 2009, 200,000 litres leaked from Kinder Morgan's storage facility in Burnaby, B.C. On January 24, 2012, 110,000 litres of crude oil leaked in Abbotsford. On May 27, a mere two days before the government announced its poorly thought-out decision to buy the pipeline, a pumping station north of Kamloops leaked an estimated 4,800 litres of medium crude oil.

The pipeline is about as leakproof as the Titanic was unsinkable.

If the government and the company want to convince Canadians that these pipelines are safe, they should begin by improving the standards to which they are built. There should be an obligation on pipeline companies to fully pay for the cleanup of any spills, and the CEO any pipeline company should face criminal charges should leaks occur. Do that, and we will see one of two things happen. Either pipelines that do not leak will actually be built, or companies will decide that maybe the risk is greater than the reward, and they will stop doing what they are doing, including governments.

While the idea of corporate criminal liability may be new here, it has been the case in Europe for decades. Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Italy, and many others hold corporations as legal entities that may be criminally charged, and in many jurisdictions the corporate officers may be held liable.

Let me finish by quoting correspondence from my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia about the pipeline project.

Vikki in Revelstoke wrote:

Your government says this Texas oil company’s pipeline is in the national interest. We believe that having a safe climate is in our national interest, and the two are not compatible.

Do not throw our precious public money into the coffers of an oil giant, subsidizing the profits of a 19th century industry. Instead, act in the true national interest and invest in the future: a 21st century energy system, public services and clean infrastructure for all.

Stuart in Nelson wrote:

The reluctance of private enterprise to invest in this project is a clear signal that conditions have changed to make it an unwise investment. Yet you and your government continue to prop up the dying fossil fuel industry, this time with Canadian taxpayer taking the risks. This is completely unacceptable.

Lorna from Kaslo wrote:

Canada has unmet climate commitments. The fossil fuel industry is clearly changing global climate.

My hope is that Canada join other visionary countries by re-directing our investments toward renewable energy and toward reducing our energy consumption.

I agree with Vikki, Stuart, Lorna, and the many others from my riding of Kootenay—Columbia who have written to oppose the government's purchase of the pipeline, which Kinder Morgan was happy to get rid of. Canadians want jobs, but they want green jobs. They do not want to see their money wasted on another government buyout.

[Petitions, June 11th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, my second petition, with 36 signatures, is aimed at all of the G7 nations, or G6 plus one these days. They are concerned that girls and women in the world's poorest countries are being held back from realizing their full potential. They would like to close gender gaps around the world as 132 million girls do not have access to primary or secondary education. They are asking that the Government of Canada and all G7 nations invest in girls and women in the world's poorest countries.

[Petitions, June 11th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am tabling two petitions today.

The first one is e-petition 1465 signed by almost 3,000 people. Basically, these are people from my riding of Kootenay—Columbia who are concerned that when parties and politicians are running for office, they have one set of promises and, ultimately, do not deliver on all of them. Therefore, the petitioners are asking that the House of Commons develop recall legislation to hold all of us accountable for the promises we make during elections.

[The Environment, June 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is spending $4.5 billion of taxpayer money, our money, to buy a 65-year-old leaky pipeline. Many Canadians do not realize that the pipeline runs through Jasper National Park and B.C.'s Mount Robson Provincial Park. The government claims it will prioritize ecological integrity, but environmental leaders do not ram new pipelines through national and provincial parks.

Can the minister explain how buying and expanding a pipeline will protect the ecological integrity of Jasper National Park?

[Fisheries Act, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to complete the B.C. roster this evening.

I used to be the regional manager for southeastern British Columbia in the Ministry of Environment. When I first became regional manager, there were four federal fisheries officers working in southeastern B.C. The plan was to have 12, six biologists and six enforcement officers, but by the time the Harper Conservative government was done, there were zero fisheries employees of any kind in the southern interior.

I would like to ask my colleague whether he is hopeful that, along with this bill, new resources will be coming to British Columbia to better manage our fish in the interior as well.

[Indigenous Affairs, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the government has begun negotiations with the United States on the future of the 54-year-old Columbia River Treaty. During the original negotiations, more than 2,000 people were forced to relocate as rich farmland and valuable riparian areas were sacrificed, and indigenous people did not have their voices heard at all.

Now it is 2018, and despite the government's promises for a new relationship with first nations, they are not being offered a seat at the table. Will the government take immediate action to ensure that first nations are at the table for the renegotiation of the Columbia River Treaty?