Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 8 - Evidence, November 2, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 2, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 6:45 p.m. to study the development of a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil to eastern Canadian refineries and to ports on the East and West coasts of Canada.
Senator Michael L. MacDonald (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, this evening the committee is continuing its study on the development of a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil to Eastern Canadian refineries and to ports on the East and West Coasts of Canada.
Appearing by video conference we have four witnesses from Saint John, New Brunswick, who could not be heard during our eastern trip due to the tight schedule of the committee. We are pleased to have them with us today.
I would like to welcome our first two witnesses, Mr. Gordon Dalzell, Chairperson of the Citizens Coalition for Clean Air; and Ms. Lynaya Astephen, representative of the Red Head Anthony's Cove Preservation Association. I now invite them to make their presentation. Each witness has been asked to make a five-minute opening statement. Afterwards, honourable senators will have questions.
Go ahead, please.
Gordon Dalzell, Chairperson, Citizens Coalition for Clean Air: Good evening, senators. Thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation and be available to you, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
My name is Gordon Dalzell. I'm the Chairperson of the Citizens Coalition for Clean Air, as well as a local clean air advocate. This small, not-for-profit environmental public interest group was established in 1995. Our advocacy efforts over the years have been responsible and well respected in the community. We are a registered member of the New Brunswick Environmental Network. The efforts of this group have resulted in a lot of hard work over the years to try to improve the air quality in our city and region with special attention to the Saint John area, where TransCanada proposed to build, along with the marine terminal that will be operated by Irving Oil, a crude oil storage terminal for 13 million barrels of crude oil, with 22 tanks eight storeys tall.
To say that we are gravely concerned about the impact of this tank farm and marine terminal is a given. Our ultimate goal is to protect the health and the citizens of Saint John from the adverse impact of air pollution.
I'm of the view that this massive crude oil storage terminal will be a threat to the air quality we breathe in Saint John, specifically the air toxins — VOCs, benzene and hydrogen sulphate — along with other existing industrial sources that are within approximately a six-kilometre range of this proposed terminal.
I should point out that our environmental public interest group was accepted as an intervener on the National Energy Board review process, currently suspended. We were approved for participant funding to hire experts to assist us in our intervention efforts.
I realize your committee is not the Environment Committee, so I will not elaborate and dwell on all the problems and adverse effects of this pipeline, particularly the tank farm and marine terminal, with the additional shipping traffic it will have on the environment in our area.
In the interests of saving time, I will refer you to the National Energy Board transcripts of our presentation and issues that were raised during that format. Other presenters tonight will no doubt address some of these issues.
In summary, our interventions to the National Energy Board focused on four areas of concern. They addressed, one, the potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the project that will result in a change of the atmospheric environment, such as changes to air quality, as well as increased greenhouse gas emissions as a result of this pipeline infrastructure; two, those sections in the TransCanada pipeline application that deal with the design and operation of the project, particularly this tank farm and marine terminal that the applicant has designed, and what we believe are inadequate mitigation measures; three, those elements of this pipeline, especially the tank farm, that deal with accidents and malfunctions, as well as emergency preparedness issues; and, finally, the sections of the TransCanada-Irving application that address the impacts of this project on the citizens of Saint John who are and will be more directly affected, who live close by to the proposed tank farm.
I wish to briefly respond to the area of interest and mandate of your committee, which is, from my understanding in the materials, to develop a strategy to facilitate transport of crude oil to Eastern Canadian refineries and to the ports on the East and West Coasts. It is understood that your committee will also examine how to broadly shape the risks and benefits of transporting this resource throughout the country.
I see in the background materials made available to us from the committee that you obviously will have questions — I had a chance to review them — around the various aspects of such a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil. I would be prepared to respond to such. I have some very specific recommendations, but I don't want to take up my presentation time at this moment to get into the details. I hope within the hour I will be able to do so.
One of the objectives you have is to improve public confidence in the pipeline process and how the federal government could facilitate social licence for crude oil transportation infrastructure projects such as these pipelines. I should point out at the beginning that our environmental group, along with the others here tonight, who have all been publicly active and engaged in the proposed Energy East pipeline, were not on your original list of stakeholders invited to present at your public hearings in Saint John on October 19. We had not been given an invitation to present to you at that time. In fact, I was surprised to learn from a phone call from another community member that your committee was to commence the hearings in Saint John on October 19. I was shocked to learn that there was no public notice in the local newspaper that such a Senate hearing was being hosted, especially in this area where there's so much interest in the pipeline.
I immediately called the local CBC outlet, and the reporter was unaware of the hearing and said he would get right on it. Similar to the CTV representative the next day who covered the hearing, she was unaware of it in advance. In fact, these environmental community resident groups who live right beside the proposed crude oil storage tank farm were not originally notified or invited to present.
In my view, serious oversight considering the Energy East pipeline project is one of the largest environmental issues in New Brunswick and the surrounding community, including the Bay of Fundy. Not extending an invitation to these representatives of the local area we believe was problematic. When you look at how to improve public confidence in the pipeline review process, we feel the process that unfolded was not consistent with that.
As pointed out by one of our members at the October 19 hearing, your committee is not the Environment Committee. I recognize your mandate is not just the environment, but you cannot separate social licence from the community's concern of non-environmental impacts of transporting crude oil across the country, whether it be by rail or pipeline.
In respect to public confidence, on September 21, 2016, your committee was given a presentation by Peter Watson, Chair and CEO of the National Energy Board. He stressed the importance of not showing bias in any consultations. I submit that the foundation and the basis of this hearing and the whole mandate predispose a focus toward the infrastructure of pipelines or other ways to transport crude oil.
The other thing I want to say before I move on, in terms of the timing of this committee's work, I have to say that in light of the fact that the National Energy Board has currently commenced its hearings and the public review, I found that holding this committee's hearing at the same time was problematic. It might undermine or confuse the public's mind about what type of hearing it is. The federal regulatory review process is in place, although it's suspended at this point. This could further deflect and put the focus on the established legislative mandate of the National Energy Board with its responsibilities. That's the main legislative structure and review process that's in place. To have this at the same time might have been problematic in terms of confusing people.
I don't want to go on much further because I don't want to take up all my time, but I do have some very specific ideas that I hope the committee would welcome on a constructive basis to explain how public confidence can be improved. Perhaps I should stop at this point and be allowed to make those at some point, but I don't want to take any further time away from my associate friend.
I will stop now, unless you can allow me another five minutes to go through some very specific, concrete ideas concerning how to improve public confidence.
The Deputy Chair: If we have time later on we will, but right now we would like to go to the other presenter. Thank you.
Mr. Dalzell: Thank you.
Lynaya Astephen, Red Head Anthony's Cove Preservation Association: Hello, my name is Lynaya Astephen. Thank you for letting me speak this evening. I am the spokesperson for the Red Head Anthony's Cove Preservation Association. We represent landowners who live at the very end of Energy East in Saint John.
Many in our association are intervenors with the National Energy Board, including myself. We have already participated in the National Energy Board's panel sessions until they were discontinued due to a conflict of interest with the panel members and CEO Peter Watson because of the Jean Charest affair.
I will give you some brief information on some of our concerns. Then I'm going to address the questions outlined from the Senate committee. Lastly, after I speak about our concerns and address the questions, I have questions for this committee that I would respectfully like answered as well.
Our group formed after many of us met in a public meeting at a local church. We found many common concerns and realized that we haven't gotten a lot of answers. We are the unwilling host community of Energy East. We adore our peaceful ocean-side community on the Bay of Fundy, and we want to preserve our quality of life. We are the spot where TransCanada wants to build its proposed tank farm and export terminal, literally in our backyards, next to our wells and sewage tanks. I would see 22 tanks across the street from my home.
Anthony's Cove residents have but one way in and out of the road. There is no alternative exit for us in case of an emergency. Residents are wondering if they need to keep a rowboat handy as there is no emergency plan.
We will be forced to endure construction, which includes blasting, traffic, noise, lights, basically a total disruption of our lives from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. six days a week for a very long time. Work camps are in the plans for our area as well.
The same area that the export terminal is supposed to be built is a prime fishing area. Some of those fishermen are our neighbours. We worry about damage to our foundations, property value and the use of the approved Corexit chemical, additional air pollution, smells, and loss of natural beauty to the area. Currently it's a beautiful coastal area with lots of beaches. These are just some of the issues we are concerned about.
I'll begin with the first question. How will the federal government facilitate social licence for crude oil transportation infrastructure projects such as pipelines? This question assumes there is a need for pipelines. This assumption is false. A new report from Oil Change International speaks about the need for new infrastructure. Cappmath.ca is a great resource. There's actually another one. I didn't have time to write it down, but it's written by Jeff Rubin called The Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels in Canada. It came out a few days ago.
However, what the federal government can help facilitate are things like an electrical grid, transitioning to a low-carbon economy, creating work for young people instead of precarious jobs, and retraining, especially oil and gas workers, since we don't want anyone left behind.
To answer the question on social licence, to quote our Prime Minister, "Governments may be able to issue permits, but only communities can grant permission.'' And we don't, as do many indigenous First Nations communities and many communities such as Quebec and more recently the City of Gatineau.
Here in New Brunswick, the City of Edmundston opposes the project because it goes directly through their drinking water. There is no social licence for this project.
Our group is very opposed to our tax dollars being spent on this tour, and we're very concerned that we weren't told this was happening. We weren't invited. It was more proponents, unfortunately, who were invited to this. I learned from friends in Quebec that they weren't invited either. They were given no information.
I came across copies of Pumping Prosperity, and another one, Why Energy East Matters, by my local senator. I became very concerned when I saw these documents because they looked like something that TransCanada would have written, or perhaps a new CAPP ad. I'm concerned that oil and gas lobbyists may have gotten to the Senate, and I would hope that you would remain unbiased.
The next question is how to improve public confidence in the pipeline review process. The NEB needs to be updated to not be biased toward fossil fuel projects. There should be no more conflict of interest. There should be no temporary board members, and they should not be former politicians, such as one being proposed in New Brunswick.
Keep lobbyists out of the equation. Use real science. All interveners should be approved. We have two people in our community that are still not approved. They have never been approved.
Start over at square one, meaning that all panel sessions are to be null and void. Review all decisions that were previously settled on with new eyes. The new CEO shouldn't speak in front of pro-pipeline groups as Peter Watson did to a paid audience at the Chamber of Commerce in Saint John.
The third question is how to facilitate the involvement of indigenous peoples in decisions related to crude oil transport. I am not indigenous, but I do hope this government implements UNDRIP, as First Nations communities should have a right to say they do not consent to this.
I do fully support all First Nations communities who are protecting water and lands. Energy East goes through nearly 3,000 waterways and endangers the drinking water of 5 million Canadians. It is obvious that water is life.
The oil sands have been killing communities like Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, with rare forms of cancer in those who live downstream. I want this to stop. This is a modern form of genocide.
Question number four is: If a national strategy is needed, what are the key elements? See the answer to question number one: It is not needed but we need to plan a transition away from fossil fuels as soon as possible in order to meet our climate change commitments signed at COP21, with the rest of the world. Countries are literally depending on us to not drown them. It's a moral thing to do. As Pope Francis says, ". . . it is for the common good of all.'' We must transition away from fossil fuels and stop building more infrastructure to facilitate the expansion of the Alberta oil sands.
I hope you don't mind, but I have a few questions. I know this is not in your scripts, but I would like the standing committee to tell me why interveners and groups in Quebec were not informed about your tour and why they weren't invited. The same goes for other jurisdictions besides Saint John and Quebec.
Are you aware that TransCanada has refused to have open town hall meetings with us? At each tour spot, do you give TransCanada's representative a chance to speak?
TransCanada has a community liaison group that meets with a very small number of people. Are you aware they do not allow observers?
The previous Conservative government passed omnibus bills C-38 and C-45. Is it the intention of the Senate to help repeal these bills to repair the damage to the NEB process and to our environmental regulations?
Are you aware that NAFTA has a proportionality clause saying we must export to the U.S.A.?
Do all members of the standing committee believe in human-caused climate change?
In closing, our association organized a march in May of 2015 in opposition to Energy East. We had more than 700 people from across Canada and Maine there, and indigenous community members took part in ceremonies on our community shorelines.
This government thinks pipelines are compatible with fighting climate change, but they are not, and that land owners must share the brunt of the expansion of the oil sands. We don't want to comply with this. These meetings should never have taken place outside of the NEB. More pipelines means going in reverse on the climate action we need. Also, it's not a matter of if pipelines will leak, but when. We cannot afford the risk.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Before going to questions, I want to clarify a few things that were raised by our guests. This is the Standing Senate Committee of Transportation and Communications. We are a committee of Parliament. Any decision we make to study any matter is not subject to the studies of any other independent board. As a committee of Parliament, we have the authority and the will to study any matter we wish to study.
You seem to be concerned about process. I think it's important to clarify that we are not the National Energy Board. If you want to make a representation to the National Energy Board, you have all the authority and the ability to do so, and we encourage you to do so.
You have a number of questions and some of the senators may like to refer to them and speak to them. They are certainly free to do so, but what we will do is start off with questions.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much for your presentations and expressing your concerns about your communities.
Mr. Dalzell, tell us your recommendations that you wanted to tell us before.
Mr. Dalzell: We did make a number of recommendations with respect to the National Energy Board. As you know, there are fundamental aspects of the National Energy Board. It's a quasi-legal proceeding. People come forward, produce evidence and are under oath. Many elements are very important and valuable, but parts of it need to be improved.
For example, if you look in New Brunswick, it has, under the Clean Environment Act, an EIA regulation. It's interesting to note that New Brunswick, like some of the other provinces, has opted out of doing its own provincial EIA. New Brunswick does not have any formal agreement with the National Energy Board not to do this. Now, this is most unfortunate because when you look at the Clean Environment Act and the EIA in New Brunswick, some elements of it are very valuable and could help improve public confidence in the process.
I'll draw your attention to one major project here in New Brunswick with the Sisson mine. It had what they call a comprehensive study under the provincial EIA. In there, an independent panel of experts was authorized to look at the public interest. They were there to assist the public in these very complex projects. General public meetings here held. There were some really good elements, I think, in the New Brunswick environmental impact assessment regulation.
Now, with the National Energy Board, it's a very formal proceeding, of course, and not everybody is comfortable or has the opportunity or the expertise to participate in it. Although I do value the National Energy Board process, I do see that it needs to be enhanced to make it more user-friendly and easier for the public.
In terms of other ways to enhance public confidence, TransCanada Pipeline has done a poor job over the last few years in terms of getting the public to participate and helping them to understand this project. I'll give you an example. They insist, despite our recommendations not to do so, on having what they call these traditional open houses. These are very common with this proponent. The open house, for some people, is terrific. It's a one-on-one opportunity for the public to have their questions answered, and that's fine. However, they could expand these open houses by having a general meeting where the public could ask questions, the media would be there and it would be documented with minutes kept. In fact, they could be broadcast by the local community cable TV channels.
If that had been done, they would have reached thousands and thousands more people over the last few years in these communities across Canada. Yes, they are challenging and problematic to manage, but they can be done and it would have been a really nice model to have created. But they didn't do it; they wouldn't listen.
About 12 years ago, I identified the need for community liaison committees, and I'm glad to see that quite a few of them have been established in our local area. This one here has been restrictive. Observers are not allowed to come and it's not televised. They do keep minutes, but you have to write to TransCanada to get a copy.
I think a lot more could be done to enhance and to invite other interested parties. I should, for the record, say that we're glad to see that TransCanada has recently offered new invitations to new community members in the neighbourhood over the last week. That's good. However, they should have extended the invitation to some of the other interested environmental stakeholders and other community members.
It's not the federal government's responsibility to facilitate social licence. We believe it's their responsibility to make sure there are proper legislative acts and regulations to enhance and protect the public interest. Unfortunately, in the previous government, some of these very important pieces of environmental regulations and legislation were diminished and devalued by taking out important ingredients. We would recommend that the Senate committee put in their report an all-out effort to bring back these important legislative environmental regulations under the Fisheries Act, navigational waters act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act, among others.
I think that's the role of government. We cannot expect social licence to just be generated or created by the federal government. It has to come from the community.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you.
Ms. Astephen, I'm not familiar with your community of Red Head. I was not on the eastern trip when the hearings were held. I don't have a visual understanding of your community. I want to get some idea about what infrastructure for the oil industry is there now. How has that worked? You're talking about 22 storage tanks and in a marine terminal. Are these additions to what you already have in your community?
Ms. Astephen: That is correct. Currently in the Red Head area on the east side of Saint John, there is an LNG terminal there. It has tanks and an area for shipping. There is a refinery, of course, one of Canada's largest, the Irving Oil refinery.
I want to mention that in the application TransCanada submitted for Energy East, there is no lateral pipeline going from the tank farm to the refinery. There is no refining that is going to be happening at the Irving refinery.
You can see the lateral pipelines for Quebec, but not in this application for Irving Oil. I want to point that out to everyone on the Senate committee.
Senator Eggleton: The idea is that what comes in the pipeline would go directly to the marine terminal to be put in storage tanks and then out to the marine terminal for export?
Ms. Astephen: That is correct.
Senator Eggleton: You have that infrastructure now, but this is going to increase it substantially, and you think it creates an additional threat to the community.
Ms. Astephen: Absolutely. The nearest home, I believe it's 230 feet — maybe it's metres, I'm not sure, but it's extremely close. It's basically in people's backyards. Everyone is on wells there.
Right now, the area where they want to put the proposed tanks is a beautiful field and forest with trails, brooks and streams that go to the Bay of Fundy. My neighbours fish there. Right next to the LNG terminal is a fishing wharf. There are about 75 people that fish off the Saint John Harbour.
Unfortunately, TransCanada omitted a large part of that fishing community in their application, which was spoken about at the NEB by the Fundy North Fishermen's Association.
Senator Eggleton: These problems you are concerned about for the new infrastructure, the storage terminal and the marine terminal, have you had difficulties with what is there now? Have there been any spills, damage or threat to residents or the ecosystems from the infrastructure you already have? Have you had any incidents?
Ms. Astephen: With the current LNG, there are numerous smells. Our neighbours have been calling. They have been keeping documentation on that. We're concerned that in the future, with a tank farm right next to the LNG terminal, how are we going to know the difference of where these smells and accidents are coming from?
Unfortunately, our media is owned by the Irving family, so a lot of things don't go in the news, I'm afraid.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much for your answers.
Senator Unger: Thank you to both of our witnesses for their presentations. We appreciate hearing from those who are close to this project.
It's clear that you fear the personal impact this may have on you, your property and your community, which is very understandable, considering that the impact of a project like Energy East is not borne by all Canadians.
I appreciate that you want to see fossil fuels phased out, but the global demand for energy is only expected to increase. Right now, a lot of oil for the East Coast is being brought in from countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, countries that have bad human rights records.
Failing to approve pipelines doesn't diminish global demand. Rather, it causes importing countries to source their crude oil requirements from other countries. Are you aware that because of inadequate pipeline capacity, Canada is forced to import oil from other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela? Does that concern you?
Ms. Astephen: Recently Gordon Laxer, the author of After the Sands, was in Saint John. I have read his book. What needs to happen is the proportionality clause of NAFTA needs to be cancelled. That's why we are importing oil from other countries. Also, the heads of Irving Oil said even if Energy East is built, they are unable to refine it, and they will continue importing oil from other countries.
The global demand of fossil fuels will only diminish in the future because we have to do that in order to meet our climate change targets.
Mr. Dalzell: I think we are all aware that 122 countries made the Paris agreement on climate change. There is a significant worldwide recognition that we have to move away from fossil fuels to alternatives. The whole world recognizes the impact of climate change.
We are in this difficult transition period, there is no question about it, but the world is moving toward alternative use of fossil fuels. And, yes, the point you made about this material being imported is there. We do see the ships out in the Bay of Fundy that Irving Oil brings in. We also see the big trains coming in. They are big 100-unit trains that bring product in from Minnesota or from Idaho and the shale gas.
We have to recognize that this has been the history, the past. I think Canadians are 100 per cent behind this, recognizing that we really have to move forward to alternatives, and we're going to do everything we can, including objecting to infrastructure that will perpetuate and continue the development of these massive oil-based crude oil, climate change sources.
Granted, it is a difficult period for Alberta and that industry, but there are alternatives. There are ways and means we can move forward. Building this pipeline is not one of them, in my view.
I want to make information available to the committee. I would urge the committee to take a look at the 2014 air quality report published by the Department of the Environment. On page 15, you'll see that the benzene levels in east Saint John are elevated well above the Ontario standard. This terminal is approximately six kilometres from some of the biggest sources of benzene and VOCs in Canada. We are breathing these VOCs and benzenes in east Saint John.
I would ask the committee if you could incorporate and review the monitoring results for Saint John. I think it would help you to appreciate why we're so worried about these VOCs and benzene.
Thank you.
Senator Runciman: Following up on Senator Unger's initial comments, your primary concern, I think, is the tank farm and the marine terminal and being placed in a vulnerable area. I think we can all appreciate that.
You talk about benzene levels as well. Those are separate issues that I think can be separated from the pipeline itself in the sense that those concerns can be addressed through other means, for example, through changes in regulations and environmental laws. You're going beyond that. In terms of the Citizen's Coalition for Clean Air, you have more or less reiterated that here today. Your organization really wants to see the oil stay in the ground. Is that a correct interpretation of your position?
Mr. Dalzell: Yes, that would be a correct interpretation.
Senator Runciman: You talked about consultation, and during this process we've heard about social licence as well and consultation. We're talking about a pipeline and essentially consultation. You can criticize the committee for what you see as its failings in terms of consultation, but your view is set in any event; you want the oil to stay in the ground. And we're listening to your views on that, but I wonder if there is an appreciation within your organization and amongst others that in the West this is viewed as a national unity issue. I don't think there is any question about that.
If you look at something like equalization and Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, in year 2014-15, New Brunswick received equalization of $1.7 billion. That's $2,200 per person in New Brunswick. Much of that comes from Alberta and revenue generated by the industry that you're essentially condemning. Hopefully you can understand the frustration of a great many Canadians in Western Canada with what is essentially your reliance on Western prosperity while at the same time condemning the source of that prosperity.
From my perspective, perhaps the focus should be on if the pipeline goes ahead — I personally support the pipeline — we can help you in any way, shape or form to address the issues surrounding the tank farm, the marine terminal, benzene levels in Saint John and those kinds of issues. I have no difficulty with that. But to simply say "keep the oil in the ground,'' that's not for the benefit of Canadians. I think it encourages a lot of anger in Western Canada and other parts of this country, and it's very short-sighted.
Mr. Dalzell: Could I respond to that, senator?
Senator Runciman: Absolutely.
Mr. Dalzell: You have to look at it this way: Other forms of prosperity are emerging that are going to be much more dominant and much more important as we —
Senator Runciman: Using Ontario as an example?
Mr. Dalzell: Well, we're looking at all development. I think the Government is Canada is getting ready to make some big, massive announcements on various projects of energy efficiency, with renewable development.
Yes, this is a difficult time. I recognize what you're saying, senator, but even Alberta is making that kind of transition and making that effort.
The Government of Canada is about to launch the types of changes that will see far more prosperity when you look at the number of jobs being created. Look at Sweden and some of these European countries. Economic development has been very impressive with the industrial development of renewable energy sources, with retrofitting buildings, et cetera.
I hear what you're saying in terms of yes, we need prosperity for equalization and for us to be able to go to the doctor and get medicare. I hear what you're saying. But in the future, in the next number of years, we are going to see that transition. And we will see more prosperity.
The old prosperity days are over in terms of the oil and gas. We are now moving forward as a society in the world, and I think we're going to see great benefits economically on jobs and development.
I know it's hard right now because we're just at the cusp of really pushing this forward. But when you look at TransCanada Pipeline, even they recognize this because they have some of the biggest wind farms and renewable portfolios in North America. For example, I was really surprised to learn that Newfoundland Power owns a massive solar panel development in Arizona.
We are moving and prosperity will come with the development of these resources, not the traditional fossil fuel, old guard type of industries.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Are there any more questions from the committee? I would like to thank Mr. Dalzell and Ms. Astephen for their participation today.
Honourable senators, I am pleased to introduce our next two witnesses: Mr. David H. Thompson, Acting Chairperson of Friends of Musquash Inc.; and Dr. Paula Tippett, appearing as an individual.
Thank you for attending the meeting. Please begin your presentations, and afterwards the senators will have questions for you.
Paula Tippett, as an individual: Good evening. I am a retired family doctor from Saint John who attended the Senate committee hearing in Saint John.
First, I'd like to say that the lady sitting next to me in the audience at the hearing in Saint John asked me to tell you that she's concerned that the pipeline proposed for our area has only 40 shut-off valves on it, and it needs more than that to be safe. An Albertan living on a river near a recent pipeline spill recommends that pipelines have shut-off valves at every river crossing that engages automatically when there's a drop in pressure. With the recent history of a serious pipeline spill in Canada — the 250,000-litre pipeline spill that contaminated the North Saskatchewan River and forced the shutdown of water treatment plants in Prince Albert, Melfort and North Battleford — and in view of the drinking water supply for millions of Canadians who could be at risk from the proposed Energy East pipeline, this would be an essential precautionary measure that you should advocate for.
Many of us are concerned about the adverse effects of our worsening climate change. A poll done last year showed that over 80 per cent of Maritimers are anxious for government investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy to create jobs now.
I'm upset that tax money is instead going toward a Senate committee study on the development of a strategy to facilitate crude oil transport to ports on the East and West Coasts of Canada. A year has passed since our Prime Minister promised to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and help stop the global temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. Facilitating the transport of crude oil to ports on our coast would result in increasing, not reducing, climate change.
We all speak from our own body of knowledge. As a family doctor, I've read the medical research that shows that reducing fossil fuel use and substituting clean renewables will improve our health and life expectancy and reduce our health care costs. As long ago as when Jimmy Carter was President of the United States, we already knew that fossil fuel-associated air pollution caused asthma attacks, angina and heart attacks. Today we can even predict the number of extra deaths that will occur from a small increase in fine particulates in the air, and also predict the reduction in deaths from reducing fossil fuel-related fine particulate air pollution. We cannot afford the additional air pollution and adverse health consequences that would result if the Energy East pipeline tank farm and terminal came to Saint John.
I can understand why Conservative senators would want to push the Liberal government into approving unpopular pipelines and why Liberal Senator Mercer had to say, "How much political capital do we want to spend here?'' I would advise him to choose instead to go where the public is leading, to renewable energy and green jobs, instead of dirty oil pipelines that will prevent us from meeting our commitments to the world.
In response to the questions you were going to ask, facilitating social licence for pipelines, the federal government should not attempt this. These pipelines are not in the public interest as they facilitate climate change, which is a threat to the public interest.
To improve public confidence in the pipeline review process, the process must start with an unbiased National Energy Board; a scope that includes upstream and downstream climate change emissions; a more rigorous and unbiased scientific study of the risks of pipelines and the consequences of leaks, spills, fires and other accidents; a serious analysis of the capacity of the current emergency response system; and a correction of the existing inadequacies before any attempt is made to construct any more pipelines. Oversight and control of existing pipelines and oil spill response in this country must be greatly improved before the public could have confidence in the National Energy Board approving new pipelines.
As well, the mandate of the National Energy Board must be changed to remove the cheerleading pipeline promotion function before the public could develop confidence that the National Energy Board is unbiased.
I believe that the government, in response to question 3, must respect Aboriginal rights and treaties and the provisions in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Many Canadians, I'm sure, share the Aboriginal belief in protecting the natural world, the land, the water and the air for all people. The Government of Canada should protect Canada's land, water and air to make it safe for all of us.
The first element for a national strategy, I feel, is to set aside the portion of our fossil fuel energy resources that are needed for our own use so that we have energy security and substitute renewables as soon as possible.
A second part of the strategy would be to access and process only the cleanest fuel that requires the least amount of input to access and that produces the least amount of greenhouse gases. The senators who came to Saint John talked about how decisions on the pipeline have to be based on science. The scientists of the world have told us that almost all the tar sands oil, fracked oil and gas, and Arctic oil and gas must be left in the ground to avoid runaway climate change, and this needs to be our national strategy.
Remove incentives and subsidies for searching for and processing fossil fuels. We could shift incentives and subsidies to citizens for using clean renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels.
With regard to risks and benefits, we should avoid risks, not spread them around the country. Benefits can come from ensuring everyone has access to the clean renewable energy resources that are available in all parts of this country.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Thompson.
David H. Thompson, Acting Chairperson, Friends of Musquash Inc.: I am pleased to present this evening.
I want to mention that we were very concerned when the Senate committee came to Saint John because there was no notification to any of the community. I'm sure that many were interested in coming and observing that hearing. It was called a public hearing, and yet the public was not told about it. We didn't see any ads in the newspaper, and when someone called the local CBC Radio, they didn't even know about it. A few of us found out about it a few hours before the hearing and somehow managed to get there. I really hope this doesn't happen again anywhere in Canada, and particularly in communities that are faced with very large controversial projects, like Energy East here, and Saint John at the present time.
I'm here today representing Friends of Musquash Inc. Friends of Musquash is incorporated in New Brunswick, a non-profit organization. We are the guardians and the people who people watch. We also participate in the advisory groups on the Musquash Estuary Marine Protected Area, which is located about 12 miles from the proposed export terminal for TransCanada at Red Head.
The Musquash Estuary Marine Protected Area is one of only three marine protected areas in Eastern Canada. It's an estuary that is basically undeveloped, which is rare in Southern Canada and the Atlantic Coast at the current time. It's about 8 miles long and 3 miles wide.
There are two other marine protected areas in Atlantic Canada. There's a small tidal pond of a few acres on P.E.I., and the other one is a couple of hundred miles offshore in Nova Scotia, at the Sable Gully. But this is the only one along the shore and near commercial fishing communities and which has these kinds of tides and unique conditions in the Bay of Fundy. It also contains the largest intact salt marsh in the Bay of Fundy, which is very crucial to providing nutrients to the bay that provide life for everything above them in the bay, from the commercial fisheries to the whales.
We're very concerned about this Energy East pipeline project, particularly because it's bringing in bitumen. Most of the material that will be brought in there for shipment out will not be the regular oil that we see going through the bay or through pipelines; it will be bitumen. Bitumen has a characteristic of not floating on the water but mixing in the water column and sinking to the bottom if there's a spill. So we're very concerned that if there are spills in the future from the terminal or from the tankers in the bay, through accidents, leaks or other problems, that it will be very difficult to clean up — maybe impossible.
There hasn't been much of this transportation of bitumen in marine waters, so there isn't much experience with it. However, there have been some leaks in inland waters and fresh waters, particularly the one that is best known in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan that leaked from, I believe, an Enbridge pipeline. It was very difficult to clean up, and it hasn't been completely cleaned up. The Kalamazoo is a small, shallow river. In the Bay of Fundy, we're looking at 200-foot depths, strong currents, vertical mixing and different salinities, which will lead to different rates of floating and sinking at different times of the year.
Near Saint John, there's a very large river, one of the largest in Canada, that drains all of New Brunswick and some of Quebec and Maine. When that's running in the spring, the conditions in the Bay of Fundy are much different than the salinity conditions that provide more floatation during the summer and fall.
It's just a very hostile environment to work in. The proposed terminal is not within the inner port in Saint John. It's out at Red Head and open to the Bay of Fundy and ocean waves at that location. If there are spills, at many times of the year you would not be able to track the spills because the Bay of Fundy is filled with fog. Cameras and such things as helicopters, therefore, would provide no real visibility to do anything.
You have these really harsh conditions. You have conditions where oil spills, which have happened before at Canaport, were born as much as 50 miles away before they came ashore, or have been born away in a matter of an hour or two when there are strong currents — as much as 10 miles from the site. We almost had one that went in the Musquash a number of years ago. It was only averted because of a change in the wind and weather at daylight in the morning. In fact, some of it did touch the outer rocky areas at the mouth of the Musquash area, but then at daylight on a winter morning, when it was sub-zero, the wind came off the land and blew it out into the middle of the bay. So we escaped that one.
That's our major concern.
Also, we know about the Bay of Fundy. Most of the people in Friends of Musquash were instrumental in getting that marine area put in place. They worked very hard to make that happen. There are people involved with fishermen's groups, community organizations and environmental groups. Without their work, the Musquash estuary wouldn't be there today. If it had been left to government, they would still be dilly-dallying on it. It's been in place for a number of years.
We want to keep it the way it is, and we want to protect the rest of the Bay of Fundy. We don't need bitumen in the Bay of Fundy. It's just a matter of fact that it's a very hostile environment. This stuff is subject to not floating and it's much more difficult to clean up than the normal kinds of oil that come into the Bay of Fundy, even some of the heavier ones.
Beyond that, on the matter of social licence, I think that it's a matter of communities deciding across the country whether they want or do not want the facilities — the pipeline or the terminals. It's not a matter for government to promote these or encourage them one way or the other, nor do I believe it's a role of the Senate to do that, or of any of the senators, at least not until such time as these hearings are completed.
I haven't seen a tribunal before or people going around holding hearings who make these kind of statements in favour or against a project at the time that the hearings are going on. I'm quite shocked by this. Although I may be naive, and correct me if I am, but it seems to me that the purpose of hearings and consultations being carried out in respect to some development or activity is to gather information, like you're doing from us tonight, from people who have information, informed opinions or scientific information to give. Then when the inquiry is done, it's for hearing members to sit down and examine that material and then make decisions about your report and your recommendations.
I'm pretty disgusted by this, really, and I think a lot of other people would be, too, if they heard some of the things that were said.
Going beyond that, I do hope there's some change from the matters I just explained. I hope you people really diligently think about it.
With respect to the increased use of the tar sands, this bitumen and transporting it across the country over hundreds or thousands of waterways, is this really what we need to be doing?
People talk about petroleum use and petroleum growth. The use of it will only grow if people want it to. In a lot of places, it's not growing. Every year, each new building that goes up now is more energy efficient, so it doesn't use the amount of energy that the old building did. When a fleet of cars go on the road, every year the automobiles are easier on fuel than the former fleet of automobiles. In the marine world, which I'm familiar with, having operated boats for most of my life and worked in the marine environment, they are much more efficient than they used to be.
Many things are happening. A lot of transportation that was formerly by tractor-trailer — and we see it right here in the Port of Saint John — now go by rail, which is much more energy efficient. There are also a lot of renewable energy projects, particularly in Europe and the U.S. coming into place, but some also in Canada. Hopefully, there will be more. So it seems like what's going to happen in the future is that there will be less need for petroleum energy.
We have never had any shortages here. I heard people tonight talk about oil coming in from other countries — some of them not too democratic — being imported here, but most of the oil that's been coming into the Irving oil refinery for the last few years has been coming from the Gulf of Mexico. It's American oil, some Mexican oil and some Canadian oil shipped down there by pipeline.
A lot of the oil coming into the Irving oil refinery — probably more that's coming in from despotic countries — is coming in from the Canadian offshore, from Hibernia and the other wells off Newfoundland. We look out into the bay here and see the tankers. So this boogeyman threat that's being put out about getting oil from these kinds of countries doesn't seem to hold water.
Some comes from there. None has to. If Irving wanted more oil from the Gulf and these other places, it would not need to import any to its refinery here from these despotic countries. You can get it elsewhere, and they do. They get it from the North Sea. There are lots of options.
Things happen because people make decisions that allow them to happen.
I've said quite a lot here, but if we're looking to the future, we have to look at the future well-being of the environment and the whole planet. The Musquash estuary, of which I'm one of the guardians, is something we can look to with pride. If we look to running this country on less fossil fuels and we shape up to our responsibility that we have to other countries that are trying to do something about fossil fuel use, global climate change and CO2, then we better start leaving this bitumen in the ground.
There's still lots of better-quality oil to use than tar sands bitumen, and it should not be allowed to be transported in the high-tidal-current waters — dangerous and changing salinity waters — of the Bay of Fundy.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Before we go to any questions, I want to clarify a couple of things for the benefit of our guests.
You have mentioned that notices were not given. Notices were all posted online on the Senate website for public consumption. They were all there online, so they were given.
Second, you both refer to "tar sands.'' Tar is a derivative of coal. These are oil sands. I think it's important to make the distinction that it is not a tar sands.
In terms of refineries, the Irving refinery is not the only refinery dealing with the importation of oil. We have refineries in Quebec and in Ontario, so it's a much broader picture here.
Does anybody have any questions for our guests?
Senator Eggleton: No, I think their position is quite clear. I don't have any questions.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to thank Mr. Thompson and Dr. Tippett for their participation and their contribution this evening. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)