Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 46 - Evidence - February 20, 2019
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 20, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast, met this day at 6:45 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to order.
My name is Senator Tkachuk. I’m from Saskatchewan. This evening we are beginning our study of Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast, Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.
We are pleased to have appearing before us today from Transport Canada, Lawrence Hanson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy; Ms. Emilie Gelinas, Director, Domestic Marine Policy; and from Justice Canada, Joseph Melaschenko, Senior Counsel, Transport and Infrastructure Legal Services.
We are either on the Internet or televised today, so I’m going to ask senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
I’d like to thank our witnesses for appearing before the committee this evening. I understand we have at least one but may have two senators here who are not on the committee, so what will happen is — I have already talked to Senator Jaffer — after everybody has asked one question, I’m going to see if they have a question to ask. That’s the procedure we are going to follow.
With that, please proceed, Mr. Hanson.
Lawrence Hanson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Transport Canada: Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity for my colleagues and me to speak to committee members this evening about Bill C-48 to highlight some of the important considerations that went into its development.
Canada’s coastlines from the Pacific to the Arctic to the Atlantic are home to some of the most unique and precious ecosystems in the world. The economic, tourism and recreational opportunities that our coasts offer all Canadians are abundant. As such, the Government of Canada is committed to safe, sustainable and efficient marine transportation that improves marine safety and responsible shipping while supporting economic growth.
[Translation]
As the lead regulatory department for the marine safety regime, Transport Canada oversees a comprehensive legislative and regulatory system that ensures marine transportation is safe, efficient and protects our marine environment. Canada has one of the strongest marine safety regimes in the world. Building on this record of excellence and marine safety measures already announced under the national $1.5 billion Oceans Protection Plan the government has proposed, Bill C-48 would provide an additional layer of protection.
The proposed Oil Tanker Moratorium Act is an important measure for the protection of British Columbia’s northern coastline; a region that is endowed with some of the most diverse ecological marine communities on the planet. Communities set within an environment that the government has identified as deserving protection.
[English]
The moratorium area would extend from the Canada-United States border in the north down to the point on British Columbia’s mainland adjacent to the northern tip of Vancouver Island. It would protect the northern coastline and its delicate ecosystems, including Haida Gwaii.
The primary purpose of the proposed legislation is the prevention of marine pollution incidents from occurring in the first place. As such, it would prohibit oil tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tonnes of crude oil or persistent oil or any combination of the two as cargo from stopping, loading or unloading at ports or marine installations located along B.C.’s north coast. This will protect the coastline around Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound from potential spills of crude or persistent oil from oil tankers.
The proposed legislation complements the existing voluntary tanker exclusion zone which has been in place since 1985. The voluntary exclusion zone ensures that loaded tankers carrying oil from Valdez, Alaska to U.S. west coast ports transit west of the zone’s boundary in an effort to protect the shoreline and coastal waters from potential risk of pollution. This legislation would put in place unprecedented levels of environmental protection for the marine environment in northern British Columbia.
The long-term damage caused by an oil spill on water depends on a range of factors including the weather and the physical properties of the oil. That is why the government considered a number of properties to determine which products to include in the schedule of prohibited products, such as density, viscosity and persistence. After extensive consultations, a precautionary approach was taken, using persistence as the basis for being in the schedule that targets both crude oil and persistent oil products likely to remain the longest in the environment if spilled. This includes products such as partially upgraded bitumen, synthetic crude oils, slack wax, petroleum pitch and bunker C fuel oil.
While lighter oil products such as gasoline or jet fuel eventually evaporate or are broken down by microbes, the heaviest parts of other more persistent oils will remain in the environment for many years. At the same time, Bill C-48 would continue to allow the shipment of non-persistent oils. What this means is that communities along the north coast of British Columbia would be open to economic development opportunities related to liquefied natural gas projects. One recent example is the announcement in October 2018 of the LNG project in Kitimat, B.C., which is the largest infrastructure project of its kind in Canada.
Similarly, community and industry resupply would continue to be permitted with this legislation. We understand that coastal communities and industries rely on healthy ecosystems to protect their way of life. For over 100 years, commercial fisheries, processing facilities and logging have supported the many communities along this coast. These activities continue to be important to the well-being of coastal communities. Port activities centred around Prince Rupert, Kitimat and Stewart and an active recreational fishing and tourism sector continues to be strong economic drivers in the area. It is why Bill C-48 would continue to allow shipments of crude or persistent oil products below 12,500 metric tonnes. We know that communities and industries rely on marine shipment of critical petroleum products to sustain their livelihood.
The bill is not intended to adversely affect community and industry resupply and the economy of these communities. That said, the government has chosen to include strict penalties of up to $5 million for anyone caught trying to circumvent the moratorium.
The legislation would also be adaptable to future scientific innovation and technological developments in the transportation of persistent oils that could offer greater protection for our waters. Under the proposed bill, if passed by Parliament, the governor-in-council will have the authority to amend the schedule of prohibited persistent oil products. Amendments to the schedule could be considered following a review that would assess new science and evidence around the fate and behaviour of persistent oil products when spilled, advances in clean technology and institutional arrangements for responding to vessel sources of spills.
Any amendments would follow the regulatory process, including publication of amendments in the Canada Gazette and public consultations. To be clear, environmental safety and science would be the main consideration for adding products to the schedule or removing products from it.
Mr. Chair, another important component of the development of this legislation is the consultation engagement completed on the composition of the bill. Bringing Canadians together with differing opinions on the proposed legislation was valuable and we included Canadians from different settings, including the marine community, oil and gas industry, environmental groups, provincial and municipal governments.
Since 2016, the government held approximately 75 engagement sessions to discuss improvements to marine safety and formalize the oil tanker moratorium. In addition, we received more than 80 submissions on the proposed bill, held 21 round tables and bilateral meetings with provincial and territorial governments, industry stakeholders and communities across Canada. Further, to enable the discussion for those who we were unable to talk to in person, we developed an online portal where approximately 330 Canadians provided their input and shared their views on the moratorium and on marine safety.
I would like to speak to specifically to the issue of engagement with Indigenous groups. We recognize that First Nations on the north coast have distinct cultural and spiritual traditions that are intricately linked to the marine environment in which they live. We understand that these environments support the important relationships First Nation peoples have with coastal waters. They rely on these waterways for their livelihood, food security, cultural activities and, of course, transportation. The government consulted with inland Indigenous groups and coastal communities carefully before developing this legislation. The government listened to all views and these views helped to inform the parameters of the legislation on the necessity of community resupply and industry resupply.
This included meetings with all Indigenous groups along the north and central coast of British Columbia that would be affected or expressed an interest in the proposed bill. Almost all coastal communities, including the Metlakatla First Nation, Haida Nation and the Heiltsuk Nation are supportive of the proposed legislation. At the same time, the government recognizes that Indigenous coastal communities do not share a single vision with regard to the legislation.
During consultations with Indigenous groups throughout British Columbia, a range of views were heard on the moratorium and on improving marine safety. Certain groups like the Lax Kw’alaams and Nisga’a Nation opposed the moratorium because they believed the proposed legislation limits their economic development issues. But the importance of environmental protection to the people in this region was made abundantly clear.
[Translation]
All this to say, we worked to ensure that voices from around the country and from implicated communities were heard.
Thank you, honourable senators, for the opportunity to speak to you about this bill. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your presentation. I am from the east coast of New Brunswick, where the port of Saint John is located, a major port where oil transport takes place.
I want to understand the situation. With regard to this bill, there are of course the general positions of the industry, the position of the environmentalists, which is different, and the First Nations, who are very involved in this process.
How did the current government and the Department of Transport proceed in the consultations? Can you explain what the difference is between the east and west coasts in this regard? For example, for existing facilities in other regions, what measures are these other regions taking to protect the environment or to protect everything that could affect the environment in which tankers operate?
I’d like to better understand the difference between the West and East Coasts, since it’s being recommended that we visit different ports across the country.
[English]
Mr. Hanson: Thank you, senator. I think there are a few questions in there. I’ll try to respond to all of them. In terms of the overall approach to marine safety and security, it is important to note that this legislation is accompanied by the Oceans Protection Plan, which is a $1.5 billion program designed to improve safety and security on all of Canada’s coasts. And it includes significant new investments in safety and security and marine response. That is designed to address these issues from coast to coast to coast.
On the unique and specific issues related to this moratorium, I think one of the important things to note is that, if you compare, there are ecological properties here. I don’t proclaim to have great expertise on this. Perhaps colleagues from Environment or some other organizations that you may hear from during these hearings will speak to this, but there are some unique properties associated with this region, including the Great Bear Rainforest.
Another issue that is of some import is recognizing that this is a very sparsely populated large area of often wilderness where the capacity to immediately respond quickly with the same level of infrastructure and support is somewhat different between northern and southern British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Based on your consultations, in terms of facilities in Eastern Canada, how are security measures for tanker traffic constituted and in what way are they or are they not sources of inspiration for what is happening in Western Canada?
[English]
Mr. Hanson: In terms of the actual genesis of this legislation, it is important to note, as Minister Garneau noted in his testimony on this bill, that this was a campaign commitment of the government, and it was formally included in the Minister of Transport’s mandate letter to work with colleagues at Environment, Fisheries and Oceans and NRCan on the specific issue of a moratorium in the North given its distinct properties and the potentially catastrophic impact of a significant spill in that region.
There are spill response tugboat capacity marine response centres and others that are growing on the East Coast, and others as the government invests in the OPP.
Emilie, please jump in if there is anything you want to add on the OPP.
Emilie Gelinas, Director, Domestic Marine Policy, Transport Canada: On the OPP, as Mr. Hanson mentioned, there is a lot of attention on all three coasts looking at marine safety overall. There are measures being implemented through the five-year plan. Government has invested $1.5 billion. This legislation is complementary to the broader Oceans Protection Plan initiative.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Clause 24 of the bill states that the Governor-in-Council may, by regulation, amend the schedule by adding or deleting any oil or class of oils.
It was mentioned during testimony on October 19, 2017, that the schedule listing banned products should remain open because of likely scientific advances. Has the government considered making a mandatory pre-periodic review of the schedule or, more broadly, the moratorium, every three or five years, to reflect scientific discoveries and technological developments?
[English]
Mr. Hanson: That is a very good question. As I noted, the schedule is certainly not fixed in stone. The schedule is established based on the issue of persistence and the scientific testing around persistence of a given type of oil.
Over time, if new scientific evidence comes to light, if there is a better sense of being able to respond to spills, it is possible to change the schedule, and it would be done through a traditional regulatory process.
Senator Galvez: According to a recent Angus Reid Institute poll, the majority of Canadians — 67 per cent — are concerned about the potential for oil spills. We have here the competition between the petroleum industry wanting to put up projects for the transport of petroleum, and we have the environmental concerns of oil spills.
My first question concerns oil spills. Because of previous measures, the number of spills has reduced over time. There is a lot of literature saying that there are fewer oil spills. However, if we take into consideration that Deepwater Horizon, with 678,000 tons, then the statistics don’t work anymore. There is the potential of oil spills.
If we look to comment on the question of my colleague Senator Cormier, on the East Coast we had a dozen spills: the Arrow tanker in Nova Scotia, the Golden Robin tanker in Quebec, the Kurdistan tanker in Nova Scotia, the Nestucca fuel barge, and theNancy Orr Gaucher. There are a lot of oil spills.
I think that the big question is: How prepared are we to respond? The size that you are restricting, you said, is 12,000, but that’s a big boat. It’s bigger than the Panamax. This is a 245-metre long ship.
I want you to talk to me about the potential for spills and the preparation for answering to these spills for the type of oils that you mentioned, so the light oils and the persistent oils. I will have a supplementary question.
Mr. Hanson: Thank you. In terms of general marine safety and spill risk, you are quite right on both points, that the record is actually getting better in terms of the number of spills, but some do still occur. This does tie into the government’s commitment on the Oceans Protection Plan to make sure that increased traffic in various places is accompanied by an expanded tugboat capacity, cleanup capacity and coast guard station capacity to respond to the fact that accidents are in decline, but they still occur.
The big issue in terms of the oils that are referred to in the schedule to this bill versus other kinds of oil is based on the principle of persistence. If you look at lighter oils such as jet fuel or gasoline, for example, obviously it’s not to minimize the importance of a spill by any sense, but there is a distinct difference in their properties, because those oils will either evaporate or be broken down more naturally by microbes.
The issue of crude oil and persistent oils that are heavier is that they will tend not to disperse in that manner. They will stay in the environment for much longer periods of time. That’s why they pose a more significant risk to ecosystems and why the schedule is designed to address the distinction between crude and persistent oils versus other lighter types of oils.
Senator Galvez: I also want to ask you about the emergency measures. Dispersants are well known and used during oil spills, with the intention to disperse and make the oil become small drops and then be degraded.
After the experience of the Deepwater Horizon, there are many studies that have shown that some dispersants applied in very high concentrations and volumes can be more toxic than the oil. This has been shown after the Deepwater Horizon accident.
What else is there for emergency measures?
Mr. Hanson: Just to make sure I understand your question, is it about the different kinds of oils and how they may be cleaned up?
I do confess that this is something that does lie outside my expertise in terms of the precise impacts and how to most effectively clean up different types of oils. I know we do have expertise with that inside the Government of Canada and at Natural Resources Canada and elsewhere. We would be happy to provide you with some further information on that question.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a question about the WSP report that Transport Canada commissioned in 2014.
I have read the executive report, which indicates that the two regions most at risk of an oil spill are the Gulf of St. Lawrence and southern British Columbia. Much has been said about this report in the debate. If these are the two places where oil spills are the most likely, then why ban tankers in northern British Columbia? Since you commissioned this study, I’d like you to answer that question.
[English]
Mr. Hanson: Thank you very much for the question. The study you’re referring to was commissioned by Transport in 2013, I believe, in response to a report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It’s important to recognize what the study was. It was meant to be a risk-based analysis of potential spills. You’re absolutely right, senator: That is where the higher levels of risk were found.
Again, that was also a product, at least in significant part, of the existing traffic patterns in the south versus the north. Obviously, at that point and continuing today, huge vessels with large cargo holds were transiting, and so it was a much different risk factor.
Were there not to be a tanker moratorium and were there to be a significant resource project that would then, as a consequence, have significant numbers of tankers in that area, the risk factors would increase accordingly.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: On this question, have you done any assessments, studies, calculations or algorithms to measure the risks, or developed the risk index in northern British Columbia if there was an oil spill? If there were a pipeline passing through it or, indeed, greater oil transport in northern British Columbia, is there any data that would allow us to measure the risk of an oil spill?
[English]
Mr. Hanson: In fact, that’s one of the other reasons why the government views a moratorium in the current context as important. Frankly, that ecosystem and those waterways are less understood than those in the south. The actual impacts are less easy to comprehend because, on a scientific basis, we tend to know less about those waters.
So, consistent with the precautionary principle, in part because we know less about those waters — that was one of the reasons why the government wants to move forward with a moratorium.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: There is currently a voluntary exclusion zone, or a zone d’exclusion volontaire in French, I think. This voluntary exclusion zone for tankers has existed since 1985. What I’m wondering is what is the primary motivation for formalizing an existing moratorium. Was the moratorium not respected? Were there any possible economic initiatives, upcoming projects, that suggested that the moratorium would not be respected? I’m trying to understand the motivation behind this decision.
[English]
Mr. Hanson: Thank you very much. I’ll draw a distinction between the actual tanker exclusion zone and what the moratorium seeks to do.
The Voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone, which has been in place between Canada and the United States since 1985, is specifically directed to laden tankers that are departing from Alaska and travelling along the West Coast to deliver their cargo to ports on the West Coast of the United States. The exclusion zone operates in a way where these laden vessels must remain west of a certain boundary line, and it goes out about 70 nautical miles from the shore at the widest end and starts to narrow as you get down into the Strait of Juan De Fuca. The size of the exclusion zone was essentially based on scenarios of where a ship might be able to drift to and how long it would take to get response capacity.
Again, this zone is specifically about vessels that are making a continuous journey from Alaska down into the continental United States.
By contrast, the tanker moratorium is focused on vessels that will be transiting along the north coast of British Columbia and precludes them from stopping, loading or unloading beyond that certain threshold at Canadian ports or marine installations; i.e., installations that are themselves attached to the land.
They’re certainly complementary to one another, but they are distinct in their structure and intention.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: I have a question about terminology. Why did you use a moratorium and not a ban or a suspension? Usually, a moratorium is in place until a certain point, for a certain time period, so why was moratorium the terminology used rather than a ban or something else?
[English]
Mr. Hanson: Thank you for the question. In terms of the distinction in language, and I’m not sure. I’ll maybe ask Joe if there’s anything he can shed any light on in terms of the actual difference of the terminology. I’m not totally certain. I would note that whatever the terminology would be, the actual practical implications of what the legislation does are quite clear.
Joseph Melaschenko, Senior Counsel, Transport and Infrastructure Legal Services, Department of Justice Canada: Yes. Just to support that, I can confirm that it doesn’t have a substantive impact on the bill, legally.
Senator Wells: Thank you, witnesses, for appearing.
Are you of the opinion that there are not other suitable measures that could be taken to safeguard the environment, outside of a moratorium — an absolute ban?
Mr. Hanson: The government has —
Senator Wells: Are you of the opinion? I understand what the government is doing, and I understand you mentioned to Senator Cormier regarding the campaign promise and things in the mandate letter, which are more political reasons rather than justifications of merit for the legislation. As a department official, what do you believe?
Mr. Hanson: With due respect, senator, in my capacity here as an official, the appropriate course is for me to speak to the government, its legislation, its intentions and do my best to answer questions about it, but not so much for me to use this as a forum for the expression of my personal opinions.
Senator Wells: I was looking for your professional opinion.
Mr. Hanson: I will not pretend to be a scientist or that I have credentials or expertise in this that I don’t have, but I will say that the government’s view here is that if you look at the region and the limited understanding of the ecosystem, in some ways, if you look at the different levels of capacity to immediately respond in the current context and the nature of the ecosystem, the determination is that, for reasons of precaution and the potentially significant impacts of the moratorium, this is an appropriate course.
Senator Wells: Thank you for that answer. Are you familiar with Placentia Bay in Newfoundland?
Mr. Hanson: I confess that I’ve been there, but I can’t confess any great expertise.
Senator Wells: This is my opportunity to talk a little bit about Placentia Bay. I live just nearby. There are 370 islands; hundreds of fishing enterprises; dozens of communities; aquaculture operations; Cape St. Mary’s Ecological Reserve, with one of the largest seabird populations in the world; whales, porpoises and dolphins; marine Atlantic ferries that run each day; fish and nickel processing operations with ore carriers each day; and at the head of Placentia Bay, there is also the Whiffen Head oil storage facility and a major oil refinery that was designed, built and operates specifically for bunker C, which is among the dirtiest oil in the world.
In Placentia Bay — in fact, in Whiffen Head and the oil refinery — and it’s at the head of the bay, so you have to traverse all the way up the bay, a little more than 100 miles, there are 3,584 vessels that travel that bay and, in 2017, 2.6 billion barrels of oil.
Now, I don’t think any of us here doubt that the coast of British Columbia is beautiful and deserving of protection. There hasn’t been an oil spill in Placentia Bay, with all the oil carriers, with the fishing enterprises, with obviously the oil tankers that go hundreds per month.
I’m trying to figure out if B.C. is more beautiful than Newfoundland and more deserving of protection. The measures being undertaken in this LOMA, the Large Ocean Management Area that we operate in Placentia Bay, everyone gets together and agrees on restrictions for sea states and there’s additional training. There is VMS constantly on all vessels. Is there a better way to do it other than simply shutting it down and ceasing all economic opportunity, the kind of economic opportunity that the commercial operations in Placentia Bay enjoy? Is there a better way than a moratorium?
Mr. Hanson: Senator, although I indicated I was not expressing personal opinions, I will give the personal opinion that I would never appear before this or any other committee and say that any one part of the country is nicer or more important than another.
Senator Wells: Or more deserving of protection.
Mr. Hanson: Particularly my home province of Saskatchewan. It’s important to note that in terms of all economic activity, if you look at the bill, because of the way the schedule is set up, for example it would not include liquefied natural gas. That will allow the development of the LNG Canada project, which is the largest, private sector investment in an infrastructure project in history. That is a huge kind of project that will still go forward on the north coast despite the presence of this moratorium.
Senator Wells: Final question: In the deliberations about the establishment of a moratorium that’s covered under this legislation, was there discussion about the possibility of expanding that moratorium in other areas of coastal Canada?
Mr. Hanson: I don’t think I’m in a position to talk about deliberations that would have occurred in the development of the policy options. I do return to the point that the nature of this approach of a moratorium in this particular region was part of the government’s platform and subsequent mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Transport.
Senator Dasko: First of all, I’m following up on the questions posed by Senator Gagné. Is the moratorium essentially the same boundary as the voluntary moratorium? Are we looking at any difference in the boundary from what the voluntary moratorium was?
Why was it necessary to take the voluntary moratorium into legislation if the voluntary was working well? Those would be my first questions.
Mr. Hanson: Thank you, senator. The moratorium is not making into law what is currently voluntary in terms of the tanker exclusions. There are relations between the two. They are separate.
To start, the boundary associated with the tanker exclusion zone extends from Alaska into the West Coast into the continental United States. It extends out westward and then starts to narrow as you get toward the United States. It is about laden tankers making a continuous voyage without stopping, taking oil from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system and bringing it down to a U.S. port.
This is different both in terms of geography and in terms of what happens. In geography, this is actually going from the border between Alaska and Canada and extending down to the part of the coastline that’s aligned with the northern tip of Vancouver Island, and it’s not about vessels making a continuous journey from Alaska to the United States but, rather, precluding vessels exceeding a certain threshold from stopping at Canadian ports in that area where the moratorium would exist.
Senator Dasko: So there’s a real difference, and therefore the motivation was to change the voluntary to something different from what that was then?
Mr. Hanson: The voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone really isn’t changing because it remains as it has been. This has introduced a new complementary level of protection specifically related to a certain part of British Columbia’s northern coast associated with vessels stopping, loading or unloading.
Senator Dasko: You talked about the consultations that you had with various stakeholders. Tell us in detail about your consultations with the Government of British Columbia, with the current or previous government, depending on when you started your initiative with this legislation. How did you consult with them? What is their position? Is there anything that you can tell us about the province’s involvement with this, and view?
Mr. Hanson: Thank you for the question. I will note that in terms of the specific time frame and the nature of this consultation done with the Province of British Columbia specifically, I’m not certain. In fact, it does predate my time in the department. Emilie, if you know, please jump in.
Ms. Gelinas: We can come back with that information. As Mr. Hanson noted in his remarks, there were a series of round tables and bilateral meetings with a number of stakeholders. There was consultation with the provincial governments, but for details around that I think we’ll have to follow up.
Senator Dasko: What is their position on the legislation?
Mr. Hanson: I will confess; I don’t want to misstate, because their position could have a nuance that I’m not certain of. So I would rather come back to you rather than potentially misstate the position of the Government of B.C.
The Chair: Could you come back with the positions of B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan?
Mr. Hanson: Yes, for sure. Anything that’s on the recorded positions on these, we’d be happy to provide that.
Senator Dasko: Did your department commission any public opinion research on the moratorium, either in British Columbia or across Canada, or were you privy to any public opinion research done on this?
Mr. Hanson: I’m not aware of the department having done any, but we’ll seek to confirm that.
Senator Simons: I appreciate, Mr. Hanson, you’re saying that, of course, LNG pipelines would still be able to function in this area, which is lovely for British Columbia’s natural gas industry, not so great for Alberta’s oil industry.
Are there any concerns that by effectively declaring a pipeline moratorium for heavy or crude oil in this area that you might put an undue burden on ports in southern British Columbia because any future pipelines would have to go there?
Mr. Hanson: That’s a very good question. If you look at the existing traffic patterns and so forth at the Port of Vancouver, it has expanded dramatically for many years now. If you look at the terminal capacity at the Port of Vancouver, it’s increased about ninefold since 1995.
Our sense is, at least for the time being that a moratorium of this nature will not create an undue burden beyond the fact. As many senators may be aware, the port itself is seeking to increase its own footprint through further terminal development already.
Senator Simons: The existing TMX pipeline is well and good. But it seems to me when the moratorium was first presented by the Prime Minister, it was kind of part of a package deal when the new TMX line was approved and the quid pro quo was, “British Columbia, you’ll take TMX, but you will also get this increased attention to safety and environmental protection in northern British Columbia.”
With TMX not under construction, is it reasonable to leave Alberta in a position where it will not be able to get its oil to market with this moratorium in place?
Mr. Hanson: Thanks for the question. I would say that it obviously continues to be the objective of the Government of Canada to have that pipeline built and has taken very concrete measures to do that.
Senator Simons: We bought it.
Mr. Hanson: You can’t get much more concrete than that.
If you look through the TMX project and the efforts to build that pipeline and the LNG, there is an effort to ensure that there can continue to be large-scale development opportunities.
Senator Simons: I have heard conflicting things. People say this won’t apply to the Americans; the Americans will still be able to ship their oil. I’m not sure if they are meaning that they can still stay outside the exclusion zone.
One British Columbian I spoke to said you could have a situation where the Canadian tankers can’t move, but the Americans can. And if they spill, the oil can still move into those fragile areas. Could you clarify that for me? When I hear people saying this law only affects Canadians and not Americans, can you unpack that for me?
Mr. Hanson: Absolutely. I’ll speak specifically of the moratorium. It would apply to any vessel in the moratorium zone that is carrying more than the 12,500 threshold.
Senator Simons: The American, Russian, whatever?
Mr. Hanson: The flag on the vessel would be immaterial in that context.
Senator Simons: But American ships would still be able to move from Alaska?
Mr. Hanson: The issue is the moratorium is about vessels stopping, loading or unloading in the moratorium zone. Whereas the U.S. vessels we are talking about are not actually sailing into the moratorium zone nor are they stopping or unloading. They are doing a contiguous journey outside of the tanker exclusion zone.
Senator Simons: Thank you, Mr. Hanson.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: What percentage of the coastline that can accommodate large vessels will the moratorium affect?
[English]
Mr. Hanson: I’m sorry, I would not have the exact percentage. We have the legislation.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: If I told you close to 95 per cent.
[English]
Mr. Hanson: It’s essentially, if you look, because it’s going from the border to the tip.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: You travel from Alaska to the northern tip of Vancouver Island. The interior of the island isn’t navigable because there are no vessels that can go through, and they have to cross between the United States and Canada, which represents about 5 per cent of the navigable coastline. So approximately 95 per cent of the navigable coastline will no longer be allowed for vessels carrying heavy oil. Is that correct?
[English]
Mr. Hanson: I’m not certain of the percentage of what percentage of the B.C. coastline is covered by the moratorium. Again, it would continue to be navigable for those vessels that are carrying below the threshold associated with the bill. That’s important because of the need to do community resupply and to meet the industrial needs of the region.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: This is a dramatic decision. Have you thought of an alternative to a total ban, given the enormous impact the choice to prohibit economic development related to the oil industry along almost 90 or 95 per cent of the coastline will have on communities?
[English]
Mr. Hanson: I would note a couple of things. I think it is important to remember that even, as we sit here today, we are not talking about a significant amount of vessel traffic that is actually plying the area where the moratorium would be. It would probably be right now a handful of vessels that are actually —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: The problem isn’t the current situation, but the future situation. Today, I understand that the problem may seem trivial to you from your perspective. I’m speaking from a development perspective. We want to protect the entire coastline of this province from economic development related to a resource that comes from the interior of the country. That will be the real impact.
[English]
Mr. Hanson: I do stress it’s not the entire coastline. If it were, it would not be possible —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I looked at the map. When you leave Alaska and travel down to the northern tip of Vancouver Island, the only place where oil vessels will now be able to sail is at the Trans Mountain facility in Burnaby, and where tankers will leave through the strait of Vancouver, between Seattle and Vancouver. That will be the only place where there could be large tanker activities. There will be no further development in this sense along the rest of the coast. When such a dramatic decision is made as a department, alternatives must be presented. Do you have any solutions other than protecting a province’s entire coast from economic development? Have you considered anything else?
[English]
Mr. Hanson: So obviously, as noted, and just to reiterate the point that it does not stop all economic development. It would only apply to the types of oils in the schedule. That’s why, for example, the LNG project in Kitimat could go forward; the TMX project can go forward because it’s south of the moratorium. So there can still be economic activity associated with the shipment of oils, depending on how heavy and the type of oil they are and how far south they are. Again, I do return to the point that this was an approach that was —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I’m going to stop you there because that wasn’t my question. Do you have an alternative to this decision compared to another? I understand that there may be other types of development. When such an important decision is made, are other solutions considered? It seems to me the answer is no.
[English]
Mr. Hanson: I think the answer would be that the government was clear on its commitment to take this approach during the campaign, as Minister Garneau stated, and it was put forward in the mandate letter that he received from the Prime Minister.
Senator MacDonald: I want to apologize to my colleagues. I had to attend the annual meeting of Canada-U.S. I am the co-chair. I had to be there for the meeting, so I had to be there for the meeting. That’s why I was late this evening.
I do want to speak to the panel about this bill. It’s interesting to see that the government has declared that particular part of the B.C. coast is the most diverse ecological marine community on the planet. In Canada, I would suggest the most diverse marine environment in the country is actually the Bay of Fundy. The Bay of Fundy has the highest, the lowest and the strongest tides in the world. It’s also the home of the rarest whale in the worlds, the right whale, which birth in the Bay of Fundy and are there for four or five months a year. It’s also the feeding ground for the northern humpback whale. They feed there about four months of the year. It’s also rich with shellfish, scallops, lobster, salmon and herring. A lot of people live off of the Bay of Fundy.
If the Bay of Fundy is a working bay with an oil-handling facility and refinery, which has been managed properly for years, I’m just curious why a level of standard that seems to be applied to a small section of the northern coast of B.C., why is the same concern not applied to the people of Nova Scotia and the people of New Brunswick? What’s the difference?
Mr. Hanson: Thank you for the question. Obviously the government is concerned about marine safety on all of Canada’s coasts and that is reflected in the Oceans Protection Plan commitment. Some of the issues that surround B.C.’s northern coast are kind of the nature of it is being a place that is quite remote. A lot of wilderness. It is sparsely populated. There is not the same level and capacity to respond quickly with marine response measures in the event of a spill. This is kind of further complicated by the fact it is an area where the actual ecosystem itself is less understood. That work is going on by Environment and Climate Change and Fisheries and Oceans to understand it better. The reality is that our understanding of that region is more diminished. These elements combined drive a precautionary approach for B.C.’s north coast.
Senator MacDonald: With respect, American shipping alone equals 37 million metric tonnes of oil through those same waters. Six million metric tonnes of Canadian shipping through those waters. Just because there is no Canadian shipping doesn’t mean there is not shipping in the area anyway. We can say that it’s remote, but Alaska is just north of it. There is an awful lot of oil coming out of Alaska. If a ship rolls over or lets go of its oil, it doesn’t really matter where it happens, it’s going to go through the water. I just don’t find that argument very convincing.
Mr. Hanson: In the context of Alaska I think it is important to note the tanker exclusion zone, which has been in place now for over 30 years, in which laden tankers that are departing from Alaska and headed for U.S. ports are actually required to transit outside west of the actual tanker exclusion zone. That was calculated with relation to the extent to which a disabled vessel would drift and the response time associated with that. While you are quite right that there are laden tankers travelling from Alaska, they are not travelling in the area that this moratorium would cover.
Senator MacDonald: Multiple tanker pressure, at least on the West Coast, is in the Greater Vancouver Area in the Lower Mainland. There is not a lot of tanker pressure there. Marine experts when it comes to shipping would say the area of B.C. by far that’s best suited for the export of petroleum is actually the Prince Rupert/Port Simpson area. That’s what the people who manage and the pilots tell us. Why is their advice being ignored?
Mr. Hanson: I suppose I will restate the points that factored into the government’s decision in terms of the nature of that area. The ecosystem itself, the lesser knowledge of the potential impact of spills and the response capacity differences have led the government to take the decision to put the moratorium in place.
The Chair: Before I go on to some of the non-members of the committee, I wanted to ask a couple of questions. Just to follow up on Senator Boisvenu’s questions. He asked for options. Were there any economic studies done on what would happen if that ban was imposed on the West Coast and how it would affect the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan as far as moving their product? Were there economic studies done on that?
Mr. Hanson: I am not aware of studies of that nature. The government premised its decision here that there were risks associated with a spill in this area and the factors I mentioned led them to make this commitment and make it one of their early mandate commitments. To note again, and worth always recalling, that it doesn’t preclude other types of large energy projects including the TMX pipeline as well as the large scale LNG project that is being put in place.
The Chair: Gateway was approved previous to the court’s intrusion. What plans did Gateway have to prevent spills? Maybe you could describe what they were planning to do to prevent oil spills on the West Coast.
Mr. Hanson: I won’t pretend expertise on the actual remediation plans of Northern Gateway. When the assessment was done I believe there were about 209 conditions placed on the project as a result of the environmental assessment.
The Chair: My understanding is they were all complied with.
Mr. Hanson: I have to say I’m not an expert on what happened with Northern Gateway in its final stages. As you are aware, ultimately a decision was taken by the government not to proceed on approval of Northern Gateway and to put the moratorium in place.
The Chair: Have there been any tanker accidents off the west coast of British Columbia by all the traffic that’s going by there right now?
Mr. Hanson: In terms of recent tanker spills?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Hanson: Emilie, can I turn to you on that.
Ms. Gelinas: Yes. I believe the Nathan E. Stuart was a barge but we would have to confirm that.
The Chair: It was a barge.
Ms. Gelinas: It was a barge. To the best of my knowledge recently there was the MV Marathassa in English Bay in Vancouver in April 2015. It was a bunker C oil spill. The amount spilled was about 2,700 litres.
The Chair: And it was not a tanker?
Ms. Gelinas: It was a bulk grain carrier.
Senator Jaffer: I want to clear up something first. There were many incursions that were happening in the moratorium zone and there was no monitoring. Is there monitoring? Are there incursions of tankers happening, of tankers going through the moratorium zone?
Mr. Hanson: Yes, there was monitoring done in 2016. It was found that there were three incursions. However, those incursions into the zone were not laden tankers coming from Alaska to the U.S. West Coast. They were, in fact, empty tankers on their way back to Alaska. Compliance with the tanker exclusion zone is very high.
Senator Jaffer: I listened to my colleagues and they speak very eloquently about their regions and how beautiful they are. I have visited those regions. It’s absolutely true, those regions are very beautiful and they should also be protected. For me it’s not about protecting one region or another region, it is to protect all regions. Because it’s all Canada. At the moment we are looking at the British Columbian coast. I want to ask about the history. Why did the U.S. and Canada come together in 1985 to protect this region? What is the history of that?
Mr. Hanson: I’m not really aware of any specific triggering event that led to this. These were large vessels, carrying large cargo, and it was possible for them to avoid the coastline by going out a few nautical miles, and that was the attempt. If there was a triggering event or some specific thing, I’m not aware of that.
Senator Jaffer: There was an agreement made to have the moratorium and this was in 1985. This bill is making this legal rather than just a moratorium; is that correct, what exists already?
Mr. Hanson: There is this distinction between geographically and operationally between the voluntary exclusion zone and the moratorium. The exclusion zone is basically designed to require laden tankers travelling from Alaska, making a contiguous journey into ports in the United States, to remain outside this exclusion zone, whereas the moratorium is about a different geographical scope going from the Canada-U.S. border along the coastline to align with the tip of Vancouver Island that precludes vessels actually stopping or loading or unloading in that area.
Senator D. Black: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to question.
Sir, you are clearly a man of reason and logic. I try most days to be a man of reason and logic and I’m going to try that. I have had the opportunity to hear your very reasoned presentation, but I want to understand that today there is only one proposed moratorium against oil movement in Canada; is that correct?
Mr. Hanson: That is correct.
Senator D. Black: Thank you. Would I understand as well that there would be no other moratorium against the movement of oil in the world?
Mr. Hanson: To the best of our knowledge there is not an equivalent measure to this.
Senator D. Black: That would be my understanding as well. I understand as well and you have indicated pretty clearly that the moratorium zone runs from the southern tip of Alaska to the northern tip of Vancouver Island. We can certainly agree that there is absolutely no difference between the topography, the marine environment, et cetera, between northern British Columbia and southern Alaska. There is no difference simply because of the parallel. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Hanson: I am not an expert but that would seem to be logical on its face, yes.
Senator D. Black: Again, we are talking logic here. There is no difference. And you, of course, would agree that there are four tankers a week leaving Valdez, which is just north of your proposed moratorium area; would you agree with that?
Mr. Hanson: There are regularly laden tankers leaving from Valdez, Alaska, yes.
Senator D. Black: You wouldn’t disagree if I suggested it was four a week?
Mr. Hanson: I would not disagree. I’m not certain that’s the number but I have no reason to question that number.
Senator D. Black: And also on logic, we have had mention of the gateway project which was approved. And as you correctly pointed out, or someone pointed out, there were a number of conditions. I think it was 217 were implied and the company was working through the process and made public declarations that they could meet those conditions. Would you agree with me that the reason the gateway did not proceed was because of the proposed moratorium?
Mr. Hanson: I won’t speculate on that other than to say that the government did, during the actual campaign, make the commitment on the moratorium. Beyond that and it’s relation to northern gateway, I would leave it at that.
Senator D. Black: I understand, sir.
We have gone through the factual matters, and thank you for being so helpful. I understand then that your position clearly is that the moratorium only exists because of a political promise made.
Mr. Hanson: No, I have made a number of statements about the rationale behind the moratorium and what creates the government’s view that a moratorium should be put in place and have said concurrently that it was a commitment in their platform.
Senator D. Black: But I have heard no reason other than the political reason. We have just gone through them all immediately, sir, and you have agreed with me that there is no factual basis. If there is, please tell us what the factual basis is. If not, it has to be political.
Mr. Hanson: I would say that the fact that another country has made a determination that vessels will leave its port for the purposes of shipping oil, the fact that that is happening in another jurisdiction is not on its face a demonstration that there may not be a legitimate reason to have a moratorium and another country might make a different decision.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much to all of you for coming this evening and supplying such good information. I may be stating the obvious, and pardon me if I’m asking a question that’s already been answered. Given that Prince Rupert is the third-largest port in Canada and given that it is the closest port geographically to Asia, and also given the way our world is unfolding in the recent past, pipelines probably aren’t going to happen for a while in this country. It concerns me that the moratorium now is not only a bar to pipelines but it’s a bar to the rail-to-tidewater solution that is the second solution for getting our oil to market and that this moratorium would exclude that as well as the pipeline solution.
I believe I’m not overstating the fact that this is a new problem that we have had with pipelines since the conception of this voluntary exclusion zone. I’m wondering whether there has ever been a discussion, and maybe even recently since the rest of the world has unfolded around pipelines, that this is causing extra pressure on the rail lines to the southern ports and that with perhaps the allowance of a corridor to allow Prince Rupert to take some of the pressure off the southern ports. We have heard recently in the news that Alberta is buying more oil tankers and they are already causing so much pressure because they are competing with grain tankers and grain transport vehicles to get their products to tidewater.
I’m wondering if there has been any discussion around a corridor or some way that Prince Rupert is not excluded from the possibility of solving our oil-to-tidewater problems.
Mr. Hanson: Thanks for your question. Prince Rupert obviously continues to be an extraordinarily important and strategic port. There is a CN rail line that goes to Prince Rupert. And while oil would not necessarily be able to be shipped from Prince Rupert, obviously oil can continue to be shipped from the southern port of Vancouver, and while it’s in the context of the grand circle which would be the shorter point, there is still the capacity to move from Vancouver.
Your question on Alberta and the acquisition of additional rail capacity is a really timely one. Yesterday the Government of Alberta did announce its intention to essentially contract for two additional unit trains so that by July of next year their intention is to put an additional 120,000 barrels of oil per day on rail. That is not really going to put pressure on the Western ports because my understanding at least is that it will ultimately be moving east and down into the southern United States and refineries to address the refinery capacity there.
When we talked about potential pressure on other commodities like grain, it wasn’t so much a concern about creating additional crowding at western ports. It was more about the issue of existing infrastructure and track, trains and locomotives, and that’s why my understanding is, in working with the railways, it is structured so that it won’t limit CN and CP’s capacity to bring grain from prairie elevators to western ports.
Senator Busson: I appreciate your answer, and thank you very much. But I’m wondering, in the future, if we continue to have issues with building pipelines, if this moratorium would forever exclude Prince Rupert as a solution to our problem.
Mr. Hanson: So long as what we’re talking about here is the export of crude oil from Prince Rupert, so long as the science still indicates that, for reasons of persistence and capacity to clean up, the moratorium would preclude those shipments.
Senator Galvez: Just to follow on the question of my colleague Senator Busson, my understanding is that there is capacity in the Port of Vancouver for oil exports, but this capacity is not being used.
Also, it’s my understanding that the new train capacity for oil that Premier Notley is counting on won’t disturb CN because it’s not a matter of volume, but it’s a matter of long haul and short haul. It’s a matter of destination. I just had a talk with somebody from CN that was explaining that. Can you validate this information, or comment?
Mr. Hanson: Yes, there is tanker traffic out of the Port of Vancouver. On the rail, again, my understanding of it is that what has essentially happened is the Province of Alberta has signed these contracts and leased the capacity to be able to increase crude exports into the United States, into the refining capacity.
Senator Simons: I have a couple of follow-up questions. Somebody has suggested to me that it might still be possible to tank oil from that area if you put it in smaller vessels and transported it to a tanker that was waiting outside of the moratorium area, which struck me as a potentially more hazardous undertaking than filling a whole tanker in a port. But I don’t know. Is that something that has been considered as a potential workaround?
Mr. Hanson: That is a good question, and the bill is drafted in such a way that it would formally preclude a circumvention of the moratorium in that fashion.
Senator Simons: So even a smaller vessel would not be allowed if it was designed to do an end run around the moratorium?
Mr. Hanson: Yes. I look to Joe, but that is my understanding of the structure of the bill. It basically precludes people from, as you say, doing an end run. Is that fair to say, Joe?
Mr. Melaschenko: Yes, the bill has circumvention provisions in it.
Senator Simons: What about a smaller tanker?
Mr. Hanson: Any tanker that has a capacity in its hold to carry more than 12,500 metric tonnes would be required to file a report in advance noting that it plans to stop or unload or load at any of these ports, and if, of course, they had more than the threshold, they would not be permitted to do that.
Senator Simons: And if they filled their tank up not quite to the brim?
Mr. Hanson: There are two things at play. One is the capacity of your vessel. How much could it hold if it were full? If you had a vessel that was, let’s say, capable of 15,000 metric tonnes, you would have to file a report saying you were coming in. But as long as you’re below, as long as you’re carrying below the 12,500, you would be allowed to stop at the ports and marine installations to do your loading and unloading.
Senator Simons: I have one more small question. I began my academic career as a student of English. To me, the word “moratorium” implies in its common definition a short-term situation or a temporary measure. Yet when I read the bill, it doesn’t seem to define “moratorium” in a way that is in conventional English. So what are we to understand by this moratorium? Is it a temporary measure or is it a permanent measure called a moratorium?
Mr. Hanson: I think the answer is, as a law, it’s not a temporary provision that’s going to expire in five years or something like that.
Senator Simons: I think you would agree with me that’s the conventional definition of a moratorium.
Mr. Hanson: And I think the thing I would mainly note is, at least from a legal perspective, the use of the term does not really impact the character of the law. I probably, much to the chagrin of people who work for me, I love to debate points of grammar and under normal circumstances I’d take you up on that, but under this, it materially doesn’t change with law.
The Chair: A moratorium can be lifted but a ban would have to be reversed. There is a difference.
Senator Simons: Maybe Mr. Melaschenko can speak to that.
Mr. Melaschenko: I’m also not the best person to comment on the fine points of English there, but suffice it to say that the prohibitions and the substantive provisions are what they are and they’re not time limited.
Senator Simons: Then it’s not a moratorium.
Senator Neufeld: The word “moratorium” actually evolved over time. It was more of an agreement to start with. It was not a moratorium, but over time people started using the term and it became “moratorium.” But that’s, at least coming from British Columbia, what I’ve always understood.
Sir, you talked about the North Coast not being studied a lot. There wasn’t a lot of information about the North Coast, yet Northern Gateway was approved and that oil would have gone through the Douglas Channel and through the moratorium area. So a government approved that. It went through all the things that have to happen in the environmental assessment.
And out of the 200-and-some things that the company was supposed to accomplish, or 217, whatever it was, was there any part of that you know of — any one of those 217 things they had to do — that have to do with trying to get more information on the North Coast? Or was it more about where they were docking, rivers they were crossing, where they were going down the Douglas Channel and how they were going to manage to get down the Douglas Channel, which they could and they approved?
I don’t recall there being anything that said we have to study more out in the ocean. We have to go out there and have a look before we allow this to go. I could be wrong. Do you know?
Mr. Hanson: I honestly don’t have a complete sense of what all the various conditions that were placed on Northern Gateway at the time. I apologize, senator.
Senator Neufeld: So you’re not aware, then, of anything that had to be done along the North Coast to actually have laden oil tankers come through the Douglas Channel and into the same area?
Mr. Hanson: I’m not aware of what the conditions were in the area.
Senator Jaffer: I have one question. Do you know how many different First Nations communities are there along the northern coast of B.C. whose traditional lands would be covered by this moratorium in Bill C-48? What types of consultations have been undertaken now? Senator Dasko asked that question as well, but I want to know specifically about those communities.
Mr. Hanson: There were consultations with all of the communities along that coast, both the northern and the central coast. The exact number, I don’t have off the top of my head. We can provide that.
Senator Jaffer: My understanding is that there was the Nisga’a, and I can’t pronounce that name — Lax Kw’alaams.
Mr. Hanson: The Lax Kw’alaams, yes, as indicated in my opening remarks, they both expressed opposition. But the vast majority of communities and the north coast communities, the Heiltsuk, the Metlakatla, the Gitga’at, Gitxaala and several others have expressed support for the moratorium.
Senator D. Black: I want to continue compiling my list, because I’m trying to understand the logic of what we’re trying to do here. Now, under the excellent question that Senator Busson asked, does it not concern the federal Department of Transportation that this ban forces more oil onto railcars, which is without any sense of disagreement a less safe way to transport oil? Does that not concern you that in some way that’s a violation of your responsibilities?
Mr. Hanson: I do note that oil exports can continue from southern ports, so it’s not a moratorium that leads to placing all crude oil traffic on to rail. There are obviously other pipelines that will come on line — Line 3, TMX when it’s completed — so there are efforts to have multiple ways of transporting oil.
As for crude by rail, it’s also worth noting that the government has put in place new regulatory standards where older, non-jacketed tanker cars have been taken out of use and newer much more collision-proof, safer railcars are being used, and those are the exclusive cars that will be used in the recent acquisition by the Government of Alberta.
Senator D. Black: All of which does not change the fact that the transport of oil by rail is more dangerous than the transport of oil by pipeline. That is not to be disputed, and I trust you’re not disputing that.
Mr. Hanson: I’m not disputing it. I think I was mainly making the point that there is an effort to get more oil into pipelines, and when oil does travel by rail, there are efforts to make sure that is as safe as possible.
Senator D. Black: I understand. But you are agreeing with me that this moratorium/ban is in fact forcing more oil to rail, which you are agreeing with me is a less safe way to transport the product.
Mr. Hanson: That’s a lot you’ve put on me there. I think what I said was that it is still possible to ship oil by vessel out of the southern part of the province and that pipelines are coming online and that there is greater safety being placed on the oil that does go by rail.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Hanson, I’m a little puzzled by your answer, saying that we don’t have a lot or we don’t have much information on the ocean and the coastline in terms of environment in the northern part of B.C., because it seems to me you would have a stronger case if we had information on the fragility of the ocean and the coastline.
Did you try to gather information since the election, for example? Because we’ve been talking about the moratorium for a while. Is it the way to go to gather information about the sensitivity or the propriety of oceans or coastline before?
Mr. Hanson: Thank you. In terms of the work that’s ongoing to try to deepen the understanding of this ecosystem, I do know that there is work ongoing by Environment and by Fisheries and Oceans, and they would be better placed than me to speak to that.
In terms of why does that take more action when you don’t know, I think it really does boil down to the precautionary principle. It’s when you don’t know that potential actions can be the most dangerous, that when you don’t know the heat of the stove, that’s when it’s most dangerous to try to touch it.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, but the precautionary principle is also a relatively criticized principle in science because, in the name of this precautionary principle, people want, for instance, to ban telephones and cellular stations. The precautionary principle isn’t absolute.
I want to ask you another question about the fact that it is much more difficult to intervene if there is a spill, an oil spill, in the north than in the south. You said that there is less equipment up north — or there is less equipment or it’s too far away — to respond to an oil spill. In the case of the last Northern Gateway pipeline, did you get a guarantee that there would be a number of boats on site, near or far, that could respond if an oil spill occurred? Based on that argument, it seems to me that, if you want, you can provide a force ready to respond to a spill.
[English]
Mr. Hanson: Obviously, on precaution, it is a principle, and by that definition, it’s certainly not always exactitudes. But again, even in the things you mentioned, if you look at safety code 10 from Health Canada on cellphone exposure and things like that, that is specifically related to issues of precaution.
On the capacity, there will be additional capacity coming online across the coasts. Again, though, to emphasize this, there is a difference in terms of breadth and scope between something like the entire northern coast of British Columbia versus a much more concentrated area like the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.
Senator Simons: I want to follow up on Senator Miville-Dechêne’s question. We know from experience that there have already been spills in this area not involving large tankers. It concerns me when I hear that one of the reasons for the tanker ban is because we lack the resources to do pollution mitigation. That’s what you’re saying — this is a much larger area, much harder to protect than the more concentrated ports near Burnaby and Vancouver.
Is there a danger that by making the giant tankers, which tend to be well designed and have lots of safety precautions in them, by demonizing them as the very bad, dangerous, high-risk vessels, that we would then sit on our laurels and not introduce the other clean-up capacity that we would need for small vessels that still might be plying those waters and having accidents. I worry we might pat ourselves on the back and say: We solved that problem by banning the big boats, and, in the meantime, there are lots of little boats that could still be having spills and we wouldn’t be able to deal with them.
Mr. Hanson: That’s a good question. It is important to note that capacity is being expanded on the north coast by the Coast Guard and others in terms of their response capacity on the north coast of B.C. You’re quite right; there will be other types of vessels. There will be vessels that will still continue to transit. However, the vessels that aren’t covered by the moratorium will be carrying the types of oils that will more quickly evaporate, will be less persistent, and will be absorbed by microbial processes. Even if there were an unfortunate accident with a tanker carrying crude or persistent oils below the threshold level, it would be a much smaller volume as a product of the moratorium itself, and therefore its consequences would be mitigated to that extent.
Senator Simons: I’m not an expert on tankers, but the argument has been made to me that the new-model tankers have some of the highest safety standards and are actually safer in many ways than smaller vessels that may be carrying less cargo but may not have the safety features of the newer, larger tankers. I don’t know if that’s true.
Mr. Hanson: Obviously, tankers have certainly become safer than they were, and with the double-hulled nature and so forth, that’s obviously true. But, again, they’re not impervious to accidents. If they were carrying a huge volume of crude or other persistent oils, the consequences we talked about would be present.
Senator Simons: I suppose the Titanic was a nice, safe, new ship too.
The Chair: Didn’t Gateway have three times the government-regulated remedial tools available to clean up a possible accident than the government actually required?
Mr. Hanson: Again, I’m sorry; I do apologize. I don’t have that level of expertise on the Northern Gateway.
The Chair: Did the government not look at what options were available to keep tanker traffic safe before it made the ban? Did it look at the possibility of keeping the coast safe by certain remedial methods, and tugboats and all the other things they have on the Vancouver coast, used and planned out and organized by Gateway?
Mr. Hanson: Again, I can’t speak to the Gateway project very well. On this, the government did make a decision. Given the potential risks associated with the spill, it made the determination that a moratorium was the logical step.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: That’s a question for you. Do we expect the minister to appear before the committee so we can ask him questions?
Senator Dawson: I had the same question.
[English]
Do we have a commitment by the minister to appear in front of the committee?
The Chair: We’ve asked the minister. We’re going to talk about it at steering today, my understanding is. Yes, of course.
Senator Dasko: In speaking to some of the stakeholders around this bill — and, of course, we as senators sometimes like to look for ways to tweak or amend bills if there are issues with them, and try to think of ways that certain accommodations could be made. In light of the comments by my colleague Senator Busson with regard to Prince Rupert, so putting this all together, one of the stakeholders we were meeting with suggested the possibility of a corridor that could be created, let’s say, hypothetically, from Prince Rupert to the exclusion line.
I would like to hear your view about whether such an accommodation might be possible, whether you’ve looked into a possible corridor. Far be it from me to suggest where it could be. I’m looking at the map of B.C., and I’m not the one to start drawing corridors. Anyway, that’s my question, sir.
Mr. Hanson: I’ll make a couple of general points. In the first instance, I would flag that the department will be prepared to be helpful and engage in discussions of potential amendments to the bill. Obviously, I would not speculate on what form they might or could or would take. That would ultimately be a decision taken by others.
I would make the basic point that obviously the government will want to preserve the integrity of the bill, but officials and others will be pleased to engage in discussions of potential amendments when the time comes.
Senator D. Black: That was absolutely my question. I hear that you are open to conversations on realistic amendments.
Mr. Hanson: That’s very well put.
Senator D. Black: Thank you.
Senator Dawson: First of all, chair, I want to thank you. We had a little disagreement about having steering committee, so we’re having one after. I wanted to thank you for hosting one.
A few minor items. I was going to ask about the question of no minister, no bill. I think the minister has to come before this committee to be heard. Since it has not been debated, I wanted it to be on the record. I agree with Senator Boisvenu that it is a requirement.
A banality, but since this is the second meeting in this building, clocks are a good idea. It helps everyone to be more disciplined, including myself. We will be having steering committee and getting back into details.
One of the issues that preoccupies me — and some of Senator Black’s comments today remind me of the confusion yesterday between what was said in the in camera meeting and what was said in public. The disagreement on some issues, and some of the comments that Senator Black made, I think deserve to be on the record.
I would certainly propose that we free this in camera transcript so that people would know that some of the comments that were made in private were very encouraging for travel. Yes, obviously some of the senators said we didn’t want international travel. However, according to the transcripts that I saw today of what was said in public, nobody talks about the international travel as being rejected by this committee. I think that’s an important point. I would submit that, if the committee agrees, I would make the in camera part of the meeting of yesterday public.
Senator Dasko: I would so move.
The Chair: I have no problem with that, if it’s unanimous with everybody.
Senator Dasko: I so move that we make the transcripts —
The Chair: Do we need a motion?
Senator Dasko: I believe we do, yes.
The Chair: We do need a motion? Senator Dasko has moved. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Dawson: And do we agree on meetings for next week?
Senator Dasko: We’re voting on this, Senator Dawson.
Senator Dawson: Everyone agrees.
The Chair: There was no one who disagreed. It was unanimous.
Senator Dawson: Do we agree on meetings for next week?
The Chair: Yes, we are having meetings. We’re going to talk about it tonight.
Senator Dawson: I want members to know that we intend to meet on Tuesday.
The Chair: We are intending to meet on Tuesday and Wednesday.
(The committee adjourned.)