Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 47 - Evidence - February 26, 2019
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 26, 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 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill; and for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome. This morning, we’re going to continue our study on 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. It’s also known as the oil tanker moratorium act.
I am Senator Tkachuk. This is an open meeting, so we’re going to allow for the introduction of senators starting on my left.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko from Toronto, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Senator Bovey from Montreal — from Manitoba.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné, a proud Manitoban.
Senator McCoy: Elaine McCoy from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
[English]
I would love to be a sponsor if she wants to move to Montreal.
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Anderson: Margaret Dawn Anderson, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, also proud to be from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: And as I told you, my name is Dave Tkachuk. I’m from Saskatchewan.
Before we hear from our witnesses today, we have a few agenda items to discuss with the full committee: a report from steering and a discussion on travel.
The steering committee met last Wednesday, February 20, following the committee’s meeting. During the steering committee meeting, Senator Miville-Dechêne moved:
That the committee hold two full days of public hearings in northern British Columbia no later than mid-April 2019;
That the committee complete clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-48 no later than Tuesday, April 30, 2019.
The motion was adopted on the following recorded vote: Senator Dawson, yea; Senator Miville-Dechêne, yea; Senator Tkachuk, nay.
We are going to discuss both of those and allow some debate. If we can come to a consensus, fine; if we can’t, we’ll have a vote. We’ll start with the completion date of April 30, 2019.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Maybe I can explain why I chose to move a motion to that effect.
The Chair: Sure.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I moved this motion in steering because my confidence in you as chair has been eroded, in particular with your public referral to the fact that you want this bill to die, so it’s difficult to conceive that we can have a fair committee. I hope we will, so that’s why I thought I should move the motion.
I also want to be clear that we want to hear from Alberta, Saskatchewan and every region that wants to be here in this committee. The difference is I want personally to hear Alberta and Saskatchewan through them being invited here to the committee, or through video conference. We are proposing to travel to northern British Columbia because this is where the moratorium is supposed to enter into full force.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Dawson: I supported Senator Miville-Dechêne’s motion last week and I repeat that I support that today. I also believe we have to hear as many people as possible. But I think that will be very challenging as we go towards the end of a session because we have a lot of bills. We have to think not only of our committee, but we have to think of the whole of what is happening in Parliament and in the Senate in particular. I think that an objective of clause-by-clause, which has been done before, for April 30 is reasonable.
I believe that we have to go to the north coast of B.C., and I believe that we have to hear people from Alberta, from Nova Scotia and whoever wants to be heard. We have enough time. Before we formally started soliciting people, we only had 10 requests to participate on this bill. Obviously, as a committee, if we solicit interest and we tell them they are going to get television coverage and they will get the opportunity, people will jump on it. But only 10 people asked to be heard on this committee, so I think April is sufficient time. I would hope that the full committee will support the recommendation of the steering committee.
Thank you.
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. I’ve been in the Senate now for, I think, 10 years. This has always been a somewhat partisan chamber — not as partisan as the other place, but it has been a partisan chamber.
In the 10 years that I have been here, chair, you have been the chair of many committees in this place, and we have had many other chairs, chairs that are partisan and chairs that are maybe less partisan. But I have never heard somebody say, “I have lost confidence in the chair because he has an opinion on a certain piece of legislation.” I am absolutely astounded, frustrated and offended by somebody saying they have lost confidence in a chair because he has an opinion on a bill.
First of all, I haven’t heard you say publicly that you want this bill to die. I have heard you say publicly many times that you want this bill to get a very thorough reading and vetting, as we all do. We are not in a new environment where we are now all going to run around and have the same opinion on legislation. We will continue to have our own opinions. For somebody to say that they have lost confidence in somebody because their opinion is different than their own is absolutely the most offensive thing I have ever heard.
Now, as far as whether we finish this bill in April or in the first week of May, it is just not that big of a deal. Most certainly, if we were to have a vote to go into the first two weeks of May, I would vote for that, but it’s not a hill to die on. If that is what would bring this committee back together again so we can have some civility in this committee and try to get through this, then I am going to support finishing at the end of April.
This does not just affect British Columbia. This bill affects the entire country, and it most certainly affects the Province of Alberta, probably more than any other province in the country. For us to not want to take two days out of our lives and travel to Alberta is, quite frankly, sad. For us to sit here on the Hill on our high horses and say to Albertans that are losing their livelihoods, “You have to come to us, because here we are in the royal chamber, and you come and make your case to us, and if you don’t come and make your case to us, you won’t be heard,” what in the world has happened to us? We have always travelled. This is not an unreasonable request to go to Alberta.
Quite frankly, chair, I have the confidence in you and I have the confidence in every chair that has been duly elected to that position, even those chairs that I fundamentally have not agreed with on one issue since I got here. I have the confidence in their ability to chair. I would encourage the senator to withdraw a comment like, “I have lost confidence in a chair,” because the chair has a different opinion than hers. I think it is ridiculous and shameful.
Thank you.
Senator McCoy: Thank you to the committee for allowing me to participate. Sadly, I am not a member of your august committee, but I am from Alberta and my job is to represent my region.
Let me say once again, this bill, although it looks simple on its face and it looks as if it has one of the most innocent and well-meaning motivations behind it, is a bill that has consequences way beyond first appearances. I think it is important that we, as senators, do our job properly and thoroughly understand all of the issues around it.
Make no mistake. As per the speaking notes that we were just provided by the president of the Chamber of Shipping, he is about to say that this is not a moratorium that is being proposed but a ban on tankers holding oil visiting ports in the zone. That means there is effectively a ban on any kind of shipping of oil from Canada, from that region, offshore. That means that we as a country will have told three provinces that they cannot exploit or sell their natural resources. Those provinces are British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. I think there might be a bit of oil in Manitoba. Is that right? Well, then Manitoba as well, although Manitoba might have opened up other options going east. That is a major consequence.
In the meantime, if we are truly committed to protecting the environment and the ecosystem in this region that we’re speaking of north of Vancouver Island, then what is it going to take to do that? We really must have the question in front of us. What would it take to save communities harmless from any kind of damage to the ecosystem upon which they rely, some for food, some culturally, and some, indeed, economically, because they have a fisheries interest and a commercial interest. This ban is not going to do it. The only accidents there have been, so far, come from ships that are not protected by this ban. All of the other specialized procedures that go to protect sensitive ecosystems, as we have been perfecting around the world, are not available in this area. So we’re failing the coastal regions as well.
What I’m asking of my colleagues is not a self-interested request. This is a countrywide request, which is that we delve into these issues as deeply as is necessary. That means we bring in as many people as we need to in order to understand the issues thoroughly. I’m very pleased to hear that you’re going to travel to northern B.C., but it also means reassuring Canadians that you have the country’s interests at heart, and sometimes that means actually going to Canadians, especially the ones who are the most concerned. Sometimes they are concerned because they are frightened, which leads to anger, but they can see no future. They don’t know that they are being heard. One of the best ways of letting people know that you’re listening, caring and doing your job thoroughly is by actually going to them and saying, “Come and tell us what it is you’re thinking.”
Just by way of comparison, the Senate took the marijuana bill in hand and did a thorough job — a very good job. We brought the bill in from committee on May 30 of last year. It was out the door on June 7, if I recall correctly. That was because we had co-operation between all four groups — the conservatives, the independent Liberals, the ISG and the G-3, as we call it, the government representatives. I see no reason why we couldn’t have some kind of co-operation of that nature again. In terms of having the space to get the bill out our door and back to the House of Commons, if it has amendments or not, we have time. I would hope that the committee, whether you agree to that date, April 30, or not, keeps in mind that we have room to extend it if we need to in order to thoroughly and properly investigate and come to an understanding of what needs to be done to protect the coastal region of B.C.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I want to take this opportunity to respond to Senator Plett. I’ll respond in French to ensure that all the nuances of my thought process are understood.
Obviously, Senator Tkachuk is perfectly entitled to his opinions, as are all of us around the table. The difference is that he’s the chair of the committee. When he attended the Alberta truck divers’ demonstration, he said, figuratively, he later explained, “I want you to roll over every Liberal you see because these bills need to go.” Yes, the chair may have an opinion, but he must also have some restraint to make the hearings appear balanced, fair and equitable. It seems that he has crossed the line with his public statements.
I also want to tell Senator Plett that exactly one week ago, we had a meeting here where different issues arose with regard to procedures and rules. It was difficult for me as a senator to speak, even though I had raised my hand to ask for the floor. The meeting then abruptly ended when the chair of the committee determined that enough senators agreed with him to interrupt the meeting in order to participate in this rally. Unfortunately, several of us on the list wanted to speak about these difficult issues.
Yes, I’m repeating here that we want to hear from Canadians, Albertans and Saskatchewanians. We won’t get on our high horses and say that they must all come here. You know the technology available to us, including video conferencing. We can certainly hear from Canadians in other regions. Senator Plett, if need be, like many committees, we can extend our sitting hours here in Ottawa, when we sit — because we don’t sit every week — to ensure that we hear from all the necessary witnesses. Thank you.
Senator Cormier: I’ll also speak in French. I’ll support Senator Miville-Dechêne’s motion, but not necessarily for the initial reason that she provided.
[English]
Because I think it’s the right thing to do.
[Translation]
I don’t want to address the civility and partisanship issue, because I think that we have different views of civility around this table. I was disappointed with how the committee proceeded last week. I don’t want to focus on the past, but pointing out the lack of civility and the partisanship around this table — We all have an opinion, a point of view and a way of dealing with various issues. However, I believe that this must be done with respect.
That’s why I think that it’s the right decision to meet the deadline. On the one hand, we sit some weeks and we don’t sit other weeks. However, it seems that we can’t travel in the weeks when we’re not sitting. As a senator appointed to the Senate of Canada, I consider that my work is carried out not only in the weeks when the Senate sits, but also in the weeks when it doesn’t sit. I don’t understand the reluctance to travel outside our sitting weeks.
I believe that we must use all the means available to hear from as many Canadians as possible across the country who are concerned about this bill and who want to express their support or reservations regarding this bill.
I also believe that we urgently need to make progress and move our bills forward. That’s my main interest. I’m not interested in knowing who will vote for or against the bill, but in ensuring that the bill moves as quickly as possible in this house. That way, with all Canadians in mind, we can ensure that the bill moves forward and is finalized.
I’ll reiterate that I support the motion. I want to make absolutely sure that Canadians from across the country know that we would like to hear from them and that we have a number of technical means to do so.
[English]
Senator Manning: I wasn’t going to comment, but I preface my remarks with the fact that the majority rules. Sometimes you feel you are spinning your wheels in the mud just by commenting, but I do want to go on the record so I will comment.
First, I believe the consequences of this bill — as with most of the bills we deal with here in the Senate — will be felt throughout the country. I know we’re talking about the coast of British Columbia in this particular bill, but the oil industry affects everyone. I don’t have to go any farther than the small fishing community in Newfoundland and Labrador where I come from, with a population of about 300 people, and about 30 of those people are travelling back and forth to Alberta to work in the oil industry. So it affects everyone.
I haven’t seen the list of witnesses, although Senator Dawson touched on some. I hear comments about wanting to hear from all Canadians, or from as many Canadians as we can. I understand there is a motion here now to talk about April 30. My concern is that the piece of legislation needs a thorough vetting, as Senator McCoy has said. We can’t hear from everyone, and I understand that, but if people put their case forward and the committee decides that they are worth hearing, then I think we should make arrangements to make sure we hear from them. What affects Manitobans may be different than what affects Albertans and may be different from what affects Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Even though it is the same piece of legislation, how it affects them may be different. I think we need to make sure we have a solid look at our proposed list of witnesses. The steering committee, I guess, will be doing that. We must make time, in whatever way possible, to hear from people who want to be heard on this important piece of legislation. I think that would be the fairest thing to do.
I understand we have a motion, as I said, on the April 30 deadline. When you look at the calendar before us, that limits our time, unless we go outside of that. There is a 99.9 per cent chance we’ll be dealing with April 30, but I hope that we keep an open mind to the fact that, if for some reason we don’t have an opportunity to hear from witnesses, that we at least give a little leeway if necessary at the end of April 30. I just put that out there.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I’ll echo Senator McCoy’s comments. I fully understand the current issues. We know that this bill was a promise made by Mr. Trudeau when he was in the opposition. Once in power, he must deliver the goods. However, promising something when you’re part of the opposition and achieving it when you’re in power constitute two different realities. I’m thinking, among other things, of his promise to review the electoral system. Once in power, Mr. Trudeau understood that the challenge was almost insurmountable during a single term. This bill is worrisome, because we’ll see its gross impact in British Columbia. However the bill’s net impact won’t be on the coast of British Columbia, but on Central Canada.
I’m worried that Canada is choosing a dangerous way to transport its resources, a way that led to a disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. The net impact of the moratorium will double the number of cars on the railways. When we conducted our pipeline study in 2016, there were 400,000 cars on the railways per year. The estimate for 2020 is nearly 800,000 to one million cars on the railways.
If we exclude the possibility of transporting this oil using a safer method, such as the pipeline — our work showed that this method is 99.9 per cent safe — we may endanger many more wildlife habitats from central Quebec to British Columbia than if this bill were heavily amended to allow for the establishment of transshipment centres at certain locations on the coast. This bill poses environmental and economic risks for Central Canada. If we hear only from people in British Columbia, we’ll see only one side of the coin. We need to travel to central Quebec to find out the real impact, which won’t be demonstrated in British Columbia, but in Central Canada.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: As you know, I’m not a member either; I appreciate you giving me courtesy.
Senator Boisvenu, I respectfully suggest to you that Prime Minister Trudeau’s promise was not from the third party. It was an election mandate.
We could be technical, but I want to say that I have been in this place for 19 years. What I saw the other day is the most acrimony I have ever seen. I have never seen a chair being directed to hold a steering meeting. Obviously things have not worked out. I suggest that we now move on. We have a lot of work to do. We have already directed that steering should meet and that we should get the work done by steering.
With the greatest respect, Senator Plett, it is not high horse to say witnesses should come to Ottawa. Yesterday, we had all our witnesses on Bill C-71 come to Ottawa. That’s how we work. With the greatest of respect, I do not think it is high horse when we ask people to come here. We have limited time. We have agreed to go to B.C. Coming from B.C., I very much appreciate that. I suggest we have a lot of work to do, chair. You have said Senator McCoy will speak and then we’ll get on. I respectfully suggest that steering work out the details and that we not have all this out here acrimoniously.
Senator McCoy: It occurred to me sitting here, chair, that anyone watching us would wonder why we couldn’t do this in two months. We have two months between now and April 30. The difficulty is we don’t, really, because the government has set the sitting times for the House of Commons and we follow the House of Commons, which means we have only got three weeks, and this committee only meets twice a week. In fact, we have three weeks to fit in witnesses. We need to give witnesses ample time so everyone can ask them more than one question each in order to get a thorough canvass of the issues.
I just wanted to put those facts on the table of the context in which we are operating. This is an unusual year. I have never seen so many break weeks in a sitting as this year. It’s putting a constraint on us. We didn’t have this many break weeks for the marijuana bill but let me reiterate that we did get it through in time.
Whatever your decision is on — let’s call it a target for bringing back the report on April 30 — keep in mind that the constraints may lead to a different decision as we go forward.
The Chair: Only because I was brought up on the question of steering, I’ve sat on many committees where the steering didn’t meet because of certain difficulties, and it was discussed in committee and that was not a big issue.
Also, I think we should look at a map just so that we know what we’re talking about here on the tanker bill. It isn’t northern B.C.; it’s almost all of B.C. If you go to your map on the bill, you’ll find that the ban on tanker traffic extends all the way to northern Vancouver Island, which basically leaves just a little bit of B.C. left. It’s not just the northern part of B.C.; it’s most of British Columbia.
I’d like to say I have never said that we should kill the bill. I have said that if the Liberals get defeated, that would get rid of the bill. I think we should study the bill. The government has a right to govern. They earned their majority. I’ve been in this place for 25 years and I have always respected that right. That’s their business. Our business is to defend our interests as conservatives, and we’re defending our interests. Your interest is to defend government, and that’s the way it all works. Sometimes things get out of hand and get a little acrimonious. I have to say, Senator Jaffer, that I have been in many committees that have been a lot worse than this. Most of the time we agree, and sometimes we don’t, but that’s going to happen. We’re adults in the room, and we know it’s going to happen, so I don’t think we’re going to have any problems. We will work hard to study this bill.
I want to deal with those committee matters first. I want to deal with the deadline date of April 30, which I objected to in steering. The other two members of steering, to their credit, said we can discuss it here in open committee, and I thank them for that. We’re having a debate here in public, and I think that is good for transparency and good for the public to hear.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I want to say on the record that I’m not representing government here. I’m an independent senator. You portrayed me as a government representative. I’m not.
The Chair: That is fine. If that’s the way you feel, that’s fine.
Senator Dasko: I want to speak very briefly in favour of the motion. I think we have a good compromise on the table right now. There have been discussions about travelling. We voted last week on travelling to Newfoundland. I think some of the ideas were really rather outrageous, and I think the costs involved for travelling to some parts of the country on this bill were just beyond the pale, as far as I’m concerned. Originally, I did not favour this committee travelling, but I think we have a very good compromise on the table right now. I think for this committee to be travelling to northern British Columbia is a very good proposal.
Senator Boisvenu suggested that Central Canada might be affected. My province of Ontario may very well be affected by this, and I look forward to hearing representations from people in Ontario. We have many means to engage them in our process, just like every committee has these means to engage just about every citizen of this country on other bills that go through every committee here, every single day of the week.
If we took Senator Plett’s comments and we extended them, it would mean that no bills would ever have any legitimacy unless we travelled to every corner of the country to talk to people there. That is the ultimate implication of what he was saying.
We meet Canadians here in this forum. We discuss and we engage them with the bills of the day, and that is exactly what we’re doing in committee, I think, to good effect. We had some good discussions last week with our witnesses, and we will have excellent discussions with other witnesses who come here.
Back to the motion, I think we should vote for this motion. I would follow Senator Manning and his suggestion that if, in fact, there may be a need at the end for another few days or whatever, I urge the steering committee to consider that. In terms of what we’re looking at right now, I think we should vote in favour of this motion.
Senator Plett: Well, since I’ve been mentioned a few times in the comments, I want to, like Senator Miville-Dechêne, also clarify. She says she doesn’t represent the government. Well, I think everyone’s voting record speaks for itself.
The implication of what I was saying most certainly would not mean that we would travel to every part of the country on every bill, because it has different levels of impact. Every bill has a different level of impact on different parts of the country.
This tanker ban has probably the biggest impact on Western Canada and, most importantly, Alberta and British Columbia. I did not suggest that we travel the entire globe to discuss this bill. I was, in fact, opposed to international travel, and you, chair, know that I was opposed to international travel on this bill. To travel and talk to the fine people in Alberta is not travelling to every part of the country.
Senator Dasko is from Ontario. Well, we happen to be sitting in Ontario right now listening to people as they come here. She says me suggesting we travel to Alberta is beyond the pale. I would suggest we travel to Alberta and she can tell Albertans that travelling to visit them is beyond the pale. I don’t think it is.
Senator Jaffer is quite correct when she says this was an election promise, and here we are.
Senator Cormier says there is urgency. We are in the fourth year of the government’s mandate and now we have this bill. If the government thought there was such urgency, why would they wait three-and-a-half years to present this piece of legislation? They should have done it in the first year of their mandate if the urgency was there.
Senator McCoy talks about break weeks. In the 10 years that I have been here, we have never had the number of break weeks we’ve had this year, and this is during a time when we have two tremendously important pieces of legislation — Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 — that have a devastating impact on our country, and then they have all the break weeks. We’re going on three weeks again in March. And yet there is urgency. If there is that urgency, why is the government not asking us to sit all of March? But they’re not.
We brought the marijuana bill back to the chamber in May, and we had no problem. It was probably the most controversial piece of legislation next to these bills that this government has brought in, and yet we managed to do fine bringing this legislation back a month before we rose. If we bring this bill back to the house after clause-by-clause in the middle of May, we have a month and a half before the end of June.
And yet we have urgency. Colleagues, there is no urgency. We need to do our job well, not say, “Well, we’re in a hurry so let’s rush it through.” That’s not what the chamber of sober second thought is supposed to do, rush something through. We are supposed to take the time.
Chair, if there is a motion on the floor, I’m going to amend that motion, and that motion will basically extend the committee meetings. I was going to suggest May 14, but for the sake of compromise and unity I will amend that motion to give us one more week and make that May 7, and that that is when we go to clause-by-clause. If we need some witnesses for part of that meeting and then go to clause-by-clause, I’m sure we can arrange to have some kind of an extended time to have maybe a four- or five-hour meeting if we need it. If not, fine. But I will amend the motion to just simply say we go to clause-by-clause on May 7 if there is a motion on the floor.
The Chair: I don’t think there is a motion on the floor. I was hoping that maybe we would come to a compromise we could all agree on, but I think that’s out of the question.
Senator Plett: Then I will make a motion that we go to clause-by-clause on May 7. My motion can be debated.
The Chair: We have a motion here from steering, which we have to consider. We’re going to do them one at a time. We will do the two public hearings. We have witnesses that are here, and I would like to hear them. It’s not that I want to cut off debate, but we’ve had lots to debate.
Senator Dawson: With all respect, Mr. Chair, as you know, we have every power to sit during those break weeks. The Senate has not been imposed a calendar by the House of Commons. We adopted a calendar. We are allowed to decide that we can travel during break weeks. I don’t want to give people listening to this the impression that we don’t have that power. We have it. The whip of the other side said, “I will not let you travel in break weeks,” and I couldn’t respect his management of his agenda.
I also have a question of privilege. This committee unanimously adopted that we should release the debates that occurred in camera last week, and you have not done that.
The Chair: Senator Dawson, we will get to that.
Senator Dawson: I want to get back to we are allowed to travel. We have the time. I see the honourable chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We have meetings outside of our normal hours every time we think there is an emergency, and we can do that here. That being said, I will certainly support the steering committee’s recommendation that we adopt it by the end of April, and I certainly reiterate the fact that we go to the North of B.C. and will accept any witness that comes from anywhere in the country. I want to get on with the business, and I don’t want to disrespect the witnesses by speaking too long.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I have a very brief comment. I want to be very clear that, when I spoke of urgency, I wasn’t referring to urgency for the government. I’m not talking about the urgency of the work being carried out in the House of Commons. That’s not my responsibility.
As a senator, my responsibility is to ensure that the bills and the work on the bills move forward. This means that we must be able to sit when it seems important to do so. I don’t understand why we refuse to sit in the weeks when the Senate isn’t sitting.
We’re senators appointed to do a job. That’s the urgency. The urgency is that we must be equipped to carry out our work. If that means sitting in the weeks when the Senate isn’t sitting, we must do so.
Senator Boisvenu: I want to make a comment, but this comment isn’t meant to be petty. The Human Rights Committee has just produced work on the rights of criminals and their living conditions. The committee travelled across Canada to hear from witnesses as part of this study. The viability of hundreds of companies is on the line, and thousands of workers may lose their jobs, but they’re being forgotten in this whole discussion. I don’t understand.
[English]
The Chair: I think we should also make it clear we do have lots of time. We have three weeks in May and four weeks in June. We’ve got 10 weeks. It isn’t a question that there isn’t a lot of time to do this, because there is. It is a question of hurrying up, it seems.
I think you wanted to move the motion on April 30, Senator Miville-Dechêne, so you may do so now. Then, if there is no further debate, we will have a vote.
We will get to your question on releasing the in camera report.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The steering committee’s motion reads as follows:
That the committee hold two full days of public hearings in northern British Columbia no later than mid-April 2019; and that the committee complete clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-48 no later than Tuesday, April 30, 2019.
[English]
Can I make a comment?
The Chair: You can speak to the motion if you wish.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I was told that if we want to travel, we need to put on the table today a travel plan. I don’t know if I should do it afterwards or mention the two places we want to go to, which are Terrace and Prince Rupert.
The Chair: I know we defined it as northern B.C. Could we just say British Columbia no later than April 2019? It’s not that I want to make an amendment. It seems to me that northern B.C. excludes, I think, the Nisga’a Nation, which is more towards the central part of the province.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Does it? I’m sorry.
The Chair: They consider that North. All right.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It is considered North?
The Chair: Yes, it is considered North.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Should we add going to Prince Rupert and Terrace?
The Chair: We will have a discussion on where after we adopt these.
We have a motion on the floor. So is there an amendment, Senator Plett, or are you finished?
Senator Plett: I would like to amend only the second part of the motion at this point. I may bring another motion forward later on about travel, but at this point I would like to amend the motion. No, let me, as a matter of fact, put that in the amendment right now. I would like to amend the motion that the committee clause-by-clause ends on May 7.
The Chair: We haven’t got to that yet.
Senator Plett: Fair enough, but she has it in her motion. I would like to amend the April 30 part of the motion to May 7, and I would like to amend the travel to northern British Columbia to include that we, as well, take two full days of hearings in the province of Alberta.
The Chair: Is there any discussion? I will call the question on the amendment. So the amendment is the —
Senator Manning: Chair, can you run it by us again to make sure we are clear?
The Chair: We have a motion that the committee hold two full days of public hearings in northern British Columbia no later than mid-April 2019, and that was amended — I’m paraphrasing the amendment — that we take two full days of travel in Alberta.
Senator Manning: To be clear, are we talking about doing this all in one trip or two different trips?
The Chair: I think we can sort that out after.
On the amendment, all those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: All opposed?
Senator Plett: I would like a recorded vote, chair.
The Chair: I will be supporting the amendment.
Joëlle Nadeau, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: Supporting the amendment.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Anderson?
Senator Anderson: Not supporting the amendment.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Bovey?
Senator Bovey: Nay.
The Clerk: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Nay.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Oh?
Senator Oh: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 5; nays, 7.
The Chair: So the amendment fails.
We will go to the main motion. All those in favour of the main motion?
On division.
Are you going to remove “northern”? You’re going to leave “northern” there.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We were told the Nisga’a Nation, in northern —
The Chair: Now we go to April 30. Someone will move that? That the committee complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than Tuesday, April 30, 2019. Are we done? Okay, we’re done.
The question of —
We voted, on division. So we’re done.
On the question that we had a vote on, on the question of privilege, that was a bit problematic on my part. We should have asked for a ruling previous to that because there were people at the first meeting when we moved the motion to make it public. Normally what happens — and that is the rule, actually, of the Senate — that all members must agree. If we don’t do that, then you don’t have any in camera meetings at all because that means that the people that are there have no say about their question of privilege. We consulted with Senator Plett and Senator Manning, and they both said no, so therefore, Senator Dawson, that’s why we did not release the minutes of that meeting.
Senator Dawson: I disagree with your ruling and I might want to submit another proposal because, according to your logic, we shouldn’t be doing what you’re doing now because Senator MacDonald and Senator Simons aren’t here this morning and they voted for releasing the information. You’re telling me because some people are absent, we are not allowed to revisit a motion. This committee unanimously adopted a motion. You decided unilaterally that you were not respecting the decisions of this committee.
The Chair: I didn’t decide that unilaterally. I consulted with the clerk’s office and with the clerks, and the ruling was that their interpretation of the rules — and is I agree with them — is that it requires all senators that were at the meeting itself. We can’t make a motion that affects people that were not there, and I agree with that. Otherwise, we have no privilege. We have no idea what will happen when we remove. Even if we’re no longer on the committee a year from now, someone could do that. That’s caused a lot of controversy in the past, and that removes privilege period and none of us have privilege.
Senator Dawson: In that case, since there is confusion about what Senator Plett and Senator Manning did or did not say, they are here today and they can free you from the obligation of not publishing, if they are ashamed of what they said and they don’t want it published. I don’t mind if they say they will have a veto. Maybe it’s true. I don’t necessarily —
The Chair: Don’t interpret what they said.
Senator Dawson: They’re here today and you can ask them if they are ready to cooperate with the committee and release what was said last week.
The Chair: They have said no.
Senator Dawson: I’m asking them here in public. I know in private you’re allowed to say all kinds of things. I’m asking them here in public to say they don’t want to release what they said in private.
Senator Plett: First of all, Senator Dawson has no right to ask me why I did something. However, I am not ashamed of what I said in private and I am prepared, if the committee will release me alone, that my portion of all of those minutes be released to the public. There were things that other people said that I was quite adamant should have stayed in camera. These were comments made about speaking in private versus in camera. So no, I do not agree with releasing that transcript. That is why I said to the chair when he asked me, because the chair said he had been told by the clerk that this is what had to be done. It’s not the same as Senator MacDonald and — I don’t know who the other member was that you said was missing today. It’s entirely different. There is a new issue being discussed here, not something that happened at a previous meeting in camera. No, I am not ashamed of anything I said either in camera or in public, and I stand by the vote that I gave the clerk — not the chair, the clerk — that I do not agree with that transcript becoming public.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I do not agree with your decision on this matter in the sense that it seems to me that — and I reread everything that was done in camera — there was nothing there that threatened reputation or threatened private lives, so it seems to me that it could be published.
More to the point, I want to table another motion to answer the worry that we do not hear enough witnesses, and here’s the text of my motion, if I can?
The Chair: We want to finish this. Is everybody fine? We’re done. We’re not releasing the —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Well, we should release.
The Chair: I’m saying the Rules of the Senate are what they are. That’s what the Rules of the Senate are. Senator Miville-Dechêne, as far as I’m concerned, the case is closed. You want to move a motion?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Considering that it is essential to hear witnesses from Alberta, Saskatchewan and all other regions that have concerns about Bill C-48, I move that the committee seeks permission to extend its meeting hours on Tuesday, March 19, 2019, and Wednesday, March 20, 2019. For the sake of clarity, I will say it in French, please.
[Translation]
Considering that it is essential to hear witnesses from Alberta, Saskatchewan and all other regions that have concerns about Bill C-48, I move that the committee seeks permission to extend its meeting hours on Tuesday, March 19, 2019, and Wednesday, March 20, 2019.
[English]
As many other committees have done, we would then take advantage of the week we are sitting in March to have longer hours. I was in the Defence Committee yesterday for Bill C-71, and they were sitting long hours, so it seems that it’s normal practice to do that.
The Chair: That committee is a bit different, Senator Miville-Dechêne, because they only meet once a week. I’ve been on that committee, and we do sit long hours because we make up in one day what normally takes other committees two days.
Senator McCoy: I would like some clarification as to what your intention is. Are you suggesting that — I don’t know how long, and then I have some other comments, but first of all, what’s in your mind as to extended hours?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Having more witnesses heard.
Senator McCoy: How long would you be thinking of sitting?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It depends on the witnesses we can gather at that particular time, so that’s why was leaving the flexibility of the extension as opposed to saying one or two hours more. I would say that, in the Defence Committee, they are sitting much more than four hours per week. They have had extended sessions of work. This is done in other committees, and it permits having more witnesses heard. I believe what I heard on the other side is that you want witnesses to be heard on this particular bill, so I’m giving you a way to hear more witnesses with this motion.
The Chair: That was a good point, Senator McCoy, because on Tuesday we have Senate caucus starting at 11:45, so that gives us 15 minutes on Tuesday. We already sit from 9:30 to 11:30, so that only gives us 15 minutes. Just to let you know that would not —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We have Wednesday evenings.
The Chair: I know we have Wednesday evenings.
Senator Manning: With all due respect to everyone around the table, we should try to hear from the witnesses that are already here.
The Chair: That’s what I would like to do.
Senator Plett: I will echo Senator Manning’s comments.
I think we need to find out who all the witnesses are. There is absolutely no urgency in passing a motion as to what we do on March 19. I think the steering committee can come up with a work plan and decide how many witnesses we have. I am very much in favour of hearing all the witnesses that we can, especially from the provinces that many people here are choosing to ignore. I am hoping that they will apply and come here. At that point, steering will present a proposal.
Most certainly, we cannot do it on Tuesday, as you state, chair, because we have a caucus meeting. It would have to be done on Wednesday.
The senator points out that because the Defence Committee is doing something, that makes it normal. No. One committee doing something does not make it normal. I happen to be on that committee, and I happen to support the sitting of more time there because we had determined, by a work plan that was properly submitted, that we needed more time. In fact, we have not had a request there to travel, in reference to somebody else saying before, “Well, then every committee would travel.” Not every committee needs to travel. Nothing is necessarily normal in this case. If the steering committee determines that sitting extra hours is desirable, they will present a work plan that would require that, and it can be debated, discussed and voted on at that point.
The Chair: Are you good with that, senator? Do you want it decided here, even though on Tuesday we can’t meet longer anyway?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: There is Wednesday.
The Chair: You said Tuesday and Wednesday. You gave two days. I’m trying to help you out here.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We can’t start earlier, but we can finish later on Tuesday.
Senator Plett: We already have the right to do that by one hour.
The Chair: Yes, we do have a right.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: March 19 looks really far, but it’s the next week we are sitting. That’s why I think we should solve this.
The Chair: We can sit an extra hour on Wednesday.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can we vote on that?
Senator Plett: It doesn’t have to be.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is there any problem with voting on that?
Senator Plett: Why would you vote on something that is irrelevant?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It’s not irrelevant.
The Chair: Let’s have some order here. We’re intruding on the time of the witnesses we now have. You didn’t have to move this, but if you did, that’s fine.
Senator McCoy: I have another practical point to make, if I may. First of all, thank you for thinking of ways of seeing and hearing from as many people as possible. The other consideration is giving as many people as possible the time we need with each of the witnesses in order to fully hear what they have to say. I had the misfortune of being in a committee meeting last week with two of the most important voices in the future of energy in this country, our low carbon future in this country. They were there for such a time that committee members, let alone others attending that weren’t members of the committee, only had one chance to ask questions, and they ran out of time to ask their supplemental questions. That’s not sufficient on a bill of this import. In scheduling, we can’t have 16 witnesses in three hours. I would ask our steering committee and clerks, as they are organizing the work plan, to take practical considerations into account and make this hearing substantive and not just a once-over, if I may put it that way.
The Chair: Senator Miville-Dechêne, do you want to make it that on March 20 we extend time? We can’t on March 19. On our own, we can on March 20 do it for an extra hour.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We can before or after?
The Chair: We can extend after.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: On Tuesday, at 11:30?
The Chair: I don’t want to interfere with other people who have meetings on Tuesday morning, because there are other people who have meetings.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: At 11:30?
The Chair: We have Senate caucus at 11:45. I don’t mind if we go later on Wednesday night. That doesn’t bother me.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: In the morning? We could start at 8 a.m. on Tuesday.
The Chair: I have to check with all the senators to make sure that we can start at that time.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We can ask.
The Chair: Senator MacDonald, my deputy chair, is not even here. You can go ahead and move the motion. I would like you to eliminate March 19 and go to March 20. That would make sense, if you want to make it.
Senator Cormier: I thought that today we would have the witness list with the work plan. I thought we were supposed to decide on the work plan with the witnesses. Was I wrong?
The Chair: We are trying as hard as we can, Senator Cormier.
Senator Cormier: Has steering had the chance to decide on a witness list?
The Chair: No.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We should decide.
Senator Cormier: The only thing I want to say is that I do agree with the motion because I think it’s important that we meet the witnesses, but because I don’t have the list before me, I don’t know how many hours. I don’t know what it means. I agree that we must expand. That’s what I want to say. The witness list is very important for me to make decisions on the future work of the committee.
The Chair: People have submitted witness lists. Letters are going out to these people. They will have to reply. We have time for this. That’s what we have right now.
We have a motion on the floor to extend the time on the Wednesday night, March 20.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Tuesday and Wednesday.
Senator Plett: We can’t do it on Tuesday. We have Senate caucus.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Not in the morning. We start here at 9:30. We can start before 9:30.
The Chair: We still have to seek permission.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, that’s what my motion says, seek permission.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Plett: I think the motion should then be clarified to start earlier on Tuesday and extend on Wednesday. I may be wrong in my saying “extending” means going past. We are not in favour of extending on Tuesday. If you’re suggesting starting at 8 a.m. on Tuesday, maybe you should at least clarify your motion that we start at 8 a.m. on Tuesday and extend the sitting on Wednesday.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We can do that. For me, “extension” means at one end or the other.
Senator Plett: It doesn’t to me. What time would you like to start on Tuesday?
The Chair: We have witnesses. We are going to have to call them back to another meeting. We have already wasted that time with this motion, senator.
All those in favour of extending the time on March 19 and 20, please raise your hands. All those opposed? The motion carries.
We were going to have a discussion on travel. Do we have any idea on the two cities that we should go to on this?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Since we have two days, the idea was to have two full days of hearings and to travel to Prince Rupert and Terrace.
The Chair: I’m fine with that. Does anyone have a problem with those two?
Senator McCoy: Why Terrace?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Obviously, we want to meet with many natives. It’s more convenient to have two places to do so because of where they are located.
Senator McCoy: How far is Terrace from Fort St. John?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It’s a bus ride, but I’m not sure it’s a doable bus ride.
Ms. Nadeau: It’s an hour and a half between Terrace and Prince Rupert.
Senator McCoy: Terrace and Fort St. John, I said.
Ms. Nadeau: I haven’t looked into that option.
Senator McCoy: Fort St. John is where industry is, if you want to balance it out.
The Chair: Does anyone mind adding Fort St. John? Two days. Maybe we will need more time. Why don’t we see if we can do it and then try to present a plan back. Why don’t we have two plans, one for the two, and then add the third one to it and see what that means? We can then discuss at steering and bring it forward. Is that okay? All right. I can’t stand it. We actually agreed on something.
We have got witnesses to hear, so I am going to go right to that. These are important witnesses.
You are going to prepare a budget; right?
Ms. Nadeau: I’ll prepare a budget and bring it back to the full committee tomorrow. I’ll have two separate budgets with two options.
The Chair: That sounds good.
This morning we’re going to call, from the Chamber of Shipping, Robert Lewis-Manning, President; and from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Tim McMillan, President and Chief Executive Officer.
Witnesses, you may have to come back. We’re done here at 11:30. We apologize for that. We thank you very much for coming early, just in case we finished earlier.
Did you have a preference on who starts?
Tim McMillan, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers: Good morning and thank you, honourable chair and committee members. As president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, I’m happy to be here to give some thoughts on this bill.
Our association represents 80 per cent of the oil and gas produced in Canada from offshore, from the East Coast right through the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin to British Columbia. We also represent the largest private sector investor in the Canadian economy. The oil and gas industry invested $41 billion last year into the Canadian economy.
Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, seeks to impose an oil tanker moratorium on Canada’s north coast. It is our view that this legislation is harmful to Canada. We do not support it, we do not think that science supports it, and it’s inconsistent with government’s stated goals, including those related to reconciliation. We also think it’s damaging to the middle class. Over half a million Canadians work in the oil and gas industry in Canada.
We think it has already had a detrimental effect on Canada’s global reputation and, if passed, will have a further negative effect. We are being seen as a country that can’t get major projects done despite having world-class resources, a sophisticated workforce and high environmental and regulatory standards. We are also seen as a country that continues to find ways to limit our ability to get those products to growing demand centres around the world.
Canada has the world’s third-largest crude oil resources and we are recognized as the premier producer. We do it safely and environmentally responsibly. Canada has a world-class reputation.
Today, virtually all of Canada’s exports go to one customer, the United States. Due to several factors, we have been selling our products at increasing discounts to that single customer. Over the last few years, we have seen the differentials blow out.
I checked the world price for oil this morning, and today it is about $65 a barrel. West Texas, the price we get if we can get the oil down to our largest customer, is $55 a barrel. Unfortunately, because we only have one customer and we have insufficient access to them, today we are getting $38 a barrel for Western Canadian Select. This is having a substantial effect on investment, field activity and employment, meaning that families are losing opportunity and income. This is the current consequence of poor market access: lost revenues that could have supported better quality of life for Canadians.
I also want to highlight for the committee that demand for crude oil continues to rise globally. The International Energy Agency puts out a forecast between now and 2040. In each year between now and then, we’re seeing substantial increases in crude demand. That demand is today being increasingly supplied by the Middle East, Nigeria and Azerbaijan. Canada has continued to struggle to get to the new and growing markets of India and China. Those two countries will make up the lion’s share of global demand growth.
Global investment in oil and gas continues to rise as well. Last year in the U.S. alone it rose by almost 10 per cent. Canada lost investment again last year.
I’m going to speak briefly about tanker safety. My colleague, who will also be presenting, will know that file better than me. In Canada, any product that moves by any form of transportation has to be done safely. Crude oil most certainly falls into a responsible product that gets taken by road, pipeline, rail and ship, and when it does, it has to meet the high environmental and regulatory standards in Canada. We most certainly expect that because so much of our oil is imported by tanker into Eastern Canada. If you fill up your gas tank today in this city or in any city in Quebec or Atlantic Canada, the shipping rules have enabled that product to get to your gas tank safely and responsibly.
I would also like to highlight some of our Indigenous partners. Often we will see others and media profile Indigenous opposition to shipping and to the energy sector in general. This is just not the case. Like all Canadians, there are different points of view, some that want to see growth and some that don’t.
I would highlight that many Indigenous communities in Canada see resource development as a critical opportunity to economic reconciliation and a pathway to end poverty. The proposed legislation takes a paternalistic approach while ignoring the economic realities and aspirations of many Indigenous communities in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
CAPP also notes that the nine bands within the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation have filed a suit to quash the proposed Oil Tanker Moratorium Act and have secured the support of other First Nations in their opposition to Bill C-48. Eagle Spirit Chiefs Council, as well as the Indian Resource Council and the National Coalition of Chiefs, representing approximately 200 Indigenous communities, have expressed concerns with this bill.
To conclude, I would say that in the discussions of this committee earlier today and in what I have heard from elected officials, this bill was an election commitment to foreign activists that have worked hard and deliberately to limit Canada’s investments, infrastructure and ability to be the global supplier of choice. I think that putting that commitment ahead of the hard-working Canadians and the high environmental and regulatory standards in which we operate isn’t good for Canada. It isn’t appropriate for a country that is aspiring to be a global supplier of choice. Our recommendation is that the bill be withdrawn or amended in a way that allows us to continue to grow our economy, invest in Canada and find a path that allows us to be a safe supplier to global markets and to ship off our north coast.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McMillan.
Robert Lewis-Manning, President, Chamber of Shipping: Good morning, honourable chair and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to offer some certain observations and recommendations on the important topics of protecting our coasts and supporting Canadian international trade.
I personally have been involved in marine protection initiatives on all three of Canada’s coasts and the Great Lakes, and I am a member of Canada’s national Species at Risk advisory committee. As a former senior officer in the Royal Canadian Navy, I have a reasonable experience with principles of international law and global shipping policy development. My comments today, not surprisingly, are from the perspective of commercial marine transportation and international trade more generally.
The Chamber of Shipping represents the interests of ship owners, agents and service providers responsible for over 60 per cent of Canadian international trade by maritime transportation.
Many of our members also move bulk liquid products of all types globally and in Canada, including crude oil and other petroleum and chemical products, all items produced and/or used by Canadians.
The north coast of British Columbia is one of the richest marine ecosystems in the world, has enormous cultural significance for the people who live there and contains important resources for British Columbia’s economy. Like many other unique coastal regions of Canada, it should be a priority to protect it, and I doubt that anyone would question that goal.
The region is also an important trading gateway for Canada and includes the country’s fastest-growing port, in Prince Rupert, in addition to a number of smaller ports that afford other opportunities.
Protection of our coastal environment goes hand-in-hand with being able to build trust with both Canadians and international shipping customers. Furthermore, the ability to protect our coastal environment responsibly will also ensure the continued competitiveness of our trading gateways at a time when competitive pressures, especially from the United States, are increasing.
International shipping relies on predictable and uniform approaches to regulation globally. As a founding member of the International Maritime Organization, Canada has endorsed this approach through principles that are enshrined in international conventions. This legislation departs from this approach, and it is an unnecessary precedent.
With respect to Bill C-48, I would like to make some very candid observations.
We do not view this legislation as an area-based moratorium on tanker traffic, but rather a permanent ban on the export of crude oil from the region and a prohibition on a number of other petroleum-based commodities. This legislation is not designed to prohibit a laden tanker from exercising its right of innocent passage under international law and transiting waters on the north coast of British Columbia. Of course, the likelihood of this actually happening is already negligible as this body of water is not a normal transit pathway for such commodities and laden tankers leaving Alaska bound for Puget Sound already respect a voluntary tanker exclusion zone. This legislation will not have material impact on most of the large commercial vessels currently calling at ports on the B.C. north coast. This is certainly true for tankers, as there is currently no commercially viable trade in crude oil in that region.
This legislation was never based on a proper risk assessment, although we are aware that the government is progressing an area risk assessment for ship-sourced oil spills. Unfortunately, this work is not yet available from Transport Canada. We do not support the assertion that taking a precautionary approach is justified at this time as there is no impending threat posed by the shipment of crude oil.
I’ll add that the recent amendments to the Canada Shipping Act that were introduced and passed in Bill C-86 actually contain similar language as to what is in this bill. In some senses, this bill is redundant.
This chosen approach could have many unintended consequences, including establishing a precedent that encourages other jurisdictions to demand similar treatment that does not respect international or national standards and is not supported with evidence. We are already seeing evidence of this by legislation recently introduced in the state of Washington.
Concerns are being raised by the International Maritime Organization for the following: a lack of adherence to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; the potential for discouraging the proper evaluation and management of shipping risks and the appropriate employment of risk mitigation measures in the future; and, finally, missing an opportunity to really connect important objectives already enshrined in the Government of Canada’s Ocean Protection Plan.
We are very aware of the concerns expressed by coastal First Nations in B.C. and other stakeholders. It is not my intention to minimize those concerns. Notwithstanding, this legislation ignores many of these concerns. It does not support smart policy development to better understand real risk and develop mitigation strategies to address residual risk.
With this context, I would like to provide you with some options to address this challenge.
The International Maritime Organization has a series of tools that can be implemented to protect coastal waters that have unique ecological, socio-economic or scientific significance and may be vulnerable to the impacts of international shipping. One of these tools is the establishment of particularly sensitive sea areas, or PSSAs.
Once established, a PSSA implements associated protective measures available in conventions of the same organization and individually tailored by the proponent — in this case Canada and, potentially, Canada with the United States. These measures include ship routing, reporting requirements and areas to be avoided, to name but a few. They provide a mechanism to support effective protective measures while also respecting international law.
PSSAs must be supported by appropriate science and evidence and can be adaptive in their development. There are currently 15 globally recognized PSSAs, including very prominent ones such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Coral Sea and the Galapagos Archipelago.
PSSAs provide a useful framework with which to link other coastal protective measures, such as formal marine spacial planning, species-at-risk protections and marine protected area networks, all of which are currently underway on the north coast of British Columbia.
We are not aware that Transport Canada considered this alternative approach. Interestingly, the Council of the Haida Nation, in its submission to the house standing committee the year before last, recognized the importance of opportunity of PSSAs to the overall marine spacial planning efforts of this region.
Overall, we believe there are better ways to protect the north coast of British Columbia, respect Canada’s commitments to international trade and standards, and promote other important objectives of the Government of Canada under the Oceans Protection Plan.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Manning.
Senator Manning: Full disclosure: I don’t think we’re related. Not that we know of. You never know in today’s world.
Thank you for being here this morning. You mentioned the oil industry added $41 billion to the Canadian economy last year. What is the impact of this piece of legislation on the Canadian economy and on investment here if it were to come into effect? I read recently in a C.D. Howe Institute report that we have lost about $100 billion in investment in the last couple of years due to the concerns in the industry. You also mentioned that U.S. investment in the oil industry is up about 10 per cent. You said there was a decrease in Canada, but you didn’t say how much. Can you give us some idea of the investment concerns that will be coming with this piece of legislation?
Mr. McMillan: Thank you for the question. If we go back to 2014, our industry was investing $82 billion a year. We have seen a steady decline over the last several years. We expect it to decline even further this year, likely under $40 billion. Just in rough numbers, since 2014, we have seen the capital investment into the Canadian economy fall by half from where it was. That is largely due to market access constraints from a very coordinated and orchestrated approach by foreign-funded activists to limit Canada’s ability to get its products to market. I think the cancellation of Northern Gateway sent a shock wave around the world to investment houses that traditionally had invested in Canada. This bill will cement their view that Canada isn’t interested in being the supplier of choice globally.
Senator Manning: You mentioned the Asian markets and the international crude oil demand. I don’t pretend to be an expert on this; I just try to read as much as I can. I have seen seven or eight major oil companies have packed up and left Canada in the last while. I think Devon announced last week they are leaving. They are heading to the United States in a lot of cases. You mentioned earlier in your remarks that 90-plus per cent of our product is going to the United States. When you look at their $65 a barrel, down to what we’re getting here at $38 a barrel, we wonder why investment is going elsewhere? That’s common economic sense.
I am just wondering about the markets. How do you see the future if we do not get our product to tidewater, to be able to send it to other parts of the world that are demanding it? I know we’re talking about investment, but what about jobs? Newfoundland and Labrador, which I represent and where I come from, depends heavily on the oil industry in our own province but indeed in Western Canada also. I am wondering about the impact on jobs because I know, in our province, we see the hit of what is happening out west. Maybe you could elaborate a bit on potential of job losses?
Mr. McMillan: Absolutely. It truly is a national story. When we look at our supply chain, it stretches across the country. When we look at our workforce, it stretches across the country. We continue to see the capital investments leaving Canada and going to the U.S. and elsewhere. We’re seeing it to go to offshore Brazil. We are seeing it go to the Middle East. With some of the big divestments out of the Canadian energy sector the last few years, when we follow the money, it is reinvesting in oil and gas, just not here. That has meant substantial job losses.
I think it’s reasonable to expect this to continue. The price for oil today in Canada is $38 a barrel; the global price is $66. That’s almost a $30 price difference. That’s because we don’t have access to world prices. To get world price access, you need a pipeline to tidewater. That will raise the value of all the products we produce. The more efficient and the more access we have, the higher that will rise until we’re on par with world prices.
Senator Manning: In your remarks, I notice concerns but I do not see a proposal to amend the bill. I don’t know if your groups have considered that but, for us as members of the committee, it’s very productive sometimes to have proposed amendments that we can discuss among ourselves to see if we can improve the piece of legislation for the industry. If there is something that you think needs to be addressed through an amendment, it may be worthwhile to forward that to the clerk of the committee so we can discuss it here.
Mr. McMillan: I will endeavour to put something forward. It is challenging with this bill, being that, as was identified earlier, this was politically motivated by a commitment made during an election campaign. The intent of this bill is already covered by another bill and legislative powers under Bill C-86. I will endeavour to put forward something to the committee, but I think it would be something of a nature that expands the persistence definition in a way that allows us to produce crude oil and safely supply it to global markets through the north coast of British Columbia, ultimately making this bill irrelevant, because it already is, according to the current powers of the minister.
Senator Patterson: I’d like to thank the witnesses and thank the committee for allowing me to ask some questions as critic.
The Chair: You’re a member.
Senator Patterson: I’m now a member today, and I’m critic of the bill.
I have three quick questions for the Chamber of Shipping. You talked about the particularly sensitive sea area mechanism of the IMO as a tool that will do everything that this bill is aimed at doing. Could you elaborate on that, briefly?
Mr. Lewis-Manning: Thank you, Senator Patterson. I think the particularly sensitive sea areas bring a high degree of planning, evidence and flexibility with them. The unfortunate part of this legislation is that it’s all or nothing with largely a single commodity and it’s not properly addressing some — quite honestly, there are some valid concerns of some First Nations on the B.C. north coast. The current legislation is an ineffective tool, whereas a PSSA would make a lot of us have to work hard to demonstrate what makes sense and what probably doesn’t make sense or capacity that needs to be brought to the region in order to conduct responsible shipping. It provides it in an international framework recognized by the global regulator of marine transportation and the insurance companies of marine transportation providers, so it brings a holistic approach to a complex issue. If you look at the Great Barrier Reef, Australia has hung a number of national initiatives off the PSSA, not just for managing shipping but also the marine protected area network planning, their species at risk protection, all the things that are of concern on the West Coast and all three coasts of Canada. It provides a good tool. It’s not all or nothing. It can be developed and can have iterations. In the case of Australia, it has gone through three amendments already since being the first one established in 1990. It’s a very flexible tool.
Senator Patterson: You mentioned that a concern of the International Maritime Organization — and I also understand you’re involved with the International Chamber of Shipping — is that the bill may not respect Canada’s obligation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Lewis-Manning: The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has some encompassing principles about the freedom of navigation. In this sense, this legislation could restrict that. Interestingly, the approach that has been taken with this legislation is to constrain the ability to load and unload the commodity versus restricting shipping. That’s why I mentioned that if there were such a thing as a laden tanker in the waters that have been designated, this legislation wouldn’t stop a vessel transiting. I think that the government has had to balance its commitments to UNCLOS, that Law of the Sea, and what it’s trying to achieve and, in doing so, it’s probably treading on some grey space, to be quite frank.
Senator Patterson: Again, to the chamber, you’ve described the bill — if I may put words into your mouth — as kind of a crude instrument, a blunt instrument, for a very complex issue involving species at risk and biological marine protected areas. There was a spill in the Heiltsuk First Nation that we heard was threatening or devastating to their clam fishery. I’m wondering if you would be familiar with that spill. Did that spill involve the persistent oils that are included in this bill? How did we arrive at the list of oils banned at this volume?
Mr. Lewis-Manning: Thank you, senator. I’m aware of the spill. The fuel was diesel fuel oil in a tug, and this legislation does not address it. The development of the scheduled products in this legislation was not done in full consultation. We weren’t even aware of it until it was tabled, so I can’t answer about how that was done.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Is the Trans Mountain pipeline currently being used to transport oil from Central Canada to the West?
[English]
Mr. McMillan: Trans Mountain today connects from Alberta to Burnaby. It takes crude oil, and it also batches some refined product as well.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Will the new Trans Mountain pipeline be sufficient to transport oil from Alberta to the West? You’re saying that we should sell our oil in Asia. Will the Trans Mountain pipeline be enough to meet the demand in Asia by transporting the oil to the West?
[English]
Mr. McMillan: Good question. No, most certainly not. For clarity, it doubles its capacity, but Canada’s opportunity to be a supplier of choice in China is far in excess of what that one project will do.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: There’s currently a ban on transporting oil on the coast of British Columbia. Almost 90 per cent of the coast will be closed to all oil transportation. The pipelines will be concentrated in the Vancouver bay, around Burnaby. Would the installation of three or four pipelines in the bay result in the city of Vancouver becoming a high-risk area?
[English]
Mr. McMillan: No. Any time we move product in Canada, we do it safely. The Trans Mountain, which will terminate in Burnaby, will load ships, and those ships will travel safely and consistently with all the rules of Canada. By not allowing the north coast to be utilized as a shipping terminus, as it is for so many other commodities, we’re just limiting Canada’s opportunity. The real beneficiaries here are Nigeria, Azerbaijan, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, who don’t have the high environmental standards of production or shipping that Canada has. They will be the ones who supply China.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: If the bill is adopted, how will it affect the price of a barrel of oil known as Western Canadian Select? How will it affect the price in the long term?
[English]
Mr. McMillan: It will continue to keep the Canadian price for oil substantially beneath the global price. It will dampen investment in jobs and opportunities so that we never reach our potential. In that underperforming environment, we are getting far less for our commodities than they are truly worth on the global market.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I want to thank Senator Boisvenu, who elegantly asked the questions that I wanted to ask. I’m trying to determine the possible compromise in the current situation. The environment must be protected. Obviously, the industry wants to develop. You want to develop new markers. If the solution isn’t to go through Vancouver and if going through the Port of Vancouver wouldn’t provide access to all the markets, what would be an acceptable compromise to protect this important area and enable you to do your job? For the moment, we have the pros and cons, but we don’t have this suggestion. How do your organizations help protect the environment?
[English]
Mr. McMillan: We should never compromise our environment. We should always move forward and do things deliberately and in a safe and responsible manner. That is the model of all the shipping we do off our coast. Where there are specific concerns, as Robert has noted, there can be specific provisions. The fact that this bill came forward and isn’t based on science, where we believe that should be a fundamental tenet of a bill of this nature, is problematic. Where we have specific concerns, they must be addressed. Under Bill C-86, those powers exist today.
Ultimately, where is the middle ground? If the middle ground that you ask about is between the American activists that have an orchestrated tar sands campaign to limit Canada’s ability to build pipelines or ship our products globally, I don’t think they’re looking for middle ground. They’re looking to drive investment out of Canada. Our middle ground would be to do it safely, responsibly and in a way that works for Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Lewis-Manning: Thank you for the question.
[English]
I will give you five great examples of what we are doing. We are extensively involved in the Marine Protected Area network planning on the B.C. north coast. We are very involved with all species at risk in Canada. We are currently developing and negotiating, with the Government of Canada, the first-ever conservation agreement under the Species at Risk Act for the southern resident killer whale. It’s being looked at nationally as, potentially, an example for moving forward for other species at risk. We are working with government in the development of new risk assessment methodology, and I mentioned that in my opening remarks. We are involved in the Oceans Protection Plan program called proactive vessel management, which is a consensus-based forum with industry and Coastal First Nations to develop solutions to address concerns about shipping. Finally, we have been supportive of the government’s establishment of two emergency towing vessels on the West Coast, both of which have already been deployed in a standby capacity for incidents on the West Coast.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Mr. McMillan, can you provide economic impact studies or analyses to help us understand how this bill would have a negative economic impact on your industry?
[English]
Mr. McMillan: There are several pieces out there. The one referenced earlier, I think, was the Conference Board’s, and it is probably the most recent. If you look at CAPP’s investment profile and our production predictions in 2014 compared to where they are today, they have flattened out substantially, and it is purely because we see investment leaving to jurisdictions that can get market access.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
We talked about a global world price of $65 or more per barrel of crude oil, and now we are selling to the U.S. for $38. That’s almost a difference of $30 a barrel. What is the actual economic impact? We are a natural resource-based country. Our currency is based on natural resource income, so what is the impact to our Canadian dollar and what is the impact to our budget deficit?
Mr. McMillan: That’s a great question. Today, it’s almost $30 a barrel. In the latter part of 2018, it was over $50 a barrel at some points, and today it’s costing us tens of millions of dollars and it will again tomorrow. I think it was Scotiabank that predicted a cost of over $15 billion to the Canadian economy, and it is such an extreme situation that the Alberta government has taken the unprecedented measure of curtailing production in Canada. That is something that would have been unheard of a few years ago. It’s very divisive within our industry, but the reality is that when you don’t get the investment, you don’t get the growth, and the long-term effects are even bigger than the $15 billion, which is the sticker price we see.
Senator Oh: With the modern technology we now have, marine life and coasts should not be compromised. Do we need more technology in shipping to avoid future incidents like running aground for tankers?
Mr. Lewis-Manning: I think, globally, the statistics speak for themselves. The technology, especially in the movement of petroleum products and chemical products, has innovated to a very significant amount. If you look at the places where we do have challenges, they’re often in other types of vessels or situations. On the West Coast, for example, we have had a spill with a vessel at anchor, we’ve had an incident with a vessel drifting, and we’ve had a tug go aground, all within the last five years. The point about having a good planning process is that it would identify where the risks are. The trouble with legislation like this is that it’s not actually bringing the process to bear.
Mr. McMillan: The expertise is obviously with the Chamber of Shipping, but compared to where we were a few years ago, with double-hulled tanks and pilot assist, the ability to do this safely is light years ahead of where we were a few years ago. I think Canadians are confident.
We bring so many ships in from the East Coast through our sensitive environments in the eastern part of Canada. If this bill was to be a moratorium on that, I think people in Ontario and Quebec would be just as upset as people in Western Canada that they couldn’t keep their homes and get food to their grocery stores because of the limits of moving the products in.
Mr. Lewis-Manning: If I may add to that, a bridge of a modern tanker looks like the cockpit of a modern aircraft. The technology and principles of simulation and understanding the water column and how it reacts with a vessel are very sophisticated now.
Senator Simons: My apologies for arriving late.
Mr. Lewis-Manning, I’m quite interested in the PSSAs that you explained to us earlier. Is it possible that a PSSA could be crafted such that it would provide more protection because it could keep out other kinds of ships and not just the large tankers?
The Chair: Could you elaborate? No one knows what it is.
Senator Simons: Particularly sensitive sea areas. It sounds like something out of The Princess Bride, like Rodents Of Unusual Size.
Mr. Lewis-Manning: Thank you for the question. I think what you’re alluding to is correct. It has the capacity or ability to manage risks that go much further than just what this legislation is purporting. I think that’s the real benefit.
There probably is some reluctance because it takes a significant effort. It would probably take a couple of years to be able to propose a PSSA to the International Maritime Organization, but it’s taken a couple of years for this legislation to get to this point.
I think what concerns me the most is it’s not actually leveraging the great work being done on the B.C. north coast by the federal government, the province, Indigenous communities and the industry. To me, the PSSA would accelerate that and increase the protections.
Senator Simons: Do you think there is a way that you could construct a network of PSSAs that would function as a de facto corridor, say out of Prince Rupert, so there could be one path in and out that would still provide protection for particularly sensitive sea areas?
Mr. Lewis-Manning: That’s what you will see in other PSSAs, and then you focus your resources in the places where you need them. There’s no question it is a vast area. We have other vast areas in Canada, and you want to be able to focus the right resources, both private sector and public sector resources, into making sure you are doing safe shipping.
Senator Simons: What other resources would be available under a PSSA model to protect the most vulnerable parts of the ecosystem?
Mr. Lewis-Manning: I don’t want to be prescriptive in what I think it should look like. I think you’re alluding to the concept of marine corridors, which is certainly in discussion in the Arctic waters in Canada where you can focus your hydrographic, your spill-response capabilities, your monitoring, your communication, reporting and emergency towing vessels — all those assets that would bring a degree of confidence to people that have significant concerns. I think that is where it works.
Of course, with the mapping, you understand where your ecological sensitivities are as well. That work is being done right across Canada, but it’s not linking with this piece of legislation.
Senator Simons: That has been very helpful.
Senator Gagné: Actually, that was the question I was going to ask. Talking about compromise, would that be a possibility within this act, to have an established corridor? I think it’s a question also of compromise. Do you have any comments?
Mr. Lewis-Manning: I didn’t come prepared to give you a prescription. But I think you’re on to something, if I may be so blunt. I think if this legislation is to progress, if it provides a conduit to that level of sophisticated marine spacial planning, I think it would be positive for the B.C. north coast, and I think it would be positive for Canada’s international trade.
The Chair: How many tankers come to the maritime coast every day?
Mr. Lewis-Manning: I guess it wouldn’t be fair of me to ask Senator Manning. He probably knows the figure. It’s significant. I don’t have an exact number in front of me. I’m sorry. That could be sent to the clerk.
The Chair: If you could, that would be helpful.
What other threats are there to the West Coast or any coastline outside of tanker traffic? There are all kinds of ships, cruise lines, barges and other ocean vehicles travelling along that north coast, as well as American tankers from Alaska down to the West Coast. So what other threats are there to the West Coast that might be of concern as well as the tankers?
Mr. Lewis-Manning: Thank you for the question. I’m not trying to say that this is a disproportionate threat, but any industrial activity poses a degree of threat. We’re seeing trends in international shipping to larger ships, and, of course, the management of larger vessels deserves both review and potentially different approaches. I would say, for the most part, a lot of that is happening across Canada. You will see container ships now, 300-metres plus, that will be able to carry fuel itself that are in the range of the limits that we’re talking about in this piece of legislation. So the management of risk goes well beyond just what we would assume in a crude oil tanker.
I would say something else that is very relevant at the moment is the cumulative impacts, and there is a lot of work being done in Canada right now to try and benchmark and evaluate the cumulative impacts of shipping. And this is all positive change. I’m sure you didn’t spend the weekend, like I did, reading the Reconsideration report for Trans Mountain Expansion Project, but you’ll see those concepts that are very prominent in the report and the issue of offsets. We’re now moving to a level of sophistication in managing both shipping risk and its impacts on the environment that has accelerated dramatically in the five years.
I will end off by saying we’re on the cusp of probably a technological revolution with respect to fuels as well. It will have material impact on how we manage risk because it’s going to make the risk go down significantly, in my humble opinion.
The Chair: I don’t know if any of you can answer this question, but we’ve heard a lot of conflicting stories, I think, individually. We’ve had a number of First Nations from the West Coast who have come to visit us about this matter, and it’s always hard to get a handle on it. But I don’t see the First Nations as one group. I see them as a whole bunch of different groups, different business people. Maybe you could shed some light as to your relationships with the ones that might be affected, how many of them would be supportive of the ban and how many of them would be opposed to the ban?
Mr. McMillan: This is something that we’ve certainly done some work on, dating back to Northern Gateway. We had an opportunity to host several of the First Nations leaders from the entire corridor, including the coastal area at Fort McMurray, and there were many different views, from those who thought this was an incredible opportunity for their community to those who were challenged and wanted to understand how all the pieces would fit together.
In the past year, I got to understand the views of the Eagle Spirit pipeline project and what this bill would mean to them and how concerned they are. I know they have been public with many of you. The National Coalition of Chiefs is another advocacy group of First Nations leaders that are concerned about the inability to develop the economic opportunities for the citizens. I believe their mandate is ending on-reserve poverty, and they see this bill as a specific barrier to that. And we have the IRC, the Indian Resource Council, which has spoken out very publicly.
So I think your observation that there is no homogenous view but multiple views, as all Canadians have, is an appropriate way to look at it. Your meetings in British Columbia, I think, would be very interesting.
The Chair: I’m not sure if we’re going to be able to complete this in time. I will run it an extra five minutes, at least to 11:35, to allow us to get to our caucus meeting. I’m sure they would come back if we asked them again.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for letting me ask a question.
First of all, thank you for your presentation. My question is to you, Mr. McMillan. I understand that 18 LNG export facilities have been proposed in Canada, with 13 of them in my province of British Columbia. Is that correct?
Mr. McMillan: Rough numbers, yes. I think that sounds like roughly what I heard.
Senator Jaffer: A total capacity of 260 million tonnes per day. According to The Conference Board of Canada study, which estimates the potential contributions of LNG exports to the Canadian economy, LNG sites in British Columbia could add roughly 7.4 billion in Canada’s annual economy over the next 30 years and raise national employment by an annual average of 65,000 jobs. Do you agree with that?
Mr. McMillan: I’ve not looked at the report, but the opportunity for LNG from Canada is substantial.
Senator Jaffer: Your submission to the house on October 26, 2017, indicated that adopting Bill C-48 would signify that Canada is closed for business. The chair will cut me off, so I won’t quote you. However, in Bill C-48, LNG is not a banned material. Do you agree with that? That’s not a persistent or crude oil? You can still do business with LNG?
Mr. McMillan: That’s my understanding.
Senator Jaffer: Bill C-48 allows for the shipment of non-toxic and non-corrosive oils, oils which, when spilled, do not have the same lasting effect that persistent or crude oil have on the environment. What can you tell us about the export of LNG and its contribution to economic growth and jobs, and how does this reconcile with your position that B.C. will be closed for business?
Mr. McMillan: Thank you for the question. From our point of view, we think LNG is a phenomenal opportunity for Canada, and globally for Canada to be the supplier of choice. The same for crude oil. No one should pit one against the other. Canada has opportunity in both regards. We can be exceptional in both, and both can and should and will be done safely. As far as those opportunities, I think we need to pursue them with all haste. But we’ve also have seen the cancellation of Aurora LNG and of Pacific Northwest LNG. As much as we are working hard, we have one approved and a second smaller one that has been approved.
Those that are fighting against shipments off the north coast and are fighting against Trans Mountain and fought against Northern Gateway are the same environmental activist groups out of the U.S. that are fighting against the pipeline to take natural gas to the coast. We should not be naive as Canadians to think that LNG is going to be treated any differently than Northern Gateway or than Trans Mountain. It’s the exact same individuals and funders that are trying to limit Canada’s ability to expand our growth.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your answer. So far, LNG is not part of the ban or the moratorium. It’s not persistent or crude oil, so there is no issue there; is that correct?
Mr. McMillan: My solution would be, in the amendment that we’ll put forward to the committee, that we should expand that definition of persistence to exclude crude oil as well. I think if that’s a path you’re going down, that’s likely the recommendation we’ll make, to allow us to ship crude oil by changing that definition.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Lewis-Manning, I’m impressed by the PPSA you have been talking about and your experience protecting the environment, but, from what I understand, the reason why crude oil and the persistent oils have been set out is because they do not dissipate as quickly as, say, LNG or others, so they can harm the environment more if there was a spill. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Lewis-Manning: I agree that the potential for harm is increased. However, I would also purport that we already move a significant amount of crude in Canada safely, and similar persistent products, even on the fresh water of the Great Lakes.
Senator Jaffer: I’m just talking about that area. That’s the reason why it’s in the moratorium. It’s because it doesn’t dissipate as quickly as LNG would.
Mr. Lewis-Manning: That’s the reason that Transport Canada is justifying.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
Mr. McMillan: I want to be clear that that definition is not based on science. The moratorium as proposed is not based on science. I think that by conflating those two things, it would be problematic.
Senator Jaffer: May I please ask, since you keep saying it, that you provide why you say it is not based on science to the clerk so that we can study it carefully, please? Thank you very much.
The Chair: Are you good with that, Mr. McMillan?
Mr. McMillan: We will make a submission in that regard.
The Chair: You may come back.
Senator Dasko: I have a very short question. What happens to the voluntary moratorium if this bill should die?
Mr. Lewis-Manning: Thank you very much. Nothing will happen. It will continue to exist and be respected.
Mr. McMillan: The same would be true if it passes, that this bill has nothing to do with the voluntary — I think other people have conflated those two things as an issue, but they really are unrelated.
Senator Dasko: So it continues then. Just as it is, unchanged.
Mr. Lewis-Manning: Correct.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. Did you have a point to make before we adjourn?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, just a small point, because I was not clear on why Terrace. It’s because the Nisga’a Nation is right beside it, and the Nisga’a Nation, as you know, publicly had strong reservations about the moratorium.
Just a second point, because it was very interesting, this PSSA corridor — could we have research on the international cases?
Jed Chong, Analyst, Library of Parliament: It will be included in the next round of briefing notes for the committee. Not tomorrow, that’s too soon.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Corridor is oil transported in those PSSA places.
Mr. Chong: We can look into it and put it in the committee’s briefing material.
The Chair: We’ll have a steering meeting sometime this week. I’ll try to fix it up.
(The committee adjourned.)