Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 48 - Evidence - March 20, 2019
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 20, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast, met this day at 6:45 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. Today, we are continuing our study of Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast, also known as the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.
For our first panel, we are pleased to have appearing before us the Honourable Marc Garneau, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport. Joining the minister from Transport Canada are Lawrence Hanson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy; and Marc-Yves Bertin, Director General, Marine Policy. Thank you for attending our meeting. I want to note that the minister has requested 20 minutes for his opening remarks. The steering committee considered it and has agreed to it. Minister Garneau, the floor is now yours.
Hon. Marc Garneau, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport: Thank you, Mr. Chair and esteemed members of the committee. I will start by saying that while I had originally offered 90 minutes in order to appear, unfortunately, because of a filibuster by the Conservatives in the other house, I will have to depart after 60 minutes. I regret this, because I know your time is valuable, I know this bill is extremely important and I would have liked to have been here for the full 90 minutes.
The Chair: We’ll offer you the opportunity to come back.
Mr. Garneau: I will, of course, consider coming back at a future time, but tonight, I will only be here for 60 minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for mentioning that I will require 20 minutes. I want to focus on what I think may be some of the more important questions, based on previous testimony, that are of concern to you. I wanted to go into more depth on that and hopefully satisfy you with my answers.
[Translation]
Thank you, Honourable Senators, for the opportunity to meet with the committee to outline both the necessity and benefits of Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.
The legislation is a critical step forward in fulfilling our government’s pledge to achieve a world-leading marine safety system that promotes responsible shipping and protects Canada’s waters.
The act formalizes a commitment the Prime Minister made in Vancouver on September 10, 2015, during the last federal election as one of the centrepieces of our plan to protect Canada’s oceans. This was later confirmed in my mandate letter. I want to be clear that we promised this to Canadians during the last election, and I am delivering on that promise.
[English]
You have already heard from my officials about what the moratorium is intended to accomplish and how it will work. I will concentrate my remarks today on what I see as the crux of the debate so far in the Senate and in this committee, namely, why do we have a moratorium on crude oil tankers in this particular region as opposed to other coastlines or waterways in Canada.
There is not one single reason but rather a combination of factors that help explain our government’s decision. There are four of them: one, a long-standing policy legacy of taking special measures to protect these waters from a crude oil spill; two, the unusually pristine environment and unique ecological features of this part of our country; three, the navigational risks of this particular coastline and the challenges of responding effectively and quickly to accidents in a timely manner; and four, a clearly stated desire on the part of a majority of coastal Indigenous communities for a formalization of the moratorium in order, among other things, to preserve burgeoning local and sustainable economies as well as a long-standing way of life. Let me proceed to elaborate on each of these four factors.
The first is a long-standing policy legacy of taking special measures to protect these particular waters from a crude oil spill. As you know, after completion of the Trans-Alaska pipeline in 1977, a routing system was established for tankers carrying American crude from Alaska to the west coast of the United States. They were entering the Juan de Fuca Strait at a rate of approximately three tankers per day and were becoming a concern to British Columbians and Canadians in general.
In 1985, Canadian and U.S. Coast Guards and industry developed a voluntary tanker exclusion zone along the B.C. coastline. Understand that this was done specifically due to concerns by Canada about the potentially devastating impacts of a major oil tanker spill off the coast of British Columbia. These dangers were vividly illustrated, of course, by the terrible 1989 Exxon Valdez accident, which spilled 35,000 metric tonnes of crude oil over 2,100 kilometres of coastline, with very serious and long-term impacts on the Alaska environment.
Mr. Chair, my department has monitored tanker traffic patterns along the West Coast and has found that all tankers tend to respect the Tanker Exclusion Zone. In short, senators, the Tanker Exclusion Zone is working. However, it is important to point out that the Tanker Exclusion Zone is intended specifically to prevent the transiting of U.S. ships servicing the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. It is not designed to prevent Canadian oil tankers from operating off this coast. This has been an academic question up until now since there was no reason for Canadian tankers to transport crude oil in large volumes given the absence of oil and gas operations along the coast of B.C. However, the fact remains that a gap exists. Should we ever start shipping crude oil off the coast, it could weaken adherence to the Tanker Exclusion Zone. After all, if we ourselves are shipping crude oil through these waters despite the risks, then why should other countries not do the same? As such, Bill C-48 should be seen as complementary to the Tanker Exclusion Zone and an important step that would provide additional protection for Canada.
Now that I’ve illustrated that a policy legacy exists, let me comment about why this is important. It’s important because we have made a conscious decision not to ship large volumes of crude oil in the region, helping to keep it relatively unspoiled. In other words, there is nothing arbitrary or surprising about this legislation. It’s in keeping with a well-established and carefully considered approach that goes back several decades. It’s also important because this policy legacy is a distinguishing feature for the north coast of B.C. compared to other regions of Canada, such as the Atlantic coast and the St. Lawrence River. To impose a tanker moratorium in these places would be to disrupt already existing industries and jobs. There is no such issue in northern B.C. thanks to a policy legacy of saying this is no place for crude oil tankers.
[Translation]
Let me move on to the second factor explaining why we are proposing to formalize the moratorium on the north coast of British Columbia, namely the fact that this is an unusually pristine ecosystem that merits special protection.
Senators, I do not mean to suggest that other regions in Canada are not beautiful or deserving of protection. In fact, our government has already taken many steps to create new marine protected areas and national parks to protect other parts of Canada, including just last week waters off the coast of Quebec’s Gaspé Peninsula.
[English]
However, let us look at the distinguishing characteristics of the northern coastline of British Columbia. First, the human footprint is relatively light. The population density in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which covers most of the moratorium area, is 0.3 people per square kilometre. Compare that to Vancouver Island, which has a population density of 9.5 people per square kilometre, and the City of Vancouver, which has a population density of 354 people per square kilometre. Senators, this is an unusually sparsely populated region, and this helps explain its relatively unspoiled and pristine environment. This may be due more to a mix of historical and geographical circumstances. European settlers were slower to populate the area, and the rugged conditions make it more difficult to travel to the region, but for whatever reason, it has resulted in an environment that is notably different from other places in Canada that are either more heavily populated and/or where there is a long history of transporting crude oil.
Besides the relatively light human footprint, another distinguishing feature of northern B.C. is the presence of the temperate rainforest. The world’s rainforests have been described as the lungs of the Earth because of their high oxygen production. Coastal temperate rainforests are globally rare, estimated by some to be as little as 2.5 per cent of global forests. Approximately 25 per cent of these forests are in British Columbia. The Great Bear Rainforest, which contains an estimated 2.89 million hectares of mature and old-growth forest, represents 46 per cent of B.C.’s older coastal temperate rainforests. This would represent approximately 12 per cent of the world’s remaining temperate rainforests.
[Translation]
Impacts to Great Bear or other coastal temperate rain forests from a spill would depend on the scale, seasonality and chemical composition of the spill. In general terms, there would be a high risk of impacts to shorelines and littoral ecosystems such as eelgrass meadows and kelp beds. These habitats are essentially nurseries for many species important to food webs, so impacts to these habitats would likely have impacts to those food webs, as well as to nutrient cycling within and between marine and terrestrial ecosystems. For example, a recent study demonstrated that marine-derived nutrients from Pacific salmon can be transferred to streams and riparian forests through diverse food web pathways, fertilizing forests and increasing invertebrate abundance, which may in turn affect breeding birds.
In addition, a large diversity of species forage in these littoral habitats; direct impacts to them would have ramifications for a large diversity of marine and terrestrial species. Research following the Exxon Valdez spill indicates that not only can there be short-term lethal effects on wildlife resulting from spills, but also long-term sub-lethal effects. For example, low levels of crude exposure have been shown to have longer-term demographic impacts on species as diverse as herring and harlequin ducks. Experience from the Exxon Valdez spill also indicates that in addition to shorebirds, waterfowl, ravens and eagles, terrestrial species such as bear, river otter, and mink are most likely to be impacted, but even species such as black-tailed deer, which regularly forage in intertidal zones, can be affected.
Nutrient cycling between marine and terrestrial environments is well documented and could be interrupted or otherwise compromised by a large spill. Oiled wildlife would likely be scavenged, introducing toxicity into terrestrial food webs. Impacts to one ecosystem would, therefore, almost certainly be reflected in the other. For example, following the Exxon Valdez spill, herring populations crashed and pink salmon stocks also declined. Both of these species are key food sources for marine and some terrestrial species, and salmon have been shown to be major nutrient input sources for temperate rain forests. A clear linkage is that bears, both grizzly and the white Kermode spirit bears, eat a lot of salmon, and frequently transport their catches into the forests, where the remains help support forest growth. Eagles, ravens and other birds do much the same. If salmon populations are impacted, so are their predators/scavengers, and so would be the forests that benefit from the nutrient transport by bears and other wildlife.
[English]
Senators, the uniqueness of this environment led the British Columbia government, along with various Indigenous partners, to conclude the 2016 Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act, which conserves 85 per cent of the forest and 70 per cent of old growth over time, achieving a high level of ecological integrity. This is a truly unprecedented level of protection. Along these lines, one can view Bill C-48, which offers unprecedented levels of protection, as complementary and consistent with these efforts to protect one of the world’s few remaining temperate rainforests. Senators, let me again stress this is a truly unique and sensitive ecosystem, a treasure, and we should seize this opportunity to protect it from a major oil spill.
Let me turn now to the third factor I mentioned at the outset of my speech, the unique navigational risks presented in these waters and the greater challenges in responding to accidents in a timely manner. It is vital that Canadians in remote areas be able to receive, by ship, the goods they depend on. Many northern B.C. communities and industries rely on marine transportation to supply essential fuel products. Safe and efficient resupply operations are their lifeline. That is why we have been careful to write into the legislation safeguards to ensure the community resupply.
It must be acknowledged, however, that while substantial emergency response capabilities exist on the south coast of British Columbia and the St. Lawrence seaway system, and they are being increased with the Oceans Protection Plan, they do not exist nearly to the same degree in northern British Columbia. Although we are doing a great deal to boost our capacity to respond in all Canadian waterways through our $1.5 billion Oceans Protection Plan, the simple reality is that resources are not unlimited, and it will continue to be the case that we will concentrate more of our resources in order to be able to respond where there is more shipping and greater chances of accidents.
It should also be acknowledged there are some navigational challenges in the moratorium area, such as the Hecate Strait, which separates Haida Gwaii from the outlying islands on the mainland B.C. coast. The south entrance is 87 nautical miles across and narrows to a width of 30 nautical miles at the north end. The east side has numerous outlying reefs up to 39 nautical miles out. These characteristics lead to a unique body of water that can result in changing depths and, during strong weather, the deeper the offshore waters cause a short steep wave pattern in the strait. During significant weather, the inlet can have challenging conditions.
[Translation]
Senators, because of some of these navigational risks and because of a more limited response capacity over a large and remote coastline, it is wise that we err on the side of caution and take special measure to protect these waters.
[English]
Let me now discuss the fourth factor that explains why we support a moratorium off the coast of northern B.C., namely the advocacy of coastal Indigenous communities. I know you have met with some of them.
Senators, you should know that I am well aware there are a variety of viewpoints among Indigenous communities on this issue. I know in particular the two coastal communities, the Lax Kw’alaams and the Nisga’a, are opposed to Bill C-48. Furthermore, I know that you will hear from Eagle Spirit proponents and the Aboriginal Equity Partners. It is important that you consider their views, as I did, but I will note these two groups — Eagle Spirit and Aboriginal Equity Partners — represent private commercial interests and I do not see them as being in the same category as coastal First Nations and Indigenous communities. The stakes are very different for private sector interests than for communities who would see potentially their livelihoods, culture and way of life imperiled by a serious oil spill.
Aligned against those who oppose Bill C-48 is a coalition of all the remaining Indigenous communities along the coast, which incidentally represent a majority — the Haida, Heiltsuk, Haisla, Metlakatla, Gitga’at, Kitasoo, Gitxaala and even the hereditary leaders of the Lax Kw’alaams, who have consistently called for the formalization of the moratorium. They see the moratorium as essential for protecting their burgeoning renewable and sustainable economies in fishing and aquaculture. Furthermore, the water is a central part of their cultural and spiritual traditions. I have heard their calls and have been moved by their passionate advocacy. I urge you to listen to them carefully when they appear before this committee, as I know you will.
I also, incidentally, went to Bella Bella when the Nathan E. Stewart ran up on the rocks and 100,000 litres of diesel was spilled and saw the impact that had on the Heiltsuk. I can assure you that the impact was profound, and it would be very small compared to what could happen with a large tanker.
[Translation]
Senators, to summarize, I have presented four main factors that, when combined, help explain why our government is taking the step of formalizing a moratorium on tankers off the northern coast of British Columbia: a long-standing policy legacy of effectively banning such traffic; the unique environmental and ecological features of this coastline; the navigational hazards and challenges in responding to accidents in these waters; and, finally, the advocacy of coastal indigenous communities.
It is important to add that it is a combination of all these factors that explains our position. I hope this provides you with better insight into why we are taking these actions.
I would now be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
Senator Plett: Chair, let me start off by making a brief comment. I am profoundly disappointed that an esteemed minister of the Crown, one that is probably one of the most highly respected ministers in the country and certainly one of the most well known, would start his comments with politicizing his reason for not being able to be here. There is no Conservative filibuster going on. The loyal official opposition is doing their duty in the other place. There has been over an hour of votes going on already. The Liberals have won every vote, with or without the minister in his seat. For him to have been here another 30 minutes would not have cost him one single vote in the other place, and I am offended that he would say he cannot be here for 90 minutes because the Conservatives prevent him from being here. The Conservatives want him here, as they want Wilson-Raybould at committee, the same way. He has admitted to an anti-oil policy here tonight in his opening comments. With that, let me go to my question.
Mr. Minister, your department has been quite forceful in underscoring the safety record of oil tankers off the West Coast and the more than adequate systems in place to prevent accidents. And yet, you are fearmongering and telling us that we will have oil spills. How can you be so confident of your ability to prevent spills and accidents in every other part of our nation’s coast and yet suddenly have no confidence when it comes to B.C.’s north coast?
Mr. Garneau: Thank you, senator.
First of all, I’ll correct you on a statement where you said we have an anti-oil policy in my government. We have very clearly stated that we favour the Line 3 pipeline and the Keystone XL pipeline. And I would think that you recognize that with the government’s purchase of the TMX, that we also support the TMX. So for you to say that we have an anti-oil pipeline policy is clearly 100 per cent incorrect.
On the question of why we have put in place this moratorium, I explained as one of the reasons that the area of northern British Columbia where the moratorium would apply is very different from other areas that are far more populated and where infrastructure and resources to ensure a higher level of marine safety are in place. That’s what differentiates the northern coast of British Columbia. It’s very sparsely populated, has dangerous waters and does not have the same level of infrastructure in place that is required to ensure a high level of marine safety. So there is a marked difference between that and southern British Columbia, the St. Lawrence River and the East Coast, including the Bay of Fundy.
Senator Plett: Let me say that buying a pipeline and then mothballing it really doesn’t give me a high level of confidence and doesn’t do anything to the fact that the Liberal government has an anti-oil policy. Until that pipeline gets built, I think it’s quite evident.
Mr. Minister, as you know — and you’ve already alluded to them in your opening comments and written them off because they possibly have some private interests — there are many Indigenous communities that are very concerned about the moratorium — indeed, a tanker ban — because it destroys significant opportunity for economic development. As you said, our next panel is going to be from the Aboriginal Equity Partners and the Indian Resource Council of Canada. I believe that their testimony here is as valuable as anyone’s. Are you, minister, at all bothered by the devastating implications that this tanker ban will have on the hopes and aspirations of many Indigenous communities and thousands and thousands of Indigenous people, and what do you have to say to them?
Mr. Garneau: Thank you for your comment.
Again, I’ll correct you on your term “mothballing the pipeline.” We are in the process of responding to the Federal Court of Appeals’ two statements that put a halt to the development. We are working very hard to try to satisfy the concerns expressed, with the full intention of moving forward, if we can satisfy those. I just wanted to make that correction.
I’m very sensitive to the desires of communities along the coast there to develop economic opportunities. Let me point out that the tanker ban applies to crude oil and persistent oils. That is a defined category. The reason we chose it and there is an international standard for it is because they are known as persisting and taking a long time to disappear from the environment.
However, we have lots of opportunities. The LNG capability that will be developed at Kitimat is a world-class, $40-billion system, and we are very open to non-persistent oils, if they are refined for subsequent transportation. That includes naphtha, kerosene, gasoline, propane and LNG. There are many economic opportunities. Our ban applies to persistent oils, and they’re defined in the schedule.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for being here, Minister.
Since the beginning of our study, we have heard a few witnesses talk about the possibility of a corridor. Of course, that is a difficult issue presented by the bill, as it prevents anyone who wants to economically profit from a potential pipeline from being able to do so.
Would the idea of a clearly defined corridor, outside the most problematic area you are talking about that is hard to navigate, be a possible compromise, given that there is a great divide among Aboriginal communities?
You are right, the majority of Aboriginal communities support the moratorium, but there is much more divisiveness among inland communities.
Mr. Garneau: Thank you for your question.
That issue has been raised many times over several years. The problem is that it would no longer be a moratorium that would apply to the entire northern coast of British Columbia and that, even within a corridor, there is still a risk. This would mean an exception would be made that would truly preclude the idea of a moratorium for that entire region.
I can definitely tell you that it would not be well received by coastal Aboriginal communities, which would see it as a real risk to their life.
Let me repeat this. When I went to see the people from Bella Bella, where the small vessel Nathan Stuart crashed with its 100,000 litres of oil, we visited all the parts of the sea they depended on for herring, clams and so on. Those communities live off fish.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course.
Mr. Garneau: First, they were emotionally disturbed by what had happened, and it was very serious.
Yesterday, I talked to people from the Heiltsuk First Nation who were here — I think they appeared before you — and they are still affected. In addition, the clam beds have not all returned to their pre-incident condition.
That is why this is a serious risk. The use of a corridor may appear to be a solution, but if an oil tanker or a vessel was damaged, everything I mentioned to you would be affected.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would still like to put a supplementary question to you. With that corridor, what is currently lacking in northern British Columbia could be implemented. I am talking about an entire oversight system that is much more targeted, with ships that would be on site in case of a spill, so that it could be contained very quickly.
If those two things were implemented at the same time — a corridor in addition to a protection area around that corridor — wouldn’t that be a potential compromise?
Mr. Garneau: As I mentioned, I think that the risk would still be high if a corridor was created. As I said when I talked about the first of the four factors, if we created a corridor, that would considerably reduce the strength of the exclusion zone. That’s because Canada got the United States to respect that exclusion zone in 1985, and the United States could easily respond by asking us why they should respect the exclusion zone when we are allowing oil tanker traffic in our own zone.
I would add that this is voluntary. I prefer using our resources, which are not unlimited, for the already substantial vessel traffic along British Columbia’s northern coast to supply small communities. Those vessels transport up to 12,500 tonnes of diesel fuel and petroleum products.
That already requires a considerable effort to ensure proper operation. Adding other resources for a corridor, along with all the other reasons why that is not the best thing to do — I think it would be really difficult to make that kind of a compromise.
[English]
Senator Simons: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for taking the opportunity to come to speak with us this evening.
I want to follow up on what my colleague Senator Miville-Dechêne was asking you. As I’m looking at the map, I understand perfectly well why we would want to keep tanker traffic from transiting through the Hecate Strait, but when we look north to where the Nisga’a territory is, we’re outside of the strait. I’m not a mariner, but I’m wondering if there is any potential for more safe shipping if the exclusion zone started just south of Prince Rupert. Is there an opportunity for shipping from that area in a way that would be less deleterious if there were an accident?
I’m mindful of the fact that the spills that have happened there with the Nathan Stewart and the Bell of the North involved more volatile organic fuels such as diesel. We aren’t banning diesel and gasoline, which are arguably as big a risk in their own way, and a bigger risk than dil bit. Those pipelines will be carrying dil bit and not crude.
Is there not some path to compromise that allows Alberta to get its dil bit to market without putting the very vulnerable areas in the Hecate Strait at risk?
Mr. Garneau: The use of the Portland Canal and the Dixon Entrance, which is what you’re suggesting, still represents a risk. I’m not sure I agree with your assessment that dil bit is less of a risk than gasoline.
Senator Simons: We had some scientists testifying yesterday from —
Mr. Garneau: Perhaps in terms of recovery, but in terms of the fact that those are based on how quickly you can get to the product. That’s a critical part of the equation. If there is a spill, one of the most important factors is how quickly you can begin that recovery process. If you exceed a certain amount of time before you can get the resources there, then the persistence effect of the dil bit not recovered is a very serious matter.
Senator Simons: It seems to me we’ve set up a situation here where we’ll still be allowing the transport of the lighter, more volatile fuels.
Mr. Garneau: Yes, because they’re less persistent.
Senator Simons: But if we had a corridor, as Senator Miville-Dechêne suggested, you could have the resources to have a better recovery team. You could make industry pay for it, and pay for it handsomely, and that would be able to fund a greater safety response for that entire area, hypothetically.
Mr. Garneau: As I said, and I don’t want to repeat myself, I believe that if you begin to introduce the notion of a corridor, then you no longer have a moratorium for the area that we are talking about. For the reasons I have outlined, in case a spill does occur, there are, in my opinion — and the Exxon Valdez is certainly an example — some catastrophic examples such that we do not believe we should take that risk. Remember that it is our hope that we will get dil bit to the coast through the TMX.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome, Minister. My first comment, as I myself worked for 20 years at the Department of the Environment and Wildlife, is that your document is at the level of a master’s thesis. I think it could apply to a number of provinces and territories, simply in terms of biology. Elsewhere in Canada, a balance has successfully been struck between the environment and the economy, and that has always been your government’s rhetoric.
With the exclusion of Vancouver Island, the door is being closed to any kind of development over nearly 90 per cent of the coast. What is worse, pipeline projects will be concentrated in the Vancouver Bay, given the lack of opportunities on the West Coast.
Has your government looked into the economic impact of that decision?
I am not talking about the moratorium, as I consider that to be a false term. We should be talking about a prohibition, a prohibition proposal, and not a moratorium. That sends the wrong message in the minds of our producers. I don’t know if that was done on purpose, but we should rather be talking about prohibition legislation.
Has the government calculated the cost-benefit ratio of that decision? How much will a complete closure of the West Coast to any kind of oil development cost Canadians?
Mr. Garneau: Thank you, Senator Boisvenu. First, regarding the term “moratorium”, yes it is in fact a prohibition, but that word is used because amendments are possible, namely for products in the prohibition zone. If science allowed it or new products were developed, they may potentially be used or transported by oil tanker.
Senator Boisvenu: My fundamental question, Minister, is: How much will that prohibition cost Canadians?
Mr. Garneau: It will not cost anything because, as you know, major productions will occur in Kitimat, and any products that are not on the list can be refined on the ground and then transported. We have been very clear. There are all kinds of possibilities and potential. We simply said that we were prohibiting the transportation of certain products — persistent oils.
Senator Boisvenu: But whose production is mainly located in Alberta.
Mr. Garneau: Through the refining process, those products’ composition is modified.
Senator Boisvenu: You are still prohibiting that province from using other means of transportation.
Mr. Garneau: Our government has approved Line 3. We have long been in agreement with the Keystone XL project, and we would like to be able to transport diluted bitumen using the TMX pipeline, if the requirements can be met.
Senator Boisvenu: The number of cars on railways will double within five years to transport oil, if it is not transported by pipeline, in particular because the Energy East project has not materialized. So you have created insecurity in municipalities; have you calculated that social cost?
Mr. Garneau: I agree with you that it is safer to transport oil by pipeline, and that is why we have approved Enbridge’s Line 3.
Senator Boisvenu: But you are excluding the Energy East pipeline.
Mr. Garneau: It was not us who excluded it. I’m sorry, but we want to increase the capacity, as we know very well how important that sector is in the West. It is a very strong economic sector.
[English]
May I add, since I provoked some laughter, that I know the oil sector in the West, because I was on the board of the directors of an oil sands company for two years. I know the sector, Senator Plett, in case you think I don’t know it.
Senator Plett: I have no doubt that you know it. I wasn’t the one asking you the question, but I have no doubt you know it, and I know that you have a no oil policy in your government.
Mr. Garneau: I beg to differ.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you, minister. Sorry to take away from all the fun in the house.
Mr. Garneau: Well, I have to spend some time with my colleagues. I can’t let them do all the work.
Senator MacDonald: I understand.
You talked about risk. Risk is a reasonable thing to talk about. We don’t have to talk to you about risk. They shot you into outer space. That’s risky. But you’re taught how to manage risk. You deal with managing risk. You manage risks all the time.
I have a table here that was put together by the Department of Fisheries and Environment and Climate Change Canada. It has four methods of ranking port route alternatives for the West Coast for the managing of oil product and heavy oil. Numbers one and two on this list — and there are four different indices — rank of average of risk indices, rank of sum of risk, rank of worst risk. The two top ports on the West Coast of Canada for the export of oil in terms of the management of that oil and risk are Port Simpson and Digby Island by Prince Rupert. Those are the top two.
The bottom two are in the Lower Mainland. In fact, where the TMX pipeline is located is at the very bottom. You’re proposing, ostensibly, to double that line and purchase the line there. If you’re concerned about risk, why would you double a line to the riskiest part of the West Coast and block development in the safest part of the West Coast?
Mr. Garneau: Thank you for your question. It makes me want to come back and spend some time talking about the Oceans Protection Plan, because we have made a major investment in the Oceans Protection Plan. A great deal of that is concentrated in and around the busiest port in Canada, certainly, in a very important way — it’s not the only place — but the Port of Vancouver. We realize that it carries a great deal of marine commerce.
Risk assessment and risk management are interesting points. Yes, I took some risks when I strapped myself in, but I was only talking about myself. Here, we’re talking about the lives of thousands of people who do not want to live with the possibility that an oil spill could occur that would devastate their lives, not only physically but emotionally. They have been there for millennia. They have lived along the coast, and they depend on that coast.
When there are alternatives, we should look at alternatives. There are alternatives for getting our oil to markets, and there are ways of taking economic opportunities and turning them into a positive, like the LNG in Kitimat or other non-persistent oils that can be taken out. We want to grow the port at Prince Rupert. We want to grow certain ports for certain products, but we do not want to take that risk to the lives of people who have been there for thousands of years before we were there and have spoken out strongly about it and who represent a majority of the people who live along that coast. I hope you understand that and realize that it’s not trying to close down the possibility of us exporting oil from this country. We realize it’s an important market. That is why we support the Line 3 Enbridge line, the Keystone XL — and we are hoping we can get that moving in the United States because it’s all cleared in Canada — and the TMX, which, at the moment, we are busy satisfying the concerns of the Federal Court of Appeal. It’s not one or the other; it’s actually both.
Senator MacDonald: When it comes to risk, your own officials have told us the least risky ports.
Mr. Garneau: The Oceans Protection Plan is a big game changer here.
Senator MacDonald: You mentioned supporting pipelines, and I notice you didn’t include Energy East in that. Because the government imposed downstream and upstream emissions on that pipeline and killed it. We know that.
Mr. Garneau: I have a different interpretation as to why it was killed.
Senator MacDonald: We know what was done.
In terms of handling volumes of crude, you mentioned the Atlantic coast. The Atlantic coast handles 283 million metric tonnes of heavy oil. Some of this is exported from Newfoundland and off the coast, but most of it is consumed in the interior. Most of it goes to feed refineries in Quebec and New Brunswick, but mostly in Quebec. It all goes through Nova Scotia’s water. You can’t get crude to New Brunswick or Quebec without going through Nova Scotia’s water. We take all that risk. We get no benefit whatsoever from that risk. However, we are good Canadians. We understand we have to play our part. This is imported oil that Canadians have to pay for, hundreds of millions of dollars a year for this oil. Yet when it comes to exporting our own product to create revenue in this country, we are blocking the best route west.
Why is it okay for Nova Scotia to take all kinds of risks to feed refineries in Quebec and New Brunswick and we get nothing, yet when it comes to a line that will go to B.C., to Prince Rupert, in which they will get benefit, and all First Nations, all 35 of them on the inland — and I respect all their opinions, but I think the opinion of inland natives are just as important as opinions of natives on the coast. They want to live too. They want to make a living and they want to help contribute to the country. Why is it so easy to let Nova Scotia take all that risk and not ask one of the wealthiest provinces in this country to take a bit of risk themselves?
Mr. Garneau: I explained in one of the four reasons, there are certain industries and facilities that have been long established and there is infrastructure that has been in place for many decades. The Oceans Protection Plan will also be focused on that as well, on the East Coast and on the St. Lawrence. Here, we are talking about where we haven’t developed it for persistent oils, and we want to make sure that we don’t take that risk because we don’t need to take that risk.
Senator MacDonald: Put infrastructure —
Mr. Garneau: Senator, as you know, we are already massively investing. One and a half billion dollars is already a major investment that the Government of Canada is doing. There is a requirement to do things in a reasoned, intelligent and logical fashion. We are focused on the infrastructure that is around the busiest ports and the most established marine trade routes.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much for joining us today to answer our questions, Minister. We have heard from a number of witnesses. One of the things we have heard is that, for example, a moratorium or a traffic restriction does not exist anywhere else in the world. I have put the question to the people from the Library of Parliament, and I was told that it does exist in the United States, in Puget Sound and in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. There is also a moratorium in the Strait of Bonifacio and in the Turkish Straits.
[English]
I realize this is not only us doing things and protecting. It’s done elsewhere in the world. I want you to answer a question that, unfortunately, the chair yesterday didn’t allow the Coast Guard to answer. My question was the following: Is there, to your knowledge and in your experience, a medium, large or even a small oil spill where the response came before salvaging people or infrastructure and they managed to recuperate 100 per cent of the oil with zero impact on the environment?
Mr. Garneau: It’s a complex question. Thank you for the question, senator.
There are places where there are moratoriums and there are places where we have exclusion zones, such as our own, which has been around for 34 years. I work very closely with the IMO, the International Maritime Organization. Everybody is becoming more conscious of the fact that we need to take care of our oceans. Believe me, for Canada, which is a trading nation and depends very much on maritime trade, we are very aware of that, and yet we want to increase our trade, but we know that we have to take increased measures.
The recovery of the oil process depends on a number of factors. You have had scientists come to talk to you. It depends on the nature of the oil, the temperature, the salinity, the sea state and the time it takes to get to it to be able to recover it. There have been cases where a very large proportion — I can’t say 100 per cent — has been recovered. One of them was in fact a spill that occurred at the Westridge Marine Terminal, the Kinder Morgan terminal, because it was a pipeline break that went into Burrard Inlet. They were able to recover the vast majority of it, but that was a calm water situation. It depends on the factors that I mentioned to you. One of the factors that concerns us the most because of the environmental effects is the nature of that oil.
Senator Galvez: Yesterday we heard that during the Nathan E. Stewart incident, the Coast Guard was there immediately, but they didn’t mention why they were there. I think the reason they can answer very fast is because their priority is saving people and saving infrastructure. The third priority is the environment. So the people that came to clean the environment took three days or whatever, a longer time. I understand that you have to have priority: the humans, the infrastructure, and then after, the environment.
Mr. Garneau: Yes. The Coast Guard is a very critical part of it. I notice there is Coast Guard presence here this evening. Another one is, in the case of the British Columbia coast, the Western Canada Marine Response team. That is actually funded by the tanker companies. They are also part of the response.
The other part, which we are currently creating now, will actually involve the coastal First Nations themselves because they have said, “This is our coast and we want to be part of it. We know these waters better than anyone,” which is true, “and we want to be able to respond.” Very often they are the first responders because they are there as opposed to, in the case of the other two organizations, having a little bit of transit time. It depends on where you put your resources.
We are actually going towards three levels of capability. That’s how important it is. It’s also at the insistence of the First Nations who are saying, “You need to involve us and provide us with some equipment because we are often the first on the spot.” They were in the case of the Nathan E. Stewart.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, minister, for being here today.
As an independent senator, I have observed that one of the things that we often try to do is to find compromises and ways to look at legislation such that there may be amendments to a bill or compromises that would make sense, of course, from a policy point of view.
Mr. Garneau: Right.
Senator Dasko: However, with Bill C-48, with the corridor option, some of us saw it as a possible way to deal with this issue. If the corridor is not viable, then that means it’s really thumbs up or thumbs down to the bill.
Mr. Garneau: It’s binary in nature.
Senator Dasko: This or that, so we have to say yes or no. That makes it particularly difficult for some of us to deal with.
My question is just a bit of a follow up to Senator Galvez. She asked the question I was more or less going to ask. Yesterday we had the Coast Guard people here. It seems to me that the technology for cleanup has developed quite considerably. With enough resources devoted to it in the right places, that is toward the northern coast, with that technology, do we really need the bill if we actually would have the capacity and resources to deal with the spills that exist?
I just have one other very small question. What is the position of the British Columbia government on the bill? We don’t hear from them. I don’t think they have come here.
Mr. Garneau: They support it.
Senator Dasko: They have supported it. Okay, that’s news to me. They don’t speak about it. Anyway, thank you.
Mr. Garneau: They support it. Perhaps that gives you a bit of an idea about why we call it a moratorium. Perhaps 30 or 40 years from now, because of other things such as gradually building up infrastructure and other things like that, there will be some changed circumstances, but at the moment, we are nowhere near that. It’s a huge long coast that is very sparsely populated, with waters that can be challenging, and that is our position at this point in time. We don’t want to take the risk with having tankers going in and out unless they are nonpersistent oils. I think there are opportunities.
Senator Dawson: I want to make one very short statement. I don’t want to minimize Senator Plett. Non-confidence votes, for those who have been in politics for a long time, are not something that is banal. Having the minister come here, even if only for an hour, risks being defeated in the government. As a whip, you should understand non-confidence votes. The Conservative government in 1979 was defeated on —
Senator Plett: I’m not the witness here.
Senator Dawson: I’m just making that comment, Senator Plett, since you made that comment.
Mr. Minister, as you know, I have clearly indicated that I support this bill. I just want —
The Chair: He made them to the minister. The minister has an opportunity to reply. Senator Plett doesn’t. That’s the difference. Go ahead and ask the minister a question.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Minister, as I have already said, I support the bill. I am not ashamed to admit it, just as I supported Senator MacDonald’s study on pipelines. I think that the transportation of oil by pipeline is definitely safer than its transportation by either train or truck and that we should revisit it.
What will happen in 40 years? Will you have a reassessment process? Is there a notwithstanding clause in the bill?
Mr. Garneau: No, but, according to the bill, products can be reassessed, added to or removed from the current list, which is based on a highly prescribed definition in terms of the product’s nature. However, there is nothing in the bill about making amendments, as you say. I cannot say what will happen in 40 years; perhaps the situation will be the same. That would require a new piece of legislation.
Senator Dawson: Thank you, Minister.
[English]
Senator D. Black: Thank you very much, minister, for being here.
I unfortunately only have the privilege of asking two questions, so I’ll ask two questions. First, I’m very interested, minister, that you indicated in one of your responses today that you are of the view, in response to a question that my colleague Senator MacDonald asked, there are other ways to get Alberta’s oil to markets. Canadians and Albertans would like to know what those other ways are, minister.
Mr. Garneau: They are all pipelines. The L3 pipelines.
Senator D. Black: Where are those pipelines, minister?
Mr. Garneau: The L3 and Keystone XL, because they go to the United States, which is the export market in those cases, have to also receive U.S. approvals. But we, the Liberal Party, the Liberal government, have said that we support the Enbridge L3 pipeline. We had hoped it would be flowing oil by the end of the year. I understand the United States has some regulatory things that have to be satisfied that may delay it. Keystone XL as well.
And, of course, we are working to try to satisfy the two issues that were brought up by the Federal Court of Appeal with respect to TMX. We are working very much on that, which is consultation with First Nations and responding to the issue of marine safety once that dil bit leaves the Westridge Terminal.
Senator D. Black: Minister, we are limited in time, so if you would be kind enough to keep your answers a bit more tight.
Mr. Garneau: I will do that.
Senator D. Black: Thank you very much, minister. You have not answered the question. You have indicated that you have experience in the energy industry, that you served on a board. Therefore, minister, you understand the challenge for Canada is getting our oil to markets outside of North America.
Mr. Garneau: I certainly do.
Senator D. Black: Of course you do. So the question is: As an Albertan, as a Canadian, you have suggested there are other ways to get Alberta’s oil to markets. Your language, not mine. What are those other ways, minister?
Mr. Garneau: No, when I said other ways, if I used the word “ways” and that to you suggested I was talking about something other than pipelines, no, I’m talking about pipelines.
Senator D. Black: I’m talking about pipelines. Tell me the pipelines that we can get Canada’s oil to markets other than Houston. That’s what Canadians want.
Mr. Garneau: That’s why the Government of Canada made the investment in the Kinder Morgan pipeline that exists at the moment. That is a very clear indication to you that we have to satisfy certain requirements that we will be able to —
Senator D. Black: Minister, knowing the oil industry as you have indicated that you do, you know that the majority of that product on Trans Mountain goes to Washington state. That pipeline is not intended and has never been intended. You know that, minister.
Mr. Garneau: I know I disagree with you because I think there are markets, world markets, that would be interested in that product.
Senator D. Black: Possibly for 20 per cent of the offtake and, again, you should know that. So my take away is that despite your indication that there are other ways to get Alberta’s oil to market, there really aren’t, minister. That’s the problem here.
Now minister, you received —
The Chair: I have got others. I’m going to give Senator McCoy an opportunity. Then I’d like to ask a question.
Mr. Garneau: With great respect, chair, I think that my hour has approached, and I should return in solidarity.
The Chair: Are you losing votes in the house?
Mr. Garneau: As Senator Dawson pointed out, these are confidence votes, and I’m part of the government and part of the team. I will gladly come back if you wish me to come back at another time. I regret the Conservatives put this filibuster in place in the other house.
Senator Plett: The official opposition are doing their jobs.
Mr. Garneau: May I have my leave?
The Chair: You may have your leave.
Now, for our second panel, we are pleased to welcome Bruce Dumont, Member of the Steward Group for the Northern Gateway Project and former President of the Métis Nation British Columbia; Delbert Wapass, Board Member, Indian Oil and Gas; Stephen Buffalo, President and Chief Executive Officer, Indian Resource Council of Canada; and Dale Swampy, Coordinator, Aboriginal Equity Partners.
Thank you for coming and attending our meeting.
Stephen Buffalo, President and Chief Executive Officer, Indian Resource Council of Canada: I hope you guys are a little more tame on us compared to the last one.
I want to say thank you for the opportunity to come and speak. It’s always an honour, as we represent our communities, our people, children and our unborn. I would like to acknowledge that we are on unceded Algonquin territory.
I’m the President and CEO of the Indian Resource Council of Canada. We represent approximately 134 First Nations — oil and gas producing and the potential to produce. Our objective is to improve and increase economic opportunities for First Nations and their memberships through responsible energy development.
I’m glad our colleagues are here to give a perspective on some of the B.C. First Nations and Metis communities that are most directly impacted by Bill C-48, but the implications of Bill C-48 go far beyond the West Coast.
Our communities want a strong resource industry so we can continue to expand our investments in and benefits from development as employees, partners and owners. The prosperity of our nations is closely tied to the prosperity of the energy industry. But the industry is suffering greatly from the lack of pipeline access. It is creating a massive price differential, where Canadian oil is receiving less than world prices. We need access to new markets to obtain fair value for our oil resources.
The poor investment climate for Canadian oil and gas has already imposed dramatic consequences on oil- and gas-producing First Nations in Western Canada. According to Indian Oil and Gas Canada’s last report, our communities have seen the number of new agreements with industry fall by 95 per cent and revenues by 75 per cent since 2011-12. Our combined royalties have fallen by over $18,000 for each on-reserve family every year. That’s on top of loss of jobs and so on, with everything in and around that.
The loss is too much for many of our communities to bear. We are already facing a lot. As is known and as you see, we are struggling with addictions and depression, and people are losing hope. If we are ever going to make faster progress on these issues, our First Nations communities need more own-source revenues to fund cultural programs, sports programs or health activities for our young people. We need more jobs available for our people. We need them to earn good wages — wages that can support their families. Right now, Bill C-48 and other policies threaten all of that for us.
The scientific evidence of the health effects of this unemployment is predictable. We can expect an increase in anxiety; substance abuse; suicide, especially among working age men; cardiovascular and digestive issues; and a rise in family violence. We are seeing it all over the place. We see it on social media, and we see it on the news. It will be First Nations that are impacted first and most when the energy industry struggles. We know this will happen. It’s already happening, and we see it every day.
We want you to think about a few implications of this legislation and other bills, like Bill C-69. The government has spoken a lot about nation-to-nation relationship and advancing reconciliation and respecting our rights. I come from a region in Canada that I think is ground zero for reconciliation, and I can tell you that in much of rural Canada, we are seen as a threat to the people’s livelihood. The Government of Canada has positioned First Nations as the main hurdle to rural jobs and regional prosperity. In fact, it is unclear expectations, impossible standards and imposed legislation, such as Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, that is the hurdle. We don’t want to be the scapegoats for job loss in the oil and gas industry, yet this is what this kind of legislation achieves.
With respect to Indigenous rights, those go well beyond the duty to consult and free and informed consent. Indigenous people also have a right to self-determination and economic development. This is enshrined in UNDRIP. This legislation deprives us of our means of subsistence and development of our own territories.
We join colleagues in calling for a repeal of Bill C-48. It landlocks our oil, drives down the price per barrel and prevents us from exporting our resources to new markets. I know many who argue Bill C-48 is necessary to stop the impacts of climate change. We’re all concerned about the environment and believe we need less carbon, but everyone knows the transition will take time and the energy industry will need to help innovate and fund the transition to renewables. In the meantime, we would prefer a Canadian product helping our people over oil being supplied from other countries. Many of our nations are investing in renewable energy. We are working on wind and solar power. We are also working on ecotourism. We are exploring all the options, and I’m telling you, none of those can replace the jobs and revenue we get from oil and gas. Not any time soon.
I will also argue that Bill C-48 is necessary to protect the marine environment off the coast of northern B.C. I think all First Nations would support development of strict regulations that protect the environment, but that’s different from arbitrarily stopping just Canadian oil tanker activity. I have heard of many scientifically backed suggestions for balancing economic opportunities and environmental protections. We know the committee has heard about these from multiple experts. This is not our expertise, but we understand there are credible, balanced options.
Our purpose here today is to ensure that you fully realize and acknowledge the ripple effects this legislation has across Western Canada and onto our First Nations. Our people want the dignity of work. We do not want the indignity of dependence. We are intent on taking control of livelihoods and asserting our rights, but we need the federal government to stop putting up barriers that prevent us from fulfilling these intentions.
We ask you to reconsider this legislation and not go forward with passing Bill C-48. Thank you.
Bruce Dumont, Member of the Steward Group for the Northern Gateway Project, Former President of the Métis Nation British Columbia, Aboriginal Equity Partners: I am Bruce Dumont.
[Editor’s Note: Mr. Dumont spoke in his Indigenous language.]
I just said hello everyone and good evening. I also recognize that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. We thank you for indulging us.
I was an Aboriginal Equity Partner steward for about six years out of the eleven years I worked with Northern Gateway. We started working with Northern Gateway in 2006 and signed our agreement in 2011. We also signed an agreement with TMX.
I am here with my colleagues to represent the 31 First Nations and Metis communities that comprise the Aboriginal Equity Partners for Northern Gateway. Our mandate was to protect our traditional way of life and the environment along the Northern Gateway pipeline corridor and marine operations, while also ensuring our people and communities benefited from long-term economic opportunities.
We were going to be a one-third owner of the project. Collectively, we stood to benefit directly from a minimum of $2 billion from Northern Gateway and long-term economic, business and education opportunities. That all ended when the Prime Minister announced in November 2016, without any consultation with our communities, the dismissal of the application for Northern Gateway, after it had already been approved two and a half years earlier. We were profoundly shocked and disappointed by this decision. Some communities invested their own money in businesses to support construction, and individuals went back to school to train for jobs on the project that would allow them to stay in their own communities. Many community leaders who invested time to make the project a reality had their efforts wasted.
Now we are dealing with Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium, which will ensure we never benefit from economic development and a new pipeline that would bring to our communities. It has taken us 150 years to rebuild our nations and their economies from the ravages of colonization. We are intent on taking control of our livelihoods and asserting our rights, but the federal government keeps putting up barriers, preventing us from leveraging our lands and our resources for economic and social benefit. We are here to ask the Senate to reconsider this latest barrier and kill Bill C-48.
The principles of consultation: This government has talked a lot about renewed nation-to-nation relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, partnership and reconciliation, but it’s hard to see these principles working in practice. The AEP communities were never consulted before Bill C-48 was introduced, but we became very concerned when we saw back in November 2015 that formalizing the moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on British Columbia’s north coast was part of Minister Garneau’s mandate letter. This was before any consultations or formal discussions with affected First Nations, Metis and surrounding communities had occurred. It is hard to accept the government’s rhetoric on reconciliation when huge decisions like this are cast as a foregone conclusion.
We did our due diligence and made sure we contacted the minister to express our concerns and asked for consultations and offered to facilitate those consultations. We never received a response to our request to consult our communities. We only received a letter on November 29, 2016, notifying us that the federal government had decided to move ahead with the moratorium that will kill all our work and opportunities.
The impacts of Bill C-48: We’re not in favour of indiscriminate development that damages the environment or our people’s health and safety. We have been stewards of our territory for thousands of years, and we take this responsibility very seriously. Our own people want the dignity of work. What we don’t want is to be dependent on government handouts. There is no one who wants that; not us, not you. Being dependent on welfare strips you of your dignity.
Pipeline ownership would provide us with an opportunity to build more prosperous and self-reliant communities. It would give us equity and ownership of the pipeline, marine terminal, marine services and emergency response on both land and sea. The construction, maintenance and operation of a pipeline would give our community’s long-term financial, education, business and employment benefits that will promote prosperity for our children and grandchildren, and not poverty.
All industrial activity has environmental impacts, and there are lots of ecologically important spots in Canada. We cannot understand why the government would choose to do this in this one industry in this one spot in Canada where Indigenous investors have the opportunity to be real partners and real beneficiaries to the tune of $2 billion — to impose a moratorium instead of developing strict regulations to protect the area while allowing for responsible development.
To us, it feels like the goal posts keep getting moved. We have been working over the past decade to get more involved in business. We have moved from providing labour to developing our own subcontracting companies and to entering into partnerships with non-Indigenous firms, and now we’re getting close to being owners ourselves, to having an Aboriginal consortium and owning a pipeline outright. This legislation feels like you’re blocking all of the hopes of self-determination.
A moratorium is unnecessarily sweeping and a finite tool. It says that there is no balance to be achieved between economic development and environmental protection — it’s one or the other. But we reject that, and the current government has said dozens of times it rejects that mindset, too. Communities, companies and scientists can work together to find some middle ground for sustainable development if the federal government does not shut that door on us.
The Senate has an important responsibility in Canada in providing sober second thought. I hope you can reassure Indigenous peoples that decisions like this are not predetermined and that our efforts in explaining our case here are not just symbolic. There is a way to regulate oil-tanker traffic in the northwest that protects the integrity of the environment while giving First Nations and Metis peoples an opportunity to engage in much-needed economic development. Please, senators, focus on developing regulations that protect the environment, not on laws that shut down investment and jobs in our communities. Please do not pass Bill C-48. Do not impose this moratorium.
We, as AEP stewards, spend countless days and years in consultation with our communities. Am I hearing that the southwest coast of B.C. is not as pristine as the northwest coast? I live on South Vancouver Island and have done so for 45 years. I was originally from Alberta and worked in the oil fields.
The Liberals removed the Northern Gateway certificate and approved TMX to traverse the most densely populated area of B.C.: the Gulf Islands, the San Juan Islands and the Olympic Peninsula. We all have section 35 rights as Indigenous peoples. Northern Gateway would be transporting heavy oil by now and all Canadians would have benefited by now.
[Editor’s note: Mr. Dumont spoke in his Indigenous language.]
Thank you for indulging me.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Buffalo and Mr. Dumont. We will go to questions.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for being here —
The Chair: I didn’t know you were on the speaker’s list. I apologize. Was there someone else speaking? Are we good?
Dale Swampy, Coordinator, Aboriginal Equity Partners: We’re good, yes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Could I just ask you — and I’m sorry if I missed it — but how many Aboriginal tribes or peoples do you represent? Are you based in Alberta?
Mr. Buffalo: We are approximately 134 First Nations that are oil- and gas-producing or that have the potential to produce. This is alongside with records that we get from Indian Oil and Gas Canada, which is a federal arm of Indian Affairs.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: May I ask who finances the Indian Resource Council?
Mr. Buffalo: Indian Affairs.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ll move to a substantive question. What do you make of this? It’s two ways of development on the coast. Most tribes are saying that oil may destroy their livelihoods because they live off fish, everything in the sea and on the land. You obviously have chosen, for obvious reasons, another path of development, because you’re in Alberta. It’s not reconcilable; it’s two different ways of developing yourselves. It seems to me there is a legitimacy in the coastal nations wanting to preserve their livelihoods, too, and being afraid of a spill, because there is no zero-risk situation. I want to hear you on those difficult issues, because they’re not easy. What would you answer to that?
Delbert Wapass, Board Member, Indian Oil and Gas, Indian Resource Council of Canada: Thank you very much, and good evening to the Senate.
It’s a very good question. I’m from Thunderchild First Nation, which is by Turtleford, Saskatchewan. If you recall, in July 2016, we had a pipeline break by Husky Oil. Ninety per cent of the impact of that was on Thunderchild First Nation. It talks about reconciliation in the type of relationship that we had with industry, which is Husky. The impact of that pipeline break wouldn’t have been dealt with effectively, efficiently and in a very respectful way in regard to our traditions, our customs, the way we understand and how we do our ceremonies. That was respected. Because of that relationship, we were able to clean up. We were used as contractors. Our community suffers from high unemployment, and we were used to clean up the oil. There was experience for our people and the spinoffs that they got from that.
We were told that we’re compromisers, sellouts and so on. No. It’s our land. Who better to clean up that land than your own people? It instilled pride in our people in doing that. Out of that, we were able to clean up the oil spill. It’s still ongoing, but to the degree that we were able to and with the support that we had, without Husky saying, “How much is it going to cost now?” It was a matter of, “Are you satisfied with the level of cleanup that you’ve done? When you are, let us know. We will continue the support.”
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So it’s a story that ended well, I understand, but as you know, the Nathan Stewart oil spill went less well. It took 18 hours to start cleanup, and still some of the fisheries of that nation are affected. So you know the risks cannot be zero. You know there are risks to their livelihoods. Are you saying to the coastal nations that they should sacrifice this?
Mr. Wapass: It’s not a matter of sacrifice, ma’am. I’m not saying that at all. But I don’t believe that the economy and the environment should be at opposing ends. I believe that careful development and consultation in developing the best standards that we can come to could resolve and protect a lot of that.
Right now, Bill C-48 prohibits oil tankers carrying over 12,500 metric tonnes of crude oil or persistent oil from stopping or unloading at ports on marine installations, and it would prohibit any loading of more than 12,500 metric tonnes of crude or persistent oil onto ships along British Columbia’s north coast. It does nothing to stop ships carrying other hazardous materials or from oil tankers transiting along the coast. It’s just the loading and unloading. The size is chosen for a specific purpose. We need to be clear in what is being restricted here and how it affects things.
Also, not all First Nations in B.C. are saying this. We need to be honest about that.
We have a lot of lobbyists, a lot of foundations, that are trying to land lock Canada, specifically this area, on getting their oil to market. Why? Because who is our biggest customer, and who are the only people we can deal with? The Americans. What is that doing to market? And who is funding that? It’s common knowledge that you have the Americans, the Tides Foundation, the Rockefellers, Google, Coca-Cola that are all playing interference in regard to the livelihood of many people here in Canada, if not all.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for your answers.
Mr. Swampy: I can also elaborate. When the 31 communities that signed to support the project reviewed the application, they were confident there wasn’t going to be a spill. We were in negotiations with four other First Nations along the northern coast who wanted the terminal. They knew that throughout the years of consultation, there was a lot of resources and a lot of commitment by the company to put in money for costal and environmental and marine safety. And they knew that safety and integrity of the project, including the safe ports that were going to be there — the deep safe ports, much wider channels than exist in the Vancouver mainland — were going to be safe and there weren’t going to be any spills. The risk assessment was somewhere to the tune of one spill in 300 years.
We think the fearmongering has got the best of the coastal communities, and we don’t feel that they have been educated enough about the kind of integrity and resources that are being applied to this project. We think that the prospect of a spill is unfounded, in our minds, and we think without Northern Gateway, the risk of a spill occurring with passing tankers, as well as existing boats that go through the Hecate Strait, is far more dangerous now than it has ever been.
Senator Simons: Tansi. I’m proud to represent Treaty 6 territory here. Mr. Buffalo and Mr. Swampy, you’re from the Samson First Nation. Samson has been dealing with having an oil economy for decades now. Your First Nation has learned that there are pros and cons to having all of that wealth to deal with. There are social problems that sometimes arise from that sudden influx of money, too. I’m just wondering to what extent you think some of the resistance in British Columbia from the First Nations that are opposed to pipeline development isn’t just environmental but that they’re concerned that resource-based economies will disrupt their traditional way of life. Not just their fisheries and ecotourism, but it will upset a balance. Is there a leadership role that you think Samson can play in explaining how your First Nation has dealt with some of the issues around a resource economy?
Mr. Buffalo: Thank you for the question, senator. I appreciate you acknowledging Samson. We did have a world-class oil field. At the time, our people didn’t understand the industry. We have learned the hard way how industry took an advantage, and as well the federal government. Despite all the social pathologies that came with a heavy influx of money, we are very proud of Peace Hills Trust, Peace Hills Insurance, and we have our own trust fund, which had to go through the legal court. It is now the Kisoniyaminaw Heritage Trust Fund, which is now being controlled by Samson Cree.
As far as protecting the environment and the balance, it’s very difficult. In 2016, the Indian Resource Council hosted a conference called Pipeline Gridlock. It was to talk about the issues of the pipeline. We had a lot of industry come and some government that hid in the corners and in the shadows and didn’t really want to talk. And the same with industry; they didn’t really want to talk. But they knew we had to sit down. So it was kind of like a bad sock hop. We had industry on the one side and First Nation leadership on the other side. But by the end of the second day, those tables were talking. They were talking to one another.
At the conference, I was approached by an elder from the Haida Gwaii, and he presented me a traditional halibut fish hook, and he put it around my neck. He said, “I’m here to listen. I just want you to protect our dinner table.” Given the chance that these communities will have the resources to protect what feeds them, using that legislation to invite them to help create policy to regulate catastrophes such as a tanker breach, that’s what they need. They need that type of resource. One, they’re going to work. They’re not sitting there making totem poles and carvings, no. They want to protect what’s there, their dinner table, their food, their fish. They want to do that, but we’ve got to give them that opportunity. That’s what I took from his message. He said, “Our people want this.” He told me the people want economic development. They want a better future for a lot of it.
I’ll tell you, the Indian Act is so restricting. If anyone in this room thinks the Indian Act is good for Indigenous people, we need to go talk outside, because it’s very constricting and binding, and it’s policy that we don’t like. One, because we didn’t help create it. It’s a system that’s set up to fail. When we talk about economic development and where it hurts us, of course we’re going to stand up and say something.
So the balance, yes, I’m positive we can make it work. As you’ve heard, the relationship between Thunderchild First Nation and Husky was about communication and talking and come to a resolve. There are catastrophes everywhere. My friend Rick Jerome works in a Diavik diamond mine and he talks about how he gets to the bottom of the pit, in the North of Canada, in the Arctic. That’s crazy, if you have ever seen a diamond mine like that. Yes, I got my wife a diamond, but there’s a lot of that stuff happening all over the world. There are catastrophes happening everywhere, but we turn a blind eye. It’s not the oil and gas industry that’s going to hurt the salmon and fish and marine life. If we get the opportunity, I think we can all work to something.
The Chair: With that, I will turn to a senator who knows something about catastrophes. From the province of Quebec, Lac-Mégantic was quite the catastrophe.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much to our four guests for joining us. I want to congratulate you on taking charge of your communities’ economic development. I was involved in developing the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in the 1970s. For the Quebec Crees, that agreement ensured that today, their community has an enviable economic structure, even in the eyes of southern Quebec communities.
A little bit earlier, I asked the minister whether the department had carried out a study on the economic impact of the prohibition this bill will impose. He seems to have said that it did, as he talked about zero cost. You must be aware of the two pipeline projects of Northern Gateway and Eagle Spirit. We are talking about investments of $24 billion. Do you think those projects will be feasible, given this bill?
[English]
Mr. Dumont: Thank you. There is a generalization of spills, like one spill is going to completely destroy the environment, and that’s not so. We have to be prepared, which we —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: The question is not about that. I will speak slowly.
[English]
We have two projects, two pipelines. Eagle Spirit represents $16 billion of investment. The government backtracked on the other one, Northern Gateway.
Mr. Dumont: Northern Gateway. They pulled their certificate.
Senator Boisvenu: But the Eagle Spirit pipeline, is that project dead or not?
Mr. Dumont: It’s proposed.
Senator Boisvenu: With that project, will that pipeline go on to construction or not?
Mr. Dumont: We don’t know that yet.
Senator Boisvenu: Because the end of the pipeline is near Prince Rupert. And that will be included in that bill, isn’t it?
The Chair: He is asking will Bill C-48 kill — if it passes, it will obviously kill your pipeline, right?
Mr. Wapass: Yes.
The Chair: Sorry, Senator Boisvenu, we were not quite understanding.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: So the economic impact of this bill will be huge for your communities. Although the minister told us there is no impact, that is not quite the reality you will experience, right?
[English]
Mr. Dumont: Exactly. That’s not what is going to happen because it’s going to affect all the communities on the north coast.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: What will be the long-term losses for your communities if this bill is passed in its current form?
[English]
Mr. Dumont: As partners to the pipeline, it would be huge, like billions of dollars of losses to all the communities on the north coast.
Mr. Swampy: There was a study about how much money we’d lose from our inability to be able to get the oil to foreign markets. That’s clearly a very large number in itself. If we take the ratio of all of the individuals who work in the oil and gas industry, right now we have 11,900 self-identified Aboriginal people working in the oil and gas industry. We have some $200 million worth of oil revenues that are received from members of the Indian Resource Council. So the amount of return, that we did a calculation on, adds up to a family of six losing $18,000 a year. It’s not little amounts of money. When you lose that amount of money, the back take or the filling in of that loss is going to be made by the Canadian taxpayers through welfare payments and through social programs that government is going to have to fund for people who are out of work and have nothing to do. The family structure is destroyed. This is what we are trying to achieve, to bring the family structure back. We can’t do that if we have the largest industry in Canada hindered by this ridiculous ban. It’s almost like a despot in a third world country controlling its people by saying they can’t do this, zero, no tolerance. It’s just ridiculous.
Senator Plett: I was going to touch on the economic loss as well but I’ll move in a different direction. I know you were here for most of the minister’s testimony, but I want to read a part of his testimony. It’s only a very short part. The minister said:
Senators, you should know that I am well aware there are a variety of viewpoints among Indigenous communities on this issue. I know in particular the two coastal communities, the Lax Kw’alaams and the Nisga’a, are opposed to Bill C-48. Furthermore, I know that you will hear from Eagle Spirit proponents and the Aboriginal Equity Partners. It is important that you consider their views, as I did, but I will note these two groups — Eagle Spirit and Aboriginal Equity Partners — represent private commercial interests and I do not see them as being in the same category as coastal First Nations and Indigenous communities. The stakes are very different for private sector interests than for communities who would see potentially their livelihoods, culture and way of life imperiled by a serious oil spill.
Your testimony, gentlemen, clearly contradicts his assertion. For a government that claims to be pro-First Nations and pro-jobs, I find the minister’s depiction of your opposition, quite frankly, to be offensive. Do you feel that the government has actually taken the time to understand your concerns and positions, and are your livelihoods any less important than the livelihoods that the minister claims to be protecting?
Mr. Swampy: I’ll answer the first part. When the minister says “in my discussions with them,” I hate to say this but he has no discussions with us. He has never entered into discussions with us.
Senator Plett: That was going to be one of my questions. Thank you.
Mr. Swampy: We have evidence of these letters throughout 2016 when the tanker moratorium was introduced and when Northern Gateway was cancelled to meet with us. He would not meet with us. We have these letters if you want to take them as evidence towards that statement.
Senator Plett: If you could, through the clerk, we would appreciate that.
Mr. Swampy: We were very frustrated with the fact that he would not meet with us as a group, would not respect our position and wouldn’t take into account the fact that 70 per cent of the communities along the Northern Gateway pipeline corridor were partners in that project.
Mr. Wapass: I’d like to add, as the Indian Resource Council, who I represent, the answer to your question is that we come from a community that just started getting involved not too long ago in the oil and gas industry. We have come from a dire situation regarding our economy in our community, and we have been able to turn it around, not because of oil as the market fell. It went bad on us just when we were starting to get involved. I know of other First Nations who have compensated, because we have to understand and we have to know that we are already underfunded as First Nation peoples when it comes to programs and services within our respective communities. We don’t get enough in education, and we don’t get enough in health. When it comes to retaining our language, to developing a school that is going to be devoted to your language and culture, because of what the residential schools did, that money doesn’t come from government to build those schools; it comes from wherever you can grab your money from to try to reclaim your culture and language. What this bill does is it takes away from those opportunities and makes us further dependent on government handouts, and then we get accused of not wanting to do enough or do anything for ourselves as First Nations people. So we are all painted with the same brush. It doesn’t matter that we may talk about B.C. Their situation is no different than our situation where I come from in Saskatchewan as a First Nation. They get the same money we do. Everybody is underfunded.
Senator Plett: I’m from Manitoba —
Mr. Wapass: When we signed our contribution funding agreements, we agreed to administer poverty on behalf of government. Doesn’t matter which government. That’s what happens. Any little piece of economic development and opportunity we can get to move our benchmark a little further, we have to support it, not as a business but as a livelihood to get out of poverty.
Senator Plett: Have you had discussions with the Indigenous groups that are supporting the tanker ban? I’m sure you have. Is there any chance of coming to some common ground on this issue, or is this, like the minister says — I think to one of the senators opposite asked a question about a possible amendment, and he said, really, there was nothing that could be done to amend — Senator Miville-Dechêne. “Is there anything that can be done?” and he said, “Well, no, really, there is no amendment.” Is there no common ground that can be reached?
Mr. Swampy: I think the first and biggest step we have to take is to educate and inform these First Nations who are against tankers, pipelines and terminals that deliver bitumen from the oil sands. I say that because most of them are inundated by foreign-funded environmentalists who did a great job in fearmongering these communities. The first thing they say to these chiefs, councils and community members is, “Don’t meet with these guys because they will tell you lies like you wouldn’t believe.” I take an example of a lot of the community members who weren’t part of the 31 First Nations that are now supporting oil and gas.
Steps have to be taken first. I always say that if a First Nation chief can understand and appreciate the kind of resources and efforts that companies take to protect our environment, to safely transport this oil and the integrity of the regulations they have to ensure that there is not a spill, they tend to support it. They were going to spend $300 million on coastal environmental protection over the construction of the terminal and $400 million over marine protection. That’s why there were so many First Nations we were talking to who wanted to host the terminal. That’s why Lax Kw’alaams understands there is a lot of money there that these companies are willing to spend.
These are Canadians. It’s not called TransCanada because it’s owned by China. Enbridge — they are all Canadians who work hard and want to protect our environment and do the right things. They will spend that kind of money. It’s the oil producers who are willing to pay that capped-up toll rate because they know the money is going to environmental protection.
Mr. Wapass: We have to ask the question: Are some First Nations in B.C. or elsewhere against? They want Bill C-48 because they are against pipeline development or oil tanker transportation, or is it how it was introduced and how it played out? Because you go back to these First Nations, and you look at the ones that have launched the court case, they are very pro-business. They are about business. So you can’t tell me for one second that they would be against the potential of looking into it. So what is causing that feeling? Don’t interpret what’s going on as there being nothing that can be done to build world-class standards of marine safety and so on.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
As a closing comment, since the minister started off his presentation to us being quite political, I will make a political comment here. The Conservative Party of Canada believes in the responsible production and development of oil and gas in our country, including in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Senator Galvez: I was not going to ask a question related to the oil and oil sands, but you have spoken so much that I don’t have a choice. But before I do that, I just want to say that when you said that there was a diver in the diamond mine, and when you said that the Indian Act — you will take us out to discuss it, we think and we laugh, but I don’t want to laugh. I want to cry. I’m really upset that we joke about these things, because there is nothing to joke about. It is really —
Turning to my question, we have the upstream and we have the downstream of the oil. So the oil is there very high in the north of Alberta, and then you have the passage through to the open waters in British Columbia, the zone of the moratorium. Because I know about this, there is a professor in Manitoba named Stéphane M. McLachlan. He wrote a big report called Environmental and Human Health Implications of the Athabasca Oil Sands for the Mikisew Cree First Nation and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation in Northern Alberta. In this study, wildlife, which is part of the diet of the people there, was tested for environmental contaminants — heavy metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons — and they were found in muskrat, ducks and moose. There were concerns for the health of the children.
So we have the people out there who say there is impact; that when there is oil, there is impact. Then we have the people in British Columbia saying there is impact on the coast. I am very happy that you have found your balance and an agreement with a private company that receives money from all over the world. You just said China, the United States —
The Chair: No, he did not.
Senator Galvez: Well, there are some other industries —
The Chair: Could you get to a question? We have got a while here.
Senator Galvez: Could you please try to explain why we have such a variety of opinions? When you explain traditional life and living in the circle with the environment, sometimes it’s evident and sometimes it’s less evident to understand this.
Mr. Buffalo: Thank you for the question. And I didn’t mean to make anyone laugh, but I’m very passionate about how the Indian Act hurts our people. And if you don’t agree with me on that —
Senator Galvez: I agree.
Mr. Buffalo: — then there is something else. The impact we are seeing now — I’m not going to say I’m a traditionalist. I don’t want to brag about my culture and how I was raised. That’s not the way I was taught. But I do listen to our elders talk. They see how times have been more modern from back when they grew up, and they see how everything happened around them without their input and without their involvement.
So when we look at Mother Earth, we look at the resources that are provided for us since the beginning of time. It, too, has become modern. Yes, our people still hunt. Yes, our people still fish. But it’s more modern. You see these B.C. coast First Nations. I guarantee you they are using gas-powered motors to fish. In northern Manitoba, I guarantee you they are using some sort of vehicle, be it a Skidoo or four-wheeler, to check their traplines and hunt.
You are seeing a diversity now, and you are seeing a lot of fearmongering, we call it, within our people. It’s starting to be more evident in our youth. They read Facebook and social media. And yes, there are some issues with the climate, and yes, we are finding ways to be more modern, to adapt. Yes, we want to protect what we have. But in the same sense, our First Nations people are always on our back, at a disadvantage to get where we want to be. So I openly state yes, First Nation Indigenous ownership on pipelines, because it’s another avenue to attack those issues we are faced with.
The earth will still provide. The way I was brought up, there are ceremonies that are dear to my heart that will help pray for earth. I don’t know if anyone in this room understands that. That’s our faith.
Mr. Wapass: If I can add here to your good question and to my colleague’s answer, again, IRC is not a commercial entity. We speak for First Nations who are rights holders. When we look at business as First Nations people, we have a different world view when we look at business. Our world view in business is we look at it as a responsibility. We don’t look at it as an interest. So when we get into business, it’s a business responsibility, meaning that yes, environment is paramount. Our world view goes into that decision of that business venture we are getting engaged in, and everything follows. That’s the responsibility that we carry. So our decision to partner up or to extend our hand out with Husky to do and to engage, that’s what it was, because it was prayer. It was ceremony. It was that understanding that helps navigate what needs to be dealt with and what needs to be fixed and cleared.
It’s no different than our brothers and sisters from the West Coast. No different. They were as spiritual as any of us here. Environment is paramount for them, and it should be, the salmon and the list goes on. But it doesn’t mean that because of that, we limit ourselves or we take away the opportunities that exist to create a better quality of life.
Also, when we look at the protest and the blockades, that happened in Quebec until government realized that they should sit down and start dealing with First Nations here, the Quebec Cree, in a very responsible, trust and sincere way. They came up with the result, which was once believed that there will never be an agreement, an understanding, a relationship with Quebec Cree. Now in Canada we have people that are bragging about the relationship and how that carried out. Here we are today.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you all for being here. We are going to see each other tomorrow. We’ll speak at length tomorrow, I hope. I have just a couple of comments for you to think about and maybe one question.
The East Coast has all kinds of oil activity, and Grand Banks of Newfoundland are the largest and most productive fishing bank in the world in terms of volume. They have been extracting and shipping out 400 or 500,000 barrels of oil daily for the last 20, 25 years from that environment safely.
The other point I want to make — it’s funny to bring up the Nathan Stewart. This is not a double-hulled ship. There is more threat on either coast with old freighters and old ships that are substandard — that’s what the threat is — not from state-of-the-art double-hulled ships. No question about that.
My question is to the Indian Resource Council. If this bill is passed, and you have membership right across the country, how will that affect your membership?
Mr. Buffalo: Well, obviously you’ll see a drastic change in the way we participate in the industry. Right now, for example, Onion Lake is a heavy producer of heavy oil, and they have to cut back some of their production, and a lot of people lost their jobs. A senator earlier mentioned the perspective of Eagle Spirit being private, and we have had to in our communities put forth corporate governance in order to participate in the industry. Obviously the partners wanted certainty in that there is a company there. So from 30,000 feet, it looks like, yes, that’s the private sector, but in actuality, that goes and feeds our communities. We are going to see a big drop I think in regards to not only the jobs but the quality of life basically.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
Mr. Dumont: I wanted to make one comment about what Minister Garneau said. He reflects on the Exxon Valdez. That was a U.S. catastrophe years ago. Today Canada is more regulated than any country in the world.
Senator McCoy: Thank you very much for being here and being so authentic. You have shared yourselves very generously, so thank you.
I’m looking at a map in front of me from Mr. Garneau’s department, I think. It’s by Marine Transportation, part of the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area, and it is an all-vessel traffic density in an area that they call the PNCIMA, which is roughly the same area as is covered by the voluntary moratorium, the exclusion zone, and is roughly the same area that will be covered, if this bill passes, by the mandatory exclusionary area. It shows in Prince Rupert there are upwards of 2,000 ships going in and out of that harbour every year.
We know there have been three spills in the last seven years or so. One came from a tug, one came from a ferry and one came from a 1946 shipwreck. None of those ships were affected by the voluntary exclusion zone. Since the mandatory exclusion zone is going to do the same thing as the voluntary one, we know that it’s not going to protect the coastal communities from these very real risks, one of which has damaged the clam beds and so forth.
We had here a representative of the Heiltsuk First Nation the other day. She was very eloquent in saying what is needed for protection in this area. It may be that they were involved, as others were, in conversations around marine safety when the Northern Gateway was being built, which you are familiar with because you participated in it. She said Canada’s Oceans Protection Plan has not provided any solutions to these existing challenges to date and neither British Columbia nor Canada have meaningfully supported the building of an Indigenous marine response centre.
This evening you probably heard the minister say we are putting all of the money, $150 million, for the Oceans Protection Plan into places that have heavy uses like Vancouver and St. Lawrence, et cetera. Maybe in 30 or 40 years, we might put some money into British Columbia, but, in the meantime, we are going to put in an exclusion zone. So I’d like your comment on that scenario.
Mr. Swampy: I can say firsthand that the hereditary chiefs that have signed on to Northern Gateway were happy about the fact that if Northern Gateway went through, there would be a port available on Haida Gwaii that would service marine spills, not just from tankers, which we believed double-hulled and in a very deep water port safely going to Asia would have a problem, but for all the other ones that are there. A salvage port for ships that couldn’t get to a port. An actual marine port for the tugboats. The tugboats were actually going to be located in Haida Gwaii, not in Kitimat. These tugboats were going to be one of a kind, very large. They would run it, the Haida Gwaii community. The community within that area, they would run it, just like the Alaska First Nations run the oil spill response program in Alaska, the biggest in the world. We don’t see any protests out there because everybody there is gainfully employed.
There hasn’t been a spill in Canada in 60 years. There has not been a major spill in Canada, period. I do not know what everybody is fearmongering about. It’s because the U.S. has so much money in their environmental funds that they have nowhere else to go but Canada because they know Canada won’t fight back, and we haven’t for the past 30 years. If you go to China, it has a terrible environmental record. Asia, terrible environmental record.
Right now you have a chief like Roy Jones Jr. from Haida Gwaii speaking across the country saying we are in a crisis, that Haida Gwaii is in a crisis, that we’re going to go inundated by future oil spills from ships that are not going to be protected by any type of marine protection program. He says we had that with Northern Gateway, but that was all taken away. There would have been state-of-the-art protection out in Haida Gwaii along the ports, the Douglas Channel, around Prince Rupert, because those ships would go north going on their way to Alaska. This state-of-the-art protection plan would be funded for First Nations, run by First Nations, just like First Nations in Alaska.
Everyone was looking forward to it and everyone was — when 2016 came along and Trudeau decided, because he had Gerald Butts in his ear, who is making tons of money while First Nations are suffering in poverty. He got $380,000 three years after he quit the Wildlife Fund saying it’s severance. It’s a bonus, if you ask me. Canada is taking it in the ear and we’re getting robbed. These environmentalists are celebrating.
Senator McCoy: That is another example.
The other example they told us about was a large ship that was actually outside of the exclusion zone. It was honouring the exclusion zone. It was on the west side of the Charlottes, I think, in the winter. But it got into trouble, and it was blown. It looked like it was going to shipwreck on Haida Gwaii. The only thing that saved it, in fact, was a change of wind direction. The exclusion zone is not going to prevent that kind of accident either.
Mr. Swampy: They could have used some of these funds to buy a boat to help them go out and help save those kinds of boats. That will be gone.
Senator McCoy: You might conclude, as I have, that Bill C-48 is an illusion, not a solution.
Mr. Swampy: That’s correct.
Mr. Wapass: That ship was off the west coast of Haida Gwaii. The Haida Gwaii people monitored that whole thing from the time they got notice that the ship was in trouble, and they watched it. Thankfully, the wind did change, but they were monitoring the whole situation all the time.
Senator McCoy: They are natural first responders. If they were properly equipped, they could be indeed world leaders, like their Alaskan cousins.
Mr. Swampy: We asked Minister Garneau to meet with the Haida Gwaii chiefs and we asked him to meet with our 31 communities. He never responded to us.
Senator McCoy: That was when?
Mr. Swampy: This was in 2016 after the project was cancelled.
The Chair: After the cancellation.
Mr. Swampy: Right.
Senator Jaffer: I apologize I wasn’t here earlier. If you have answered the question, please don’t answer it again. The transcript will show it. I was at another committee.
My first question is that the proposed LNG and an export terminal, an estimated $36 million project, requires LNG Canada to employ First Nations workers, include First Nations in monitoring activities and address their concerns about air quality and fish habitat. The project has garnered support from First Nations in B.C. Am I correct on that? You have supported it, right? And throughout the proposal and engagement process, economic and employment opportunities that this project will bring to First Nations stands to be significant. I missed your presentations, but I think you’re talking about the opportunities that are being missed by having this moratorium. Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Buffalo: Yes, absolutely. We’re upstream with the oil and gas. The economic impact is there is no market access. The fact that there is an LNG and that the communities are prepared to work and to be a part of it is tremendous. It says a lot. You’re starting to see big corporations partner with First Nations. It’s going to set a precedent to continue to move to that.
Like I said, I’ve been arguing here that we need to find a different way to subsidize our communities for better well-being. That’s my goal, better well-being. Not only with the LNG but with TMX and with possibly Eagle Spirit, those are opportunities that we have to be a part of. They go through our traditional territories, and you’ve got communities that are prepared to be a part of it as far as ownership and work interests, et cetera. So it definitely goes a long way.
Mr. Wapass: Let’s go back a little second here. Is there any wonder why you find First Nations along the waterway? It’s not a surprise, because that’s who we are. That’s our livelihood. That’s what we do.
So strategically, you have these environmentalists and environmental groups from the U.S. who have invested to try to find — they figured that they found a solution to stop development here in Canada by going through First Nations. Now here is First Nations that are coming up and saying, “Wait a second. We’re don’t want to be used like that.” We get what’s going on, but does the government get what’s going on?
The investment that’s happening is taking away from the real story that exists. No one is talking about how many railcars are out there that have spilled in Manitoba, that have oil spilled someplace else. What if that oil spill would have taken place just past Banff into the province of B.C.? Then what?
When we’re talking about opportunities, we really have to see through it. I respectfully ask the Senate to see through all that smokescreen and to get to the heart of what it is that is really going on here. I’m not accusing the government or the successive government or the governing government of anything. I’m just saying, let’s see through all that’s going on here and it will be clear in regard to what the story is and how that affects us back home and how that will affect many First Nations. There are 203 First Nations in British Columbia. There are 46 in Alberta. There are 75 in Saskatchewan. How many of those 203 would be affected with the tanker ban? We would all be affected, to be quite honest.
Senator Jaffer: All 203?
Mr. Wapass: All 203 would be affected because there are economic benefits. There are spinoffs that come from that. There is the protection. Like Dale said, our people could be monitoring. Our people could be part of the marine solution and the spinoffs that come from that. So it’s a huge benefit.
Senator Jaffer: I have difficulty. My difficulty is that there are two visions. We had people yesterday who said, “We want to protect our sea. We want to protect our sea from spilling.” You’re saying — I’m not trying to put words in your mouth — “There will be no spill. Don’t worry about that.” How do we, as senators who are not living on the land, assess that?
Mr. Buffalo: When we talk about creating policy and what’s best, right now there has been some consultation. From what I remember, I spoke with Ellis Ross one time on a panel, and he stated in the presentation that when they talked about Kitimat being the port, he said the First Nations communities gave five alternate spots that were better than Kitimat, and they did not take that advice. Right there, that tells us something, that our voice, even though the First Nations are local and they understand what’s happening with the tides and the way the terrain is, they still didn’t listen. When you create these policies, it’s important that you get the local knowledge at the table and technicians. I guarantee there are a lot of community members that can help create this emergency response to possible spills, and it would be upon them to continue to protect the ocean.
Mr. Swampy: I believe there is no risk of spills. I think this is all fearmongering. I don’t understand how MPs could — well, I do understand because Trudeau had this zealot in his ear telling him that the best pipeline to approve is one that is going to cause the most damage and the most protests, and that’s the one by Burnaby. Don’t approve the one up North, because we know once you get that approved, there will be another pipeline going through and Canada is going to make billions and billions of dollars, and our environmental crew will probably get laid off.
If you look at the application with 50,000 pages worth of documents and studies that were done on everything right up to earthquakes, the terminal and pipeline were going to be able to withstand an 8.5 earthquake. In 2014, when we had 26 First Nation partners before we increased it up to 31, there was a 7.2 earthquake off the coast of Haida Gwaii at the continental shelf, which is 200 kilometres west of Haida Gwaii. There was an inundation of calls coming up to us saying, what would have happened to the pipeline? The first thing you did was all the environmentalists went out there and said good thing the pipe or terminal wasn’t there because the whole coast would be devastated and people would be dead. It’s misinformation like that that ruins everyone’s perception of pipelines and tankers and their safety and integrity. A 7.2 earthquake would have done nothing. The pipeline would be intact. The terminal would be intact. There is no threat of tsunami. Even if there was a tsunami, the terminal in Kitimat would be protected by the Haida Gwaii islands. It’s those types of things that you learn and you understand, and the 31 communities learned that. They understood because they took the time to learn about what the pipeline was all about.
I always say leaders are incumbent upon themselves to be informed. That’s why we elect them, right? We don’t want to know everything about the pipeline because we elect our leaders to learn that and to make the best informed decision. It frustrates me when a guy like Senator Dawson, who is obviously for Bill C-48, is not taking the time to inform himself what communities are in support of oil and gas and against the tanker ban. Everybody has got to be informed, and I think it’s important. Once they do get informed, they tend to support the pipeline. When you talk about the variety of opinions, there’s only one opinion from the 31 First Nations, and that’s there’s no threat of a spill. All the other opinions are coming from the environmentalists. That’s where you get your variety from.
Senator Jaffer: Chair, I won’t ask a question, but I want to say that if you think because Senator Dawson is not here that he is not informing himself, I can assure you he will read the transcript.
An Hon. Senator: He was here.
The Chair: In the Banking Committee, we had a group called the First Nations Major Projects Coalition. That’s what we talked about. It was actually the first time a business group testified outside of Aboriginal and came to a Banking Committee meeting. We talked about the importance of building partnerships. Is your group doing work along with them, and what kind of communication do you have?
Mr. Wapass: We’re quite familiar and aware of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition. The executive director, Niilo Edwards, is leading the charge there.
Thunderchild First Nation and Moosomin First Nation from Saskatchewan recently became members, because we believe in what they are about and what they do with regard to major projects and how they bring First Nations together in realizing investment opportunities and the economists that they have employed to do the work on behalf of the First Nations, a First Nation or a group of First Nations on investments and what types of investments to get into.
The Chair: Do you have anything to add, Mr. Buffalo?
Mr. Buffalo: We are currently trying to set a date to sign a MOU in partnership with First Nations Major Projects Coalition. Niilo and I have been pretty busy advocating on behalf to protect our business interests. We’re very well aware of them and we are looking to move forward with them together.
The Chair: Thank you very much. There are no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Buffalo, Mr. Dumont, Mr. Wapass and Mr. Swampy, for your testimony. It has been a very informative evening.
(The committee adjourned.)