Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 49 - Evidence - April 2, 2019
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 2, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I want to first advise the committee that I and the deputy chair, Senator Miville-Dechêne, will be going to Prince Rupert a little early to tour the port. We’ll report our findings to the committee the next day. We’ve written a letter to CIBA. We have to go Sunday, so there will be a letter sent to CIBA to inform them of the change. It won’t increase the budget. The budget is already down quite a bit because we only have seven senators who are travelling, rather than our twelve.
There’s another option on the table to tour the coast of Prince Rupert by ferry, and we talked about this before. The steering committee agreed to bring this to the full committee for discussion. It’s a one-hour ferry tour proposed by the Coastal First Nations. It would be scheduled following our full day of public hearings in Prince Rupert, from 5:30 to 6:30. We would then take a charter bus to Terrace for an arrival around 8:30 p.m., and the cost is $450 for the hour. We have $250 for miscellaneous items in the budget. The cost would be expended here with a note in the post-activity report.
It gets us in pretty late and nothing ever works on time, but it’s up to the committee whether you want to do this or not. The staff will either have to participate or wait for the group before taking the bus to Terrace. We can’t stagger the departures. We can’t say one group will go now and we will have another bus to go later. We have one bus.
I’m leaving it at your discretion if you want to go on the boat. I don’t particularly want to go on the coastal boat tour and delay it to 8:30; then by the time we eat it’s later and we have to get up early the next day. We have a busy day the next day. Yes or no?
Senator Dasko: I’d love to go on the boat tour. I would really like it very much. That’s my point of view.
The Chair: That’s fine. It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. Does the majority of the committee want to go? I’m just asking.
Senator Gagné: Sure, I would.
The Chair: I’m ambivalent.
Senator Plett: I won’t be there.
The Chair: You can’t go.
Senator Plett: I can’t go. I would love to go.
The Chair: Senator Boisvenu? Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: I would love to go and I won’t be there either.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: After we talked I was thinking, but maybe it is impractical, that we could do the tour on the lunch break that same day if we pack lunch boxes.
The Chair: That’s a pretty good idea. We could ask.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
The Chair: All we can do is ask. When you come up with one, senator, I do want to compliment you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It’s Donna’s idea, so it’s even better.
The Chair: Okay. The clerk will check into it.
The other thing is that members of the committee have received letters from people in Alberta and Saskatchewan regarding travel and going to Alberta and Saskatchewan. We also have all these letters that came to the clerk, so they came to the full committee. I’m going to table the letters here. Once they’re tabled they are official documents, so they can then be translated and sent out.
We also have the letter from the Premier of Alberta asking us to come, which we should reply to. I’d like to reply on behalf of the committee. I think it’s important that we do. I represent Western Canada, and I think it’s important that we do that.
Senator Plett: I have a question and then a comment. How many letters do you have there?
The Chair: About 120.
Senator Plett: Thank you. So it’s a significant number. Of course, we haven’t read those. We have all received our own and have read many of those. I’ve read the one from the premier. Today we have the critic from the United Conservative Party in Alberta as a witness, so I’m sure we’ll hear his opinion.
When we get a letter from the premier asking us to come in the strongest of terms, it is absolutely imperative that we certainly reply and I think the reply needs to come from the committee. We need to point out to the premier exactly how many of us feel strongly about travelling to parts of Western Canada, the parts that will be the most impacted by this bill.
Now, certainly British Columbia will be impacted to a large extent, but Alberta will be equally and maybe more impacted by the negative consequences of Bill C-48. For us, again, I want to say that I am just so frustrated that the majority of this committee voted against travelling to the most important part of the country when it relates to this particular piece of legislation and tried to find all kinds of excuses why we don’t do it, and used silly arguments like senators wanted to travel all over the world. Well, I spoke strongly against travelling out of the country, and some of my colleagues on the Conservative side did as well.
The Chair: We should be careful here, because that was an in camera meeting.
Senator Plett: I feel that we need to absolutely reply to the premier. Most certainly the vote on travelling to Alberta was not in camera, that was in public. My comments to the media long before that in camera meeting were that I did not want to travel out of the country. So that was not done just at a committee meeting, that was done out in the public.
I think, chair, in light of the letter we have to have that discussion again. If it requires a motion I will make another motion, but we have to have that discussion again and we have to reply to the premier as to why we are ignoring the Province of Alberta, the Province of Saskatchewan and the Province of Manitoba in our travel plans.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: First of all, I didn’t receive the letter from Premier Rachel Notley. As vice-chair of the committee, I think that it’s important to receive it, like Senator Dawson. I don’t see why I didn’t receive it. I think that it’s very important to respond to Ms. Notley.
[English]
The Chair: I received the letter. The way it was written, I assumed it was written to all members on the committee so I thought everybody had it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I didn’t.
Senator Galvez: Point of order.
The Chair: You can be on the list for debate. I have Senator Miville-Dechêne, then Senator Dasko and then I’ll recognize you, Senator Galvez.
Senator Miville-Dechêne, please continue.
Senator Galvez: We shouldn’t be talking about this at this point.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I just want to quickly say that if a letter is sent to Ms. Notley, I would like the steering committee to be consulted on the letter. Senator Plett and I sent different responses to the dozens of people who complained. Of course, there are different views on this, but I want to point out that we have a number of witnesses. I would say that we’ve had at least seven witnesses since the beginning, and that we’ll have about a dozen from Alberta between now and the end of the hearings.
This idea that Alberta won’t have a voice is false. Whether it’s in Ottawa, by video conference or in Alberta, we’ll hear from Alberta. I think that it’s important to set the record straight.
In my response, I didn’t simply make an accusation regarding who voted yea and who voted nay. However, the reality is that Alberta’s arguments will be clearly heard in this committee.
I think that, in our response to the Premier of Alberta, we must also tell her about the number of witnesses from Alberta who will appear before the committee. I understand the symbolism and I’m aware of it. However, in the end, the important thing is that the arguments will be heard.
The arguments for not going to Alberta and Saskatchewan — and remember that, at first, we also talked about going to the Maritimes... We decided that it was more difficult to reach people in northern British Columbia as a result of distance and video conferencing issues and that it was better to meet with witnesses from Alberta and Saskatchewan here in Ottawa or by video conference.
Obviously, it was a majority decision. I’m aware of this. However, the decision was based on a rational line of thinking.
[English]
Senator Dasko: I want to reiterate some of the comments of Senator Miville-Dechêne.
From the communications we’ve been getting, from the article written by Mr. Braid in the Calgary Herald and in the letter from the premier, I believe there is a conception out there that we have not spoken to Alberta witnesses. That comes through in some of the letters I have received and from various sources. That is a misconception. As we know, we have had Alberta witnesses and will definitely have many more. That is a really important point to make. There is a misconception out there that we are not speaking to Albertans. We are speaking to Albertans and we must speak to Albertans. We most definitely should be sending a letter to the premier. I think it should be a respectful letter, but we should make this point.
Senator Galvez: I think that we are out of order because we are not following the agenda. We received an agenda, and at 9:30 we had witnesses waiting for us. I think it’s impolite and unethical.
I don’t have any problem discussing this again and putting this subject on the table, but I think you should follow procedures which means you want to change the agenda. So put forward a motion and we will vote for a change in the agenda. Right now, according to the agenda, we should be listening to a panel composed of the three people who are waiting for us.
Senator D. Black: I wish to reiterate what I said a number of times before: namely, that I am extremely surprised that this committee has decided not to go to Alberta and Saskatchewan. To say that by hearing from 12 Alberta witnesses — that’s 12 Alberta witnesses — is to have heard from Albertans, how do you think that sounds in Fort McMurray? How do you think that sounds, senators?
It appears to Albertans, whether it’s right or wrong, that the fix is in with this committee. I’m not saying I believe that. I don’t know yet; we will see. But that’s what it looks like. I am at a loss as a senator. Even if I were a senator from Montreal or St. John’s, I do not understand why senators wouldn’t be concerned about how this looks. To say that Prince Rupert is a great distance away — it’s no further away. It’s another 40 minutes flying from Edmonton. Let’s not get caught up in that.
Let’s not get caught up in saying that people can use video conferencing. I’m here to tell you that thousands of Albertans a month are losing their ability to pay for their cellphones, let alone access video conferencing.
Senators, again, I implore you to reverse your decision and get to Alberta and Saskatchewan. We’re talking about 48 hours.
The Chair: We’ll get to the witness list. We’ll place this on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting, if that’s okay. I think it should be discussed. In the meantime, we can get that letter distributed from the Premier of Alberta and we can go from there. If that’s okay with the rest of the committee, that’s what we’re going to do.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My position hasn’t changed. This bill and the abandonment of the East pipeline will doom the economies of the central provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan. I was listening to Senator Black last week. He said that Trans Mountain wouldn’t in any way resolve the issue of the Canadian industry’s profitability, given that the oil is intended for domestic use in the United States.
I had some surprising statistics on Canadian crude oil exports by rail. These statistics were produced by the National Energy Board. In November 2016, when we tabled our report on the pipeline — do you remember, Senator Black? — we had anticipated about 400,000 cubic metres per rail line. By December 2018, it was 1.7 million, so four times as many. Why? Because the oil has no way out of Western Canada. I spoke about this during our study on the pipeline. Bill C-71 creates more serious environmental issues. High-risk methods are being used to ensure the safety of the public. The number of cars has quadrupled, and there’s a risk of more significant environmental and spill issues on the West Coast. When it comes to showing respect for the people of Western Canada, we mustn’t forget that their economy helps the vast majority of Canadian provinces, including Quebec.
I think that, to show respect for Alberta, we must go to see these people. We mustn’t forget that it’s on our way out west. Very little spending is involved. I don’t understand this resistance. I don’t understand why we don’t at least have the courtesy to go see these people and tell them that we want to listen to them.
[English]
Senator Gagné: Chair, I agree with you that we should be listening to our panellists. I think it’s time we move on.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I want to say that I’m uncomfortable about not being ready for this discussion this morning.
We weren’t informed that this discussion would be held. I want to participate in the discussion on the trip to Alberta. I’m willing to do so, but only after I’ve been informed that the discussion will be held. I want to be able to do my job as a senator properly.
I just want to say that I’m uncomfortable about being somewhat caught off guard and having to comment on a topic that wasn’t on the agenda.
[English]
The Chair: I’m not going to get into a debate on that, Senator Cormier. I made a suggestion that we go back, but we had a couple of other senators who wanted to speak so here we are.
Senators and witnesses, we continue our study on Bill C-48. On our panel this morning we are pleased to have appearing before us by video conference Mr. Prasad Panda, Energy Critic, from the United Conservative Party of Alberta; Mr. Jay Ritchlin, Director General, Western Canada, from the David Suzuki Foundation; and from Natural Resources Defense Council, we have Michael Jasny, Director, Marine Mammal Protection.
Thank you, witnesses. I apologize for the 20-minute interlude, but this is important business. This is a contentious bill and it’s going to remain so I think from all points of view. We’re just trying to shepherd our way through this.
We’ll begin with Mr. Panda.
Prasad Panda, Energy Critic, United Conservative Party of Alberta: Good morning, honourable senators. I was the MLA for Calgary-Foothills, and I am currently a UCP candidate in Calgary-Edgemont. I’m also the United Conservative Party energy critic. I am a professional engineer and have worked 28 years in the oil and gas sector. I was a key member of the project management teams that built mega projects in Canada, Saudi Arabia and India.
I understand the Government of Alberta made a 10-page submission to this committee in mid-March. We in Alberta have heard little from the NDP government, the Premier of Alberta or her energy minister with respect to the Bill C-48.
Should my party, UCP, form the government after the April 16 election, you will hear a lot more from Alberta. We will be creating a campaign-style war room to defend our natural resources and fight Liberal attacks on our energy sector, like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69.
My constituents in Calgary are oil and gas workers. Far too many of them are unemployed. They know that Bill C-48 is not in the best interests of their families, Alberta or Canada.
Indeed, Bill C-48 isn’t in the best interests of the world or helpful for reducing world emissions. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has asked UCP leader Jason Kenney when India will have access to Alberta oil and gas. China, Japan and Korea have been asking the same questions.
The export of energy products from Alberta would serve to reduce energy poverty around the world, but our resources remain landlocked.
The International Energy Agency forecasts global oil demand to peak in 2040 at 106 million barrels per day. Canada has a role to play in the provision of this energy not only because of our tremendous resource but also because no other country meets our ethical, environmental or labour standards.
However, we have a federal Liberal government that wants to ignore sections 92A and 121 of the Constitution, the provisions that Albertans control natural resource development in our province and the allowance of articles of production or manufacture to be admitted freely between the provinces.
Article 301 of the Canada Free Trade Agreement, CFTA, states:
The Government of Canada shall not adopt or maintain any measure that unduly restricts or prevents the movement of goods across provincial or territorial boundaries.
I contend that Bill C-48 violates the Constitution and the CFTA as it selectively restricts the movement of natural resources for export in the province of British Columbia.
In Newfoundland, tankers sail by Cape St. Mary’s seabird sanctuary all the time. Tankers also sail in the waters of the Bay of Fundy despite the endangered right whale. Liquefied natural gas, LNG, is about to sail the waters to be protected under Bill C-48. Why is the northwest coast of British Columbia different from Placentia Bay, the Bay of Fundy or the St. Lawrence River?
Bill C-48 is discriminatory to Alberta. Bill C-48 also discriminates against the First Nations businesses, like the proposed $16-billion Eagle Spirit pipeline corridor from Fort McMurray to Prince Rupert, B.C.
Several Indigenous communities in northern B.C. have initiated a legal challenge to Bill C-48, while the Indian Resource Council and the National Coalition of Chiefs have expressed concern about the legislation.
Bill C-48 represents legislative overkill for Canadian and Alberta oil producers and shippers. The proposed legislation would block Canadian and Alberta exports while foreign oil imports transit through the same waters from Alaska to Seattle.
Constraining the energy industry will harm Canada’s economy at a time when the international competition challenges Canada’s and Alberta’s economic interests. Bill C-48 will only serve to shift the world’s energy supply to places that do not have our standards.
Honourable senators, Canada’s prosperity and unity are in peril. I ask you not to amend but to defeat this legislation, Bill C-48. Since time is short this morning, I have provided a supplementary written submission, and I hope you will consider it. Thank you for the opportunity to present and represent Albertans. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Panda.
Jay Ritchlin, Director General, Western Canada, David Suzuki Foundation: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It’s a pleasure to be here today. I’m the director general for Western Canada at the David Suzuki Foundation. I’m presenting with my colleague Michael Jasny from the Natural Resources Defense Council. We are here to speak in support of Bill C-48.
I have been at the David Suzuki Foundation for nearly 15 years. Since the beginning of that time, I have been doing work to support the moratorium on offshore oil and gas activities in the B.C. coast, including the moratorium on tanker traffic which has been in place for many decades.
I also spent four years as a manager and worker in salmon and halibut fisheries. I have a great respect for people who make their living off the sea and the things the sea can give us if it’s well taken care of. During that time, I experienced the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the immediate consequences, and since seen the long-term consequences: shutting down fisheries, stopping livelihoods and damaging the environment for decades.
Collectively, Mr. Jasny and I have worked on issues related to tanker traffic for almost 35 years — almost two decades each. However, that is not as long as this present ban that is being proposed has been an issue. For nearly three generations the residents of the north coast, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, have been kept off the coast of British Columbia where they live and work. There have been six private members’ bills; there was a West Coast ports inquiry a couple of decades ago; and there is a moratorium on oil and gas activities in the region. Since 1977, there has been a voluntary exclusion zone, negotiated by the U.S. and Canada and adhered to by international shipping, that keeps tankers off our shores.
This is not something new. It has not just been dreamed up. It’s not even linked to the Alberta oil patch. The first impetus was because of a plan to import oil on tankers and ship it to other parts of Canada by pipeline. Later expansion of the oil fields in Alaska and their transshipments to the United States led to the eventual creation of the exclusion zone.
This is the status quo, and it is so for good reasons and there are people who have been asking for a long time for it to be made permanent. The reasons are because of the incredibly high level of biological diversity we have on the Pacific Coast of Western Canada, the north coast in particular. There’s also high-risk geology, high-risk weather and sea conditions. These have all been documented in numerous studies. There’s a known reduction in the ecological health of areas where there is oil and gas activity, and emerging evidence continues to come out about the effects of noise and ship traffic on a wide range of species.
People live and work here and run an economy in ways that will be severely disrupted by oil and gas activity, both the regular day-to-day activities as well as any extraordinary accidents.
To briefly revisit the —
The Chair: We seem to have another technical issue. I don’t know if you can hear me, Mr. Ritchlin, but we’ve lost you. We’ll try and get you back.
Mr. Panda, can you hear us?
Mr. Panda: I can.
The Chair: We can ask questions of Mr. Panda until we get Mr. Ritchlin back.
Senator Plett: I will ask my questions of Mr. Panda.
First, Mr. Panda, thank you for being here during your busy time campaigning and running for election. I want to wish you well in that election.
The first question deals with something our friend from the David Suzuki Foundation touched on, but he’s not here to answer. He talked about terrible tragedy of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and we’ve heard about the other odd oil spill, but we have heard time after time of the horrible incidents of rail issues and people dying, such as the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic.
When we have a derailment of trains carrying oil, we try to solve the problem by fixing the brakes that failed in that particular instance and other instances. We don’t ban rail. As a matter of fact, the premier in Alberta is buying rail cars to increase the most dangerous transportation there is.
I would like your comment on that, Mr. Panda, in that we have one oil spill and we have to stop tanker traffic. We have dozens of derailments and we try to fix the cause of the derailments.
I’d like your comments on that and then I have one other brief question.
Mr. Panda: Thank you for your question, but if someone can mute the music that would be great.
The Chair: We don’t hear the music, so could you speak over it? Can you hear the music now, Mr. Panda?
Mr. Panda: I can.
Senator Plett: Did you hear my question?
Mr. Panda: I heard it briefly but there was interruption because of the music. Do you want to repeat that or are you going back to the other panel members?
Senator Plett: Is the music on?
Mr. Panda: It’s off now.
Senator Plett: What I was asking about is the witness from the David Suzuki Foundation talked about the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which was a horrific accident. Because of that he says we should stop all tanker traffic. When we had the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster, we didn’t stop all rail traffic. We fix the trains.
I would like your comment on why we would stop all tanker traffic because we have an oil spill but when we have the most dangerous form of transportation, rail, and we have problems there, there’s no talk of stopping rail traffic.
Maybe that’s this government’s next plan, I’m not sure, but please comment on that, if you would.
Mr. Panda: I appreciate the question, senator. You’re right, accidents do happen. Unfortunately, the Exxon Valdez accident that happened a while ago, after that there were a lot of technological improvements with respect to marine safety. If you think about accidents and doing nothing, then, like you said, our premier has actually planned to augment rail shipments. From a safety perspective, that is more dangerous than pipelines. If I just kept thinking about accidents this morning, I wouldn’t have gotten into my car to drive here and talk to you.
It’s about how we handle those things and how we prevent them. Currently, with all the measures of the federal government and the NEB recommendations, I’m not worried about those spillages anymore. All over the world these shipments are happening in larger volumes than what we ship on the West Coast of B.C. Those concerns are valued, but to me it’s just fear-mongering to stop the exports from Alberta.
Senator Plett: Thank you. Mr. Panda, again, a simple and quick question for you: You heard some of our dialogue here earlier today. Would you be open to us visiting the province of Alberta? Would you in fact encourage us to visit the province of Alberta?
Mr. Panda: We welcome you to visit Alberta so you can hear from people in Alberta. Every day during my campaign I hear from people about their concerns because they’re all worried about jobs in Alberta. They believe this is an attack on Western Canada’s livelihood and their jobs, so we actually want you to come here and hear from Albertans. They have concerns.
This is Canada’s coast. This is not just B.C.’s coast, so we are all concerned about it. No one here wants to pollute, but we believe that in 2019 we have the technology and resources to avoid any spills, if that is the issue.
Also, if you look at my written submission, if you go by the recommendations of the International Maritime Organization, you don’t actually need Bill C-48. It was started to stop the Northern Gateway pipeline, which has stalled. I advocate that the better alternative to Bill C-48 would be to accept and adopt the system that recognizes particularly sensitive sea areas, as developed by the International Maritime Organization. This system would further enable Canada’s marine safety standards to avoid sensitive areas established under the existing marine protected area network, acknowledge the federal government’s Oceans Protection Plan and recognize the capabilities of the industry-funded Western Canada Marine Response Corporation.
That position is consistent with the advice of the president of the Chamber of Shipping, who argues that the designation of the B.C. northern coast as an ecologically sensitive region would act to safeguard coastal waters without discriminating against Canadian oil exports and allow policy makers to focus on specific marine transportation regulations to protect against spills.
From that point of view, I encourage you to take a look at my written submission. You also have to hear from First Nation businesses, like the proponents of the Eagle Spirit pipeline corridor. They are willing to invest $16 billion with 100 per cent Indigenous backing to build a pipeline from Fort McMurray to Prince Rupert. That would generate a lot of economic activity in B.C. and would benefit First Nations, Albertans, Western Canadians and all of Canada.
For that matter, I used to work at Suncor and was running supply chain management for major projects, and most of our supplies and contracts came all over Canada: lots from B.C., Quebec, Ontario and Atlantic Canada. This bill is going to obstruct the economic growth of all of Canada, not just Alberta. I’m hearing lots of frustration. I’m sure Senator Doug Black hears the same concerns I’m hearing regularly from Albertans.
The Chair: Mr. Panda, I’ve got to move on.
Mr. Panda: Albertans are on the edge. Their patience is running out here. As I said before, the prosperity and unity of Canada are in peril. That’s why I welcome you to visit Alberta and listen to Albertans. I hope that you not just amend the bill, but defeat it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Panda. We’ll now go back to Mr. Ritchlin and Mr. Jasny. We only have about 16 minutes before the next panel, so we’ll probably have you back, Mr. Ritchlin and Mr. Jasny, if we can make arrangements to have you at another time so we can have complete testimony from both of you. We have 15 minutes, so let’s make use of them.
Mr. Ritchlin: Yes, and as the connection became difficult, I was just handing it over to Mr. Jasny.
Michael Jasny, Director, Marine Mammal Protection, Natural Resources Defense Council: Thank you, we apologize for the technical difficulties on our end. My name is Michael Jasny, Director, Marine Mammal Protection at the Natural Resources Defense Council and I’ve been working on underwater noise issues for the last 15 years.
Regardless of whether an oil spill occurs, tanker traffic would still degrade north coast B.C. habitat because of the substantial underwater noise that it produces. Vessel noise is recognized as a significant stressor for wildlife. It’s an explicit focus of Canada’s Oceans Protection Plan, and that’s for good reason. The ocean is a world of sound, not light, and whales and many other marine species depend on sound for foraging, finding mates, avoiding predators, navigating and maintaining social cohesion. In short, for every vital life function. When we introduce loud noise into the ocean, we degrade an essential component of ecosystem health. Vessel noise, particularly from large vessels like tankers, is a major contributor to that problem.
The last decade has seen a rapid expansion of research on the impacts of vessel noise and other continuous low-frequency sounds on a wide variety of ocean species. If you received the handout, you can see on page 5 — I can hold it up briefly — it’s a slide with some dozen photos of wildlife. It’s meant to convey the diversity of marine species known to be affected by shipping noise. These are marine, coastal and estuarine species. They include prey fish, commercial fish, mollusks, crustaceans and cephalopods, all the way to toothed and baleen whales.
Because sound is so important to the life histories of these animals, underwater vessel noise has a wide range of impacts. Documented effects include injury and developmental impairment, habitat avoidance and abandonment — which is when animals will leave an area that is heavily inundated with sound — the masking of biologically important signals so that animals can no longer communicate with one another and to hear biologically important sounds, loss of foraging ability and opportunity, reduced reproductive success and chronic stress. Everything from loss of anti-predator response in species like eels and crabs, to a cessation of benthic irrigation by bivalves, an important ecosystem service that clams, oysters and other bivalves produce, to the disruption of feeding in endangered populations of orca whales.
Tanker ships, as a class, include some of our largest and noisiest vessels. Because sound travels so much better through water than air, the noise from a single large tanker can easily propagate tens of kilometres. In the fjords along the north coast of B.C., those effects are exacerbated by reverberation. When the Northern Gateway project was being debated, our colleagues at WWF Canada commissioned several academic noise modellers to assess the environmental footprint of that tanker traffic over the course of a single sample month. What they found was that increased vessel traffic from the project, mainly large tankers and their escorts, significantly raised cumulative noise levels through much of those mainland fjords and straits, increasing the total acoustic energy in the water by four to eight times the baseline background noise that is there now. Key species in this area, like humpback whales and orca whales, would have been exposed to tanker noise during most daylight hours.
Bill C-48 is about avoiding threats to the environment of the B.C. coast. But it’s also about securing an opportunity. The fact is, much of the south coast of B.C. is highly degraded acoustically. I live in Vancouver on the Salish Sea where one of the great concerns for conservation is the fate of the southern resident orca. If you have that handout and you want to look at the eighth slide, you can see exactly what the soundscape looks like in their core habitat.
The orcas are losing some 20 per cent or more of their foraging time to vessel noise, at a moment when they cannot afford it. But the north coast, by comparison, is still fairly quiet. There was a 2015 paper that assessed opportunity for nine marine mammal species along the B.C. coast looking to match quiet areas of habitat with high density of marine life. Again, if you have slide eight, you can see the differences written in the maps to the right. There’s very little opportunity for preserving quiet habitat in the south but considerable opportunity left in the north, which is precisely the area that Bill C-48 would protect.
The main point I want to make is that, in addition to the importance of preventing oil spills, there’s also a real significance for the environment in preventing a significant increase in the disturbance of multiple marine species from the noise that large tankers would produce. There is an opportunity for conservation to be seized. Thank you.
Mr. Ritchlin: Thank you very much. We’re very happy to take questions.
In closing, we reiterate that we are speaking in support of Bill C-48. We believe, as Mr. Jasny said, it helps preserve an environment that has been intentionally cared for. It helps preserve coastal economies that are already operating and growing based on the healthy living environment and it preserves the opportunity to still have a fossil fuel industry because much of the B.C. is not covered by this, including the Port of Vancouver. We think there is time to have an industry that can transition to something more sustainable for the future. We continue to hear concerns about climate change and we know that we need to slowly but surely move ourselves to a more sustainable and lower carbon future. This ban helps do those things while preserving opportunities on all fronts.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: This question is for Mr. Panda. In Alberta, I imagine you have areas where development is prohibited because of the fact that the area is a particularly sensitive one. Either you have wetlands or even freshwater ecosystems that are protected forests. How do you manage that?
Mr. Panda: We have been managing it for so many years in Alberta. That’s why I encourage you to come and visit us so we can take you to the oil sands area and show you how we actually develop and extract the resource and how we reclaim. I’ve worked all around the world and I can tell you that the environmental and human labour rights standards we follow in Canada are unparalleled. Unless you see it, you don’t believe. That’s why we encourage your committee to come and see. Seeing is believing.
Senator Gagné: Thank you. I’ve been to Alberta quite a few times, but you do have areas where you prohibit development, right? That is the case in Alberta, where you would prohibit extraction or any other activities? It does exist in Alberta, does it?
Mr. Panda: Yes. We fit it in the framework, yes.
Senator Gagné: Thank you. So would you agree that the Coastal First Nations’ welfare should also be considered in the development of policies to bring crude oil to the coast so it can be transported to Asia or other markets?
Mr. Panda: Yes, we do hear their concerns. There are so many First Nations that are actually supporting the export of Canadian oil and gas to other countries because we cannot afford to strangle our economic future while other competing economies play in the global oil export marketplace. Our First Nations in B.C. and our other panel members have the goal to reduce emissions. If their goal is to reduce global emissions, we would actually help reduce those emissions by supplying ethical Alberta and Western Canada’s natural resources to poverty-ridden countries — I’m talking about energy poverty here, like India, China and other countries. For example, if we ship our LNG to India and China, they can replace coal-fired electric generation in those countries.
We can help those countries by supplying clean energy and clean technologies because our goal should be global emissions. If you look at the global perspective, our emissions in Canada are less than 2 per cent. Those are facts. These numbers are vetted by everyone, so you can look them up.
Senator Gagné: Thank you. I was talking about the welfare of the Coastal First Nations here. I agree there are other Aboriginal communities that are certainly for the development, but there are also the Coastal First Nations that have asked and are in support of Bill C-48. Thank you for that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Panda, you were referring to the absolute safety of tanker traffic. I heard you say there was no risk. I was reviewing the literature on that particular issue and there have been quite a few large accidents since 2010 of double-hulled oil tankers. I would refer you to Bunga Kelana, Eagle Otome and Sanchiin the East China Sea. How can you say there are no risks?
To pick up on what my colleague is saying, what is your answer to the Haida Nation, which sits right in front of the Dixon Entrance where those tankers would go through? Obviously it’s not 100 per cent risk, but there are risks of a major oil spill that would destroy their entire livelihood, meaning fish.
Mr. Panda: Thank you for your question. Every business has a risk, but it is how we respond to those risks. We have so many mitigation measures in place. That’s what I said. I also said those rules are selectively being applied to Alberta and Saskatchewan exports. In the same area you’re talking about, which is risk prone, why are we allowing foreign oil imports to transit through the same waters from Alaska to Seattle? That’s the question you have to ask yourself.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, but there’s an exclusion zone that is respected by foreign tankers, according to studies by Transport Canada. So, no, the tankers are not going through the Dixon channel, but thank you for your answer.
Senator Galvez: My question is also for Mr. Panda. You have told us that you are a politician, an engineer and you talked about economic aspects.
I believe you will have in your platform your position on how to develop the oil patch. I want to talk a bit about that. When we fly over the oil patch, it’s a very sad vision. It’s a very sad environment. We can smell the petroleum and we can see that the land is scorched. How much will it cost to clean up the oil patch? How much will you have to charge per barrel of oil in order to cover the costs of the cleanup?
I will have a supplementary question after that.
Mr. Panda: Thank you, senator, for your question. It costs the same everywhere in the world and it smells the same everywhere in the world, but here we take those things very seriously. The emissions and pollution control systems we have in place in Canada are second to none. I can tell you that because I have worked, as I said, all over the world.
Senator Galvez: I asked you how much it will cost to clean up.
The Chair: Senator Galvez, he can answer the way he wants and then you can ask him a follow-up question. Let him finish.
Mr. Panda: So when you ask how much it costs to clean, what do you mean by “cleaning”?
There is a process called reclamation in oil sands mining. We extract the resource in Alberta in two ways. One is the mining, which is open-pit mining — the resource that is close to the Athabasca River. That is available for mining. The other one, as you move further away from the river to the deeper resource, we extract it using steam-assisted gravity drainage, SAGD. There, we are not disturbing land because we are pumping the steam in and extracting the oil out.
In the mines there are tailing ponds, which are being reclaimed. These days, companies like Suncor, Syncrude and CNRL have accelerated drying processes in those things. If you go to Syncrude or Suncor mine, you will see the reclaimed areas. They are reinstated to the original state.
That is cleaning. The costs are part of doing business.
The important point here is that Canada is blessed with the world’s third-largest resource. You want to extract it, you want to develop it and sell it to the benefit of all Canadians when there is still a demand. The international forecast for oil demand is still 106 million barrels, and there is still a demand for our product. You want to develop that resource in an environmentally responsible way and sell it for profit, not give it away to the U.S. at such a discount. Our friends, the other panel members, if their intention is to help U.S. attack Canadian companies, that’s not fair to Canadians. We all want responsible energy development. That’s what Alberta has been doing.
Senator Galvez: I will pass to my second question quickly.
The Chair: We don’t have the time.
Senator Galvez: We don’t have the time because you used 20 minutes at the beginning.
The Chair: I’ve asked this panel to come back.
Senator Galvez: It’s already past the time, because you’re not following your own agenda.
The Chair: I am following my agenda.
Senator Galvez: Your personal agenda.
The Chair: If you don’t want to talk about Alberta travel, then you don’t have to.
Senator Galvez: Yes, I want to, but not now.
The Chair: Right now — I apologized to the other people. I said we’re going to have them back, and we will, senator. We have another panel coming up.
For the second panel this morning, from Canada West Foundation we have Martha Hall Findlay, President and Chief Executive Officer; and from Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Marine Shipping we have Mr. Peter Ellis, Executive Director.
Thank you both for participating. The floor is yours, Ms. Hall Findlay, to be followed by Mr. Ellis.
Martha Hall Findlay, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada West Foundation: Thank you very much for inviting the Canada West Foundation to provide testimony with respect to Bill C-48.
To put our work and commentary in context, Canada West Foundation is a non-partisan, evidence-based think tank. We consider ourselves environmentalists. We support a carbon tax, for example. I myself have been a solar power user for 20 years now, but we also recognize the importance of our resources and of getting our resources to markets, obviously in sustainable ways.
My comments will have three components, and each one sets out our reasons why the Senate should refuse this bill.
First, the bill is frankly un-Canadian in clearly favouring some regions over others. It would jeopardize economic activity in one part of the country, while ignoring even greater and arguably riskier tanker activity in many other parts of Canada — activity that is encouraged to support economic activity in those other parts of the country. There is no similar ban on any oil tanker traffic along any of Canada’s other coastlines, of which there is a great amount. This is fundamentally un-Canadian.
The northern West Coast is beautiful and it’s pristine, but it does not have a monopoly on either of those qualities. Oil tankers travel the coastline of New Brunswick to deliver oil from Saudi Arabia to the Irving Oil refinery. The ruggedly beautiful coast of Newfoundland and Labrador has significant oil rigs operating offshore, and they have meant the difference between poverty and prosperity for many Newfoundlanders.
Consider Vancouver. Why is it any less deserving of environmental protection than any other part of the coastline? There is wildlife, and there are residents and tourism, all of which would be affected by a spill. The City of Vancouver would not exist as it is without being a major port, so all that maritime traffic is not only okay but encouraged.
The St. Lawrence River is jammed with tankers bringing oil to refineries in Quebec, which are important for jobs there. Bill C-48 would prevent Canadian oil from getting to Asian markets via, for example, the deep-water ports of Kitimat or Prince Rupert and directly hurt the Albertan, Saskatchewan and coastal B.C. economies, including several Indigenous groups that also are against this bill. How is that fair? In our view it is not, and couching this as protecting the coastal environment is ultra-selective, hypocritical and frankly an un-Canadian effort by an anti-oil sands lobby run amok.
In acting for all Canadians, we hope the committee will ask some basic questions: specifically why this bill is completely inconsistent with what we do on all of our other coasts. We must not pick and choose where and when we exercise our environmental conscience, particularly when doing so favours jobs in some parts of the country but kills others.
Second, the bill is based on faulty evidence. Some excellent work has been done by Stewart Muir of Resource Works on this issue, which I will reference in my comments here. Bill C-48 will do nothing to address the extensive tanker traffic that passes by from Alaska — there are four daily crude tankers carrying Alaskan oil southward, albeit out of the sight of land — and would only prevent those coming into a Canadian port. Unemployed Canadians on the shore will have that much more time to watch with envy the many tankers going by with oil that the U.S. is selling to their advantage and certainly not ours. The government has, to this point, not presented any economic study or scientific research that supports the ban. Senator Michael MacDonald of Nova Scotia has pointed out that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has itself shown that Ridley Island near Prince Rupert is the safest potential oil port on the whole West Coast: better suited to tanker shipping than even Vancouver itself.
There are better alternatives. The Galápagos Islands, the Great Barrier Reef and the Baltic Sea are special too, but oil tanker traffic has not been banned in those places. However, the use of what is called particularly sensitive sea areas, PSSAs, by the International Maritime Organization is an excellent and pragmatic way of dealing with those concerns. Why can’t we do that here? In the case of the Baltic Sea PSSA, this means traffic separation schemes, pilotage rules, mandatory reporting systems and areas that must be avoided.
We should use this approach in Canada on whatever parts of Canada’s coastline we consider sensitive.
Third, the Senate has an obligation, as you well know, to ensure good legislation. Often, thanks to good and thorough work, important amendments are made to improve on what comes from the House of Commons. We commend the efforts of your colleagues in searching for substantial and acceptable amendments to Bill C-69. There have also been times when the Senate has, rightly, simply said no and refused to pass a bill. This should be one of those times.
This much more independent Senate has a hugely important role to play, not because of partisan obstructionism, but to get crucial legislation right.
The country needs the Senate to ensure that we pass the right legislation in this country and that we refuse to pass what isn’t.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Hall Findlay.
[Translation]
Peter Ellis, Executive Director, Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Marine Shipping: Thank you, honourable senators and committee members. Thank you for inviting me to participate. I’m here as the executive director of the Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Marine Shipping. I’ve held this position for the past two years.
I’m a former naval officer with 31 years of service. I commanded a frigate and the Canadian Fleet Pacific. I finished my military career as a rear-admiral.
[English]
Before I go on, I’d like to confirm that the members of the committee have received the chart that I provided?
The Chair: Yes, they have.
Mr. Ellis: Thank you very much. I’ll continue.
Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Marine Shipping is an independent, not-for-profit organization that sponsors research and produces communications and engagement programs related to sustainable marine shipping in Canada.
Our purpose is to provide impartial, reliable, evidence-based information on the premise that better information leads to better decisions regarding balancing economic development with the stewardship of the environment.
We were launched in the summer of 2015 with seed funding from Transport Canada, Alberta Energy and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
We’re not an advocacy group, and our independence is protected in our funding agreements. All of our programs are available freely online at www.clearseas.org.
[Translation]
Our work is also available in French on our website, which focuses on the importance of marine shipping for the well-being of Canadians while addressing key issues concerning sustainable shipping and environmental protection.
[English]
Among many other issues, we have addressed topics such as oil tankers and double hulls, who pays for an oil spill, how oil behaves in water, invasive species, air pollution and underwater noise.
We have published assessments on vessel drift and response and emergency towing vessel needs for Canada’s Pacific coast, both relevant to this discussion today.
We have not done any work that directly addresses a proposed moratorium and we are not aware of any research which directly addresses this issue from a marine perspective, either for or against.
We are currently analyzing results of some of the other research that we have done on shipping on Canada’s Pacific coast in and around the region of the proposed moratorium.
While that work is under way and has not yet been completed and completely validated, I assess that we can draw some conclusions from our data with a reasonable level of confidence. At the risk of being a little bit tactical today, I will present some of those findings. We looked at three years of automatic identification system data, AIS data, from 2014 to 2016 with the help of Nuka Research and we have plotted the vessel routes in the area of the proposed moratorium.
Now, I would refer you to the chart that I have provided to the committee. The chart depicts the West Coast of Canada from Washington State to Alaska. The land masses are in grey-blue. The lines of latitude and longitude that denote the moratorium area in Bill C-48 are indicated in black with arrows emanating from them. Note that the moratorium covers ports and installations. It does not cover the sea area depicted.
The coloured lines on the chart denote tracks of different types of vessels. They are meant to give you a general understanding of traffic patterns in the region.
This represents a broad mix of shipping that services local and regional needs, but also supports the national economy through vital imports and exports.
Our data indicates there are over 2,500 commercial ships and tug and barge combinations per year that enter the area east and southeast of Haida Gwaii. That’s the area highlighted in yellow on the chart that you have.
Cargo vessels that include container, bulk and vehicle carriers are depicted in green. They are the most common throughout the region, as you will see.
The tankers, as has been noted, large tankers are depicted in orange. Note that they all observe the Voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone which is the black dashed line on the chart. In three years of data, we have seen no crude tankers come inside that line.
Tugs, which are indicated in red, are the most common type of vessel in the zone, either towing or pushing barges, and they resupply Canadian coastal communities and support local resource industries.
Many are U.S. tugs and barges that are trading between Puget Sound and Alaska. They use the British Columbia coast as a freeway.
Six months of the year, cruise ships transit the area on a daily basis taking tourists to see the B.C. coast and the coast of Alaska. They mostly conduct round trips from Vancouver and Seattle through Victoria, and they generally run closer to shore than other large ships. They’re depicted in blue.
What you don’t necessarily get from this context is that the total shipping in the area, indicated in yellow on your chart, represents only about 30 per cent of the traffic level that goes through the Strait of Juan de Fuca on an annual basis.
For comparison, if you look at Dixon Entrance, which is the sea area between the north tip of Haida Gwaii and the south tip of Alaska, it is about the same width as the St. Lawrence River at Rimouski.
The distance from the tip of Washington State to Alaska is about the same distance as that from Halifax to St. John’s, Newfoundland, to provide a bit of context to your discussions. This is a vibrant zone of activity, and there are many initiatives under way to enhance safety in that zone. For instance, the Atlantic Eagle and the Atlantic Raven are currently patrolling the coast under Coast Guard colours. New radars are being installed and communications are being improved in the area. Area response plans are being developed in a consultative way, and some Indigenous first responders have been trained by the Canadian Coast Guard. This is just a list of a few of the initiatives that are under way.
Based on my reading of Bill C-48, and noting that our detailed analysis is not yet complete, in my view this bill is unlikely to have any impact at all on existing traffic patterns. It will not change anything that is currently happening at sea, and it’s clearly aimed at any future developments.
I trust that this short description will be useful to you in terms of providing context for your discussions.
[Translation]
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this meeting. I’m now ready to answer your questions.
Senator Dawson: Thank you, Mr. Ellis. I think that you provided a good overview of the traffic, which we hadn’t yet heard about from other witnesses.
You also used the vocabulary of the existing moratorium. In fact, this wasn’t invented with Bill C-48. The industry has been accustomed to this for many years.
I want to talk to you about upcoming developments. Are you looking at projects that would normally use this route or are you discussing only theoretical projects?
Mr. Ellis: I’m simply talking about theoretical economic projects. In the past, we’ve seen pipeline and export projects. This is the real focus of Bill C-48. When I mentioned the voluntary zone, I wasn’t really talking about a moratorium. It’s an exclusion zone for tankers passing off the coast of British Columbia, and the industry voluntarily complies with the zone.
Senator Dawson: Thank you. Ms. Findlay, I could ask you the question in French. I followed your career here in Ottawa, so I know that you speak French well. Unfortunately, you don’t have the opportunity to speak French as often now that you’re in Alberta.
[English]
You used the word “un-Canadian.” This bill wasn’t an invention that came out of nowhere from somebody’s office in Ottawa. It was basically a request and the continuation of a moratorium that already exists. So I don’t see anything un-Canadian about it. I don’t think anything related to this bill had any direct consequences. There’s a big issue. I think Bill C-69 is a bit more important to debate, but I don’t think we’re inventing something by confirming that we are proposing legislating the existing moratorium. I don’t see anything un-Canadian about that.
I’ve been fighting separatism in Quebec for 40 years. I don’t like the notion of East against West; anglais contre français. It’s not a notion that I encourage. Vocabulary is important. I don’t think there’s anything un-Canadian about this.
Ms. Hall Findlay: Thank you very much, senator. I will answer in English if that’s all right with you. It is upsetting that this is at this point. Recognize that the voluntarily moratorium that has been in place — and I’ve heard this argument a few times — goes back as far as the 1980s. Back in the 1980s, major pipeline projects were not being proposed. There is no question that this is not addressing current traffic, but what might be potential traffic if a major pipeline is built. It is un-Canadian because it treats one part of the country completely differently from any other parts of the country.
I lived through those years of separatism in Quebec, not as a Quebecer but outside, and was equally upset. I’m seeing now tremendous disaffection and upset in the western part of the country. People in Alberta and Saskatchewan who are in the oil and gas sector feel very angry that proposed legislation like this, that does not address tanker traffic in any other part of the country but is extraordinarily selective for one part of the Canadian coastline, is quite clearly addressing not that coastline or Canadian coastlines generally. It is clearly addressing the extractive industries in the interior of the country.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a question for Mr. Ellis. First of all, thank you for this chart, which shows the current level of traffic in the region. We’re talking about 500 cruise ships in two years, which is quite significant.
Since you’re an independent expert on marine issues, I want to hear you talk about how a number of witnesses have asked to look at the possibility of a marine corridor that could be located only — if I understand the maps correctly — in the Dixon Entrance. What constitutes a marine corridor under international law? What does it require or not require us to do? How safe would the corridor be, since tankers can still have accidents as a result of human error?
Mr. Ellis: First of all, I’m neither a lawyer nor an expert in international law. However, I know a bit about the field since I’ve done some research. If you look at the map, you can see the corridors. That’s where the ships go through. The government could implement conditions to control or reduce the risks associated with this.
For example, there are traffic control measures in the Juan de Fuca Strait, where heavy oil has been exported from Vancouver for 60 years without any issues. Preventive measures have been implemented. Rather than completely prohibit the transfer of heavy oil from shore to shore, we can reduce the risks by requiring preventive measures. These measures include escorts, compulsory pilotage or tugs attached to passing tankers.
There have been many changes in the industry as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. However, we no longer talk much about the technological aspect. If you look at all the preventive measures in place right now, it’s not really the same issue.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: May I ask you another question about those corridors? I understand that these corridors can only be recommended. They aren’t mandatory. As a result, the captain can always choose to take another route from point A to point B, depending on the conditions.
In that sense, do the corridors limit the small but present risk of accidents near the coasts? We’re talking about a canal, a 37-kilometre entrance. We’re not very far from Haida Gwaii, where indigenous peoples are concerned about this type of spill.
Mr. Ellis: With regard to the territorial waters off coastal states, based on my understanding of international law, the states can impose precautionary measures within 12 miles. In areas where the economic zone extends up to 200 miles from the coast, a coastal government may impose measures to protect the environment or ensure marine safety. However, you should seek the advice of a maritime law expert. The government certainly has options.
[English]
Senator Galvez: My question is for Ms. Hall Findlay. When we analyze this bill in a pragmatic way, on one side we have an Indigenous population wanting to protect its livelihood and the way they earn their food and their activities, which is associated with the risk of an oil spill. We have heard a lot of witnesses talking about how we can measure this risk.
On the other hand, we have potential pipelines or petroleum projects that could come in the future and, as you mentioned, that could find buyers of this petroleum in the Asian market. But this is a bit difficult to evaluate. I have asked this question of previous witnesses. Do you have any data on who, in China and India, is ready to buy our petroleum and at which price and what volume so we can assess what is the probability of this happening in the next years versus the risk of an oil spill in that area?
Ms. Hall Findlay: Senator, thank you. I don’t have the statistics with me, but many of those studies have been done. The International Energy Agency has a great number of statistics in terms of oil and gas demand around the world. There’s no question that, from a political perspective, Canada is still seen as what one would hope as a reliable resource, if we can only get our resources to market. But it’s in the billions of dollars. This is huge. Witness what’s happening with the Chinese market now for canola. This is an exact example of the opportunities for what Canada has to offer in markets like China, which are growing dramatically and needing energy and food. There’s no question that this is a tremendous economic opportunity for Canada.
I’d be happy in a follow-up to provide whatever background studies and statistics we have for that. I would also point out that there are a significant number of Indigenous communities that want that kind of development, do not support this bill and in fact, in a number of cases, have launched lawsuits against the federal government on the basis that this is unfair and selective, hypocritical treatment, that they are being denied those economic opportunities in the guise of protecting a length of our coastline. Those are Indigenous communities that want to take advantage of these resource opportunities.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My question is for Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Ellis, you’re very familiar with the West Coast. You’ve lived there for a number of years, and you’ve been able to follow its development.
Mr. Ellis: I’m very familiar with the West Coast. During my military career, I spent time here training. I also spent four years on the West Coast as the deputy fleet commander and fleet commander. I also sailed in the Atlantic. I’m somewhat familiar with both coasts.
Senator Boisvenu: You’re very familiar witha —
Mr. Ellis: I’m familiar with the region, but I may not have in-depth knowledge of it. I wouldn’t qualify as a pilot on the East Coast or West Cost. I don’t have enough experience.
Senator Boisvenu: With the adoption of Bill C-48, is it plausible that, as opposed to the oil being transported mainly by tankers, the construction of an additional pipeline, which would end in the Vancouver bay, would lead to tankers using the port more often?
Mr. Ellis: The port of Vancouver is located outside the zone covered by Bill C-48. The expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline will result in an increase of about one vessel per day, according to the maximum activity forecasts.
Senator Boisvenu: If we can’t take our pipelines to a place on the coast other than Vancouver, could a second pipeline end there?
Mr. Ellis: I’m not in a position to speculate on that.
Senator Boisvenu: Let’s assume that tourist vessels and tankers are in competition, if I may put it that way. The bay is like a refrigerator. We can’t put more than a certain amount inside the bay. It’s like the fish in the sea. The habitat has a certain capacity, and no more than that capacity. Could this increase one day force us to make rules to limit the number of tankers and other vessels that can use the port?
Mr. Ellis: The traffic within the port of Vancouver is controlled. Merchant traffic uses waterways that are controlled in the region. Pilotage is compulsory. The transportation system is very well controlled on the Canadian side, in cooperation with the Americans. For the zone covered by Bill C-48, you can find the TERMPOL, which concerns the Northern Gateway initiative, in the National Energy Board’s archives. It will give you an overview of all the options considered in an export capacity expansion project. This information is available on the Internet, on the National Energy Board’s website.
Senator Cormier: My question is for Ms. Hall Findlay. In an opinion piece published in the Globe and Mail on November 1, 2017, you said that the only option available to Canada was as follows:
[English]
Acknowledge that marine transportation is critical to our economic prosperity, across the country — but develop and implement the best ways to prevent spills, to contain them, and to clean up when they do happen — because one can never guarantee 100 per cent no risk.
[Translation]
In light of this excerpt, what would be the best ways to prevent spills and improve the response capacity in the region? What role should the industry members play in prevention and in the development of best practices?
My question obviously refers to the perception that we’re either pro-environment or pro-economic development, and that the bill addresses these two visions.
From an industry standpoint, what would be a good way to safeguard this idea of transportation? What would be the best methods in terms of prevention and the development of best practices?
[English]
Ms. Hall Findlay: Thank you for the question. First off, this bill does not actually incorporate both. The really important question is what can this country do to incorporate both? We are very strongly in support, whether it’s government initiatives in terms of coastline protection or private sector initiatives, and there is a lot of both.
If you’ve had a chance to read the report of the NEB, the second effort after the Trans Mountain Federal Court of Appeal decision where they went back to look at the question of maritime shipping more carefully, the recommendations are very strong and very positive in terms of what the federal government can do in a whole-of-government way to address all of maritime shipping?
It cannot be a question of just tankers. It has to be a question that includes tourism cruise ships. It has to be other tugs, barges, and tankers, of course. But this is true for the West Coast, the North Coast and the East Coast.
Frankly, I’m a Great Lakes person. This should also be true for the inland waterways in Canada. There is much more we can do.
As I mentioned earlier, the PSSAs, for lack of the technical term, that have been used elsewhere in the world, this is exactly the kind of best practice that is an opportunity for Canada not to say “no,” but to say, “How can we do this effectively to accommodate both our economic and environmental concerns in a way that allows both to move forward?” This bill does not do that, but Canada does have the opportunity to do exactly that kind of thing, whether we’re talking about corridors, PSSAs, government involvement in terms of spill technology or private sector involvement. All of those should be considered. Frankly, none of those have been considered in the putting forth of this bill.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I have another question. Given the opposing positions on this bill and some claims that the bill doesn’t constitute a moratorium but a permanent ban, could the inclusion of a mandatory periodic review of the schedule and the entire moratorium every three or five years, to reflect technological developments and scientific discoveries, be a compromise for your industry?
[English]
Ms. Hall Findlay: I’m not sure if that question was directed to me, but my answer would be no. Industry needs investment, and investment needs certainty. If we say that this bill was to be put in place but that we might review or it will be reviewed but the results of that review might or might not depend on whether the opponents to the oil sands, for example, mount enough of a protest to suggest that whatever risk mitigation efforts have been developed in those three years are adequate enough, I’m sorry, but the opposition has been very effective to the oil sands, not so much whether we’re talking about coastline risk mitigation.
My view is no. We still feel very strongly that this bill should simply not go ahead. We should, however, as a country not say, “If this bill doesn’t go ahead, great. We don’t have to think about it.” On the contrary. We feel so strongly that there is much more that we should be doing for all of our coastlines: government and private sector.
I think it’s worth repeating that the NEB marine shipping piece really set out, in terms of recommendations, whole-of-government. It’s not just Transport, Fisheries or the oil and gas sector. It is: “What should we as a country be doing to ensure that we can combine the protection of all of our coastlines with our economic prosperity?”
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
The Chair: We have 15 minutes, so we’ll try to keep it short.
Senator Duncan: Thank you, Senator Tkachuk. I appreciate the opportunity to sit in on the committee on behalf of Senator Simons.
I would like to address one point regarding Ms. Hall Findlay’s presentation, and a follow-up question to the presenter from Clear Seas.
Ms. Hall Findlay, you noted there has not been a major pipeline proposed since the 1980s. May I, with all due respect, refresh your memory regarding the Alaska Highway Natural Gas Pipeline and the Mackenzie Valley debate, and the over-the-top route proposed at that time through the Beaufort Sea. Although the pipeline was the subject of a Canada-U.S. treaty, the decision was ultimately made by industry, not by governments, not to build that pipeline.
The second point I’d like to address regarding the Clear Seas proposal is there is a significant amount of cruise ship traffic that is noted on the sketch that was provided. I note, being that I represent the Yukon and we are very close to Alaska — two hours away — the city of Juneau has had significant difficulties with the effluent that is discharged from cruise ships. There was also a note from the earlier presenters regarding traffic noise.
I’m just wondering if there are studies that have been made available to the committee regarding the impact, both economic from tourism and on our oceans from the cruise ship traffic, if that is part of the Clear Seas presentation that has been provided to the committee. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Hall Findlay, please.
Senator Duncan: The question was directed to the Clear Seas presenter.
The Chair: You made a comment to Ms. Hall Findlay as well, so if she wants to make a comment, she can.
Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Ellis: Thank you, senator. We are not currently and have not undertaken any studies specifically aimed at cruise ships. I have not provided any information beyond what you have before you and what I’ve said today to the committee.
What we’re doing is taking a holistic view of trying to describe what’s actually going on on the coast, because there’s a lot of misinformation and disinformation. We’re trying to make it clearer. I welcome your feedback as to whether or not I’m helping in that regard.
Senator Duncan: It’s very useful. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. This bill is about tanker traffic only.
Senator Dasko: My question is to Martha. Hi, Martha, how are you doing?
Ms. Hall Findlay: I’m good, thank you. How are you?
Senator Dasko: Good. I see the Senate is keeping you very busy these days.
In your view, what will happen without the bill? Is there a project in the works? Is there something that’s going to happen? What is the time frame for something to change with regard to what will happen without the bill?
Also, what will and should happen to the moratorium if the bill does not go through? What is your view and picture of what that is going to look like?
Ms. Hall Findlay: Thank you. Just a note to the other question: Yes, of course there have been other pipelines. My earlier point was about oil pipelines to the West Coast, particularly the Northern Gateway pipeline that had been proposed and a potential other one. For example, the Eagle Spirit proposal won’t happen if this bill passes.
What will happen without the bill? We’re not sure. What we know with the bill is that nothing will happen in the sense that there will be no major projects. This is the reason the Nisga’a, the Lax Kw’alaams and, I think, about 200 First Nations inland also are against this bill. They recognize that if it goes through, any hope of a major project that would get oil to the West Coast would, in fact, simply be a non-starter.
My view, though, is that if the bill does not pass — and this is worth repeating — we should not walk away and say, “Oh, great, therefore there’s no bill; we can go ahead with major projects.” We really should, as a country, use this as an opportunity to say that we recognize the importance of protecting our coastlines, all of our coastlines: Newfoundland, New Brunswick, all of our north and west coasts and the St. Lawrence River. They all deserve protection. How do we do that most effectively? How do we use the PSSAs and the concept of corridors? Instead of saying a bill that would prevent any sort of economic activity, how do we go forward so we can combine both?
Senator MacDonald: Thank you. I have a couple of comments and maybe a question.
I think it’s important for all of us to keep in mind that when it comes to the managing of oil in this country, it’s almost all done on the East Coast of Canada. We manage about 283 million metric tonnes a year going through our waters, compared to 6 million metric tonnes on the West Coast. All of this, at the moment, is going through the Lower Mainland, where the departments of the environment and fisheries have told us is the most vulnerable harbour in Anchorage that manages the resource. They also tell us that by far the best one, as mentioned, is the Prince Rupert and Port Simpson area.
We’re a maritime nation, and this is one of the finest ports on the West Coast and now they’re trying to shut it down. As you said, the concerns about tanker pressure, most of the pressure is in the south. We have tanker pressure in the Bay of Fundy. We have right whales. We have, and I’m glad you brought it up, the particularly sensitive sea areas. That is manageable and could be applied out there. This is a pipeline moratorium act. This is put in place to stop resources from getting from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the West Coast. It’s costing the country and the provinces billions of dollars.
In terms of the threat to the fishery, I think it’s important to put on the record that the richest fishing area in the world is the Grand Banks in Newfoundland. We are producing half a million barrels a day, drilled and exported from that site without a problem for the last 25 years. If there was an oil spill in this area, the chances of an oil spill from a tanker are much less than an oil spill from any other single-hulled vessel. In fact, the last oil spill they had out there, that witnesses complained about a few weeks ago, was from a single-hulled vessel. There is no moratorium on them.
This is a double standard. It’s very selective in the way it’s applied. Coming from a sea port on the East Coast in a part of the country where we manage resources like this and have been doing so for decades, I think our experience should be applied here. Our experience shows that this can be done safely.
The Chair: You’ve got to get to your question, senator.
Senator MacDonald: I guess the question is, if this appropriate access to the West Coast is shut down, what does it mean for resources in Western Canada and Alberta and Saskatchewan?
Ms. Hall Findlay: I’m not sure how I can answer that other than to say that we agree. That’s exactly why we’re here. To the extent that there are best practices that we can learn from around the world, but including our East Coast, that’s what we should be doing. We should be looking, as a country, at how we can do this. Instead of saying “no,” how do we say, “how?”
Senator McCoy: Thank you very much. My question is for Mr. Ellis. Thank you both for appearing and helping us.
I think I heard Mr. Ellis say earlier that this bill does nothing to address the clear and present dangers that threaten the coastal communities today. Is that correct? Did I hear you correctly?
Mr. Ellis: I did not use the expression “clear and present danger,” senator, but thank you for the question.
This bill does not address any current risks that are out there. It does not stop ships from transiting the area. It would include ships that have persistent oil, and many of the ships that transit through the area carry large amounts of persistent oil as fuel, not as cargo.
I did not use the expression “clear and present danger.” I believe we have embarked on a journey of continuous improvement in the safety of shipping across Canada, as Ms. Hall Findlay laid out, on all coasts. I’m in complete agreement with that. There are many tools that are available to manage the risks of shipping traffic. Probably the most important one is human vigilance and paying attention to what’s going on.
There is kind of a perception, for instance, when you talk about a ship’s transit, that there are risks associated with it, and as more ships operate the risk increases. In some ways that may be true, but the notion of each ship or tanker transit is an independent event. It’s not like an earthquake where there was no earthquake today and therefore tomorrow the chance of there being an earthquake increases. Every time a ship goes to sea, if it implements its risk-management strategy, then that’s an independent event. The fact that you didn’t have a spill yesterday doesn’t mean it increases the probability that you’re going to have one tomorrow.
As I said earlier, Canada has been exporting oil safely from the Port of Vancouver for over 60 years. There is a fair amount of tanker traffic that comes down, as I noted, remaining outside the exclusion zone, that goes into, for instance, Puget Sound. There are five refineries in Puget Sound. They handle six or seven times the amount of fuel that goes in and out of Canadian waters.
Those are some of the things I was hoping to provide a background and perspective on to the committee so you can get a sense of what the context is from a tactical perspective. I don’t want to cross lanes into Ms. Hall Findlay’s strategic perspective.
Senator McCoy: One of our witnesses was from a coastal First Nation, the Heiltsuk First Nation, and they have a very well-documented proposal, if I may say so, for an Indigenous marine response centre for the central coast, which is sort of the south part of this area. I believe there is a proposal or at least thoughts of having a similar one in the northern part of this area. Fully implemented, it would cost $100 million. To me, that would seem to address a current risk. I wonder what your comments about that would be. I have a great deal of sympathy for that request, which doesn’t seem to be getting any response. They’re telling us it’s not getting adequate response from the federal or provincial governments.
Mr. Ellis: I’m not familiar with the details of that initiative. I do know that the Canadian Coast Guard has been working with First Nations to increase the level of training preparedness for first responders. I know there are many initiatives under way under the umbrella of the Oceans Protection Plan. I also know there are many discussions with coastal Indigenous First Nations and the federal government that are couched in the reconciliation framework, and I believe that’s one of them. I can’t really give you any more information than that.
Senator McCoy: We need to pursue that question elsewhere then, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: I would like to move a motion that we discuss the subject we initially started talking about at the beginning of the meeting.
The Chair: When do you want to do that?
Senator Galvez: Now.
The Chair: It’s 11:30. We’re done. Our time is up.
(The committee adjourned.)