Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 54 - Evidence - May 15, 2019
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 15, 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 6:46 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
Before we begin, I’ll ask all senators to introduce themselves.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, Quebec.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator McCoy: Elaine McCoy, Alberta. Also, thank you for your courtesy. I’m not a member of this committee, so I won’t be making motions or voting, but I appreciate being allowed to sit at the table with you.
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Toronto, representing Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: And I’m David Tkachuk, a senator from Saskatchewan.
Senator Dawson: For information purposes, who are the voting members on the committee?
Everybody but you?
The Chair: We are going to read them.
Joëlle Nadeau, Clerk of the Committee: For committee membership, I have the Honourable Senators Tkachuk, Cormier, Dasko, Gagné, Dawson, Galvez, MacDonald, Manning, Miville-Dechêne, Patterson, Plett and Simons.
The Chair: Is everybody happy?
We have Senator Patterson signed in for Senator Boisvenu because we thought Senator Boisvenu was not going to be here, so Senator Patterson is the voting member, unless the whip wants to make a change. Do you want to make a change right now, Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: I will leave that entirely up to Senator Boisvenu.
The Chair: He can be here — it’s no problem — as we have Senators Black, McCoy, Dalphond and other senators here that aren’t members. That’s okay.
Senator Plett: Senator Tkachuk, Senator Boisvenu says he’s okay to leave it the way it is.
The Chair: All right. Tell him to stay, though.
We’re proceeding with clause-by-clause consideration 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, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. Before we begin, I’d like to remind senators of a number of points.
If at any time, a senator is not clear where we are in the process, simply ask for clarification. We’ll do our utmost to ensure that all times we have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
Before we take up an amendment in a clause, I will be verifying whether any senators had intended to move an amendment earlier in that clause. If senators do intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the chance to do so.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind senators that, in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause standing as part of the bill.
I want to remind senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or show of hands, the cleanest route is to request a roll call vote, which provides clear results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Finally, I would like to highlight the presence of government officials from Transport Canada here. Thank you very much for coming. Also, the Department of Justice is in the room. If senators have any questions for the government officials, they will be called to the table. If a senator has a particular issue with a particular problem, send the expert that can solve that problem — or you can send two or three. It doesn’t really matter to us, as long as the problem is resolved.
Are there any questions, senators?
If there are no questions, I’m going to take this slow. I’m not going to move this fast. I’m going to group where I can, with your agreement. If you want a roll call vote, all you have to do is request it. Are we good?
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration 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?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator MacDonald: Are we going to have a recorded vote?
The Chair: If a senator requests a recorded vote, of course.
Senator MacDonald: I’d like to have a recorded vote.
The Chair: Very well. We’ll do that.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, be postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Plett: A recorded vote, please.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 7; nays, 5.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Plett: A recorded vote, please.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Abstain.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have an amendment.
The Chair: Please proceed. Do we have it?
Senator Patterson: Point of order. Could we get the count on the vote, please?
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 6; nays, 5; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: Six, five, one.
Shall clause 4 carry? We have an amendment. Do we have that amendment distributed? It is JMD-1. Please proceed.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will read the amendment.
The following is proposed:
That Bill C-48 be amended in clause 4, on page 2, by replacing line 25 with the following:
“west longitude, excluding any part of that coast that is included within the lands referred to in section 8 of the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act.”
I would like to say a few words about why I am proposing this amendment. Is that possible?
[English]
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We held extensive hearings and found that nine of the Indigenous nations who live on the coast of British Columbia are in favour of the moratorium. We heard them. One of those nations, the Lax Kw’alaams Nation, was very divided, and our understanding is that only one nation, the Nisga’a Nation, was against the moratorium and Bill C-48.
The Nisga’a Nation is not a small nation; it has 4,000 Indigenous people in northern British Columbia. They are actually very close to the Alaskan border. The spokesperson at our meeting was very clear that they felt they had not been sufficiently consulted by the federal government. Although the government held meetings with them, they felt that the consultations had not been sufficient. In their view, the moratorium goes against the modern treaty they signed 19 years ago with the Crown and the federal government, a treaty that gives them the right to decide on their development and future. They did not tell us about any oil project, but the spokesperson explained that they don’t think the moratorium respects the terms of the modern treaty they signed. Negotiating the treaty with the federal government took a long time and it was very challenging.
We are therefore in a very difficult situation as senators, because a large majority of the peoples on the coast are in favour of the moratorium, but one major nation is totally against it and considers that their treaty takes precedence.
I must point out that the Nisga’a are the only Indigenous people in this region to have a modern treaty. Other Indigenous peoples have titles. It’s not quite the same thing. One of the judgments I consulted gives precedence to treaties rather than titles. For this reason, it seems to me that an amendment must be introduced to exclude Nisga’a territory from this moratorium.
[English]
Senator Simons: I would like to speak strongly in support of Senator Miville-Dechêne’s amendment.
One of the reasons that the Liberal government set forward Bill C-48 was as an act of reconciliation, and yet it seems to me extraordinarily high-handed of the government not to have given due consideration to the views of the Nisga’a people who have, as Senator Miville-Dechêne has so eloquently said, a modern treaty.
When we were in Terrace, we heard from the chief of the Nisga’a who laid out for us quite clearly not so much that she and her people were seized with the idea of building a port and a pipeline, but they felt very much that they had not been considered. They thought it was paternalistic in the extreme for the Canadian government to impose upon them a moratorium to which they did not agree and for which they did not feel adequately consulted.
I say this not just as an Albertan who is concerned about how the people of my province get their goods to market but because I sincerely believe that if we are going to be embarked on the act of reconciliation, it is paternalistic of us to start picking winners and losers among first coast nations. This is obviously an extraordinarily divisive bill for these communities. As Senator Miville-Dechêne said, the Lax Kw’alaams are divided, but so are pretty much all the coastal nations that we heard from when we were in Prince Rupert.
I think this is a reasonable amendment, particularly given the geographical location of the Nisga’a at the very tip top of the area, directly abutting the border with Alaska and with access to a potential future deep water port, so I would strongly like to speak in support of this amendment, and I hope others will agree.
Senator Plett: I certainly agree with Senator Simons that this seems extremely high-handed of the government, and in fact this whole bill seems extremely high-handed of the government. She says we don’t want to pick winners and losers. Her own province is the biggest loser in the entire country with the bill, period. Senator Simons should be voting against this bill at every opportunity, not trying to put in minor amendments that will make anyone feel good. No one in Alberta will feel good about this bill. This bill stops the product of her province getting to market, period, and this amendment isn’t going to fix that. So for us to put amendments in just to feel good is a waste of time, and I will certainly be voting against the amendment, as I will vote against the clause.
The Chair: Any other discussion? If not, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Senator Plett: Recorded vote.
The Chair: We will do that.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Abstain.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Abstain.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 2; nays, 8; abstentions, 2.
The Chair: The motion in amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Plett: Recorded vote.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Abstain.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 6; nays, 5; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Senator Plett: Recorded vote.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Abstain.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Senator Patterson: Could we get the count?
Ms. Nadeau: Yea, 6; nays, 5; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Senator Plett: Recorded vote.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 7; nays, 5.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Senator Plett: Recorded vote.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Abstain.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 6; nays, 5; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry? Recorded vote?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Abstain.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 6; nays, 5; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: I’m just going to confer for one second and then we’ll go to clause 8. Do we have any amendments between — we just finished clause 7 or clause 8?
Ms. Nadeau: We just finished clause 7.
The Chair: Are there any amendments between clauses 8 and 15?
Ms. Nadeau: I’m sorry, we finished clause 8.
The Chair: Are there any amendments between clauses 9 and 15? We can do 10. That would take us from clauses 9 to 18. We have no amendments. I would need all your agreement. I see some pattern in the vote, and I thought that perhaps we could have one motion to carry all clauses from 9 to 18. I know the members have informed me that they want a recorded vote. We can have a recorded vote on those amendments.
Senator Dawson: In the spirit of cooperation.
Senator Plett: Agreed.
The Chair: Sorry. Clauses, correct. Senator Galvez, you’re becoming a great chairman.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: She is a great chair.
Senator Dawson: Chairperson.
Senator Plett: The terminology is still chairman.
The Chair: Yes, it is. Let’s not get into that.
Senator Manning: Do you need a motion to group them?
The Chair: If the committee all agrees and I don’t have anyone saying no?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 9 to 18 carry?
Senator Plett: Recorded vote.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagne?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Abstain.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 6; nays, 5; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: So 9 to 18 is carried.
We’re going to go to 19 to 29. We don’t have any amendments in that group. Shall clauses 19 to 29 carry?
Senator Plett: We should have a recorded vote on this one.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Why not?
The Chair: Clauses 19 to 29.
Senator Dawson: Anyone want to bet on results?
The Chair: Order, please.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Abstain.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 6; nays, 5, abstentions, 1.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 30 and 31 carry? We’ll group those two and then go to the one where there is a possible amendment. Shall 30 and 31 carry?
Senator Dawson: Recorded vote.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Dawson.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Abstain.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 6; nays, 5; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: My understanding is there is an amendment, which is to add to the clause. There are two amendments to 32, I believe, JMD-2 and RC-1. Let’s go to JMD-2, which is an amendment on page 16 by adding the following after line 16, “Coming into Force 32(1) . . .”
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, I am proposing an amendment concerning the coming into force of Bill C-48. It reads as follows:
That Bill C-48 be amended, on page 16, by adding the following after line 16:
“Coming into Force
32(1) Subject to subsection (2), the provisions of this Act come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, made on the recommendation of the Minister.
(2) The Minister may only make the recommendation referred to in subsection (1) if the Minister is satisfied that construction has resumed on the pipeline development known as the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, an undertaking of the Trans Mountain Corporation, and that there are no foreseeable obstacles to completing.”
Let me briefly explain the reason for this amendment. During our hearings, particularly in Alberta, but also in Saskatchewan, people were clearly frustrated because the federal government had stopped the Northern Gateway project. At that time, it was said that Bill C-48 was an election promise, but that — and it was not a trade-off — at the same time, Albertans could use the TMX project, Trans Mountain expansion, to successfully bring their oil to the ocean. As we know, the Trans Mountain project has been blocked and is still blocked because of various factors, including legal proceedings.
In the meantime, the federal government has purchased the pipeline, but in reality, the expansion of the pipeline has not happened yet. So the idea of connecting the coming into force of Bill C-48 to the assurance that construction will be able to continue seemed to us to be of some interest to assure Albertans that the pipeline would be expanded.
[English]
Senator Simons: I would say this is the least that could be done. It would be impossible for me, in good conscience, as a senator from Alberta, to support Bill C-48 in any way if TMX is not approved. To do so would be to completely shutter Alberta’s access to tidewater. That is an unreasonable expectation for a country that functions as a federal state. It is an impossibility to imagine that you could land lock an entire province in a way that, frankly, could not happen to a foreign jurisdiction, which would have a legal right, under UN convention, to access to water.
I am mindful of the comments that Senator McCoy has wisely made to us that this is certainly an imperfect trade-off, but as I say, it is the least that could be done in order for me to give any measure of support to Bill C-48.
Senator Plett: Again, I find it strange where people are sitting around this table pretending that they want to help Albertans. I think of all those people who travel to Alberta, and we are sitting here and saying this is what Albertans asked. Albertans asked for this bill to be thrown in the garbage can — two premiers from Alberta and a minister from Saskatchewan. This is a horrible bill for Western Canada, indeed for all of Canada. If the good senator across is as concerned for her province as she says she is, she could at least at this committee stop this bill from passing, as we see what the votes that we have had here. Instead, she abstains and then says she wants to help Albertans. If you want to help Albertans, vote against this bill.
Senator Simons: I thank my colleague, Senator Plett, for his kindly meant advice to me. I am proud to be here representing Alberta and to speak for Albertans, and how I vote on this bill will be a matter between myself, my conscience and the duty I owe to the people of Alberta. But I’m grateful you took your time out of your busy schedule to provide me with your words of wisdom.
Senator Plett: You’re welcome.
Senator Galvez: I think that there is a consensus around the table and we all know that the transport of oil is safer by pipeline, and I think that there is a consensus around the table that the pipeline that Canadians now own should and must be constructed. However, to condition a bill in terms of the construction of this pipeline, it seems to me that it’s a little bit out of scope, out of reach. I think that I will appreciate the official telling us if we can do this, to condition a bill to the construction of a pipeline.
We had another amendment from the Conservatives, number 5, and it has not been presented. I want to have a clarification. We were told last time that the Conservatives have six amendments and that there was going to be discussions with Senator Miville-Dechêne —
The Chair: At the beginning of the meeting, Senator Patterson withdrew his amendments.
Senator Galvez: Yes, but I would like to know why.
The Chair: He doesn’t have to explain why.
Senator Galvez: No reason?
The Chair: If you want to have a big debate about that, you can, but —
Senator Galvez: No, I don’t want to have a big debate, but it’s surprising because you have been told there are six amendments. So that means you have been reflecting on the bill, and then all of a sudden these amendments were withdrawn. I’m just asking for a little bit of politeness and to explain what the situation is. That’s all.
The Chair: He was very polite when he withdrew his amendments.
Is there anyone who could explain? Senator Galvez had a question on the amendment. Is there anyone from the Department of Transport who can deal with this? I don’t see why — Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can I say —
The Chair: You can say whatever you like.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can I say that I agree with Senator Galvez. I’m a little taken aback. Obviously it’s your decision to withdraw the amendments, but we discussed them at length yesterday. We’ve spent time on it, and all of your amendments, what has changed? What has changed in the situation? I’m a little puzzled by what’s happening. Can there be any explanation to what’s happening? Because we had a whole discussion on that. We shared our amendments and —
The Chair: Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I don’t know what this is about, but go ahead, Senator Patterson.
Senator Patterson: May I just say that I was disappointed. I was prepared to engage in constructive debate and propose reasonable amendments, which I worked hard on, but unfortunately, it was made clear by the minister responsible for this bill that his government is not open to hearing the kind of amendments that I had proposed. I’ll just note that for the record. It’s evident in the transcripts of Minister Garneau’s appearance before the committee.
The Chair: Thank you. Are you finished?
Senator Galvez.
Senator Galvez: It was just to ask the question, but I think you —
The Chair: I asked him, but there’s no one there. Is somebody ready to come up? Oh, please do. Just come on up. When I ask you, just come on up. Don’t worry about it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can I add to what Senator Patterson was saying?
The Chair: Senator Patterson can add to what he is saying. Is there something you would like to say?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes. If you authorize me to speak, I will say that it did happen in the past quite often, I am told, that the government has said that they were not open to amendments, and it has not prevented senators from going ahead with amendments. So if it’s a question of principle and if it’s a question strong enough to merit an amendment, is the fact that the government is saying they won’t accept it right away a sufficient reason not to try?
The Chair: You don’t have to answer that, Senator Patterson, if you don’t want to. I’m going to the people from Transport. You’ve asked the question.
I’ve got, from the Ministry of Transport, Emilie Gelinas and Joseph Melaschenko.
Emilie Gelinas, Director, Domestic Marine Policy, Transport Canada: Would it be possible to repeat the question so we’re clear as to what clarification is being sought?
Senator Galvez: There were a couple of amendments that suggested that this bill can be subject or can be conditioned to a construction of a pipeline.
The Chair: Excuse me. I’m going to ask the clerk to give them a copy of the amendment so it’s sitting there right in front of them. If that’s okay? I need permission from the committee. Is the committee fine with that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Galvez: I was wondering about the admissibility of this amendment because it conditions a bill to the construction of an infrastructure. I would say no, but maybe there is some exception.
Ms. Gelinas: Thank you very much, senator. We would suggest that this is more of a procedural question, and perhaps the law clerk of the committee might be the best place to speak to that.
Senator Patterson: Good answer.
The Chair: We don’t have a law clerk here.
Senator Galvez: We’ll continue without it.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion?
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: I have a comment. I wanted to mention that Senator Tannas recommended, at second reading, that it be agreed that there be an order in council on the minister’s recommendation on building or resuming the construction of the pipeline. I thought it was an interesting suggestion.
Senator Cormier: I have a question about the term “foreseeable obstacles.” How can “foreseeable obstacles” be defined in this context?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will try to answer your question, Senator Cormier. As the law clerk explained to me, this amendment gives the minister discretion to decide what constitutes foreseeable obstacles. This provision implies a certain subjectivity since not all obstacles are foreseeable. How to ensure that an obstacle is foreseeable? It is impossible to say in advance. I think it is a judgment call, and that is why the amendment is written like that. A number of factors can come into play. What we are saying is not only that construction should resume, but that we can still believe that the work will be completed without foreseeable obstacles. Granted, there is a certain amount of subjectivity in this amendment.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Senator Plett: Recorded vote.
The Chair: You want a recorded vote?
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Abstention.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Abstention.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 4; nays, 6; abstentions, 2.
The Chair: The motion falls.
Senator Patterson: Point of order. I think we could excuse the officials.
The Chair: Yes. Thank you very much.
Let’s go to the next amendment. It’s by Senator Cormier.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: The amendment in your hands seeks to review the legislation because, as we know, the bill intends to implement a moratorium zone. The objective of the amendment takes into account that, right now, only the list of prohibited substances can potentially be revised as a result of technological and scientific advances.
Let me remind you that a number of groups in favour of or against Bill C-48 have told us about the lack of data, information and consultations on implementing the moratorium. That is why I am proposing this amendment to you.
The amendment is as follows:
That Bill C-48 be amended on page 16 by adding the following after line 16:
“Review of the Act
32(1) The Minister must, not later than five years after the day on which this section comes into force, appoint an independent committee of experts of not more than five persons to conduct a review of the provisions and operation of this Act, including, in particular, a determination of whether it is necessary for the prohibitions set out in subsections 4(1) to (3) to remain in effect in order to protect the environment from a significant risk of harm.
(2) The persons appointed under subsection (1) must all have expertise in matters related to the marine environment, maritime transportation or natural resources and at least one of them must be a representative of an Indigenous group, community or people.
(3) The Minister must have a report of the review laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first thirty days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives it.”.
[English]
Senator Simons: At the risk of perplexing some of my colleagues across the table, I also wish to speak in support of this amendment.
The bill carries within its name “the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.” Yet, as the minister himself explained to us in his two visits to this committee, this is not a moratorium. A moratorium, in its common definition, is a period of time that comes to an end, at which point one reconsiders. This is not a moratorium; it is, to use the French word, an interdiction. It is a ban.
A moratorium might have merit in the sense that what we learned in the course of this research is how very little contemporary scientific information there was underpinning this ban. Many of the reports seem to be based on one study done in 1978. To me, it would be an absurdity to impose a permanent interdiction when a moratorium might actually serve the purpose of figuring out whether we had the correct scientific information and whether we had the correct regulatory regime.
To answer Senator Plett’s question, I felt it important, as an Albertan, as a member of this committee, to come here with goodwill to work towards amendments that would somehow strike a compromise, where we could both protect one of Canada’s most extraordinary ecosystems while simultaneously not slamming the door in the face of the people of Alberta. If it becomes apparent to me that it is impossible to pass an amendment that leads us to some kind of sensible compromise, I’ll then have to reconsider my voting strategy. However, at the moment I feel it is incumbent upon me, after all of the evidence we have heard, after our trips to hear passionate witnesses in Prince Rupert and Terrace, to do justice to that work by attempting to broker some kind of agreement that both provides environmental protection without stymying and stifling the economy of my home province.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Simons. Anybody else?
Honourable senators, are you willing to adopt the motion in amendment? Recorded vote.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Abstention.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 6; nays, 5; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: Hence the amendment carries.
Shall the schedule carry?
Senator Plett: Are we voting on the amended clause?
The Chair: It’s a new clause, so it was passed and it’s now part of the bill.
I’ll repeat. Shall the schedule carry?
Senator Plett: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Recorded vote.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 6; nays, 6.
The Chair: So the schedule is defeated.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Senator Plett: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Recorded vote.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Senator Simons: To clarify, we’re voting on the title of the bill?
Ms. Nadeau: Yes, the short title.
Senator Simons: Yes, I’m in favour of the title.
The Chair: That’s a short title.
Shall the title carry? We’re first going to hear the vote.
Ms. Nadeau: Yays, 7; nays, 5.
The Chair: That was funny.
Shall the title carry?
The Chair: Recorded vote? I’m asking you.
Senator Plett: I’m okay if you want to break with tradition and not have a recorded vote.
The Chair: Do you want this on division?
Senator Plett: I don’t care.
The Chair: It’s important. I want to know.
Senator Plett: Recorded vote.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Sure. It’s a title. I vote for the title.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 7; nays, 5.
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Senator Plett: Recorded vote.
Senator MacDonald: Record that vote.
The Chair: Shall that bill as amended carry?
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Ms. Nadeau: Yeas, 6; nays, 6.
The Chair: The bill is defeated.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Chair: Senators, we’re going to go in camera. I’ll ask the clerk to give us a briefing as to where we go from here.
(The committee continued in camera.)