Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 54 - Evidence - May 14, 2019
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 14, 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 9:23 a.m. to give consideration to the bill; and to consider the unauthorized disclosure of confidential committee documents; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we’re continuing our study of Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast, oil tanker moratorium act.
For our first panel this morning, we are pleased to have appearing before us the Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport — thank you, minister, for coming to wrap up the study — and he is accompanied by Lawrence Hanson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, who has also been here before, and Marc-Yves Bertin, Director General, Marine Policy. The floor is yours, minister. Please proceed.
[Translation]
The Honourable Marc Garneau, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport: Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to testify again on Bill C-48. When I last appeared on March 20, it was still fairly early in this study. You have since heard from many witnesses and no doubt understand the issues the bill deals with much better. I intend therefore to keep my remarks brief and to leave most of my time for your questions.
[English]
I would like to say a few things, though. A recurring theme that many of those opposed to the bill have brought up is to cite the beauty and ecological significance of other parts of Canada — the Bay of Fundy and Placentia Bay are often mentioned — and argue that it is arbitrary to propose a moratorium only in northern British Columbia and not elsewhere. Without recapping my entire March 20 speech, I would remind senators that I listed a combination of multiple factors to explain why our government was proposing this moratorium only in northern British Columbia.
Yes, the ecological significance of the Great Bear Rainforest and the adjoining coastline is important. As I and numerous other witnesses have mentioned, this is one of the world’s few remaining temperate rainforests. Even rarer, it is one of the very few to remain largely intact. As the recent UN report on extinction reminds us, it is very important to preserve these precious wild habitats. The long-term effects of a serious oil spill would be devastating for many of the animals that live in this ecosystem and the people and cultures that rely on them.
But besides this, other factors exist, namely, first, the fact that there is a long-standing policy legacy going back to 1985 at the federal level to safeguard against oil spills, notably through the voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone with the U.S. In addition, extraordinary measures are in place at the provincial level to protect the Great Bear Rainforest. As such, the moratorium is consistent and complimentary with these existing measures and, unlike other places in Canada, would not be disruptive to an already-existing economy in the region.
Second, the challenges of timely spill response in such a remote, extensive and sparsely populated coastline are challenging.
Third, the fact that a clear majority of the Indigenous peoples who actually live along the coast not only support the principle of a moratorium but have actively been campaigning for it for many years. In addition, your trip to B.C. showed that this support also exists among local municipalities in the area.
It is a combination of all these factors that make the situation in northern British Columbia different than elsewhere in Canada.
[Translation]
On the point of Indigenous support, I know that many senators were impressed by the testimony of those Indigenous witnesses who are opposed to Bill C-48, particularly the Nisga’a. I have always acknowledged that opinion is not monolithic among Indigenous people. However, regardless of whether you move forward with this moratorium or, alternately, if you open the door to the possibility of loading and unloading crude and persistent oils in ports in the region, there will be some Indigenous communities who will argue this is being done without their free, prior and informed consent. Sometimes in a country as big and complex as Canada, it is hard to devise policies that everyone is in agreement with. Nevertheless, the Government of Canada has a responsibility to weigh all of the views it hears and to make decisions that it views to be in the national interest. You will recall that this was an issue in the last election and that the Prime Minister made a clear promise that we would formalize the moratorium policy into law. That promise is being fulfilled through this legislation, which has been endorsed by a large majority of elected representatives in the House of Commons, including unanimous support from all parties with the exception of the Conservatives.
[English]
Lastly, the committee heard from many industry groups, elected officials and individuals that this bill is unfair to Alberta. Let me say that I understand and acknowledge that many Albertans are frustrated with the difficulties of getting pipelines built and transporting our energy products to international markets. It is why we listened very closely to what the Federal Court of Appeal told us about TMX and why we are systematically attempting to address shortfalls in the process it identified in its rulings.
[Translation]
In closing, I just want to add that I know this is not an easy issue for senators. I am open to any suggestions you may have, provided the integrity of the bill is preserved. I will take careful note of any amendments you suggest and review them thoroughly. But let’s not lose sight of the opportunity we have today. We have a chance to establish an unprecedented level of protection for one of the most unique and biodiverse ecosystems in the world, and to help preserve one of the wildest, most untouched places in Canada. I think that is something we should be proud of. Thank you again for your excellent work, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Minister, thank you for coming back. This is indeed a difficult bill, and the committee is giving it careful consideration. I want to ask you a specific question about the Nisga’a people, whom you referred to. The Nisga’a are a group of 4,000 people. They are one of the biggest coastal nations. They made it clear that Bill C-48, and I’ll say this in English because the testimony was in English:
[English]
. . . flies in the face of the principles of self-determination and environmental management that lie at the heart of the Nisga’a Treaty.
[Translation]
Unlike other coastal nations, the Nisga’a have a modern treaty that, according to the people I consulted, carries a lot of weight in court, not only in terms of consultation, but also in terms of determining their future. However, we can see there’s a significant split between the nine nations that have title and support the moratorium and the Nisga’a people further to the north, who are totally against it. To them, it represents the opposite of reconciliation, because it fails to respect a modern treaty and imposes limitations on their future. They’re not saying to open an oil port, but they don’t want their future to be compromised by a bill imposing an indefinite ban. I’d like to hear your thoughts on the matter, because I think there’s a serious problem with the moratorium.
Mr. Garneau: Thank you for your question, senator. I want to start by saying that there have been extensive consultations with the Nisga’a people. I have the list of consultations here. This is a situation where we clearly disagree. The federal government has a significant environmental responsibility not just to our lands, but to our coastal waters as well. That’s why we implemented the moratorium. In our opinion, the environment is more important in this case, the environment for which —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: More important than the treaties?
Mr. Garneau: We have a responsibility to the environment that we believe is more important in this case. We need to accommodate both positions to the extent possible, but in this case, we can’t do that. So it’s our responsibility to ensure respect for the coastal environment of northern British Columbia — the whole country, too, but northern British Columbia in particular.
I should note that any oil trade activity could have an effect not only on Nisga’a lands, since it’s impossible to control where pollution ends up, but on other parts of the coast as well. As I’ve said many times, the majority of the Indigenous people living on the coast support the moratorium and could be affected if exemptions to this moratorium are granted along the coast.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You didn’t answer my question about the treaty directly, or maybe it can’t be answered. In your opinion, does the moratorium respect the modern treaty signed by the Nisga’a nation, not only in terms of consultation, because you know that the meaning of proper or adequate consultation is open to interpretation, but also in terms of their future? Have you done any studies? If so, can we see them? Does the moratorium actually respect the Nisga’a treaty? That’s my question.
Mr. Garneau: We believe that the federal government’s responsibility transcends the treaty issue in this case. The Nisga’a can take us to court, of course, but our position is that we have a responsibility, as a federal government, to protect our coastal environment.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you Minister Garneau, and your officials, for coming. You referenced Placentia Bay in your opening remarks. I’ve mentioned Placentia Bay in a couple of speeches in the Senate and at committee with, I believe, the very same officials that you have with you, not because I think Placentia Bay is an any more or less beautiful or protectable natural place, but because there’s a lot of oil and gas activity happening at Placentia Bay and there are systems set up.
There is the Whiffen Head storage facility, a mine in a town called Come-by-Chance, dozens of communities, thousands of Canadians living along the coastline, Cape St. Mary’s Ecological Reserve, a bird sanctuary, Marine Atlantic ferry, nickel processing facilities, whales, dolphins and porpoises, aquaculture facilities and a vibrant fishery in Placentia Bay, yet thousands of tankers go in and out of Placentia Bay every year without incident. Sea state conditions are monitored and there are restrictions for vessel movement when sea state conditions are at a certain level. There is additional pilotage and tugs. There are double-hull tankers, vessel monitoring systems and equipment called smart buoys which give accurate measurements. Of course, Placentia Bay is the foggiest place on earth.
If it can be done safely and responsibly in Placentia Bay, with far more activity than the upper coast of British Columbia, why couldn’t there be a risk mitigation system put in place for northern B.C.? I’m not saying it’s any more or less beautiful, but with the level of activity in Placentia Bay versus the level of activity in northern B.C., why can’t a risk-mitigation strategy be put in place like the one put in place in Placentia Bay by the federal officials of DFO? Why would you just simply make a ban on tanker traffic when it’s been shown the federal government can manage it in another place, and probably a far harsher place?
Mr. Garneau: I’m not sure it’s a harsher place, but I’m very proud of the fact that, particularly through the Oceans Protection Plan, we are putting in position unprecedented levels of marine safety on all three coasts. This is through the $1.5 billion program, and many, many facets of it are focused specifically on increasing marine safety.
Senator, nobody can guarantee 100 per cent that incidents will not occur at sea, no matter what protections are put in place. The operations at Placentia Bay have been there for a long time. They predate the current government, and that’s one of the things that I mentioned. There are businesses with respect to tanker operations in place in certain parts of the country that have been there for quite some time, including on the southern coast of British Columbia as well as in the Bay of Fundy and Placentia Bay. Our intent here is to make the point that the northern part of British Columbia has not been developed with that. We want to keep it that way because of the ecological fragility of that part of the country and because of the fact that it’s a very large and very remote area with respect to providing search and rescue or other necessary marine-safety-related rescue operations in case there was an incident there. We feel that it is best at this point and that we can develop our tanker operations across the country and continue to do so without taking the risk with respect to this area.
I should add that the majority of the Coastal First Nations that live along the coast — and they really do live along the coasts, and they have been there for millennia and they fish and live by the sea — also support the moratorium.
Senator Wells: I understand that many do.
I know you know about risk mitigation. You’re a pilot and former astronaut. You know that there are risks when you advance any activity. You know there are risks. We can assure that no plane crashes ever occur by banning flights. We can assure that. But we do activities to mitigate risks so we can progress and move forward. We all recognize there’s currently a voluntary ban, so a legislative ban will make no difference.
If risk-mitigation measures were put in place that gave as practicable assurance as possible, would you be in favour of responsible and reasonable access for Canada’s natural resources to reach the coastline and, therefore, reach markets? I’m asking if mitigation measures were put in place.
Mr. Garneau: I understand what you’re saying about risk mitigation, and I understand the nature of that approach. We essentially have a risk-mitigation approach with our three coasts as it is right now through the Oceans Protection Plan. We can’t guarantee 100 per cent, but we’re putting in place all sorts of additional measures to ensure that we minimize that risk to the lowest possible level.
In our opinion, again, the multiple factors that I have cited — the presence of the First Nations, the fact that this is a very pristine and low-density-population coastal area of British Columbia and the waters of the Hecate Strait can present challenges, as can the Dixon Entrance — there is not a necessity for us to take the risk of having tankers operating in that area.
As you know, the voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone has been in place for over 30 years. It has been respected. It only applies to the United States, but it has been respected. If we were to begin to open this up to tanker traffic other than those that are smaller and used for resupply, then the United States would say they don’t have to respect that voluntary exclusion zone anymore.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Good morning, minister. My question is about the process for reassessing the legislation. When you last appeared before our committee on March 20, in response to a question from Senator Dawson, you said, and I quote:
. . . according to the bill, products can be reassessed, added to or removed from the current list, which is based on a highly prescribed definition in terms of the product’s nature. However, there is nothing in the bill about making amendments. . . .
Several witnesses have expressed concerns that there is not enough data to support the establishment of an oil tanker moratorium. Minister, where do you stand on a mandatory periodic reassessment of the entire act? Would you agree that this would allow for more scientific and technical data to be collected to support the moratorium, while keeping up with scientific developments?
Mr. Garneau: Thank you for that question, senator. I’m definitely amenable to periodic reassessments. That’s something I’ll look at in detail if the Senate proposes it. With regard to products that appear on the list, persistent products, we’re still open to data-based proposals that would tell us whether a certain product could be removed from the list based on scientific knowledge about that product or on techniques that have been developed to remove it from water more effectively. We’ve always maintained that we’re prepared to reassess products that are on the list. If the facts were conclusive, we might remove them from the list in some cases and add others in other cases if new products were assessed and deemed persistent. The list can always be amended. If the Senate proposes to conduct a formal periodic review, we’ll consider the proposal.
Senator Cormier: With that in mind, how would the government work on the review, on the ground, with experts from the various sectors?
Mr. Garneau: We do it constantly with the various departments because we’re still assessing various products and their impacts on water, in the case of spills, based on various conditions such as salinity, temperature, wave movement and so on. We’re still assessing and trying to find the best ways to recover those products. We’re in touch with the industry. If the industry decides to undertake a project and to transport certain products, it can contact us and ask whether the product in question is in the class of persistent or non-persistent products, and we’ll assess the request.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Simons: I would like to return to Senator Miville-Dechêne’s line of questioning. I was listening in French because I’m practising, but I think I understood you to say that you believe the federal government’s right to protect that sea coast transcends the treaty rights of the Nisga’a. I’m not sure that’s how the Nisga’a would see it. They believe they have the right to decide the future of their territory, which is theirs under treaty and which conveniently falls to the very northern tip of the exclusion zone, directly abutting the Alaska border, where we would have no jurisdiction anyway. The Nisga’a say that they will take this matter to court.
Mr. Garneau: And they filled me in on the same thing.
Senator Simons: So I’m not quite certain how you can say that your right to govern the territory south of them transcends their treaty jurisdiction.
I had a follow-up question. I also serve on the Energy Committee, which is looking at Bill C-69 right now. If Bill C-69, as written or as amended, is in place and is a robust system of impact assessment, any potential new port would have to undergo a rigorous impact assessment under the conditions of Bill C-69, as would any new pipeline. I’m just wondering if that is not enough to assure that any potential new development in that area would have to meet the strictest of standards or not be allowed to proceed.
Mr. Garneau: Let me say again that the moratorium applies only to persistent oils, not to non-persistent oils. There are quite a few refined products that could be transported from ports on the north.
Senator Simons: But —
Mr. Garneau: Let me answer the question about the environmental responsibility.
We believe it is an important responsibility the federal government has. Let me illustrate it this way. If you begin to carry persistent oils out of the Portland Canal or through the Dixon Entrance, there is no guarantee that, if there is an oil spill, that it will remain in a channel that is a channel that is only part of one treaty agreement. There’s absolutely no guarantee you can do that, so it has an influence on other people. It’s the same as the environment with respect to greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases that are produced in Quebec will make their way to the Atlantic provinces. You can’t contain the environment from that point of view. It would be like saying, “Okay, I’m going to have an open air café here, and there will be no smoking except for one table in the middle.” Unfortunately, because we’re talking about the environment here, that kind of reality has to be taken into account. We have a responsibility, federally, with respect to all Canadians.
The Chair: Do you have another question?
Senator Simons: I wanted to know if Minister Garneau would address my other question. As I say, I sit on the Energy Committee. It is looking at very strict standards for impact assessment. Any such development would require it. The building of a new port would be covered by Bill C-69. A new pipeline or rail line would both also be covered by Bill C-69. Isn’t Bill C-48 superfluous or redundant if we’re already going to have strict environmental standards around the development of any new port, rail line or pipeline that would transport bitumen or other persistent oils from my home province of Alberta to open water?
Mr. Garneau: I would say to you that Bill C-48 is specific to a region of the country, and it follows from an election promise that was made and relates to an exclusion zone that has been in place for over 30 years. It is a particular case, and that’s why it warranted its own specific bill.
The Chair: Have you kept every election promise?
Mr. Garneau: No, and I don’t think there’s any party in the history of Canada that can claim that.
The Chair: You’re saying that is the reason you’re doing this, because it is an election promise, but you haven’t kept all your election promises?
Mr. Garneau: I answered that question.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Thank you, minister. I’m quoting you: “I am open to any suggestions you might have for doing that.”
That’s straying a bit from Bill C-49. You were the first minister to introduce a bill in the new, mostly independent Senate. You might not have shown the same openness at the time. You have six weeks remaining in the timeline, and amendments may be introduced. The legislative ping-pong between the Senate and the House of Commons last year resulted in a conventional end of session. This time, as you said, this is an election promise that the government made. What attitude can we expect from the government if the committee adopts amendments? Will the government be receptive so it can avoid referring the bill back to us after rejecting our amendments?
As for the comment on Bill C-69, we can’t assume that bill will be passed. As you noted, the big distinction between it and Bill C-48 is that this was a government election promise, and parliamentary tradition requires that the second chamber be slightly more generous in that regard.
Mr. Garneau: Thank you very much. As you noted, and as I said, we’re open to amendment proposals. You are a sovereign committee, and you decide what you will do with bills such as Bill C-48. I said I was amenable, as I was with Bill C-49, which I think led to an excellent modernization of the act and benefited from your suggestions and amendments. I promise to show you the same degree of openness. If amendments are introduced, we’ll consider them in a serious and prudent manner.
Senator Dawson: Thank you, minister.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Thank you, minister, for being here.
Minister, I want to speak to you about that definition of “port” for a second. We’re blocking the export of more than, I think, 12,500 metric tonnes of heavy petroleum out of the port. How do we define “port?” I’ll just put that out there, and I’ll refer to what I’m thinking of.
In St. John, New Brunswick, all that’s brought into St. John, New Brunswick, does not go to the port. It goes to a monobuoy that’s located out in the bay about a mile and a half from shore, and from there it’s piped in to the shore, to storage, and from there it’s piped to the refinery.
If oil was piped to the Prince Rupert area and was not loaded on shore but was piped out to a monobuoy where it was then exported, does this apply? Where does the port start and where does the port end? How does one define a port?
Mr. Garneau: Let me answer the question by saying that the moratorium that is proposed in Bill C-48 applies to the ports and installations. It is certainly our intent to make sure that there is no — and we’ve additionally added in the fact that you can’t have a big tanker that comes in, stops somewhere short of the port and does transfers as a way of getting around the legislation. It covers it all.
Senator MacDonald: Is there specific stuff in the legislation that refers to that?
Mr. Garneau: I believe there is, yes.
Senator MacDonald: Can the officials refer to that?
Mr. Garneau: Article 4.
Lawrence Hanson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Transport Canada: It’s part of the prohibitions listed in the act, senator, the prohibitions element in article 4.
Senator MacDonald: We had the head of the Atlantic Pilotage Authority in last week, and he made the valid point to me that there are many ships that transverse both coasts that would carry almost as much heavy oil as any ship carrying less than 12,500 metric tonnes — cruise ships, large container ships. None of these vessels are double-hulled; they’re all single-hulled vessels. He said a rupture of one of these ships would do as much damage as a smaller vessel carrying less than 12,500 metric tonnes. How do you respond to him? This is a man who does pilotage for a living, has monitored it for years and monitors a lot of movement of petroleum on the East Coast of Canada. His assessment was that in terms of managing risk, there’s still all kinds of risk there.
Mr. Garneau: It is all about risk. I am very familiar with the Atlantic Pilotage Authority, as I am with the Pacific Pilotage Authority and the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, and they do an excellent job. Their job is to minimize risk to the lowest level possible.
There are always ways and things that can be suggested. Perhaps like Senator Wells said, if we don’t allow marine shipping, we can get it down to zero. But the reality of the world is that we are a trading nation and we need to take a sensible, pragmatic approach and try to minimize risk. Our government, since November 2016, has added some 50 measures that are focused on the Oceans Protection Plan that are doing all sorts of things that have never been done before, not just on the West Coast but also on the East Coast and now up in the Arctic.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Thank you for being with us once again, minister. During our public hearings, we discussed the capacity issue at length. Your government has finally decided to adopt a public policy under which you will concentrate all transportation via pipeline in southern British Columbia to protect the environment of the coastlines of northern British Columbia.
I’d like to hear what you have to say about the capacity challenges involved in transporting crude oil and persistent hydrocarbons and the capacity challenges that Alberta is facing. We’ve had people tell us that Trans Mountain, Line 3 and Keystone XL should help provide the required transport capacity, but others have told us that’s absolutely not the case and that we need this northern line. I’d like to hear what you have to say about that.
Mr. Garneau: Thank you, senator. First, I want to point out that there are no restrictions on the transportation of non-persistent products along the north coast. As you know, we approved the Kitimat LNG project. There could be other products that are non-persistent, and that’s related to your question about capacity.
Second, yes, as you mentioned, we approved the Keystone XL pipeline years ago from the Canadian side, as well as Enbridge’s Line 3. Those pipelines will add to our capacity. Now we’re working toward meeting the criteria established by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Capacity is a concern for us, one we’re addressing. Given our approvals and the fact that non-persistent products can be transported along the north coast, we’re addressing the capacity issue in a significant manner.
Senator Gagné: Has an assessment been done on the transportation of crude oil via pipeline for the next five years?
Mr. Garneau: For that, I should refer you to the Minister of Natural Resources. That’s the department conducting those analyses.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Before you ask your question, Senator Boisvenu, I’m distributing a letter from the Metlakatla. They contradict what you say about Bill C-48, namely, that all the coastal nations represent a majority. They don’t support this bill. They’ve sent a letter, so I will distribute it in both official languages.
Mr. Garneau: Mr. Chair, I did not say all of them support it. I said a majority.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I apologize for arriving late, minister. I was held up in other meetings earlier this morning. Minister, your government has always said it was important to strike a balance between economic and environmental objectives. You bought a pipeline at great expense to export our discounted oil to the United States. The Keystone XL pipeline is also used to export oil to the United States at low cost, practically at cost. Canada has kept tens of Indigenous communities in extreme poverty, and, as we’ve heard in our committee, those communities viewed oil development as a way to break out of their dependence on the federal government, which has been called the colonizer of Indigenous communities. I’m thinking of my grandparents, who lived from hand to mouth on rocky land in Abitibi with a bull, a cow and a few chickens. When the logging and mining companies came, they were a lifeline for many of those families, improved their economic situations and got them out of poverty.
To all intents and purposes, Bill C-48 will shut down the transportation of Albertan oil to the west. Already it’s virtually shut down to the east, with the closing of Quebec. We know that Asia and India will consume more than 110 million barrels of oil over the next 40 years, and that oil will be bought from Saudi Arabia, from countries that have little respect for human rights and lower environmental standards. I’m trying to understand how your government can abandon all that global economic room to countries that provide no environmental protection and very little protection for women, whereas Canada is on the cutting-edge of environmental protection in all fields, air, water and soil.
My question’s a basic one. Have you conducted an economic study on the cost of this bill to the Western Canadian provinces?
Mr. Garneau: First, and with respect, senator, you’ve given the impression that all West Coast ports are closed. That’s not the case. Oil has been shipped out of Vancouver since 1953.
Senator Boisvenu: To go to the United States?
Mr. Garneau: Yes, but that’s nevertheless access to a port.
Senator Boisvenu: Getting back to my question, minister...
Mr. Garneau: Let me finish answering your question. Second, as I mentioned, we’re working on the requirements established by the Court of Appeal for the Trans Mountain project. Third, and I’ll say it again, the ports on the north coast of British Columbia aren’t excluded from the transportation of certain non-persistent hydrocarbons, and I’m also including propane, liquefied natural gas, naphtha, jet fuel and gasoline, which are considered non-persistent products.
Senator Boisvenu: I’ll repeat my question: have you conducted an economic study on the cost of this bill to the central provinces, yes or no?
Mr. Garneau: I don’t have the answer to your question, but I can tell you we approved Enbridge’s L3 pipeline and the Keystone XL pipeline, which means we’re showing some openness to products because we understand their importance. We’re keeping an open mind about the transportation of those products from Alberta to other countries.
Senator Boisvenu: I have a final question.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Boisvenu, we have 10 minutes. Senator Black has some questions, as do I.
Senator D. Black: I will be brief. Minister, I know you will be, as well.
I want to focus on your specific level of openness to two specific potential amendments. Would you be open to an amendment that allows the carriage of oil products on water from Prince Rupert or Kitimat in a specific corridor to the open Pacific?
Mr. Garneau: I have said in answer to a previous question that that would be like the analogy of having a café where you have no smoking but you allow one table in the middle to do that.
Senator D. Black: I just want to confirm. So the answer is “no” —
Mr. Garneau: The answer is “no” for the reason that you cannot guarantee that any spillage will stay in that corridor.
Senator D. Black: I understand. I just wanted either a “no” or “yes” on the record. We have a “no.”
I presume the answer is also “no” to a potential corridor at the very northern end of the exclusion zone on the Alaska-Canada border.
Mr. Garneau: Yes, because it’s in the defined area as well.
Senator D. Black: Thank you.
The Chair: We’ve had witnesses before us, minister, who have said that, by 2030, we are going to need another pipeline. It’s 2019. It will take at least that long. All we have is the one, and the second one we have is under a foreign power, which is America. How do we get our oil to market?
Mr. Garneau: Let me repeat: We have no restrictions with respect to non-persistent hydrocarbons out of ports along the north coast of British Columbia.
The Chair: But not crude oil.
Mr. Garneau: Not crude oil. It is a persistent oil with consequences if there is an environmental disaster. I don’t need to remind you what happened with the Exxon Valdez: 2,100 kilometres of coast were soiled by it.
The Chair: So you have an entire coast where no pipeline will be built because it can’t be built because you say we can’t move the oil off the coast.
Mr. Garneau: Crude oil.
The Chair: Crude oil. How does it get out of town? You are the Minister of Transport. You have a responsibility to make sure that product we produce gets out of the country so we can sell it to a market that wants our oil. How will you solve that problem?
Mr. Garneau: That’s why we gave the green light to the L3 Enbridge line and the Keystone XL line, and we are working hard to satisfy the requirements that were put in place by the Court of Appeal with respect to TMX. All of those ports on the north coast, if they are to transport refined or non-persistent hydrocarbons, can do so.
The Chair: So if we get a Democrat elected next year in the United States, which is very possible, and he or she does the same thing as President Obama, then that’s done. We have no exit through the American border.
Mr. Garneau: I am not going to speculate.
The Chair: You have to speculate. You are the Minister of Transport. You have to figure this stuff out.
Mr. Garneau: We also only have jurisdiction over what happens in Canada.
The Chair: Yes, you do, and you have shut that off.
Mr. Garneau: I don’t believe we have shut that off for various reasons. I don’t want to repeat myself.
The Chair: Minister, I will ask one more question. We’re talking about Western Canada, which is very important and dear to many of us on this committee. We not only produce oil. We produce coal and agricultural products. If there is no pipeline, the only way to move that oil is by train, which is not exactly the most environmentally protected way to move the product. That also takes away transport room for all our other products and makes it difficult to move agricultural and other products to the West Coast. You are creating congestion on the West Coast with this.
Mr. Garneau: I agree with you. The best way to move oil is by pipeline. I’ve always said so.
The Chair: You have a funny way of showing it, minister.
Let us move on to another senator. I don’t want to continue like this. I might say something I don’t want to say. We only have five minutes or so, unless the minister can remain.
Senator McCoy: Thank you for being here, minister.
Mr. Garneau: I was checking whether I have to be in the house to vote.
The Chair: He said he had to leave at a quarter after.
Mr. Garneau: If no vote is called, I can stay.
The Chair: Great.
Senator McCoy: I’m sure you’re aware that Prince Rupert is a major port. They say, in fact, that they are putting $35 billion worth of trade through that port every year, and they are expanding.
Two years ago, the largest container ship ever, owned by Costco, put into port at Prince Rupert. It was carrying fuel for its own use, not as cargo, but this vessel is so big and it’s fuel tanks are full of bunker fuel, which is a persistent oil, 14,000 cubic litres. So Bill C-48 does nothing. Nothing you have done under the Oceans Protection Plan has done anything to mitigate the risk of that vessel having an accident. So I’m asking, why not? Why the inconsistency?
Mr. Garneau: The only solution at the moment is, unless the ships are perhaps nuclear, solar or wind powered, we still have to deal with the reality that the fuels used by ships — and we have an enormous number of ships that come and go from Canadian ports, including Prince Rupert, which is doing very well. We have no choice at the moment, but we do have standards with respect to those ships that do come in and leave. They are not totally unmonitored. There are some very specific requirements that they must meet with respect to safety, not just with respect to the fact that they contain fuel but also that they have people on board as well.
Senator McCoy: There was a near disaster with a Russian oil tanker that was outside the voluntary exclusion zone but lost power in high seas. I think it’s called the Simushir. It drifted and drifted and drifted, and the Haida monitored its slow progress toward its sacred areas on southern Haida Gwaii. The Coast Guard was called but couldn’t get there for fifteen hours. The ship was just about to crash when they got there. They tried to tow the ship away but could not because they had the wrong equipment. Fortunately, there was an Alaskan tug — a tug of opportunity they call it — this U.S.-owned tug by chance in port in Prince Rupert, and it came and towed it away. That illustrates what you said the last time you were here, that the marine response capacity on the northern coast of British Columbia is inadequate.
Again, I’m asking you with, all of this trade activity and with all of this shipping activity — 500 ships in the last reported year in and out of the port of Prince Rupert. There are cruise ships, ferries and tugs going aground. There are proposals from the Coastal First Nations, detailed proposals, for Indigenous-led marine response centres. They are two years old. What response have you given them?
Mr. Garneau: You gave the example, senator, of the Simushir, which is a Russian ship that came perilously close to grounding at Haida Gwaii. It was an extremely distressing experience for the Haida, and it is one of the reasons why one of the 50 or so measures that are included in the Oceans Protection Plan is for the availability of two large ship tug-capable ships, so that in a similar situation where a ship is no longer under command and is drifting, that one or the other of these two ships would be able to go and rescue it and tow the ship to a safe place. That is one the measure we put in as part of the Oceans Protection Plan based on the very specific example of the Simushir.
Senator McCoy: If I may ask, where are those two tugs going to be based?
Mr. Garneau: We have not made a final decision on where they are going to be based, but strategically we want to deploy them to places where they will be best capable of responding in a timely fashion.
Senator McCoy: Then I think there is a campaign starting on your doorstep.
Senator Galvez: Minister, you have talked about technology increasing and innovation to come up with the mitigation measures that can ensure us that oil can be recovered. But I want to go into the oil type. I know that dilbit is on the list, and partially upgraded bitumen is on the list. What about if, through innovation, we manage the two problems with the oil, which are the persistence because of the heaviness, and also the sulphur content that will pose a major problem next year when the newest standards for transporting oil make another pressure on our type of oil. If through innovation and higher upgrading and refining capacity we manage to have better quality products, and I think it’s there, or the alternative of even refining the bitumen, will they be exempt from your list after a review that my colleague was talking about as an amendment?
Mr. Garneau: Thank you, senator. Our criterion that drives everything is the potential effect on the environment. Now, if a product is slightly changed in its composition, if we learn more about how to deal with it if it lands in the water, because many factors are at play, if technologies — and I think that’s one of the areas that we need to be looking at more on alternate technologies for recovering — show us that the situation can be dealt with in a much more effective way, then we will look at that. We’re very much a science- and technology-based ministry, and we look at these things in terms of hard evidence. So, yes, there is the possibility. It would be subjected to a thorough evaluation to see whether it still needs to be on the list. We have a formal definition, but we would look at it very carefully and in a proper, rigorous way.
Senator Simons: Following in the footsteps of my colleague Senator Black, would you under any circumstances accept an amendment that would either make this a real moratorium with a review after three, five or ten years instead of a permanent ban, and will you be willing to accept an amendment that made this conditional on the acceptance and construction of TMX?
Mr. Garneau: We will receive any amendment that is proposed by the Senate and look at it very carefully. It is certainly my hope, because it’s in my mandate letter, that we will be able to go forward with the Bill C-48 before the next election, but we will look at it very carefully.
Senator MacDonald: Minister, I want to go back again to your role as Minister of Transport when it comes to the delivery of Canadian product to the world. You mentioned the XL pipeline and the TMX, but none of these pipelines get our product to world markets so that we can get world pricing. We know there were times last year when the differential between the world price and the price selling to the U.S. was $50 at one time. That is a lot of money. That’s a huge loss. As a Minister of Transport, I assume you want our product to get to the world market, and you say that pipelines aren’t the safest thing. What is your solution, then? The country is losing hundreds of thousands of jobs and literally probably hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade in terms of revenues and taxes and royalties. What is your solution to get our product to Asia and to Europe?
Mr. Garneau: I guess I’ll repeat it: We are working very assiduously on trying to address the two main issues that were brought to our attention by Federal Court of Appeal with respect to the TMX. We didn’t throw our arms up and say, “Okay, let’s stop everything.” We are trying very assiduously to address that.
Senator MacDonald: With the TMX pipeline, all that oil is going to the U.S.
Mr. Garneau: By the way, it comes to Vancouver. There is nothing that dictates where that will go in the years to come, any existing product —
Senator MacDonald: Contracts —
Mr. Garneau: Yes, but there can be new contracts as well, and there could be new destinations.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: An expert in the law of the sea came and explained to us the dispute between the United States and Canada over Dixon Entrance. I want to hear what you have to say about those waters. Are the Americans claiming a degree of control over both Dixon Entrance and the interior canal where the ships pass? In the circumstances, did you draft the bill on that basis? Have there been any discussions with the United States on Bill C-48?
Mr. Garneau: No, there have been no discussions with the United States. As you know, some lands and waters are disputed by both our countries. That’s been the case for some time between Alaska and British Columbia, but also, as you recently heard, in the Northwest Passage and other locations. Those challenges are unresolved but played no part in the decision on our approach to the moratorium. I can honestly tell you we didn’t consult our American neighbours before making the decision.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m following up on a question from my colleague, Senator Duncan, which I’ll forward to you in writing. Senator Duncan comes from Yukon. Have any measures been taken in Alaska to ensure that cruise ships discharge their waste in a more environmentally friendly way, that is to say, that they stop doing it? Have we adopted any similar measures here in Canada? Are we thinking about it?
Mr. Garneau: That’s a very good question. Can I get back to you on that? Unless my colleagues have an answer...
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes. I’m going to send you my colleague’s question because it’s more complex.
Mr. Garneau: That’s fine. We’ll answer it.
[English]
Senator McCoy: Minister, I just think it needs to be put on record that the TMX, the expansion of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline, is going to do nothing for the oil industry, the energy industry of Canada, in the few remaining decades — probably two — that we have in order to supply world markets to any degree. If your government thinks the TMX is the answer, then I really do have to question the advice you are getting from not only your own department — I can’t believe that NRCan would be giving you that advice. I want that on the record. Every time we ask you how we are going to get our product to market, you come up with non-solutions. TMX is not a solution.
Mr. Garneau: I’ll leave that as a comment.
The Chair: Just on the question, in the letter that was distributed, you did on March 20 say before the committee that aligned against those who oppose Bill C-48 is a coalition of all the remaining Indigenous communities, of which the Metlakatla were mentioned. So I understand that the way you said it today is a correction of that statement on March 20?
Mr. Garneau: I can’t remember exactly what I said on that date —
The Chair: That is why I distributed it, just to refresh your memory —
Mr. Garneau: But as I said in my opening remarks today, there is not unanimity, and I believe I said that back on March 20. It is very difficult to achieve unanimity. But what I did say today and before is that the majority of the coastal First Nations who live right on the coast are in support of the moratorium.
The Chair: Were they the chiefs or the hereditary chiefs?
Mr. Garneau: The majority of the chiefs — although I will add that there are hereditary chiefs have different opinions, for example the Lax Kw’alaams, with respect to the moratorium. But in most cases, it’s the chiefs and the elected chiefs.
The Chair: Thank you, minister, for appearing before the committee this morning. It is very much appreciated.
Our second agenda item this morning deals with the unauthorized disclosure of confidential committee documents.
[Translation]
Senator Simons: Dear colleagues, I hope you will accept my apologies for any breach of privilege I may have committed.
[English]
It arose solely from my misunderstanding of what information from our in camera portion of the meeting was already public. For that, I apologize.
[Translation]
It was my mistake, and I deeply regret it. It in no way reflects my great respect for all of you, new committee members and dear friends.
[English]
Thank you for your good will, and I hope we can put this behind us.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Simons. I’m not going to distribute the report. I have to report this to the Senate, so I’m going to report that we’ve dealt with the matter. It’s being distributed.
Do I have amendments that I need, or do I need motions on that report? Do I just have a motion to adopt the report? This is all new to me as well, Senator Simons. We’ve got the 16th report before us. Should I report this 16th report to the Senate? It is agreed.
I have three motions. Steering will fill in the blanks where it says “on May 14, 2019,” which is paragraphs one through five. Is it agreed that the draft report, as amended, be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the report, taking into consideration this committee’s discussion, without any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the chair table the final version of the report to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Good.
We will now go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)