Oil Tanker Moratorium Bill
Message from Commons--Motion for Concurrence in Commons Amendments Adopted
June 20, 2019
Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-48.
It has been referenced several times this afternoon that the Senate is representative of all regions. My region has not and the Yukon has not been heard from in this discussion. There are several points I would like to draw to the attention of my colleagues that have not been entered into the record either in this chamber or at committee, to the best of my knowledge.
Bill C-48 speaks to British Columbia’s north coast and protection of this particular part of Canada’s coast. I believe this to be British Columbia’s choice, and that’s a very important element when we’re talking about Confederation and our individual places at the confederate table. When I say “British Columbia’s choice,” I’m referring to First Nations and the Government of British Columbia.
Honourable senators, the idea of environmental protection in this area is not new. I draw to your attention the Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperation between the State of Alaska and the Province of British Columbia signed in 2015. Section 3 states:
Alaska and British Columbia will collaborate to promote marine transportation reliability and safety. Areas of collaboration include measures to prevent accidents and spills and to reduce the consequences of accidents and spills . . . .
In the appendix to the Statement of Cooperation on the Protection of Transboundary Waters, the “Definition of Terms” defines “Transboundary Water(s)”,” as “. . . also includes all marine waters within the jurisdiction of Alaska, south of sixty (60) degrees latitude or within the jurisdiction of British Columbia.”
As recently as 2018, Alaskans have been urging Canada and British Columbia to deal with environmental protections and watersheds. Areas we’re speaking of are under Canada’s jurisdiction.
We know and have known for thousands of years that the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge on the very north coast of Alaska is a sacred calving grounds of the porcupine caribou herd. Yukon has lobbied as long as I’ve been a Yukoner and well before for protection of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge on the northern coast. We have asked Alaskans not to drill for oil in the calving grounds of the porcupine caribou herd. To the Vuntut Gwitchin in the north of Yukon, this is sacred ground. Their powerful and effective lobby in Washington has been supported by the Yukon and Canadian governments of all political stripes. Some senators will be aware of their efforts.
How can we lobby for protection of the Alaskan coast, recognizing its importance to the Indigenous people and all Yukoners, if we’re not prepared to protect our own Canadian coast in recognition of its importance to Indigenous people?
Lest anyone suggest that I not be aware of the difficulty of landlocked resources, I would remind senators that the Faro Mine resources were shipped to market through the Port of Skagway in southeast Alaska. And it’s not my first rodeo with pipelines. Canada and the United States had a valid, signed treaty that proposed to ship Alaskan gas from the Alyeska Pipeline. It would travel by pipeline through Yukon and possibly be refined in Alberta. I lobbied long and hard for that pipeline. It would travel along an existing transportation corridor built by the Americans and still funded by the Americans, in part. Ultimately, industry made another decision. I share this because it can’t be underestimated the role that industry makes in all of these decisions.
Colleagues, the Yukon shares this border and much of the traffic into southeast Alaska. Although technically they travel through British Columbia and the border crossings are labelled as British Columbia, they are supported by Yukoners. Yukoners use them more than daily, sometimes twice a day.
The Alaskans in the southeast and the far west are our neighbours, our friends and, in many cases, they’re the other part of the family. We’ll have grandparents on one side and parents on the other.
I share this information about the global implications, the American-Canadian implications, because they weren’t discussed at committee. I believe perhaps they should have been. However, hindsight is 20/20.
I also share what I believe to be, and is supported by the information I’ve shared with you today, support for protection for this particular area.
As much as I fully respect the entreaties that have been made today and Senator McCoy’s information, I do believe that Bill C-48 is a response of Canada within their responsibility. It’s a request of British Columbians, and we should be doing it. I believe with the issues around resources that there are other factors involved, and industry will be making decisions in that regard.
For these reasons, honourable senators, I will be supporting Bill C-48. I believe it is the appropriate thing to do. It’s a request of British Columbia, of the Confederation, and I believe we should listen to them and follow up. Thank you.
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the message from the House of Commons on Bill C-48, known by its short title as the oil tanker moratorium act.
As a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, I had a special opportunity to participate in the deliberations on this bill. Our long process included holding 22 meetings, hearing 139 witnesses and travelling to four communities. I am grateful that I had such wonderful colleagues on the committee, and we formed an unshakeable bond. In some strange way, I will miss Bill C-48 after it is gone.
The message we have from the House of Commons takes us pretty much back to the original bill. From the very beginning of studying this bill, I thought it was generally a good idea. As I continued through deliberations and study, I found it to be quite a good bill. Now hearing so much criticism, I feel compelled to stand today to talk about the bill.
I’m going to be brief in my remarks, but I want to say that I do believe that we should accept the message.
Let me tell you my general thoughts about Bill C-48. To me, Bill C-48 has all of the elements of what should be a successful and widely accepted bill. First, it’s based on established policy. The tanker moratorium is well-grounded policy which came into existence several decades ago.
As we all know, in 1977 a system was established for American tankers carrying American crude from Alaska to the U.S. mainland whereby they would avoid the West Coast of B.C. This practice was formalized in the 1985 understanding between the Canadian and U.S. Coast Guards to create a voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone. I understand that all federal and all B.C. governments have supported the voluntary arrangements over these many decades.
Bill C-48 is the further formalization of this agreement applied now to Canadian tankers. How many policies in this country have the opportunity to be tested for almost 40 years before they are put into legislation? How often does that happen? Almost never.
To me, it’s a moderate, tested policy. No tankers have travelled in this area before and none will travel in the future. That’s the first point I’d like to make.
The second feature that makes this a good bill is the reason for the tanker ban, and that is to protect the relatively untouched northern B.C. coast, the renowned Great Bear Rainforest and other sensitive areas in the region from the disaster of a future oil spill.
We have heard about the uniqueness of this lush habitat in great detail from Senator Jaffer via Senator Woo last week, and I have no need to repeat here her wonderful description.
This coast, unlike the East Coast, has never had tanker traffic. The focus on the environment makes this bill especially timely today given Canadians’ overall increased sensibility to issues like climate change, to all environmental issues and environmental protection. Canadians are more willing now than ever to accept tougher environmental policies.
The third reason that this is a good bill is it has the support of a great many people and a great many communities. Our trip to Prince Rupert and Terrace was so valuable and so important in showing the committee the extent to which the citizens in the region want Bill C-48.
First and foremost, 9 of 11 coastal First Nations, the majority of First Nations in the area, look to Bill C-48 to protect their communities and their current and future livelihoods developing the fisheries from the catastrophe of an oil spill.
Senator McCallum described these views and aspirations of coastal regions exceptionally well last week here in the chamber, and I have no need to repeat what she said so strongly to us last week.
But there are many more people who support this bill: municipality leaders; environmentalists; local citizens; the Mayor of Prince Rupert; the Mayor of Kitimat; the federal member of Parliament from the area who, on cue, has walked into our chamber; the provincial MLA from the coastal region; and, especially importantly, the provincial government in British Columbia supports Bill C-48.
This substantial and diverse support is another factor we must take into account in our deliberations. Many people are imploring us to pass this bill.
My fourth reason today that should be of great importance to us is the fact that the initiative was promised by the Trudeau Liberals in 2015. Perhaps the promise was made in B.C., but it is a promise nevertheless.
It has been said, and it is true, that governments sometimes don’t go ahead with their promises. For example, electoral reform was a promise not pursued. But when a government decides to go ahead with a promise that has been made, we must weigh this very strongly in our deliberations. They certainly have a mandate, especially from the people of British Columbia, to go ahead with this policy.
Those are four reasons that I think are exceptionally important.
Then we might ask: If Bill C-48 seems so obviously good to me, why has this bill had so much difficulty?
Colleagues, there is only one reason, and it has to do with the very sad state of the Alberta-based oil industry, the plunging price of the resource in recent years, the loss of jobs, the loss of futures and lost hope. The despair has affected the public mood, public dialogue and even national unity.
My former colleagues at Environics teamed up last year with the Canada West Foundation, the Mowat Centre and the IRPP to undertake a huge public opinion survey of the Canadian public revisiting various national unity issues. They conducted a large survey of Canadians in 13 provinces and territories, as well as Indigenous communities, in December of last year and January of this year.
One very important set of findings relates to the Province of Alberta and how that province is experiencing what we might call extreme alienation from Canada. Seventy-one per cent of Albertans say the province does not get the respect it deserves in Canada, up from 49 per cent who felt it this way in 2010. Sixty-seven per cent of Albertans say they don’t have their fair share of influence on national decisions, and that compared to 46 per cent of all Canadians. And 56 per cent of Albertans now say they get so few benefits from Canada that they might as well go on their own, and this figure is up from only 28 per cent in 2010.
The subsequent Alberta election campaign, with its impassioned rhetoric, made such views even more salient. Premier Kenney articulated these exact themes when he appeared before our committee on April 30, saying that Alberta is the largest fiscal contributor to the rest of the country, that there is a crisis of confidence in Alberta about federalism and there is also a national unity crisis. He also spoke of secession sentiments.
We have to conclude that these attitudes and perceptions are real, as is the reality of the economic situation and lost revenues, jobs and opportunities that have disappeared in the resource sector.
I think and I know that many Canadians sympathize with this situation and I know that the situation today is different, at least with respect to other Canadians, from the bad old days of the National Energy Program. I truly feel that Canadians in the rest of Canada understand and sympathize tremendously with what Alberta is going through. I firmly believe that. I know that, Senator Simons, and I’ve said this to you before. I know that to be a fact.
Now, many Albertans have taken out their disappointment on the tanker bill. Albertans have a right to be angry, but this bill doesn’t deserve so much anger. It doesn’t. We get emails from folks from Alberta who talk about all the jobs that they will have when Bill C-48 is defeated. They are expecting a bounty of jobs as soon as the bill is defeated.
I have to say, however, with deep respect, that some Albertans have, unfortunately, been given false hope by the possible demise of this bill. I say that with deep respect.
The end of Bill C-48 does not create jobs in Alberta. Unfortunately, there is no pipeline coming in the foreseeable future. There’s no northern TMX and there is no northern Keystone on the horizon. I say this with regret.
In addition, our travels in the region have confirmed, to me, the huge opposition to pipeline construction that exists in the region. We learned about Northern Gateway and why it was unsuccessful. There was a plebiscite in Kitimat where the citizens turned down Northern Gateway. They didn’t like it — and this is a resource town. There has been opposition from just about every corner in that community, according to Anne Hill of the North West Watch Society:
Every city council in the region passed resolutions rejecting Northern Gateway.
We have to understand that is a factor, as well. There is huge opposition in the region to building pipelines.
I wanted to put that on the record. I want, in conclusion to get back to the theme. In spite of this, we know that there is still anger and disappointment in the Province of Alberta.
In response, last week, the in-depth regional review amendment crafted by Senator Sinclair and Senator Pratte and accepted by the Senate was, in my view, a genuine, good-faith effort to keep hope alive and signal to Alberta that we care about them.
The government has now turned this down and we are left with essentially the original, almost untouched version of Bill C-48. We have, as part of the bill, an amendment that proposes a moderate five-year review of the legislation, which I feel will, in fact, be of some help in understanding and in reaching out to Alberta.
I believe, honourable senators, that it is finally time for us to accept the message and to accept that we have done all we can. I urge us to accept the message from the House of Commons.
Thank you.
Honourable senators, I wasn’t going to speak on this bill because I have a bit of a raspy throat. I feel compelled to speak after listening to my colleagues today speaking so passionately on the bill.
I feel very strongly about this bill because, of course, I’m from British Columbia. It affects the ecology of British Columbia, the energy sectors of Alberta and Saskatchewan and our economy altogether. More importantly, it affects the very fabric of our country.
Since this bill made it to the Order Paper, we have witnessed one group after the other, through their testimony, emails and social media, passionately plead their cases and champion their causes on each side.
Those who favour Bill C-48 advocate that the only way to protect the coastline of British Columbia is to solidify the voluntary tanker ban on the West Coast into binding federal legislation. This would forever banish tankers from transporting oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan through northern British Columbia ports and, therefore, make Asian markets a more difficult destination.
I understand that the vast majority of supporters of this bill are motivated by their love of British Columbia and their fear for that environment. They not only wish to protect the vast shoreline and pristine beaches, but also the mountains and unspoiled rainforests. British Columbia and its waters are inhabited by the rarest species left on the planet. The people who live along the coast, who are predominantly Indigenous, follow a lifestyle predicated on the legacy of habitation that has been rooted there for thousands of years.
Many demand that we protect the environment for future generations. This genuine concern has been expressed by some as a need for a total prohibition of tankers. Conversely, there are those who remind us that this great country was built upon exploration, retrieval and transportation of natural resources to markets around the world.
The petroleum industry is one of the major contributors to the entire Canadian economy, not just the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Does it come down to choosing one interest over the other, pitting one region against another and one First Nation against another?
I’ll come back to this.
I have called British Columbia home for over 40 years. I’ve lived on the coast, I’ve lived in the interior and I have spent a lot of time in the northern regions of British Columbia. I have fished on the Skeena River and its tributaries. I visited Haida Gwaii. I’ve even seen a Kermode, or spirit bear, in the wild — yes, I really have — and also a number of grizzlies, though more up close than I would have liked, I have to admit.
I’m certainly not constantly saying that I am an expert on British Columbia’s ecosystem, but it gives me a personal perspective. To say that I think British Columbia is a very special place is a vast understatement.
Interestingly enough, I grew up in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. I spent my high school summers at places like Lawrencetown Beach and Clam Harbour Beach. I have travelled the Cabot Trail on the coast of Cape Breton with my parents, and later with my own family and my friends. I’ve spent time in P.E.I., Newfoundland and Labrador. I have experienced the majesty of the East Coast, which is every bit as beautiful and precious as the West Coast.
Thus, a conundrum: Why the focus on the West Coast? If tanker traffic is safe for the east and for the St. Lawrence, why is it to be forbidden on the West Coast? I’m not really sure.
Another complication not often discussed in the pipeline tanker conversation is the transportation of oil by rail. The longer we avoid ports and building pipelines to accommodate oil, the more oil is going to be transported by rail. Research shows that rail is, by far, the most dangerous way for oil to be moved from one place to another. We will never forget the hellish nightmare of the Lac-Mégantic catastrophe. A train derailment into one of the rushing rivers that has been the lifeblood of the West would be an unspeakable tragedy as well for the environment — one, I submit, that would be at least as devastating as an unmitigated spill at sea.
There was such a derailment last year in the Rogers Pass that saw 40 railcars go off the rails. Imagine if they had been loaded with oil instead of grain. Where I live in B.C., there’s been a doubling of oil by rail on the mainland of the CPR that travels west through the Rocky Mountains on its way to the coast. These trains cling to the cliffs and banks of the Thompson and the great Fraser River down through the major spawning waterways where many kinds of salmon, including our famous sockeye, sturgeon and other fish species have habitats.
In committee, I asked one of the witness experts who was testifying about how oil spills are dealt with in the ocean. I asked, “What plan is there if an oil tanker ever went into one of the fast-moving rivers like the Fraser?” He said there was no plan and no possibility of mitigating the damage of a large oil spill in swift water. This spill would not only destroy the fish habitat and spawning grounds but would ultimately end up in the same ocean we are all trying so hard to protect. Perhaps getting oil into pipelines and not out of them should be our goal.
This is not just a debate about pipelines and oil tankers on the West Coast. It’s a debate about our ability to work together for the greater good, to find the tie that binds the common ground that makes us all Canadians, not to create a wedge that separates us into regional agendas.
Canadians enjoy a lifestyle that is second to none in the world. This country has afforded us First World benefits, like universal health care, modern infrastructure and so much more, supported by tax revenues, much of which are funded by the resource sector.
As previously stated, the energy sector accounts for approximately 10 per cent of Canada’s economy and hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs. Although we are all striving to reduce our carbon footprint, the petroleum industry is currently an integral part of our lives and is not about to become obsolete tomorrow.
I was fortunate enough to be part of the Senate road crew that travelled west to hear witnesses talk about Bill C-48, each with impassioned pleas for each of their sides, both of whom wanted it to be their way.
As you know, we’ve heard from witnesses with compelling and valid arguments. Unfortunately, the government has rejected the amendment that we had put in the balance. This is not a moratorium. This is a tanker ban. It’s not just a tanker ban on tankers; it’s a tanker ban on prosperity for the people of the Nisga’a and others, who are praying for the kind of opportunity that the rest of us enjoy.
I’d like to remind you that we already have a tanker moratorium on the West Coast and hopefully Bill C-69 to protect us from the hazards of an oil spill. I will be voting no to this message. Thank you.
Are honourable senators ready for the question?
It was moved by the Honourable Senator Harder, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, that in relation to Bill C-48 — may I dispense?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”
All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.
I see two senators rising. Do we have an agreement on a bell?
One hour. The vote will take place at 6:24.
Call in the senators.
Honourable senators, I wish as to address my abstention on Bill C-48. I understand what the legislation aims to achieve and I agree that healthy marine environments are economically, culturally and environmentally integral to the well-being of Canada’s pristine northern B.C. coastline and its coastal communities. I don’t know anyone who wants to see that environment come to any harm.
I also believe that all Indigenous groups have a right to develop their own economic and social agendas and should not be cut off from opportunities for self-determination to create wealth and self-sufficiency.
I’m sorry, Senator Klyne. When senators stand to explain an abstention, it’s not a time for debate. It’s generally a time for a very quick intervention as to why a senator decided to abstain. It’s not a right. It’s just an arcane practice that we’ve allowed to carry on over time and it’s not something we normally get into. It really isn’t the time for a debate or to re-debate issues that have already been spoken to, but just a time to quickly speak to why you abstained.
It’s a very important issue; I understand.
The one thing I must say is that I agreed with the legislation with the regional assessment and when that was removed, for me, this became more than just a tanker ban. To skip through all the other stuff, it morphed into a ban on Western Canadian resources. From that, I hope the five-year review will prove me wrong.
Senator Klyne has the floor. Senator Klyne.
But it’s too far out in time, all the same, making me very hesitant. These are the thoughts, one of many, why?
Honourable senators, it being past six o’clock, pursuant to rule 3-3(1) I’m required to leave the chair and the sitting will be suspended until 8 p.m., unless it’s agreed that we not see the clock.
Is it agreed that we not see the clock?
