Thank you and good morning.
My name is Kaity Arsoniadis Stein. I am the president and secretary-general of the International Ship-Owners Alliance of Canada. I'm also director of the International Maritime Centre, director and vice-president of the Vancouver Maritime Arbitrators Association, and a trustee of the Insurance Dispute Resolution Services of British Columbia.
I appear before you today on behalf of the International Ship-Owners Alliance of Canada. This group represents local and international merchant shipowners, managers, and operators of ships, who collectively control a fleet of over 500 ocean-going vessels and employ over 10,000 sea-going and shore-based employees.
Through their Canadian companies in Vancouver, they employ over 340 direct management jobs. Their membership includes a Canadian ferry operation, a coastal tug and barge operation, and international members who have been in Canada employing Canadians since 1991.
Among the ISAC members, I benefit from the fact that a founding member is an integral provider of marine services to the oil and gas extraction business, transporting more than 10% of global seaborne oil. In addition to this member, there are several other members of ISAC who are engaged in providing similar services, albeit on a small scale.
The ISAC members are responsible Canadian corporate citizens. In fact, they maintain this reputation internationally and have sought to encourage the marine industry to address air contaminant matters by adopting the use of cleaner fuels. Domestic regulators, like Environment Canada, are aware of the contributions ISAC has made in this regard. ISAC maintains contact with the Canadian regulatory environment and wishes to continue operations consistent with Canadian societal objectives.
On the west coast we see propositions for a ban on tankers being advanced, yet on the east coast we see no similar constraints or concerns being entertained. Our observations include this: that the nature of the stimulus behind this proposed ban is questionable for its authenticity. The waters on the east coast and on the west coast represent demands upon those operating on either coast, yet the west coast is being singled out for environmental concerns that apparently are not considered on the east coast. This dichotomy begs the question: why has this occurred?
Recent observations have been made in the press that the pretext is not genuine and may be for other strategic and economic reasons. I reference the Financial Post article dated October 14 and written by Vivian Krause, indicating that U.S. foundations are compromised in their agenda and have been financing Canadian environmental groups and others to advance the American-based agendas of their American contributors.
The resounding question remains: why? What is the Canadian strategy? We have members who are experts in moving oil globally and who are at a loss with respect to what is occurring here in Canada and why. Is this a U.S. plot to ensure that Canadian oil can only be destined for the U.S. market?
We submit that the safe and responsible movement of Canadian resources into the international market could and should be a source of employment creation for communities on the coast. The logistical chain of resource extraction includes the exploration, the production, and the transportation of the products.
I will quote from page 4 of Ethical Oil by Ezra Levant. It is believed that the Alberta oil sands:
...represent the largest single deposit of petroleum reserves on the planet, with, by some estimates, between 1.7 trillion and 2.5 trillion barrels of oil inside it. The recoverable oil in Alberta's north has the potential to deliver a stable oil supply to the world for the next one hundred years.
Perhaps a solution to the dilemma caused by a ban on tankers could be found in the creation of sustainable jobs for stakeholders, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal. Sustainable employment in the transportation of these goods could come in the form of creating and utilizing an internationally capable Canadian fleet of tankers, with corporate headquarters in Canada, employing Canadian citizens and transporting Canadian resources. A Canadian fleet with Canadian staff will abide by Canadian environmental standards and would endeavour to ensure that Canadian requirements were met.
Further safeguards, creating additional layers of employment, could be instigated to bring comfort to coastal communities, the fishing industries, and our government, before we even start discussing a ban on tankers.
For example, we could have additional escort tugs, increased numbers of pilots, and specified sea lanes, and we could designate companies with social corporate responsibility status. Also, with respect to a very current issue now, we could see the continued retention of coastal watch by staffed light stations, thus building a strong coastal infrastructure and creating numerous jobs for aboriginal and non-aboriginal stakeholders along the west coast.
The extraction and exploration industries are major employers, but to constrain our ability to transport will only see a reduction in the employment opportunities afforded by exploration and extraction.
We are of the view that trade diversification is more desirable than reliance on a single market. If Canada were unable to export from the west coast to areas of the world where demand existed, such as Asia and India, would we not be limited in the markets to which we could sell, in the jobs that we could create, and in the prices we could command?
Would a west coast ban not result in the reduction of employment opportunities within the oil and gas sector? If you cannot sell the product internationally, you cannot command an international price. Therefore, inevitably, we would be giving it away at a discount. Is this the U.S. agenda and are we playing into this plot?
On the east coast, oil goes to the U.S. as a consequence of choice. On the west coast, in the face of a tanker ban, oil from the oil sands will be denied the markets of Asia and elsewhere. By consequence, we will be restricting our sales to the U.S.
The irony is that tanker traffic from Alaska to Washington State along the west coast of Canada will continue unimpeded. Recent statistics show there are over 500 such voyages a year. American flagged vessels under the Jones act can transit from one U.S. port to another U.S. port of call. Of interest should be why they are travelling along the coast and not shipping the oil by pipeline.
The answer is evident: it's American security of supply. They do not want American oil to enter Canada by pipeline, but they will take Canadian oil via pipeline for their own use. This again provokes the question: why? The arbitrary choice of denying Canada the offshore markets seems to fly in the face of the economic development principles of Alberta and B.C. and their indigenous and non-indigenous communities.
Canada has the single greatest coastline in the world. Canada as a trading nation must remain a global trading entity. Canada's environmental concerns must be preserved, but a balance must be achieved to ensure continued global trade.
I will leave you with the example of Norway, a country much smaller than Canada, which boasts a nominal GDP of $88,000 per capita, while Canada's comparable number comes in at $40,000 per capita. In Norway, the oil and gas industry is the backbone of its economy. To quote the minister of oil and energy, “It is the government's ambition that Norway shall remain a significant supplier of oil and gas to the world markets for a long time”. This industry is embraced by the people of Norway.
We encourage Parliament and this committee to achieve an equilibrium for west coast exports of all natural resources. We further encourage the committee to recognize the appropriateness of allowing Canadian natural resource producers to engage in global trade.
Thank you very much.