Bill C-48 (Historical)

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

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

This enactment enacts the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which prohibits oil tankers that are carrying more than 12 500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil as cargo from stopping, or unloading crude oil or persistent oil, at ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaska border. The Act prohibits loading if it would result in the oil tanker carrying more than 12 500 metric tons of those oils as cargo.
The Act also prohibits vessels and persons from transporting crude oil or persistent oil between oil tankers and those ports or marine installations for the purpose of aiding the oil tanker to circumvent the prohibitions on oil tankers.
Finally, the Act establishes an administration and enforcement regime that includes requirements to provide information and to follow directions and that provides for penalties of up to a maximum of five million dollars.

Trans Mountain Expansion Project

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to participate in this important debate about pipelines. I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Calgary Midnapore, who I know will have a lot to say with respect to her riding as well.

This is a subject on which Conservatives have been relentless in this Parliament. I want to salute the work of my colleague and neighbour from Lakeland, our shadow minister for natural resources, who is leading the charge tonight and always, as well as the members for Chilliwack—Hope and for Portage—Lisgar who served in the role of shadow minister for natural resources earlier in this Parliament.

In addition to this emergency debate, we have moved and forced votes on two opposition motions which specifically dealt with the subject of pipelines. The first one dealt with energy east and said the following:

That, given this time of economic uncertainty, the House: (a) recognize the importance of the energy sector to the Canadian economy and support its development in an environmentally sustainable way; (b) agree that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil; (c) acknowledge the desire for the Energy East pipeline expressed by the provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick; and (d) express its support for the Energy East pipeline currently under consideration.

That was an opposition motion put forward by the Conservatives, and I was pleased to join every single one of my Conservative colleagues in supporting that motion. However, 100% of members of other parties, including every single member of the government, opposed that motion, including Liberal members from Alberta who had just claimed that they would fight for pipelines, but when it counted, they stood up and voted against energy east.

More recently, we put forward another motion. We thought we would give them another chance. Here is what we said:

That, given the Trans Mountain expansion project is in the national interest, will create jobs and provide provinces with access to global markets, the House call on the Prime Minister to prioritize the construction of the federally-approved Trans Mountain Expansion Project by taking immediate action, using all tools available; to establish certainty for the project, and to mitigate damage from the current interprovincial trade dispute, tabling his plan in the House no later than noon on Thursday, February 15, 2018.

What a statement of confidence in the pipeline process that would have been from this House of Commons. Again, every single Conservative voted in favour of this motion, but every Liberal and every New Democrat opposed that proposal. They had a chance to vote for action on Trans Mountain. Every single one of them voted against.

We have not only had pro-pipeline proposals debated in this House, but Bill C-48 was the government bill to make the export of our energy resources from northern B.C. impossible. That is further blocking the northern gateway pipeline. Every single Conservative voted against Bill C-48, but every single Liberal and New Democrat voted in favour. As much as a few members tonight want to wrap themselves in bitumen, something as simple and fundamental as their voting record paints a different picture.

All of the Liberals voted against energy east, in favour of blocking the northern gateway, and against a motion to force action on Trans Mountain. All the MPs across the way should not tell us what they believe. They should cast their votes and then we will know what they believe.

The member for Edmonton Centre recently said in this place, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” Clearly, he never does.

If the government is sincere about pipelines, then it should start voting for them. Our commitment to pipelines did not just start in this Parliament. The Stephen Harper government oversaw the building of Trans Mountain's Keystone pipeline, of Enbridge's Alberta Clipper, of Kinder Morgan's Anchor Loop pipeline, and of Enbridge's Line 9 reversal. We also approved the construction of the northern gateway pipeline.

Now let us be clear. Up until now at least, it has not been the government building pipelines. It has been up to the government, partially through the NEB, to review applications approving or rejecting them, and to establish the conditions that allow them and other commercial activity to succeed. When they were in government, the Conservatives approved every single pipeline that came forward. We established the conditions in which the private sector put forward proposals and we approved those proposals after appropriate review, but we also made sure that that review was appropriate and it was not just a review process that simply bogged these things down in sort of eternal consultations.

Some critics wish that more pipelines had been built, but they have a hard time demonstrating how we could have built pipelines that were never proposed. If the infrastructure minister and others who are making this point are available to pose the question, I ask them to say how they propose we would build pipelines that had not been proposed.

Again, Conservatives approved every single pipeline proposal that came forward. We built four. We approved a fifth. We ensured that every project that was proposed succeeded. I am very proud of that record.

Conservatives have voted for pipelines. We have approved pipelines. We established the conditions under which pipelines were built. We got it done.

What about the Liberal government? It killed one pipeline, the northern gateway pipeline, directly. It killed the energy east pipeline indirectly by piling conditions on it that were designed to make it fail. Let us be very clear. These were conditions that were built to fail. They were put in place and left in place and were clearly designed to make future pipeline construction impossible.

At the same time, for political reasons, the government wants to try to have its cake and eat it, too. It wants to oppose pipelines but to be seen as supporting them at the same time, at least in some political markets.

The government approved the expansion of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline on the basis of interim principles. However, it is clear that the government has a dangerous agenda when it comes to pipelines, and that is to stop as many as possible. If this pipeline is built, it wants to make sure that it is the last one. If the government refuses to take the steps necessary to allow the pipeline to proceed on its own and resorts to either letting it die or nationalizing it, the government will have created conditions in which it will be very hard to imagine this type of critical, nation-building infrastructure being built in the future. That is the Liberal government policy.

Whoever would invest in an industry where projects were blocked by lawless protestors, in some cases lawless protestors who are members of Parliament, and some national governments block them outside of their jurisdiction and then projects are ultimately nationalized? Do these sound like the kinds of conditions that you, Madam Speaker, as a private sector investor, would find attractive?

We need to establish attractive conditions for those investments, which the government is not doing. The government must establish conditions in which vital projects, and not just this one, can be built with private dollars. It should defend all pipelines. It should vote for them. It should make the clear and obvious case for them, which is that pipelines transport vital energy resources efficiently and with a lower energy impact than the alternatives.

The government should stop talking out of both sides of its mouth. It should stop voting against pipelines, and it should start proceeding.

I would like to make a separate point, as well, about energy policy. That is that the crisis we face at this point is the result of a failed strategy by the government and by some other governments. Again, perhaps it is a strategy that is failing by design. The strategy invites us to look at energy policy as if it were some sort of hostage situation. If energy-producing jurisdictions make concessions, the argument goes, they will be able to move forward with energy development. Just pay the carbon tax, and that will buy the necessary goodwill to get progress on pipelines. Just a little more carbon tax, a little more sacrifice, and then John Horgan and Denis Coderre will release the hostages and support pipeline construction.

One does not need a Nobel Prize, even a fake one, to know that this strategy has failed. We do not want to negotiate with hostage takers anymore. The carbon tax is unaffordable to many Albertans and to people across this country. The federal government is trying to impose it even beyond its jurisdiction. Subnational governments are showing a lack of respect for the constitutional division of powers by trying to stop pipelines, and our national government is showing a lack of respect for the constitutional division of powers by trying to impose the carbon tax.

Objectively, it has not worked. It has not delivered social licence, that nebulous and immeasurable thing. The carbon tax has delivered poverty and misery. It has not delivered social licence, and it has not delivered a pipeline.

The bizarre thing about the government is that its rhetoric actually plays the hostage scenario both ways. It tells those on the right and in the centre that they have to accept the carbon tax to get a pipeline, then it tells those on the left that they have to accept the pipeline to get a carbon tax. If it is going to play this out, then it at least has to decide which is the hostage and which is the ransom.

This is all obviously ridiculous. We should build pipelines because they are in the national interest. We should oppose the carbon tax because it is not. The two are not linked in anyone's mind but the government's, as the current crisis demonstrates.

Our history shows us, right back to John A. Macdonald, that nation-building infrastructure is vital for our success, that every country needs the ability to access and engage in commerce with others. The government does not understand the importance of vital nation-building infrastructure. It is building walls instead of pipelines between provinces. That has to stop.

Under Sir John A. Macdonald, it took a Conservative to build nation-building infrastructure. It may well take a Conservative government again before we can finally build the nation-building infrastructure that will allow our energy sector to succeed.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the18th report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, in relation to 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 committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

If I may say so, our new access to information law, Bill C-58, does move towards proactive disclosure of certain things but doesn't touch on this at all.

My effort was to ensure that since we have the regulation-making powers of the Governor in Council under this particular bill in clause 24.... At this point the only thing the Governor in Council is empowered to do by regulation is to amend the schedule by adding or deleting any oil or class of oils. Expanding that to ensure that the Governor in Council can make regulations to facilitate public access to information, I think this is very helpful.

I know we're looking at Bill C-48 and not Bill C-58, but I am of the view of the Information Commissioner that Bill C-58 is legislation that takes us backwards and that will make it harder to access information. Anything we can do under this bill to make it easier for the public and first nations communities to have access to that information proactively....

Certainly there's no harm in this amendment, and I think you could ask your officials whether it does any damage. You can keep your fingers crossed and hope the public's going to be able to get at it, but I've said for years—it's a good line, so I'll say it again—that Canada's freedom of information acts have tended to, for years, be freedom from information. I don't think they're getting better, so anything we can do in this bill to create more access to the information that first nations have wanted on a timely basis and that environmental law groups have wanted on a timely basis....

Maybe the officials could tell me how it does any harm. The most I've heard them say so far is that we don't need it because it's redundant, and that's not something I believe.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. May. It's always a pleasure to have you here with us.

It is inadmissible, and I'll read out the rationale, as you've just said. Bill C-48 formalizes a crude oil tanker moratorium on the north coast of British Columbia. The amendment seeks to extend the application of the bill to the entire coast of British Columbia. It is my opinion, as chair, that the scope of the bill as agreed at second reading is limited to British Columbia's north coast. Therefore, the amendment is out of order. Consequential amendment PV-6 is also inadmissible.

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6)

We have amendment NDP-5. Mr. Cullen.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Forgive me, but I need to put on the record an objection to the process, to the fact that this committee passed a motion that deprives me of the right I would ordinarily have to present these amendments at report stage. I know that you individually did not intend to increase my workload, deprive me of my rights, and pass a motion that essentially requires me to be here, rather than giving me an opportunity, but I place my objection on the record and move to put forward the amendment, which is deemed to have been moved because I have no rights here, except for the motion you passed that makes me be here. I apologize for complaining about the nature of the manipulation.

The amendment I'm putting forward deals with the issue of the size of the vessel. You've certainly heard testimony from West Coast Environmental Law, Pacific Wild, the Sierra Club of British Columbia, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, and the Haida and the Heiltsuk nations, which have questioned the 12,500 metric ton threshold.

As you've just heard from our colleague, Nathan Cullen, that threshold is far larger than the spill that caused so much damage just recently, within the last year, the Nathan E. Stewart spill, which was a real threat to the Heiltsuk community and nation. Here, we're looking at the evidence of Transport Canada's report that in order for vessels to provide resupply shipments to the north coast, 3,200 metric tons is an appropriate limit on the size of the vessel.

I do want to say, by the way, that overall, I welcome Bill C-48. To give just a tiny bit of history, this bill essentially does what we had in place since 1972 through a voluntary moratorium on the shipment on the north coast of B.C., which the federal government and the British Columbia government had accepted—until the recent Conservative government.

Legislating the north coast tanker ban is welcome. I'll make other efforts to expand it, but overall, I certainly welcome this piece of legislation. I would much prefer, as would the communities along the coast, to ensure that the allowable shipments are held to 3,200 metric tons in bulk. My amendment goes to every place where you see 12,500 metric tons and changes it in each location to 3,200 metric tons.

Thank you.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Can I have some clarification, Chair, through you to the legislative clerk? It's more for my own edification and an understanding of why amendment NDP-1 was admissible but NDP-3 is not. They both deal with the notion of refined oil products that are not included in Bill C-48. We had deemed these both admissible simply because they were adding a category of products that were contemplated but were simply omitted from the bill.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

While understanding my colleague's point, this bill is explicitly and nominally to protect the coastal waters of British Columbia. That's the idea. You wouldn't invoke a moratorium on a certain transport of goods.... Well, you could, for other reasons, but my assumption all along has been that the reason we're banning and seeking to have a moratorium on these products moving in this way on the coast is the risk that's posed. This is the Prime Minister's declaration. This is the statement that I take at virtue.

If colleagues will also cast forward, we have some amendments that would lower the threshold of certain sizes of vessels that are also going to be permitted under this. This hangs with the idea of why we're doing this in the first place. Oil spills will continue to happen even with the passage of Bill C-48. I feel pretty confident in saying that, because whatever size of vessel is going to be allowed to go through.... We've seen it just this weekend. We saw it almost a year ago to the day this weekend. Spills will continue.

Even if Bill C-48 had been in place, these tankers—smaller tankers, barges—that move through the area will continue, so again, having spill response, it seems to me, is not harmful to the prospects of this legislation. It can do no harm, so why vote against it? That's essentially my argument.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Here's what I'm understanding. If a clause like this proposed new clause 2.1 says it's “to encourage and improve oil spill prevention and response on the north coast of British Columbia”, does that contravene the intention of Bill C-48? Does it work against the act as a moratorium on the usage and passage of large marine vessels?

Essentially, Chair, I'm wondering if it's harmful. Sometimes we have additive amendments, and this is deemed in order, so it's not outside the scope of the bill. I understand the central intent of the bill, but if new clause 2.1 doesn't work against that intent and only enhances, then I'm wondering what the specific concern might be from our officials or from government members, if they're planning, as I suspect, to vote against it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

We only have a certain number of amendments that we deem to be important on Bill C-48. I know that my colleague, Madam May, has some, and I think there might be one from the Liberals as well.

First of all, part of our amendments came directly from witness testimony that we heard at committee in reviewing Bill C-48, the north coast tanker ban. Part of it is also informed by the more than 10-year-long campaign that has been sought in the riding I represent in northwestern British Columbia, where most of this bill applies, in consultation with first nations leaders, environmental organizers and everyday citizens who have been concerned about the threat of tanker traffic on the north coast.

Amendment NDP-1 adds refined oil products to the ban. The nature of what can and cannot be shipped is at the heart of what any tanker moratorium would be. When you get into the specifics over the various materials that are shipped around the world today, you can get into the weeds a bit, if you will, Madam Chair, but we wanted to prevent refined oil spills because we have seen what those incidents can look like.

If you'll recall, colleagues, there was the Nathan E. Stewart incident, the tugboat that ran aground and sank near Bella Bella just about a year ago. There was a recent incident just in the news this weekend. The spills of those refined products, according to many experts who work in the field, can be just as bad or even sometimes worse than what's contemplated under Bill C-48.

We have other subsequent amendments to include this that would make the bill whole if amendment NDP-1 were to pass.

I look forward to my colleagues' interventions and support on the amendment.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order the 84th meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of the 42nd Parliament.

We have before us, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 4, 2017, 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.

As witnesses today, from the Department of Transport, we have Natasha Rascanin, Jennifer Saxe, Emilie Gelinas and Joseph Melaschenko.

We will do clause-by-clause consideration.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

(On clause 2)

We have amendment NDP-1.

Mr. Cullen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses. I think that was very valuable information. We appreciate your taking the time to come and visit us today.

Before I adjourn the meeting, just for the information of colleagues, Tuesday we will do clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-48. We will start immediately following the speeches. Hopefully, the clerk will have us in a meeting room on the Hill so that we won't have to lose too much time. We will continue until we have it finished. Hopefully, we'll have it finished on Tuesday.

Thank you again to the witnesses.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Marina Spahlinger, Manager, Regulatory and Stakeholder Relations, Canada, Royal Vopak]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

On behalf of Royal Vopak, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding Bill C-48.

We are an international tank storage company with a 400-year history and a strong focus on safety and sustainability.

As an infrastructure and service provider, we ensure efficient, safe, and clean storage in the handling of bulk liquid products and gases for our customers around the world. Our purpose is to store vital products with care. We currently operate 66 terminals in 25 countries, with a combined storage capacity of 35.9 million cubic metres. Four of these terminals are located in Ontario and Quebec, and we recently expanded our business to British Columbia, where we have a 30% interest in a new propane export terminal that is currently being built. Including our joint ventures and associates, we employ a work force of over 5,500 people globally.

Canada is a beautiful country, and we feel privileged to be doing business here. We appreciate Canada not only for the business opportunities it presents but also for continuously striving to be an environmental leader. We certainly enjoy Canada's pristine environment and we perfectly understand why you want to protect it.

That said, many of our terminals around the world are located in or near pristine natural environments, and our experience has shown that economic development and environmental protection can go hand in hand.

Let's consider the economic context of this moratorium. According to Natural Resources Canada, Canada was the sixth-largest energy producer in the world in 2016, yet 97% of oil and gas exports from Canada were sent to the U.S. The National Energy Board projects that net exports of Canadian energy will continuously increase until 2040. However, domestic petroleum consumption in the U.S. is expected to remain relatively flat over that same time frame.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that China and India will drive a 39% growth in liquid fuels consumption in non-OECD countries from 2015 to 2040, and that's due to rapid industrial growth and increased demand for transportation.

The moratorium as it is currently proposed would cut off a direct route to take advantage of this Asian market. This will continue to expose Canada to steep discounts on energy products that it can only sell to the American market. This raises the question of why Canada would expose itself to such a serious economic risk, particularly when you look at other economic consequences of such a decision, such as forgone tax revenues or employment opportunities.

As it stands, the moratorium is not supported by an independent scientific risk assessment that justifies why crude oil or persistent oils are included in it. This creates uncertainty for us and leads us to wonder what other items could be included in the future.

Additionally, there is no end in sight for the proposed legislation, as it does not include an end date. It is safe to say that this moratorium, if implemented, would set a worrying precedent that could make it riskier to conduct business in Canada.

Seven initiatives are currently being conducted by the Government of Canada to increase marine safety that we hope are being considered as part of the development of this legislation. These include, for example, the creation of lower-impact shipping corridors in the Arctic and aerial response planning pilot projects to help Canada adopt a regional risk-based marine preparedness and response system.

At the very least, we respectfully ask that Bill C-48 be amended to include an end date to the moratorium, as well as the process and the criteria for the inclusion and removal of items from the list of persistent oils.

Madam Chair, Vopak is keen to contribute to both economic growth and environmental protection. We would therefore be happy to engage in further discussions and share our expertise, should that be of any use.

Thank you again for the opportunity to talk to the committee.

[Peter Xotta, Vice-President, Planning and Operations, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority]

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Thank you for the invitation to make some comments. While the oil tanker moratorium act does not directly impact Canada's largest port from an operational perspective in Vancouver's Lower Mainland, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is pleased to provide our perspective and to respond to any questions the committee may have.

For context, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, like other Canadian port authorities, is established by the Government of Canada pursuant to the Canada Marine Act and is accountable to the federal Minister of Transport. Our mandate is to facilitate Canada's trade objectives by ensuring that goods move safely while protecting the environment and considering local communities.

With regard to Bill C-48, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority assumes that government understands the potential economic impact for such a moratorium, given that there are very few suitable locations, particularly on the west coast, for movement of petroleum products, as was articulated by my associate from Prince Rupert.

Notwithstanding the fact that any future proposals would be subject to government's rigorous environmental and regulatory review process, this moratorium could create pressure on the southwest coast of British Columbia to develop capacity for future energy projects. In turn, that pressure could constrain capacity for other commodities that must travel through the lower gateway of the port of Vancouver, such as grain, coal, and containerized consumer and manufactured goods. Supply chains are complex, with multiple participants, and it's important to understand that other ports could not necessarily easily pick up the slack for one commodity or another.

Turning to the matter of tanker safety, I want to point out that tankers have moved safely into and out of the port of Vancouver for decades. Our related procedures go above and beyond the baseline requirements, and we revisit them regularly and update them. I'd be happy to go into more detail on that.

Even with the moratorium, the risk of spills from vessels with less than 12,500 metric tonnes of oil requires excellence in spill response. The port authority echoes its submission to the tanker safety panel of 2013, noting that the government has taken significant strides to address recommendations raised by that panel and by contributors like the port of Vancouver.

The oceans protection plan goes a long way to addressing our concerns. We're aware that the government is aggressively moving to ensure the Canadian Coast Guard is adequately funded to respond to and manage spills in local waters, including being trained and resourced to provide comprehensive leadership.

We also recommended that local communities and individuals, including aboriginal peoples, must be involved in spill response plan development, oversight, and response, and fisher personnel and their vessels must be incorporated into a response strategy, particularly in remote locations, to provide an additional level of support. We're certainly pleased to see government acting in this regard also, through the oceans protection plan.

We reiterate the need for strategic placement of appropriate spill response equipment in locations of higher risk, which would lessen response times and improve response capabilities. The announcement of new Coast Guard stations on the west coast is an important step in the right direction, if they are in a position to provide such response.

The port is also optimistic that government will continue to implement the recommendations of the tanker safety panel. We believe there is a good level of understanding that the moratorium is only part of the puzzle in protecting our precious coastlines.

Lastly, the port authority encourages the committee to consider the work of unbiased voices, such as the Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Marine Shipping, an independent research centre that promotes safe and sustainable marine shipping in Canada. Clear Seas has now been established for over two years and is well positioned to provide support to government in the event that it may need to consider future policy changes with regard to Bill C-48.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. I look forward to your questions.

[Ken Veldman, Director, Public Affairs, Prince Rupert Port Authority]

I'm happy to. Thank you for inviting me here today.

I'll be focusing on the legislation's potential impacts on both current and future port operations and Canadian trade.

Measured by the value of trade that it facilitates, the Port of Prince Rupert is the third-largest port of Canada, and its volumes employ over 3,000 women and men in northern B.C. Competitive Canadian trade gateways not only add value to the industries, which use them for market access, but are significant economic generators themselves.

With respect to creating a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on B.C.'s north coast, we understand that protection of the marine environment is of paramount importance to Canadians. The environmental, cultural, and economic values associated with it are enormous. PRPA shares those values and considers environmental protection of lands and waters within the port to be a key element of its mandate.

It should be noted that the navigational approaches to and from the port are among the safest in Canada. This is a result of several factors, including relatively low marine traffic volume, uncongested and unrestricted marine approaches, a deep natural harbour, and short inland water transit times from the Triple Island pilot station. The low level of navigational risk has been quantified and validated by third parties.

Navigational risk is further mitigated by positive steps taken by PRPA, including investment in shore-based radar, navigational aids, real-time navigational data, and best-in-class practices and procedures that clearly describe rules to marine carriers for safe access to and from the port.

With that as context, I'd like to focus on the proposed schedule of products found in Bill C-48.

The list found in the schedule is very broad and has not been accompanied by demonstrable evidence as to why items have been selected for inclusion. There are potentially several trade opportunities that may be negatively impacted beyond the core objective of bitumen. In fact, the legislation has the potential to eliminate existing supply chains and proposed marine services, as well as unintentionally impact future Canadian imports and exports through Prince Rupert, which would have significant economic consequences for the country.

For example, the inclusion of slack wax, a feedstock that's used to create petroleum wax products for Canadian manufacturing, impacts a service and existing capital plant and equipment that has been successfully operating in the Prince Rupert harbour for decades without incident. A vessel that transports slack wax only discharges a portion of its cargo in Prince Rupert, usually below the 12,500-tonne threshold being proposed. However, the total volume carried by that vessel would be impacted by the moratorium, and this could eliminate the service from the port.

The legislation also does not recognize the potential for port services that handle, but are not exporting, heavy oil. For example, a proposed marine fuelling service that includes a 12,500-tonne bunker fuel storage barge in the harbour is currently undergoing an environmental assessment. The capability to fuel large marine vessels at anchor in the port is a critical strategic service that the port needs as it strives to grow Canadian trade. An arbitrary storage limit is a potential hindrance to the development of these kinds of services.

The committee should also be aware that the production of refined petroleum and natural gas liquids is forecast to expand in Canada. In the case of refined petroleum products, while the bill's schedule omits several refined products, it also includes many of the products of the same production process, such as heavier oils and lubricants. The inability to market and maximize value for those heavier products would negatively impact the total economics of the refinery. Similarly, the inability for a future liquid bulk terminal to offer a full slate of refined and natural gas liquids would negatively impact its investment case as well.

Lastly, Transport Canada also notes that amendments to the schedule could be considered, following a regulatory review that would primarily assess whether the ability to clean up a spill has improved. While these criteria are rational to include, the exclusion of criteria specifically related to the empirical risk of an incident spill is a significant oversight. In an extreme example, conditions could be created that eliminated all risk of an incident, yet a product would still be banned under the moratorium because of the challenges of cleanup. Given the strategic attributes of Prince Rupert and our advantage of being arguably the safest port on the west coast of North America, this is a significant oversight in the legislation.

We have the recommendations that follow for amendments to Bill C-48.

Number one, the legislation's schedule of commodities should be reviewed to ensure a full understanding of the trade, economic, and operational impacts of their inclusion.

Number two, the review should be based on demonstrable evidence for their inclusion and include robust consultation with industry and marine transportation experts.

Lastly, number three, the legislation should contain language that requires periodic quantified assessments of the risk of marine incidents in order to provide an improved context for the regulatory process of reviewing the schedule on an ongoing basis.

Thank you.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling to order meeting number 82 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 4, 2017, on 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.

I'm very happy to welcome the officials here today to help provide the committee members with some very valuable information. From the Department of the Environment, we have Heather McCready, director general, environmental enforcement; Michael Enns, executive director, environmental enforcement; Marc Bernier, director, environmental science and technology laboratories; and Carl Brown, manager of emergencies science and technology section.

We also have, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Gregory Lick, director general, operations. I have to acknowledge, since we're celebrating Navy Day and the Coast Guard, that Mr. Lick has received an award for his long-standing career and achievements and dedicated service to the Coast Guard. Congratulations, and thank you for your service.

We also have, from the Department of Natural Resources, Christine Siminowski, director of the Canadian oil, refining and energy security division, energy sector, and Kim Kasperski, director, environmental impacts, at CanmetENERGY.

Thank you all very much for being here today.

Ms. McCready, who would like to go first?