Transport Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett, Chief Councillor, Heiltsuk Tribal Council]

Hello. Can you hear me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, we can hear you clearly. Would you like to start?

[Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett]

Sure. Are you ready?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We're ready. We're just hoping that our systems will all work as well.

Go ahead for five minutes maximum, please.

[Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett]

Good morning.

My name is Káwázil, Marilyn Slett. I am the chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, which is the elected leadership for the Heiltsuk First Nation.

We support Canada's building of world-class marine corridors that are safe and competitive while protecting the coastal environment. We have managed our traditional marine territory for thousands of years. Safe and healthy marine corridors are vitally important to us. This committee has heard much about the need for marine transport to be financially competitive, which implies low-cost approaches. Heiltsuk believes that world-class marine corridors are worth paying for with the creation of safe, ecologically viable systems where industry pays its fair share for modern-day risks, which is what the public demands.

We have three key points.

First, a system of world-class marine corridors means that government must be able to control traffic in sensitive ecological areas and harvesting areas. Heiltsuk raised this issue on Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act, but it did not find its way into the final version. This committee has the opportunity when addressing other legislation, such as the Pilotage Act, to include a power to decide where vessels, especially oil carriers, may or may not travel in sensitive areas.

Spills in sensitive areas are better avoided through the regulation of marine corridors. Heiltsuk's experience with the Nathan E. Stewart oil spill in 2016 illustrates that oil spills are costly for everyone: for governments, for indigenous communities and for shipowners. Millions of dollars were spent on raising the vessel and responding to other aspects of the spill. Heiltsuk spent significant amounts on its own response to the spill and on its attempts to negotiate a robust environmental impact assessment. The cost of our environmental impact assessment and remediation is currently unknown, but will be significant. The incident is subject to current litigation, which is expected to be lengthy and expensive.

All of the existing regulations were not able to prevent the spill from the Nathan E. Stewart in a key harvesting area. One officer was on watch, whereas two were required. He lacked pilotage qualifications. He fell asleep. The navigation alarms were off and spill responders did not arrive and deploy booms in time to confine the spill. The existing compensation regime does not compensate [Technical difficulty—Editor] or cultural losses. In the long run, regulation of marine corridors is in everyone's best interests, including industry and government, because it will help avoid spills in the most harmful areas.

Second, a system of world-class marine corridors must include indigenous pilots, and where the west coast lacks indigenous pilots, local pilots and seafarers know the coast intimately. They will put the safety and protection of the coastal environment first because that is the foundation of their traditional practices.

Third, Heiltsuk recognizes that even with the best safeguards, there may be accidents. There must be a world-class spill response centre. Heiltsuk had proposed the building of an indigenous marine response centre in Bella Bella that would provide a maximum five-hour response time, and our IMRC would always make emergency response vessels available instead of the current tug of opportunity system, indigenous leadership, [Technical difficulty—Editor], the weather, and the specific areas that would be in danger.

The work of the standing committee is a real opportunity for Canada to directly consult with Heiltsuk and other indigenous peoples. We are pleased to see the progress on pieces of legislation that provide for some indigenous engagement. However, there needs to be a full embrace of UNDRIP and indigenous engagement. It is only when Canada recognizes our self-determination in our territories that there is true reconciliation.

Gayaxsixa. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thanks very much, Ms. Slett.

Let's try Mr. Lantin again.

Okay, let's try Mr. Helin.

[John Helin, Mayor, Lax Kw'alaams Band]

Thank you. I'm John Helin, the mayor of Lax Kw'alaams. It's normally the chief councillor but in my community I'm called the mayor.

We're a band of approximately 4,000 members on the north coast of B.C. We have lived from the sea for thousands of years like other first nations in the country. We value our environment whether it's water, sea or air. We have the biggest gillnet fishing fleet on the coast that can't make a living anymore, so we have to look at other opportunities that present themselves.

We disagree with the tanker moratorium that's going through the process now. We were not consulted. What they are using as guidelines to impose that on us is the Great Bear Rainforest. It's another piece of legislation in B.C. that we were not consulted on. At the end of it all, we'll probably end up in court fighting it. It's not the place we want to be. We want to be able to make a decent living in our traditional territories as some of court cases that have been won by first nations groups say we should.

When the Prime Minister talks about consultation, reconciliation, self-reliance, something like the tanker ban closes doors for us. I think it's incumbent upon me as a leader in my community to go to my membership and ask them what they want. It shouldn't be imposed on us by the government in Ottawa.

It's important that we do look at other opportunities. I met with the Province of B.C. recently. We will meet again soon on a northern energy strategy in B.C. For those of you who don't know, there was a study done a few years ago by the federal government on ports in B.C. around oil. The safest ports, there were two of them, one right across from my community, Grassy Point, and the other one in the Prince Rupert area of Ridley Island. The worst port is Burnaby. That study pointed this out very clearly.

Again, it should be the people in the area. We're not all going to agree as first nations people or the general public on what we want to deal with in our traditional territories, but we shouldn't let NGOs come into our territories and divide us. That was very clearly done on the PNW project. I had members from my community who were on Lelu Island and saying that they were hereditary leaders. We know our community. We know our membership. Clearly there was money parachuted into that project and it divided people. It's very real. What I would like to do as an elected leader of my community is get valid information on whatever project is going to be proposed, get that out to our membership and let them decide in a referendum. We treated that PNW project exactly like a regular election for my position where everybody got the same information. It was independent information that went to all community members, and that changed the vote from just 100% no to over two-thirds supporting that project. That's how we would like to handle anything that's being proposed in our traditional territory.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll move to our second Mr. Helin, from Eagle Spirit Energy Holding Ltd.

Welcome.

[Calvin Helin, Chairman and President, Eagle Spirit Energy Holding Ltd.]

[Witness speaks in Sm'algyax]

Thank you very kindly for the invitation to be here today.

I'm speaking on behalf of Eagle Spirit and the chiefs council. The chiefs council consists of about 35 communities, from Lax Kw'alaams up to Fort McMurray. I'll be speaking specifically in relation to Bill C-48, but I will have some comments on Bill C-69.

A meeting of all of our chiefs was held in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago. The chiefs council is completely opposed to Bill C-48. The general tenor of their concern is that they have constitutional rights over their traditional territory. They don't think anybody, particularly what they call “latte-slurping elitist environmentalists”, should be coming into their territory and trying to ram stuff down their throats. They look at that as being wholly inappropriate. There wasn't any consultation whatsoever.

You heard from John relating to the Lax Kw'alaams community. All of the communities along the route feel that their right to be able to determine what happens in their traditional territory is being infringed upon by this proposed legislation.

The chiefs council passed a resolution to quash Bill C-48 by legal and other means, so that will be proceeding forward. It may be unknown to this committee that there's now a National Coalition of Chiefs. It's a group of the chiefs across Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C., and will probably include the two northern territories. They are essentially fed up with this environmentalist agenda being rammed down their throats. They feel it's being done by American-financed environmental groups. There's plenty of evidence to support that.

They passed a similar resolution. There will probably be about 200 first nations opposed to both Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, and I'll explain that a little further. These resolutions have been included, and I have some other information for you.

The other thing our chiefs wonder about is how come this is being proposed, essentially to cut off half of B.C.'s coast to important commercial traffic, when tanker shipping of oil and petroleum fuels is happening everywhere else in Canada. There are about 4,000 inbound oil tankers each year to the east coast, 82 million tonnes of petroleum and fuel products, and 25 million tonnes of crude oil and petroleum products in and out of 39 ports. There is 89% of the shipments that go into Quebec City and Montreal. The question they ask is whether the federal government would consider imposing such a ban in Quebec or anywhere else.

We are from the north, and environmental concerns are at the top of the list of our concerns. That is why we got involved in this project. We feel that we have probably the highest, most robust environmental model in the world for the oceans protection plan that's been proposed by the federal government. We feel that's minimal. We will voluntarily comply with a much higher standard. The government keeps talking about $1.5 billion, I believe, for ocean protection, but what they don't explain is that is being applied to 14,000 kilometres of shoreline along the entire Canadian coast when you need that kind of money focused in one area.

We respect the rights of other indigenous people in their traditional territory to disagree with this position, and that's the position of our chiefs. At the same time, the protocol amongst first nations and the law is that you can have an opinion on somebody else's territory, but you don't have any rights to determine what happens in their territory.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Helin, would you go to your closing remarks.

[Calvin Helin]

The bills, both C-48 and C-69, are inconsistent with articles 23 and 26 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The council chiefs and likely the National Coalition of Chiefs will file human rights violations with the United Nations for breach of UNDRIP, treaty and aboriginal rights infringement, unacceptable colonialist social engineering policy, blocking the poorest people in Canada from exercising their inherent right to be able to raise their own revenue for their own purposes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Helin. I'm sorry I have to cut you off.

[Calvin Helin]

I have just one last thing.

We've been working with the three western provinces, and we will be engaging with the two northern territories. We're looking to have an energy corridor accord signed and supported by the three western provinces and the two northern territories.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Unfortunately, we're going to have to have Mr. Lantin by phone.

Are you there, Mr. Lantin?

[Peter Lantin]

Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me okay?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, we can. Please, you have five minutes.

[Peter Lantin]

Greetings from Haida Gwaii.

Can you hear me okay?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Keep talking. We'll stop you if we have a problem.

[Peter Lantin]

My name is kil tlaats 'gaa Peter Lantin and I'm the elected president and official spokesperson on behalf of the Haida Nation. I'll begin with some context for our submission.

The Haida Nation's territory is vast. It includes the entirety of Haida Gwaii and its surrounding waters. It includes the entire Dixon Entrance, half of Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound halfway to Vancouver Island and westward beyond the 200 nautical mile limit. Haida Gwaii has supported our people and culture since time immemorial. The land, ocean and living creatures are essential for the health and well-being of Haida culture and citizens, as well as the citizens of Canada.

Haida Gwaii must be managed to a higher standard of care with a lower threshold of risk for two reasons. First, we collaboratively manage much of Haida Gwaii with both the federal and provincial governments. Second, Haida Gwaii is not subject to a treaty and we are in active litigation with the Government of Canada and British Columbia, in respect of Haida Gwaii.

Our submission will focus on two areas. The first is the burden of risk posed by marine shipping and the second with regard to the recommendations to prevent this risk.

The Haida nation bears an unacceptable burden of risk posed by marine shipping under Canada's current regulatory framework. For those who don't know where Haida Gwaii is located, we are located in a very unique, specific place in Canada. Haida Gwaii lies along major shipping routes from the ports of Prince Rupert, Kitimat and Stewart. We're close to the great circle route between North America and Asia and the shipping route between the southern U.S. and Alaska. Proposed liquefied natural gas terminals and other trade expansions, including the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline, would result in increased shipping traffic through Haida territorial waters.

Our concerns about the unacceptable burden of risk are not unfounded. Several large cargo ships and vessels have come dangerously close to grounding and causing a major spill. These include the Simushir in 2014, the North Star in 2015 and the Prestige earlier this year. Since the Simushir near miss in 2014, the priority for the Haida Nation has remained the same. Prevention is the priority.

While the Haida Nation is collaborating with the Canadian Coast Guard to establish a Haida Gwaii response plan, the recent Nathan E. Stewart incident in Heiltsuk territory demonstrates that any response plan will be ineffective at cleaning up or preventing oil products from reaching the coastline. The very real possibility that our people might not be able to continue to rely upon our oceans is what drives us to ensure that these catastrophes do not occur.

We provide four preventative strategies. First, Canada must implement a permanent moratorium on shipping oil products through Haida Gwaii and north coast waters. The Haida citizens have mandated through the Haida Nation's legislative assemblies a permanent moratorium on the transport of large quantities of all petroleum products through Haida Gwaii waters. We urge Canada to do the same. Canada must not only implement the oil tanker moratorium act, but it also must expand the moratorium to include export of all fossil fuels and persistent and non-persistent oil products through Haida Gwaii and north coast waters.

Our second preventative strategy is that Canada must introduce measures to establish a safe distance offshore for existing shipping traffic. Since 2015, the Haida Nation has advocated for a risk mitigation zone of 50 to 100 nautical miles off the west coast of Haida Gwaii. A similar objective was also adopted by Parks Canada and DFO in the Gwaii Haanas land-sea-people plan, which was just approved recently by both Canadian and Haida Nation governments.

The third preventative strategy is that Canada must commit to dedicating ocean-going rescue towing vessels. Recent studies have shown that a towing vessel in northern locations will dramatically improve response times and success rates. This was done in a study by the Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Marine Shipping, yet Canada has only committed to leasing two rescue tugs over a three-year trial period. It has not made any commitments for permanent vessels. Canada must implement longer-term solutions, with at least two vessels in the north coast and one permanently stationed on Haida Gwaii.

The fourth and final preventative strategy is that Canada must respect international obligations. We remind Canada that the collaborative management bodies established under the Haida-Canada agreement are available to begin implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in a way that respects and implements reconciliation.

In summary, Canada's current regulatory framework for maritime trade does not address our concerns. We recommend that Canada expand the oil tanker moratorium to include refined oil products, introduce measures to ensure that vessels transit a safe distance offshore from Haida Gwaii, and finally, commit to a permanently stationed rescue tow vessel on Haida Gwaii.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll go to Ms. Anderson, please, for five minutes.

[Natalie Anderson, Referrals Coordinator, Cowichan Tribes]

Thank you.

’Uy’ skweyul. Good morning.

I am here on behalf of Cowichan Tribes, a modern day Indian Act band, descended from the historic Cowichan nation, comprised also of Lyackson First Nation, Halalt First Nation, Penelakut Tribe, and Stz'uminus First Nation. With the broad scope of this committee and our community's concerns in mind, my statement today will focus on impacts of the trade supply chain to and from the western ports, more specifically the cumulative effects of marine shipping and associated anchorages.

As a coastal community, Cowichan Tribes has endured the ever-increasing impacts of marine activities and the associated shipping and anchorages for decades. When concerns have been communicated to legislators and regulators in the past, the best-case scenario has been assurances that the health of the Canadian economy benefits all citizens or that wide-reaching initiatives such as the oceans protection plan will mitigate, nullify or reverse impacts. The worst-case scenario is that we are outright ignored or told that any impacts are inevitable for the sake of progress.

Across all coastal communities, the supposed benefits of marine activities that contribute to the overall Canadian economy are hardly, if ever, actually realized and certainly not to an extent that would offset the impacts. The pressure on the coast to accept and shoulder the burden of increasing activity for economic progress is not only unbalanced, but reckless. It is a direct contributor to the ongoing alienation of first nations in particular—as rights holders, not just stakeholders—from their traditional lands, waters and ways of life.

Furthermore, the contribution to climate change and other detrimental environmental impacts, such as the dwindling and distressed southern resident killer whale population, cannot be discounted. The reality of climate change should, along with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, be obviously, meaningfully and urgently used to guide any future policy, legislation or regulation.

The oceans protection plan, or OPP, is often touted at the political level as a panacea for any and all concerns being raised by Cowichan Tribes. However, at the technical and therefore practical level, the OPP is underfunded, confusing and yet another example of the paternalistic approach this government employs when making plans and decisions that compound the impacts to and restraints on our rights and title. There is no doubt that federal employees are working as hard as they can and those efforts are appreciated. However, it isn't appropriate to be explaining away concerns related to marine impacts with the OPP on one hand while on the other hand underfunding and ineffectively rolling out this convoluted aggregation of disparate coastal initiatives.

The historical reality of increasing and cumulative impacts is also not meaningfully addressed or incorporated into the OPP. While there is a cumulative effects team pertaining to OPP, this appears to be restricted to marine vessel activity, which does not accurately represent all increased and cumulative impacts on the west coast. Furthermore, consultation and engagement efforts are inherently stunted when baseline data isn't capturing the extent to which first nations have been alienated from their traditional territories and ways of life.

For example, the anchorages issue has been gaining a lot of attention as of late and an interim anchorages protocol has been established to address it. However, this issue cannot be restricted to current anchorage use or how to accommodate increases. Cowichan Tribes has never been—and has yet to be—meaningfully consulted on anchorage placement and use. This has resulted in impacts from the poor regulation of vessels at anchor, which includes issues such as illegal fishing, invasive species introduction, noise and light pollution, and so on. More generally, it simply isn't enough for any initiative to be looking at the status quo and how to accommodate increases in trade and shipping. Instead, a fulsome analysis of cumulative effects over the course of colonial history and how to incorporate the principles of reconciliation, reclamation and decolonization into policy, regulation and legislation is absolutely necessary.

Cowichan Tribes needs this committee and the federal government to understand that the effects of trade structures and activities have been impacting and continue to impact our already marginalized community and inherent aboriginal rights and title.

Huy tseep q'u. Thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Anderson.

We'll move to our committee members.

Go ahead, Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. It is good to hear from all of you.

As you are aware, we have undertaken this study. It has been in the works for quite some time and now we are actually getting down to holding some meetings on it. There has been some travel done and I believe we're doing this to understand both the challenges and the opportunities that face our transportation system, with a view to trying to address them through a logistics study.

However, we continually find ourselves dealing with legislation that seems to be working contrary to the very study that we are undertaking, when we look at legislation like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. Some witnesses have mentioned measures in the BIA 2 that affect the marine industry, as well as our shipping stakeholders. You've mentioned the Great Bear Rainforest, which is 6.4 million hectares that has now been turned into a national park. This appears to catch communities and industry stakeholders by surprise many times.

I'll ask this of both Mr. Helin and Chief Helin. Could you advise this committee about what impacts Bill C-69 will have on your organization, your communities and whether or not you believe that pipelines should be an integral part of Canada's transportation corridor strategy?

[John Helin]

Thank you for the question and for realizing that one of the worst ways to ship oil is by rail, but that it is increasingly happening right now. We know what happens when trains derail and if that product gets into the water.

Pipelines are the safest way to ship or send product to the coast. It just makes sense that you put a pipeline to the safest port on the coast, so that everything we're talking about here—prevention is key and the environment is key, but how do you do that without having the proper policies and procedures in place? Having somebody ram something down your throat that just cuts everything off won't work.

[Calvin Helin]

I don't know if people in Ottawa have a real sense of the strength of feeling, both of the chiefs and, I think, of the people in the western provinces and the northern provinces. We're losing $100 million a day, by some estimates, in having no access to pipelines.

Just as a practical matter, where do people think our tax revenues come from? Just on that lower amount per year—they call it “air barrels”—the tax coffers of Canada and Alberta are losing about $20 billion a year. That includes the first nations groups in Alberta and Saskatchewan that have their own oil reserves. Instead of getting, at one time, $80 a barrel, they're getting $15 a barrel. It's absurd.

We deal with various national oil companies. They look at Canada and cannot believe we would be doing this, particularly when we've been able to develop.... Our mandate from our chiefs when we started this was to develop the greenest project on the face of the planet, and we've done that. We have technology that will, on shipping two million barrels a day, reduce over 100 megatonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere. It will not create tailings ponds. Instead of using 45 million cubic metres of water per year, this technology recirculates the water. So you're not using the water.

We can produce Alberta oil on a greener basis than just about any other oil on the planet. We will utilize the Site C dam and renewable energy.

Most important, Maclean's magazine came out with an article a few months ago referring to first nations communities as having the same social statistics as Nigeria, Sudan and other countries like that. Most of these communities have 90% unemployment. We have a government that claims to be supporting UNDRIP, and it's pushing this down their throats, and there are no other alternatives for a lot of these communities.