Transport Committee on Oct. 31st, 2017

[Gavin Smith]

No. The key issue would be that there be a relatively short-term expiry period in order to ensure that exemption orders aren't used for purposes other than emergency circumstances. There's no magic in the number of one year, and there may be reasons that a different time period is appropriate. We also note, and it should be included in that amendment, that the minister could set a shorter time period in the order itself. That's not the required timeline; it would just be the cap on that.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

The final one on that is something that Mr. Hardie brought up regarding the Canada Gazette. Is there any downside, do you think, to publishing this information in the Canada Gazette?

[Gavin Smith]

I'm not aware of any downside.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Lobb asked a number of you to imagine a refinery, and imagine if there was more product being shipped by rail. I want to ask a different imagine question. Imagine this had gone through, and tankers were able to now take out bitumen.

Could you imagine what a spill of bitumen...? You referenced the Nathan E. Stewart, and that was a relatively small spill of fuel.

In the remaining time, could you imagine what a large bitumen spill would do to your area and to the northwest coast?

Maybe Mr. Nobels could start.

[Modestus Nobels]

I realize it's Halloween, but I would not like to imagine a more frightening scenario. I'm a lifelong mariner. I was a commercial fisherman for over three decades. I have seen oil spills of varying sizes. I have seen large tar balls, as they're termed, which is bunker C, on beaches. In the hot sun, that melts and coats everything and kills everything it touches. A spill of a magnitude that you refer to would be catastrophic. It would be the end for most of the communities in the region in which I live. It would spell an end to the economy that we have built for ourselves, and to control. It would mean an end to life as we know it, to be perfectly honest. For many of us, it would spell the end of our ability to continue to live in the region where we are. That's why we are so determined to see this bill through. It's something that has been four decades in the working. We believe this would be the cornerstone on which to build a new economy for the region, and it will precipitate the move to a sustainable economy.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Is there any time left for the other witnesses to add?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have one minute left.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

So maybe each of you can take 30 seconds on just what it would mean to coastal communities.

[Caitlyn Vernon]

It's hard to add to what Des just said.

I recently had the privilege of travelling to the Galapagos Islands in Ecuador, a place that people in the world know as being rich in biodiversity. Honestly, the abundance of life, marine and land, that I saw there reminded me of the Great Bear Rainforest. The diversity of life in the Great Bear Rainforest on B.C.'s north coast is unlike anything else in North America. It is a place where, on a boat one day, I saw sea otters on one side, orca whales over here, humpback whales over there. It's hard to know where to look. There are cultures who have been depending on the land for tens of thousands of years. The land and sea are intricately connected, so the Great Bear Rainforest, forest jobs, wildlife, tourism, the trees, the bears, the wolves, everything depends on salmon. Everything depends on a healthy marine environment. The people depend on a healthy marine environment. We're talking about rich biodiversity. We're talking about incredible opportunities for tourism. We're talking about the fisheries economy. We're talking about cultures. Everything depends on a healthy marine environment. A catastrophic large-scale oil spill would destroy all of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be sharing my time with my colleague Mr. Hardie.

Northern B.C. is a pristine environment, home to the Great Bear Rainforest, but much of coastal B.C. is also made up of temperate rainforest.

In your view, how will the oil tanker moratorium for northern B.C. affect the broader aim of protecting coastal rainforests throughout the province?

[Caitlyn Vernon]

I can speak to that again.

The Great Bear Rainforest is the world's largest intact coastal temperate rainforest. The agreements that have been formed between first nations, industry, government, and environmental groups have been recognized globally. We don't need industrial sacrifices to support our economy; we can find ways for communities to thrive and prosper within ecological limits. All of these agreements that have been recognized, that have been signed, depend on a healthy marine environment. The salmon literally provides food for the trees. The bears depend on the salmon. The edge between land and sea is permeated; it's not a firm boundary. Everything depends on everything else, and so the integrity of the ecosystems of the Great Bear Rainforest, which is truly a global treasure, depend on a healthy ocean and depend on bills such as Bill C-48, and I would argue even more strongly, on prohibiting refined oils and articulated tug barges like the Nathan E. Stewart which also have an impact on the rainforest.

I don't know if either of you wants to say something else.

[Modestus Nobels]

As Caitlyn mentioned, there is no separation between land and sea; it is one. The land provides for the sea. The nutrient base is coming from the land through the myriad of streams that exist there and feed the marine environment. That, in turn, returns with the fish and the salmon that travel up these rivers, so you have a continual exchange of nutrients taking place between the land and the sea. One cannot exist without the other, and both will be impacted equally by any catastrophic event.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Would you like to add to that?

[Gavin Smith]

I would add maybe just one point.

About a month ago I had the honour of travelling to the territories of Saik'uz first nation, which is around what is now known as Vanderhoof in British Columbia. Saik'uz was a member of the Yinka Dene Alliance of first nations who were opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline. I was there for a celebration of the end of Northern Gateway. I just wanted to recognize that I travelled here with Chief Jackie Thomas of Saik'uz, and that the six Yinka Dene Alliance first nations have been adamant that the oil tanker moratorium act is an important tool to ensure they maintain their territories in the face of proposals for oil pipelines for which they refused to give their consent. These proposals are also immensely important to many first nations and other communities that were along the routes of those projects.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Now I have a question for the West Coast Environmental Law Association representative.

In an open letter, your organization expressed support for Bill C-48. You also, however, questioned the 12,500-tonne threshold.

Could you comment on that and provide any recommendations you have?

[Gavin Smith]

This connects in part to Mr. Hardie's question.

With regard to the 12,500-tonne threshold, we're recommending that the committee seek further information from Transport Canada about why the 12,500-tonne threshold was selected, when the study released by Transport Canada in October this year indicated that fuel barges for resupply on B.C.'s north coast have a cargo capacity ranging from 1,600 to 3,200 tonnes. That would be the actual capacity of the barge. The threshold is obviously about four times that amount. It wasn't clear to us in reviewing the study why it would be necessary to have a threshold four times that amount.

We've previously suggested that the threshold be as low as possible in order to ensure both that the region is protected from larger spills and that future project proposals for large increases of crude or persistent oil marine traffic in the region aren't put forward. We would suggest to the committee that they seek further information from Transport Canada about whether the 12,500-tonne threshold could indeed achieve that objective, and why it was selected.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

I'll now turn the floor over to Mr. Hardie.

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

Thank you.

Is there anything further that this bill misses?

[Modestus Nobels]

There's nothing I can point to.

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

Okay. Fair enough.

Mr. Smith, are the amendments your organization is proposing really intended to pre-empt some future government from straying outside the lines prescribed by the current transport minister?

[Gavin Smith]

Although Minister Garneau has been very clear that the provision would be used for emergencies, the concern is that there is no requirement that the provision be used for emergencies only in the future. It could potentially be used for indefinite exemptions. That creates a risk and an uncertainty about whether the exemption provision could be used to effectively circumvent the prohibitions of the act in future. That concern is real. For that reason, we've suggested those amendments—to ensure that it can achieve its purpose of providing for emergency supplies while not being misused.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Smith.

We'll move on to Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

I'll pick up right where we left off on the issue of the exemption and what the fear is.

Is there really a concern—instead of an emergency situation as the minister described—that somebody is going to say it's in the public interest for economic reasons to start allowing tanker traffic to come through and undoing protections in the legislation? Is that what this argument is really geared towards?

[Gavin Smith]

Hypothetically, let's say an existing industry on the coast wanted to expand its operations such that it would require tanker shipments. It's possible that the exemption provision could be used by a minister to allow those industrial resupply exemptions. Obviously, many groups would argue against that.

Yes, it is to provide for certainty, in that the prohibitions of the act would in future—and as long as it is in force—ensure that oil tankers aren't being allowed into the region contrary to the purposes of the act.