Transport Committee on Oct. 31st, 2017

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'm curious. If Trans Mountain were to go ahead and the project were completed, would that not achieve the increased-value component of the argument that you just made by allowing us to get to other international markets, across the Pacific, for example?

[Dr. Andrew Leach]

It allows you to get there with some of the barrels, but it doesn't let you get all the barrels there. We saw as of last week the gap between WTI and Brent blow out above five dollars, so right now on the difference between shipping our crude into that U.S. mid-continent market versus shipping it by rail to the west coast, you're getting close to a point where you'd be better off shipping by rail west as opposed to into the Midwest by pipe. If that continues—having that ability to move product, particularly by rail or pipeline, having that option value—I wouldn't rule out that you could end up in a situation where even if we have enough physical capacity to move our barrels, we'll still have some value associated with the option to move it, particularly by rail to Prince Rupert.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

If Trans Mountain goes forward, what increase to our daily export capacity would that add?

[Dr. Andrew Leach]

Well, it's movement of about 800,000 out of western Canada. How it changes our export capacity depends on how they configure their loading terminals and what have you. But I'd say that's a pretty good estimate for what it does to our export capacity.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

On a different topic, you mentioned during your remarks that the 12,500-tonne limit would, for all intents and purposes, prevent commercial traffic. Is this because it would just render it economically not viable?

[Dr. Andrew Leach]

Yes, and the caveat in the bill of preventing ship-to-ship transfers as well.... Most of your traffic that would be for commercial export is not going to be on a small general-purpose tanker. It's going to be on a panamax or aframax, or larger, so 10 times that size.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

During our last panel one of the things they were advocating for was reducing that limit out of concerns regarding the consequences should a spill occur. Is the limit that they recommended—3,200 tonnes—which is what I understand is being used today, going to remain the case?

[Dr. Andrew Leach]

Yes. If you tighten the limit any further, you're not changing the commercial viability of export-type transactions. Whether I ship 12,500, or 3,000, I'm not moving that. It does speak, however, to Mr. Lewis-Manning's question about how it prevents you from having multiple-pooled cargoes, and these sorts of questions in there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you again to our guests for appearing and for your testimony.

Mr. Lewis-Manning, you mentioned a number of concerns, and you outlined some suggestions. When you talk about the risk assessment every five years, have you submitted that to this committee? In other words, could you submit that recommendation to ensure that the committee sees that in written form?

[Robert Lewis-Manning]

It was absolutely my intent to submit a brief after appearing before the committee.

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

Thank you.

Ms. MacDuffee, you mentioned in your testimony that you support this bill. Do you support it as written?

[Misty MacDuffee]

I'm definitely supporting the geographic scope and the substances, particularly if you were to expand the geographic scope, expand the size restriction on what can be transported, specifically thinking about the transport of what you call safe passage or unsafe passage through British Columbia by smaller tankers. If that could also be addressed.... Maybe that's a regulation or a separate thing. It's also a risk. We do support the scope of it as it is now.

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

Do you have any suggested amendments? Previous witnesses have suggested amendments to the bill.

[Misty MacDuffee]

If there were an amendment to address the 10,000- or 12,000-tonne limit of tug and tow export, or passage through that region, that would be advantageous.

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

Do you have a suggestion as to what you would—

[Misty MacDuffee]

Do you mean as to what limit that would be? You wouldn't want to restrict the use of local fuels by communities on the coast but just the larger passage of those barge tankers.

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

Could you talk about ministerial discretion? Do you have any concerns with what's currently in the bill in terms of the ability for the minister to decide to allow tanker traffic through, if he or she so designates, and not just currently as it's written, but in future governments as well?

[Misty MacDuffee]

I would only echo Gavin Smith's statements as to whether there's too much discretion for emergencies in that particular case.

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

I asked previous witnesses about imagine scenarios. We had past scenarios of imagining more tankers, pipelines, and rail traffic, and refineries being built in that area off the north coast. You painted a picture of what that coast looks like today, which I certainly imagine and think is incredible.

Could you also imagine what a large oil spill of, say, bitumen—if that were to be transported into that region—could do to those waters and that area that you described?

[Misty MacDuffee]

The worst thing about diluted bitumen is that it captures the worst of all fuels. It captures the acutely volatile and lethal components. It captures the long-term persistent components. We don't have to look very far to see what cold water crude oil spills look like on this coast, and the impacts they've had on populations elsewhere, specifically Alaska.

We've looked at these kinds of things on our coast. We look at what makes populations vulnerable, small populations, large aggregations of animals that are together in certain spaces or certain times. All it takes is one poorly timed spill to have repercussions that last for decades, if not longer.

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

Are there any that come to mind in terms of the area? I'm thinking about the Nathan E. Stewart, for instance, which was a recent spill that would be categorized as a relatively small fuel spill.

[Misty MacDuffee]

Exactly—it was small and also involved a substance that's deemed not as dangerous as other substances are. It really speaks to the consequences of lighter fuels, diesel and more refined fuels, and the scale and impact of small spills.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Iacono.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here today.

The Nathan E. Stewart ran aground in Bella Bella in 2016, spilling more than 110,000 litres of the diesel fuel it was carrying. According to media reports, the spill endangered wildlife and altered the livelihoods of the region's indigenous community.

What steps could be taken to mitigate the risks of smaller oil spills in fragile ecosystems, particularly in cases where communities rely on aquaculture for their livelihood?