Transport Committee on Oct. 31st, 2017

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Their comment was that it will float and that it won't break down if it is in the water.

I have one other comment on that, because we know that Northern Gateway is off and that Trans Mountain is still working its way through the process. Of course, business is business, so they're going to try to find the next way to work around so that it works for them. Further to my point on CanaPux, we're looking at the CN Rail lines that go to Kitimat and Prince Rupert. If both of those refineries are developed, you're going to see a real expansion in rail traffic with bitumen to those port towns. Do you guys have any comments on that, about how seemingly the pipeline is cancelled, and this proposed tanker ban will likely come into force, yet as far as the environment goes or what have you, now you have all this proposed rail traffic that will be going up the coast line? Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Caitlyn Vernon]

I'm sure we all have lots to say on that. For one thing, that's why I raised the issue of expanding the scope of the act to include refined oil, so no matter how it gets to the refinery, whether there are supertankers shipping petroleum products through the Great Bear Rainforest, a place unlike anywhere else on earth, we know that a spill of refined oil has acute toxicity to marine organisms. It doesn't matter how it got there. It doesn't matter that it's refined. It's still going to have a huge impact on this part of the world, which deserves protection.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

The Liberals have put forward this bill, and I know some groups have said that it didn't go far enough but that it's at least progress.

One of the points I've made is that if you truly believe in it, how can you have 12,500 metric tons of oil but at the same time the potential for 300,000 metric tons of diesel fuel to be going down?

My question to you folks would be this. Is there a study or any analysis with data we could take a look at so that we can get a scientific understanding of the difference between the impact on a coastal community of 300,000 metric tons of diesel fuel versus 12,500 metric tons of oil?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb. You're time is up.

I would ask the witnesses to attempt to answer that question as they're answering some other questions.

We'll move on to Mr. Hardie.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to go back to the limit of 12,500 metric tons. You were saying that there's a study that suggests that 3,200 tons would be adequate. Adequate for what? Is that what a typical community would use in a particular cycle?

[Modestus Nobels]

My understanding is that this actually exceeds what most of the communities would be receiving. There have been several instances in which some communities have received shipments of that nature and a little bit more than that, but it's not a consistent delivery. Beyond that, I have no other information.

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

You see, the picture that gets painted here is that if a limit that low were put on the passage of products to the communities, you would need to make a separate trip to each community, as opposed to having a facility where you could service two or three, or maybe even four communities in one run.

The concern I would have is that the limit you're suggesting would in fact increase the number of ship movements in the area. Of course, with the increased movements comes increased risk.

[Modestus Nobels]

All I can say to that is that most of those communities that are presently receiving are in the midst of trying to “un-receive”. They have been wanting to get off diesel and fuels for years but have not yet had the opportunity or the resources to take them to that stage.

We're hoping that through this initiative, those communities will begin to receive that type of help and will be able to take themselves off the oil and the generators they are presently using. A lot of that would be diminished over time.

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

A lot of the folks who are looking at the concept of a moratorium on larger ships probably don't remember the Queen of the North and what happened there.

Perhaps, Mr. Nobels, you could remind everybody.

[Modestus Nobels]

I am very familiar with the Queen of the North and the incident that took place there. This is a vessel, a ferry, part of BC Ferries' fleet, that essentially found itself aground. This was through human error. This is not due to technology or anything else. This is just the fallibility of humanity. We make mistakes. It's as simple as that.

That is still an issue for us. We have a ferry that is sitting in 200 fathoms of water and will at some point begin to discharge its fuel. We have another old vessel from the Second World War, an American vessel just north of that, that has been leaking fuel for years. The Canadian government last year spent an inordinate amount of money trying to clean that up.

We're looking down the road at an incident. It's just sitting there at the moment, but as the materials and metals dissolve and dissipate, that oil will be released into the water. What that will mean for the people of Hartley Bay and the ecosystem of that area is hard to say, other than that we know it will be detrimental.

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

It's certainly an awful lot less oil than you would have in a supertanker.

[Modestus Nobels]

Yes.

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

Mr. Smith, why focus on publication in the Canada Gazette? It's not something that necessarily lands at very many doors. Why would you want any exemption information posted there, as opposed to on a website somewhere?

[Gavin Smith]

Certainly, we would very much be open to other requirements for the posting of that information in other places. In fact, in our brief, we talk about suggesting a regulation-making power to enable cabinet to publicize enforcement and monitoring information, as well as other information, under the act. We would say that this provision could be used to provide for other disclosure.

The reason we focus on the Canada Gazette is simply that it's an easy ad. It has actually been used in the context of other federal statutes in the past several years, in which particular orders have been exempted by the Statutory Instruments Act. Publication in the Gazette has been required to make sure there's public access.

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

In the interest of ensuring things are as watertight as possible, do you have any comments about the tug that did go down near Bella Bella. Its fuel ended up...but I understand there was no pilot on it.

I'm curious as to whether you see, not necessarily in the context of this bill but maybe in amendments to other regulations, things we should be doing to enhance the safety of the traffic that still will be going up and down in that territory.

[Modestus Nobels]

From our perspective, we believe all foreign vessels travelling through Canadian waters should be under Canadian pilotage authority. We were somewhat taken aback to find out that the Nathan E. Stewart was exempted from having to carry a pilot. In future, we believe that should be a condition for all vessels travelling through Canadian internal waters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 30 seconds.

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

What's the state of the salmon runs on the Nass and Skeena?

[Modestus Nobels]

This year, it's very poor.

In the end, we managed escapement. However, the ocean conditions have been suspect for the last cycle. As such, it was a relatively poor year. The Nass had an average return, and the Skeena had a below to average return in the end. The runs were late this year, by about three weeks. Therefore, we, as a fishing community, lost out on the opportunity to harvest some of those fish. Nonetheless, we achieved our escapement and our conservation requirements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, guests, for being here, and providing your testimony, and also for the passion you have on this topic.

I have a few questions for Mr. Smith, but others can jump in if they feel they want to.

With regard to the definition of emergency, could you elaborate on what you think it should be? You referenced the minister's comment about dire emergency. Is there a definition that your organization has, or that you feel would be a good amendment to this bill?

[Gavin Smith]

I suppose there are two potential approaches to that. One is simply the provision that in the minister's opinion there are emergency circumstances, and it would be part of the minister's discretion to determine whether there are indeed circumstances. It would be possible to actually add a definition of emergency circumstances into the bill.

In our brief, which unfortunately isn't translated, we do footnote that there is an existing federal regulation that defines emergency circumstances. We suggest you look to that for guidance. In our brief we state that the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired generation of electricity regulations actually includes the definition of emergency.

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

Are you able to submit that to this committee?

[Gavin Smith]

Certainly. The brief has been submitted; it's just waiting for translation. It has that referenced in the footnotes.

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

I'm going through your suggested amendments. You chose a year for the expiry year. Is there any rationale or reason why you chose one year, or is that something you're flexible on?