Transport Committee on Nov. 21st, 2017

[Peter Xotta]

With regard to the vessel transits within the port's jurisdiction, if I can focus on that, our obligations would be similar to those of other Canadian port authorities, Prince Rupert included.

We have a variety of marine restricted areas where we are very precise in the Port Information Guide. Those are the guidelines provided to vessels that are transiting the port for areas that we believe require an additional level of effort and diligence. For example, for tankers the Second Narrows area in Burrard Inlet requires two tugs that are tethered, two pilots, and daylight transits. That isn't a requirement for every vessel transiting that particular area, but it is for tankers. For example, that particular marine restricted area procedure was reviewed in the past 12 months and updated in conjunction with the Pacific Pilotage Authority and the BC Coast Pilots, along with input from various other entities, like the Coast Guard.

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

Thank you.

I think we heard from our other witnesses the number of jobs that have been created at the port. I'm wondering—and maybe I'm just forgetting, if you mentioned it—how many people are employed at the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.

[Peter Xotta]

The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority directly creates 115,000 jobs across the country, all of those in the supply chain, not in the productive capacity of either generating or selling the cargoes. It's about $500 million worth of cargo every day. Of course, that's all varieties of cargo. For context—and I think this was probably mentioned by other witnesses—about 85% of the total tanker transits in Canada occur on the east coast, of course. Very little of the traffic, in terms of the total activity within Canada, occurs in Prince Rupert and Vancouver.

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

Can you tell me if you have done any projections on how many jobs will be added by the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion?

[Peter Xotta]

Kinder Morgan itself has produced that information. I don't have it available to me at this time, but we can certainly make it available to the panel.

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

Okay.

I guess my next question would be this. Is the primary focus of the ports and the whole tanker industry on preventing a spill from ever happening?

[Peter Xotta]

Once again, I'd mention that the tanker transits through our gateway have occurred for the better part of 60 years without significant incident. The heightened scrutiny, both from a regulatory perspective and, frankly, just from a community perspective, on the west coast has generated, I'd say, a very strong commitment from all shippers, including Kinder Morgan, to make sure that avoidable events do not occur.

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

My last question would be this. We have heard from some environmental groups that they would like to see the provisions of this bill extended into southern B.C. I'm wondering if you have any comment on that and if you would speculate on what would happen to the Canadian economy if the government were to continue in the direction it has taken with this moratorium.

[Peter Xotta]

I think my associate from Prince Rupert has talked about the impact on potential opportunities for employment and investment in Canada. Clearly there is significant investment in Canada that relies on the west coast, Vancouver in particular. The job impact of extending the moratorium to existing activity would be devastating for those companies and those investments and, frankly, would signal a sobering thought internationally about doing business in Canada.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Block.

We'll go on to Mr. Hardie.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

I'll pick up on that point.

Inevitably, this committee finds itself in some cases stuck between extremes. On the one hand, there might be environmental groups that want nothing to happen, and on the other, there might be people dangling large amounts of money in front of other people to try to make things happen. That's a little bit inflammatory, I know, but in fact what I've heard you say today is that we have to consider the economic impacts. At the same time, we're being asked to consider what may happen if we have an adverse event up on the north coast or on the south coast.

I guess I'll start with you, Ms. Spahlinger. I understand that you are here on behalf of your company, and your company, like all companies, is looking for surety, clarity in regulation, etc. You're concerned that Canada could send not very good signals to the world in terms of our willingness to do business. What would you say to the indigenous groups that have appeared here, that have also been shown a large amount of money if they wanted to basically play along, and have said no?

[Marina Spahlinger]

First of all, there are two different views, even within the indigenous communities. There are the communities that are supportive of development in the area, and then there are the communities that are not supportive of development in the area.

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

We're aware of that.

[Marina Spahlinger]

Absolutely. From that perspective, it's important to talk to all of the communities and discuss what the impacts would be and what the benefits are, and then to work collaboratively on measures that would be acceptable to them.

Our ideas also would be in terms of a corridor. Perhaps there is some way of working within that area to develop a corridor that would be acceptable to those first nations. Of course, we don't have a solution to the problem, but we're willing to be a part of the discussion.

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

You haven't been active enough in B.C. long enough, I guess, to even start those conversations.

[Marina Spahlinger]

No, we haven't. You are correct.

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

All right.

If, in fact, we look at the relative risks of a spill—and you're a terminal operator—I would imagine that the most adverse outcome would be if a ship had trouble out in the water and dumped its load there. The terminal has no liability in a situation like that, does it?

[Joel Smith, Operations Manager, Province of Quebec, Vopak Terminals of Canada, Royal Vopak]

No, the terminal has no liability. However, we would like to serve our customers and the environment the best that we can, so it is in our interest for the transport to be safe. It's also in the industry's best interest.

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

It's out of your hands too, though, once that product leaves your terminal and is on a boat out in the water.

[Joel Smith]

It is out of our hands from a legal perspective, but we still care.

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

Of course, as we all do.

Mr. Veldman, have you had any spill experience in the Port of Prince Rupert? Some of us have had a chance to tour it. I used to live up that way, in fact, and have been through the port any number of times. Have you had any experience with spills of any magnitude in Prince Rupert?

[Ken Veldman]

No, we haven't, which isn't to say that there haven't been vessel incidents over the years. Certainly there is always that risk. However, I think what's important is that you look at the quantification of that risk, and certainly that's informed by prior incidents. Right now our current cargoes are largely focused around the broad areas of agricultural products—

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

I understand all that, sir. I'm sorry, but my time is limited, so I need to get to another question for you.

I have to say that prior to the Exxon Valdez running aground in Alaska, everybody thought everything was fine there too. There hadn't been anything like that happen before. However, it happened once, and that was obviously one time too many, which again presents the conundrum we're facing: the worst thing that could happen. Especially with the kinds of products we see being shipped, that could be extremely difficult, much more difficult to deal with than the Exxon Valdez.

You may have helped answer a question, though, that's been rattling about here for a bit, and that is with regard to the threshold of 12,500 tonnes. Is that the amount you would have to have available on a barge for ship-refuelling purposes when they come into Prince Rupert?

[Ken Veldman]

Not necessarily, but the proposal we currently have in front of us does determine that as a number that makes a business case for marine fuelling economical.