Evidence of meeting #84 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just so I can understand you, then, Chair, I'm not looking to belabour this point, but amendment NDP-1 was broadening the scope, but not so largely as to raise concerns. On amendment NDP-3, your ruling is that the scope was broadened too far?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
All right.
We'll go on to amendment PV-1.
Ms. May, would you like to speak to this?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Forgive me, but I need to put on the record an objection to the process, to the fact that this committee passed a motion that deprives me of the right I would ordinarily have to present these amendments at report stage. I know that you individually did not intend to increase my workload, deprive me of my rights, and pass a motion that essentially requires me to be here, rather than giving me an opportunity, but I place my objection on the record and move to put forward the amendment, which is deemed to have been moved because I have no rights here, except for the motion you passed that makes me be here. I apologize for complaining about the nature of the manipulation.
The amendment I'm putting forward deals with the issue of the size of the vessel. You've certainly heard testimony from West Coast Environmental Law, Pacific Wild, the Sierra Club of British Columbia, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, and the Haida and the Heiltsuk nations, which have questioned the 12,500 metric ton threshold.
As you've just heard from our colleague, Nathan Cullen, that threshold is far larger than the spill that caused so much damage just recently, within the last year, the Nathan E. Stewart spill, which was a real threat to the Heiltsuk community and nation. Here, we're looking at the evidence of Transport Canada's report that in order for vessels to provide resupply shipments to the north coast, 3,200 metric tons is an appropriate limit on the size of the vessel.
I do want to say, by the way, that overall, I welcome Bill C-48. To give just a tiny bit of history, this bill essentially does what we had in place since 1972 through a voluntary moratorium on the shipment on the north coast of B.C., which the federal government and the British Columbia government had accepted—until the recent Conservative government.
Legislating the north coast tanker ban is welcome. I'll make other efforts to expand it, but overall, I certainly welcome this piece of legislation. I would much prefer, as would the communities along the coast, to ensure that the allowable shipments are held to 3,200 metric tons in bulk. My amendment goes to every place where you see 12,500 metric tons and changes it in each location to 3,200 metric tons.
Thank you.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport
I'm pleased to say that the oil tanker moratorium was designed to not interfere and to in fact resupply communities and local industries in northern British Columbia, and, to minimize economic impacts on these communities and industries, critical access is needed. Based on significant engagement and based on a study that was just referred to, 12,500 metric tons is the appropriate threshold to not affect resupply at both the community and the industry levels.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
To our department officials, while I don't claim expertise in the various sizes of ships, we checked, because we're talking predominantly about first nations communities, coastal communities, and their efforts to resupply. Some of them still run on diesel generation. We weren't able to find any communities that used vessels in excess of 3,200 metric tons; their resupply shipments came in vessels much smaller than that.
I'll have an amendment coming that's even more restrictive, but do you have any evidence of communities that use vessels on the scale of 12,500 metric tons? Many of these are communities of 100, 200, or 300 people. I've never heard of a vessel of that size coming in to resupply a coastal community like Hartley Bay. That would be extraordinarily large.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport
You're right. Some of the smaller communities do have smaller levels. For industry resupply, there are some larger ones.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. Then, if I may, Madam Chair, can department officials indicate—because I also know what most of the larger industries on the north coast are—which industries came forward that use vessels in excess of 3,200 metric tons for their resupply?
Jennifer Saxe Director, International Marine Policy, Department of Transport
It's not a specific industry. There are a number of industries, as you know: aluminum, forestry, pulp and paper, and fishing. What happens is that they're small tankers, usually, that.... They range, but they're small tankers that will carry a mix of persistent and non-persistent oils. Based on a study and research on those volumes, as well as talking to those industries, it was deemed that the 12,500 metric tons was the appropriate....
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If I may, is that the study that Ms. May and Ms. Rascanin made—
Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport
It's the study that's public on the Transport Canada website.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, see, it's an interesting thing, because again, we looked around for....
Is it the same study, Ms. Saxe? Yes.
Now, there isn't pulp and paper anymore, so we looked around for industries that were calling for that specifically. We looked at Rio Tinto. We looked at the major likely folks, and we couldn't find anybody who said that they move shipments in.
Is it the mix of persistent and non-persistent that's the problem? We're only looking at and trying to limit one category and not the other.
Director, International Marine Policy, Department of Transport
That's correct. You can have a tanker with multiple holds. In several of the holds there will be non-persistent oil, whereas in other holds there will be persistent oil.
As to the maximum, while a tanker could hold, for example, 23,000 metric tons of oil, it may hold only 11,000 metric tons of persistent oil. Based on a study, and research and discussions with industry, as well as the more comprehensive study that we did, we arrived at the 12,500.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The more comprehensive one is also the one that you, Ms. Rascanin, and—
Director, International Marine Policy, Department of Transport
It's what we have shared, as well as discussions. We did have, obviously, meetings and discussions with industry, and looked at evidence of actual shipments that have happened over the last five years.
Director, International Marine Policy, Department of Transport
That's correct.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
—that more extensive study. Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Thank you.
I certainly wouldn't accuse Ms. May of being Pollyanna, because the whole reason we're here is to actually protect the environment, but at the same time, we can't impede commerce.
To go to my question, is it reasonable to assume that the volume that's restricted could be increased once communities are more self-sufficient, perhaps when technology improves?