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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Natasha Rascanin  Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport
Jennifer Saxe  Director, International Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Joseph Melaschenko  Team Leader and Senior Counsel, Maritime Law, Department of Transport

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Increased.

At the moment, I can't see how....

We were given a reason as to why it's 12,500. Ms. May was asking for it to be extended to 3,200 metric tons—

4:40 p.m.

A voice

Reduced.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Reduced. Sorry. Right. I see what you're saying.

In the future, is it reasonable to see how it could be further reduced from 12,500?

4:40 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport

Natasha Rascanin

I think if there were to be changes contemplated to this, it would have to be a legislative amendment based on the actual volumes being shipped at that time. Further study would have to be done to determine if that's reasonable.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Is there any further comment or discussion?

Mr. Lobb.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

Just for clarification from the department, is 12,500 metric tons around five million litres? Are those the numbers we're talking about?

4:40 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport

Natasha Rascanin

I'm not sure I can answer that question readily.

My colleague may be able to pull out that number.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Oil is lighter than water, but that's water at 4°C.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

I think we have a tentative answer.

Go ahead.

4:45 p.m.

Director, International Marine Policy, Department of Transport

Jennifer Saxe

Based on just a quick check here, it should be approximately 13 million to 14 million litres. The density varies on different products, but it should be approximately that.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much. We appreciate that fast math on the run.

Go ahead, Mr. Lobb.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

We knew it was going to be a big number, so I'm just curious to know, from the study that you're citing, is the idea, then, that this vessel would fuel several communities in one trip, or is this from point to point? Are there communities that are actually requesting 14 million or 15 million litres at one time?

4:45 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport

Natasha Rascanin

No, the threshold would limit the total on a vessel to 12,500 metric tons of the prohibited products, so the total amount of crude oil or persistent oil that is listed in the schedule could not be higher than 12,500 metric tons on a vessel .

There may be occasions on which communities are visited sequentially and the total amount of product drops off so that it diminishes, but at its starting point, wherever it lands first, it cannot exceed the threshold set in the legislation.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

Okay, so in the studies you did, in a trip from point A to finish, what was the average size of shipments? Not just in one stop, but for what they would consider an entire trip, what would a good average be?

November 28th, 2017 / 4:45 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport

Natasha Rascanin

It depends. There are different types of ships that are used for various elements of community resupply and industry resupply, so it depends on the vessel. It depends on how many stops it has. It could be smaller. It could be up to 12,500 metric tons maximum.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

Were there cases in your study in which 12,500 metric tons were delivered?

4:45 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport

Natasha Rascanin

There were some with close to that, yes.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Do you have any more questions, Mr. Lobb?

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

I do not at this time.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

I do not see any further questions or comments.

For the information of the committee, I will note that if we adopt amendment PV-1, amendment NDP-4 could not be moved as there would be a line conflict.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On amendment NDP-4, go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

I need to go back to some of my community leaders to find out who has received a ship with 13 million litres of anything on it. That's news to me. I'm trying to imagine the scenario.

Amendment NDP-4 is essentially the same in scope as Madam May's motion but slightly more restrictive.

Just to give people some context, for those who don't know, our restriction would still allow vessels four times the size of the Nathan E. Stewart, which sank off of Bella Bella. So for anybody worried about commerce and trade, you could run something four times the size of Nathan E. Stewart, which ran aground and caused trouble in Bella Bella, and still be under the limit we have set. The limit the government is proposing is six times more than that, which is a lot.

I can see the trend of things, Chair. It doesn't seem as though amendments have much of a life today, but I'll move it as is.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Would the department like to comment on amendment NDP-4?

4:50 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport

Natasha Rascanin

I think the conversation we just had covers that.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

That's fine.

Is there any further discussion or comment?

Mr. Hardie.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Just quickly, one of the issues that came up during the discussion when we were working through the bill with the witnesses was the matter of whether or not one ship could service a number of different communities on one trip rather than increase the exposure and the risk by having too much back and forth, which was one of the rationales for even the 3,200-metric-ton limit. So to reduce that even further, my speculation at least is that you'd be increasing the number of longer-distance trips with this product on board, which would then only increase the risk of something happening.