Speaker: Ms. May
Time: 08/12/2022 19:48:16
Context: Question

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise virtually in the House this evening. I am in the wonderful city of Montreal for the 15th meeting of the the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

However, I am turning my attention this evening to a question I asked in question period on November 24. The question had a response from the hon. Minister of Transport. This is a complex issue. It is one that does not come up very often in the House, so forgive me if I step back and set some context before I dive into this.

It is the question of the use of the waters of the Salish Sea as far up from the tip of Vancouver to areas near Parksville, Nanaimo, Ladysmith and certainly in and around all the five Gulf Islands that are within Saanich—Gulf Islands. Our waters are being used as free parking lots to handle bulk carriers and freighters that cannot be efficiently unloaded at the Port of Vancouver. This costs everyone money. The grain farmers who want their products shipped in a timely way, the grain sellers who want to have the product delivered, and those who are buying the product line up at the Port of Vancouver where their freighters find that their holds cannot be filled. They are sent away and they cool their jets and sit in the waters of the Salish Sea in places Transport Canada has dubbed as anchorages. Under common law, the vessels at sea must be given refuge and safe anchorages at times of storms. This is not storms. This is routine. It is daily and multiplying.

What does this mean? As I pointed out in my question on November 24, it is a loss of quality of life. The constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands and throughout the region do not feel consulted. Right now, there is a consultation process taking place, where it just disclosed a public consultation hosted by the Port of Vancouver. Constituents do not feel consulted. They feel ignored once again and their concerns dismissed as the Port of Vancouver officials informed people of the public that the use of the Salish Sea for free parking was going to continue and that it was an essential part of the Port of Vancouver’s operations. Of course nobody pays for it, except, again, the grain farmers, the people buying the grain, the people selling the grain and the residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and other regions through our marine coastal zones.

The indigenous nations of this area were never consulted either, and they are angry at the idea that their treaty rights under the Douglas Treaties mean so little that the Port of Vancouver and the federal government have never engaged with them about this use of our waters.
What else does it mean? It means damage to the southern resident killer whales from the noise of these massive vessels moving and parking in our waters. It means damage to the benthic organisms on the ocean floor, of course, because, these being anchorages and not ports, the anchor drops and drags.

This was the point I really wanted to raise in late show tonight: Days after my question in late November, there was yet another incident in Plumper Sound, where a large bulk carrier dragged its anchor and drifted right into a spot where, had there been another freighter parked, they would have collided. We have had 102 incidents in the period from 2015 to 2020. There were 102 times that these large vessels have drifted on their anchors and sometimes collided or nearly collided. In other words, it is large accident waiting to happen.

The residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands and the people of this area are absolutely fed up to our teeth with this ignoring of our rights and abuse of our ecosystem.

Ms. Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary. I could have asked for a better opportunity for dialogue, because believe it or not, in some ways this is supply-chain hell, and it links our ridings. There are very few issues that will link directly, and it is the rail lines that link us from Winnipeg to Saanich—Gulf Islands, and it is the inefficiency of the delivery of grain primarily.

So, here are two solutions.

One, the Liberals promised to ban the export of coal to other countries. We are getting coal shipped up from the United States, because U.S. coal ports no longer ship it due to climate concerns. So, let us ban coal exports. That will help, and the Liberals already promised to do it.

We also want to improve the facilitation of grain exports. The hon. member will remember when we had the Wheat Board, and the export of grain and the shipment was better coordinated. This is driving the unions. The longshoremen do not like this. CN and CP are behind inefficiencies along with the Port of Vancouver. We need to fix this system for shipping grain, and then we will not have anchorages.

The post Improve grain export efficiency to remove freighters from the Salish Sea appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Speaker: Ms. May
Time: 24/11/2022 15:15:22
Context: Question

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, for years the residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands have had their pristine environment, where we live on the shores of the Salish Sea, contaminated by polluting commercial anchorages, which are essentially free parking for freighters. This last month, the Port of Vancouver has been holding what are called “public consultation”. The constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands do not feel consulted. They once again feel ignored, as the Port of Vancouver tells them these anchorages are essential to the Port of Vancouver, instead of figuring out how to make the Port of Vancouver efficient.

Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of years, we have seen global supply disruptions that have impacted our own supply chains at home. Because of that, we have seen congestions at airports and increased vessels that are anchored next to our coast. I have been listening to constituents on the coast, particularly where the hon. colleague is raising the point.

I want to assure her that we are putting together an action plan to address this. We tabled Bill C-33 just two weeks ago. That will introduce new tools to help mitigate the traffic of the vessels. We will work with her and constituents to make sure that we manage this adequately.

The post Fix the problems in the Port of Vancouver and remove freighters from the Salish Sea appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post January 2021 Community Newsletter appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post Interim Protocol for the Use of Southern BC Anchorages: March 30th collision between two freighters on the South Coast of British Columbia appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“The presence of these freighters anchoring in the Salish Sea is incredibly disruptive to my constituents and the local environment,” said Ms. May. “Transport Canada’s decision to extend the Interim Protocol for the Use of Southern B.C. Anchorages is simply not acceptable.

Paul Manly (MP, Nanaimo-Ladysmith) said that not only are local residents suffering from noise and light pollution, there’s also dust from maintenance work, sewage being dumped into the water and damage to the ocean floor from dragging anchors. “Residents of Thetis Island and Ladysmith are also being affected and they’re calling for an immediate moratorium on these anchorages,” said Mr. Manly.

According to Transport Canada’s website there is no formal process to regulate the behaviour of ships anchored outside port boundaries.

“Residents have not been properly consulted by Transport Canada nor have they been updated on the status of these ships,” said Ms. May. “Surely it would have been common courtesy for Transport Canada to ensure that these early measures occurred? The Salish Sea is a sensitive ecosystem, home to endangered species like the southern resident killer whale whose habitat is being constantly invaded and threatened by the presence of these vessels.

“I therefore ask Transport Canada to have the freighters using southern B.C. anchorages removed by the end of June, when the protocol was supposed to end, and find another solution to traffic jams in the Port of Vancouver. Residents and wildlife should not have to suffer for the mistakes of Transport Canada.”

The post To Minister of Transport: Tell freighters no more free parking in the Salish Sea appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight at adjournment proceedings to pursue a question I asked.

I am really pleased to bring it up when not too much time has passed since the question was raised. It was toward the end of March this year, when we were seeing Prairie grain shipments almost at a standstill while the shippers, CN and CP, were unable to bring forward enough rail cars to move the grain. It was a crisis proportion, but it was not the first time this had happened.

I will just briefly review the question I asked, which was to point out that millions of tons of grain were stuck on Prairie farms and in grain elevators. However, it was connected to a problem we were also experiencing on the coast of British Columbia, where freighters and container ships waiting to pick up that grain in the Port of Vancouver were backed up and using the waters of the Salish Sea as essentially a free parking lot. The Port of Vancouver was backed up, so as the container ships were waiting to go in and out of the Port of Vancouver, which could each have three and four different containers within them, they would go back to collect grain and then sit off Plumper Sound in the Salish Sea in my riding waiting to know if the grain had been delivered.

The knock-on effects of poor service by CN and CP are a real pain and economic trouble for the Prairie grain farmers, an inefficient Port of Vancouver, and a significant cost in quality of life to people living in Saanich—Gulf Islands and Nanaimo—Ladysmith, where these container ships are sitting off of Gabriola.

Members will be surprised to know that these legal anchorages for container ships off the Saanich—Gulf Islands and Nanaimo—Ladysmith are available legally, but in that sense largely unregulated, and there are no fees paid for sitting in the waters off Ganges, Plumper Sound, or Pender Island. The residents of those areas essentially see these enormous factory ships, often with lights on through the night. I have talked to my constituents who said that after they turn off all the lights in their house they can still read a book because of the lights from the ships stuck there waiting.

It is a real cost in quality of life that we do not have an efficient rail service to deliver grain on time. It costs money to the shippers, farmers, and those buying the grain. There needs to be a whole-of-government approach, at least Transport Canada needs to start figuring out how we make sure we move goods quickly and effectively. Perhaps through a computerized system, the Port of Vancouver could tell the grain farmers when to move the grain.

By the way, we used to have a better system when we had the wheat board. The wheat board did a better job in synchronizing shipments, and this problem did not come up. However, we had a crisis in 2014. On Vancouver Island, we were two days away from livestock operations not being able to get any feed because none of the mills that process the grain into feed had any grain. The farmers had to band together and hire trucks. Again, a big cost, poor service.

I know that Bill C-49, which we just voted on in the House, would help. There would be penalties for the shippers. From 1918 until 1995, this railway was a crown corporation and it worked much better. What do we do to get goods moving in this country, do we need to make it a crown corporation again?

Adam Vaughan – Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development

Madam Speaker, our government understands the challenges faced by our farmers every day. We are committed to ensuring they have access to freight rail systems that effectively moves their goods to market. That is why we have introduced Bill C- 49, the transportation modernization act, which would put in place the right conditions, over the long term, for a safe, efficient, effective, and transparent freight rail system, which benefits all rail users right across the country.

We are delighted that this bill, which both the member opposite and I voted for today, would provide robust, long-term solutions for many of the challenges facing our freight rail transportation system and its users. It would provide for enhanced accountability through reciprocal financial penalties between shippers and railways. It would improve transparency through increased reporting from railways. It would provide captive shippers with a way of accessing an alternate rail carrier through long-haul interswitching. It would encourage investments in hopper cars through changes to the maximum revenue entitlement process, which would be retained for the benefit of the grain sector. In short, it would help avoid the kind of situation we are witnessing now. It would also provide the Canadian Transportation Agency with the powers it needs to investigate systemic issues of its own notion.

We understand that rail service this year has not lived up to expectations, both for grain and for other commodities. That is why our government continues to work with railways to ensure they are taking the necessary steps to improve service and to move grain and other commodities to market. Railways have provided us with their plans for relieving the backlog, and we will continue to keep a watchful eye on their performance to ensure that these plans have the desired effect.

What our government has not done is introduce a short-term approach, like minimum grain volume requirements, which could risk negative consequences for farmers, grain shippers, and shippers of other commodities. Minimum grain volumes could result in preferential treatment of some corridors, even within the grain sector. As a result, they are not a silver bullet. Their benefits are not felt evenly, and they can have real implications for shippers in the grain sector, and for other commodities.

As to the particular question the member opposite raised about nationalizing the rail system, I am pretty certain that is not in our government’s forecast in terms of potential legislation that may be introduced. However, I will note that in the city I come from, one of the greatest inhibitors to stronger passenger rail movement is the conflict between rail that is carrying cargo and passenger movement, in particular commuters in the GTA.

Also, there is a missing segment of the rail lines between Sudbury and Ottawa and down towards the east coast, which was given away and abandoned by rail companies. However, if used properly, it could reroute some of that cargo and free up rail capacity for commuters, which would take cars off the road. Switching away from cargo on the rail and getting passengers is one priority, but the other option is to make sure that other commodities which can move by different methods do not plug up the rail system as well.

Therefore, realigning, reassessing, and recommitting ourselves to a long-term rail strategy in this country is one of our government’s priorities. The member can see that in budget 2018 with the significant investment we have made in modernizing VIA to get it back into a position where it can start to grow its customer base and move people more effectively, and in clever ways, so that we can make our strategic investments in infrastructure and also reduce greenhouse gases.

As for grain, I am glad that the bill has come through the vote today. It is progress, and we continue to move forward to make sure that grain shippers get the service they need from this government.

Elizabeth May

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member’s comments on passenger rail. It used to be the case that the U.S. had the same conflict. Passenger rail could never arrive anywhere on time because it had to rent the track from freight, and freight controls the traffic lights.

I recently took the train from Seattle to San Francisco. It was a 24-hour trip, and it arrived spot on time. They have renegotiated. With government leadership, they got freight to yield to passenger rail. Therefore, I like the thinking I am hearing from the parliamentary secretary, and I hope we can move on that.

However, I do want to flag a concern I have. CP right now has put forward an unacceptable offer. Teamsters are voting right now. May 23 is what they are calling “judgment day”. I am sure that the Minister of Transport is paying close attention.

I will be very blunt in that I do not trust these guys, CN and CP. I do trust our workers. We need more workers and more rail cars so that we can get goods delivered on time.

Adam Vaughan

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns we have in the city I represent, or in part of a riding that used to be part of the area of Toronto that I represented until redistribution, is the Dupont rail corridor that goes through midtown Toronto, which would be an excellent service for commuter rail. The challenge is, that is the main freight rail as it moves through the most dense part of the City of Toronto.

Those who followed the Lac Mégantic situation and saw the resources moved by rail through that Quebec town to great disaster will know that only a few hours earlier it came through midtown Toronto. If the derailment that happened at Lac Mégantic had happened close to downtown Toronto, as the Mississauga derailment did almost a generation ago, the death toll would have been off the chart. This is one of the reasons we need to move volatile substances off of rail cargo, out of residential areas, and find a rerouting of that system. Perhaps even a pipeline may be one of the alternatives.

However, the reality is that what we actually need is a rethinking of the rail system to accommodate people and to accommodate the environmental outputs that are possible. In the city of Toronto, that means rethinking how cargo moves through Toronto.

The post Efficient rail service to deliver grain saves money for shippers, farmers, and purchasers appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Speaker, as millions of tons of grain sit on prairie farms and in grain elevators, on our coast of British Columbia, we have freighters and container ships waiting to pick up that grain at the Port of Vancouver backed up and using the waters of the Salish Sea as a free parking lot. In between, we have CN Rail, which has empty railcars but laid off 1,000 workers last year, as if it is a surprise to it, again, that we have grain to be shipped.

Can the hon. Minister of Transport assure us that he can get CN to do the job and deliver the grain?

Marc Garneau – Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, after the Minister of Agriculture and I wrote to CN and CP and told them that we were not satisfied with the movement of grain, they came back to us with plans that involve considerably more resources in terms of crews, in terms of equipment, and in terms of prioritization for the movement of grain.

We want to get our farmers’ grain out to the west coast. I am monitoring this on a daily basis with the Minister of Agriculture, and we will continue to insist on this accelerated pace of movement of Canadian western farmers’ grain to market.

The post Will the Minister get CN to do its job and deliver the grain? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I try to stay ahead of my homework, and, in fact, paid a lot of attention to that presser. If Joe had done his homework, he would have seen this detailed critique of that announcement. Read for yourself.  I note that the government says it will do research on how unconventional oil, “such as bitumen” behaves in a spill.  I said that’s a good idea.

But clearly, that press conference and announcement did not convey that this massive spending was attached to a wide range of activities all in aid of one specific project-  the Enbridge twinned pipeline and tanker scheme.   Have a look.  Check it out.  (something I wish media had done before assuming we missed some big announcement).

The announcement in March used some of the same words, but it sure did not convey what we learned through the leaked documents.

Reality check on Transport Canada’s claims for tanker safety

Harper’s public relations and spin team hit Vancouver in March claiming to have substantially revamped environmental protections for pipelines and tankers. Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver and Minister of Transport Denis Lebel described their new regime for oil spill safety against the backdrop of the Port of Vancouver. Minster Joe Oliver trotted out a line we are bound to hear more often, in the boiler plate of nonsense to which we seem to be inured, that the Exxon Valdez spill could never happen in Canada.

The really stunning aspect of the announcement was that the media largely fell for it – as though something serious was being announced. The event that went unreported at the time, that one of the emergency response vessels for tanker spills, scheduled to be part of the press conference backdrop, ran aground on its way. It is the perfect metaphor for a large non-event.

The March 2012 budget had actually included almost everything re-announced a year later in March 2013. It included pipeline inspections and new tanker regulations. Not only was the announcement duplicated in the 2012 budget the new measures were repeatedly cited as though they were part of the budget omnibus bill C-38. Since C-38 was over 400 pages long, perhaps they did not expect anyone to read it. Maybe they never read it themselves, as Minister Oliver trumpeted then, “Mr. Speaker, the bill will do a great deal to protect the environment… As I mentioned in my remarks, tankers will have to be double-hulled, there will be mandatory pilotage, there will be enhanced navigation, there will be aerial surveillance and additional measures will be taken in particular cases when necessary.”

None of this was in C-38. It is, in fact, what he announced in Vancouver on March 18, 2013. I imagine he wondered why he had such a strong sense of déjà-vu.

The only new aspect of the announcement was of an expert panel to review tanker safety and to study the specific risks of a spill involving bitumen and diluents. As the entire Enbridge Joint Review Panel hearing has been dealing with a product it does not plan to ship — crude oil – it is certainly worthwhile finding out how bitumen and diluents will behave.

At the Vancouver press conference, Oliver and Lebel trumpeted that they had tabled for First Reading the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act. I sought it out to read it. Its introduction for First Reading had been splashless. Once again, I was underwhelmed. The bill is merely a series of housekeeping measures. The “safeguarding skies” piece deals with aviation and aeronautics, through changes to inspections of aviation accidents and aeronautic indemnities. There is no environmental aspect to the “skies” component. Then there are the amendments related to “seas.” The Marine Act is amended to change the date for the approval of a new director of a port authority. The only oil-spill related components are in the Marine Liability Act. The act is brought into compliance with the 2010 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage and Noxious Substances by Sea. So, nothing about double-hulled tankers.

The reality is that since 1993, all new tankers are required, by international agreement, to be double-hulled. According to a great summary on the issue by Mitch Anderson in September 27, 2010 The Tyee, (“No, Double Hull Tankers Do Not Ensure ‘Total Safety,’”) there were only 50 single-hulled tankers operating anywhere on the planet that year. None were allowed in North American waters.

Do double hulls eliminate the risk of oil spills? Not actually. Despite the exuberance of Joe Oliver’s rhetoric, double-hulls possess no magical powers. Their use has not ended the risk of accidents and oil spills. Collisions with barges and freighters have caused oil spills of millions of litres in ports around the world. Double hulls can be sliced open and oil spills out.

The Transport Canada website was prettied up for the announcement, with a “fact sheet” transparently designed to create the impression the British Columbia coast is routinely plied by hundreds of super-tankers.

Here are some of the claims from the Transport Canada website:

• Oil tankers have been moving safely and regularly along Canada’s West Coast since the 1930’s.
• In 2009-2010, there were about 1500 tanker movements on the West Coast….
• A federal moratorium off the coast of BC applies strictly to oil and natural gas exploitation and development, not to tanker storage or movement.

In fact, the 1972 moratorium was precisely against oil tanker traffic along BC’s north coast. That was a federal-provincial moratorium. Most readers will not notice the subtlety of the website reference to the “federal moratorium.” Moreover, the 1500 tanker “movements” refers to what Transport Canada defines as “every time a ship (or vessel) commences or ceases to be underway. Underway is defined as a vessel that is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.” And by tanker, they mean “a cargo ship fitted with tanks for carrying liquid in bulk.” Not oil tankers. In 2011, the total number of oil tankers in and out of the Port of Vancouver was 82. None of them were super-tankers and none of them operate without risk.

In the on-going war of words to get super-tankers carrying bitumen crude into our waters, it is amazing any media covered Joe Oliver’s announcement as if anything meaningful had been added to the discussion.

Originally published in Hill Times in April 2013

The post Reality Check: Northern Gateway Project appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The really stunning aspect of the announcement was that the media largely fell for it – as though something serious was being announced.  The event that went unreported at the time, that one of the emergency response vessels for tanker spills, scheduled to be part of the press conference backdrop, ran aground on its way.  It is the perfect metaphor for a large non-event.

The March 2012 budget had actually included almost everything re-announced a year later in March 2013.  It included pipeline inspections and new tanker regulations.  Not only was the announcement duplicated in the 2012 budget the new measures were repeatedly cited as though they were part of the budget omnibus bill C-38.  Since C-38 was over 400 pages long, perhaps they did not expect anyone to read it. Maybe they never read it themselves, as Minister Oliver trumpeted then, “Mr. Speaker, the bill will do a great deal to protect the environment… As I mentioned in my remarks, tankers will have to be double-hulled, there will be mandatory pilotage, there will be enhanced navigation, there will be aerial surveillance and additional measures will be taken in particular cases when necessary.”

None of this was in C-38.  It is, in fact, what he announced in Vancouver on March 18, 2013.  I imagine he wondered why he had such a strong sense of déjà-vu.

The only new aspect of the announcement was of an expert panel to review tanker safety and to study the specific risks of a spill involving bitumen and diluents.  As the entire Enbridge Joint Review Panel hearing has been dealing with a product it does not plan to ship  — crude oil – it is certainly worthwhile finding out how bitumen and diluents will behave.

At the Vancouver press conference, Oliver and Lebel trumpeted that they had tabled for First Reading  the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act.  I sought it out to read it.  Its introduction for First Reading had been splashless. Once again, I was underwhelmed.  The bill is merely a series of housekeeping measures. The “safeguarding skies” piece deals with aviation and aeronautics, through changes to inspections of aviation accidents and aeronautic indemnities.  There is no environmental aspect to the “skies” component.  Then there are the amendments related to “seas.”  The Marine Act is amended to change the date for the approval of a new director of a port authority. The only oil-spill related components are in the Marine Liability Act.  The act is brought into compliance with the 2010 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage and Noxious Substances by Sea.   So, nothing about double-hulled tankers.

The reality is that since 1993, all new tankers are required, by international agreement, to be double-hulled. According to a great summary on the issue by Mitch Anderson in September 27, 2010 The Tyee, (“No, Double Hull Tankers Do Not Ensure ‘Total Safety,’”) there were only 50 single-hulled tankers operating anywhere on the planet that year.  None were allowed in North American waters.

Do double hulls eliminate the risk of oil spills?  Not actually.  Despite the exuberance of Joe Oliver’s rhetoric, double-hulls possess no magical powers.  Their use has not ended the risk of accidents and oil spills.  Collisions with barges and freighters have caused oil spills of millions of litres in ports around the world.  Double hulls can be sliced open and oil spills out.

The Transport Canada website was prettied up for the announcement, with a “fact sheet” transparently designed to create the impression the British Columbia coast is routinely plied by hundreds of super-tankers.

Here are some of the claims from the Transport Canada website:

• Oil tankers have been moving safely and regularly along Canada’s West Coast since the 1930’s.
• In 2009-2010, there were about 1500 tanker movements on the West Coast….
• A federal moratorium off the coast of BC applies strictly to oil and natural gas exploitation and development, not to tanker storage or movement.

In fact, the 1972 moratorium was precisely against oil tanker traffic along BC’s north coast.  That was a federal-provincial moratorium.  Most readers will not notice the subtlety of the website reference to the “federal moratorium.”   Moreover, the 1500 tanker “movements” refers to what Transport Canada defines as “every time a ship (or vessel) commences or ceases to be underway. Underway is defined as a vessel that is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.”  And by tanker, they mean “a cargo ship fitted with tanks for carrying liquid in bulk.” Not oil tankers.   In 2011, the total number of oil tankers in and out of the Port of Vancouver was 82.  None of them were super-tankers and none of them operate without risk.

In the on-going war of words to get super-tankers carrying bitumen crude into our waters, it is amazing any media covered Joe Oliver’s announcement as if anything meaningful had been added to the discussion.

Originally printed in the Hill Times.

The post Reality check on Transport Canada’s claims for tanker safety appeared first on Elizabeth May.

In March of last year, Budget 2012 promised more pipeline inspections and new tanker regulations. Then ministers claimed the new measures were in the budget omnibus bill C-38. Since C-38 was over 400 pages long, perhaps they did not expect anyone to read it. Maybe they never read it themselves, as Minister Oliver trumpeted then, “Mr. Speaker, the bill will do a great deal to protect the environment… As I mentioned in my remarks, tankers will have to be double-hulled, there will be mandatory pilotage, there will be enhanced navigation, there will be aerial surveillance and additional measures will be taken in particular cases when necessary.”

None of this was in C-38. It is, in fact, what he announced in Vancouver on March 18, 2013. I imagine he wondered why he had such a strong sense of déjà-vu.

The only really new announcement was of an expert panel to review tanker safety and to study the specific risks of a spill involving bitumen and diluents. That is worth doing, as the entire Enbridge Joint Review Panel hearing has been dealing with a product it does not plan to ship — crude.

Yesterday Harper’s ministers announced we would find these new measures in Bill C-57, the just tabled for First Reading Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act. I have read C-57. This now takes top honours in the on-going competition for most over-hyped legislative title. I have read it and it is essentially a housekeeping act. It deals with the skies, through changes to inspections of aviation accidents and aeronautic indemnities. There is no environmental aspect to the “skies” component. Then there are the amendments related to “seas.” The Marine Act is amended to change the date for the approval of a new director of a port authority. The only oil-spill related components are in the Marine Liability Act. The act is brought into compliance with the 2010 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage and Noxious Substances by Sea. So, nothing about double-hulled tankers.

The reality is that since 1993, all new tankers are required, by international agreement, to be double-hulled. According to a great summary on the issue by Mitch Anderson in September 27, 2010 The Tyee, (“No, Double Hull Tankers Do Not Ensure ‘Total Safety,’”) there were only 50 single-hulled tankers operating anywhere on the planet that year. None were allowed in North American waters.

Has the virtual removal of single-hulled tankers ended the risk of oil spills? Not actually. Despite the exuberance of Joe Oliver’s rhetoric, double-hulls possess no magical powers. Their use has not ended the risk of accidents and oil spills.

Collisions with barges and freighters have caused oil spills of millions of litres in ports around the world. Double hulls can be sliced open and oil spills out.

The Transport Canada website was prettied up for the announcement, with a “fact sheet” transparently designed to create the impression the British Columbia coast is routinely plied by hundreds of super-tankers.

Here are some of the claims from the Transport Canada website:

• Oil tankers have been moving safely and regularly along Canada’s West Coast since the 1930’s.
• In 2009-2010, there were about 1500 tanker movements on the West Coast….
• A federal moratorium off the coast of BC applies strictly to oil and natural gas exploitation and development, not to tanker storage or movement.

I think most readers will not need any help from me debunking that bunk. The 1972 moratorium was precisely against oil tanker traffic along BC’s north coast. Moreover, the 1500 tanker “movements” refers to what Transport Canada defines as “every time a ship (or vessel) commences or ceases to be underway.

Underway is defined as “a vessel that is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.” And by tanker, they mean “a cargo ship fitted with tanks for carrying liquid in bulk.” Not oil tankers. In 2011, the total number of oil tankers in and out of the Port of Vancouver was 82. None of them were super-tankers and none of them operate without risk.

In the on-going war of words to get super-tankers carrying bitumen crude into our waters, it is amazing any media covered Joe Oliver’s announcement as if anything meaningful had been added to the discussion.

The post New and Improved Oil Spills! appeared first on Elizabeth May.