Branden Leslie

Madam Speaker, Claims · 18 wordsearlier this month, the Prime Minister announced that Canada would pursue another oil pipeline to the Pacific coast.¹ Positioning · 14 wordsI agree that Canada should be selling more of its energy to the world, PositioningProcedure · 5 wordsbut I have one question: ProcedureThe question · 31 wordsIf more oil tankers can be part of a responsible national project on the south coast of B.C., why is the answer automatically “no” when somebody proposes a project farther north? Procedure · 13 wordsThis is what Bill C-264 asks us to reconsider. Let me be clear.Procedure Positioning · 53 wordsI do not want oil splashing up on a beach or destroying an ecosystem; nobody does. We can disagree about how best to protect the environment without pretending that one side cares about it and the other side does not. We ought to be honest about this law, including where it came from.Positioning Claims · 28 wordsIn 2016, Justin Trudeau announced that his government would reject the northern gateway pipeline and introduced a tanker ban for northern B.C. His stated reason was environmental protection.² The question · 6 wordsWhat does the law actually do? Claims · 54 wordsIt prohibits tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tonnes of crude oil or certain persistent oils from loading, unloading or stopping at ports and marine installations along the northern B.C. coast.³ It does not ban every tanker passing offshore, though. It prevents the development of a large crude oil export terminal using those ports. Procedure · 5 wordsThere is an important difference, ProcedureClaims · 15 wordsbecause oil tankers did not vanish from the Pacific coast when this law was passed. Procedure · 4 wordsLet us consider Alaska.Procedure Claims · 28 wordsAmerican tankers have long carried crude oil to destinations farther south, including Washington state. They travel offshore, west of a voluntary tanker exclusion zone established back in 1985.⁴ Procedure · 8 wordsWe need to look at the broader picture.Procedure Positioning · 7 wordsWe recognize that marine shipping carries risks, PositioningClaims · 73 wordsand we manage some of those risks through routes, rules and emergency preparedness. Meanwhile, a company proposing a northern export terminal faces a ban regardless of what safeguards it might offer. We manage oil shipping elsewhere. Tankers operate on the St. Lawrence and around Newfoundland. They load Canadian crude oil at Westridge in Burnaby. In the second quarter of this year alone, Trans Mountain reported that 82 vessels were loaded at that terminal.⁵ Procedure · 6 wordsThose waters are not all alike, ProcedureReasoning · 28 wordsbut that is exactly why we have experts, navigational assessments and environmental reviews. The risks of a particular project ought to be assessed where it would actually operate. Procedure · 15 wordsThis brings me back to the Pacific link project, the new pipeline that was announced.Procedure Claims · 47 wordsIt is proposed to follow a southern route to an export terminal at Roberts Bank outside of the northern moratorium area.⁶ It has not been built or finally approved.⁷ The federal government says it could carry another million barrels of oil a day toward customers in Asia.⁸ Thanks · 19 wordsI am glad the Liberal government finally recognizes that more buyers for Canadian energy would be a good thing.Thanks Claims · 8 wordsWe have depended heavily on the American market, Positioning · 61 wordsand we should not put all of our eggs in one basket, nor should we be effectively donating billions of dollars to the United States by selling to it at a discount when higher world prices are available. However, we cannot keep assuming that every new pipeline to the Pacific should end up along some variation of the same southern corridor.Positioning Claims · 15 wordsThere are communities, mountains, already very busy ports and environmental concerns along those routes too. Positioning · 39 wordsSometimes, using an existing corridor will be the sensible option. Sometimes, it may not be. Why would we decide today that future engineers, investors and communities would not even be allowed to put another northern option on the table?Positioning Procedure · 10 wordsHere is what really bothers me about the tanker ban: ProcedureClaims · 18 wordsIt substitutes a blanket political decision for the hard work of judging individual proposals as they come in. Positioning · 8 wordsLet us think about how ridiculous that is.Positioning Claims · 63 wordsA company could come forward with a proposal that uses the safest tankers available, the latest navigation technology, tugboats to escort every vessel and an emergency response system that goes well beyond anything required today. It could offer to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on additional safety measures and demonstrate that it can meet every environmental standard we can throw at it. Positioning · 6 wordsWhat would the federal government say?Positioning Claims · 5 words“Sorry, we are not interested.” Positioning · 24 wordsIt does not matter how safe a company can make it, how much technology has improved or what precautions it is prepared to take.Positioning Claims · 18 wordsThe answer was decided back in 2019, ⁹and the government is not even going to consider the question. Positioning · 10 wordsThis is the absurdity of this ban in a nutshell.Positioning Claims · 39 wordsThe government did not set a higher environmental standard for companies to meet. It decided that no matter how much companies invest, how safe the technology becomes or how strong environmental protections are, nothing will ever be good enough. Positioning · 33 wordsThey are not being given a tough test to pass. They are being told they are not even allowed to take the test. That strikes me as a rather strange way to govern.Positioning Claims · 31 wordsWe regulate plenty of activities that carry serious risks. Pipelines, railways, ports, factories and even the driving of cars all operate under rules designed to prevent accidents and limit their consequences. Positioning · 10 wordsWe do not simply assume that every project is safe.Positioning Claims · 10 wordsWe demand evidence, impose conditions and, when necessary, refuse permission. The ask · 13 wordsAt the very minimum, we should at least examine what is being proposed. Procedure · 6 wordsThere is something else worth remembering.Procedure Claims · 116 wordsBack in 2013, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government launched a major effort to improve tanker safety in Canada.¹⁰ It increased tanker inspections, expanded aerial and satellite monitoring, improved our ability to respond to spills and brought in tougher rules for facilities handling oil. These were not just promises. The measures were put into practice, and Transport Canada’s own evaluation later confirmed that they helped improve marine safety. The Harper government also recognized that preventing spills was only part of the equation. It changed the law to make sure that if something did go wrong, the people responsible would be held financially accountable. In 2014, the government proposed removing the compensation limit on Canada’s ship-source oil pollution fund.¹¹ Procedure · 4 wordsThe principle was simple: ProcedureReasoning · 20 wordsIf a tanker causes a spill, the people who suffer the losses should be compensated and the polluter should pay. Claims · 61 wordsFurther changes were passed in 2018, removing the compensation ceiling on the fund and clarifying the rules for certain economic losses.¹² Today, that fund can provide compensation for claims without a fixed overall limit for each incident.¹³ Over the years, we have built a system designed to prevent accidents, respond when they happen and hold those responsible for them financially accountable. The question · 21 wordsRather than simply banning certain tanker operations outright, should we not be asking whether those protections can be made even stronger? The ask · 17 wordsIf the existing rules are not good enough for northern B.C., let us identify what is missing. The question · 37 wordsDo we need more tugboats escorting tankers? Do we need better equipment stationed across the coastline? Do we need restrictions on sailing during dangerous weather, perhaps, or tougher financial requirements for companies that want to operate there? Positioning · 43 wordsIf a company wants to build a terminal and ship oil through those waters, it should have to demonstrate that it can operate responsibly. It should be prepared to invest in the necessary safety measures and take financial responsibility if something goes wrong.Positioning Procedure · 7 wordsThat brings us back to Bill C-264.Procedure Claims · 63 wordsPassing this legislation would not approve a single new pipeline or tanker terminal.¹⁴ It would not give an oil company permission to do whatever it wants, and it would not remove Canada’s other marine safety or environmental laws. It would simply repeal the existing tanker moratorium, allowing future proposals to be considered under the other laws and approval processes that apply to it. Positioning · 5 wordsThose reviews should be rigorous.Positioning Reasoning · 40 wordsIf a proposed project cannot meet the required environmental standards, it should not be approved. If the risks are simply too great, the answer should be no. Surely we should be willing to examine the evidence before making that decision. Claims · 16 wordsThe Prime Minister keeps telling us that he wants to make this country an energy superpower. Procedure · 5 wordsI would ask him this: ProcedureThe question · 31 wordsHow can we seriously talk about opening new markets while maintaining a law that rules out an entire region of potential export opportunities before anyone could even put forward a proposal? Positioning · 34 wordsWe cannot assume that every future pipeline to the Pacific Ocean should have to squeeze into the same southern corridor, nor should we assume that every proposal for a northern terminal would be suitable.Positioning Reasoning · 10 wordsWe should be making those decisions based on actual proposals. Positioning · 47 wordsI do not believe that protecting the environment and developing our natural resources must be competing objectives. We should, in fact, be able to walk and chew gum. I think it is perfectly reasonable to take another look at whether the tanker ban still makes any sense.Positioning Procedure · 9 wordsThat is why I will be supporting Bill C-264.Procedure