July 9, 2016

Mme Jocelyne Beaudet, ChairmanRoberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Review PanelCanadian Environmental Assessment Agency41A-7U West Georgia StreetVancouver BC WY 1C6 Pgnel.RET@ceaa.oc.ca

Dear Madam,

This letter comments on government agencies' submissions at the OrientationSession June 28 for the Roberts Bank Terminal Two project, which I attended. At timeof writing, the transcript, undertakings, and replies have not been posted.

No agency, federal or provincial, would assert it was accountable for protecting

the environment at Roberts Bank, and adjacent Fraser River delta and estuary. Theyoffered a catalogue of nanowly-defined mandates that lacked illustrative examples.They seemed cautious about explaining their expertise with the notable exception of thepresentation by Natural Resources Canada.'

A metaphor may explain my point about mandates. lf the RBT2 proiect is a chessboard, federal agencies act like a bishop, and provincial agencies like a protectingpawn. They defend each other in limiting their respective mandates and by implication,the resources they could otherwise offer to support the Panel's work in taking acomprehensive, global view of allthe environmental risks posed by the RBT2 proposal.

The federal agencies:1. Marine diesel engines emit inhalable particulate matter and sulphur dioxides.

Transport Ganada could have explained they have expertise to estimate currentand projected marine engine emissions; their current and planned efforts toreduce sulphur in fuel oil; support research into exhaust scrubbing systems: andsupport the use of shore power when available. TC can also advise the Panel oninternational trends in ship design and seafaring that will make ships lesspolluting. What is TC's record in investigating and prosecuting polluting, foreign-flagged ships in Canadian waters? What is its present and future role ininspecting container shiPs?

2. Ganada Coast Guard has the expertise to predict the frequency of collisions andgroundings, and consequent risks of oil spills, according to variables like vesseltype, size and traffic. The Panel should ask CCG to brief it on key variables in

estimating marine traffic and its hazards to enable the Panel to assess thoserisks within shipping aspects of Port of Vancouver's EIS for RBT2. CCG limits its

<contact information removed>

spill response to ship sources; what will it do if a truckload of diesel spills andruns from the causeway onto the mud flats?

Fisheries and Oceans' mandate includes "fish"; meaning the organism, not thewater. For decades the provinces let DFO manage their aquatic environment byregulating effluents from important provincial sectors like mining and pulp andpaper, and more recently, municipal effluents, Similarly, DFO's "Fish Productivitylnvestment Polict''evaluates and manages fish habitat even though that habitatis a/ways (i.e. south of 60") provincialjurisdiction. The Panel should penetratethis jurisdictional fog to see the indifference-indeed insauciance-the provincialgovernment has towards its marine aquatic resources. The RBT2 proposal raisesthese questions: \rVhat are the water quality standards for Roberts Bank? Whospeaks for achieving and maintaining them? tffirat monitoring is being done tomake them credible?

The proponent expanded its container port following a CEAA comprehensivestudy dated July 20ffi, Project 04-03-3734, "Deltaport Third Berth". Environmentand Climate Change Canada played a key role in this review under its mandateto protect migratory birds and their habitat. lt was disingenuous for ECC'srepresentative to omit that fad. The representatives should have stated thatECC's scientists learned from that example, and are ready to advise the panel oncritical aspects like species' population dynamics, and biofilm. Also, ECC issuespermits to dump excavated spoilfrom construction sites onto the sea floor at ornear Roberts Bank. The Panel might ask how ECC works with the province inpre-and post-dumping evaluations, and dump site selection. ls there a commonor agreed policy approach towards protecting sediment and its benthic fauna?

Provincial agencies

1. The multipage letter from the British Columbia Environmental AssessmentOffice outlines roles for provincial agencies. The EAO representatives explainedthey work with CEAA but they have a "broader mandate" to consider socio-ecsnomic factors. lf so, when will they do this? They did not state, and may nothave even considered vrrhich provincial agency has-or ought to have-responsibility to estimate the losses RBT2 will cause in natural capital andservices, and whether offsets are possible.

2. The Ministry of Transportation and lnfrastructure did not explain its work withPort of Vancouver to manage nearly 2000 privately-owned container trucks, andis attempting to reduce emissions from these mobile sources. The Panel couldask the MTI to predict the growth in these emissions according to the proponent'sprojections for containers handled. Metro Vancouver studies and managesregional air quality, but did not attend the Orientation.

3.

4.

3. The Ministry of Environment representative said that if the "three Ms" apply -migratory, marine, multi-jurisdictionat - the issue was federal, but then qualified

that facile remark by saying MoE would participate in the identification of "Valued

Components" if they were part of the project. MoE does not foresee having a

permitting role for RBT2 because as a federal agency, Port of Vancouver mayignore provincial requirements. ln practice federal agencies accede to them, forexample by making payments in lieu of property taxes. MoE cannot prosecute a

federal agency, however the Panel should expect MoE to say it will work with the

RBT2 proponent towards equalling or exceeding provincial emissions, effluentsand contaminant standards. The Panel must have been surprised that the MoE

representative could not answer even basic questions within its stated mandateabout sediment disposal and water quality objectives (undertakings 8 and 9).

4. The obscure boundaries between ministerial responsibilities became moreconfusing with the presentation by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and NaturalResource Operations. Previously the Panel heard that MoE has primary

environmental science and policy responsibilities, and yet MFLNRO makes thedetermination of "valued components". This means the MFLNRO minister willbalance economic opportunities against consequent losses in natural capital. lfMoE's environmental scientists held dissenting or contrasting opinions, theywould be weighed only at the Cabinet level, if they haven't been previouslysmothered at MoE's director or ADM level. The Panel could ask for separatepresentations from both ministries that explain their mandates and expertiseusing examples from RBT2, but viewed as a provincial project.

As further comments on your Panel's review process, first, on June 28 youapologized for the short notice to receive submissions, yet this had one beneficial effect;

agency representatives had less time to prepare and were probably more candid in

admitting what they did not know.Secondly, your Panel could ask each of the participating agencies, federal and

provincial, to make the clearest practicable definition of their jurisdiction, responsibilities,and intellectual or professional resources, so the Panel is assured their evidence isgrounded in their core expertise, and not a product of political direction.

Finally, since Metro Vancouver manages regional air quality, the Panel should askthem to make a presentation similar to those you heard on June 28.

Sincerely,

Robert G. McCandless P.Geo FGC FEC(Hon)

<Original signed by>