Evidence of meeting #12 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was international.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, International Marine Policy and Liability, Department of Transport
About $400 million.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
You say that's used to pay Canada's contributions to the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds. How much to date has been paid into that?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, International Marine Policy and Liability, Department of Transport
Since 1989, when Canada joined, I think we have, up to now, paid close to $40 million in compensation over the years toward the international fund.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
My math is really sour. How much is that per year, roughly, in terms of future obligations?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, International Marine Policy and Liability, Department of Transport
It varies so much, depending on whether claims come into the organization in London. I think one of the largest contributions on an annual basis was paid not too long ago, and it was about $8 million in that given year because there was a major incident handled by the international fund.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Okay. So what we're seeking to do through the amendments here, with Bill C-7, is to go a step further. This is to ratify our participation in the supplemental fund to the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds. Is that correct?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, International Marine Policy and Liability, Department of Transport
Yes.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
So presumably, the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund will be paying out Canada's claims to both the IOPC funds and the supplemental fund to the IOPC. Is that correct?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, International Marine Policy and Liability, Department of Transport
Indeed. If the future experience at the international level involves massive claims that will trigger higher contributions, then of course the contributions paid by Canada by the domestic fund will increase.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
On the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund, the funds that were in there were based on a levy on fuel oil received. Is that correct? Or on receipts of bulk oil?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, International Marine Policy and Liability, Department of Transport
That's right. It's based on the amount of oil received in the member states of the international fund. That's the measure.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
It doesn't sound like that will ever have to be contemplated, or least it doesn't sound likely in the foreseeable future that it would be contemplated again. The fund sounds pretty....
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, International Marine Policy and Liability, Department of Transport
So far the fund has managed to lift and finance itself on accrued interest. Hopefully that will continue.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Switching gears for a second here, what laws are in place to prevent oil spills? Now we've talked about what's in place or what we hope to additionally achieve with this bill in terms of the compensation side. Can you talk for a minute about what laws are in place to prevent oil spills from happening in the first place?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, International Marine Policy and Liability, Department of Transport
I'm happy to hand it to my colleague from maritime safety.
April 21st, 2009 / 4:55 p.m.
Donald Roussel Director, Marine Personnel Standards and Pilotage, Department of Transport
Thank you. It's my pleasure to answer that.
There's a series of laws in Canada that prevent pollution. The main one, of course, in Transport is the Canada Shipping Act, and inside the Canada Shipping Act there are specific sections regarding pollution prevention and a series of regulations. We have some regulations on the prevention of pollution but also on the construction of ships and the way they are built so that they protect the environment.
The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is another one that is present. To name a few, you have the series of acts that are under the privy of the Minister of Environment: the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which deals with prevention of pollution, to name one, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has aspects to it. Under Fisheries and Oceans there are some other aspects under the Fisheries Act. So it's present in numerous pieces of legislation within the Canadian regime.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
That gives us our first full round. I think I'm going to do just one more round around the table if you have a comment or a question.
Mr. Volpe.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Gauthier, I wonder if we could go back to the question, and now it seems such a long time ago, where I expressed some confusion about the position of some of the passengers on some of these adventure tours. You were at the point, if I recall correctly, where you were explaining to me how the act makes a distinction between a passenger and a participant. I'm still not quite sure that I follow some of the logic that I've heard expressed both by colleagues opposite and even from this side of the table in reaction to some of your responses, so if you'll permit me, we can go back.
An adventure tour operator, I thought I heard you say, is not required to have insurance, and some of the people who might be on his or her ship, boat, etc., are really up the creek without the proverbial paddle in the event of a problem. So are any of the individuals who might be on shore and might be affected by the accident. Is that the impression I should have as a result of your response to those initial questions?
5 p.m.
General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
I think, Mr. Volpe, the impression I would like to leave you with in any event, and perhaps it wasn't conveyed, was that I didn't actually speak to insurance. Suffice it to say that it's probably worth stating that the operator of such a craft, though not compelled, as Mr. Rysanek has indicated, by law to have insurance, as a prudent operator, probably has some insurance. We understand these amendments will actually pave the way for insurance being available as opposed to insurance not being available under the current regime for the reasons that were also mentioned.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
--on any operator to engage in the activity by taking the prudent act first, and that is to ensure that there's insurance on the activity.
5 p.m.
General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
That is correct. That's the first part of the answer. There is no compulsion by law for those operators to have insurance.
The second part that I think I need to mention, though, and perhaps it wasn't too clear, is that leaving insurance aside, it is not as if the operator of such an adventure tourism vessel or series of vessels cannot be made liable in law to compensate the victims of a personal injury or whatever. Of course they could, and they would be at law like any other claimant. They would not have the passenger regime--we've clarified that. They're not in part 4, but that doesn't preclude in any way, shape or form lawsuits being taken against the operator to recover for their damages.