Evidence of meeting #15 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
March 4th, 2014 / 9:10 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
I understand the government's position; however, given that the department has not yet conducted a risk assessment, it's difficult to say exactly what the risk might be. If the biggest cleanup required for HNS to date is $60 million—there's no draw-down on the fund, because the fund hasn't yet been implemented anywhere—and the department has not conducted a risk assessment, nor has the panel turned its mind to HNS yet, it is difficult for us to state categorically that $165 million is enough. The $400 million comes into play only when it's an oil spill, which then comes back to the whole discussion of oil again.
I understand the government's reluctance to deal with this SOPF in any way other than as it applies to oil, but perhaps we can, after the fact.... If there's money available that will save the Canadian taxpayers money in the long run, then maybe we should be looking at asking the other transporters of hazardous and noxious substances to contribute to a uniquely Canadian fund, the SOPF, in other words, to provide yet another backstop. It may never be needed, but in the event that it is, I believe the taxpayers would rather we were being prudent than leaving the taxpayers open to a significant liability.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Yes, I'll make it quickly.
The idea behind this is just to make sure the taxpayers don't have to pay. Right now what we're saying is that the taxpayers would pay for the cleanup, rather than the oil companies.
It wouldn't be initiating a fund; it's a fund that already existed. It was stopped in 1973, in terms of how much money was put in. If we want to be fair, I think we should change the law, and it's Canadian law, to make sure that all HNS transporters contribute to that fund. Then we would have a fund that would make sure that Canadian taxpayers wouldn't have to pay.
It's really hard for me to understand why the government wants to protect the oil companies rather than the Canadian taxpayers. There's a fund that already existed. It was paid up until 1973. No additional money has been put in. Right now we're saying, “Well, no, let's not use that fund,” instead of, if we want to be fair, asking the transporters to put more money into the fund. That would be better. But to say that because the maximum cleanup cost $60 million it means that we won't have more, that's not prudent, in my mind.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 42 agreed to)
(On clause 43)
We have amendment NDP-6.
Mr. Mai.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
I don't want to waste any more of the committee's time. NDP amendments 6, 7 and 8 are all related to what we discussed. I won't repeat my explanation, but I will stress the importance of not making taxpayers pay these costs. Unfortunately, it seems that the government's preference is to make taxpayers pay instead of the companies.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 43 agreed to)
(Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to)
(On clause 46)
We have amendment NDP-7.
Mr. Mai.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
It's the same thing, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 46 agreed to)
(Clauses 47 to 49 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 50)
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
It's the same thing, Mr. Chair, and I'll just ask for a recorded vote.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 50 agreed to)
(Clauses 51 to 59 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 60)
We have an amendment moved by Ms. May.
Ms. May, welcome to the committee. You have the floor.
9:15 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As committee members will recall, I'm here based on instructions to show up at clause-by-clause study with amendments if we're concerned.
On this bill, Bill C-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not to be cheeky about it, but I think the short title, safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, should get some sort of prize for overblown marketing in the public relations category in future Oscars.
It does a lot of business, like housekeeping, for which I have no concerns, relating to aviation accidents and war risks for the aeronautics industry.
I certainly think that implementing the international convention on liability and compensation for damage in connection with the carriage of hazardous and noxious substances by sea is a good idea, but I completely support the attempts which the NDP just made to get rid of the cap on marine accidents involving oil.
I've focused my amendments on part 5. There are three amendments, but I'll just speak briefly to—
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.
What this amendment to clause 60 would do is create some public access to this information about the plans that the minister would be approving in relation to oil pollution prevention plans or oil pollution emergency plans. They are in the act now, that the minister will approve such plans, but as we understand it, none of these plans would be accessible by access to information legislation. We're suggesting in this very straightforward amendment that the minister would publish in the Canada Gazette, as well as on the Internet site of the Department of Transport, the plans that are received, and the minister would consult with the public about any of these concerns that the public might express once they had an opportunity to review the plans.
It's merely a piece on public accessibility to information that's been prepared already. There's no additional preparation of information that's required by this section. The minister publishes the plans that have been accepted and then, if there are concerns, the minister shall consult. That's the extent of the amendment.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Is there further discussion on the amendment?
All those in favour of the amendment?
Are you in favour of your amendment, Ms. May?
9:15 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'd like to be in favour of my amendment and I appreciate your extending my rights and privileges. Larry Miller for—
9:15 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is amendment PV-2, proposed by Ms. May.
The floor is yours, Ms. May.
9:15 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, again, this amendment is affecting the same line of reasoning on page 56, also in clause 60, looking at ensuring that the oil pollution prevention plans and emergency plans that are submitted pursuant to section 167.4 would also be made public by the minister in the fashion of a publication in the Canada Gazette and on the Internet site of the Department of Transport, and that, again, this would facilitate public access to this information.
As you will know, Mr. Chair, this is an area of extreme interest to communities that live near facilities that handle the transport of oil. The pollution prevention plans and emergency plans being made public would be in the public interest. I hope that committee members will approve this amendment.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Could I hear from the officials what they think about the amendment?