Bill C-7 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends Parts 3 and 4 of the Marine Liability Act to clarify certain rules of the limitation of liability of owners of ships for maritime claims and liability for the carriage of passengers, in particular the treatment of participants in adventure tourism activities.
It also amends Part 6 of that Act to implement the Protocol of 2003 to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 as well as the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001. The enactment continues, in Part 7, the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund and modernizes its governance. With respect to Part 8, it includes general provisions relating to the administration and enforcement of offences under that Act and creates a maritime lien for Canadian ship suppliers against foreign vessels and establishes a general limitation period for proceedings not covered by other limitation periods.
Finally, this enactment amends the Federal Courts Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Marine Liability Act

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague for balancing the preservationist approach to the environment and the commercial interest that develops economies so that we can all enjoy that environment.

My colleague has demonstrated some very particular concern with respect to British Columbia and Canada's north because these are the areas that appear to be most vulnerable. If truth must be told, all of Canada's water systems are vulnerable.

This particular bill attempts to deal with those who would flagrantly abuse the waterways by not having vessels that are appropriately equipped and prepared to withstand the challenges of nature as they transport goods, like petroleum, through our waterways and along our coastlines.

As a result of the government following a Liberal lead in terms of making the bill effective, this legislation attempts to put a series of fines and legislative mechanisms in place to ensure that such flagrant abuse of our waterways is dealt with in an expeditious and meaningful fashion. One of these, of course, is to put fines in place, and the other one is to make it absolutely illegal to conduct business in a fashion that would be injurious to the environment and to Canadians at large.

In his thematic approach to this issue, I know the member has considered these options. I wonder whether he would take us from the thematic approach he has employed to the specific one and give us an indication of whether he thinks the fines implemented in the bill are sufficient to discourage people and businesses from engaging in the practices that would lead to some of the disasters he has pointed to.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked an interesting question.

Penalties can be on the books, but the challenge is enforcement. I am still wondering where the enforcement aspect is in this legislation. Historically the government has not invested in the enforcement capabilities we need today to enforce the laws we already have. I am looking for the enforcement aspect of the bill, which is absolutely essential.

The member brought up the issue of the navigable waters act. The government added the navigable waters act to Bill C-10, the budget bill, an issue that had nothing to do with the budget at all. By putting this in the budget bill, the government actually compromised what it claims it wants to do, which is to have a system in place to protect our waters and to do proper environmental assessments of our waters.

As the member mentioned, waterways across our country are under threat. The changes the government has put in place to the navigable waters act are actually going to work counter to this legislation. I would like to see the government remove that completely from Bill C-10.

With respect to the last issue, oil dumping from ships is a huge problem. But the dumping that goes on with bilge cleaning and such is much greater than the large oil spills, and it has to be deal with.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question was going to be similar to that.

I want to bring an east coast perspective to this. The Irving Whale was raised in 1996, after its 1970 disaster. There were 4,200 tonnes of oil and PCB contaminants contained in the hull, and three-quarters of that was recovered. In 1996, the costs were $42 million. That disaster was not to the same extent as the Exxon Valdez spill. Therefore, is the $150 million limit appropriate?

With respect to enforcement, the act designates officers who would be responsible for enforcement, but there does not appear to be any succinct indication about where those officers would come from or what resources would be provided to finance their work. While I laud the member for his support of the bill, could he elaborate on what needs to be done with respect to enforcement of the bill? A bill that is well meaning and well intended and supported does not necessarily have efficacy if it cannot be enforced.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We can have all the laws in the world, but unless there is an enforcement mechanism they are not useful. They are not even as useful as the piece of paper in my right hand.

That not only goes for the domestic laws but also the international laws. We have UNCLOS, the UN law of the sea, to which we are a signatory. We have not been able to establish, domestically or internationally, an effective enforcement mechanism. We have a judicial mechanism without an enforcement mechanism, which makes the judicial system not useful at all. This is a fundamental challenge of the signatories to international treaties. We get half the equation correct, but we do not do the other half.

In my community on Vancouver Island, we only have one fisheries officer to do all the work on the southern half of Vancouver Island. That is absolutely impossible. We see a lot of poaching and destruction of habitat, and we have a beleaguered fisheries officer who simply does not have enough time.

The government really needs to come to the table to define how it is going to provide the resources to enforce the very laws in this bill.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can see that the Liberal Party is the only one interested in talking about environmental issues. Whether they emanate from a commercial-oriented bill or an industrial-dominated bill, we still discuss issues relevant to the environment. Addressing the environment and environmental issues is the 21st century approach to dealing with economic development. Try as we might to infuse all debate with an economic strategy that has the environment as its centrepiece, the basis upon which everything else is built, it appears we are speaking only to ourselves in this House. I mean that figuratively, Mr. Speaker, because you have been very attentive as we have been going through this bill.

When we brought the bill before the House, Liberal members tried to address what my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca just indicated. We want to ensure that if there are penalties, if there is a regulatory system, if there are resources to ensure that the semblance of a strategy be in place, that the appropriate resources be put in place and that the enforcement mechanisms are geared to their implementation. We have been trying to do that in the House, and we find that no one is discussing the environmental impacts, other than us.

However, so that no one gets the impression we are unaware of the economic impacts of careful environmental stewardship, I will ask the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to examine for us the connection between a bill that proposes fines and a regulatory system and the impacts on the environment, not just in the Lower Mainland and the British Columbia coast, but in all of Canada.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned over the years from the World Wildlife Fund and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, with respect to land examples, with some exceptions for necessary protection of lands because they are unique and very fragile, if we look at an area and say we are simply going to conserve something, in the end that area will not be conserved, it will in fact be destroyed.

We have to have, as the member correctly alluded to, the yin and the yang of this, which is sustainable development and conservation. Historically, some have thought that it cannot happen, but we have found that it must happen. We have to balance the ability of putting conservation first. With a mind for conservation, we can have sustainable development. We just have to be aware that what we are doing is not going to create and adopt practices that will damage the very biodiversity that is essential for the life of our species. We human beings are part of the web of life. We are all part of one wheel of life. If we damage one part of that wheel, then we are all affected as a result.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of items I would like to comment on peripheral to the bill. It gives us a chance to address issues that our constituents have and some are exactly in the legislative wording of the bill. I will concentrate most of the time on issues related to my riding in Yukon and to my role as critic for northern affairs, so issues covering the whole of the Arctic.

I want to emphasize on a more global scale the point the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca made on the book Sea Sick. If we were to add the prevention of pollution in the bill, it would just accelerate the problem that is in that book, a very critical problem in the world, one that is affected by increased carbon dioxide in the seas thereby damaging sea life. This bill goes to prevent, in a number of ways, issues related to oil spills.

Basically, the book makes the point that global warming is bad. However, in addition, the oxygen that we all breathe comes from phytoplankton in the seas and a small degree in pH change could eliminate that. Essentially, the oxygen on earth and the carbon dioxide would dissolve into the oceans.

As the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said, there is even much more potent global warming from methane. It is not only coming out of the permafrost as it melts but in huge chunks of frozen methane on the sea bottoms in most parts of the world, including off his riding on the west coast of B.C., off the coast of Japan and of course, in the Arctic. This is a huge concern and Parliament had to bring this to the attention of Canadians this impending crisis, caused by carbon dioxide dissolving in the oceans, to life on earth.

I also want to reiterate the point he made about bilge cleaning and oil spills, that we do not need a wreck of a ship to cause tremendous damage, particularly in the very sensitive eco-environment in the Arctic. It is more sensitive, harder to replenish than the oceans in the rest of the world because of the cold temperatures, et cetera. As ships go up there they either dump waste, which I will talk about later, or they clean bilges or they get other species into the waters. There can be a devastating introduction of new species and extinction of the existing species that have been so essential to life in those areas for thousands of years.

The bill is good in regard to increasing protection for the seas of the world, the lifeblood of many societies, especially in the Arctic, but we have to continue to work in this area on all these other considerations we are going to talk about. I will be talking about proposed future amendments related to that type of protection.

I want to talk about a technicality in the bill and I would like to compliment the Department of Transport. When the bill first came up in a previous government, there was a serious problem in that it applied the rules related to large ocean-going cruise ships, to small canoes, rafting, outdoor adventure and recreation type businesses. Of course, those businesses, for whatever reason, did not get their message across in the first iteration of the bill, but they certainly did afterward because this could put many of them out of business. The rules just did not fit. They did not make any sense. It could make it prohibitively expensive.

There is an inherent risk that people accept in adventure tourism. There is a need to staff people with qualifications. For some companies that only do one or two trips a year, some of the provisions did not make any sense. Insurance provisions could have made it totally uneconomic to even have an operation.

I certainly compliment the Department of Transport for dealing with the wilderness tourism industry and the Tourism Industry Association of Canada and coming up with amendments to this bill that would not totally wipe out the adventure tourism industry that primarily involves canoes, kayaks and rafts. That is a tremendous improvement to this bill.

I want to talk for a minute about oil spills. This bill contains a great provision in that it amends the Marine Liability Act to implement the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage. Liberal members from B.C. talked about how dramatic oil spill damage can be. Of course, this added liability is very important and it is a good section of the bill.

I want to talk for a minute about what is not addressed yet in Canada over and above this and that is oil spills in the Arctic. In the Arctic there is at present no technology to deal with oil spills. The Beaufort project studies in the 1970s were funded by the federal government and industry also contributed. They did a lot of research in this area. There are some extensive volumes of information on this. However, the bottom line is they did not come up with a solution. Within a few days of an oil spill occurring under ice, the damage is irreparable. There is no way of collecting it. There certainly needs to be research in this area.

The government is very enthusiastic about the fact that perhaps a third of the world's remaining natural gas reserves and a quarter of oil reserves, something of that magnitude, are in the northern oceans. Yet, a government agency could not issue a permit right now. I know that the government thinks that should be developed, but it could not even issue a permit right now because it has no answer to the environmental damage that would occur due to an oil spill.

Statistics make it very clear, I think American statistics, that with the number of projects and developments that take place in the seas, such an oil spill is very likely or at least has a significant probability of occurring. Obviously, we need that protection. As I said earlier, any type of chemical or species damage in the very sensitive Arctic environments could cause long-lasting irreparable damage to the oceans, the life in the oceans and, of course, to the indigenous people who have used the ocean life for thousands of years.

We need to get on with it very quickly. There should be encouragement from all parties to do the research and invest more in research, likely in collaboration with oil companies, on mechanisms for cleaning up the inevitable hydrocarbon spills in the oceans of the Arctic.

The record so far on increasing specific research projects in the north is not good. In the last budget, for instance, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences has been cancelled. The three main granting councils in Canada have lost money and researchers, and I believe a letter from 2,000 scientists in the country decried that. The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences funds things like Eureka, the closest post to the North Pole.

If we are interested in sovereignty, obviously we want scientists in the north. Why would we be cutting and closing our most northern establishment in Canada? It is a backward step related to sovereignty, but more importantly it is a backward step related to Arctic science. It is great that we are increasing facilities in the north, but it is not great if they are going to be empty facilities without any scientists there. I want to really enforce that particular point.

I also want to pick up on an excellent point made by the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe on enforcement. There have been a number of bills to increase enforcement provisions. This is just another one in the order. We must increase our enforcement ability. That is generally accepted and I am sure this bill will pass in Parliament. However, the problem identified over and over again is that the will of the government to provide the enforcement and the resources to actually enforce these things is lacking. A good example is on the inspections related to listeriosis. The government set up a system where there would be fewer inspections on the floor, moving the inspectors off the floor of the meat plants.

Another example was a proposed bill that I think has been hoisted because it was kind of inconceivable, but it was a bill to reduce inspections of grain. This would not only jeopardize human life but would jeopardize Canada's reputation around the world by reducing the inward inspections of Canadian grain.

A third example was in Bill C-3. We just recently extended Canada's ability to enforce the Arctic waters. I think it was unanimously passed. That was great. We extended Pierre Trudeau's bill from 100 miles to 200 miles because of the Law of the Sea change. So it was an administrative change.

Therefore, we increased the area where Canada could apply enforcement by a huge amount, the size of Saskatchewan, yet there was not one penny more allowed for enforcement to cover that area. I think our critic, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, made that point very eloquently in debate. It is like saying the Toronto police force added another city the size of Toronto to be enforced, but no police officers are added. What is the use of having a law with no enforcement capabilities?

When questioned on that, it was suggested that we have one propeller plane for the Pacific Ocean, one propeller plane for the Arctic Ocean, and one propeller plane for the Atlantic Ocean. I know one of the northern scientist experts, a professor, was kind of laughing at that. I really do not think that is sufficient monitoring enforcement.

Another answer was that we have increased the environmental inspectors, but remember that we are extending the area of enforcement from 100 miles to 200 miles, so we start at 100 miles out to sea and go out 200 miles out to sea in the Arctic. We asked where the inspectors were being placed and the answer was Yellowknife. If we look at a map of Canada, we can see how many hundreds and hundreds of miles Yellowknife is from the ocean, and then we would have to go 100 miles out before the bill even came into effect.

We have a bill here that increases enforcement. I would just encourage the government to make sure that we are all in favour of the items in here and that it supports the spirit of bill in making sure that it can be enforced.

I want to talk about some amendments that I propose for the future. The reason I have not brought them forward yet is that these are amendments related to this type of bill and a number of other bills.

The problem is that there are a number of items related to shipping, shipping pollution, dumping, oil spills, and the structure of boats that are capable of going through the Arctic spread through a whole bunch of acts. It is very hard to figure out the appropriate place for the amendments that I am going to talk about.

I am putting them on the table now, just to forewarn people. I am hoping that the experts in the federal bureaucracy may have an interdepartmental committee to sit down and decide whether these things that are scattered through a number of bills, probably more than half a dozen bills, should actually be in one bill, how the deficiencies should be dealt with, or whether they should be in more than one bill. Therefore, I am putting on the record some ideas for amendments. These could be looked at in the future if the experts in the various departments and the stakeholders think they are necessary.

Organizations like the Canadian Bar Association, the National Maritime Law Section, the Canadian Maritime Law Association, Wilderness Tourism Association of the Yukon, International Ship-Owners Alliance of Canada, Canadian Shipowners Association, Tourism Industry Association of Canada had input in the bill. If they think these types of amendments are important and are needed, they can provide feedback to me and government officials. Environmental associations can also so the same thing.

As an example of one problem, under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, ships can dump grey water into the Arctic Ocean. I have spoken twice on the sensitivity of that ocean to detrimental substances. In fact, a couple of summers ago the government specifically mentioned that the navy, on individual occasions, would apply for permits to dump grey water.

These are the types of things at which we need to look. Are they necessary or can they be avoided in order to help protect that environment, especially with today's increasingly effective technology to protect the environment by building containments within ships.

The first amendment is for ships travelling Canadian Arctic waters. They would have to adhere to a zero tolerance policy with regard to the dumping of waste in these waters. Personally I think that is feasible. I have had no feedback saying it is not because of the modern technology available to us. It may cost cruise lines and military vessels, but it should be investigated.

The second amendment is the dumping of waste in Arctic waters would be subject to a first offence penalty. This amendment relates to the fact that there were some limited enforcement mechanisms in some bills. Dumping of waste in Arctic waters would be subject to a first offence financial penalty regime, depending on the nature of the waste dumped, extent of the quality of the waste dumped and the estimated damage on the pristine Arctic water ecosystem, plus cleanup costs.

The third amendment is repeat offences would result in more severe financial penalties, including the clean up of environmental damage cost and/or incarceration.

The fourth amendment is it would be incumbent upon shippers entering Canadian waters to provide proof of insurance liability to offset pollution mishap, cleanups or dumping violations. We heard earlier about the tremendous cost of the Exxon Valdez spill, which was far more than what was specifically provided for. The member for Newton—North Delta made that point, but what if that had been under ice? It would have been substantially worse.

The next amendment is ocean going tankers would need to carry a minimum $1 billion per load liability policy. Smaller barges and vessels carrying cargo that could result in toxic or oil spills would need to carry a minimum of $250 million liability policy.

The next amendment is other freighter vessels and container ships would need to carry a minimum of $500 million per load liability.

The second last amendment is cruise lines would need to carry a $350 million liability policy.

The last amendment is all vessels travelling in Canadian waters would be subject to Canadian Coast Guard, Canadian armed forces and Canadian Environmental Service boarding and inspection for potential environmental spills, dumping or violation of shipping standards in Arctic waters.

I put that out for the government officials and stakeholders to provide feedback and to start discussion on improving our protection of the pristine and very vulnerable Arctic ecosystems.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for raising some very important issues in the context of this legislation. There are several, but I will pick up on one of the latter issues, and that is all of that which is resident under the permafrost is under the ice.

My colleague from Yukon has mentioned on several occasions, with respect to this bill and Bill C-3, that it is important to protect the environment and the interests of the aboriginal communities there. I note people in the audience are following this debate attentively. They picked up on that issue as well.

My colleague from Yukon knows very well that one of the issues we attempted to raise with Bill C-7 was that vessels would potentially go through the Northwest Passage. He made reference to the fact that potentially a great number of scientists and geophysicists would look at the latent, vast deposits of petroleum resident in that part of Canada.

For example, the 2008 U.S. geological survey found that 13% of all the untapped, undiscovered petroleum deposits were resident in Canada's Nordic lands under the ice sheets. Further, it found that 30% of the natural gas deposits worldwide were resident off the shore of Yukon and northwest of Nunavut. Indeed, 20% of all liquefied natural gas products were resident in that same place. When we have an environmental accident, where vessels that are not prepared to assume their responsibility travel through these waters, the potential for environmental disaster is huge.

My colleague from Yukon mentioned a moment ago that all such vessels travelling in this area ought to carry a liability of some $2 billion. The bill does not go that far. Could the member elaborate on the relationship between the liability that must be carried by these commercial operators and the environmental requirements of not only the north but all of Canada?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our critic for shepherding the bill through this Parliament and through the last Parliament.

We need to have a degree of liability that is economically affordable, but the economic costs of environmental damage to society and the environment are massive and huge. Sometimes they are not taken into account in simple economic evaluations. He mentioned the Northwest Passage. While there are several points about the Northwest Passage, he talked about the economics. There would be a huge savings for ships that would go through the passage. Therefore, they could afford this extra liability insurance.

Additionally, cruise ships are very important to my riding. On one hand, I would not want to put them out of business. On the other hand, it has to be in the cost of the package, and technology would allow it, that the environment is protected. The Canadian government can help by having many more navigational aids and ensuring those cruise ships are safe. This would reduce the possibility of an accident, such as the one that occurred in Antarctica.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deprive my colleague from Yukon of the opportunity to elaborate on some of the principles he presented for the consideration of the House, so I take it upon myself, and I hope members do not think I am too self-indulgent in this, to re-raise some of those issues in order to afford him the opportunity to elaborate on issues of great importance to Canadians and, in particular, to those aboriginal Canadians who inhabit and maintain our interests in the north.

My colleague talked about cruise ships as well, which is an emerging business along our northern shores. Cruise ship operators constantly worry about the costs that they would have to bear if they offloaded their effluents beyond the 12 mile limit, or close to about 20 kilometres, especially in the way it is determined in their calculation.

My colleague is an expert in these areas. Could he elaborate of just how precise and how important that connection between environmental safety and commercial development is to Canadians everywhere?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a good point. The cruise ship industry will be happy if I put on the record the fact that the industry thinks the regulations and fees put on them by Alaska have almost closed down the industry. All the tourists we get off cruise ships in Yukon come from Alaska. That has a huge effect on our tourism industry. We cannot over-regulate to the extent that we put them out of business, which in turn results in tourists not coming to our area.

However, that does not mean we cannot protect the environment. We could provide research for these companies with respect to grey water on their ships as an example. With respect to making cuts in research, research officers in the northern research council are going to be eliminated, and this is absurd.

If we are putting this onus on cruise ships, we could improve the services we provide for them. The north is a very dangerous area, and it is not only the ice that presents a danger. Under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act of 1970, cruise ships need to be of a certain structure to go in the north. Ice packs move around unpredictably. Part of the Northwest Passage is very dangerous because there are shallow areas and submerged rocks. These need to be charted and the ships need to have navigational aids.

We need to provide better search and rescue services. Companies that go there want to know their passengers will be safe and help will be there for them in an emergency.

These are types of things the Canadian government could invest in to offset the cost to cruise ships and commercial boats. This will result in a win-win situation for everybody.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Yukon feels himself connected to the British Columbia coast and to all of the activities that come from there. He has gone into the commercial ventures. Here today are members from the port authorities of the Lower Mainland, Vancouver, et cetera. He raised an economic development issue that also involves transport that radiates out of that Lower Mainland hub.

Because he spends a lot of time there, could he give us an indication of the nexus between the activity of the port of Vancouver and all the transportation issues that relate as well to Yukon and the north? He actually lives that radiation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that we definitely depend on cruise ship passengers coming from the west coast, primarily Vancouver. That is important for us.

West coast port issues are very important for all of western Canada.

I want to go on record as stating that this is a great time to start this debate. There are some important issues relating to stability in those ports, to the rule of law, to labour setups. We need to ensure we have the best available ports for the world on our west coast so other ports do not get that business.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.