Bill C-3 (Historical)

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act

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

Part 1 enacts the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, which authorizes the Minister of Transport to undertake to indemnify certain aviation industry participants for loss, damage or liability caused by events that are commonly referred to in the insurance industry as “war risks”. The Minister may undertake to indemnify all aviation industry participants, or may specify that an undertaking applies only to specific participants or classes of participant or applies only in specific circumstances. The Act also requires that the Minister, at least once every two years, assess whether it is feasible for aviation industry participants to obtain insurance coverage for events or other similar coverage, and that the Minister report regularly to Parliament on his or her activities under the Act. Part 1 also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 amends the Aeronautics Act to provide certain persons with powers to investigate aviation accidents or incidents involving civilians and aircraft or aeronautical installations operated by or on behalf of the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces or a visiting force. It also establishes privilege in respect of on-board recordings, communication records and certain statements, and permits, among other things, access to an on-board recording if certain criteria are met. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 3 amends the Canada Marine Act in relation to the effective day of the appointment of a director of a port authority.
Part 4 amends the Marine Liability Act to implement the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010. Among other things, it gives force of law to many provisions of the Convention, clarifies the liability of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund with respect to the Convention and confers powers, duties and functions on the Fund’s Administrator.
Part 5 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to introduce new requirements for operators of oil handling facilities, including the requirement to notify the Minister of their operations and to submit plans to the Minister. It extends civil and criminal immunity to the agents or mandataries of response organizations engaged in response operations. It also introduces new enforcement measures for Part 8 of the Act, including by applying the administrative monetary penalties regime contained in Part 11 of that Act to Part 8.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly feel for British Columbia in terms of the closure of the Coast Guard station there. There has been the closure, as the hon. member pointed out, of the rescue sub-centre in St. John's despite objections from just about every quarter. The technicians who ran that centre in St. John's knew every nook and cranny of the Newfoundland and Labrador coast, as well as the dialect. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians speak a certain way, with character and a certain charm, but it is different from dialects and accents in other parts of the country.

On the one hand, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador can more than relate to the opposition to the closure of the Coast Guard station in Vancouver, but it is inexplicable how the Conservatives can explain the cuts on either coast. Of course, we are not hearing anything from the Conservatives today, so we will not be getting any answers.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for pointing out all the contradictions in Bill C-3, which was introduced by the Conservatives. We see that they are not even participating in the debate today, even though this is a government bill designed to tell Canadians just how safe it is at present to use supertankers and to increase production.

We know that the number of supertankers has increased and even tripled between 2005 and 2010. It will triple again by 2016. However, environmental protection measures and everything to do with environmental and emergency services have been reduced or closed from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia. Even the Commissioner of the Environment has said that Canada does not have an effective emergency plan.

How can we tell Canadians that they can trust the federal Conservative government when this very bill contains all these discrepancies?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again pointed out, as has been pointed out numerous times today, that the Conservatives refuse to speak in this debate for the most part, but then again, even if they did speak, they are not in the habit of answering questions anyway.

In 2009, there was the crash of Cougar flight 491. It was an incredible tragedy, in which 17 people were killed. The number one recommendation from the Wells inquiry into that crash was for the creation of an independent safety regulator to regulate safety in the offshore, separate from the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the industry, an independent safety regulator.

One question I have for the Conservatives, if they were willing to speak today, if they were willing to answer questions today, is this: what of that recommendation for the independent safety regulator, the number one recommendation of the Wells inquiry? What of that recommendation?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-3.

During the previous session, we called upon the government to broaden the scope of Bill C-57, the former incarnation of Bill C-3, by sending it to committee prior to second reading so that more comprehensive measures aimed at protecting Canada’s coasts could be incorporated into it. Unfortunately, our request was turned down, and as several of my colleagues have mentioned, in addition to denying our request, today the Conservatives are not even speaking to this bill, explaining their position or answering our questions. It is truly deplorable.

The bill before us today does not go any further than Bill C-57, but we will nevertheless vote in favour of it at second reading, in the hopes that we will be able to convince the government to improve upon the marine safety provisions when it proceeds to clause-by-clause study in committee. The outcome of the efforts in committee will determine whether or not we will support Bill C-3 when it moves to third reading. Again, I hope that we will be able to truly debate the bill’s provisions in committee, and I call upon the government to be open-minded and to work with the opposition to make this bill a better piece of legislation.

I will concede that Bill C-3 does contain a few positive provisions. Enhanced monitoring and piloting requirements are a step in the right direction. The implementation of the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 2010, to which Canada is a signatory, is also a positive development. However, as I indicated earlier, Bill C-3 does not go far enough. It does not reverse the effects of last year’s drastic budget cuts on oil tanker safety. The provisions in Bill C-3 aimed at improving safety will have a relatively minor impact as compared to the risks posed by, for example, the closure of B.C.’s oil spill response centre, the closure of the coast guard station in Kitsilano and the cuts to environmental emergency response programs. All of Canada, and not only B.C., is affected.

The government has decided to close the marine rescue centre in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is also planning to shutter the marine search and rescue centre in Quebec City. These rescue centres respond on average to 1,500 distress calls each year. Who will be there to rescue sailors from Newfoundland and Labrador and from Quebec when they encounter an emergency at sea?

In the fall of 2012, two large transport vessels ran aground on the west coast because of marine traffic conditions. Marine traffic is projected to increase significantly on the west coast. Add to that the fact that increasingly large tankers are being put into service. We have higher traffic volumes, larger vessels and Bill C-3, which does not go far enough. I am concerned by this state of affairs, as is our party.

As an MP and as a citizen, I have some serious questions as to why the government would not want to beef up the bill as the NDP is asking it to do. Upon closer review of Bill C-3, we are left with the impression that the government is trying to make up for its lack of leadership in the field of marine safety since taking office. If it really wants to show some leadership, it must avoid half-measures and put some teeth into its bill, because it still comes up short. We want to take part in the process.

If the true aim of Bill C-3 was to promote greater tanker traffic safety, the Conservative government could seize the opportunity to review the cuts announced in the latest budgets and reconsider eliminating marine safety programs. As I said, we have a number of suggestions and recommendations to make and we are prepared to work in committee to improve the bill.

The NDP is committed to ensuring that oil spills along our coastlines become a thing of the past and that our sailors stay safe.

In our view, a bill aimed at protecting Canada’s seas should provide for the following: firstly, the cancellation of plans to reduce Coast Guard services and close stations, including the Coast Guard station in Kitsilano. Secondly, it should expand the capacity of petroleum boards to handle oil spills, as recommended by the Commissioner of the Environment. Thirdly, the bill should also require Canada’s Coast Guard to work with its American counterparts to carry out a study on the risks associated with increased tanker traffic in Canadian waters.

As I said earlier, we have clear suggestions for improving the bill now before us. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to put in place conditions that will prevent oil spills from occurring on the west coast and elsewhere in Canada.

Scott Vaughan, Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, has stated that Canada does not have the means to respond effectively to an accident involving a supertanker such as the Suezmax, which carries between one and two millions barrels of crude oil. Just imagine a disaster of that magnitude.

To be precise, Mr. Vaughan stated that the transport capacity of the Suezmax “significantly exceeds Transport Canada’s spill-response thresholds”. This kind of statement is truly alarming. What is the government waiting for? When will it take action?

A major spill off Canada’s shores would not only do irreparable harm to the marine environment, but would also result in thousands of job losses. We need to do everything possible to ensure that this does not happen. I would like to hear our Conservative colleagues explain why it makes sense not to improve this bill so as to cancel the closures and cutbacks that are in the works.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can see that more than just our coastlines are being threatened. While we debate this bill, two weeks ago the government lifted environmental protections for offshore exploration. What concerns me is the Conservatives' and Liberals' silence. I am having a hard time understanding their silence. Why are the Conservatives not rising to defend their own bill?

I want to put that question to my colleague and perhaps she can enlighten us.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Everyone on this side of the House is asking that same question. How can it be that the Conservatives, on the other side of the House, are introducing a bill and cannot explain the rationale behind it? That is unfortunate.

I think that as elected officials, it is our duty to represent Canadians and explain our decisions as well as the reasons for our decisions and for introducing a bill. What we are seeing is that the government introduces a bill. It then imposes time allocation. It does not collaborate in our committees and, in the end, we vote on a bill that most Canadians have not had a chance to understand. We did not hear from experts who could explain this bill to us.

What does that mean? I am not saying that this will happen, but it could lead to disasters. We have seen that over the past year and it is very unfortunate.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to tell me what she thinks about the findings of experts with regard to the St. Lawrence estuary. If there were an oil spill in the St. Lawrence estuary, there is currently no known emergency plan to help us prevent a major catastrophe.

Does my colleague think that this bill adds anything to existing legislation? What will it take to ensure better monitoring of the St. Lawrence and prevent avoidable disasters? There have been 10,000 spills or boats that have leaked oil over the past 20 years. What plan has been put in place for the St. Lawrence? Is the Conservative government concerned about this situation?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank my colleague for his question. That is why we need experts to appear before the committee and explain what is needed and how we can ensure that our estuary, our rivers, our waterways and our oceans, as well as Canadians, will be truly protected in the case of oil spills and other environmental disasters. That is the only way to help Canadians and to avoid going further into debt to help those affected by such disasters. The closures of the search and rescue centres in Quebec City and Newfoundland are certainly not going to help Canadians or our environment.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks by the member for Hull—Aylmer, who is my MP when I live in Ottawa. She made a number of good points about the cutbacks to search and rescue.

Some of the things that have been happening on rail safety have been just unbelievable. Imagine that a train could be allowed to run with explosive material, with one engineer, and be unguarded at night. This kind of safety has been eroding over the years.

We will be sending the bill to committee. We think it needs to be discussed there. However, my real problem with the bill is that it is typical legislation from the government, which has no national strategy for aviation and marine safety. It is a piecemeal approach that has taken a little here and a little there. Is not the real problem with the bill that we really need some national leadership with a full-force strategy on safety as a whole?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I am pleased to hear that he lives in my riding, and I am sure that he loves the area as I do. We are all working extremely hard so that our environment, our jobs and our air quality are the best they can be.

I agree and I am asking the Conservative Party, the party that is currently in power, to review its approach to this bill so that we can really discuss it openly in committee with expert witnesses who can help us to work together in committee and ensure that we improve Bill C-3 so that it protects us. We are talking about improving the bill, but this is really about ensuring that Canadians are protected in matters pertaining to the environment and transportation.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have some reservations about this bill. We have many questions to ask and a number of suggestions to make. We have done this in the past, and we are somewhat concerned about the silence of not only the Conservatives but also the Liberals and, what is more surprising, the Green Party. We are supporting this bill at second reading, but we believe it should be expanded. It must be broadened to take liability limits into account. We are worried that the current liability limits are not high enough.

We know that the New Democratic Party is the only party in the House that can protect marine safety for all Canadians. The NDP has already called for the protection of rescue centres in Canada a few times, but as a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I would especially like to point out that the Quebec City rescue centre is the only bilingual centre in the entire country. The government cannot claim that it is protecting marine safety on one hand, while closing rescue centres on the other. We could have a whole other debate on this, but I have several things to discuss in my 10 minutes and I would like to continue talking about other topics.

My riding is located between two major waterways, namely the St. Lawrence River and the Ottawa River. I can tell all members of the House that my constituents are currently very concerned about the possibility of a pipeline oil spill in the St. Lawrence River or even in the Ottawa River. They are aware that the national ship-source oil pollution fund, which was established in the 1970s, has not been adequately funded for a long time and has not been used since 1976. That was a long time ago. I would like to point out that, at that time, there was a Liberal minority government in power—until 1976—and that it governed in partnership with the NDP. We can therefore see that the Liberals were willing to protect the interests of Canadians, but as soon as their NDP partner was gone, they unfortunately left Canadians out in the cold.

We often hear the government side claim that oil transportation is 99.9% safe, but if that is indeed the case, why not increase liability limits? If it is so safe, then there is no risk in having penalties for companies, so why not increase liability?

Some other countries, like Norway, have no liability limits on spills. This policy reduces the risk of spills. I will briefly explain why. When a company is told that it will have to cover the total cost of a spill, the company will do everything it can to avoid a spill; it will try to make sure it never happens.

Instead, the government would rather pass the cleanup bill onto the taxpayers, which I find very unfortunate. Globally, we have seen major spills that have cost billions of dollars. It would not only be an environmental nightmare, it would also be an economic nightmare for citizens along the St. Lawrence to have to pay the costs of the cleanup.

Let me just point out that in 2012, the five largest oil companies made $118 billion in profit alone. That $118 billion would be enough to pay the cost of cleanup if there were a major spill. Unfortunately, the government is listening to its big oil lobbyists instead. In past legislation it has attempted to remove every obstacle that the oil and transport sector wanted removed.

Leadership means not only helping our friends, but standing for principles that concern all Canadians, not just a certain sector of Canadians. I am sure Canadians would be absolutely disgusted, and I do not believe I am using too strong a word, to know that oil companies are writing amendments to Canadian environmental legislation. Any of our constituents would be disturbed by the fact that oil lobbyists actually send to ministers the amendments they would like to see. It is absolutely unacceptable that our independence has been challenged in this way by the lobbying sector.

Leadership means taking a principled stand to protect the right of not only this generation, not only the next generation, but for the right to a clean environment for the next seven or eight generations down the line. As leaders of our country, we should be considering the needs of eight generations down the line.

One of the fundamental support systems of this planet is water. If we do not do it properly now, if we sully our waters so the next generations will be un able to use them, then our support system for life on this planet will be threatened.

The NDP is committed to ensuring that oil spills never happen on our coast. The Conservatives have lost the trust of Canadians in this respect. They have not really shown to Canadians that they are capable of managing this file, and we would like to ensure that an oil spill never happens. However, if an oil spill did happen, we would want the government to ensure that the company that polluted would foot the bill, not the taxpayer. This is simple common sense. We are very worried.

The Minister of Natural Resources said that he required oil tankers to have double hulls. Canadians are right to be concerned, because that standard was created by an international agreement in 1993. Wow. That standard has been in place for 20 years under an international agreement. Yet, according to the Minister of Natural Resources, the Conservatives are the ones who required tankers to have double hulls. I am sorry, but people know that this standard has been in place for 20 years.

As I said, what is most troubling is the utter silence from the Conservatives and the Liberals. I am also quite surprised that the Green Party has not risen to weigh in on this issue. That surprises me a little.

We have not heard anything from the Conservatives. We had a number of questions for them. I hope at least one person from the other parties will be able to answer my questions.

As we know, the bill is too limited in its scope. Why did the government reject our proposal to broaden the scope of the bill? Why is it unwilling to make any real, significant changes to protect our coastlines? If Bill C-3 is really supposed to promote safety, why did the government not take this opportunity to reverse its poor decisions to cut safety measures?

We wanted to ask a number of questions. The silence on the part of the three other parties is really unfortunate. The NDP are the only ones standing up to speak to this bill. It is the government's duty to defend its bill. Clearly, many members across the floor do not want to do so.

[Dean Del Mastro, Independent, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member made an allegation that is simply not true. Government relations representatives, or lobbyists, work in Ottawa on a whole range of issues, including environmental issues but also labour issues. I know the New Democrats often meet with GR members, and so they should, who would represent labour and would seek to rewrite labour legislation. That does not mean it is implemented; it means they are working on behalf of their clients and they are informing people in this place.

However, I am actually quite proud of Canada's record, both the record of the pipelines and the energy industry, and I am proud of Canada's record in terms of technology investment. I do not hear any discussion about that. Canada's record in terms of shipping is quite good and we are seeking to improve it. I see recommendations by companies on how they can improve that. I am quite proud to see an industry that is actually looking at things and asking how they can be more socially responsible and how they can improve.

I do not see any of that represented in the member's statements. What I do see are dangerous comments that could negatively impact the Canadian economy.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is negatively impacting the economy is the government. What is true and not true is hard to judge from that party and that member, when the Conservatives stand and say what is true and what is not true. Canadians have a hard time judging whether there is truth in what the government members say.

The member finds the allegation troubling, but it came from ATIP, an access to information request, so it is based in fact. Lobbyists may come and they may talk to us, but it does not mean we have to accept everything they ask us to do, hook, line and sinker.

In terms of technology investment, let us talk about innovation in Canada. For the past seven years, we have been falling, according to the World Economic Forum. In terms of our competitiveness, we have been falling every year under this government. Therefore, the Conservatives have a lot more work to do.

I am glad the Conservatives have put two members up to ask questions today. It is too bad they did not get up to give a speech defending their bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is most interesting in the sense that we have a very important industry, that being our aviation industry. Canada, unlike most other countries, is very dependent on having a healthy aviation industry, just because of the mass of land that encompasses our great nation. We also have a very important aerospace industry.

There are numerous stakeholders out there that need to be consulted whenever we bring forward legislation. I can understand and appreciate the importance of the issue of insurance in particular, to ensure that everything is as much as possible kept above board. Things have been a bit of a challenge within the aviation industry, especially since the 9/11 situation.

My question for the member is this: to what degree do you believe the government has taken that holistic approach to dealing with the aviation industry, that goes just beyond the issue of insurance, but also public safety and even, to a certain degree, that we have had passenger first rights legislation or ideas being talked about? He might want to provide further comment, just in general.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the member, once again, I do not know how many times I have reminded members that they must direct their comments directly to the Chair rather than to their colleagues. I want to be specific. This includes saying “Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member “what are you going to do?” That is not acceptable. Members cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. I would remind all hon. members to please direct all of their comments directly to the Chair.

The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.