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

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

Mr. Speaker, it would not have been a normal day if the member for Winnipeg North had not stood and asked at least a question. I feel like I have had a normal day in the House today, absent the silence of the other parties.

I would like to address the issue of public safety because this is the second question coming from the Liberal Party today. The first question touched on the member for Malpeque saying that he could not understand how a train could have one engineer in it and the spill could occur. That deregulation actually happened under the Liberal government. The New Democrats are the only ones standing up for these issues. The member mentioned the passenger bill of rights. That was an NDP private member's bill from my colleague from Laval.

Both parties have had chances to take our propositions into account and implement them. I know a Liberal government used many propositions in the past to bring in wonderful things like employment insurance, pensions, and public housing. The Liberals are great at listening to our ideas, and we hope they will listen to our ideas when we form a government in 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-3 and while some Conservative members asked questions, none actually spoke on this legislation. Yet, this is a government bill. It should be very important to the Conservatives, but not a single one rose to talk about safety and the investments made to ensure that there will be fewer spills and that tanker traffic will be safe.

We live in a country blessed with natural wealth. There is an abundance of natural resources. The development of these resources, including mining, rail, forest and marine resources, is largely responsible for our country's economic prosperity. We must secure this prosperity in the long term, and to do so we must protect our environment.

An offshore oil spill can have catastrophic consequences for decades, such as water pollution, dwindling fish stocks, harm to health and to the environment, and massive job losses.

Today more than ever, our wealth depends on how we manage our resources. That is the key to our development and this should be an inescapable fact. Bill C-3 seeks to amend five important acts dealing with the aviation, aeronautics and marine industries. Bill C-3 is a new version of Bill C-57. The NDP had asked that this bill be amended to ensure that it truly protects our environment. Unfortunately, as usual when it comes to environmental protection, the Conservatives rejected all our calls to improve former Bill C-57.

The most important part of the bill deals with marine safety and oil spills. It is also this aspect of the legislation that needs improvement. In fact, if we really want to protect Canada's coasts that part should be examined by experts. Part 4 of Bill C-3 amends the Marine Liability Act. It deals with the concept of liability in the event of an oil spill. Under the act, the owner of a ship is responsible for the costs and expenses incurred by the government following the spillage of dangerous products at sea.

Part 5 of Bill C-3 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. It sets new rules to compel oil companies to notify the minister of their operations. These companies will have to submit a response plan to deal with a disaster or an accident. The NDP, a number of stakeholders and many citizens have been eagerly awaiting such a provision.

The bill is absolutely necessary, but it does not meet many of the challenges of oil development and transportation in Canada. It is a good step forward, but it is still quite limited. This legislation should include many other aspects of marine transportation.

The shipping of oil is risky business. As a number of my colleagues pointed out, tanker traffic tripled between 2005 and 2010, and it is expected to triple again by 2016. The increase in oil shipments leads to more spills, whether onshore or offshore. According to the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation, there have been close to 10,000 spills in the world since 1970. That is a huge number and it is very alarming.

I will refresh your memory. In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil platform spilled 678,000 tonnes of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. In March 2001, the Petrobras oil platform, in Brazil, spilled 300,000 tonnes of oil. In March 1989, the Exxon Valdez spilled 38,000 tonnes of oil off the coast of Alaska, not too far from us. Canada is not sheltered from these accidents. Burrard Inlet is the second most dangerous point to navigate in Vancouver. In March, the largest emergency response ship ran aground off the coast of Vancouver and took 11 hours to make the trip to Vancouver from Esquimalt. There are some problems, and we should carefully consider this issue in committee to make practical amendments and improvements that address current needs. With the increase in maritime traffic in the Arctic, the risk of accidents is even higher.

Canada's ability to combat pollution in a northern climate is more limited than in a southern one. Intense cold, distance and lack of on-site emergency equipment would make emergency operations much more complicated.

Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, recently said:

If a tanker were to spill oil off the coast of British Columbia today, the federal government would not have the resources to handle a large-scale disaster.

Last year, Scott Vaughan, the former commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, said that the liability limits and compensation programs could be inadequate if a spill were to happen.

The absolute liability limits have not been changed in 24 years. Updates have been needed for ages. Although the Conservative government plans on increasing petroleum resource development, it has not increased liability for these resources. For example, the Atlantic liability is $30 million. However, the full cost of cleanup for the Exxon Valdez disaster was more than $3 billion. That is a disproportionately big difference, and it is quite worrisome.

The U.S. coast guard seems to take the risk of accidents more seriously. The Minister of Natural Resources is studying the effects of increased tanker traffic on the west coast whereas Senator Maria Cantwell feels that a supertanker oil spill near our shores would threaten the thriving coastal economy and thousands of jobs.

It is therefore difficult to understand why the Canadian Conservative government is making cuts to marine safety. Why did the Conservatives shut down the Newfoundland and Labrador marine rescue centre? Why do they want to close the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre? The sub-centre responds to almost 1,500 distress calls every year. Why close down the Kitsilano Coast Guard station in British Columbia? Why make cuts to marine communications and traffic services, including the terminals in Vancouver and St. John's?

No matter how much the Conservatives remind us that they want to improve marine safety, they are not able to rise in the House today to answer questions, to clarify the situation and to defend their views. No one on the Conservative side has stood up today. Yet these issues are vital to public health and safety, environmental protection and thousands of jobs.

Ever since the Speech from the Throne, they think they are the champions of job creation when they are actually jeopardizing thousands of jobs. That boggles the mind. It makes no sense at all.

The government should understand that, to respond to risks at sea, it must base its decisions on science and facts, and consult with experts, not censor them or cut their jobs.

Bill C-3 could be greatly improved if the government listened to what the experts and the opposition have to say. That seems a lot to ask, however, of a government that prefers to base its decisions on old neo-liberal theories like “government intervention is not required” and “industry will be self-regulating”. We can see what that way of thinking produces when we talk about rail safety or food safety. Many incidents occur, and people are affected. The Conservative theory does not work, and it leads to disasters like what occurred recently in Alberta.

The NDP would nevertheless have a few suggestions to make to the government, if it was prepared to listen. We suggest that it cancel the cuts to marine safety, strengthen the capacity of petroleum boards so that they can see about preventing oil spills, and raise the limit for cleanup after a spell. The limit is currently set at 10,000 tonnes, which is not really enough, given the increase in the size of tankers and in the traffic.

We also suggest that it apply the polluter-pay principle. That is what the government said it would do in the Speech from the Throne. We are still waiting for the government to put the principle into practice.

It should also bolster the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund. This currently stands at $400 million, but the damage from a single spill like the Exxon Valdez spill, for example, would run into billions of dollars. The government should therefore be more realistic, and a little more responsible.

The NDP would also like very much to hear from expert witnesses on part 2 of the bill. Under clause 19, the military is given investigative powers formerly assigned to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, which issued public reports. That will no longer be the case.

There is some progress, therefore, in this bill, but much more work has to be done to achieve real improvement. We have to bring in more resources and arrange for experts to be consulted, so that safety is improved in practical ways in oil projects.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

She raised a very interesting point. She talked about how, unfortunately, because of global warming, there will be more and more commercial ships in the Arctic.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this bill, specifically about the provisions this bill does or does not contain with respect to these newly navigable waters.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, new navigable passages are opening up because of melting Arctic ice. Experts, first nations and individuals are telling us that they want more oversight, more investigators and more regulations to ensure safety, environmental protection and public safety. More tanker traffic means a greater risk of spills.

Last year, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development told us that we were not at all prepared to deal with spills in estuaries and oceans, and even less so in the Arctic, because there have not been any studies detailed enough to tell us about the potential risks. We also do not have any studies that clearly prove existing plans will work. There are not even any emergency response plans.

The government needs to restore funding. Funding has not gone up in 24 years. Everything is out of date, and the government cannot even be bothered to answer questions, to respond to our concerns about this. We are still waiting for the government to do that, and we hope that will extend to other sectors too.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, often, when we talk about marine or air safety, we also have to consider people's perceptions.

I know that the hon. member was our deputy critic for the environment. Therefore I would like her to tell us how the people she spoke with perceive the government's ability to ensure the safety of Canadians when it comes to the environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her question.

In fact, people currently have a very negative perception of the government's ability to establish credibility on environmental safety. Indeed, the Conservatives have gutted all environmental protections in the last budget implementation bills. Also, in Bill C-45, all protections for navigable waters were removed, giving completely free rein to pipeline projects. This is on top of the Conservatives' failure to implement or even consider the recommendations of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Here we have another fact. It has been mentioned that pipelines and tankers would transport oil and diluted bitumen, but there have not been nearly enough studies about this to know how the government would respond in case of a spill.

Therefore, when the Conservatives make cuts to science and cuts to research and, on top of that, ensure that scientists are muzzled, they lose all credibility to speak about environmental protection, scientific data and facts. It is therefore difficult to trust the Conservatives when they talk about these issues, since they remove all the factual and scientific information that could reassure us.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-3, which has a rather long name, 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. In short, the bill amends at least five acts and probably several others. This is an omnibus bill.

How many pages are in this bill? I am surprised that the government would introduce a bill this big and not rise to speak to it. That is the first thing I noticed. Is it really to the government's advantage to defend what it is proposing? Is it to its advantage to do things the right way and inform the public of what is in the bill it introduced in the House?

We have presented our position. We will support this bill at second reading, but we have some concerns. We hope it will be carefully studied in committee. Security and economic development should go hand in hand, especially when it comes to these issues.

The St. Lawrence River is not far from my home. Neither is a refinery serviced by ships. In addition, this same river is a source of drinking water for many communities in my province. Clearly, safety is just as important as economic activity. Heaven knows that economic activity in marine transportation is important.

That is why there are a lot of pilots on the St. Lawrence River. To be able to navigate, every ship must have a specialized pilot on board who knows the river very well. That is critical for safety. The same goes for the west coast. The local conditions are unique: the currents, the winds, the tides and the channel.

Earlier, we talked about the Exxon Valdez. We basically want to avoid a spill. In an ideal world, we would want ships to carry their goods safely, with no environmental damage, so that everyone can have a good night's sleep. However, we are not there yet. As several members pointed out, the bill is a step in the right direction, but there is still a lot of work to be done, particularly in terms of safety.

My colleague who spoke before me mentioned the importance of setting up a committee to take a serious look at this issue with the help of experts and people in the industry who might be affected by these measures. Hearing from Canadians is of paramount importance to ensure the bill is socially and economically acceptable. There must be no voluntary or involuntary conflict between economic development and public acceptability of projects and risk management. I deplore the fact that there are often conflicts.

At the heart of this debate lies the need for sound risk management in order to avoid any harm. Our party has based its interventions on this type of management.

In closing, we must take a holistic approach to safety. Quebec City is about to lose its marine rescue sub-centre. It is ironic that, on the one hand, the government introduces a bill that supports safety requirements and, on the other hand, it reduces them. It is as if there is no comprehensive vision for safety. I hope this perspective will be brought forward in committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for government orders has now expired. The hon. member for Louis-Hébert will have five minutes to continue his speech.

The House resumed from November 19 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate 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, which was previously Bill C-57.

First, I would like to give a few statistics to support my argument. Clearly, this bill has a number of objectives, in particular that of improving safety when oil is shipped by water. That is an objective that interests us on this side of the House.

I think that this issue is particularly relevant and urgent given that tanker traffic tripled in Canada between 2005 and 2010, particularly on the west coast. The issue is extremely relevant since that traffic is expected to increase by 300% by 2016, and with all the pipeline expansion projects now on the table, the delivery of crude oil will increase from 300,000 to 700,000 barrels a day.

The bill makes only relatively minor amendments and improvements, but given how urgent and important this situation is, we will support the bill at second reading. There is no guarantee, however, that we will support it at third reading. The essential work will be done in committee.

One of the reasons why we are supporting the bill is this. Despite the figures I just mentioned, the government has reduced the funding for or eliminated a number of organizations that play a vital role in monitoring and quickly responding to oil spills or other marine disasters of this sort. For example, the government has cut funding for various marine communications and traffic services centres and for environmental emergency response centres.

The bill amends five laws. I think that we can all agree on the amendments. The first part of the bill, which amends the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, provides for the compensation of airlines for loss, damage or liability caused by war risks.

Part 2 amends the Aeronautics Act to provide certain persons with powers to investigate aviation accidents or incidents, whether civilian or military. This will have to be clarified to determine the role of the armed forces, for example. Will they investigate an air disaster or catastrophe, an accident or incident, if it involves both civilian and military aircraft? The involvement of the armed forces in an investigation of such an incident will have to be closely examined in relation to the responsibility of the Transportation Safety Board.

Part 3 amends the Canada Marine Act. It amends the effective day of the appointment of a director of a port authority. This is a relatively minor amendment because the purpose of this part of the act is simply to amend the effective day based on the date of notice from a municipality or a government.

Parts 4 and 5 are much more important in terms of scope and consequences.

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. The convention itself provides that the owner of a ship shall be liable for the costs and expenses incurred by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, by a response organization, or by any other person, in Canada or in a state that is a party to the convention, in respect of measures taken to prevent, repair, remedy or minimize damage caused by hazardous and noxious substances.

This is an absolutely fundamental issue, particularly having regard to the funding cuts, cutbacks and reductions that have been imposed by the Conservative government. We are talking about organizations based on both the west and east coasts.

One of these organizations that is directly affected is in the riding that I represent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. This centre has been directly affected by the proposed closure of the search and rescue centre based in Quebec City, whose function, as its name indicates, is to carry out marine search and rescue operations, particularly in the St. Lawrence River up to the gulf and estuary. This centre remains open, but we cannot say that is thanks to the Conservative government. In fact, in order to save $1 million, according to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the government wanted to close this centre which serves a vital function. It was opened in the 1970s as a direct response to criticism from the Commissioner of Official Languages. The needs of the communities on the northern and southern shores of the St. Lawrence, as well as of francophone users of the river, were not being met. I should point out that the government wanted to eliminate this centre and transfer its operations to Halifax and Trenton.

In a very recent report, the Commissioner of Official Languages found that closing this centre would result in the reduction and virtual elimination of appropriate search and rescue services in French. This has also been confirmed by the Canadian Coast Guard. It has been clearly demonstrated that the Halifax and Trenton centres are not equipped to provide these services. Not only is there the language issue, but there is also another extremely important issue: knowledge of the banks. This issue particularly affects the Quebec City centre, the Newfoundland and Labrador centre, and the west coast centres.

I would like the government to examine its conscience with regard to the bill we are now discussing, and also with regard to its responsibilities and actions in the area of marine transport safety.

Part 4 deals with the liability of ship owners who could be held liable for spills of oil or other hazardous substances. Another factor will be extremely critical, given the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic we witnessed not so long ago. In the case of rail transportation, the liability rests with the owner of the railway and the trains. In the recent Lac-Mégantic case, the insurance seems to be clearly inadequate in relation to the damage caused.

These recent cases involving rail transportation should serve as an example to us in marine transportation. I fervently hope that the transport committee or the appropriate committee will study this matter very seriously.

Finally, part 5 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. Actually, it requires companies to notify the minister of their operations and to submit plans to the minister in order for operations to be conducted. Once again, the matter is one of prevention. The points we are discussing here are extremely complex. I want to make sure that the committee studying this bill does so diligently in order that safety and prevention needs are met.

We in the NDP have done our job. We have proposed various measures to expand the mandate of the bill and the scope of the amendments proposed by the government. We want to make sure that the bill on which we will be asked to vote will fully and completely protect the environment in which this shipping will occur. We must protect the coastal communities that lie close to the areas where ships already sail and where even more ships transporting hazardous materials, such as oil, will be sailing. Oil tanker traffic is going to increase considerably in the coming years, and the government must do its job and take this matter seriously.

I invite the government to give this extremely complex bill serious study and, in due course, to include in it the items that we have proposed so that it properly meets the country's future needs.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we feel that this bill is a step in the right direction. As my colleague pointed out, we will support the bill at second reading so that it can be sent to committee and panels of experts can address some of our concerns.

For example, the federal Commissioner of the Environment's recommendations on the mandate of the Canadian Coast Guard, which is to respond to oil spills from offshore platforms, is not covered under Bill C-3. This is one of the instances where we find that the bill does not go far enough. The bill contains some good measures, but we would like to see more.

I would like my colleague to expand on this point, because it is one of our concerns. People throughout the Atlantic region want to feel safe. The federal Commissioner of the Environment has expressed his concerns about this. I would like my colleague to talk about the improvements that could be made to this bill.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely relevant issue. Indeed, the report of the Commissioner of the Environment is and will be extremely useful to the work of the committees. There are changes we would like to make to this bill. We do not want to take anything away from the bill; we just want to add to it, to make it more comprehensive.

These are part of the measures that have been proposed and that directly concern the government's actions. For example, the government could cancel the closure of the B.C. regional office for oil spill emergencies. This closure makes no sense if we really want to tackle the issue of marine safety for shipments of hazardous materials.

We would also like the government to take this opportunity to cancel the cuts to the main environmental emergency programs, including in the event of an oil spill in Newfoundland and Labrador and in British Columbia. In addition, we want the government to strengthen the capacity—which is currently non-existent—of petroleum boards to deal with oil spills, as recommended by the Commissioner of the Environment.

We are actually supporting a wider scope for this bill, and we hope the government will listen.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to speak to 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.

I will start with some background. This is the former Bill C-57. Unfortunately, it died on the order paper when the government made the wonderful decision to prorogue Parliament. When the bill was introduced, the official opposition's natural resources critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, wrote to the Minister of Transport. I would like to begin by reading some excerpts from his letter.

I should say that I have been an MP for just over 30 months now and I sometimes feel disillusioned because I feel that the opposition and the governing party are really not listening to each other. We have come up with good solutions. We are ready to give credit to the government where credit is due, but in our democracy, a majority government could not care less about what we say. That is why I think it is important to mention that my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster went to the trouble of writing to the minister on April 5, 2013. He prefaced his letter by stating that he was writing on behalf of the official opposition.

In the second paragraph of his letter, my colleague pointed out that Bill C-57 had a few good things going for it. He added that the piloting experience required and increased oversight were a step in the right direction, but he noted that there was still a long way to go to make up for the draconian cuts that had been made to oil tanker safety in the previous federal budget.

He started by saying that we supported the bill in principle. In fact, we asked the government to send the bill to committee before second reading in order to address some of our concerns.

For example, my colleague wrote in his letter that, under Bill C-57, authorities would report directly to the Minister of Transport in the event of an accident. The bill also limits liability. That said, accident prevention is barely mentioned. He said that he was certain that the minister understood why British Columbia residents were not satisfied with a simple response plan in the event of an oil spill off the west coast. This is not a trivial matter. They want to ensure that action will be taken.

He closed his letter by saying that we hoped the Conservative government would choose to cancel its decision to cut safety measures and that it would broaden the scope of Bill C-57.

We actually said that Bill C-57 was a good bill, but that we wanted to broaden its scope a bit. In response, we received a self-congratulatory three-page letter from the Minister of Transport.

It said thanks for taking the time to write to me on Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act. I am glad that you recognize the positive aspects of this legislation. Blah, blah, blah.

In those three pages, the government boasted about being good for Canadians. It is rather incredible.

As the official opposition, the NDP did attempt to kickstart the dialogue that unfortunately has broken down in Ottawa. The NDP wanted to work with the government to do more, to better serve Canadians and to better respond to the concerns of people living in coastal areas. Unfortunately, the government was not the slightest bit interested in our proposals. It told us that it did not have to do what we wanted.

I would like to say that in the three-page letter written by the then minister of transport, he never mentioned that our proposals had some potential. He did not apologize for not allowing us to study it in committee; he did not even acknowledge that that was the purpose of the letter. It was so arrogant on his part. It is unfortunate.

Now the bill has returned under another name: Bill C-3. As my colleague mentioned, this bill will amend five acts.

Part 1 enacts the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, which authorizes the Minister of Transport to undertake to indemnify certain airlines for loss, damage or liability caused by events that are commonly referred to in the insurance industry as war risks.

This creates a system under which the government covers the costs of damage in the event of unlawful attacks such as rebellion, hijacking or armed conflict. It is about keeping important air services in operation in Canada in the event of a crisis.

We are seeking clarification on some small points. The government is so afraid of what it is proposing that it is not ready to go to committee to answer our questions. I find that annoying.

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.

We want in-depth consultation on this part with expert witnesses, in particular in terms of the discretionary powers of ministers.

As hon. members are aware, Conservative ministers have been giving themselves a lot of discretionary powers for the past two and a half years. We would like to have a little more information about this.

We would also like to go deeper into the matter of public disclosure of the results of investigations. We are all in favour of transparency.

Part 3 amends the Canada Marine Act in relation to the effective day of the appointment of a director of a port authority. There is no problem with that.

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.

I will quote what that 2010 international convention added:

The Convention covers the following damage resulting from the carriage of [hazardous and noxious substances] by sea: loss of life or personal injury on board or outside the ship carrying HNS; loss of, or damage to, property outside the ship; loss or damage caused by contamination of the environment; and costs of preventive measures taken by any person after an incident has occurred to prevent or mitigate damage.

Part 5 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, to introduce new requirements for the operators of oil handling facilities.

On the whole, this is good, including the requirement to notify the minister of their operations and to submit plans to the minister. I live in hope that the minister will notify Canadians as soon as he is notified.

Part 5 introduces a few points, including a new requirement whereby the operators of oil handling facilities must submit to the minister a response plan, civil and criminal liability for response organizations engaged in response operations, the application of new measures and monetary sanctions, with new investigative powers for Transport Canada investigators.

I see I am almost out of time. Those are the five pieces of legislation that will be affected by this bill. As I said, that is not bad. Overall, I agree with the bill. I would have liked it to go a little further. This is a common problem with our Conservative friends. Basically, I would have liked it to go to committee, but we will have to wait for third reading.

We will be voting in favour of this bill at second reading. That does not mean we will be supporting it at third reading. We will wait and see what the experts have to say.

I wanted to talk a little bit about what this will involve, but I will go directly to what we want to see in this bill.

We came up with about 10 ideas of what we want to be included. Among them, we would like the cancellation of plans to reduce Coast Guard services and close stations, including the Coast Guard station in Kitsilano. We would also like the cancellation of cuts to marine communications and traffic services, including the maritime traffic control communications terminals in Vancouver and St. John's.

The government must cancel the closure of the British Columbia regional office.

I will not have enough time to name all of them. We had about 10 good recommendations. I imagine my colleagues who sit on that committee could list them. It is important that we take the time to do a proper study. I would have liked to refer this to committee before second reading, but since this is where we are, I would be happy to answer questions from my colleagues.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine

The NDP tried to talk to the Department of Transport in order to make some changes and additions to the bill before it was introduced in the House to make it more comprehensive, complete and appropriate with respect to marine transportation of dangerous goods. That is what we want to talk about today.

Compensation in case of a disaster is an extremely important part of this bill. We want the owners of ships involved in disasters to be fully liable for the damage they cause. For example, Norway and Greenland have no set limits on how much damage a shipping company can be liable for. That raises two questions.

First, should Canada also ensure that shipping companies are fully and solely liable? Second, in light of the tragedy we recently experienced in Lac-Mégantic with respect to rail transport, should the government not also ensure that the law includes measures requiring shipping companies to ensure they have the means to assume the cost of cleaning up a marine disaster?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for those two very relevant questions.

I often look to Norway and Greenland for inspiration. We do not necessarily need to follow in their footsteps, but our committee should look closely at the standards they have set. That way, we can weigh the pros and cons and determine whether we should move in the same direction. I hope that we can invite experts from those two countries to our committee or talk to them via video conference, so that we can ask them some questions.

As for his second question, concerning the transportation of dangerous goods, we unfortunately saw what happened in Lac-Mégantic. Today, the minister made an announcement, and the government is using this tragedy to score political points. It is quite appalling, but that is what we must contend with.

I get the impression that we are not concerned enough about the transportation of dangerous goods in this country, even though I know the transport committee will be studying it. Transportation of dangerous goods by land, sea or air must be taken seriously. It does not make sense that there is no law telling companies what to do.

Under this bill, oil carriers will have to submit plans to the transport minister, but is that enough?

It seems as though the price tag for Lac-Mégantic will be quite high, and the company is not even able to pay for the damage it caused. Is that normal? Must the government always pay? We are talking about saving taxpayers' money. Should that company have had the money needed to cover the costs associated with that disaster?

Those are all good questions that need to be answered in committee.