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.

Canada Shipping Act

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Kelowna—Lake Country in beautiful British Columbia, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-628 and share how and why our government is committed to protecting the safety of Canadians and the safety of the environment. It is not either/or, but a balanced approach. We have taken significant action to strengthen the safety and security of Canada's energy transportation system, whether it be rail, pipeline or tanker safety.

Bill C-628 proposes to ban oil tankers off the coast of British Columbia. It is founded on perceived shortcomings of Canada's energy system that are simply not accurate.

Over the next few minutes, I would like to share with Canadians the broad range of concrete measures already in place and the new actions we are taking to build on Canada's strong world-class safety system. That is because members on this side of the House understand they are essential to achieving our goal of energy market diversification, which is itself crucial to ensuring ongoing job creation, economic growth and prosperity for Canadians.

I would like to explain why I believe it is so important that we diversify our energy markets.

In 2012, Canada produced over 3.38 million barrels of crude oil and almost 3.9 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. All of that activity supported roughly 190,000 direct jobs and an additional 70,000 indirect jobs. Then there are revenues to federal, provincial and territorial governments from the oil and gas industry, which averaged approximately $25 billion annually over the past five years. That money paid for everything from roads and bridges to schools, hospitals in communities from coast to coast to coast. These multi-billion numbers are not surprising given the oil and gas sector accounted for 7.5% of GDP in 2013, and $83 billion of capital expenditures. Industry also represented $117 billion in exports in 2013.

To say the energy sector plays a major role in our high standard of living is an understatement. I believe it fuels the high quality of life of Canadians.

However, it is not something we can take for granted. The reality is that the global energy landscape is undergoing a seismic shift, creating both new opportunities and new challenges for Canada. On the plus side, there is an enormous and growing appetite for our energy supply. Demand for Canadian oil is strongest in the rapidly growing markets of the Asia-Pacific region.

The International Energy Agency predicts that, by 2035, the world will need a third more energy than is being consumed today. Most of this increase is due to the need for energy in emerging economies. Canada can capably meet that need as Canadian oil and gas production through innovation and new technology is expected to grow dramatically over the same period.

If we want to maintain our high standard of living and ensure governments have the resource sector royalties to fund a wide array of social programs, we must diversify our energy markets to have the funds to proceed in this manner.

While it appears the NDP by bringing forward this bill does not appreciate how crucial this issue is to the lives and livelihoods of Canadians, I can assure members that other government leaders across Canada do.

At the 2014 Energy and Mines Ministers' Conference, federal, provincial and territorial ministers recognized that the continued advancement of energy infrastructure was fundamental to gaining access to new markets and generating economic growth. Ministers also reaffirmed the need to coordinate our efforts to reinforce the diversification of Canada's natural resources by ensuring the safe transport of resources by pipeline, marine and rail.

We understand and fully agree that public safety and environmental protection are necessary conditions for energy development to proceed.

As I said earlier, it is a balanced approach; it is not either/or. That is precisely what responsible resource development is all about. It sends a clear signal that our government is determined to protect public safety and the health of the environment, based on sound science and world-class standards.

Between 2000 and 2011, federally regulated pipelines boasted a safety record of over 99.999% We are proud of the action we have taken to ensure Canada has a world-class regulatory framework and a means for the safest form of transportation of our energy products.

Our Government has introduced stringent new safety standards to prevent oil spills from happening and new navigational supports for tanker ships to better protect our coastal waters.

We have nine acts of Parliament governing marine safety, and that is before we factor in the tough new regulatory oversight and enforcement capabilities provided under Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Thanks to tough legislation and technological innovations, there have been no spills from double-hulled tankers in Canadian waters. Nor have there ever been spills from tankers escorted by tugs with a local pilot aboard.

Especially important, we are ensuring that polluters, not taxpayers, will be responsible for costs in the unlikely event of a spill. We have brought in polluter pays legislation for both offshore and onshore, with billion dollar conditions for spill response and cleanup.

These measures underline that when it comes to transporting our natural resources, whether by pipeline, rail, or tanker, our government will never compromise on safety.

Our government has also given the independent National Energy Board the necessary resources to increase annual inspections of pipelines by 50%. The board has doubled the number of annual comprehensive safety audits to identify pipeline issues before incidents occur. Equally important, the National Energy Board now has the authority to impose substantial financial penalties on companies that do not comply with safety and environmental regulations. It can levy fines of up to $100,000 a day for as long as the infractions are not addressed.

It is disappointing that the member who put forward the bill we are debating today and who purports to be in favour of improving safety voted against each and every one of the measures I just mentioned.

Canada's outstanding safety record should assure Canadians that our energy resources can be developed safely and can in turn create good jobs and economic growth here at home. Our government's approach to promoting responsible resource development is the right one.

I believe that Canadians simply cannot trust the New Democrats to protect our economy or our environment. They oppose every form of resource development. They vote against our legislation to increase pipeline safety measures. Then they propose this bill that would hurt the Canadian economy. Bill C-628 risks undoing all the good being achieved under our plan for responsible resource development and would come at a great cost to Canadians. For that reason, we cannot support this bill.

In closing, having spent the first 27 years of my life in Alberta, I understand the oil and gas economy and how important it is not only to Alberta but to all of Canada. Given my last 25-plus years calling beautiful British Columbia home, I understand the value of the energy industry and also tourism, the environment, safety, and the economy. They are all brought together. It is not either/or, as I have alluded to before.

As a father of three daughters and three grandsons, I want a future for our Canadian economy, for our community of Kelowna Lake Country, for British Columbia, and for all Canadians. I believe that if this bill is passed, it would take us backward and would not help create those jobs we want in the future.

This is Easter week, a week of hurt and a week of hope. My hope is that we will work together to manage our resources responsibly. We are called to be good stewards. We have abundant resources across Canada. However, this type of legislation would not help our industry and would not help to create jobs. We want to have a balanced approach. I believe that by working together, we can create jobs and grow the economy to achieve long-term prosperity and a good quality of life for all North Americans

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following this debate very closely, just as our government has been listening very carefully to what British Columbians, and indeed all Canadians, have been saying about economic development and environmental responsibility in this country.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the bill before us and to reiterate some of the points made so persuasively by some of my colleagues. I will also add that I find it ironic that this member is proposing such a bill after he and his party voted against our increased measures for pipeline safety. New Democrats voted against doubling the number of audits and increasing the number of inspections on pipelines. They voted against fining companies that break environmental regulations.

Our government is listening to Canadians, and the message we are hearing is very clear: Canadians want balance. They understand the importance of resource development, but not at any price. They understand that economic development and environmental protection go hand in hand, and so does our government.

Environmental protection is and always will be a priority for us. We have been clear that projects will only proceed if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. That is precisely what our plan is, and that is what responsible resource development is all about. Grounded in sound science and world-class standards, that plan ensures that we can develop the energy of the structure we need in a way that protects the environment we all share.

As part of this effort, our government is strengthening marine, pipeline, and rail safety, resulting in stronger prevention, enhanced preparedness and response, as well as improved liability and compensation in the highly unlikely event of an incident.

The members opposite may not be aware, but oil has been safely transported along Canada's west coast since the 1930s, thanks to responsible players in the industry and effective preventive measures. In addition, 99.999% of oil transported on federally regulated pipelines between 2008 and 2013 was moved safely.

This outstanding track record should reassure Canadians, and especially British Columbians, that our energy resources can safety be exported overseas to create jobs and economic growth here at home. That said, even one incident is one too many. Our goal must always be zero major spills or accidents, and to achieve this our government has introduced stringent new safety standards for tankers, together with new navigational supports to better protect our coastal waters.

Put simply, Canada's approach to marine regulations seeks to balance the safety of shipping and the protection of the marine environment with the need to encourage maritime commerce. In fact, we have nine acts of Parliament governing marine safety. These laws complement international regulations established by the International Maritime Organization, and that is before we factor in the tough new regulatory oversight and enforcement capabilities provided under Bill C-3, Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

There is compulsory pilotage in British Columbia's coastal waters. This means that a vessel must have an on-board pilot who is a navigator, certified to a specialized knowledge of local waters. In addition, Transport Canada has more than 300 inspectors who work every day to verify that ships meet Canada's regulations and the international standards that Canada has adopted.

Within the international maritime community, Canada is highly respected as a country that provides a clear and consistent set of rules that promote safety and protect the environment. I would like to quote the British Columbia environment minister who spoke about our government's plan and said the following:

I have a high degree of confidence that [the government is] serious about achieving the goals that we have in front of us and serious about the safety of our coast and the transportation of tankers up and down our coastline.

Canadians want a balanced approach to economic development. They support growth and want good jobs and long-term prosperity for themselves, their families, and their country. What Canadians might be surprised to learn is how important natural resource development is to our quality of life. Over the last five years, the oil and gas sector has contributed an average of $25.1 billion in taxes, royalties, and fees to government. This money helps to support public pensions, provide health care, and build schools, hospitals, housing, and highways.

If we want to maintain our high standard of living and ensure governments have the funds to pay for a wide array of social programs, we need to seize the potential of new markets for our energy. That is something our government understands. It is something business understands, and it is something Canadians understand from coast to coast to coast.

Our focus then is on preventing incidents from happening, cleaning them up quickly in the unlikely event of their occurring, and protecting taxpayers from any cleanup or remediation costs. Under this government, it is polluters who will pay, not taxpayers.

We recently introduced the pipeline safety act, which would enshrine in law the principle of polluter pays. To ensure that pipeline companies can respond in the unlikely event of a major incident, they would be required to maintain the highest minimum financial resources in the world. For companies operating major oil pipelines, that amounts to $1 billion, as well as holding sufficient cash on hand to respond quickly to incidents.

The pipeline safety act would also give the National Energy Board even greater authority so that it could strengthen incident prevention, preparedness, and response as well as liability and compensation.

With all of these efforts, we are seeking to foster greater public confidence in our country's ability to develop its resources and to do so responsibly. We know that building public confidence in major resource projects requires a whole-of-government approach. Our approach to promoting responsible resource development is a balanced approach, and it is the right way to go.

Bill C-628 is not a balanced approach. A ban on oil tankers would have a lasting negative impact on Canada. The NDP's anti-trade, anti-development agenda is clear. This bill would limit further diversifying our energy exports to countries other than the United States, which would severely impact our economy, jobs, and everything. Moreover, such a ban would be looked upon negatively by other countries, which view these waters as open for navigation, and banning a legitimate class of vessel would be contrary to the system that has served Canadians so well for decades.

Canadians want a balanced approach, and that is the path that this government is going to follow.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

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—Chapter 29.

S-213, An Act respecting Lincoln Alexander Day—Chapter 30.

C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act—Chapter 31.

C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 32.

S-1001, An Act to amend the Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Act.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, Consumer Protection.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource Development

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to comment on Motion No. 533 and to reinforce my colleague's comments that much of what it proposes to do is already being accomplished. Indeed, Canadians can take pride and have confidence in our world-class safety standards, which our government has worked so hard to improve in recent years.

We have introduced multiple measures to strengthen the regulatory process for major resource projects. Among the most effective is our plan for responsible resource development, which has led to economic growth, increased environmental protection, and enhanced consultations with aboriginal peoples. This policy is rooted in our commitment to develop our natural resources in an environmentally and socially responsible way. This means ensuring that natural resource development benefits all Canadians, including the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

As a result of our plan, our natural resource sector is among the most stringently regulated in the world. Specifically, we have strengthened environmental protection by ensuring that no natural resource project will receive federal approval unless it is safe for the environment and for Canadians. For the first time, our government has introduced enforceable environmental assessment decision statements. Components of major projects now have to comply with conditions set out in these decision statements; if not they could face tough financial penalties, which I will talk about more in a moment. Our government is also providing federal inspectors with the authority to examine whether conditions set out in an environmental assessment decision statement are met.

As well, we have introduced tough new financial penalties to preventively address contraventions of environmental laws quickly under the National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Act, so that larger issues do not arise in the future. Especially important is the fact that responsible resource development has an entire component dedicated to ensuring that consultations with aboriginal peoples are consistent, accountable, meaningful, and timely. For example, consultations with aboriginal peoples are integrated into the new environmental assessment and regulatory processes. We also provide significant funding specifically to support consultations with aboriginal peoples.

We have also designated a lead department or agency as a single crown consultation coordinator for each major project review. This reduces the previous redundant consultations that frustrated many aboriginal communities. Not only that, we also negotiate consultation protocols or agreements with aboriginal groups to establish more clearly what the expectations and level of consultation should be. Better still, we know that resource development cannot thrive without the contributions of our aboriginal peoples. We have taken significant action to facilitate greater participation of aboriginal people in resource projects. This is being accomplished through initiatives such as the major projects management office–west, which we recently set up in Vancouver. The office is working with aboriginal peoples and first nations to ensure their meaningful involvement in assessing and managing the environmental safety of proposed projects.

Therefore, as members can see, our improved regulatory regime for major natural resource projects is not only among the most efficient, effective, and competitive in the world, but is also among the most inclusive, ensuring that there are numerous opportunities for active public participation. As proud as we are of this approach, we are determined to do even better. That is why our government has also addressed safety concerns by implementing world-class pipeline, rail, and tanker safety systems that all Canadians can trust. As just one example, we have given the National Energy Board the necessary resources to double the number of annual inspections of pipelines. The board also doubled the number of annual comprehensive safety audits to identify pipeline issues before incidents occur. The NEB now can issue administrative monetary penalties of up to $100,000 a day per infraction for companies that do not comply with safety and environmental regulations. Ironically, but not surprisingly, that member and the NDP voted against these enhanced pipeline safety measures. To us that does not make sense.

There are more tough measures on the way. We have announced plans to give the board even greater authority so that it can strengthen incident prevention, preparedness, response, liability, and compensation. Even though more than 99.999% of the oil and gas transported on Canada's federally regulated pipelines arrived safely between 2008 and 2013, we are committed to trying to achieve zero incidents.

As more and more energy products are being shipped by rail, our government has also announced measures to improve railway safety and ensure the safe transportation of dangerous goods by rail, including the introduction of new regulations for DOT-111 rail cars. This includes thicker steel requirements, as well as the addition of top fitting and head shield protection.

We also have nine acts of Parliament governing marine safety. These laws complement and reinforce international regulations established by the International Maritime Organization, and we are always working to improve them.

For example, we proposed new regulatory oversight and enforcement capabilities provided under Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act. These measures underline that when it comes to transporting our natural resources, whether by pipeline, rail, or tanker, our government will not compromise on public safety or environmental protection.

We all know that some in the NDP are opposed to all forms of resource development for the benefit of Canadians. They are opposed to the building of infrastructure that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and to projects that would generate billions to fund critical social programs. Further, some would rather see our resources stranded and our legacy squandered. Again, it does not make sense. A lot of jobs come from these projects.

Our government understands the enormous benefits resource development can provide to all Canadians. This is why we have implemented such a rigorous review process for projects and have ensured that local communities and aboriginal peoples can actively participate in and benefit from resource development.

I simply cannot see a need for this motion, when clearly, as I stated, our current regulatory review process is already robust, independent, based on science, and among the best in the world.

Digital Privacy Act

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support the motion to refer Bill S-4 to a committee before second reading.

Bill S-4 amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. I will talk a little more about that, but first I want to take a moment to talk about the motion itself, which aims to send the bill to committee before second reading. This is somewhat strange; this is the first time the current government has done this in recent memory.

It is rather interesting and makes me wonder. Why this measure right now? Why did the government decide to do this, when there were other bills? Is it because the government has its doubts about Bill S-4 and wants to send it to committee, we hope, to solve the problems in the bill? That is what I am wondering.

Although we requested that some highly contested bills be sent to committee before second reading, such as Bill C-23 on election reform, Bill C-33 on first nations education and Bill C-3 on transporting oil along our coasts, the government refused. I have to wonder why it refused to do so and why it is now making the rather unusual—or at least uncommon, in recent history—move to send Bill S-4, a bill that comes not from the government, but from the Senate, to committee before second reading.

Procedure is not one of my strong suits, but there are experts here who can clear this up for us. I find it rather interesting that when we send a bill to committee before second reading, as this motion would do, the scope of the proposed amendments can be much broader. In other words, we could make more extensive amendments since the study in committee is not restricted by the principle of the bill, which has not yet been approved by the House. That is interesting. We can hope that Bill S-4 will be amended and that we will end up with a more polished product, if I can call it that, so that it will be more acceptable as we go into second reading.

Bill S-4 makes a pretty significant change to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. I took a look at this act, which received royal assent in April 2000. As members know, 14 years is an eternity in the digital world. A lot of things have happened in the past 14 years. This act was the result of an extensive consultation with a wide range of experts at all levels.

This work was accomplished through broad consultation in 2000. It is clear that since 2006, with this government, consultations are restricted to very specific groups. It is interesting to see that in 2000, there was a broad consultation that culminated with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Here is what that legislation does:

An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.

That is the legislation that is being amended now. Another interesting part of this law is schedule 1. Certain principles were set out in the legislation about to be amended, and they are particularly interesting because they were set out in the National Standard of Canada entitled Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information. The 10 principles are as follows: accountability; identifying purposes; consent; limiting collection; limiting use, disclosure, and retention; accuracy; safeguards; openness; individual access; and challenging compliance.

I went to the trouble of reading those principles. I found them very interesting and I urge all members to read them. Like it or not, as members, we receive personal and confidential information in our riding offices. That is why we too have a responsibility to respect these principles of personal information and electronic document protection.

Right now, we are talking about a motion to refer Bill S-4 to committee before second reading. I mentioned that this has not happened often in recent parliamentary history. In the time I have left, I would like to take a quick look at what Bill S-4 will change.

This bill will make major changes to to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which I just mentioned, by allowing personal information to be shared without the knowledge of the person concerned or without their consent under some circumstances. To me, that is a questionable way of protecting personal information. Companies would be allowed to share personal information under certain conditions.

As I read the bill, I really thought that there needed to be a better explanation of these conditions and some examples. For example, in a business transaction, when should personal information be shared without clients' consent?

Some aspects of the bill are positive, such as requiring organizations to take various measures when a data breach occurs. Even the current government has some transparency problems in this regard. The third aspect seeks to create offences in relation to the contravention of certain obligations respecting breaches of security safeguards. The fourth aspect would allow the the Privacy Commissioner, in certain circumstances, to enter into a compliance agreement with an organization.

Those are the four main aspects of Bill S-4 that raise concerns. Other aspects of the bill are positive and constitute a step in the right direction. That is why I support the motion to send Bill S-4 to committee to resolve the problems it contains that could result in a breach of privacy.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil Terminal

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the honourable member’s concerns. However, I also know how critical safe shipping is to ensuring Canada’s economic prosperity.

The simple fact is that Canada is a trading nation. We depend on doing business with other nations to ensure that we can maintain our high standard of living and that Canada can continue to grow. Trade accounts for more than 60% of our annual gross domestic product. One in every five Canadian jobs is directly linked to exports.

Natural resources—including oil, minerals, and agricultural and forestry products—remain essential to Canada’s economy. The petroleum sector alone employs over 550,000 Canadians and provides over $18 billion in tax revenues, which keep Canadians safe and healthy and allow us to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Marine shipping is a critical part of that. However, let me be clear: marine shipping, especially of oil, must be done safely and in an environmentally responsible manner. I am proud to say that Canada already has a robust tanker safety system. Oil has been transported along Canada’s coasts for decades without major incident.

This is due to an extensive range of prevention measures including our strong regulatory and oversight regime, collaboration with our international partners and efforts by the shipping industry. Although Canada has a strong marine safety record, we need to be prepared to take advantage of trade opportunities as global markets and trade patterns change.

As we pursue our trade agenda, we need to ensure that Canadians and the environment continue to be protected.That is why our government has already taken action to put in place a world-class tanker safety system.

The world-class tanker safety system is a comprehensive suite of initiatives that aims to prevent marine oil spills from happening in the first place, clean them up quickly in the event that they do occur and ensure that polluters pay.

As announced last year, our government is already taking action to increase tanker inspections so that each and every foreign tanker that enters Canadian waters is inspected the first time it arrives at a port and annually afterwards. We are expanding aerial patrols under the national aerial surveillance program to deter polluters and identify any marine incidents early. We are conducting leading-edge research on new oil products to build our knowledge of how they behave in different marine environments. We are implementing the internationally recognized incident command system to help coordinate response efforts with multiple partners in case of an incident.

Our government also appointed the independent tanker safety expert panel to identify more ways to strengthen Canada’s marine oil spill preparedness and response regime. We also heard from people and stakeholders across the country, and we have listened. We listened to Canadians, the provinces, industry, first nations and environmental organizations.

Earlier this year, we announced new actions under the world-class tanker safety system. In addition to the actions mentioned earlier, we are modernizing Canada’s marine navigation system by taking a leadership role in implementing e-navigation and investing in state-of-the-art technology and services. This will provide real-time marine safety information to vessel operators to help avoid navigational hazards and marine accidents.

We are also establishing area response planning in four areas across Canada, including the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Quebec, which will cover the Port of Gros-Cacouna. This will lead to response plans that are tailored to local conditions, such as the regional geography, vessel traffic, and environmental sensitivities.

We will also be expanding the response toolkit for oil spill cleanup by lifting legal barriers to using dispersants and other alternative response measures when they will have a net environmental benefit.

Our government will also be conducting and supporting research and development on new oil products, the pre-treatment of heavy oil products at source and a range of response techniques so that we will be equipped to respond in the event that there is an oil spill.

As well, we will be strengthening the polluter-pay principle by introducing legislative and regulatory amendments to enhance Canada’s domestic ship-source oil pollution fund through Bill C-3, Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act. These amendments would remove the current per incident limit of the fund and make available, if necessary, the entire amount. When you add this to the amount available from international funds, about $1.6 billion would be available to cover cleanup costs and provide compensation due to a marine oil spill. Although it has never happened in Canadian history, if all domestic and international funds were exhausted, our government would top up the ship-source oil pollution fund on a temporary basis to cover any remaining claims and cleanup costs, which would be recouped from industry through a levy.

I would like to take the opportunity to update the House on Bill C-3 and advise my colleagues that this important legislation has completed second reading in the other chamber, and will soon be studied at committee stage. By implementing a world-class tanker safety system, our government will continue to meet its commitment to protect Canadians and the environment, while responsibly transporting our natural resources.

[Anne Legars]

Well, I don't know what you mean by liability. I think the first-party liability regime when you have a victim, for example, because there was a spill and there was pollution, is encompassed by international conventions that are brought into Canadian law via the Marine Liability Act.

The last brick in this thing is the HNS convention which is an IMO convention and will be integrated in the Marine Liability Act via Bill C-3, which is now in the Senate. I don't remember when it was before you, but it was probably last spring or so. So this is the liability and it channels the liability to a ship owner who has to pay, and there is mandatory insurance, and when it reaches the top then you have the international fund kicking in. This is for first-party liability.

If you have a deficiency, basically the port states will require that you fix it. It has to be fixed either on the spot, or if it's something that is not critical there may be a deadline. For instance, you might have to fix it before you reach the next port of call.

If the deficiencies are critical and there is a danger, such as immediate danger to the environment or to the crew or to safety, then you have a detention. It means that your ship cannot move. It will stay here until things have been fixed and the port state authority is fine with it and says, okay you can go.

[Anne Legars, Vice-President, Shipping Federation of Canada]

Thank you for inviting the Shipping Federation of Canada to testify on this matter today.

The Federation has represented ocean shipping in Canada since 1903. We represent all segments of ocean shipping from coast to coast.

The world fleet that serves Canada represents the vast majority of commercial ships’ calls and of the freight volumes carried on Canadian waters. We can say that ocean shipping is the carrier of Canada’s world trade.

I will first have a very quick introduction to provide an overview of ocean shipping's regulatory framework.

The world fleet, which serves Canada and all the other countries in the world, is operated under various flags and is governed by a wide range of international conventions, especially the International Maritime Organization and International Labour Organization's conventions. These conventions are implemented in Canada through domestic legislation, mainly the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. These conventions are enforced by both flag administrations and port state administrations. Here, I will open a parenthesis before I go further to remind you what flag administrations and port state administrations are and what they do.

So what is a flag administration? Before allowing a ship to fly its flag, a flag administration must ensure that the ship meets all the international standards set out in the conventions ratified by its country and that the ship possesses all the relevant certifications. It's here that we have the classification societies that play a key role because these certifications are issued by classification societies, which are specialized marine engineering firms that play a key role in the shipping industry by developing technical standards or rules for the design and construction of ships, approving designs against their standards, and conducting surveys during construction to ensure that the ship is built in accordance with the approved design and rule requirements. A ship cannot be insured or brought into operation until it has been certified by a classification society recognized by the flag state.

Then we have the port state administrations. Port state administrations carry out inspections and enforcement of foreign ships that call at their ports. In Canada, the port state administration is Transport Canada Marine Safety. They do so as part of regional international enforcement networks. Canada is part of two such networks, the Paris MOU and the Tokyo MOU. The Paris MOU is an enforcement network of 27 countries that covers the coastal states of the North Atlantic Ocean and the Tokyo MOU is an enforcement network of 18 countries that covers the coastal states of the Asia-Pacific Region.

I have to underline at this point that the U.S. is not a member of either of these networks. But it still does port state control to enforce international conventions and shares its enforcement information with the other port state administrations and networks.

The annual reports on enforcement of each of these regions are available on the website of each of these networks. Transport Canada also publishes its data on port state control and statistics as well as the U.S Coast Guard. In an appendix that I have sent to the clerk, I put the links to all these reports and the enforcement abilities.

So I close the parenthesis. This was just to introduce how the regulatory framework is shaped for ocean shipping.

Now we'll go the heart of the matter, which is the transportation of dangerous goods by sea; and in another section I will address safety management systems in transportation by sea.

Regarding the transportation of dangerous goods by sea, we remind you once again that all ships carry bunkers as fuel. In addition, over one quarter of the total volume of cargo carried around the globe by ships comprises oil or oil products. On top of this, many other dangerous goods are carried by ships as cargo, such as fertilizers and chemical products carried in bulk, packaged dangerous goods, etc.

The three pillars that have already been mentioned with respect to the management of transportation risks—safety, preparedness and response, and liability and compensation as a third pillar—also apply to the issue of transportation of dangerous goods by sea. However, my remarks today will address only the first pillar, which is the one of marine safety. The issue of preparedness and response for HNS products will be addressed in the soon-to-be-released report of the tanker safety expert panel. We already shared our views on the liability regime for HNS cargo when we testified before this committee with respect to Bill C-3, which is now in the Senate.

To go back to marine safety and dangerous goods by sea, all ships, whatever they carry, have to comply with many international standards, the most important of which are contained in the SOLAS convention, which is the safety of life at sea convention, and the MARPOL convention, which is on marine pollution, both from IMO, the International Maritime Organization.

These conventions contain provisions that are generally applicable to all ships, as well as specific provisions that are applicable to specific types of ships, including tankers. More specifically, the IMO has developed construction standards for oil tankers, for gas tankers, and for ships carrying dangerous chemicals in bulk. The IMO has also developed the international maritime dangerous goods code, known as the IMDG code, which was developed in 1960 and applies worldwide to the transportation of dangerous goods by sea. The code is mandatory and is updated every two years. We also have the STCW convention on crew training and certification. Part V of this convention addresses special training requirements for oil tankers, chemical tankers, and liquefied gas tankers.

The IMO conventions, including the IMDG code, are implemented in Canada via the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, and related regulations. The IMDG code is also implemented via the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.

The IMDG code provides essentially for the classification of dangerous goods into nine classes, subdivided into divisions. It sets out principles and detailed recommendations for individual substances and sound operational practices, including terminology, packaging, labelling, stowage, segregation, handling, and emergency response action. These conventions are enforced in Canada by Transport Canada, via port state control for the international fleet, as part of the enforcement networks I mentioned earlier.

Statistics that are available on the website, and that I recap in the appendix that has been circulated to the clerk, show that there are very few deficiencies with respect to the carriage of dangerous goods, and that tankers have the best performance of all ship types.

With regard to safety management systems in transportation by sea, we have an international safety management code, known as the ISM code, which requires the shipowner or any person who has assumed responsibility for the ship to establish a safety management system. This code was developed under the auspices of the IMO, and it became mandatory in 1998 for all ships over 500 tonnes engaged in international voyages. It is also enforced by both the flag states and port state control.

The purpose of the ISM code is to provide an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention. It is based on an assessment of risks, the establishment of appropriate safeguards, documented procedures and instructions, and continuous improvement.

The functional requirements for a safety management system must include safety. There are six main functional requirements: a safety and environmental protection policy; instructions and procedures to ensure safe operation of ships and protection of the environment in compliance with the relevant international and flag state legislation; definition of levels of authority and lines of communication between and among shore and shipboard personnel; procedures for reporting accidents and non-conformities with the code’s provisions; procedures to prepare for and respond to emergency situations; and procedures for international audits and management reviews on board and ashore at least every year.

A ship cannot trade internationally without an ISM certificate issued by its flag state. The certificate is issued for a period that cannot exceed five years and is subject to at least one intermediate verification by the flag administration or by an organization recognized by the flag administration. The ISM certificate will also be inspected by port state inspectors.

The Tokyo MOU statistics show that about 1% of inspections found deficiencies with the ISM code that needed attention. The Paris MOU statistics show that about 3.7% of inspections found deficiencies with the ISM code. If there is evidence of major non-conformity with the code, the certificate should be withdrawn by the flag administration. The ISM code has been assessed as a successful tool for the enforcement of the safety culture throughout the shipping industry worldwide.

In a nutshell, this is the framework under which the ocean shipping operates with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods by sea and safety management systems. What is of paramount importance for the international industry is the global consistency of this framework, and the consistency and transparency of the enforcement efforts related thereto.

Thank you for your attention.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will have the honour of sharing my time with my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior.

As we know, the government recently authorized an increase in oil shipping on the St. Lawrence River, including the building of special port facilities in Sorel.

Even though Joliette is not right on the river, which is in the riding of my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, everyone in Lanaudière has a special place in their hearts for the river there.

In fact, many of my constituents spend time there every weekend cycling, fishing, boating or simply hiking the many kilometres of trails.

At the mouth of Lake Saint-Pierre, between Sorel and Berthierville, the Berthier Islands form an archipelago of 103 islands with magnificent mangroves and flood plains that provide a habitat for many rare animal species, such as silver fox and salamanders. In the spring, one can admire the splendour of the area while driving on highway 40.

History is also very much present in the region, which was the site of diplomatic meetings held by Champlain with the aboriginal people, and the mouth of the Richelieu River nearby saw a lot of action during the Iroquois wars.

In addition, writer Germaine Guèvrement found inspiration in the archipelago, which became the backdrop for Le Survenant, a novel she wrote in 1945.

In that sense, the announced increase in tanker traffic got me thinking, and I am saddened that the government did not see fit to include in Bill C-3 the NDP's proposed clauses regarding tanker traffic.

I wanted to make that point before talking a little more about the actual bill. I really wish we had taken the opportunity to better protect an area that is so important to my region.

The Berthier Islands are an area that I know well, that I frequent and that are part of the identity of the Lanaudière region. I am convinced that, across Canada, people who live close to potentially polluting projects have similar fears.

That is why I am glad Bill C-3 implements the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010.

If the Conservatives truly supported marine and aviation safety as they claim to, they would have accepted our suggestion to widen the scope of the bill.

We in the NDP do not believe that Canadian taxpayers should have to pay the difference when the cleanup cost in the wake of a spill of hazardous and noxious substances is higher than $500 million.

The NDP is committed to ensuring that oil spills never occur. The Conservative record is the exact opposite: they closed the British Columbia oil spill response centre, shut down the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station and gutted environmental emergency response programs.

As I said earlier, this bill does include some positive aspects, which is why I am not opposed to it. One of those aspects is the required pilotage and increased surveillance, which will reduce the risk of accidents.

However, that is not enough. The drastic cuts to oil transportation safety in last year's budget speak volumes.

The Conservatives say that these cuts are simply trimming the fat, but if they trim too much, the animal will end up dead. This is not liposuction, this is a flesh-eating disease.

The scaling back of the coast guard's rescue capacity and facilities has affected the entire country.

In Quebec, public pressure and the work of the NDP saved the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre, which responds to 1,500 calls a day. That is not insignificant, 1,500 calls a day. This announced closure endangered the lives of francophone sailors and demonstrates the Conservatives' complete disregard for marine safety, science and public health.

The NDP requested that the scope of Bill C-3 be broadened to reverse the cutbacks to our national coast guard response capacity.

In addition, this bill grants the military the investigatory powers that were traditionally reserved for the Transportation Safety Board. In the event of an aviation accident involving the military, the Minister of Defence is the only one who will be notified of the outcome of the investigation. It will not be made public.

We have long known that the Conservatives are afraid of transparency. During the last election campaign, they refused to answer more than five questions a day, in order to direct the journalists' work. The government they formed is not much different. They have extended the notion of cabinet secrecy to nearly everything and now they want to hide the results of investigations involving the military. That is unacceptable. It is like something out of an episode of The X-Files.

In general, Bill C-3 seems to focus on the administrative side instead of seriously addressing the risk that marine activities involving oil or hazardous materials pose to the environment.

A number of environmental NGOs have highlighted the inadequacy of Canada's safety measures with respect to oil tanker traffic. Why did the government not seize this opportunity with Bill C-3? It could have done much more. In addition to meaningfully enhancing safety with respect to accountability, the government could have made sure that Canadians do not end up with a hefty bill when a spill happens. That is the least it could have done.

We saw what happened in Lac-Mégantic. Deregulation and the government's complicit negligence made it possible for a foreign company to destroy everything for financial gain. It goes without saying that companies will always look to maximize their profits, since that is why they exist.

A responsible government's role is to set parameters, for example, by ensuring that a crisis can be avoided, and that if one does happen we can seek compensation. Was MMA able to compensate the people of Lac-Mégantic? Not at all. The company's obscure insurer, registered abroad, was not in a position to pay.

This situation could happen again, and, quite frankly, Bill C-3 would have been nice, so I could tour around the Berthier Islands without worrying about ending up in a wasteland.

That said, I will vote in favour of this bill, since I think it is a step in the right direction. However, it is a self-serving step that was meant to placate opposition to the projects supported by this government, such as Northern Gateway. It is, nevertheless, a step forward.

I wanted to take this opportunity to talk about the risks we are facing and that we will continue to face as long as we do not adopt an approach that is environmentally responsible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here to deliver my first speech since the summer break, following a busy summer that was full of ups and downs. I am on my feet, ready to respond to the government and hold it to account.

Bill C-3 has to do with marine safety and aviation safety. Once again, there is a discrepancy between the bill's objective and what it actually does. We already debated Bill C-3 in another form before prorogation. At the time, it was Bill C-57, which was referred to committee. The NDP proposed some amendments, which were all rejected. The NDP also asked the government to expand the scope of the bill, which the government also refused to do.

This attitude is really unfortunate. When we are dealing with topics as broad as aviation safety and marine safety, they are often very complex and require the testimony of expert witnesses. Logically, then, if we are opening up such a debate, we need to try to go over the entire subject and take the opportunity to discuss all the appropriate aspects of marine and aviation safety in order to avoid having to constantly come back to such a technical subject. Basically, it is a little like spring cleaning at home—we have to look inside every nook and cranny. We cannot simply choose the parts that interest us. This is the logical way to go about it, but unfortunately, the government refuses to apply this logic. It does not agree that as long as we are discussing such complex issues, we should explore them fully and completely.

As I said, one thing we wanted was to expand the scope of the bill, in order to discuss in particular the closure of the marine rescue centres and the negative impact of some legislation on environmental protections, specifically for coastal environments. All of these subjects were directly related to the bill's objective. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to do so.

Bill C-3 also proposes to amend the Marine Liability Act. It also seeks to implement the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010. Canada has been a signatory to this very important convention since 2010, and only today are we seeing a bill seeking to implement it. The convention defines the liability of vessel owners for costs incurred when oil or other similar materials are spilled.

It is very important to highlight and clarify the liability of companies and vessel owners when such a spill occurs and when damage is caused. If oil or other noxious and hazardous substances are spilled, Canadian taxpayers should not have to cover the cleanup and damage costs.

The limited liability of private businesses is a recurring problem from one bill to the next. We saw this in Bill C-22. The real costs and inflation over time are not being considered, and there may be a considerable burden on Canadians. As New Democrats, we believe in the polluter pays principle, unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, who constantly fob off the true environmental, social and economic costs onto current and future Canadian taxpayers.

As the deputy critic for natural resources and energy, I believe it is extremely important to understand that proper natural resource development requires a constant and appropriate legal framework.

When development in certain industries is not subject to a legal framework, investors tend to flee. Also, let us not forget that, to be developed, this natural resource must be transported. However, if the transportation framework is flawed, the industry can become unstable.

Therefore, we must protect our natural resource development as well as the economic potential of that development. To attract investment, this activity must have an adequate legal framework. People will want to invest in Canada if they know that safety measures are in place to reduce incidents, particularly during transportation.

Canada signed the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010. Yes, it is a 2010 convention.

In the fall of 2012, quite recently, two large transport vessels ran aground on the west coast because of the marine traffic. Today, we are under the impression that, with this bill, the Conservative government is trying to apologize for its inaction over the last few years.

The government may have wanted to show goodwill when it signed the international convention in 2010, but years have passed. There have been disasters since then and oil spills on the west coast. We are only now debating this bill at third reading. It took a long time.

Throughout the various stages of the bill, many members have pointed out the government's failings when it comes to safety. Shutting down marine safety programs and cutting budgets is certainly no way to promote safety. The Conservative cuts are being felt even in our air force.

Recently, the Canadian air force had to resort to stealing parts from search and rescue aircraft kept in museums to keep its planes going. We will not even mention the Liberals' recycled submarines. Obviously, things are not any better on that side.

Part II of the bill amends the Aeronautics Act to give the Airworthiness Investigative Authority 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.

In other words, instead of letting the Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigate when a military aircraft is involved, the investigation could be done by an authority under the Department of National Defence, which is therefore not required to release its report, as is the case for the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

A witness from the armed forces told us that some reports and secrets are not made public for security reasons. However, when we hear that the armed forces consider a secret the number of soldiers taking drugs for erectile dysfunction, we realize that we might not agree on what should be secret in the armed forces.

Many flights pass through my region of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, including military planes that fly over the northern part. The consequences of one accident could help us avoid other accidents with civilian aircraft, but unfortunately, since this information is sent to National Defence and the report is not made public, other avoidable accidents can occur. I find it unfortunate that the government's decision is to favour this new way of doing things.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I will begin by congratulating the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, neighbouring my riding of Acadie—Bathurst. These ridings share Chaleur Bay, which is recognized by UNESCO as one of the 10 most beautiful bays in the world.

I also thank him for his work on major issues, which we are also facing, since we share Chaleur Bay. For those who do not know, this bay has lobster. People like lobster. There are also all sorts of beautiful fish, as well as crab, and we want to protect them. We have a responsibility to protect them because they are fishers' livelihood. People also like to eat them.

I rise today to talk about 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.

Even though we support this bill at third reading, we are extremely disappointed that the Conservatives rejected our proposals to broaden the scope of this bill. We proposed amendments, unlike the Liberals. They wanted to propose some at second reading, but they missed the boat, to use a Maritimes reference.

Our approach shows that we are ready to make tangible and comprehensive changes to protect our coasts, whereas the Conservatives are not. I would like to expand on the Conservatives' lack of credibility when it comes to marine and air safety issues.

If the true purpose of Bill C-3 is to promote greater tanker traffic safety, why did the government not seize the opportunity to cancel the cuts in the latest budgets and the shutdown of marine safety programs?

The Conservative government wants to protect our coasts with this bill, but let us look at its record: the closure of the B.C. spill response centre, the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station and the gutting of environmental emergency response programs.

It does not make any sense for the Conservative government to cut programs at marine communications and traffic service centres and environmental emergency response centres, because we know that tanker traffic tripled between 2005 and 2010 and is expected to triple again by 2016. Pipeline expansion projects are also expected to increase crude oil shipments from 300,000 to 700,000 barrels a day.

When faced with these facts, it is difficult to believe that Canadians' concerns are really being taken seriously.

I would like to remind hon. members that the scaling back of Coast Guard rescue capacity and facilities has affected more than just British Columbia. The Conservative government has threatened to cut facilities across Canada, including those in the eastern part of the country. Most notable is its irresponsible decision to close the Newfoundland and Labrador marine rescue centre.

The Conservatives also planned to close the marine search and rescue centre in Quebec City, which, like the Newfoundland and Labrador centre, often conducts rescue and emergency relief operations. In fact, it responds to nearly 1,500 distress calls a year.

As a result of public protest and the hard work of my NDP colleagues, the Conservatives were forced to reconsider their decision to close the marine search and rescue centre in Quebec City, and it is still open today.

I would like to commend my colleagues and the people of Quebec, who stood up to show how important this centre is.

If the Conservatives really want to protect Canada's oceans with this bill, why not broaden its scope?

The measures that the NDP wants to see in a bill to safeguard Canada’s seas include reversing Coast Guard closures and the scaling back of services, including the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station.

We also want the Conservatives to cancel the cuts to the marine communication and traffic service centres, including the marine traffic control communications terminals in Vancouver and St. John's, Newfoundland. We have before us a bill that seeks to protect our oceans and tankers, but the government is closing the most important organizations for monitoring them.

We are also calling on the government to cancel the closure of British Columbia's oil spill response centre. It is unbelievable that the government would put forward this bill in the House of Commons and at the same time seek to close the oil spill response centre in British Columbia. Earlier, I was saying that crude oil shipments would increase from 300,000 to 700,000 barrels a day. Marine traffic is growing and the Conservatives are cutting the organizations that might be able to prevent catastrophes.

We are calling on the government to cancel cuts to the Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research. The Conservatives even want to make cuts to a research centre. We are also calling on them to cancel cuts to key environmental emergency programs, including oil spill response in Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia.

It is scary. It is scary to see where the government is going with this. Canadians should be scared to see what is happening on the energy and oil fronts. It is not new, and each year we see an increase in the use of our rivers and oceans, both the Pacific and the Atlantic. The government is shutting down everything that has been put in place to protect and monitor these bodies of water.

We are calling on the government to reinforce the capacity of petroleum boards—which is currently nil—to handle oil spills, as recommended by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board needs to build in-house expertise to manage a major spill, including an independent safety regulator.

We want the Canadian Coast Guard to work collaboratively with its U.S. counterparts and conduct a parallel study to examine the risks additional super tanker traffic would cause in Canadian waters.

If the Conservatives really wanted to take marine safety seriously, they could have—and should have—expanded this bill. We know that the Conservatives are making these modest changes in an attempt to calm British Columbians' well-founded fears about new oil pipeline projects and the inevitable increase in oil tanker traffic that would result from new pipeline construction.

The people of British Columbia are right to be worried about potential spills resulting from the increase in tanker traffic. Oil spills have proven inevitable with oil tanker traffic. The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation has recorded nearly 10,000 accidental oil spills globally since 1970.

That should tell the government to be careful. Given all the cuts it has made in various areas, it is, as I said earlier, very scary.

The government needs to shoulder its responsibilities. This bill does not go far enough. We will support it because, while it is not much, it is better than nothing. However, it should go further.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on his excellent speech. He focused on something that is very important to us, the NDP, and that is the tourism industry and inshore fishers.

When we talk about spills, the marine industry and oil transportation, it makes me think of something called “accountability”. This Conservative government has had a lot to say about that. If we think about accountability with regard to Bill C-3, we would hope that this bill provides adequate protection for the marine and oil transportation sectors.

We are talking about significant amounts of money. Just think of the British Petroleum incident in the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago, or the Exxon Valdez. Twenty-five years later, the fishing industry and tourism are still more or less wiped out. There is no compensation directly associated with these sectors.

What does my colleague think about these vital industries, especially with regard to his region?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give my speech and my opinion on the bill before us. For the benefit of those present today, I will repeat that this is the third reading of 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.

This bill will amend a great many laws on marine safety, mainly with respect to the transportation of dangerous and toxic products, especially petroleum products.

A number of witnesses told us what they thought about the proposed amendments. The NDP proposed amendments to the bill that the government did not accept. That is very unfortunate because the current bill is a step in the right direction, but a far cry from what it should be.

To add context I would like to quote Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. He has repeatedly given us benchmarks so that we have an accurate picture of the state of marine safety with respect to the transport of hydrocarbon products. This is what he had to say in 2010:

The Canadian Coast Guard, the lead federal agency for responding to ship-source oil spills, has not conducted an assessment of its ship-source oil spill response capacity since 2000. While concerns have been raised regarding the state of the Coast Guard’s oil spill response equipment, given the lack of recent capacity analyses and the lack of up-to-date knowledge on risks, the Coast Guard does not know if its ship-source oil spill response capacity is appropriate to address those risks.

He continues:

In the meantime, Canada lacks a formal framework for responding to chemical spills, including clear roles and responsibilities.

I would like to remind members that he said that in 2010. It seems that the message was not heard. In 2012, the commissioner again pointed out the following in his annual report:

The potential impacts of an offshore oil spill in Atlantic Canada, such as seen in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, could be widespread and devastating to the environment, industry, and the livelihoods of many Canadians. As a result, it is essential that the offshore petroleum boards manage the risks and impacts associated with the oil and gas activities they regulate.

As I said, that was in 2012. The message still had not gotten through, so the commissioner brought up the problems yet again in his 2013 report, which stated:

The federal government has an important leadership role to play in protecting species and spaces and implementing a sustainable development agenda. Leadership means first identifying where the federal government can add the most value, finding the most cost-effective way to do so, investing what it takes to add that value, and finally, following through on commitments. Fulfilling current promises is critical, because commitments are only the first steps toward the research, protection, and recovery needed. Building on progress and successes such as the Habitat Stewardship Program and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, for example, is also vital.

In 2013, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development once again reported that we did not have the equipment and were not ready to respond to spills at sea.

I would like to close with a quote from Danielle Giroux, spokesperson for the St-Lawrence Coalition, who expressed her opinion on the commissioner's comments. These quotations are from the David Suzuki Foundation website.

Danielle Giroux said:

As the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland prepare to open the Gulf of St. Lawrence to oil exploration, this report confirms that we are in no way prepared to respond to any incident related to this extractive activity. We do not have the technical resources to prevent or clean up the mess, nor do we have the financial guarantees to cope with it. This report is a cold shower for the coastal communities that depend on the health of the Gulf for their own well-being.

This bill is about financial liability in case of an oil spill. Compensating people if their industry is destroyed by an oil spill is all well and good, but what about rebuilding the industry if it is damaged by an oil spill? Remember the Exxon Valdez? Oil from that spill is still washing up on shore. The Irving Whale sank in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 30 years ago, and people in the Magdalen Islands, in my riding, are still picking up chunks of oil that wash up on the sand every year. A spill never really goes away; the fallout lasts for years.

We have to think about the long term when we talk about compensation. The fishing industry in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in the Atlantic, off the west coast and potentially in the Arctic is a sustainable activity that can go on indefinitely. If an oil spill damages this industry, we need to make sure that it can continue to exist, rather than thinking about financial compensation. We need to think about what can be done to limit the impact of a spill.

Rather than talking about what type of insurance policy is needed to financially compensate people for a year's income, I would like the government to talk about what it is going to do to ensure that the tourism, fishing and seabed mining industries remain sustainable.

I would like to give some statistics that show the value of the industries we are talking about. In the Magdalen Islands, fishing and the related industries, particularly the processing industry, represent $100 million per year. In the Gaspé, lobster fishing alone represents $15 million per year. In 2010, in the Gaspé, the landing value of fishing was $85 million. Landings in the lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands account for two-thirds of all landings in Quebec. Tourism generates $280 million a year in my region.

In the bill before us, we are talking about an insurance policy that would provide $230 million in compensation. That is not even equivalent to the revenue generated in one year by the tourism industry. I would like to remind hon. members that if the beaches in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands are polluted with oil, there will not be very many tourists. One year of compensation in the amount of $230 million will not restore the industry in my region. The region will be decimated. This bill does not meet the needs of my constituents; that is clear. If it does not meet their needs, it obviously does not meet the needs of constituents in neighbouring ridings either.

When it comes to cleaning up oil spills, the bill indicates that companies will be responsible for cleaning up up to 10,000 tonnes of oil. In eastern Canada, there is currently talk of a project in Belledune that could involve the marine transport of four times that amount of oil. There is also talk of a potential project in Cacouna, not far from Rivière-du-Loup, involving the marine transport of almost 10 times that amount of oil. Today, the marine transport of oil in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is equivalent to approximately 82 million tonnes per year. The bill stipulates that the company would be responsible for cleaning up only 10,000 tonnes. That is not enough. It is not nearly enough.

Today, an oil tanker carries at least four times the quantity proposed in this bill in the event of a spill. A standard Suezmax or Panamax oil tanker may contain at least four times more than what this bill is proposing. If one of these ships is involved in a spill, the company would be responsible for just one-quarter of it. Who will be responsible for the rest? Canadians.

Once again, Canadians are being asked to assume the risk socially, while the benefits are being privatized. Companies will get off the hook and make huge profits. Everyone knows the oil industry is very profitable. Canada's oil exports have tripled in the past five years, and they are expected to triple again in the next three.

Huge quantities of oil will pass very close to our coastal communities, which depend on fishing, forestry and tourism, all traditional and sustainable industries. As for the oil industry, we are not equipped for a spill, period.

The Gulf of St. Lawrence is one of Canada's main oil transportation routes, and it freezes in the winter. It ices over. What will happen if a spill occurs on the ice? We are not equipped to clean up a spill like that. Let us take things one step at a time.

It is all well and good to want to make companies liable for up to $230 million, but it is nowhere near enough. It is better than what we have now, where companies are liable for $35 million. At least that will go up to $230 million. A year ago, the Conservatives were talking about $1 billion, but they decided it was too much.

I would remind the House that some countries put no limit on a company's liability. Norway, for example, has no limit. Companies responsible for a spill are responsible for the cost of cleanup, period.

By the way, Norway's oil economy is not suffering. Growth is good and the industry is doing well. The country has money and is protecting the environment at the same time. Both are possible. I do not know why we in Canada cannot understand that companies need to be accountable. If the polluter is not liable, someone else will be, and that will be us, the taxpayers. I think taxpayers have paid enough already.

The government keeps saying that taxpayers are paying too much. Frankly, if the government is trying to tell Canadian taxpayers that they should be subsidizing oil companies, Canadians will be left scratching their heads and wondering why they should have to compensate them.

Those companies have plenty of money, since that industry is extremely profitable. I think they can start assuming liability for any pollution they might cause.

A boat will not necessarily cause a spill, as we know. Some boats go up and down the east or west coast on a daily basis. They go by all the time. I just have to look around me when I am at home. I see boats passing by carrying oil. We can all see them. Fortunately, there has never been a spill.

Elsewhere around the world, however, there have been about 10,000 spills over the past 40 years. We know that this can happen and we know the risks. Every industry faces some sort of risk. It is crucial that we have a bill that considers this risk. We do not have one here. Companies are just starting to assume some liability, but not nearly enough.

In committee, I would have liked to see the Conservatives remember what they themselves had promised. They promised liability to the tune of $1 billion. That definitely would have been better. Unfortunately, this is nowhere near that.

Where I come from, there are several potential oil deposits in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but the most important is the Old Harry site, located between the Magdalen Islands and Newfoundland. It is so much on the border that we are not even sure exactly where it is.

If development begins at that site, there are fears that we are not properly equipped to clean up a spill. There are doubts about whether the company that has the permit today would have the financial ability to pay compensation in the event of a major spill. This bill would not provide enough for a proper cleanup following a catastrophe like the one in the Gulf of Mexico. It definitely needs to go further. Is it enough for today? Unfortunately, I have to support the bill, because it is a first step, but it does not provide nearly enough to respond to the real needs of our coastal communities.

Coastal communities will assume the risk so that the oil companies can benefit. That is not fair. We live in a society that should be fair and balanced. The Conservatives' bill appears to be an attempt to relieve the big companies of their liability and make society take on the risk. I do not understand. On the one hand they are socialists and on the other they are capitalists. Unfortunately they have got things the wrong way around.

They should have started by asking themselves what could be done to protect our coastal communities, so that they can grow and the wealth can be shared across Canada. That is not what we see in the bill, which only has to do with compensation in the case of a spill. The bill tacitly states that there will be a spill and attempts to safeguard against the financial impact a spill would have. However, no matter how much money you throw at a disaster, the real challenge is surviving it.

In Canada, there is a $400-million fund in case of a spill, but there have been no contributions to it since 1976. I have to wonder whether the government is serious about holding companies accountable for their own actions. It does not seem to be. The bill is quite simply not enough, but once again, it is a step forward. Without this bill, liability is $35 million. That is nowhere near enough. Liability of $230 million is a little more reassuring, but coastal communities are worth more than that.

The tourism and fishing industries deserve the House's attention. Unfortunately, the comments from members of the Conservative Party seem to ignore the fact that there are human beings and sustainable industries in the regions.

On the west coast, which I have not spoken much about, there is tremendous interest in this bill. For example, Burrard Inlet in Vancouver is the second most dangerous navigation point in that region. A ship navigating through the inlet at its own risk is thus putting the coastal community of greater Vancouver and the west coast at risk.

We definitely want all regions of Canada to be able to benefit from the oil industry. That is why the risk must be shared among all concerned. Companies should take on their fair share. I do not think that this bill does enough. I hope that the government will come up with some new proposals to improve the situation.

I doubt that that will happen before the election in 2015. That is why I believe that the NDP is the only party that can stand up for coastal communities. I look forward to when we form the government.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to help my colleagues from the Liberal Party to situate themselves a bit better. We are in third reading, but we are also in third reading of Bill C-3, which does not have much to do with railroads.

I will give the member the title, just so it is a little clearer in everybody's minds. It is 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. Rail safety is an interesting point, and it is important that we debate it in the House, but perhaps we should be a little more on point as to what is being debated in the House at the moment.

Perhaps the Liberal Party is confused, because when we sent this bill to committee after second reading, it did not present any amendments. Maybe it just missed this bill entirely. I do not know. However, we are in third reading of a bill that has to do with marine safety, and that is what I would like to ask a question about.

Seeing as the Liberals did not produce any amendments during the committee stage, I will assume they are in agreement that a company should only be liable for $230,000 in case of an oil spill.

I remember last summer that Conservative ministers suggested it should be as much as a billion dollars. That number has been substantially reduced. I assume that, because they have not produced any amendments, the Liberals are in agreement with the significant reduction in the liability for which a corporation would be responsible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues is that, when we adjourn debates, quite often what ends up happening is that we are in a situation where we will have the start of second reading on a particular bill only to find out that we might not actually have the continuation of that debate for weeks or months.

This is one of the problems in terms of the whole issue. I have talked about this in the past. I will just talk a little about the process. We do need to have more co-operation amongst parties inside the chamber. That would allow for a more even flow of the legislative agenda.

Then if we had a priority bill, it would be brought back within a few days, as opposed to having to wait for months. I think that is what has happened with this particular bill. The bill was brought in, and I do not have the actual date in front of me but if I were to speculate, my best guesstimate would be that it was likely several months ago when it was before the House. Then we find ourselves in the situation we are in today.

In my opening comments, if I were to give a little reflection, members would find that the principle of a bill is something in which it is always good to get more of the details. One of the advantages of the bill going to committee is the fact that we will do just that, going through the bill, listening to different stakeholders and the input they might have to provide. On any piece of legislation that would be very advantageous.

If I could provide a bit more specific information, what we are seeing in this bill is a piecemeal approach, or what we might even describe as an incoherent approach to the transportation safety policy in Canada.

When I hear about transportation safety in Canada, there is an endless number of examples and thoughts that come to mind. All I have to do is just talk about train transportation and the huge need and desire that Canadians have to deal with transportation safety, in particular with our railways.

Small things are trickling out in dribs and drabs from the government, without any comprehensive approach to transportation safety in the country to deal with many important issues. Even though I made reference to train transportation, it is important that we recognize, as this bill does, marine transportation and passenger safety, which goes beyond that.

We can look at how much Canada as a country has become urbanized. It has many train hubs, and with respect to Winnipeg, it is the CN yards out in the Symington area or the Transcona area or in my own back yard with the CP Rail expansion that has been taking place.

More and more, the quantity of goods actually being transported from coast to coast to coast using the rail lines—and the product that is in those trains and tankers—is going through major suburban and inner-city areas, all over our country.

It should be no surprise that Canadians are growing more and more concerned about the content of our trains as they go through municipalities. More specifically, what is the government actually doing to protect our communities? We are just hearing dribs and drabs.

We have a government that seems to want to react as opposed to being proactive in dealing with issues related to safety. I believe the government has a lacklustre attitude in terms of trying to provide strong and improved regulations, which would go a long way in making our communities safer.

There is an opportunity here to come up with a more coherent and comprehensive approach. To that extent, I would ask the government, particularly the minister responsible, to what degree they have consulted with the many different stakeholders.

Of course, we have the standard stakeholders within certain industries, whether it be the marine community or rail transportation. However, we should be taking into consideration the provinces, which have regulations within their provincial jurisdictions. We should be seeing what municipalities have to say. We will find throughout Canada that there are many progressive stakeholders who, if afforded the opportunity to provide direct input into the development of legislation, would be more than happy to do so. This is something I would suggest the government has not been very successful at. It is one of the reasons I believe there are so many deficiencies in the legislation.

It is critically important that when legislation passes the floor of the House of Commons and goes to committee that the government be open to listening to what is presented in committee and open to amendments. I know that has not been a highlight of the current government in terms of receiving amendments, particularly from opposition parties. Often we find that amendments brought forward by opposition parties would add strength and value to laws and regulations. I believe that is what Canadians want to see.

I believe that once we get this bill to committee, we will find ideas that will lead to potential amendments. Hopefully the government will listen and support where it can, even though the Conservatives' track record is not good. However, I am an optimistic person.

As I have suggested, we can do a lot better than this in terms of transparency, which Canadians are asking for and deserve. Even though the bill is mostly about technical amendments, the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill going to committee.

We have had some horrific accidents over the last number of years. I would suggest there are things government should have been doing to deal with some of the regulations that need to be changed.

I think of my backyard, where we have the CP tracks going through the heart of Winnipeg's north end. Common commodities such as wheat and oil and many other products are shipped.

We have seen serious devastation in communities where rail line accidents have occurred.

Bill C-3 is a bill that is mostly about technical amendments, and that is why, in principle, we will support it going through. It would have been a lot better if the government had taken a more holistic approach to improving safety on our rail lines, in our air spaces, and in our oceans.

The government of the day can choose the status quo and not come up with bold initiatives that would have an impact, but there is going to be a cost. What we have witnessed over the last number of years is a higher sense of public safety and protecting our communities, because every so often, when we hear about a rail line accident, there is a great deal of media attention.

I would suggest that we do not have to wait for accidents to occur. There is a way we can deal with it in a more proactive fashion.

Once the bill does go through the House at second reading and gets to committee, I look forward to the government having an open mind and allowing for some amendments to the legislation.