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.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to the cap for liability.

Captain Stephen Brown, you went into that and then Mr. Watson's time was up. Can you tell us about what happens? I know that in practice we haven't exceeded the amount of liability or cap that happens.

If I understand correctly, according to the legislative summary of Bill C-3 there's a cap of $230 million for the HNS liability for shipowners, and then after that the HNS fund kicks in, which is about $500 million. Then, if it exceeds that, what happens? Who has to pay for that? Can you explain to us?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

In terms of another part of your brief, Captain Brown, you talk about Bill C-3 including a commitment to expand Canada's national aerial surveillance program, the commitment to expand the number of designated ports for traffic control measures, the commitment to expand scientific research on non-conventional petroleum products, and the adoption of electronic navigation capabilities. Those aren't part of this bill, are they, as far as I can read it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

It's definitely not on Bill C-3. I'll see if Mr. Brown is prepared to comment on it if he wishes, but....

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We're on Bill C-3, Mr. Sullivan.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Again, we're not on Bill C-3. While I understand this is a topic of some interest to members around the table, if we were having a study around response there would be considerably more latitude. We are addressing the bill and the requirements of the bill with respect to regime and whether the requirements of this bill are sufficient regarding a regime. They don't relate to the coast guard's operation or its facilities or anything else like that, Mr. Chair.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Captain Brown, one of the important aspects of Bill C-3 that you strongly support and mention in your testimony is the regulated adoption of the incident command system by the Canadian Coast Guard. Could you elaborate on that?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Sure.

Bill C-3 has a new requirement ensuring and requiring that oil handling facility operators demonstrate their oil spill preparedness and response capacity. How would that requirement affect your organization directly or indirectly?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask this one question and ask each of the three of you to chime in with a response, perhaps starting with Madame Legars. Could each of you explain how the Bill C-3 requirement to have oil handling facility operators demonstrate their oil spill preparedness and response capacity would affect your respective organization directly or indirectly?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

The committee would appreciate that information. Thank you.

I want to hopefully bring some clarity here. There has a been a conflation of several issues. I know there has been a lot of comment on the world tanker safety panel report, for example. Our response, with respect to oil, is a separate issue from what we're dealing with here today. We're dealing with C-3 and plugging a gap that exists currently with respect to HNS, hazardous and noxious substances.

I think, Madam Legars, your testimony, even though we don't have the exact numbers, points to the reality that we do need a regime, both for shipowners and shippers, that carries a higher liability. We may find out, yet again, that as a result of the world tanker safety panel report we may be revisiting the level of this, for example, as well. For now, we need to have a regime in place, and that's what the legislation gets to today, making sure that we have a start on that.

Maybe this is for the port to answer. This brings into the liability regime the requirements for oil handling facilities. First of all, we heard by testimony that we don't exactly know how many there are. There is an estimate of about 400. This will now make reporting requirements that be known to the regulator, that being Transport Canada.

What is the risk of an incident at a loading facility between a tanker and the oil handling facility? Is there a high degree or high likeliness of an incident occurring where there is a spill? What is the liability regime currently for a situation like that, where it occurs at the facility?

[Anne Legars]

Without C-3 it will depend on the size of the ship because it's on a tonnage basis.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

If we have an LNG accident, what is the amount of liability currently, without C-3?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I didn't say that and don't put words in my mouth.

Please continue your question on Bill C-3, Mr. McGuinty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

The questions are to pertain to Bill C-3, which we're studying here.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I've been patiently listening to the member opposite and I have yet to hear a question on Bill C-3, which is the substance before the committee right now. I would appreciate, Chair, if there might be some instruction to members to actually ask questions on it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It's not Bill C-3 that's going to address this, right?