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.

[Duncan Wilson, Vice-President, Corporate Social Responsibility, Port Metro Vancouver]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, honourable committee members, Port Metro Vancouver very much appreciates the opportunity to present to the committee today on the importance of Bill C-3 and our perspective on it. As members may already be aware, Port Metro Vancouver is Canada’s largest and most diverse port, serving as a strategic gateway that is essential to fulfilling Canada’s trade objectives. It's also a significant economic force strengthening the Canadian economy. We are the most diversified port in North America, facilitating trade with over 160 trading economies and exceeding 130 million tonnes of cargo annually.

As the fourth-largest tonnage port in North America, we offer 28 major marine cargo terminals served by three Class 1 railroads, providing a full range of facilities and services to the international shipping community. To put that in perspective, approximately $0.5 billion a day in goods moves through Port Metro Vancouver, which represents approximately 20% of all of Canada's trade in goods.

The port is also a cornerstone economic driver for British Columbia’s economy, with one in twelve people in the region earning their living as a direct result of port-related activities. That amounts to about 80,000 jobs. These numbers only include jobs that are directly related to the supply chain. Clearly there are scores of other jobs in export and import industries, from forest workers to potash miners and from grain farmers to shopkeepers and small businesses right here in Ottawa.

At Port Metro Vancouver the creation and maintenance of the safest possible operating environment is a guiding principle for our organization. We are acutely aware of our responsibility for safeguarding the west coast’s natural heritage. We take great pride in our 50-year track record of service as Canada’s Pacific bulk oil gateway without experiencing a single navigational issue with an oil tanker.

With global demand for oil and liquid natural gas growing, we believe leveraging our ability to safely and responsibly transport these products will give us an advantage as we build our business in the sector and generate increased economic benefit to the communities in which we operate.

With that in mind, Port Metro Vancouver enthusiastically supports the proposed legislative changes contemplated in Bill C-3. Specifically, we welcome the changes to the Marine Liabilities Act, which will implement in Canada the liability schemes identified by the international conventions on civil liability for oil pollution damage, on civil liability for bunker oil pollution damage, and on the establishment of an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage.

Taken in combination, this not only ensures Canadian alignment with international best practice but also provides appropriate compensation, up to $730 million, for victims of any damage or environmental contamination caused by oil.

Additionally, we fully support the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act contained in Bill C-3, which build on the current requirements for pollution prevention and response at facilities that handle oil.

We also support increasing Transport Canada’s ability to oversee the marine operation and enforce regulation by providing marine safety inspectors with the tools they need to ensure compliance, the introduction of new offences for contravention of the act and increased penalties relating to pollution, and the removal of legal barriers that would hinder spill response by preventing Canadian organizations from participation in cleanup efforts.

Further to supporting these legislative steps, Port Metro Vancouver would additionally recommend that the government take steps to implement recommendations made by the tanker safety panel in their report on Canada’s ship-source oil spill preparedness and response regime.

Recognizing the complexity of this task, Port Metro Vancouver commends the tanker safety panel on its thorough report. In particular, we want to acknowledge the panel’s incorporation of a number of Port Metro Vancouver's recommendations that were outlined in our submission of June 2013. These include a risk-based geographic-specific assessment to determine responder capacity, adequate resourcing and training of Canadian Coast Guard personnel, and the establishment of a fund for research and development of oil spill preparedness through collaboration between industry and government.

In addition, we recently provided additional comments to Transport Canada on the tanker safety panel report that we feel will further strengthen the regime.

First, we believe the government should prioritize the establishment and operation of the Canadian Coast Guard incident command system, making that agency the lead in incident response and reporting. This can be supported by Transport Canada and Environment Canada resources.

Port Metro Vancouver would also strongly support the enhancement of shore-based radar for vessel traffic services operated by the Canadian Coast Guard’s marine communications and traffic services branch. These additional resources would address coverage gaps along the main tanker routes into Vancouver as well as elsewhere on the coast, increasing safety in areas where there is tanker traffic.

We would further recommend that the government move to require all tankers entering Canadian waters to make arrangements with salvage providers that would include services such as marine firefighting, similar to salvage requirements that are delineated in the United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

Finally, I would like to outline an initiative that would complement the intentions of Bill C-3. We would encourage the Government of Canada to support the establishment of a centre of excellence for the safe marine transportation of oil and LNG commodities in Canada. A centre of excellence would act as a leading independent source of information on best practices for shipping oil and LNG, while promoting and facilitating research and regulatory frameworks that deliver the highest standards of safe and sustainable shipment.

We believe Canada would greatly benefit from an institution operating for the purpose of identifying and coordinating research and development of oil and LNG shipment technologies, promoting industry best practices, and encouraging open dialogue with stakeholder communities. A centre of excellence would also come to serve as a trusted source of information, education, and awareness for safe handling techniques for oil and LNG storage, marine transportation, spill prevention, preparedness, and operational response. It would additionally provide a structured framework for evolving research and the scientific monitoring of environmental and social effects related to the shipment of oil and LNG commodities.

In conclusion, let me once again reiterate Port Metro Vancouver’s support for Bill C-3and its contents. We believe this legislation to be a concrete first step in the solidification of a world-class operating environment. We will always be supportive of initiatives that build safety and security into our operations, and in that context we would encourage the committee to support the passage of this bill.

Thank you for your time today. I'm happy to take any questions.

[Captain Stephen Brown, President, Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia]

Mr. Chairman and honourable committee members, good morning.

Formed in 1923, the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia represents the full spectrum of international and domestic shipping-related interests in western Canada, including but not limited to international and domestic shipowners, BC Ferries, vessel agency companies, cargo interests, terminal interests, cruise lines, port authorities, pilotage, maritime lawyers, classification societies, marine surveyors, and marine support and service companies. In all, we have about 180 members representing around 80% of all commercial traffic doing business in the ports of British Columbia.

The importance of credible and robust accident preparedness and response capability is fundamental to all forms of transportation. Whether in aviation, road, rail, or the marine sector, we cannot deliver zero risk, but there is always the capability to manage and mitigate that risk.

In the marine sector, we use every tool at our disposal to do so, including the strict enforcement of International Maritime Organization and national regulations and values related to marine safety and the protection of the marine environment in all its forms; pre-vetting of tanker condition and history prior to entering Canadian waters; and Canada’s participation in two highly effective port state control regimes, the Tokyo memorandum of understanding and the Paris memorandum of understanding, under which each country undertakes to target and inspect a minimum of 20% of vessels calling at that country’s ports. In so doing, Canada enforces the highest standards of compliance, irrespective of a vessel’s nationality or the port of registration.

Also included among the tools we use are the compulsory carriage of electronic precision navigation and detection equipment and the compulsory pilotage of vessels by highly trained Canadian mariners having in-depth knowledge and experience of this country’s coastal waters and supervised by four federally regulated pilotage authorities. On the west coast of Canada, the Pacific Pilotage Authority administers the largest single compulsory pilotage district in the world. There is also the universal adoption of double-hull construction for tankers and the extensive use of highly effective tugboats to escort vessels in and out of harbour and otherwise as required.

The Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia is supportive of Bill C-3 for many reasons, including but not limited to the regulated adoption of the incident command system by the Canadian Coast Guard, the extension of pollution prevention and response to include oil handling facilities, the removal of legal barriers to cross-border responders, the commitment to expansion of Canada’s national aerial surveillance system, 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 to further enhance Canada's existing system of navigational aids to mariners.

In combination with the 45 recommendations of the tanker safety expert panel contained in A Review of Canada’s Ship-Source Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Regime, which was submitted to the minister in November 2013 and published in December 2013, we believe that Bill C-3 is a milestone in progressing the government’s objective of implementing a world-class regime of marine safety and preparedness.

We have already submitted our comments to the panel’s report. These essentially focus on areas of cross-border reciprocity within Canada’s inland waters; marine salvage and firefighting preparedness; a future role for the regional advisory boards; and future governance and reporting, including an annual submission to Parliament on the status of Canada’s oil spill preparedness and response in the marine environment.

On the west coast of Canada, through the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, we have spill preparedness and response capability far in excess of that currently mandated by Transport Canada. Even so, the west coast marine sector has been actively supportive of a review and upgrading of capability, in recognition of the fact that exceeding legislated compliance is not enough if the legislation itself is open to question. We have therefore long recognized that social licence to proceed with marine-related projects in the natural resource sector is dependent, at least in part, on public confidence in the level of risk mitigation and our state of preparedness in the event of an incident of any nature.

The 2010 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development into the state of the Canadian Coast Guard’s preparedness for a pollution event in the marine environment speaks for itself. We are obviously very pleased to acknowledge the efforts under way to address the deficiencies detailed in the report, but this also underlines the dangers of sustained budget cuts over many years to an organization with such an essential role to play in spill preparedness and response.

Similarly, the 2012 report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development into Atlantic offshore oil and gas activities revealed further specific areas requiring attention.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before the committee. I look forward to taking any questions you may have related to our views on this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, and committee members, thank you for having invited the Shipping Federation of Canada to testify before you this morning about part 4 of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

The federation, incorporated by an Act of Parliament in 1903, is the representative in Canada of the owners, operators, and agents of ocean ships trading at ports across Canada from the Atlantic to the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes to the west coast. The ships operated by our members carry Canada's imports and exports throughout the world. These ships are part of the world ocean fleet that sails around the clock, 365 days a year, from one country to another to deliver world trade.

These fleets are governed by a web of international conventions that cover the ship, its building and equipment, manning requirements, and operations, etc. These conventions are incorporated into Canadian law through the provisions and regulations flowing from the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. This world ocean fleet is also governed by a set of liability conventions. These liability conventions are incorporated into Canadian law through the Marine Liabilities Act, which will be amended by part 4 of Bill C-3, which we are here today to support.

These amendments to the Marine Liabilities Act do not come as a surprise to us as they are a step in a long process that started many years ago with the 1996 HNS convention, which did not gain much traction due to a number of implementation issues. Canada subsequently stepped in and provided leadership in the development of a protocol that solved these issues. The upgraded 2010 HNS convention therefore benefits from Canada's input.

The federation, along with industry and other stakeholders, has participated in the government's consultation and Canada's ratification of this upgraded 2010 HNS convention, and has expressed strong support for such ratification. We are not alone in that respect. The 2010 HNS convention has been targeted by the Comité Maritime International, which is the international association of maritime law national associations, and various international industry associations, as one of the priority conventions for worldwide ratification.

We support this international liability regime introduced by part 4 of Bill C-3 because we believe it is the most efficient way to offer efficient liability coverage for ship-source chemical spills. We believe so because for mobile assets that trade across the world on a continual basis, as ocean ships do, an international regime avoids the high transactional costs that would be attached to a fragmentation of national liability regimes, each of which would have its own rules, liability limits, paperwork, and so on. For us, the first element of an efficient regime is that it is an international regime.

Maybe of more interest to your side, the international regime contained in the 2010 HNS convention pools the risk and its financing among a large number of players, which minimizes the marginal cost of covering the risk for each of them. The international regime grants access to an international fund funded by HNS receivers at a higher limit of indemnification than shipowners alone could provide. Also, this regime is modelled on the ship-source oil pollution liability regime that has been in place and is functioning well.

For all these reasons, we respectfully submit to this committee that Parliament should pass the amendments to the Marine Liabilities Act that are contained in part 4 of Bill C-3, and it's why our organization sent a letter on January 23 to this committee to support the passing of this part of the bill.

Thank you.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You say that Bill C-3 is a very important piece of legislation. We've heard already today that it improves on what is currently a non-existent regime for compensation related to hazardous and noxious substance spills and chemical spills in our waters, including those off the west coast. It's important, of course, that we're here working on that particular matter. I think Canadians would consider that to be in their interests.

I understand, Mr. Chair, that radio station CHEK in B.C. is reporting that the chief opposition critic is signing books today, but that aside—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I understand that. I'm just confused, because earlier Mr. Meisner was asked the question about ecological damage, and his answer was that you can recover, and I quote, “to the extent that you can put an economic value on it”.

How does Bill C-3 help us put an economic value on ecosystem services?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Point taken, but we are on Bill C-3.

We'll now move to Mr. Toet for five minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, the proceedings here are related to Bill C-3.

I appreciate members' interest in probing officials about what their thoughts are on the expert panel's report into tanker safety, but I think the officials have been clear. There will be additional action down the road in which those questions will become relevant, but they're not relevant to the question of hazardous and noxious substances currently, although I will say that Mr. Sullivan's question at least made a comparative in an approach to one for HNS. However, general questions about the panel's response to world tanker safety and its recommendations related to oil are not in Bill C-3.

I thought the purpose of this meeting was to actually have questions about Bill C-3.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

As my colleague mentioned, the latest study out of Washington, D.C., now concludes that the overall costs for the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, including liability, litigation, and fines, is just over $30 billion. That's $30 billion. The costs for the cleanup in the Kalamazoo in Michigan apparently are approaching $5 billion. And of course, we have no idea of what other costs are in other situations.

Is there a reason why the government.... Do you have any idea of why we're not strengthening other parts of the regime and why they're not being woven into Bill C-3?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So Bill C-3 does not address anything with respect to the liability or responsibility provisions for shipowners or owners of oil who are shipping oil off the west coast of Canada.

[Sylvain Lachance, Acting Director General, Marine Safety and Security, Department of Transport]

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak of the important amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, as part of Bill C-3.

The amendments focus on three key areas, the first of which is the removal of obstacles to respond to an oil spill by addressing gaps in the civil and criminal immunity protection provided to response organizations, oil spill responders, and responders coming from outside of Canada at the request of a Canadian response organization.

Currently, the responder immunity provisions apply to certified Canadian response organizations and persons designated by the minister as an approved responder. Over the course of the past several years, industry stakeholders, specifically Canadian response organizations and certain U.S. oil spill response organizations, have raised two primary concerns with responder immunity and its application.

One concern brought forward by stakeholders was whether agents of Canadian response organizations were provided immunity when responding to a spill in Canadian waters. The second concern was whether Canadian response organizations were covered by responder immunity when responding to a spill at an oil handling facility.

The responder immunity amendments were designed to address these two concerns by providing civil and criminal immunity protection to agents of certified response organizations, including those coming from outside of Canada at the request of a response organization. The responder immunity amendments also provide the inclusion of “oil handling facility” within the definition of a response operation. This in turn clearly provides response organizations with immunity when responding to a spill at an oil handling facility during the loading or unloading of oil to or from a vessel.

The second series of proposed amendments will enhance the current requirements for oil handling facilities to reduce the likelihood of a spill from occurring and improve upon the response to a spill in the unlikely event that one should occur.

Currently, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 does not include an authority to set requirements for persons who propose to operate an oil handling facility. For example, Transport Canada cannot compel such persons to formally notify the minister of the proposed operations or compel them to submit plans to the minister to verify compliance. The current legislative framework only provides Transport Canada with the authority to verify compliance once the facility becomes operational. Under such an approach, there is a risk that regulatory compliance issues could go undetected, resulting in an increased risk of a pollution incident.

To address this gap, amendments targeting new oil handling facilities would require persons who propose to operate a facility to provide notifications to the minister and to submit an oil pollution prevention plan, as well as an emergency plan, at least 90 days before operations begin. In addition, the minister will have the authority to compel persons who propose to operate a facility to submit any information or documents required to assess compliance. Finally, oil handling facilities would be prohibited from beginning operations unless the plans meet the requirements set out in the regulations.

Other sets of amendments target oil handling facilities that are or have been operational. Currently, there is no legal requirement for an operator of a facility to notify the minister, which means that Transport Canada may not be aware of all of the facilities that are currently in operation. Similar to the requirements for persons who propose to operate a facility, the minister will have the authority to require oil handling facilities to submit information or documents. The act presently requires oil handling facilities to have plans on site, but it does not specify that the plans have to be up to date, which is currently implicit but will now be clearly stated in the act. This requirement also has been included.

Also introduced is a requirement that operators of oil handling facilities who wish to make significant changes to the nature of their operation, for example, transfer rate, product, etc., will be required to notify the minister of the proposed change at least 180 days prior to the day on which the change is made. This includes the obligation to revise and submit the plans to the minister 90 days before making the changes.

Last, provisions have been included that would prohibit the facility from making a change to operations unless the plans meet the requirements set out in the regulations.

These requirements will strengthen the ability of oil handling facilities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to a potential oil spill. They will also provide Transport Canada with the necessary information to inform oversight activities.

The third series of proposed amendments looks at creating a fair and effective alternative to prosecution when dealing with minor to moderate contraventions of the pollution prevention and response requirements contained in the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, and pursuant regulations.

Currently, the administrative monetary penalties regime that is set out in part 11 of the act does not apply to part 8. Therefore, there are only two options for dealing with non-compliance with part 8 and its regulations: either to prosecute regulatory infractions through the court, or to take administrative actions, for example, by suspending the certification of a non-compliant response organization.

Both options are drastic and potentially expensive. Creating effective deterrents to contraventions of legal requirements is key to maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of any regulatory program. Administrative monetary penalties are a flexible enforcement tool that provides a quick yet effective means, consistent with administrative fairness, for addressing non-compliance with legislative and regulatory requirements. Administrative monetary penalties have long been considered a more cost-effective method of enforcement than prosecution.

Amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 will allow the making of regulations that could result in fines ranging from $250 to $25,000 for violations of relevant provisions pertaining to pollution prevention. Administrative monetary penalties will apply to both response organizations and oil handling facilities, thus providing another enforcement tool for marine safety inspectors.

In addition to the amendments already discussed, Bill C-3 provides the minister with several new powers targeting oil handling facilities. The minister will now be able to direct the operator of an oil handling facility to update or revise a plan and submit that plan. The minister will be able to take measures if it is believed that an oil handling facility has discharged, is discharging, or is likely to discharge oil. The minister can now also monitor measures taken to repair, remedy, minimize, or prevent pollution damage, as well as direct operators to take necessary measures to repair, minimize, or prevent pollution damage. Finally, the minister will have the power to designate an oil handling facility to be part of a class regardless of its prescribed class as set out in the regulations.

New offences have also been established for non-compliance in areas such as a failure to submit updated plans, failure to notify the minister of a change of operation, or failure to update plans following a change of operation.

These infractions could result in a fine of not more than $1 million, up to 18 months in prison, or both. Failure to notify the minister of proposed operations or beginning operations without first notifying the minister could result in a fine of not more than $100,000, up to 12 months in prison, or both.

In conclusion, these amendments are an important first step towards achieving our goal of establishing a world-class tanker safety system in Canada.

I would like to thank the committee once again for the opportunity to present this overview of proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. I look forward to answering your questions.

[Tim Meisner]

Good morning.

This morning I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the amendments to the Marine Liability Act as contained in Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

The purpose of the Marine Liability Act amendments is to fill a gap in the current liability regime for ships and to ensure that Canadians and the environment are well protected from the risks of marine transport. This bill protects Canadians against the financial consequences of hazardous and noxious substance spills from ships by: one, ensuring that shipowners carry the appropriate amount of compulsory insurance for the risks associated with the cargoes they carry; and two, providing Canadians access to an international fund to provide compensation beyond the shipowner’s limit.

These amendments are important and necessary, because while Canada has an excellent marine safety record, it is important to have in place a robust liability and compensation regime to ensure that polluters pay for incidents and that Canadian interests are protected by modern legislation that includes proper compensation.

These amendments will facilitate the implementation of the 2010 hazardous and noxious substance, HNS, convention, an international liability and compensation convention adopted by the International Maritime Organization. Spills of dangerous substances can be costly to clean up, and these amendments will ensure that those affected by these spills are adequately compensated.

Shipping is truly and inherently a global industry. The international shipping industry is responsible for carrying about 90% of world trade, and is critical to the functioning of global commerce. Unlike other modes of transportation, which are more or less confined to our roads, railways, and airports, international ships have vast amounts of waterways to operate in and are constantly on the move from state to state to connect global supply chains and deliver goods and people to their markets and destinations.

Given this, it is important that Canada continue to contribute to the uniformity of international maritime law and continue its long-standing tradition of multilateralism with regard to international shipping. As I said, this is a global industry requiring global rules. Canada's intimate involvement in the advancement of the HNS convention is indicative of that long-standing tradition.

The 2010 hazardous and noxious substance convention establishes strict liability for the shipowner and also introduces compulsory insurance for their liability for the pollution damage caused by a spill of hazardous and noxious substances from a ship. This is a major improvement over the current regime when it comes to dangerous goods such as chemicals. The convention also includes membership to an international fund that will pay compensation for pollution damage caused by such spills.

Contributions to the international fund will be paid by cargo owners. By splitting the financial responsibility between the two principal parties involved, the shipowner and the cargo owner, this convention supports the very important polluter pays principle and will ensure that both the shipowner and cargo owner pay for pollution damage caused by their ship or goods.

This international convention is modelled on an existing regime for oil pollution from ships, which has served Canada well. The regime ensures that the risks associated with international shipping are shared globally. By ratifying this convention, Canada will gain access to approximately $400 million in compensation for a single spill of hazardous and noxious substances.

The hazardous and noxious substances convention covers a wide variety of substances, some 6,500 substances that are carried in bulk and in packages and containers along our coast and through Canadian waters. These substances include liquefied natural gas, propane, refined fuels, and other dangerous cargoes. The broad scope of coverage of these hazardous and noxious substances under this convention will go a long way in ensuring that Canadians are well compensated should an incident occur.

In the case of ship-sourced spills of refined fuel, compensation available from the ship-source oil pollution fund will continue to apply. This is a unique Canadian feature of our regime that will continue to benefit Canadians by ensuring that another tier of compensation is available to victims of oil pollution damage and by providing one of the highest amounts available globally for a spill of oil.

Transport Canada has consulted with Canadians and stakeholders who widely support the passage of the proposed amendments to the Marine Liability Act. The shipping industry had recently written to the chair of this committee to express their strong support for the proposed amendments to the Marine Liability Act. The cargo owners who would pay into this HNS fund have also voiced their support for this bill.

In summary, these amendments will ensure that shipowners carry adequate insurance and are held strictly liable for the damage caused by hazardous and noxious substances from their ship, and set out the legal framework for an international compensation fund to provide compensation to victims. It's a significant step forward in advancing the ship-sourced liability and compensation regime and in ensuring that victims of spills of hazardous and noxious substances are adequately compensated.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm going to call the meeting to order. We still have a few members to come, but we are on a time restriction.

We'll start our study on Bill C-3.

I'd like to thank and welcome Mr. Dawson, Ms. Nakatsu, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Lachance. With no further ado, I'll turn it over to you. I presume one of you has some opening remarks.

Mr. Meisner, who wants to start?

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I understand where her question is coming from. I understand her concern because on the one hand, a host of regulations has been implemented recently by the Conservatives, who boast about having done something tangible, and on the other hand, there are not enough resources to ensure that the new regulations are implemented effectively.

If I may add to the discussion: oil tanker traffic has increased tremendously. In fact, oil tanker traffic tripled between 2005 and 2010. It is supposed to triple again by 2016. You can see how important this is.

I am pleased to support Bill C-3 at second reading stage, but frankly, we must continue in this direction and ensure that our regulations are appropriate for the current situation.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and his community involvement. As a member of Parliament, he does a very good job of representing the people in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

Yes, there are some concerns. I will explain why I think these concerns are justified. Despite Bill C-3 before us today, we are aware to what extent the Conservatives have gutted, or at least significantly reduced, environmental protection measures. That is the cornerstone of the concerns. When you want to develop natural resources responsibly, you do not lower environmental standards and drop the number of inspections. On the contrary, you increase resources for scientists and inspectors. When you give a natural resources development project the green light, you should have every available credible study and an audit system. That way, you can assure the population that it will be done properly, in a way that respects the environment and sustainable development, and that avoids disasters. Canadians do not trust this government right now. It is understandable when we consider everything that has been done to reduce environmental protection.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. That is not my introduction. It is simply the title of the bill, which amends a number of things.

First, I would like to point out that Bill C-3 has already been debated in another form, as Bill C-57. Before supporting that bill at second reading, the NDP asked that it be reviewed to broaden its scope and reverse Conservative cutbacks and closures regarding marine safety and the negative changes to environmental protection. Those topics directly concern the purpose of the bill. That request was refused—no surprise there—but the NDP still moved forward.

I am speaking to this bill today to indicate why I will support it, what reservations I have, and what additional measures I would like to see in order to ensure true protection, much more extensive protection of what this bill is designed to protect.

As I said in my introduction, this bill changes a number of things. I would like to highlight some that I find most important. First, the bill seeks to indemnify air carriers for damage caused by war risks. The intent is simply to make sure that, in dangerous situations, air transportation can continue, come what may. It is quite interesting. The bill also grants powers to investigate aviation incidents or accidents involving civilians, aircraft and aeronautical installations. Put simply, the power of investigation increases when an accident occurs, and that too is very interesting.

The only reservation I have about this measure in Bill C-3—and I hope I will be able to deal with it in committee after this vote at second reading—pertains to the discretionary power being given to the minister. I want to make sure that he is not given too much.

Let me digress a little. As the critic for citizenship and immigration, I have a good deal to say about the discretionary powers that are increasingly being given to ministers in a number of bills, including this one.

In our immigration system, we have seen a number of amendments in bills that have changed the system and given more and more discretionary power to the minister. I find that worrisome. We have a very complex and elaborate system, with very competent officials. Yet the minister is being given more and more discretionary power. That worries me. I am not pointing the finger at any minister in particular. I am simply talking about a principle that opens the door to decisions being made in back rooms, where we have no ability to seek real accountability or point out where mistakes have been made here or there. That is the end of my digression. Making that point made me feel a lot better.

In short, the clause in Bill C-3 that deals with the Aeronautics Act must be examined closely to make sure that the discretionary powers given to the minister do not go too far. I hope that we will hear from a number of people who can give us the benefit of their wise counsel.

Bill C-3 also proposes to amend the Marine Liability Act. The bill seeks to implement an international convention that Canada signed in 2010, the Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea. Canada is a signatory to this very important international convention and today's bill seeks to implement it. The convention defines the liability of vessel owners for the 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 a spill like that occurs and when damage is caused.

Finally, the amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, is also very important. It introduces new requirements for operators of oil handling facilities, which is somewhat along the same lines as the amendment I mentioned earlier.

The amendment also proposes the application of new measures and monetary sanctions, with new investigative powers for Transport Canada investigators. Once again, we see the same idea. Those two amendments are the most important.

As another aside, I would like to refer to what happened recently in Lac-Mégantic. I agree that it is not really the same thing, but we are still talking about the same principle of owners and operators being liable.

After the recent Lac-Mégantic tragedy, we saw how the province took action. People on the ground and Quebeckers from across the province joined forces to provide assistance to victims and to raise funds for reconstruction and restitution after this oil-related accident.

It is unacceptable that it is the people who must come together and pay for that damage. People were kept in the dark for so long before finding out whether the company's insurance was going to pay for the damage. In the end, a large part of the cost had to be covered by the province and by generous and compassionate individuals.

That is the link I want to make here. These amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the Marine Liability Act may provide a solution by ensuring that companies at fault in the case of spills or catastrophes like that one will be a little more liable.

I will now continue with the bill. I said earlier that Canada was a signatory to the 2010 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea. Yes, I said the 2010 Convention. Well, not so long ago, in the autumn of 2012, two big transport ships sank off the west coast because of the current traffic.

Today, we have the impression that the bill that we are debating is a means for the Conservative government to apologize for its failure to act all these years. By signing the 2010 international convention, perhaps the government was demonstrating goodwill, but too much time went by after that. Catastrophes happened, and spills happened on the west coast, and it is only now that I am debating this bill at second reading. That is much too long.

Yes, Bill C-3 introduces corrective measures, and once again I will be supporting it at second reading. It may be too little, too late, but I just wanted to raise the matter.

What will the next step be? The Conservatives have set up a three-person tanker safety expert panel. In November 2013, the panel was to publish a report on how to reform the oil spill response regime. I am mentioning it because all too often we have seen very interesting reports being tabled without their recommendations being taken seriously or implemented quickly.

I hope the Conservatives will show good faith when this report is tabled and that they will implement meaningful and serious reform measures as recommended by the panel, in order to improve companies’ safety and liability. Oil tanker traffic is increasing and we must ensure that our regulations keep up.