To tie into what Mr. Warawa was saying, it seems to me that there was a court decision for the case of Gulf of Georgia Towing Co. This was an example of the concept of due diligence being interpreted regarding an oil spill. It states:
In this case, a judge decided that the test of due diligence would not be met simply by the company hiring careful people and telling them not to leave valves open, since inevitably people will make mistakes.
That is also what you said, Madam. However, the following was added as well:
A spill would have serious consequences, and therefore the company would be required to take additional steps to prevent such a spill, such as in installing alarm systems or locking devices for valves.
It seems to me that a case has already been assessed, but that is not what my question was about.
My question was about the impact that such provisions may have on the seafarers themselves. I'm referring to section 13.15 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994, which states on page 145 that, under this provision, the master or chief engineer may be held liable for an offence committed by a person on board the vessel unless they can establish that they exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.
If an order is given by the master of the vessel to a worker who is aware of the situation and who feels that he cannot carry out an action that may have an impact on the environment and, as a result, make him guilty of an offence, would that not cause an internal problem?
If the order is given by the captain and the front-line worker on the vessel decides to carry out the boss's order, does the worker not risk being found guilty of an offence whereas the responsibility, on the vessel, lies with the captain?
Are we not accusing the front-line worker, whereas decisions must be made on the vessel, and be determined by the corporation?