Evidence of meeting #45 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vessel.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Okay.
Do you think it is logical for the government to introduce a bill aimed at reducing the risk of oil spills, while at the same time proposing a potential increase of one million barrels of oil per day—or at the very least 300,000 barrels of oil—for English Bay via the Trans Mountain pipeline? That is equivalent to at least 150 more oil tankers per year.
Does this increase the risk of oil spills?
Director General, Environmental Protection Operations, Department of the Environment
Thank you for that question.
I would say that there is no direct link between the bill we are discussing today and the process for major projects of national interest, such as the construction of a new pipeline. The aim of the bill is to clarify the liability of shipowners.
Major projects and measures to reduce environmental risks are another matter. There are programs in place to address environmental risks, including Canada's ocean protection plan for marine species. There is also a program for environmental emergencies, as well as other programs—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema
Thank you very much. Your time is up.
Mr. Arnold, we go over to you for five minutes.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to go back to the question that I left off with last time. I'll go to Ms. Vieira, if I could.
It was your department that was responsible for the Marathassa reporting.... Pardon me, it was Ms. Lane's department, but I want to ask the question to Ms. Vieira. Again, why didn't the 2019 act include measures to prevent the repeat of the Marathassa?
Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
I'll direct the question to my colleague from marine safety and security.
Sean Rogers Executive Director, Legislative, Regulatory and International Affairs, Department of Transport
Can I ask, just for clarification, is this the oil spill on the west coast from a large cargo vessel?
Conservative
Executive Director, Legislative, Regulatory and International Affairs, Department of Transport
That incident would not be covered under this act, because it deals with wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels and the sale thereof. That was a cargo vessel that experienced an oil spill.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
However, clause 2 of this act is specific to that. How could you say this act doesn't apply to it?
Executive Director, Legislative, Regulatory and International Affairs, Department of Transport
My understanding is that it was a vessel that was in operation at the time. It was not subject to.... It was not abandoned.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
The act doesn't say anything about.... The amendment reads:
No person or ship shall dispose or allow the disposal of a substance in an area of the sea referred to in any of paragraphs
Executive Director, Legislative, Regulatory and International Affairs, Department of Transport
I will have to send that back to Environment. I apologize.
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
I apologize for the confusion.
Clause 2 would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act does already include prohibitions. I can turn to my colleagues if you'd like more details.
There was a case taken up against the owner of the vessel. It went to the B.C. provincial court, but it wasn't appealed, I think, as MP Weiler indicated. I'm not in a position to speak to why the Public Prosecution Service made the decisions it did, but the Canadian Environmental Protection Act does apply to that situation.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Thank you. I think you've clarified that.
I'll go to Ms. Verville from the Coast Guard, if I can.
I think your department is more responsible for determining vessel seaworthiness and so on, and the regulations around that. Can you tell me what would be required of a vessel seller, in providing a defensible declaration of the vessel condition, that they would be subject to if this bill takes effect?
Director, Monitoring and Compliance, Canadian Coast Guard
Madam Chair, I would like to direct the question to my colleagues at Transport Canada, who are the regulators of vessels in Canada.
Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
Thank you, Chair.
On this, the bill would require the seller to make a determination of whether or not the person has the ability, resources and intent. That could be based on a declaration, we've been hearing today, that would be made by the buyer as to their ability to handle the situation. The buyer needs to be informed as to the condition of the vessel in order to make that kind of a declaration.
Really, this is a transaction between the buyer and the seller, and it could depend on the type of vessel. If you're selling a very small vessel, it might look quite different from a vessel that's over, let's say, 24 meters in size. Therefore, it really is appropriate to the transaction. It's about the seller assuring themselves that the buyer is able to make that determination by having some good information as to the condition of the vessel, the buyer being satisfied by that information and, then, going through and completing the sale. The appropriate standard is, really, a matter between the buyer and the seller.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
This really could end up being a situation of he-said-she-said, and just an argument in the courts over what was declared.
Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
Well, I think it will depend on how the bill is written, in the end. I mean, if the bill is written, in the end, that there needs to be a written declaration, then that would exist—
Conservative
Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
—and could be verified.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
There's a big gap in what's in this bill already, then. Thank you.
I want to quickly go back to the issue of a vessel being purchased out of the U.S. How could a vessel seller be held accountable in the U.S.?
Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
Very briefly, I'll clarify that the bill is about the transfer of ownership to another person. If the transfer of ownership is going to be registered in Canada, it would be that venue in which a seller is held accountable with respect to that transfer of ownership.
If it's taking place in Canada, the seller would be—
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
That's only half of the equation. What if the sale takes place in the U.S.? That's what I'm trying to get at.
Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
At the end of the day, the requirements of WAHVA are for owner responsibility. When the vessel comes back to Canada, the question is, “Who owns it?” If the sale is made outside Canada, it would not be regulated by the act.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema
Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold. You're out of time.
We're now going to turn to Mr. Weiler for five minutes.