Fisheries Committee on March 29th, 2022

[Martin McKay]

To answer, yes, there certainly are rules in place with respect to how high containers can be stacked. This is governed under the International Convention for Safe Containers. That provides information related to the safety plate permanently attached to each container that would—

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Okay. It's good to know there's a limit to how high, but they are very high, as we've seen in the pictures.

Are there also some rules like those for freight trains? When you put together a freight train, you can't put combustible material too close to the engine. Do some rules to that effect exist?

Are those same rules in effect when they are stacking containers on a ship? Do they have rules that would put the most dangerous cargo lower down and therefore least likely to be lost overboard?

[Martin McKay]

I might turn to my colleague, Naim Nazha, the executive director of environmental affairs and navigation safety, to respond to that question.

[Naim Nazha, Executive Director, Navigation Safety and Environmental Programs, Marine Safety and Security, Department of Transport]

Yes, there are definitely rules for stowage and segregation, taking into consideration the dangerous goods that are packed within the containers and the different categories of cargo that will be going on board the vessel. The shipmaster with his crew will do the stowage of those goods according to those regulations.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Right. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

We'll now go to Madam Gaudreau.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

I'm learning lots of things. There are a few questions that have already been answered. I have others, which touch on my concern for future generations.

I heard you say that we learn from events that have occurred. That being said, we have to learn quickly. The purpose of our committee's study is precisely to help find solutions, including concrete preventive measures.

My first question has to do with science.

According to what was mentioned earlier, reports show that we don't have to worry once what is currently at sea is dissolved.

In that case, I don't know if I can ask, Mr. Chair, that we have access to those scientific reports to reassure ourselves. I'm thinking of our children and future generations. It could reassure us in that regard.

Mr. Henderson, I'd like some clarification. You said that the captain himself decided to stay at sea, even though the weather was probably not suitable.

Am I to understand that the regulations under the Canada Shipping Act contain nothing specific to prevent such a case from happening?

[Chris Henderson]

Thank you for the question.

First of all, we can certainly send you the report and scientific information on hazardous chemicals.

In terms of the regulations associated with decisions to stay at sea or not during a storm, I would probably have to ask Transport Canada to provide an answer.

Mr. Nazha, are you able to answer that?

[Naim Nazha]

I can indeed answer Ms. Gaudreau's question.

Having sailed as a master on these vessels myself, I can tell you that the master and his crew plan the voyages before they set sail. They consider the weather and the route from point A to point B as well as all other relevant points, including proximity to a coastline. The proximity of the Pacific coast, in this case, was considered by the captain and his officers. Precautions are taken based on the shipping routes that will be followed. In extreme conditions, they ask to return, for example, to what is called a safe haven, to be sheltered from bad weather, such as the weather on the west coast at the time of the incident.

Those are certainly factors that are taken into consideration.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I represent Quebec, and you'll understand that I care deeply about our St. Lawrence River.

What do you need to prevent another disaster from happening in our oceans?

[Naim Nazha]

It's important to consider that in some areas, such as the St. Lawrence, there is compulsory pilotage. The same is true on the west coast. As soon as a vessel enters these waters, it is subject to the compulsory pilotage regulations, which require a pilot who is familiar with Canadian waters to board.

When a vessel approaches a coast or a pilot station in our waters, the vessel master and the officers are always responsible for maintaining the safety of the vessel in accordance with the conditions. On the east coast, for example, there may be ice. There are also bad weather conditions, such as those on the west coast. Vessel masters and officers are trained to take these conditions into account. It is their duty to keep their vessel safe.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

What are you lacking, in terms of material or human resources, to work more collaboratively and for each department or agency to ensure that such a disaster does not occur? I have been on various committees, and I see that there is a real desire to preserve the health of our oceans. This goes hand in hand with the fight against climate change.

Navigation will become an increasingly desirable means of transportation. Given what we've heard in our meeting today, is it now time to increase the material and human resources to prevent incidents?

[Naim Nazha]

We always work closely with our colleagues in the Canadian Coast Guard on all aspects of navigation safety, including the approach of vessels to Canadian waters. No matter what coastline a ship approaches from to enter a port, there is a monitoring system that is maintained by vessel traffic officers. When the ship sends its report 24 hours before its approach to Canadian waters, these officers follow the ship along well‑marked points on nautical charts to determine its position, and so on.

There is always room for greater co‑operation between Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard in these activities. We always work together.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less, please.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I'm happy that we're getting started on this very important study.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

I commend the Coast Guard. Their response to the emergency on board the Zim Kingston is just one example of mitigating and addressing that emergency on board that ship. Of course, I commend the work of the Department of Transport as well.

I have many questions, so I want to get started.

I was hoping, Mr. Henderson, that you could expand a little bit on the communication and collaboration with first nations who continue to see debris washing up on their shores. We know, for example, that it took weeks for communications to occur with the Quatsino First Nation. Also, President Judith Sayers highlighted a lack of communication with the 14 Nuu-chah-nulth first nations along the west coast.

Could you share a little bit about what you think would be helpful moving forward to support communication and collaboration with first nations communities who are impacted by container spills such as the Zim Kingston in the future?

[Chris Henderson]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to mention that in the immediate aftermath of learning about the loss of the containers, the Coast Guard triggered our area response plans. A fundamental part of the area response plans is, in fact, direct and immediate communication with affected first nations.

There's a very long list of first nations that were engaged right from the get-go, from the Juan de Fuca response planning area and the west coast of Vancouver Island response planning area. Those are certainly categories that mean something within the Coast Guard's planning framework—I understand that—but the list is extensive. A tangible example of one of our primary considerations is to reach out first and foremost to affected coastal communities, which by and large in this context certainly were first nations.

In the immediate, it was further south, to be sure, and I believe the first nation that is being referred to is further north. As debris was starting to [Technical difficulty—Editor] we were indeed communicating with the north island nations, as well.

As to the question of what more can be done, we are working very extensively with first nations throughout British Columbia. We have a number of programs that are a result of the oceans protection plan. There are also measures that we're taking as a result of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion—

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you very much. I'm sorry to cut you off, but I want to make sure I get many of my questions in. Perhaps if there's any additional information, you could provide it in writing. That would be really helpful.

I'm not 100% sure if this question should go to you, Mr. Henderson, or perhaps Mr. McKay.

I want to get some clarification around the polluter pay principle, to understand more about what this looks like in practice. For example, does this polluter pay principle ensure that likely ecological impacts of the spill are addressed? One example I can think of is styrofoam that is being eaten by fish and birds as it disintegrates—or doesn't disintegrate; it floats in our waters.

Can you speak to how the polluter would be paying for this ecological disaster from styrofoam?

[Chris Henderson]

For the details of the polluter pay principle, I think François is going to take that question.

[François Marier, Director, International Marine Policy, Department of Transport]

Yes.

Mr. Chair, the polluter, which in this case is the owner of the ship, is liable under two acts: the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, for the cost of locating, marking or removing a wreck, which can include the containers even if the ship itself has not become a wreck; and the Marine Liability Act, under which the owners of the ship are liable for losses or damage caused by pollution from the ship with regard to response measures or preventive measures to address a threat of pollution. That would include not only oil pollution, but also all types of pollutants that are released into the ocean.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Does it cover debris that will inevitably wash up on our shores for years to come from these containers, for example, which are still sunken and sitting on the bottom of our ocean floor? We know they will begin to rust and open up, and we'll see the debris continue to wash up.

Does the polluter pay for the long-term implications to our coastlines and our marine ecosystems from debris washing up for years to come?

[François Marier]

With regard to containers, if they've been identified as a hazard, whether that be to navigation or to the marine environment, yes the shipowner is liable. There is a time limit in terms of their liability, which is either three years from the time the debris or the container has been determined to be a hazard, or six years from the date that the container went overboard.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I'm out of time. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You're definitely out of time.

We'll now go to Mr. Small for five minutes or less, please.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Going back to the weather forecast at the time, Environment Canada modelling is usually pretty accurate a couple of days out, and the master and officers of the vessel are very good at reading weather charts.

Did the track of this storm shift suddenly and the master did not know they were heading into dangerous waters? Could they have avoided the area with the tighter isobars?