Evidence of meeting #11 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was spill.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
They do, up to $400 million.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Is Canada leading any initiative internationally, multilaterally, or at the IMO to try to increase that number from $400 million to, say, $2 billion?
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
On the chemical side, I would say no. This is a fund that Canada led to get to the $400-million limit and actually to get that convention in place in the first place to where we are today.
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
I think the convention was actually signed around 2010. There was a lot of work leading up to the signature in 2010 over, I'd say, five to ten years. It actually started back in 1997.
9:20 a.m.
Manager, International Marine Policy and Liability, Department of Transport
It goes all the way back to 1984.
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Okay, I'd say in recent history, from about 2005, this convention was being discussed.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
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.
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
No, but the Marine Liability Act already includes provisions to address oil being shipped off the west coast. There's already a regime in place.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
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?
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
First and foremost, the government does have a parallel initiative to look at provisions to increase the oil spill response regime. As my colleague Mr. Lachance mentioned, we're working towards a world-class tanker safety system. The government announced certain measures last spring towards that system.
They've also announced a series of reviews that would be undertaken to improve the system. Most of those reviews have come to a conclusion this fall.
One of those was a review of the compensation and liability regime in place for oil spills as well. That is making some recommendations for improvements to that regime, which would be subject to a further amendment to this bill, so it's not included in this bill.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
From an overall liability perspective in Canada around transportation and liability, is this new partnership between cargo owners and shipowners something unique?
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
It already exists in the MLA for oil spills, and for the current regime we have for oil spills.... I think you were referring to the Gulf of Mexico and Kalamazoo, which were oil spills, not chemicals. Just to be clear, too, when you refer to the Gulf of Mexico, what we're talking about here is oil spills from ships. That was an offshore rig, so it's not really comparable in terms of what could happen.
The regime in place for ships in the Marine Liability Act now is a very similar partnership between the shipowner and the cargo owner, where there is liability insurance that the shipowner has to carry, and then there's access to an international fund. On top of that, Canada has a unique domestic fund, which I think only one other country has.
In terms of our current liability package of about $1.4 billion, I think I can safely say that it's probably the highest amount in the world today. Having said that, we still have a study that suggests some improvements that could be made to that oil spill regime, which would be subject to further amendments that are not included here today.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Do any of these measures here today apply to any kind of activity in Canada's Arctic Ocean?
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
The scope, yes.... The Marine Liability Act would apply to the Arctic area as well. It's pan-Canadian.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
What kinds of activities in the Arctic are we talking about?
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Whatever this bill covers: if those 6,500 substances were being carried in the Arctic, it would cover those 6,500 substances as well.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Your time has expired, Mr. McGuinty.
Mr. Watson, you have seven minutes.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing today.
I was looking at the speaking notes related to amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. The final paragraph begins as follows, “In conclusion, these amendments are an important first step towards achieving our goal of establishing a World Class Tanker Safety System in Canada.”
If you'll permit me a moment to correct the record, it's actually not the first step but one in a series of actions and steps already taken by our government, including increasing the number of inspections on all foreign tankers, and increasing funding for the national aerial surveillance program in order to keep a watchful eye on tankers moving through Canadian waters. Also, I know that there's increased scientific research on non-conventional petroleum products and systems of navigational aids. There's a number of steps that we've taken, so this may be, more accurately, sort of the first legislative step related to our move to a world-class tanker safety system in Canada.
You mentioned, Mr. Meisner, a review that's been undertaken of compensation regimes. Was that related simply to the question of oil spills or to HNS or both?
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
That particular piece of work was part of the work we are doing under the world-class tanker safety system, so it was pertaining to the compensation liability for oil.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
For oil. Exactly, which is why those amendments wouldn't be contained in a bill like this currently, this bill focusing on our ratification, if you will, or our ability to ratify the HNS convention around chemical spills. Okay.
Just so I understand this with respect to polluter pays, in the event of a chemical spill that would exceed the $400-million threshold, the polluter still pays for that. The question is, what or how much compensation comes back to them? Is that fair enough to say?
9:25 a.m.
Manager, International Marine Policy and Liability, Department of Transport
Well, the package is there from both the shipowner and the international fund. What happens afterwards in terms of whether that amount is exceeded, as I think Mr. Meisner said earlier, is that the equal treatment of claimants is a very important fundamental principle here in these regimes. Claims are automatically pro-rated, and then the government has options before it to decide what it wants to do afterwards.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
The question I'm driving at is this: if it's a $500-million spill, who pays the additional $100 million?
9:30 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Maybe I'll jump in, as this is very similar to the question I had previously.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative