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.
9:50 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
I think you had another question, but I can't remember what it was.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
I'm wondering how many current oil handling facilities there are in Canada.
The parliamentary secretary is saying it's about 400. Is that approximately the amount?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
Coming at this from an average person on the street, because I hear a lot from the average person on the street, when people are transporting substances in trucks, for example, they drive through weigh stations and they get checked. They're ticketed if things are amiss, etc.
How do you propose to do that for a tanker system?
9:50 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Tankers, through the Canada Shipping Act, are required to be inspected on their first visit to Canada and annually thereafter. There is a regime in place. In the announcement we made last March, we increased the number of inspectors to be able to make sure that this adheres to our regulations.
They are inspected at least annually when they come to Canada. That would be their weigh station, if you will, when they come into a port.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Ms. Young, your time has expired.
We now move to Mr. Chisholm, for five minutes.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I appreciate certainly the principle that's at issue here, of polluter pay. I want to direct a couple of questions in terms of what they're paying for.
In the case of a spill of hazardous and noxious substances by a ship, would the vessel owners be responsible for the economic damages to tourism operators or to the fisheries as a result of the spill?
9:55 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Those are eligible categories, so that they would have to put a claim in, and if that claim was accepted, they would be paid out for their damages, or at least a portion thereof.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
What about other damage, like ecological damage, that was identified? That would be—
9:55 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
I think ecological damage, to the extent that you can put an economic value on it, is part of the claim as well.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Clauses 65 and 67 of the bill talk about eliminating the provisions respecting pollution prevention officers, while retaining provisions concerning pollution response officers. Would you explain? Are the duties being combined, and if so, why?
February 11th, 2014 / 9:55 a.m.
Sean Payne Manager, Environmental Response Systems, Department of Transport
As part 8 stands at this point in time, we have pollution response officers and pollution prevention officers. Response officers are a specific designation for coast guard officers who are responding to a spill, which gives them certain authorities in the event of a situation where they're responding and directing and so forth. Pollution prevention officers are the Transport Canada inspectors and employees that actually do the work in relation to oil handling facilities.
What we're doing, basically, is harmonizing in the act the authorities that exist right now as pollution prevention officers with our marine safety inspectors, so although the PPO designation will disappear from part 8, those authorities will be harmonized with our traditional marine safety inspectors in the act.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Are you talking about reducing it? If the responsibility was there with those positions or there were similar positions with the coast guard and similar positions with Transport Canada, are there now only going to be positions with the coast guard?
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Are those positions that were under Transport going to be moved over to the coast guard?
9:55 a.m.
Manager, Environmental Response Systems, Department of Transport
No. This is more of an administrative move. The response officer, the PRO designation, will stay. It will remain. Nothing changes for the Canadian Coast Guard, and nothing in theory really changes for our inspectors in the field, other than the fact that they won't be called pollution prevention officers anymore. Their authorities will be harmonized under the marine safety inspector authorities.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
All right.
We've referred to the tanker safety expert panel. In their report, they observe that the national standards for Canada's preparedness and response regime make it inflexible and inappropriate for different risk-facing coastal regions.
I'm particularly interested in this, because the environment commissioner made reference to the problems with regard to Transport Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, and Environment Canada not having adequate plans in place to prepare for and to respond to pollution incidents on all three coasts. It's increasingly important on all three coasts, but in particular in the Arctic, where marine travel and transportation are increasing at a remarkable rate.
To what extent does this bill address the expert panel's concerns and the recommendation for a risk-based area response planning model?
9:55 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
I can answer that. The panel, which is supported by a risk assessment done by the department, concluded that our current standard of having 10,000 tonnes of response capacity throughout Canada was inadequate based on the risk, and is recommending that we go to the area response plans. They are plans in a particular area. I think they are recommending that there be 29 or 30 across Canada and that they be included in further legislation.
This legislation does not address the panel's recommendations. They were commissioned last year to look at the response regime for oil. Their recommendations, all 45 of them, are currently under consideration.
To be clear, they were only tasked with looking at, I guess, two of the three oceans; they were looking at work under 60. The panel is currently doing work for the Arctic as we speak, and is consulting and doing some analysis on north of 60, so they will submit a second report later this year on their recommendations for a regime north of 60.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
10 a.m.
Conservative
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.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I do have to remind members to stick to the topic and remind everybody that witnesses, especially from the department, are compelled only to answer certain types of questions. I'm not going to get into the details. I'm sure all of you are aware of that.
Mr. Chisholm.
10 a.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to recognize when we talk about these spill events, whether they be noxious substances or otherwise, that it's been recorded that up to 60% of all spills are in fact chemicals, noxious substances. They pose serious risks to our coasts, and it's important that the witnesses be asked to support what it is this act does to deal with that issue.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Point taken, but we are on Bill C-3.
We'll now move to Mr. Toet for five minutes.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, officials, for being with us today.
I want to go back a little bit to the hazardous and noxious substances convention, which is an international convention. Can you give us an idea of how many countries are participating in this? Also, what percentage of hazardous and noxious substances are actually covered under this convention? Are there any exceptions? Are there goods that would move without necessarily being covered?