Evidence of meeting #13 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 liability.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
So that means whatever it may be. And of course the idea behind that is to encourage participation on short notice?
9:55 a.m.
Capt Stephen Brown
Yes. In the event of a major incident, it's to encourage full participation by whoever has the resources to participate and can add to the response, without fear of liability.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I know that the use of the tug and the pilotage program we'd discussed previously certainly go a long way to ensuring safety.
But things like collisions could take place, or storms, or fire on vessels, which would mean that the response organization would be important in those events. Of course when you're looking at what the weak link in the whole system might be, it's the fact that, as was mentioned earlier, there are about 400 oil handling facility operators and each of those would have to satisfy or demonstrate that they have an oil spill preparedness and response capacity.
How does this bill address the issue of there being so many of them and give you a level of confidence that each with its individual capacities and capabilities can meet the specific requirements? Both of you can answer that.
9:55 a.m.
Capt Stephen Brown
I'll begin.
It does in the same way that we have hundreds of different terminals in Canada that are certified for security. Transport Canada has undertaken to inspect them and satisfy themselves that the security plans of those terminals satisfy what's under the international regime and also what's in the Canada Shipping Act.
For Transport Canada to embark upon certification of oil handling facilities is quite a large task. Of course it is. Each terminal will be required to submit its own proposal. The proposals won't all be the same, because each terminal is a little different. Transport Canada will have to satisfy themselves that whatever is proposed is not only practical but verifiable. I also think they will be asking the terminals to demonstrate the capability that's in their plans.
10 a.m.
Conservative
10 a.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Social Responsibility, Port Metro Vancouver
No, I'd just echo what Captain Brown said.
The only thing I'd say is that I only have line of sight in terms of the facilities actually in our jurisdiction. Those facilities, as we talked about earlier, have contracts in place or they fund the response organization that is there to support them. So we're quite confident that it's a robust program and there are adequate measures in place. Obviously there's always more that can be done.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
The number of facilities involved of course somewhat complicates the matter, I would expect. But the other aspect of it would be if there are expansions in any of the facilities or changes in capacity or personnel, how are those monitored to ensure that there is an ongoing capacity to respond appropriately, and does this legislation address that?
10 a.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Social Responsibility, Port Metro Vancouver
I'm not sure specifically what in the legislation addresses that, but I do know for a fact that WCMRC is expanding its capacity in response to the increase in volumes that we're already seeing.
10 a.m.
Capt Stephen Brown
I think that also in the event of a major expansion of a terminal, then obviously a response plan will have to be resubmitted and reapproved. You won't be able to write on the back of an earlier plan.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Is there any kind of risk analysis, maybe in terms of percentages or whatever, to say the risk might be greater in bringing a vessel into port or in the loading or unloading? Is there any degree of risk change between those two types of handling?
10 a.m.
Capt Stephen Brown
I'll put my seafarer's hat on here and say no. In our view, provided we continue to mitigate risks involved in the movement of oil, whether it's actually on the seaway or for vessels alongside, as long as Canada continues to apply the level of risk mitigation that we're applying today and seeks to enhance it even further, we don't see anything for the general public to be concerned about.
10 a.m.
Conservative
10 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Chair.
To return to the issue of responder immunity, obviously if there's a question of potential liability, emergency response is affected negatively either because of delays or because of a decision by agents of certified response organizations. They may not respond at all, is an issue you raised earlier, Captain Brown, relative to whether U.S. agents would respond if requested by a Canadian certified response organization.
10 a.m.
Capt Stephen Brown
I think it would be a stretch to say that they wouldn't respond. I'm sure they would respond. But the level to which they would respond and the care they would feel they would have to take might be impacted. I think the feeling from the marine industry is to not have that as a barrier, to let them partake as a full member of a response regime and not respond, perhaps, with one arm behind their backs.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
The status as a certified response organization is currently a designation that is given by the Minister of Transport. Once you have that designation you have the liability that's needed. The ability to extend that to say that if a certified response organization is looking to others to join them in a response effort.... They don't have the extension of that same civil or criminal liability, and to get it at this point, technically they'd need a designation from the minister, which is a cumbersome process.
Is that a fair understanding of how it works?
10 a.m.
Capt Stephen Brown
That's correct.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
So amendments in BillC-3 will automatically extend the same liability that certified response organizations have to other agents that they would be calling in to help them.
Is that a fair assessment?
10:05 a.m.
Capt Stephen Brown
That is correct.
10:05 a.m.
Capt Stephen Brown
It is.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
If you remove questions about liability, you get quicker response. Is that fair enough?
10:05 a.m.
Capt Stephen Brown
It was a technicality originally under the Canada Shipping Act, and it is being addressed and remedied under this act.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
The other remedy here is with respect to oil handling facilities when unloading or loading a vessel. Is that correct? That's being addressed by Bill C-3 as well.
10:05 a.m.
Capt Stephen Brown
Yes, it's an integral part of Bill C-3, the extension of certification to the oil handling facilities.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
The specific amendment now is that it's not just a vessel, but “from a vessel or an oil handling facility”, and that will address that particular issue.
Regarding administrative monetary penalties, if there is a minor infraction, currently the only way to fine is that you'd actually have to prosecute. What we're seeking to do now is apply a regime of administrative monetary penalties that would allow us a range of capabilities, short of prosecution, to ensure that there's proper accountability for being response-ready on a variety of levels.
Is that a necessary step forward in terms of the accountability of the system?
