Evidence of meeting #14 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.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
In the sense of what the program does, I know the international programs, if I'm not mistaken, they cover oil tankers exclusively. Is that correct?
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
For any boat that's carrying paper or anything else, they would not be covered.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
That's the beauty of the ship-source oil pollution fund.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
That's why you want to expand it to cover all HNS. Is that correct?
President, Canadian Maritime Law Association
We want all Canadians to have the benefit of this fund. We're not inventing the wheel here. The fund exists. It's been working since 1973, and it works very well. It's the model that China and other countries came to Canada to copy. So why are we just saying, “Okay, but they're only going to go out there if it happens to be this type of product, and not that type of product”? That's all we're saying.
February 27th, 2014 / 9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing not only in person, but by video conference. We appreciate your submissions.
I want to start by clarifying a few things here. First of all, Bill C-3 relates, as I sort of said in my intervention earlier, to establishing our compliance, our ratification if you will, of the HNS protocol of 2010. In other words, it's going to allow us now to move from what we heard Tuesday is a system of simple general liability in the event of an HNS spill to a much more robust regime of up to about $400 million in combined coverage.
This bill, which originated as Bill C-57 in 2013, actually predates the tanker safety expert panel's work, both on its recommendations on the oil regime, and on its continuing work on HNS. It's meant to plug a gap that currently exists.
Can any of the witnesses tell me what the most expensive HNS spill is on record? Is there one that has exceeded $200 million? We're not talking about oil such as in Exxon Valdez; we're talking about things like vegetable oil, potash, those types of substances. Can anybody name one that's over $200 million?
President, Canadian Maritime Law Association
First, you have to be careful when you ask this question, and I'll tell you why.
HNS is not just esoteric chemical products that we don't identify with; it also includes things like oil. The HNS convention includes oil. Therefore, as soon as you get into a spill that costs more than $200 million for oil, you could say it was an HNS spill. The HNS convention itself says that it will not pay on top of the other convention. In other words, if you can get any funding out of the other convention, then you can't get funding here. They're not on top of one another. Any oil spill is an HNS spill because oil is HNS.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
In fairness, there are separate regimes. In the case of an Exxon Valdez situation, it would not be an HNS convention spill, it would be carried under the other regime. Fair enough. We can sit here and talk about the tanker panel's report and whether or not that regime should be enhanced, but I'm asking about spills that are classified under the HNS regime. Are there any that exceed $200 million?
From what I know we haven't had one yet that exceeds $200 million.
President, Canadian Maritime Law Association
Again, I have to answer that of course there are.
Let me say this first. A second point is the HNS convention is not yet in force, so there have been no spills at all dealt with under the convention. If you think, for example of the main categories of HNS—and let's forget about oil because it is an HNS but it is covered under another convention in certain circumstances. Let's talk about LNG.
LNG is an HNS. What about the explosion and spill they've had in different countries in the world where there have been fires caused by LNG spills? LNG does not need to be shovelled, but it can be burned. I'm not against LNG, but it has happened where there have been fires that have cost more than $200 million and that would be covered under the HNS convention, if it had been in force.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
With this bill's passage, it would be covered up to $400 million. I'm not aware at this particular point of an HNS incident that has exceeded the cost of $200 million. If you can provide one for the committee, I'd appreciate that in terms of research.
Conservative
Professor, University of British Columbia, Fisheries Economics Research Unit, As an Individual
Yes, I want to comment on this.
It's important to check the data and the history to see if we can find one, but I think we should also think about the future, because that is what this is about, right? Even if we don't find any that have cost up to $200 million to date, that does not eliminate the chances of something higher than that happening in the future. I just wanted to put in that point.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
It's well appreciated. Right now if it were to occur, there would be simple general liability, and what we're trying to establish with respect to amendments to Bill C-3 is that we get that to $400 million.
We do have a world-class tanker safety panel that has been appointed to look at this. Effectively, what we heard from witnesses on Tuesday was that while they were also looking to the recommendations of the world-class tanker safety panel, both on HNS and on oil, to have a response, potentially even in this bill, they did not want this bill to simply try to prejudge that particular effort as well.
In fairness, the government hasn't had a chance to fully review the recommendations with respect to the oil regime. A response will be coming at some point, and I suspect we'll see more legislation in that regard.
Also, at some point, the panel will come back with HNS. Effectively, I think all of you are asking this committee to prejudge that particular.... It would almost seem to say, why have a panel doing the expert work. Should this committee move with Bill C-3 and get to the combined $400 million coverage, allow the panel to do its work, and allow the government to come back with additional changes that have been consulted on? The changes you're asking us to take a look at right now not only prejudge the panel, but haven't been consulted on widely the way the current bill has been.
Is there any problem with that approach we're taking?
President, Canadian Maritime Law Association
If the question is addressed to me and—
President, Canadian Maritime Law Association
Thank you.
My thought on it is that the government has to decide what it wants to do, of course. You asked us to come here as a witness and to give our view on what we think should happen. We gave the same view to the tanker panel. If the government decides that it will go step by step and do this now, wait for the tanker panel, see what they say, and perhaps tweak it or adjust it later with a second bill, it's certainly not a decision for us, but for you. We have no comment on it, really, except to say that what we're saying here is the same as what we said to the tanker panel, which was I think well received.
It is true that they're going to file a report later in the year about HNS, not just about.... Their report is not going to be about Bill C-3. Their report is not going to be about liability. Their report is going to be about preparedness, about how we get ready for an HNS spill, like we're ready for an oil spill with Mr. Wright's outfit.
The government will have to decide how they wish to proceed, whether it's quickly or slowly, but one day, we suggest that you should come to our amendment.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
We appreciate that. That will be for the record, for the government's benefit as well. We appreciate that, Mr. O'Connor.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Your time has expired, Mr. Watson.
We'll now move to Mr. Braid for seven minutes.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here this morning and for your contributions.
Professor Sumaila, I'd like to start with you, please.
I see from your resumé that you've done a lot of research around the world. You would be in a position to compare our safety regime under Bill C-3 to those of other jurisdictions. Could you do that? How does it compare internationally? Also, in your mind, are Canada's waters better protected as a result of Bill C-3?