Transport Committee on Oct. 7th, 2014

[Anne Legars]

Maybe I should submit it in writing, in graphic form. But basically, everything that is marine is clearly under the IMDG Code. Then when it comes to the interface with land in Canada, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is triggered. The goods must always be identified and carry that documentation, and so on and so forth.

But I will provide it in writing after the meeting, if you don't mind—maybe in a graphic format.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That would be fine. We'd look forward to that, obviously.

Marine shipping by tonnage, you stated earlier, is up. The number of ships and calls, if you will, are also at least marginally up.

What is the safety record currently with respect to that mode of transport? Is it improving? Is it roughly the same?

[Anne Legars]

It's good. A key element was when the port state control regime came out about 20 years or so ago. It's been a very big driver of improvement in the quality of ships and the elimination of substandard shipping. The last data published on Transport Canada's website, for example, showed there were 1,033 inspections in 2011, including 358 tankers. There were 431 deficiencies, out of which seven were for dangerous goods and 63 were ISM Code ones. This led to 34 detentions, ships that were detained, of which two were tankers. That gives you an idea of what it means.

Actually, the safety record is very good and is getting better and better. For some trade, especially the tanker trade, we've probably reached residual risk. At some point—I don't remember when it was; I think it was in this committee at the previous hearing—we had the data from ITOPS, an international organization gathering data on that, and it showed that really, the number of spills worldwide is at a very residual level.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Global cargo, as I think you testified earlier, is in oil. Is that trend showing a marked increase, or is that relatively stable as well? Where do you expect that trend to go, and does that trend produce any additional risks we should be aware of?

[Anne Legars]

I will have to double check where we are in terms of oil trends. From the top of my memory, I would say it's pretty stable as far as Canada is concerned, in terms of volume. We may have changes in traffic, depending on whether we import or export more. I can do an update on that as well, as a follow-up.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Now, the Transportation Safety Board has recommended since 2012 that safety management systems should be extended to all types of domestic commercial vessels. Do you agree with that, and if not, why?

[Anne Legars]

Is it a question for me?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Yes.

[Anne Legars]

Well, we deal only with international vessels. All our ships are under foreign flags, so we haven't taken any position on whether Canada should do the same thing for all their domestic ships, whatever the type. Of course, the safety of each user of the waterways is somehow the safety of all, because we all share the same waters, so we can only encourage that. But we haven't made any.... It hasn't been our battle, I would say.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Buy.

[Serge Buy]

We do agree that it should be expanded to all ships. I think the only issue is the auditing of that, and at this point, that often rests with the classification societies. It is not reasonable to expect the classification society to go for an affordable amount to a ferry that is offered at very low cost in northern Manitoba where you have to travel by plane, take multiple cars and, on occasion, a float plane and everything else, and charge a minimum amount. It's not happening.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You said the concern—

[Serge Buy]

The concern is between the auditing, the regulation, and the real impact on the ground. There is some concern around that, and Transport Canada needs to do its job on that front.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

In those narrow instances for those particular—

[Serge Buy]

For those instances, yes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

In the event of a spill on a ferry vessel, let's say a propane tank leaks, can you walk us through what emergency response on board a ferry would look like? What would you have to do?

[Serge Buy]

Well, there are a number of steps to be taken, for sure. It will depend on the operator and on the type of ship. Clearly, the crew and the captain are in charge. Instructions will be given to passengers. There would probably be an evacuation fairly quickly on that. There would be containment measures taken. There would be a number of steps taken to prevent a further catastrophe or a further disaster in that case.

The responses are really governed by a set of codes and a set of manual procedures. I'll give you an example. One of our operators, B.C. Ferries, has a manual that is about 22 pages. It governs what you do in this situation, what you do in that situation, etc. Staff are trained for about three or four days, and I don't know if within the few minutes allocated I can walk you through everything in place. What I can tell you is that the response and the quality of the response will depend on the training provided and the awareness of the staff of the measures that are in place to contain the spill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, thank you. We're out of time.

Mr. Braid, you have seven minutes.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Buy, you mentioned in your presentation the example of the short-run ferry. You brought it up, and I wanted to give you the opportunity to fully put this on the table. There's some discrepancy in terms of definition, whether it's three kilometres or five kilometres.

Here's a two-part question for you: why is the definition of a short-run ferry important and, in your mind, what should it be? Should it be three kilometres or five kilometres?

[Serge Buy]

The definition is important because if you define a short-run ferry and you use the term “short-run ferry” in one regulation and you use the same term in another regulation, but the definition is not the same, then you have a problem.

The term “short-term ferry“ should refer to exactly the same thing in the same definition. If I'm an operator and I'm used to knowing that a short-term ferry is five kilometres and I apply this throughout my operation and then I look at the regulations and it says a short-term ferry uses x, y, and z, but this is three kilometres, and this is 2.5 or 2.2, it doesn't make much sense. This is why consistency in the regulation is important.

To be frank about three to five kilometres, we think five kilometres was the intent. I think it was three miles. The hardship on certain operators in terms of the steps they have to take is such that we believe that five kilometres should be the appropriate point on that front.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

Would you mind following up with the clerk, perhaps after the committee meeting, to just explain where that discrepancy appears in the regulations? That would be helpful.

[Serge Buy]

Absolutely.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Legars, you've taken the opportunity to explain to us how the international inspection protocol works. There are requirements under the domestic flag authority, if you will, and port authorities.

I'm curious. Are there any inspections done in international waters and, if so, by whom?

[Anne Legars]

In any international waters, no... [Inaudible—Editor].

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

From your perspective, is Canada fully meeting its international commitments with respect to inspections in this regard?