Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to offer observations and early recommendations that pertain to certain sections of the most recent budget bill tabled last week.
The chamber has worked closely with government, coastal communities and other stakeholders on most aspects of the oceans protection plan, including critical work associated with protecting species at risk and the numerous conservation initiatives currently under way.
You are well aware, particularly after your recent committee trip to British Columbia, that marine transportation is critical to supporting Canada's international trade, and that a safe, competitive and predictable operating framework is good for Canadians, the Canadian economy and the many industries that drive that economy and rely upon marine transportation.
I'll speak to four elements of the proposed legislation, and some of it will be repetitive, namely the three that refer to authorizations under the Canada Shipping Act. I have more general comments with respect to the Marine Liability Act.
With respect to the Canada Shipping Act, Bill C-86 amends the act, and explicitly provides the authorization for the administration and enforcement of the act to other levels of government, including provinces and indigenous groups. If there is intent to delegate authorities to a province, for example, we would be concerned about the capability of a delegated authority to fulfill such a complex mandate and the increasing potential for a patchwork approach to administering Canada's supply chain.
The oversight of Canada's supply chain is managed nationally by the federal government, because it is complex, and there is a high degree of integration and reliance across transportation modes. This helps to ensure a predictable and competitive environment for Canadian businesses.
The draft bill also authorizes regulatory powers to protect the marine environment. This makes sense, and we understand and support the intent of this regulatory power. Notwithstanding that, we also have reservations about its implementation and the potential for associated regulations conflicting with Canada's commitment to international conventions, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This may have also been a lost opportunity for seeking additional regulatory powers such as those to designate anchorages, not just regulate or prohibit such operations.
We have significant concerns about the regulatory power to prohibit the loading and unloading of a vessel, as it already exists under the Canadian port state control regime. It appears to be another mechanism with which to implement a moratorium on specific commodities through regulations or an interim order, and contradicts the objectives of providing a predictable supply chain.
Bill C-86 also authorizes the minister to make interim orders. Overall, this also makes sense, and there are many examples of when it could have been employed in the past. However, in its current form, this authority lacks appropriate guidance to the minister on its use, and has requirements to consult with other ministers on the science justification, for example.
In both cases of these relevant clauses, 690 and 692, there needs to be a requirement for compelling evidence and/or science that ensures that such regulations or interim orders are sensible, and that such action will not have adverse consequences to marine safety or marine protection.
With respect to the Marine Liability Act, Bill C-86 provides for changes to liability of the ship-source oil pollution fund for economic loss when property has not been impacted, creating a potentially unmanageable situation where claims for pure economic loss lack any sensible limits or guidelines.
The potential for unsubstantiated claims of pure economic loss could increase the exposure of the fund, and consequently the exposure of shippers, receivers and carriers, and potentially the economy as a whole, if the fund has to absorb that cost. Ultimately, this may not address the challenge it is aiming to resolve, and could result in increased costs, making Canada's supply chain less competitive. We just don't know at this point.
We believe that this aspect of the bill has not been subject to any consultation, could have significant and long-lasting impacts, and therefore should be delayed and properly examined. Despite our specific concerns that I've already mentioned, we acknowledge the positive amendments designed to enhance the flexibility to and timeliness for intervening when a pollution incident may be possible or imminent.
Commercial marine transportation depends on a predictable, global regulatory framework in order to plan and deliver a safe, reliable, responsible and cost-effective transportation solution. As Canada progresses with improvements to its pollution response, compensation and liability regimes, it should recognize that major changes to this regime need thorough analysis, dialogue with stakeholders, especially regulated industries, and sufficient time for protection and indemnity providers—insurers—to evaluate increased levels of exposure.
Marine transportation providers come in all shapes and sizes. There are numerous small Canadian commercial operators that may not even be aware of the changes as proposed, let alone be in a position to abide by them in short order and without the appropriate time to review their own operations and commercial practices.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
