Transport Committee on Nov. 6th, 2018

[Marc-Yves Bertin, Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport]

Building on what Natasha was saying around the years of consultation that have gone on, a discussion paper on the provisions surrounding the Marine Liability Act was issued in 2017. We engaged with industry not only in the transportation sector but also the energy sector and received feedback.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Right. I would just say that with years of consultation, and recognizing that these are significant substantial changes, probably we should have seen this study done in a stand-alone way. I think we've done a disservice to our shipping community by burying it in a budget implementation act.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ms. Block.

We now move to Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the department representatives for joining us this morning.

You mentioned the Canadian Coast Guard. Can you describe its current role, the nature of the proposed changes and the benefits of those changes?

[Julie Gascon, Director General, Operations, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

The current legislation requires us to respond to an incident only if the incident involves an imminent and serious risk. The legislative changes will give us the power to act more quickly if there's a risk of a significant environmental issue.

For example, you're likely familiar with the Kathryn Spirit, a vessel that was once managed by the Canadian Coast Guard and that was subsequently abandoned. You'll recall that there were still traces of oil. According to the legislation, this didn't necessarily constitute an imminent risk. However, it was still an unacceptable risk to the public. Since the vessel was moored, Transport Canada considered that it didn't pose a risk to navigation. This created a legal gap.

The legislative amendments will enable us to act much more quickly. This will close the legal gap and ensure that the two departments can work much more closely together.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Will these amendments have any economic impact? Can you elaborate on this?

[Natasha Rascanin]

The amendments largely, for example the regulatory amendments, are rule-making authority. They're giving authority to the minister to make rules and make regulations. Going forward, any of the regulations that may be required will absolutely be going through the normal regulatory process that includes CG I and CG II, various consultation elements, economic impact. It is possible there are going to be economic impacts in some of these regulatory amendments as we go forward, but they are not at this time being contemplated. What the amendments propose for the regulatory component is the ability for the minister to proceed in the environmental context, and then regulations that may be needed will in fact be addressed through the normal completely standard process that takes time and that has consultative sessions within that.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

At what point is a spill considered to have occurred? Have any changes been made in terms of the people authorized to respond and how and when they can respond?

[Julie Gascon]

The Canadian Coast Guard is still the federal agency responsible for responding to incidents. That said, the legislative amendments will enable us to make decisions much more quickly. As a result, we won't be wondering about the matter in the field. When there's a risk, we'll act immediately.

This will enable us to prepare and respond better before a spill occurs. In the event of a spill, the current system involving recognized organizations will still exist, and the same principles will continue to apply. In other words, the polluter will always be responsible for responding. We'll continue to support the system. We'll be able to act much more quickly if the polluter is unable to respond.

This will significantly improve our emergency preparedness.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

What does this preparedness involve?

What exactly is it that you're going to be doing? What are the checks and balances you're going to be performing in order to arrive at that?

[Julie Gascon]

It won't necessarily change the work in the field. However, it will alleviate the concerns of the people in the field who must wait for the decision on whether to respond. If there's a risk of pollution, it will give us the power to act faster, which will alleviate the concerns regarding whether we should respond.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

How can you know that an incident may occur?

[Julie Gascon]

As a result of the marine communications and traffic services and the way that everything works, we know what types of vessels pass through Canadian waters, what types of cargo they carry, what their certification is and where they come from. Transport Canada has an idea of how well these vessels comply with the various applicable regulations. We have a good idea of the vessels that pass through our waters and the types of individuals or vessels that we're dealing with.

There are many factors. The marine communications and traffic services can determine whether an individual has behaved appropriately and followed the regulations, whether the individual's vessel is certified and in proper form, which sailors are on board, and whether everything has been done according to the rules. As a result, if any issues arise, we know what we're dealing with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Next is Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us.

To begin, I have a quick question for Ms. Rascanin.

At the end of your presentation, I believe you said that the consultations weren't finished. Is so, when will they end?

[Natasha Rascanin]

In terms of the oceans protection plan, we continue all kinds of engagement and consultation. The parliamentary process when bills are tabled is absolutely another process of consultation and part of that whole discussion.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I must admit that I'm having some trouble with the workload imposed on us over a few hours. This isn't your fault and this isn't a criticism. Seriously, I'm using my sleep time to review the documents in order to understand them better and ask you a few questions. Given the significant number of amendments proposed, the process is rushed, to say the least.

I've found some things and I haven't found other things in what I've read so far. I'll provide an example.

According to Transport Canada, the Marine Liability Act “is a comprehensive Act dealing with the liability of marine operators in relation to passengers and other third parties, cargo, pollution and property damage.” I've read a great deal about oil spills, but I haven't seen any mention—if I'm wrong, tell me where I can find it—of an issue such as the incident in Yamachiche, which you may remember. If you don't remember, I'll provide a quick summary.

Over a year ago, the Minister of Transport issued a directive instructing pilots to pass through at a safe speed. It's a little hard for me, as a novice, to determine what constitutes a safe speed. A vessel that passed through Saint-Pierre Lake generated waves that were large enough to damage dozens of houses on the shores of the lake. The investigation clearly showed that the damage wasn't the result of natural disaster or a special situation, but was related to the speed of the vessel.

There are no amendments in the bill to resolve this type of issue. If there's anything concerning this matter, I haven't seen it.

[Natasha Rascanin]

I can't answer that specific case question. We would have to get back to you.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

You're much more familiar with the amendments than I am. If you can't answer me, it means that there aren't any amendments to resolve this issue.

In addition, there has been a great deal of talk about safety. In another parallel study we're conducting on economic corridors, many witnesses have informed us of the alarming situation—this isn't an exaggeration—involving icebreakers. However, there doesn't seem to be any particular focus on speeding up the work to make navigation in our waterways safer. I'm referring specifically to the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor. The renewal of the icebreaker fleet has been anticipated for a number of years.

Once again, have I missed anything? Is this issue not part of the bill? The budget bill contains dozens and dozens of legislative amendments, but it doesn't include the amendments that business owners and ship owners are eagerly awaiting? Have I made a mistake or missed something?

[Julie Gascon]

Thank you for your questions, Mr. Aubin.

I don't have all the details concerning the specific incident in Yamachiche. However, I can assure you that the Canadian Coast Guard's marine communications and traffic services are working with the Corporation of Mid St. Lawrence Pilots and Transport Canada. We're constantly working on the use of the water column when vessels pass through. When we look at a marine corridor, we take into account all the conditions. These conditions include the ice cover, the lack of an ice cover, flooding, lower water levels, and so on. The safe passage speed obviously depends on the draft and the type of vessel. We really work together.

In the case that you mentioned, I believe that the water level was already extremely high, and deep draft vessels needed to pass through. We had to work with the Corporation of Mid St. Lawrence Pilots and with the Laurentian Pilotage Authority.

There may be damage sometimes, but the Canadian Coast Guard works very closely with all its partners to determine the best way to use the water column.

I can provide more details on this specific incident.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I'm sure that you're working, but I want to know about the possible compensation for the people affected. There was a deep draft vessel, the water level was high and work was done with the corporation of pilots. I'm sure that every effort was made, but in the end, there was still collateral damage. In this instance, it wasn't the type of environmental damage that would occur in an oil spill, but the damage had just as much impact on the people living along the river.

We haven't even been able to determine whether the pilot was fined or, if applicable, the amount of the fine. If fines were imposed, could the money be used to compensate the victims? For two years, there has been total silence. We haven't learned anything more about the situation.

Given the major amendments that we're preparing to incorporate into the two acts concerning the marine sector, I was hoping that we would have been courteous enough to remember these incidents so that we can ensure that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Aubin.

Mr. Aubin raised some important issues. Could you strive to get the information to the committee by the end of today? We would very much appreciate that.

Mr. Sikand.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Good morning.

Canada has the longest coastline in the world, and it continues to grow as the Arctic melts. I grew up in, live in and represent a riding in Mississauga in the GTA, so I'm not close to any of the coastline, but shipping for us very much means commerce and commercial goods coming to our area. That's the angle of my approach.

What struck me as a bit odd was that previously when whales would be struck, a lot of the legislation was geared to protecting the ship and its personnel. We want them to be safe, but the changes have now afforded more protections to marine life. A main tenet of our government is that it's unacceptable now to only focus on business without taking into consideration the environment around it.

Under the Canada Shipping Act, the liability and the fines would be increased to $250,000. Do you think that's acceptable or a high enough maximum?

[Natasha Rascanin]

I will make a couple of comments.

Certainly, in terms of all of Canada's coasts and the Great Lakes included, there is shipping, and all of these measures apply to all waterways of that nature where these kinds of incidents could occur.

In terms of the measures being proposed here, the objectives are around having safe shipping and ensuring that is clearly there, and at the same time also ensuring that appropriate environmental protections are fully in place, so that the two go hand in hand, and are considered and addressed appropriately.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Previous to this, we discussed airplane noise and how that affects people's quality of life. I'm right beside Pearson, so it's very important to me. I also saw here the effects of shipping noise on marine life and whales. Could I get some comments on that?