Evidence of meeting #120 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was noise.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:25 a.m.
President, Chamber of Marine Commerce
Yes, and I think we basically just gave those examples of where we need the interim order process tightened up.
There are lots of other examples in terms of consistency across different pieces of legislation. There's the Environmental Protection Act, the CEPA process. I'm familiar, on the railway side, with the transportation of dangerous goods.
These are all areas where we have ministerial interim orders, and they're all very restrictive, for good reasons.
8:25 a.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank witnesses for appearing before the committee today, whether in person or by videoconference.
I would like to respond to my colleague opposite about the absence of Transport Canada representatives. Although they may not be physically in this room, there is someone taking notes for them. There is always someone listening to what happens at this committee. You can rest assured that the organization is nevertheless present, in a manner of speaking.
My first question is for the representative of Western Canada Marine Response Corporation.
Like the members of the Canadian Coast Guard, you are superheroes when it comes to cleaning up the damage caused by different types of spills.
Can you tell us a little more about your role in the event of an oil spill? What are the differences and similarities between your role and that of the Canadian Coast Guard?
8:25 a.m.
Manager, Communications, Western Canada Marine Response Corporation
I will provide some illustration of our role within the response regime. I should say that there are many partners in the response regime, both from the federal family and provincial, municipal, and first nation partners. There are a lot of players involved in response.
Broadly speaking, Transport Canada oversees the regime. They set the planning standards and they certify the response organizations. For example, this week we are going through a certification exercise that Transport Canada is overseeing. On the operational side, it's the Coast Guard that has the authority. We will be activated or respond to a spill either when one of our members or the Coast Guard calls us to respond. Once that activity happens, our vessels are typically the ones on scene. They're doing the cleanup, managing the cleanup, protecting sensitivities on the shoreline as well as doing any shoreline cleanup that is required.
That entire operation is run through something called the incident command system, which is very similar to how the firefighting service works, or if there's a natural disaster. This system is well in place and very effective at managing a number of different partners in a response. Our primary role in that system is the actual on-water cleanup and also mitigating the impacts of a spill.
8:25 a.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you.
Please tell us how Bill C-86 will help improve the work you do at a spill site.
8:25 a.m.
Manager, Communications, Western Canada Marine Response Corporation
None of the amendments directly impact response organizations. There are changes to the Canada Shipping Act that we've been looking forward to, but they are not found in this bill. Typically we've been looking forward to changes to planning standards, and we've been told that those are to come.
As I said in my remarks, generally we find that any attempt to further clarify the Coast Guard's powers.... I think we should be clear that the Coast Guard has very broad powers under the existing Shipping Act. Any attempt to clarify that and ensure that there's no doubt that the Coast Guard is the lead agency in a response we find to be a benefit overall to the response regime.
8:25 a.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you.
My next question is for the representatives of the Chamber of Marine Commerce.
The brief submitted by the Shipping Federation of Canada mentions that the industry is putting in place voluntary measures to ensure sustainable maritime transportation in Canadian waters.
Can you tell us about the voluntary measures implemented by the stakeholders you represent to ensure sustainable and safe maritime transportation?
8:30 a.m.
President, Chamber of Marine Commerce
Certainly.
I will answer in English, if you don't mind.
I think we would have a couple of really good recent examples.
In terms of the whale situation on the east coast, there is a system in which we've implemented various voluntary measures, specifically whale watch reporting, wherein our captains report back to government ship by ship. Until the mandated slowdown, we in fact were doing a voluntary slowdown. It was effective on the east coast. It's been very effective farther down into the Bay of Fundy, where we also brought in a system of voluntary route changes. The evidence suggested after the fact that these, in fact, were more effective than slowdowns.
Also, up at the Saguenay fjord in the St. Lawrence estuary, again on a voluntary basis, we've been reducing speed in whale feeding grounds and frequently avoiding sensitive areas where beluga whale herds are composed of females and young. On a voluntary basis, speed reductions through 2013 to 2016 resulted in a nearly 40% reduction in the risk of ship collisions with whales.
I could go on. There are other examples where I think voluntary measures have worked very effectively.
8:30 a.m.
Liberal
8:30 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I dislike using the time allotted to witnesses for other purposes, but I don't have a choice and am kind of stuck this morning.
I would like to be able to move and vote on a motion to invite the Chair of the Transportation Safety Board, or the TSB, to appear before the committee.
I would like us to vote on this motion this morning because the Union des municipalités du Québec is sponsoring a forum on rail transportation that will be held tomorrow in Trois-Rivières. I will be attending as will Ministers Garneau and Champagne.
Several mayors are very concerned by the fact that inflammable substances are being removed from the Watchlist. They have written to the minister and, to date, have received no response. I imagine it is coming.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to inform the Minister that we are aware of these concerns, that we share them and that we will try to get answers.
I would like to move the following motion, if committee members agree:
That the Chair of the Transportation Safety Board be invited to appear before the Committee to explain her decision of removing the transportation of inflammable substances from the Watchlist 5 years after the Lac-Mégantic catastrophe.
I tried to be as brief as possible.
8:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We've had sufficient notice and you've now moved your motion, Mr. Aubin.
Mr. Hardie.
8:30 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
You said “inflammable”. Pardon me, my grade 10 English is failing me. You meant to say “things that will burn”. Is that not “flammable”, or is “inflammable” the same as “flammable”? Sorry, we should be precise here.
8:30 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I would say that we have similar gaps in our knowledge of our respective second language. I don't know which term to choose.
Perhaps we could use “dangerous materials”, if you prefer.
8:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
It's a friendly amendment, but we have to make sure it's specific.
Is there any discussion or comment on Mr. Aubin's motion?
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you very much.
Mr. Aubin.
8:30 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will ask the representative from Ecojustice Canada, Ms. Venton, my first question.
Division 22 gives the Minister the power to make various regulations to better protect the marine environment. Everyone is on board with that.
This clause does not specify who the Minister should consult to clarify his regulations. Do you believe that the Minister of Transport is really in the best position to make decisions about environmental protection measures?
8:30 a.m.
Director, Nature Program, Ecojustice Canada
I agree—along with all of the witnesses, I believe—that it is important to make environmental decisions based on the best available science, and that it is most likely helpful in these situations if the minister is in consultation with Environment Canada or, more likely, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, depending on the issue. Certainly, in developing environmental regulations, that would likely be an appropriate thing to include as part of the process.
With respect to interim orders, I'm a bit worried about consultation. I think it is important that decisions be made on the best available science at the moment, and for an interim order to be “interim”, we also have to balance against the need to be able to move quickly. I'm not sure how best to resolve that tension, but certainly science is super-important in these decisions.
8:35 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
There is another matter that one of the witnesses could perhaps clarify for me. I have to admit that I could not see the rationale for this. Clause 689 of Division 22 gives the Minister the authority to exempt a research vessel from the regulations.
What is the rationale for and usefulness of this clause in the Act? I will start with you, Ms. Venton, but other witnesses are welcome to answer if they wish to do so.
8:35 a.m.
Director, Nature Program, Ecojustice Canada
Just so I understand, which clause are you asking about?
8:35 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I am referring to clause 689 of Division 22, which authorizes the Minister to exempt a research vessel from complying with this regulation. I want to know the underlying rationale for this clause. Why would these vessels be exempt?
8:35 a.m.
Director, Nature Program, Ecojustice Canada
In the absence of an actual explanation from the minister's perspective, I don't really know, but I suspect it's much like exclusions under the Species at Risk Act or the Fisheries Act, where research activities are excluded from certain restrictions. For example, I suppose, if it's going into an area and boats are asked not to go into that area, it could be to facilitate ongoing research on an issue. It's not uncommon for those kinds of exclusions to exist, but I don't know the full motivation behind most of these clauses.
8:35 a.m.
NDP