Transport Committee on Nov. 8th, 2018

[Bruce Burrows]

If I could offer a view, too, I think my understanding—I've just reread this again—is that this also may be an opportunity to exempt on the basis of testing for autonomous ships and for moving autonomous ships into various areas. That may be one of the rationales. Unfortunately, we don't have Transport Canada here today, but I would venture a guess that this might be behind it as well.

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

I would like to come back to you, Ms. Douglas.

In your preliminary remarks you mentioned that the interim order should not replace the regulation-making process, and you spoke about that again a little later.

Could you give me one or two specific examples of situations that you would not want to see as a result of this?

[Sarah E. Douglas]

When we're talking in the marine mode, because this is brand new, this power for interim order, at this point it would be pure speculation, but I think our concern is around just governance and the regulatory process. The government has many different tools in its tool box on how to enforce regulations, legislation or these orders. The regulation-making process is a very important part of the statutory instruments available to governments, and I want to make sure that in issuing an interim order it does not replace the regulation-making process on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, everybody, for being here.

My understanding, based on a question I asked at our last session, is that Bill C-86 is relatively narrowly targeted at certain financial provisions in some of the acts that are all bundled up in here. In fact, through other committee processes, the various acts we're talking about really did get a fair bit of scrutiny. We had witnesses both here and at the fisheries committee. That gave a lot of people a lot of time to give input, particularly with respect to some of the discretionary authorities that would flow out of this legislation.

Generally speaking, the government has gone forward on the idea that we can balance the economy and the environment. We can't shut down our trade, but at the same time, we can't allow trade to overrun species at risk. It isn't necessarily a delicate balance that we're talking about; it's about what we can do to promote both in going forward and prospering.

On the fisheries side, we quite often talk about the application of what we call the “precautionary principle”, which means that there are times when we don't have all the science, but we know something is wrong. We have to do something and we have to do it quickly. Based on the commentary I've heard, the misgivings or concerns people have aren't necessarily over what we're trying to accomplish; it's the “how” part.

We've seen examples where some of the orders coming down have been far too broad or far too blunt an instrument, and could have been refined either before they were implemented, or certainly afterwards. I think we need an ongoing process to refine them. We may come in with a very broad order on an interim basis, but the door has to be open to refine it so that we're not causing undue damage to either side of this equation.

The other piece that comes up very often at the fisheries committee is our use and understanding of local knowledge. In the marine industry, local knowledge, particularly on the west coast, would include the properties of an individual ship and the speed at which it is going to emit the least amount of noise. Coming down with a heavy-handed order that says that all ships must go at a particular speed might, in fact, create more difficulties than it's trying to solve.

The other piece has to do with the local knowledge of the people who live there, particularly on the indigenous side.

Mr. Lowry, this is where I wanted to deal with you a little bit on the issue of the Nathan E. Stewart at Bella Bella. People from far away came in and were giving orders to the locals about how to deal with that tugboat that was on the rocks but had not breached. The locals believed firmly that they could have prevented the spill had they been allowed to act, but they were prevented from doing so. The local knowledge was ignored, and as a result, we ended up with a huge catastrophe that has a material impact on their lives.

Mr. Lowry, I know you're not necessarily responsible for the whole suite of things that happened here, but I would like your commentary on the application of local and indigenous knowledge to respond more effectively and efficiently to issues when they come up.

[Michael Lowry]

Broadly, when we're looking at indigenous involvement and knowledge in spill response in particular, there are two sides we can look at. The first is the planning side. WCMRC and other agencies have really worked hard to involve indigenous knowledge in planning for spills.

I mentioned a program that we have been working on, a coastal mapping project. Once we've mapped an area, we do involve indigenous communities in making sure that there are no gaps in our knowledge of that area and sensitivities that we may not even be aware of. Typically, that approach is done orally with indigenous communities. We are very clear that we involve and include that knowledge in our planning and protection strategies for the coast of B.C.

In terms of the Nathan E. Stewart, I can't speak to any of the early prevention measures and what happened there. That's not a piece that our organization plays into. But what I can say is that in spill response, we do operate in the incident command system, as I mentioned earlier. A key piece of that is something called “unified command”. That means that all decisions are signed off by the unified command. That unified command typically involves a federal representative, which is the Coast Guard, a provincial representative through the B.C. ministry of environment, a first nations representative, a responsible party or polluter representative and the municipalities. The first nations are involved in that decision-making and are part of that unified command.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I would submit though that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry, Mr. Hardie, your time is up. We move now to Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madame Chair. I just want to make two points before I ask questions. I want to thank the finance committee for punting this over with respect to division 22 on the Canada Shipping Act and division 23 on the Marine Liability Act simply because they are relevant to this committee and we're trying to get as much input as we can. The legislative objective, of course as we all know, is to better protect our marine environments while trying to balance out economy that utilizes our marine environments. Second to that is to put an emphasis on prevention response and liability and compensation.

With that, I have a question for Mr. Burrows.

Mr. Burrows, we've known each other for quite some time, you and I, throughout the government but as well through Transport Canada. The relationship you have with Transport Canada is quite robust. Do you consider the Chamber of Marine Commerce to have good consultative communication on an ongoing basis with Transport Canada?

[Bruce Burrows]

I think we do, and I sort of inferred that in fact in my opening comments. My concern was with the broader, as I put it, response of the government in terms of how this bill is being packaged up on an omnibus basis. I agree that we do have a good relationship. Things can always be better in any relationship of course. There could always be some more consultation, but by and large they're pretty darn good.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Bruce. I also want to thank you because that consultation process, for the most part, does lead to the recommendations that we bring forward in legislation. We don't just sit around and have tea and have a cocktail and shoot the breeze about the hockey game last night. We talk about many issues on an ongoing basis. Again, a lot of the legislation and a lot of the issues we discuss here at committee, as well as throughout our caucus and in other caucuses and throughout government, are a result of those conversations and that consultation. I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation, because a lot of what we're seeing here is a result of those conversations, and I want to thank you for that consistent communication.

With that, my second point is with respect to emergency preparedness. I want to focus in on the response, on being prepared and of course being proactive, but also responding when those situations do happen. I'm going to lean on Mr. Lowry here a bit. I'm going to ask Mr. Lowry first and then I'll go back to Mr. Burrows.

Mr. Lowry, I'm assuming that in your relationship with the Coast Guard, as in our relationship with the marine sector, with respect to emergency preparedness and response areas and responsibilities, that local jurisdictions have to have protocols in place and to be prepared, and that those protocols are actually exercised on a regular basis.

[Michael Lowry]

That is correct. In fact I'm in Sydney right now for one of our annual exercises. It's a 10,000-tonne simulated spill and the Coast Guard is always involved in our exercises. As I mentioned they're part of the unified command, but their staff are also involved in different sections within the command post and, of course, on the water as well. The Coast Guard does have their own spill response capabilities and we do train with them in doing on-water skimming operations. That applies to the entire coast of B.C. I would say that the relationship and training and partnership between WCMRC and the Coast Guard on the west coast is extremely strong.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Burrows, with respect to being prepared, yes, of course we rely on our emergency services, but how aligned is the industry with protocols and preparedness and working with people like the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, emergency services and local municipalities or jurisdictions? With regard to that preparedness, is there a regular protocol that the marine industry abides by?

[Bruce Burrows]

I think we are well prepared. I think our concern here, Mr. Badawey, is not with the level of coordination that we have with people like the Coast Guard and other response authorities. Rather, one of the concerns we have here is that there may not be clear coordination in lines of authority between, for example, the ministry of fisheries and oceans and the ministry of transport. In an emergency, the responsibilities and the lines of command and control must be clear, and, again, I think this is an area where the language needs to be tightened up so that our ship captains have clarity, when they're out in the water, as to who is in charge. I think that's a potential problem.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Burrows.

Mr. Lowry, can I just get this last question in?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry, Mr. Badawey, but your time is up.

Mr. Liepert.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I tried. I tried.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Maybe if he's nice, I'll give him a minute of my time.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Liepert.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Lowry, if I heard you correctly, you indicated in your presentation that there really haven't been any issues in some 40 years, and that you've responded to everything you were required to respond to. I would like your comments on the following. This is a government that says it prides itself in facts and evidence, and not on ideology. Is there evidence that these changes are required on the west coast, or are we just pandering to the internationally well-funded environmental groups?

[Michael Lowry]

The regime that is in place now was the result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill back in 1989. It created a very strong and very robust regime, which has done an excellent job in preventing the kind of catastrophic spills that the Exxon presented, or potentially presented, to the coast.

Correct, we have not responded to a spill of a significant size on this coast. We train and prepare for a spill of up to 10,000 tonnes. The largest spill we responded to in that 40 years was only 100 tonnes. We don't see those large-scale spills. If you're looking at spills from, let's say, oil tankers or vessels carrying oil as cargo, we've never responded to a single spill from those types of vessels.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

The evidence doesn't appear to be there.

[Michael Lowry]

No, what I would say is that we can always improve the regime, and what we support is the general movement towards a more risk-based model. When you're looking at risk, you're not only looking at probability. You're also looking at the consequence. Obviously, on the west coast, that consequence side is very, very important. When you look at risk, you have to look at both sides of that equation.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you.

I think Mr. Burrows would like to respond as well.

[Bruce Burrows]

Since the seventies, the carriage of oil has doubled but the number and magnitude of oil spills is down tenfold. So I agree, the evidence does not indicate that we have a bigger problem. We have a far smaller problem.

A recent study showed that since the mid-nineties, there has not been a single major spill from oil tankers or other vessels in any Canadian waters. In addition, compared to pipelines and rail, marine tanker transport has been found to result in the fewest number of accidents.