Evidence of meeting #76 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 tankers.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
I guess I wasn't here for the minister's presentation and questions, and he may well have answered this in his words.
I wanted to ask again about this ministerial exclusion, and why we need this in the bill. What kinds of situations might you envision where it would be needed, and will the public even know if this exclusion is exercised?
4:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport
The minister did speak about this. This exclusion is consistent with similar, very constrained emergency exclusion capacities that are provided to ministers in other safety legislation. It is to be used in one-off, unique circumstances like perhaps a natural disaster, or even others that we may not at this point contemplate.
In that instance, it is important that a minister have the capacity to act fairly quickly and allow very specific situations to continue.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is a reflection just listening to the testimony that our witnesses are able to provide in answer to the good questions coming out. It occurs that maybe as a committee we should step back and perhaps invite some Fisheries and Oceans people to come here. I think that would be quite useful because there are a number of questions that they are better prepared to answer than folks from Transport.
With that in mind, I'll try to ask a few questions that hopefully you can relate to simply from where you're coming from.
What do you know about the products that are in the fuel tanks and the barges that would be permitted to go up and down the exclusion zone?
4:50 p.m.
Acting Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Currently, there's a mix of different petroleum products. There are persistent and non-persistent products that are going up and down. The moratorium in that schedule we have in this act are specifically pertaining to persistent oil products. What has been used there is an internationally recognized definition used by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds that uses a boiling-range test to really identify those heaviest, most persistent products that last.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
No. I understand that. The definitions are set out in the schedule, but what you're telling me is that these will be present in approximately what ratio? Say I have a tugboat pulling a barge that's refuelling and stops up and down the coast. How much of the restricted material percentage-wise would be present?
4:50 p.m.
Acting Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
In vessels over 12,500 metric tons...?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
No. The ones that would be allowed to go up and down the coast. Do you have any estimate? If you don't, please just say so.
4:50 p.m.
Acting Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Actually, I would welcome you to refer to that study I referred to earlier that we undertook on community and industry resupply because it looks very specifically at the types of products, ranging from slack wax, liquid pitch, and petroleum diesel. There are a variety of products and the study shows in what quantities those are being transported both above and below that 12,500.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Great.
One of the questions I would really like to probe with DFO or the Coast Guard, or both, is in fact the whole regime around tugboats because we had that tugboat go down near Bella Bella. There's news today that another tug sank at Squamish on Tuesday, and guess what. It sank again today off Point Atkinson. I think we have a little problem there that we need to drill into, to in fact see what vehicles would be permitted to operate in that area, and in fact their whole safety regime.
It's my understanding, for instance, that the tug that sank near Bella Bella didn't have a pilot on board. It wasn't required to. These are things we need to drill into, but I don't think it's necessarily your bailiwick that would deal with that, or would it?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport
That is Transport Canada's bailiwick, but it's not....
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport
It's not mine, but the safety elements of shipping are within Transport Canada's elements.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
The inspection and enforcement, I presume, would fall to the Coast Guard.
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport
It depends on the situation. We have marine inspectors, and marine inspection enforcement in many instances would be Transport Canada as well.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
If you detected a ship that was over a certain size, would it be Transport Canada people who would go out and do the inspection?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport
In terms of it carrying some of these products perhaps, yes, it would.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
What complement of inspectors do you have on the west coast?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, Department of Transport
I would be able to answer that question as a follow-up.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
What is it particularly up north, where this is necessary?
