Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 42 - Evidence - April 23, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 23, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:43 p.m. to study the current state of the safety elements of the bulk transport of hydrocarbon products in Canada.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Richard Neufeld. I represent the province of British Columbia in the Senate and I am the chair of this committee.
I would like to welcome honourable senators, any members of the public with us in the room, and viewers all across the country who are watching on television. I would now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair, Grant Mitchell from Alberta.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace from New Brunswick.
Senator Lang: Dan Lang, Yukon.
Senator Sibbeston: Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Montreal.
The Chair: I would also like to introduce our staff beginning with our clerk, Lynn Gordon, and our two Library of Parliament analysts, Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc.
On November 28, 2012, our committee was authorized by the Senate to initiate a study on the safe transportation of hydrocarbons in Canada. The study will examine and compare domestic and international regulatory regimes, standards and best practices relating to the safe transport of hydrocarbons by transmission pipelines, marine tanker vessels and railcars.
Our committee has held 10 meetings on this study to date. We have also travelled to Calgary for fact-finding meetings, as well as site visits to Sarnia and Hamilton, Ontario.
I am pleased to welcome in the first segment of our meeting, from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Jody Thomas, Deputy Commissioner, Operations, Canadian Coast Guard; and Jacqueline Gonçalves, Director General, National Strategies, Canadian Coast Guard.
I apologize for the delay in starting our meeting, but we are required to be in the Senate chamber until it recesses and we were here as soon as we could be. We will have 45 minutes. If you have a presentation to make, as I am sure you do, we will then go to questions and answers.
I apologize for the delay and I am happy that you are here.
Jody Thomas, Deputy Commissioner, Operations, Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: We are pleased to be here. I have a deck, which I understand you all have copies of. We like to use a deck because much of what we do requires visuals and it helps aid the conversation.
I am Jody Thomas, Deputy Commissioner, Operations, Canadian Coast Guard and I am here with Jacqueline Gonçalves. It is our pleasure to deliver this presentation on the Canadian Coast Guard's Environmental Response Program.
As part of this evening's presentation, I would like to describe the role of the Canadian Coast Guard in Canada's marine oil spill preparedness and response regime, highlight the Coast Guard's contribution to marine traffic safety, pollution preparedness and response, and give you an update on what the recent World Class Tanker Safety System announcement means for the Canadian Coast Guard.
We can go to slide 3. As you would have already learned from Transport Canada, Canada's Marine Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Regime, which addresses the ship-source pollution, was formed following the 1989 Exxon Valdez grounding in Alaska. It is a joint government-industry partnership for addressing marine pollution based on the polluter-pays principle, meaning the polluter is always responsible for addressing any pollution they have caused.
[Translation]
From the federal government's perspective, Transport Canada, Environment Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard are partners under the regime. Transport Canada administers the regime, and Environment Canada delivers and coordinates scientific information and advice for pollution responses.
[English]
We are continuing on slide 3. The Canadian Coast Guard is the operational arm of the Government of Canada for ensuring an appropriate response to ship-source spills through the Environmental Response Program. The Coast Guard provides navigational services to prevent ship accidents that could result in marine pollution, and we have a suite of marine assets, trained people and expertise that are ready to lead or support a response to marine emergencies.
We are on slide 4 now. The Canadian Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for ensuring an appropriate response to ship-source pollution in Canadian waters. The Oceans Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act provide the legislative authorities for the Canadian Coast Guard. We deliver on this mandate through the Environmental Response Program with 75 trained responders located in three regions; 80 caches of response equipment; 19 Arctic community packs; specialized training and spill management response; international agreements for mutual aid with the U.S., Denmark and the Arctic agreement, which we expect Arctic ministers to sign in May 2013; and the powers to direct action, emergency contracting authorities of $10 million, and the ability to cost recover for response actions.
We will go to slide 5.
[Translation]
The objectives of the environmental response program are to minimize the environmental, economic and public safety impacts of marine pollution incidents, including ship-source oil and chemical spills.
[English]
This slide provides some of the recent statistics of reported pollution incidents across the five Coast Guard regions. As you can see, there are often great regional variances in the number of pollution reports the Canadian Coast Guard receives across the country. Much of the reason for this is that the Coast Guard is responsible for following up on any and all reported marine pollution incidents, both north and south of 60.
The vast majority of the pollution reports the Coast Guard receives are from ships that fall outside the regime, including small pleasure craft. In British Columbia, for example, and where the recreational boating season remains open longer than in any other part of the country — and there are more recreational boaters — the number of reported incidents is higher.
To further illustrate this point, the pie chart on this slide is intended to illustrate the reported marine pollution incidents by tanker versus other vessels. As you can see, pollution reports from tankers makes up only a small portion of the pollution incident reports received by the Canadian Coast Guard.
I will go to slide 6.
[Translation]
The Coast Guard's environmental response program has two key elements: preparedness and response. Preparedness is based on planning, exercising and training. We work internally and with our partners and responders across the federal government, industry and the world to ensure we are prepared to respond to a pollution incident.
[English]
The response element includes the actions we take, from monitoring the actions of the polluter to becoming the on- scene commander and directing the pollution response — approximately 1,200 reported cases per year annually. Further, the response element includes those activities the Coast Guard undertakes following an incident, such as recovering costs from either the polluter or the Canadian Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund.
Let us go to slide 7. I just described the two key elements of the Environmental Response Program: preparedness and response. The Coast Guard also plays an important role in preventing pollution incidents from occurring through its support to Canada's marine navigation system.
First, let me address the Canadian Aids to Navigation System services. We provide devices or systems external to a vessel to help mariners determine position and course to warn of dangers or obstructions, or to mark the location of preferred routes.
Waterways management helps to ensure safe and efficient environmentally responsible design, maintenance and use of ship channels, and marine structures that provide channel safety information to users.
Ice-breaking services is another. Ice-breaking services support economic activities by assisting commercial vessels to voyage efficiently and safely through or around ice-covered waters.
Marine Communications and Traffic Services provides communications and traffic services for the marine community and for the benefit of the public at large to support the safety of life at sea, the protection of the environment through traffic management and the efficient movement of shipping.
Slide 8 provides an illustration of where Canada's marine pollution response equipment is located across the country. Included in this image are both Coast Guard and industry resources. As you can see, consistent with Canada's Marine Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Regime, there are no Transport Canada-certified response organizations operating in the Arctic. Therefore, all of the equipment housed north of 60 is owned and maintained by the Canadian Coast Guard. Nineteen of these Arctic caches of equipment are Arctic community response packs designed to assist communities responding to small-scale pollution incidents. There are also three larger depots located in Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk and Hay River.
Slide 9 shows some images of Coast Guard environmental response equipment and personnel in action, either training or responding.
Slide 10 is next. The December 2010 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development included an audit on oil spills from ships that provided a series of recommendations for the Coast Guard, Transport Canada and Environment Canada. The audit recommended that the Coast Guard assess its pollution response capability, assess its preparedness to respond, review the use of the Incident Command System and work with Transport Canada to undertake a national risk assessment.
[Translation]
The Coast Guard has addressed the majority of the recommendations and is waiting for the outcomes of the Transport Canada risk assessment, as well as the recommendations of the Tanker Safety Panel, to respond to the last recommendations.
[English]
I will go to slide 11. On March 18, 2013, the World Class Tanker Safety System announced, in part, the implementation of a series of tanker safety measures, including increased tanker inspections, systematic surveillance and monitoring of ships, pilotage programs, public port designations and scientific research. Three tanker safety measures that will be led by the Canadian Coast Guard were also announced.
First, the Canadian Coast Guard will implement the Incident Command System to respond more effectively to an incident and to integrate its operations with key partners.
Second is new modified aids to navigation. The Canadian Coast Guard will ensure that a system of aids to navigation to warn of obstructions and to mark the location of preferred shipping routes is installed and maintained.
Modern navigations systems is third. The Canadian Coast Guard will develop options for enhancing Canada's current navigation systems — for example, new aids to navigation and hydrographic charts — by fall 2013 for government consideration.
I thank you for your time this evening. I went through this very quickly because we started late.
[Translation]
I would be pleased to discuss your questions or comments.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. That was very interesting.
I will ask a couple of questions about page 5. I see a heading entitled ``Reported Marine Pollution Incidents by Vessel Type.'' It is 2 per cent by tankers — that is 44 — and other vessels. Is that mostly recreational or is that the fishing fleet?
Ms. Thomas: The fishing fleet and recreational boaters.
The Chair: That is 2,304. Do you have a volume that would have been spilled by the tankers — the 2 per cent — as compared to the volume that would have been spilled by 2,304 others?
Ms. Thomas: No, we do not collect data in that manner. We are not at that level of sophistication, although we are getting to that point. If there is a larger spill there can be an estimate, which we could do for you, but it is unlikely we could have anything precise.
The Chair: With respect to volume by ship, I can understand that I was asking for a little too much when talking about a fishing fleet or recreational boats. However, there were 44 incidents by tankers so it would be interesting to know that volume. We can then find out the comparison of how much volume is actually moved.
Ms. Thomas: It is very small compared to what is moved. We can go back through the 44 tanker incidents and look at the estimates, which are in some reporting. We can get back to you about that.
The Chair: The rest would be too difficult to get.
Ms. Thomas: Yes. We are called out to a variety of incidents. It could be a case of someone fuelling a recreational boat and spilling half of their jerry can in the water. They call us, and we respond. The incidents range from that to larger incidents.
Generally, the biggest risk in pollution spills is the transfer of fuel, not the movement of the vessels. In the Arctic, when the community is being resupplied with fuel, that is where the risk of pollution is. It is those kinds of incidents.
The Chair: Do tankers always report everything? Do the others report — fishing fleets and recreational vehicles? How much do you think is reported? Do you know?
Ms. Thomas: I would say that 100 per cent of tanker spills are reported, absolutely, but I do not know about the other vessel types. We respond to more incidents of pollution in water than there are spills, per se. A sheen will spread on the water, and we will get on occasion multiple calls to the same source of substance.
The Chair: We were told somewhere, and I cannot remember where but I am sure it was in this committee, that the Coast Guard has the ability to look for spills by airplane and can detect something as small as one litre in the ocean. Can you confirm that?
Ms. Thomas: Transport Canada has over-flights looking for marine pollution, and they can find less than one litre from the air. At this time last year, we had an upwelling of bunker C from a sunken vessel. It was about three tablespoons of substance and it could be detected from the air. It is a very accurate method.
The Chair: That is good to know.
Senator Mitchell: I want to pursue the chart. Obviously it has captured our imagination; we like numbers.
I observe that between 2010 and 2011 almost every region had a reduction in spills. Some of the spills were not insignificant: in the Maritimes, 162 in 2010 and 133 in 2011; and in Quebec, 198 in 2010 and 156 in 2011. Only one went up, Central and Arctic Region with 86 in 2010 and 97 in 2011. Is it purely coincidental that that happened or has there been some policy or process change? Was the weather better?
Ms. Thomas: I would say it was coincidental.
Senator Mitchell: Someone said ``good government,'' so that would not be true.
Jacqueline Gonçalves, Director General, National Strategies, Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: We find that the statistics vary from year to year. Currently, we have displayed only two years. There are many factors, such as the weather, the state of the sea and the types of vessels going out. It varies from year to year.
Senator Mitchell: The chair was trying to get at this question of ``compared to what'' in another way. How many ship trips are involved?
Ms. Thomas: Millions.
Senator Mitchell: You have four times as many spills in the Pacific region as you have in Newfoundland. Are there four times as many ship trips?
Ms. Thomas: There are numerous factors. In B.C. we receive more calls. The recreational boating season is longer. There are more small spills from recreational boats because there are more boats in the water year-round. Weather can play a role; the length of the fishing season can play a role; and ice in the water can play a role because there can be spills on ice during various fishing seasons, such as the seal hunt which is on now. If it is an active season, the number of reported incidents can go up. It depends on how vessels are being used. The number of tanker spills seems to be consistent and tanker movements are consistent in and out of Canada. We will get the total number as Transport Canada has that data.
The big variables are the small vessels, the age of the vessels, the weather and the experience of the masters. Many factors go into it.
Senator Mitchell: You alluded to a report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I am not sure if part of that report applied to you but I want to be sure. Companies need to have response plans for pipeline spills on land. You require that of shipping companies as well. Does the Coast Guard have a role and responsibility in reviewing those plans?
Ms. Thomas: We have no role in spills on land, and we are not the regulator, which is Transport Canada's job. Yes, ships are required to have plans, as ports are required to do.
Senator Mitchell: We heard an interesting presentation by someone from a pilot's association who talked about helicoptering pilots out into the Hecate Strait, because it is required along the coasts but not so much in the middle. What do you think about that channel and the value of making it compulsory to helicopter pilots out?
Ms. Thomas: Any opinion we would offer would be a personal opinion. The panel looks at the risk for marine pollution and tanker safety, and we await the outcome of the panel. Certainly, the Canadian Coast Guard is in favour of more safety.
Senator Mitchell: Excellent.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: I am looking at the same statistics. I see, for instance, that for Pac, the Pacific region, there were 591 incidents. The figure is 156 for Quebec. Our understanding from previous witnesses was that the Quebec region saw a lot more cargo ships than the Pacific coast, given the higher population density. If that is true, how do you explain Quebec's 156 incidents versus the 591 incidents in the Pacific region?
[English]
Ms. Thomas: It very much depends on the length of the shipping season. The St. Lawrence Seaway and the Gulf of St. Lawrence are frozen, and for this year it seems like a very long time. Generally, it is not navigable for six months of the year except when escorting with icebreakers. The majority of the spills are from small vessels, and that season is simply shorter. That is absolutely the reason. We get called more for incidents in the Pacific region, but we are not quite sure why that is.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Does it have to do with the fact that the waters are rougher on the Pacific coast, more dangerous?
Ms. Gonçalves: It has to do with the length of the season and the type of vessel. It is true that there is more cargo vessel movement on the east coast, but there are a lot more small vessels moving through the Pacific region.
Senator Massicotte: Clearly, you have a vital role in our country's environment. It is hard for us, as experts, to determine whether measures are adequate or satisfactory, whether you are at the top of the class, so to speak, but do you ever compare your efforts with other countries' response plans?
Is there a way to rank yourselves according to success factors?
[English]
Ms. Thomas: I do not think there is a ranking. Our plans for an environmental response are on par with the rest of the world, and we train with the U.S., multiple times a year, in every region of the country — on the East Coast, on the lakes, on the West Coast, in the river and in the Arctic. We do international exercises, so we certainly are comparable in terms of our education, our response and our ability to respond to other countries.
In terms of the services we provide, like icebreaking, which provide a safe environment for vessels to transit, we are world leaders.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: You mentioned the user-pay principle. How much do you spend annually? Furthermore, why not recover a higher portion of the cost from those benefitting from your services?
Ms. Gonçalves: We have two ways of recovering our costs. We have base funding that represents the preparedness component of service delivery, and it is covered by a government appropriation that totals about $10 million annually. That covers the salaries of our 75 responders and equipment costs. We also have the incident response component. We have the authority to recover the cost of going to a site or responding to a specific incident. We recover those costs in two ways, either directly from the polluter, or we access the Canadian-established fund to recover costs.
Senator Massicotte: In 2011-12, how much did you take in from clients who used your services?
Ms. Gonçalves: It varies greatly from one year to the next.
Senator Massicotte: Roughly speaking?
Ms. Gonçalves: I know that our base funding is $10 million, but I would prefer to send the information on the cost recovery portion afterwards.
Senator Massicotte: Are we talking one or two million? Ten to twenty million?
Ms. Gonçalves: No, it is not that high.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Being a senator for Nunavut, I would like to focus on the Arctic marine pollution response. I note that the Arctic is the one region where there was an increase in incidents between 2010-11.
You said that there are 75 trained responders located in three regions. Which three regions, please?
Ms. Gonçalves: The slide represents previous years where the Coast Guard was organized around five regions — Newfoundland, Maritime, et cetera. In this past year, we have reorganized and amalgamated a number of the regions into three, so we cover the same geographic area of Canada. It is just that now we are organized around three regions.
Senator Patterson: What are they called?
Ms. Gonçalves: They are the Atlantic, which amalgamated Newfoundland and the Maritimes; Central and Arctic, which amalgamated the old Central and Arctic and Quebec; and Pacific, which is now called Western because the border has shifted over to Manitoba. Those are the new regions.
Senator Patterson: The community packs in the Arctic are for small-scale spills. Could you briefly describe what they contain and whether there are any plans to provide community packs for the eight Nunavut communities that are not listed since they are all supplied by oil tanker annually? There are 27 communities. You have 19 packs. Are there plans to augment that?
Ms. Thomas: At this time, we do not have the funding to augment the community packs. We do have the ones you have mentioned, plus three very large packs that we can deploy rapidly should there be a larger-scale spill. Ms. Gonçalves can explain to you what the packs contain in terms of equipment.
Ms. Gonçalves: The packs themselves will have standard equipment to deal with the type of spill that will happen when a product is being transshipped between a vessel and land — things like a boom to contain a spill, skimmers, small aluminum boats and those types of standard equipment that would be used for those types of spills.
Senator Patterson: The larger packs are, I think, located in what I call the Western Arctic — Inuvik, Tuk and Hay River. Have you thought of locating one of those larger-scale response capabilities anywhere in Nunavut because that is a big coast?
Ms. Gonçalves: We have located those rapidly transportable packs where there is an opportunity to deploy them quickly to other areas of the Arctic. Based on current risk assessments, for the time being I think we are satisfied that they are positioned appropriately. However, I think that Ms. Thomas mentioned earlier that Transport Canada is leading a risk assessment of the Arctic and that a report will be coming out in the next year and a half. Once we have the results of those risk assessments and the recommendations of the panel, we will reassess to see whether or not there is a need to deploy that type of equipment elsewhere.
Senator Patterson: I am very pleased about the Arctic Council agreement on international collaboration. You expect that will be signed in May at the Arctic Council meeting in Sweden. Could you tell me if that agreement is public yet or, if not, if it could be made available to our committee when it is made public?
Ms. Gonçalves: My understanding is that the agreement itself is not yet public, but it will be as soon as it is presented for approval at the ministerial meeting in Sweden May 15.
Senator Patterson: I think we should ask for that.
The Chair: For anything that you say you will respond to, just do it through the clerk.
Senator Lang: I would like to draw our attention to the West Coast. I assume that you are very much involved with everything that goes on there and that you know the history from the point of view of spills. We had a representative here from the Pacific Pilotage Authority who indicated to the committee that the number of tankers presently coming into the Port of Vancouver was about 50 per cent less than what was there 10 years ago, primarily because of the size of the vessels. They increased the size of the vessels, so the number of vessels coming up through that strait was substantially less. Fifty per cent might be exaggerating a bit, but it was substantially less.
Can you verify that there is substantially less tanker traffic? That is of concern to the people who live in Vancouver. If there is an increase in tanker traffic, how does that relate to the Coast Guard and all of the other authorities to manage this and ensure that there will not be an environmental spillage?
Ms. Thomas: We cannot verify the numbers. Transport Canada keeps those kinds of statistics and would be able to make them available to you. However, there is absolutely no doubt that tankers are getting larger. The post-Panamax vessels going through the St. Lawrence, for example, are significantly larger. As a result, we have had to adjust how we manage navigation systems. We have had to add aids to navigation in the Port of Vancouver and other locations so that the larger vessels can maneuver, but as for the delta as a result of it, I am not aware of that number. Transport Canada tracks that information.
Senator Lang: According to the witness, the numbers were substantially less than everyone at the hearing that evening expected. It was an interesting statistic in view of what has been brought forward in public with respect to those in opposition to increased tanker traffic. I do not think most Canadians are aware of that fact. I think that organizations such as yours should ensure that people are aware exactly what we are realistically speaking of as we move ahead because these issues are important to Canadians.
I want to go through another area that you referred to earlier, namely, the World Class Tanker Safety System announced on March 18. It goes on to state, ``. . . which will allow it to respond more effectively to an incident and integrate its operation with key partners as part of the program.''
Could you give us details on how the Canadian Coast Guard Incident Command System will enhance the effectiveness of incident responses compared to the current system? What are we doing differently than what we were doing before? My understanding was that prior to this announcement our system was comparable to anywhere else in the world.
Ms. Thomas: You are correct. Our response on water has always been very effective and we have responded to every pollution incident that we have been called to. Incident Command gives us a set of tools to operate with other agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Navy, provinces, other coast guards, communities and stakeholders, so that all the information they are using to manage spills, or to help provide information so that we can manage spills, is collected and considered in the decision-making process to manage a very large incident. It was used in the Gulf. It was the system that allowed information to be parsed and analyzed so that action could be taken in the Gulf in the Deepwater Horizon incident. It is used in many federal government agencies, in multiple provinces and by other coast guards as a series of tools that help you make decisions to respond. It is not the equipment you use on water to respond, it is how you manage the information that you need to make the appropriate response; that is, how you engage other partners so that it is a truly integrated response whenever you have a large-scale incident. We will use it for environmental response and for other incidents, such as search and rescue, so that we are interoperable with our partner agencies and can provide a more effective response for Canadians.
Senator Seidman: I had a question about the Incident Command System, so we will follow from where Senator Lang left off. You are talking about a decision analysis tool, I guess.
Ms. Thomas: Yes.
Senator Seidman: You say here ``with emergency response partners.'' One of the things that came up consistently around the safety aspect of things, and certainly came up in the Gulf, is who was responsible for command and control? Who is really making the decisions and who is in charge? I think we heard in our committee hearings that the Coast Guard is in charge. Could you tell us if that is the case and how this new Incident Command System deals with that aspect, if it does?
Ms. Thomas: Yes, the Coast Guard is responsible. We are in charge if there is an on-water pollution event. Whether we are there as the federal monitoring officer, the on-scene commander or doing the response, we are in charge.
The system allows us to manage the information and the actions of partners. To break it down to its simplest level, no one is working at cross-purposes with each other. We understand the implications of action B versus C, and we know what each individual player in the system will do because it is built on a structure known by all the partners. We know what the logistics lead will do; we know what the operational lead will do. We know what we do at a national level. It allows the national organization, namely us in Ottawa, to understand what is happening on the water for a major or even a minor incident, and they understand what we are doing. It stops the questioning of who is doing what because everyone understands it and the system is integrated across multiple departments. It is about having command and control and about everyone having the same understanding of who is doing what so there are no wasted efforts or resources, no duplication of efforts and no working at cross-purposes with other agencies, which is the last thing you want in a major incident.
Senator Seidman: So you are playing an important coordinating role there, then.
Ms. Thomas: We play multiple roles, yes, a central coordinating role. In some cases, however, we are doing the actual response. This helps us manage that as well.
Senator Seidman: You talked about your training initiatives and courses. Especially under these circumstances that you talk about, where you are working with other response partners, are you involved at all in the training of other response partners or would other enterprises train their people?
Ms. Thomas: Ms. Gonçalves can respond in more detail, but at a high level we work with partners in other governments. We are constantly exercising and training. We have a training plan for our responders, that is, the people who do the actual hands-on response. We also have a training program that we have commenced from the commissioner down to the responder, that entire range of individuals within the Coast Guard, who all play a role in a response. They are all being trained in Incident Command on what they do. There is the Incident command system training that we will exercise within the Coast Guard and then with partners, but training is also done for the technical experts in cleaning up a response.
Senator Seidman: We heard there are co-ops and various private organizations that do some of this work in terms of emergency response. Do you have any role in training those people at all?
Ms. Gonçalves: We would focus in on the key players that would be assisting us with a response. For example, we would be working closely with, as Ms. Thomas mentioned, the U.S. Navy, the other coast guards, the U.S. Coast Guard, the provinces and territories, and response organizations. We would exercise with any key players that would have a specific decision-making role or response role, and we would also ensure that everyone has the same type of training so that we can ensure the search capacity required to deal with a major incident.
Senator Wallace: I want to follow up on Senator Seidman's question to understand the role the Coast Guard plays in two ways: one, in the event of a spill; and, two, in the approval of spill response plans by spill response organizations. I will start with that.
There are private sector organizations in Canada that provide spill response capability. There are some on the East Coast, the West Coast and in the St. Lawrence. Does the Coast Guard approve their plans and are you able to confirm that satisfactory personnel are in place and that they have a plan and are able to respond if incidents occur? Does the Coast Guard approve those plans?
Ms. Thomas: Transport Canada is the regulator of the regime, so they approve the plans.
Senator Wallace: Yes, but the Coast Guard itself?
Ms. Thomas: We are the operator, so we are responsible for the on-water response and we will work with response organizations. However, it is a matrix response regime in Canada, so Transport Canada is the regulator and they manage the regime; we respond.
Senator Wallace: As we sort this and understand how the regime works in Canada, as you pointed out in the Arctic, the Coast Guard actually provides the personnel, the equipment and the response if an event occurs, correct?
Ms. Thomas: Yes.
Senator Wallace: If an event occurs anywhere else in Canadian waters, I understand that the Coast Guard does not provide a direct response or the direction in responding to that event; rather, it is the vessel owner, through the spill response organization that it is contracted with, which is a private organization, that actually takes control of it?
Ms. Thomas: There are multiple answers to that question. The vessel itself can be the responder. If the vessel cannot respond, they can contract with a response organization; or the Canadian Coast Guard can respond if it is a mystery spill — that is, where we do not know what the source of the pollution is — or if the polluter is unable to respond or refuses to respond, then we do the actual on-water response.
Senator Wallace: Sure, but when they are able to respond — that is, the events occur and they have their spill response organization in place — to clarify, it is not Coast Guard that takes control of the situation. You are not the command and control of that. My understanding is the Coast Guard purposely stayed away from that and left it to the response organizations.
Ms. Thomas: Our role in that case is as federal monitoring officer.
Senator Wallace: To monitor, not take control.
Ms. Thomas: Right; we ensure the response is appropriate.
Senator Wallace: If you look at the responses that have occurred, I realize there were a number of incidents since the 1990s, when this regime was developed. From a Coast Guard perspective, how effective have these independent, private sector response organizations been in responding?
Ms. Gonçalves: Again, with Transport Canada being the regulator, they are responsible for assessing the effectiveness of the response organizations. However, generally from our own observations we would say that they have been fairly effective.
Senator Sibbeston: To the officials, with respect to the reporting of incidents, I was a bit surprised to find that you basically respond to even minimal amounts of fuel in the water. By reporting the way you do, you give the public an image that the Coast Guard is really active, doing a great job for Canadians, but really you are just dealing with little minute spills in many cases, particularly from recreational boats.
Could you not improve, provide another measure of the work that you do rather than just reporting? For instance, the map on page 5 where you show the 2 per cent is really deceiving because the most significant thing, it seems to me, would be pollution by big vessels. Yet they are shown on the map here as little and insignificant as compared to other vessels.
I wonder whether you could provide better information about your work, rather than giving the information as you do. You are giving the impression that in 2012 there were 1,200 incidents, but some of these are just cups of fuel in the water, which is really nothing in the scheme of things.
Ms. Thomas: First, I think the Coast Guard is doing a very good job. Yes, there are different ways we could depict the information and we will get that. I think it is important to show the number of incidents compared to the number of incidents and the number of ship movements. Due to the media and major incidents that come to mind when people think of oil spills — the Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon — we all presume that it has to be large to have an impact. Depending on the substance spilled, a cup of something in the water can damage the environment. It can damage fishing areas, shellfish and so we do respond. That is our job.
We can get you different statistics, but there are a couple of things that are very illustrative of this data. One, the system works. The tanker safety prevention system in this country is effective. The ships that come into the country because of the regime set by Transport Canada are safe. The navigation systems we have put in place are effective because vessels do not readily and easily go aground, not large ones. The pilotage system works and when there is a spill, our response system works. It is a cascade of interventions that ensure the safety of Canadian waters, and this is illustrative of the fact that the system works.
Senator Sibbeston: There is a debate among scientists that deal in climate change. With regard to the Arctic, there is a debate whether it will be 2025 or 2035 when the Arctic will be free of ice so there can be summer passage of vehicles on a large scale. Considering that in 10, 15, 20 years from now the Arctic will be navigated much more, does the World Class Tanker Safety System that has been announced have anything directed towards that eventuality?
Ms. Thomas: The risk assessment being led by Transport Canada has an Arctic portion to it. Since the Arctic is a vast area and we cannot provide the same level of service north of 60 as we do south of 60, it would be impossible to do and there is not a need for it. We want to take the risk assessment being led by Transport Canada and form our services. How we will to plan for our services for the eventuality, if it occurs, that the Arctic is ice free will be based on a risk assessment rather than a smattering of equipment, navigation aids or hydrographic charts everywhere. We will use a very scientific method to define and describe what our services will be and then build upon them.
We always like to remind people that, yes, Arctic ice is breaking up. The Arctic is more dangerous now as a result of that breakup. Multi-year ice is moving south. The weather can change instantly and a vessel that was free of ice 12 hours ago is now surrounded by ice and in need of icebreaker assistance. The Arctic is not by any means the same navigation environment that we have in Southern Canada.
Senator Unger: Regarding increased tanker traffic on the West Coast, what has been the response of industry in terms of cooperating with the Coast Guard?
Ms. Thomas: Industry has been very responsive in terms of cooperating with us. We have a very good relationship with all our stakeholders on the West Coast. We meet with them twice a year. I hear in headquarters that it is constant communication on the coast. They understand what our services are and the level of our services, and we have a very collaborative relationship. A local marine advisory board for British Columbia talks to the Coast Guard on a continual basis about what our level of service should be for them.
Senator Unger: You do not have any concerns or issues about working with them?
Ms. Thomas: No.
Senator Unger: Based on the polluter pays principle, how are costs recovered from the small private boaters who have all these spills?
Ms. Thomas: We respond to most of the small spills out of our A-base of $10 million that Ms. Gonçalves referred to.
Ms. Gonçalves: For most part when you are talking about small spills or recreational vessels, they are usually diesel. If they are small, often there is not a lot to recover and so the costs are minimal in terms of our particular intervention. However, the principle stands, which is that the polluter is responsible so they either take action or if they are unable or unwilling, we will either direct or take action ourselves. That is something where we can cost-recover, but it is not always feasible. We have the option of going to the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund for recovery of our costs if it is deemed necessary.
Senator Unger: Do you have any concerns about the implications of increased oil tanker activity on the West Coast?
Ms. Thomas: We are ready to respond. We think the systems in place and being put in place are effective and the majority of oil that moves in and out of Canada, of substance, is on the East Coast. The system is effective there and the improvements being made on the West Coast will render it very safe.
Senator Unger: Is there a good comparable to be made between the East Coast and the West Coast?
Ms. Thomas: Again, Transport Canada tracks those numbers, but anecdotally we are told 90 per cent of the shipments for oil, for example, are on the East Coast and 10 per cent are on the West Coast at this time.
Senator MacDonald: You just mentioned something that I think is important not to forget: The vast majority of oil in this country is handled on the East Coast. The only drilling is on the East Coast between the oil fields of Newfoundland, the Statia Terminals in Point Tupper and the refinery at Irving. Well in excess of 1.5 million barrels a day are being handled.
You mentioned the Exxon Valdez, but there were two big oil spills on the East Coast of Canada — the Arrow in 1970 in the Chedabucto Bay just west of the Cape Breton, and the Kurdistan in 1979 in the Strait of Canso just east of Cape Breton. You said the system is good and you are confident the system can respond, but we have not had a major oil spill there in 30-some years.
What do we have in place? Do you think it is adequate? How much is provided by the private sector and how much by the government? Where is the equipment located?
Ms. Thomas: We will both answer those questions.
I think that overall Canada has, yes, an adequate response. If there is a major spill, we would rely on our partners just like the Americans did, for example, during the Deepwater Horizon event. We assisted them as did many other countries and we would rely on that kind of bilateral relationship should something be very large.
The system functions. The increase in safety requirements of vessels coming into Canadian waters, the attention and funding that has been spent on navigation systems and navigation aids, and the pilotage regime within Canada have all left the system in very good shape. It ensures that prevention, which is where the majority of the money should be spent, is where the focus has been. You can have all the response organizations and response capacity you want in the world, but you want to ensure there are no spills. The money and the attention have been paid on the prevention side of our regime.
We have a map that shows our location. On slide 8, you can see the yellow dots are Coast Guard equipment depots on the East Coast in particular, and then ROs are the red triangles. The ROs, of course, have very large caches of equipment and vessels. The yellow dots are our equipment depot sites and, of course, we have vessels at sea with equipment on them.
Senator MacDonald: You mention that prevention is the key, and of course it is, but there is always human error.
Ms. Thomas: Yes.
Senator MacDonald: If someone puts a large vessel on the rocks and rips that vessel open, prevention does not really matter.
Ms. Thomas: No, it does not, and human error can play into anything. Hopefully, we have enough checks and balances in the system that that would not occur. The construction of vessels nowadays with the way tanks are contained is that you would have to rip open multiple numbers of tanks to have a massive spill. Ship construction and double hulling have changed the safety environment significantly to the benefit of the safety environment.
The reality is that there can always be that one-in-a-million event. We are trained; we have partners; we have response organizations in place; and we would respond should there be a large event.
Senator MacDonald: Are you confident that we could respond quickly and efficiently to a major oil spill on the East Coast?
Ms. Thomas: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: If someone does not respond, you respond, but you also made a comment that you must come to a judgment whether the response is appropriate and adequate. If it is not, you have the legal authority to take control of the situation.
Ms. Gonçalves: That is right, yes.
Senator Wallace: As we all know, there is new terminal and tanker activity that could take place. There are obviously hurdles to pass, but they could take place on the East Coast and West Coast. The volumes being handled would increase dramatically. Has the Coast Guard done any assessment of what impact that could have on the resources that you would be required to provide?
Ms. Thomas: We will be informed in terms of what will be required from the panel and the risk assessment that is being done by Transport Canada. It is easy to presume and leap to the conclusion that we need to increase capacity or change capacity. We want to be informed by the panel of experts and their discussions with stakeholders, so that is the approach we will take.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. You have provided lots of good information. We appreciate it very much. Thank you for the questions that were answered.
Welcome to the second half of our meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. We are continuing our study on the safe transportation of hydrocarbons in Canada.
I am pleased to welcome, from the Shipping Federation of Canada, Vice-President Anne Legars. I am glad we were able to finally schedule your appearance. We had a snowstorm last time and then our unfortunate meeting cancellation. Thank you very much for being here. Welcome also to your colleague, Jean-François Belzile, Director of Marine Operations.
I would like to thank you both for your flexibility and agreeing to meet with us this evening despite our late start. I apologize. There is nothing we can do to change that and we appreciate that you are taking time out of your busy schedule to be here.
Senators, you will note that we had a change in our agenda. Unfortunately, illness prevents representatives from Western Canada Marine Response Corporation from appearing tonight. At their request, we will reschedule their appearance.
Ms. Legars, please proceed with your opening remarks, after which we will open the floor to questions.
[Translation]
Anne Legars, Vice-President, Shipping Federation of Canada: Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting the Shipping Federation of Canada to appear before you this evening. My opening statement is based strictly on the instructions I was provided with by the committee. First, I will provide an overview of the federation's mandate, focusing on its relationship with its members, the government and the public. And then I will speak to the federation's role in the safety of marine transportation of hydrocarbons in Canada.
[English]
By way of overview of the mandate and administrative operations of the Canadian Shipping Federation, the federation was incorporated in 1903 by an act of Parliament. Our mission is, through leadership and expertise, to act as a voice for shipowners, operators and agents involved in Canada's world trade. We are governed by a number of core values, among which is a commitment to a marine transportation system that is based on the fundamental principles of safety, security and efficiency.
Another core value that we have is a commitment to an environmentally responsible and sustainable marine transportation system, and the development and promotion of best practices.
Our members are the owners, operators and agents of the ocean ships that serve Canada's international trade, and even world trade. We have over 70 members. They represent together over 200 lines, because you have some members who are agents for several lines. We represent all segments of industry — dry bulk, liquid bulk, container ships, international crews, et cetera.
If you want to position yourself among your stakeholders, you must know that we deal strictly with foreign flagships with foreign crews and that carry international cargo. These ships are part of a world fleet that numbers about 50,000 ships and about 1 million crew members — international seafarers — that trade all over the world. That is part of that international world fleet that we represent when they come to Canada.
From a ship perspective, ocean tankers represent about one third of ocean tonnage, and as a matter of fact, crude oil is the commodity that is the most widely traded around the world. As far as the federation is concerned, about 30 per cent of our memberships' activities are linked to tanker business, namely, carriage of oil and oil products.
This being said, for the federation, ``a ship is a ship,'' so we represent all our members on the same footing because whatever the ship is, marine safety is paramount, whatever they carry. Aboard all ships you have oil, not necessarily as cargo, as well as human beings, being the crew, and you have an environment around. All ships are important and the safety of all ships is paramount.
We are a generalist association. You have some specialist trade associations around the globe that are really specialized in the tanker business such as Intertank or ITOPF — the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation — and the Oil Companies International Marine Forum, or OCIMF. These are specialized organizations that have a worldwide mandate and that represent strictly tankers. They are a key source of expertise and development of best practices for this segment of industry.
As for the relationship with our members, we are 100 per cent financed by our members, and we are a trade association. All members are directly involved via district committees that deal with local port operational issues or are involved in standing committees, such as the environment committee, the pilotage committee and the waterways efficiency committee, to name a few.
We provide members with information necessary to help achieve a safe, efficient, competitive, environmentally responsible and quality-oriented marine transportation system.
How does that translate in terms of services? Well, we help members comply with government regulations, where they can maintain a clean record and not be subject to delays and penalty.
We work to ensure that services to ships operating in Canadian waters are available, efficient and reasonably priced. We provide a direct line of communication with government authorities to help members manage operational problems and unforeseen events. We collect, interpret and disseminate information to help members operate the ship safely, efficiently and cost effectively. We develop and promote best practices, and as a trade association we leverage the strength of our membership network to transform individual voices into collective industry actions, and this is a voice to the service providers and to the government.
The relationship with the government and especially with government regulators is an important aspect of our activities. We provide input and comments to regulators in order to ensure that the policies, legislation and regulations related to a shipping industry are workable from an industry and operator's perspective. This is what we call the ``360- degree perspective,'' and it is really a round circle because it starts with the development of policies, legislation, regulations and then programs, with feedback on enforcement and review of the program. Then it is a kind of feedback process with the regulators and with the authorities that enforce the regulations or provide the program.
We participate in dozens of forums, committees and working groups across the country with the representatives of over a dozen federal departments and agencies, such as Transport Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, and Fisheries and Oceans, CBSA, CFIA, Environment Canada, DFAIT, et cetera. We also have bilateral ad hoc meetings when needed with government officials.
With respect to our relationship with the public, most of the above-mentioned forums, committees and working groups are multi-stakeholder in nature, so they include all kinds of associations, including environmental NGOs, or grassroots associations. Generally speaking, it means that our relationship with the public is mostly with an informed public, a public that has a specific interest in marine or shipping matters, or in marine pollution, and that will be part of these groups or forums.
We do not interact that much with the general public unless we have some specific queries from media for comments or in special circumstances or incidents. Otherwise, our relationship with the general public would be conducted on an inter-association basis with other trade associations to raise the profile of the marine industry at large.
To be more specific on our role in the safety of the marine transportation of hydrocarbons, a key message that we will want to pass to this committee is that the safety of marine transportation in general and of hydrocarbons in particular is based on a multi-layered system, which involves the ship and its equipment, the crew, ship management and operations, the flag administration, port state control and enforcement, waterways management, marine communication services and other marine services in support of marine safety, for example, icebreaking, pilotage, tugs, et cetera, classifications societies and insurers.
In addition to this regulated system, there are also a number of voluntary best practices measures that are being developed, generally by trade associations, on a worldwide basis or sometimes on a local basis. I tried to somehow encapsulate all of that in Appendix A that was circulated to the committee, I believe, which is a general table that gives you an idea of the various layers of the system.
The federation's role is to ensure that, from an operator's perspective, this multilayered system functions adequately in Canada and is aligned with the international regime. More specifically, the federation promotes the implementation of international conventions and standards by Canada, advises its membership about Canada's implementation of these standards, and monitors whether there are any compliance or enforcement issues that should be addressed at an industry level.
The federation is also active with local authorities in the management of local navigation challenges, such as ice navigation, or specific waterways which require specific traffic management measures.
Additionally, the federation is proactive in advancing electronic navigation in Canada. The fact that government agencies have installed global positioning systems and automatic identification systems navigation and collision prevention systems has contributed to safety of navigation in Canadian waters, and the only potential deficiency that we can identify is the need for the Canadian Hydrographic Service to do more soundings and produce new charts, especially for the Canadian Arctic.
Regarding activities concerning the planning, preparedness and emergency response operations to marine pollution incidents, we were actively involved in the establishment of Canada's marine oil spill response regime in the 1990s and in Canada's accession to the oil spill prevention, response and cooperation convention. We are still a member of several working groups that work on marine pollution preparedness and response, but we are not involved in the actual response operation in case of accidents.
As far as training and research and development initiatives are concerned, we have some training programs for members, including a periodic refresher course on the transportation of dangerous goods, but we do not have a specific program on planning preparedness and emergency response operations with respect to marine pollution incidents. Rather, we provide members with information and training that is developed by other Canadian organizations, for example, the Canadian Coast Guard, which offers a marine spill response operation course to both government and industry personnel on a sporadic basis with participants covering the costs involved.
We generally promote R & D initiatives by helping researchers and scientists access ships in order to take samples or gather information, or by providing comments on research projects or reports. We participate in R & D projects as an organization, and we have co-sponsored research as inter-industry projects by pooling resources with other industry associations or organizations.
To date, we have not been involved in projects dealing specifically with the marine transportation of hydrocarbons; we had other environmental issues we have been involved in, but no specific R & D on transportation of oil.
In addition to the above, the federation has been very active in promoting research in the field of electronic navigation over the last dozen or so years. The federation is the organizer of the annual Mariners' Workshop that brings together shipping companies, Canadian pilots, mariners, government officials, manufacturers, academics and world specialists to explore issues related to the integration of historical and real-time data as a support to navigation.
We were also one of the original promoters, and we are still a sponsor of, the annual Green Tech Conference and trade show, which is now organized by Green Marine and which displays best environmental practices and green technology for the marine industry, both on the ship side and on the shore side for ports and terminals.
[Translation]
There you have a quick overview of what the federation does, and more specifically with regard to petroleum product shipping in Canada.
I hope I made good use of the time I had for my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer your questions if there is anything you would like to explore further.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much; that was very fulsome.
Senator Mitchell: I am interested in the data on Appendix C that you provided for us. It is quite striking the manner in which accidents have fallen off over time from 1970 through to 2012. In general terms or even specific terms, could you tell us why that might be the case?
Ms. Legars: It is for all kinds of reasons. One of the reasons is that each time you have a catastrophe, one of these big spills, the whole marine community and the government say, ``What can we do so this does not happen again?'' and you ramp up a system. You have new standards coming on, as well as new procedures.
The current result we have is the fruit of 20 years of evolution, including upgrading standards and better practices, stronger enforcement and all of that. It is also nurturing a culture of safety that was maybe not that strong a generation ago.
I would say it is the result of an evolution to the point that we have virtually no spills; we have a few, but we are at a very low level.
Senator Mitchell: In this chart for 2012, what exact number would that be in? These are world-wide figures, so what would be in the whole world?
Ms. Legars: It was seven spills of what we call medium size, which is between 7 and 700 tonnes. That is around the globe. No spills were over that.
Senator Mitchell: Do you know offhand how many barrels are in 700 tonnes?
Jean-Francois Belzile, Director, Marine Operations, Shipping Federation of Canada: A tonne is a cubic metre.
Senator Mitchell: Maybe I am unique in this thought, but I have this sense that there is a spill and out come the spills teams. They put out the booms and they capture and mop it up, but there must be equipment on the ships themselves, presuming that only one of their sections would get punctured. Now it is spewing and they are not sinking. What type of equipment does a tanker have to capture its own spill?
Ms. Legars: As a general thing, all ships need to have a plan on board; it is mandatory.
[Translation]
It is a spill response plan.
[English]
It is part of the plan, and a person is responsible for overseeing it. That is for all ships. For tankers, Mr. Belzile can expand on the answer.
Mr. Belzile: Every ship carrying oil normally carries a boom that can prevent any oil from spreading around. Normally the ship will also be equipped with a work boat to wrap this oil sheen with the boom.
While that would prevent the beginning of a spill, the emergency plan Ms. Legars referred to would also have the ship triggering an emergency situation requiring emergency response from a responsible organization that would come to assist in mitigating the spill.
The response capacity of the ship to a major spill is limited.
Senator Mitchell: There is a sense that the shipping company has a liability. They would have insurance, and there are certain kinds of funds in Canada, for example, and international help. However, there is a suggestion that companies will make a ship a company, in and of itself, and thereby limit their liability. How do we protect ourselves against that type of technique, or is that an issue?
Ms. Legars: Actually, it is not an issue in terms of oil pollution because you have a liability that is attached to the ship; it is not to the company but is on a per-ship basis, based on the tonnage of a ship. It is attached to the ship, and the ship has to have an insurance certificate that shows that its liability is covered to the top.
Senator Mitchell: What would the top be?
Ms. Legars: The top depends on the tonnage of the ship, but the maximum for a ship is about $140 million.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you all for being here this evening. This is very informative.
Appendix C shows that, over the past 10 or 15 years, in the wake of all the changes that were made, there have been very few major marine oil spills.
Would I be right in saying that you can tell the whole world that the risk is minimal, that people do not have to worry, that your company is respecting the environment and that the problem does not lie with you?
Ms. Legars: The problem is not with us. As I said, crude cargo is what is shipped the most. About a quarter of everything carried around the world, meaning world trade tonnage, is crude. And yet, despite that, in 2012 — the figures for the previous years also being quite low — there were 7 medium-sized spills, so between 7 and 7,000 tonnes and that is around the world. Canada is part of the world, and I am speaking of the globe. Obviously, we cannot know what country the next accident will happen in, but spills are few and small in size.
Senator Massicotte: So there are relatively few.
Ms. Legars: Yes, very few, especially when you consider the volume that is being moved 365 days of the year, in good weather and bad, around the world.
Senator Massicotte: The global situation is a factor. And when it comes to the debate we are having here in Canada about exporting oil from the West Coast via pipeline, some experts suggest that certain routes pose a greater risk than others. As a result, there are people who are staunchly opposed to the exporting of oil from the west coast.
As I understand it, then, you see no significant risk to oil cargo exports, is that correct?
Ms. Legars: Yes, your understanding is correct. For us, there is always a risk that comes with navigation anywhere. But the risk is managed.
And this is the result. As soon as vessels adhere to the standards, as soon as you implement regulations, as soon as pilots are available, as soon as the route is managed, the risk becomes a residual one, as we see here.
Senator Massicotte: Are you familiar with the three or four options involving the West Coast? Does one pose a greater risk than the others from a cargo exporting standpoint?
Two or three weeks ago, the minister announced that additional measures would be imposed. Do you think those measures are needed? Can we be confident that, at the end of the day, the risk of marine oil spills will only be minor?
Ms. Legars: The measures the minister announced a few weeks ago are not specific to this project, but instead apply to the entire country. We support those measures being implemented across the country. They include providing incentives to invest in the aerial surveillance of marine environments and ensuring regulations are implemented. Those are things we support for the entire country.
As for the routes and the final measures that will apply to the exporting of oil from certain ports, particularly the Kitimat port, a risk analysis is under way. The industry will live with the final recommendations that emerge with respect to that route.
Senator Massicotte: Are the experts focusing on Kitimat, in particular, because of the route, the currents, the weather risks and immediate climate change concerns? Some have said the risk is too great. But there must be other places in the world that present the same risks? In your expert opinion, can we manage the risk easily? Is it being exaggerated?
Ms. Legars: It is certainly a risk we can manage. Newfoundland has a major oil industry and sees significant marine traffic. The Titanic did, however, go down off the province's coast a hundred years ago. The waters there are rough. And yet the risk is very well-managed in Newfoundland. So there is no reason to think that the risk could not be equally well-managed on the West Coast, provided that everything that should be done is done.
I am not sure whether my colleague had something to add to that.
Mr. Belzile: For all the coastal approaches, pilotage services are provided by experts. As Ms. Legars mentioned, Newfoundland is a more hostile environment for approaching vessels. Nevertheless, thanks to our pilots and our system, we are able to ensure the safe navigation of vessels.
Senator Massicotte: And large tankers like the ULCCs pose no more of a risk?
Mr. Belzile: It is always a matter of risk analysis and risk management. Taking the appropriate measures to control the risk is all that is necessary.
Senator Massicotte: I would like to gain some perspective on things given that we are not experts. It is important that we fully understand your opinion.
What I gather is that it would be a huge mistake for Canada to decide against exporting oil, even from the Kitimat port, because of risk concerns. You seem to be saying that we can manage the risk and should not worry. Is that indeed your assertion?
Mr. Belzile: Precisely.
[English]
Senator Lang: I know the evening is late, but I would like to go back to the government's announcement on March 18 that Ms. Legars referred to regarding the World Class Tanker Safety System and a number of policy decisions: first, the Incident Command System; second, new and modified aids to navigation; and third, modern navigation system.
That is a significant upgrade from where we were. We have been told in the past, prior to this announcement, that our system in place was comparable across the world. Your organization is involved with all of the other shipping companies around the world. In bringing forward the new aids to navigation, hydrographic charts, GPS and other technological advancements, how does Canada compare to other countries such as Russia or any other major shipping country? Canadians should know how we compare around the world.
Mr. Belzile: It is not really Canada because those ships are trading worldwide. The same ships are trading in all other countries. All the ships that are trading in other countries are also trading in Canada. This will be kind of standardized.
One thing that we may have in Canada which is superior to what is in other parts of the world is the pilot's portable unit, which is an individual portable computer that each pilot carries. It is fitted with extra precise GPS devices, which is an electronic chart that feeds them with all the navigational notices and all the latest hydrometric data and tide gauges. As far as the pilots are concerned, they are working with state-of-the-art equipment. Otherwise, ships meet the international requirements.
Senator Lang: Maybe I was not clear in my question. I understand that ships, over the next number of years, will be required to be double-hulled. That is no longer a question.
My question is about what we require from our piloting authority, from the requirement for electronic technology that is involved coming into our ports, and all the other steps and measures we have put in place, whether by the Coast Guard, Transport Canada or the pilotage authority. Do other countries have those things? Do they require that enforcement, or are we ahead in some of these areas compared to others from the point of view of these safety measures? For example, we require that a pilot be knowledgeable of the port to help escort a shop into port. Does every country require that? Is that an international requirement or a Canadian one?
Mr. Belzile: It is an international requirement, but the rules are set by Canada as the risks are assessed for each individual Canadian area. There are four pilotage authorities in Canada: the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Great Lakes and the Laurentian. Each individual pilotage authority under the pilotage regulations is responsible for his jurisdiction, evaluates and assesses the risks, and assures pilot training and their certification.
Senator Wallace: The spill response regime we have in place in Canada, as you mentioned, was developed in the mid-1990s. Your organization participated in developing those rules. As we have come to learn, that regime brings together the private sector spill response organizations, the obligations that vessel owners have, and the possible situation of the Coast Guard. You probably heard the comments made by people from the Coast Guard before you arrived.
From your perspective, how has that worked? Has it been an effective marriage of the bureaucrats, the government, the private sector response organizations and the vessel owners? When incidents have occurred, how effective has that system been in responding to incidents and recovering oil that is lost in the water?
Ms. Legars: The short answer is that it has worked very well. When we start thinking about how we will upgrade that, what we will do with HNS, which are not covered yet but will be covered soon, we start with what we have. We say, ``Can we improve it?'' Basically, we think the model works well. The only thing we can see is that this kind of public-private model has worked well.
Senator Wallace: In responding to actual incidents. That has been your experience?
Ms. Legars: Absolutely, yes.
Senator Wallace: You also mentioned, in response to Senator Massicotte's question about spill response, the spill response equipment that is on vessels, as well as what the spill response organizations have. It is my understanding that the oil handling terminals also have spill response plans and spill response equipment. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Belzile: I am not that familiar with the equipment fitted on the oil terminals, but we could get the information for you. I specialize more on ships.
Senator Wallace: I just wanted to get confirmation that that response capability exists at terminals as well, that there is another layer.
Ms. Legars: Yes, the ship is responsible for itself and the terminal for itself, so it is cumulative.
Senator Wallace: In your experience, when you look at where the greatest number of incidents occur, am I correct that typically that happens at a terminal either during the loading or discharging of a vessel, as opposed to when the vessel is at sea or approaching the coast? It is really a terminal issue.
Ms. Legars: A lot happens in terminals or ports, very small leaks when bunkering.
Last year we did an exercise. We went into the annual reports of the Canadian Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund, the one who pays when the shipowner does not pay. Basically, they open a file each time there is a potential liability for them, even if they do not pay because the shipowner will pay for it. It is a good database of cases because it has been opened as a file. You can follow it year after year. What you find is that a big number of cases were actually small, derelict fishing vessels or pleasure craft, abandoned or semi-abandoned in ports or harbours. The Coast Guard was afraid that it would leak, or sometimes it just started to leak, and they decided to put it aside and pump the oil and fix it. That is — I do not remember exactly — something like 25 per cent of the cases. It is really small quantities, most of the time in ports, and, when it is commercial vessels like cargo vessels, it is very often when bunkering or having some port operations.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentations and your answers. They were very fulsome, and I think we all learned an awful lot about shipping. I very much appreciate your time in coming out this late for us to be able to complete this meeting.
Ms. Legars: It was our pleasure.
(The committee adjourned.)