Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 44 - Evidence - November 21, 2018
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 21, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 6:46 p.m. to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 22 and 23 of Part 4 of Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures; and in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: This evening we are continuing our study of the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 22 and 23 of Part 4 of Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018, and other measures.
We will hear from two panels of witnesses then proceed in camera to discuss a draft report on our study of this bill so we can give instruction so they can begin writing while we carry on with our future meetings.
For our first panel today we are pleased to welcome, from the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, by video conference, Michael Lowry, Manager, Communications. Welcome, Mr. Lowry.
From Québec-Océan, Mathieu Cusson, Professor, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi. Thank you for attending our meeting.
Michael Lowry, Manager, Communications, Western Canada Marine Response Corporation: Thank you, honourable senators, for your time today and for the invitation.
I’d like to provide an overview first of how our organization works within the current Canadian spill response regime. I’ll talk about Canada’s polluter-pay model, then we’ll talk about some of the response planning we are initiating on the coast, and finally I will provide our opinion on the amendments as proposed.
Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, or WCMRC, is the only Transport Canada-certified marine response organization on Canada’s West Coast. On average we respond to 20 typically small spills each year.
WCMRC has successfully responded to oil spills for more than 40 years, starting in 1976 as Burrard Clean. We became Canada’s first certified response organization under the amended Canada Shipping Act in 1995.
Our mandate under that Shipping Act is to ensure that there is a state of preparedness in place when a marine spill occurs and to mitigate the impacts on B.C.’s coast. This includes the protection of wildlife, economic and environmental sensitivities and the safety of both responders and the public. Our mandate covers 27,000 kilometres of B.C. coastline out to 200 nautical miles from shore, meaning our work is often extremely remote.
WCMRC is certified by Transport Canada as a response organization under Canada’s Marine Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Regime. Transport Canada sets spill response planning standards, and WCMRC must demonstrate that we meet those standards to maintain our certification.
WCMRC has been meeting the Transport Canada-recommended response standards with an average response time of approximately 60 minutes in the Lower Mainland over the last 10 years.
Moving to the polluter pay model, Canada does have a polluter pay model for spill response, and WCMRC is an industry-funded organization with more than 2,300 members. Membership is mandatory for vessels of a certain size calling on Canadian ports as well as for oil handling facilities receiving or shipping oil across their docks. Members are required to pay an annual preparedness fee to ensure they will receive WCMRC’s response services, including equipment and supplies in the event that they pollute.
Our fees cover our annual operating costs. They do not cover the costs WCMRC incurs when responding to a spill, which, as per Canada’s Marine Liability Act, must be paid by the polluter. Profits earned by WCMRC from a spill are either reinvested in the organization or used to offset future operating costs and lower fees.
With regard to planning, to help plan and prepare for spills on Canada’s West Coast, WCMRC has developed a coastal mapping program that gathers existing data to identify coastal sensitivities including ecological, cultural and economic resources. Field teams then ground-truth this data and develop protection strategies for these at-risk resources.
These strategies, called Geographic Response Strategies, or GRSs, are entered into the mapping application which catalogues the logistical, environmental and operational data for each GRS. In the early hours of an incident, the tool is used by the response teams to geolocate GRSs and gather the data required to implement them. This allows for the most efficient deployment of response resources, maximizing coastal protection, reducing response times and minimizing risk.
The coastal mapping program is founded on a partnership with coastal communities. Coastal and First Nations communities can get involved in spill response planning through a number of avenues, including providing data and hosting equipment packages. To date, we have developed more than 400 GRSs for the Salish Sea.
With regard to the proposed amendments, we support the federal government’s Oceans Protection Plan and share the government’s commitment to improving marine safety, responsible shipping and to protect Canada’s marine environment. We understand the importance of doing this in partnership with Indigenous communities.
The proposed changes to the Canada Shipping Act further clarify the powers and authority of the Canadian Coast Guard to protect Canada’s coasts from environmental damage. We support these changes and believe strong Coast Guard leadership during an incident is essential.
The proposed changes to the Marine Liability Act are aligned with changes first proposed by the Tanker Safety Expert Panel in 2013. By removing per incident limits and improving the Coast Guard’s ability to access these funds, the proposed amendments help to modernize how the fund operates.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Cusson.
[Translation]
Mathieu Cusson, Professor, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Québec-Océan: Senators, thank you for inviting me to appear before your committee. I have prepared a brief presentation to give you some context for the subject I want to address.
First of all, I represent the Québec-Océan organization, a group of approximately 200 persons who work in oceanography in Quebec. I also represent the Notre Golfe network, which was established in response to the possibility that the Old Harry site, located in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, might go into operation.
On page 2 of my presentation, I state that rising demand for oil will boost traffic, which, in turn, will put increasing pressure on ecosystems. Here I’m talking about pressure and stress, more specifically noise, light, waves and collisions between ships and with marine mammals. In addition, the more traffic there is, the greater the risk of invasive species.
One of the responses to the possibility that Old Harry may go into operation has been the formation of a group of some 40 researchers who work in various areas of health, social science and law. Last year, we published a book entitled Hydrocarbons in the Gulf of St. Lawrence: Social, economic and environmental issues. I believe you already have a copy, although the document is easy to find on the Internet.
Assessing the impact of hydrocarbons on ecosystems is a dicey business because we don’t have much information, and what we do have to date is fragmentary and comes from limited-scale laboratories in the basins.
Accidents unfortunately occur, but they help us understand intervention mechanisms and the way problems spread through networks of constituents within ecosystems. All accidents are different. Allow me to present a few. The data we have collected concern only certain examples.
For example, when an accidental spill occurs, we often make extensive use of chemical dispersants to eliminate oil or disperse it in fine particles, as was the case in the Deepwater Horizon incident. This looks very good for companies because then they don’t have to remove hydrocarbons from coastlines. They’re very easy to use and far less costly than other solutions. However, there are toxic consequences.
The same is true of coastline cleanups. It isn’t visually appealing for the media, and this picture shows the cleanup effort that followed the Exxon Valdez spill. The use of high-pressure hoses has the effect of removing or altering the species that adhere to the substrates. It also prevents affected areas from responding and recovering quickly.
As you can see on page 7, the effects of hydrocarbons on the ecosystem and phytoplankton occur very rapidly. When I say communities, I mean biological communities that, in many instances, react very quickly by increasing the number of a few species that will shockingly dominate and feed on hydrocarbons. The same is true of zooplankton, which consists of small organisms at the bottom of the food chain that are very important and highly impacted.
As you can see on page 8, the problems for macroinvertebrates and fish are even more obvious, as some organisms filter water and momentarily stop when they sense that something is in it. At some point, these organisms will die, suffocate or accumulate. A phenomenon of bioaccumulation occurs among many crustaceans, particularly shrimp.
Crustacean numbers are highly affected and their populations take much longer to re-establish themselves. Furthermore, as a result of bioaccumulation in animal tissues, certain crustaceans and even certain fish will take on an oily taste that makes them unsaleable. In short, some very significant factors must be considered with respect to the fisheries.
Most strikingly, birds and mammals are curiously the first animals affected. Since they live at the surface of the water, oils and hydrocarbons adhere to their tissues, their feathers or fur, and that prevents proper insulation. Consequently, they often die of hypothermia or from ingesting hydrocarbons through preening. This is often the case of ducks, which ingest petroleum products as they clean themselves.
We have observed that ecological follow-up studies are rare in the case of reported accidents. For example, small marine organisms quite quickly exhibit what we call community resilience. This may take several years for bottom-dwelling animals. As I mentioned earlier, it can take several years for fish. The problems we encountered following the Exxon Valdez spill, even after the disasters during the Gulf War, may even persist until the present.
Turning now to page 11, concerning ecosystem functioning, it’s important to understand that everything depends on the constituents of ecosystems. For example, we’re talking about the food chain, from small producers to fish, and it’s in fact the equilibrium among these constituents that enables ecosystems to function better. When I say function, I mean, for example, respiration and nutrient recycling. Also, when we talk about the functions that serve us as human beings, we see this aspect as a service that’s very easy to quantify. With regard to fisheries, it’s a highly anthropocentric view to say that the environment is useful solely because it provides us with something. However, we see many functions that help us in very indirect ways, such as cleanup and so on.
We’ve also seen from some studies that the more species are affected in the communities, the better they recover. So there is a tool to keep ecosystems and ecosystem diversity intact. The fact that there are many species ensures that, when one species is affected, others can take over. That’s a guarantee against multiple disruptions, as I mentioned. There are very few places where only one problem occurs at a time because problems naturally arise simultaneously. These problems rarely add on to each other. It’s more a synergistic or antagonistic effect where there may be what scientists call ecological surprises that we don’t expect and that exhibit something new. It’s very difficult to monitor populations in this way.
If a spill occurs in the St. Lawrence in winter, we’ll be in trouble because of the ice cover. As the photograph on page 13 shows, highly complex vortices can form at the surface, and layers of water and currents at depth run counter to those at the surface. In the Laurentian Channel, which is very deep, currents rise from the depths across the entire gulf, from the estuary to the town of Tadoussac, where whales go to feed.
As you can see, the formation of sea ice creates small channels where oil can be absorbed. That literally has a sponging effect, and, in the image on page 15, we show the problems that may occur when oil enters the crevasses, flows under the ice, becomes incorporated in the ice, forming a kind of lens, and then disappears not to reappear until spring at a distant location since blocks of ice are propelled by wind. It’s difficult to predict the impact of a potential spill, but it would likely be catastrophic, particularly in winter.
Biological communities may respond quickly and be affected over long periods of time. That will have an impact on the services they provide for human beings. Biodiversity may play a role.
With respect to the proposed amendments, a rapid response could clearly be beneficial, and I’m glad to hear that. However, bear in mind that it may take many years for biologists to understand the mechanisms underlying these impacts, as well as their extent and duration, and it’s very hard to compare them because it’s difficult to view reference sites. Consequently, access to more research is needed, particularly on the St. Lawrence system, which is highly complex.
That’s it. Thank you. I’m prepared to answer your questions.
Senator Cormier: My question is for you, Mr. Cusson. On the one hand, I understand you have research expertise, which is quite obvious from the way you talk about the issues involved in this entire relationship between industry and the fisheries. My question is more along the lines of how, in your field of research, your knowledge is transferred to industry. How do you work? Do you work with industry, and how is your knowledge transferred to industry? Do you think, from what you’ve seen, that the bill permits and promotes the use of your research for industry and the environment?
Mr. Cusson: That’s an excellent question, and it’s very important. One of the roles of a researcher — and it isn’t a choice — is to communicate. We use public funds to conduct research that must be done diligently, and we must communicate our results. Now, we do that in various ways. Our group, Québec-Océan, does it through students and various conferences that we hold. We have sessions where the public sometimes is invited to come and speak with us. We also have contacts with researchers at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We clearly have an advantage from an academic standpoint because we have academic freedom that helps us in that respect.
We also have projects that we conduct with riverside communities. I do a lot of work on coastlines, with the ZIPs, which are the areas of prime concern, which have stakeholders on site. As soon as we have data or knowledge, we can convey it to them.
Now, with regard to the provisions of the bill that might help us, it isn’t clear how that will happen. I would say we’re asked virtually every day to give lectures and transmit our knowledge to the general public.
This is also done at various levels. Depending on our field of expertise, certain aspects will be easier to communicate, such as those pertaining to the marine transportation industry. I talk about the risks associated with storms and currents, and that’s somewhat less prominent because I do a lot more work on biodiversity. That’s done with the museums in my region.
Senator Cormier: Do you have any ideas on how the departments should coordinate their efforts to protect the environment and species? Given your knowledge of the public work the department does with industry and the research community, do you have any ideas that could help us and that might be included in the bill or regulations?
Mr. Cusson: The members of the advisory committee at Québec-Océan come from industry — I’ll forward their names to you — and are more aware of our major orientations. We have many colleagues who work at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and we find it very easy to work with them. I know there are very well written intervention procedures. We’ve tried to identify clearly the areas of prime concern on the coastlines; they have all that at their fingertips and can react in very short order.
I believe rapid intervention is now necessary in the event of a spill, even a moderate one. I imagine a new provision in the act could help Fisheries and Oceans Canada take quick action in that event.
Senator Cormier: I see. Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for being here. I’d like to continue along the same lines as my colleague because we are here to assess the merits of the amendments the government proposes to make to its statutes. We’ve heard the industry say it can monitor itself, “When a problem arises and we have to slow down, we can do it without interim orders and increased powers for the authorities.” I’d like to know whether you think the industry can monitor itself and decide on procedure when problems arise with marine mammals and oil spills, or whether you think additional powers such as interim orders or larger fines are essential for the ecology.
[English]
Do you want to start, sir?
Mr. Lowry: Yes, I can go first. Thank you for the question. I can’t speak for the shipping industry, but certainly I’ve witnessed on the West Coast a lot of leadership from that industry in terms of voluntary slowdowns for vessels, support for the eco-program, which looks at the impact of noise on southern resident killer whales, and certainly I would let that industry speak for itself.
On the response side, we have continually gone above and beyond what our requirements are from Transport Canada under the Shipping Act. On the West Coast, certainly, we feel we are continually pushing past what those requirements are. We are continuing to move past where we need to be.
I do feel that these changes are very beneficial, particularly for the Coast Guard. Under the current regime, the Coast Guard has a lot of powers, but I feel these changes help to clarify and solidify those powers. Any chance we could have to make sure that the Coast Guard has the power to lead a response and be that ultimate authority, I think that will be a net positive for the coast.
[Translation]
Mr. Cusson: Two questions come to mind on that subject. First, the question whether the private sector can respond to ecological emergencies makes no sense. The ecology has no borders and seeks no profit.
I have little knowledge of the collection or cleaning industry. In my view, only the Coast Guard or Fisheries and Oceans Canada should have full powers over what should be done. Many of the experts they employ hold doctorates, understand what scientific research is and can therefore rely on the most recent data. I think they’d be the ideal entities to be assigned full powers and to respond quickly.
As a first responder, of course, every polluting industry must have — and I think they do — clear protocols on the way to notify authorities when a spill occurs. I believe that’s being done, but I’m not familiar with those provisions.
[English]
The Chair: Just following up on the question, under delegation of authority in clause 689, I think it is, in the bill, would grant the Minister of Transport the authority to enter into agreements with provincial, municipal and Indigenous authorities, allowing these jurisdictions to exercise the powers or perform the duties under the act that are specified in the agreement.
What exactly does that mean, Mr. Lowry?
Mr. Lowry: I think it may be worthwhile to pause for a moment and back up and look at the current regime and where it came from.
Mr. Cusson talked about the Exxon Valdez spill as an example, and that really is the spill that provided Canada and, actually, the United States with lessons that created the regime we have in place now. Those lessons were looking at prevention, which is the requirement for there to be escort tugs with tankers, for there to be B.C. pilots and for double hulls. It was the genesis for the creation of response organizations such as ourselves. We respond on behalf of industry but work within the parameters set out by Transport Canada in terms of planning standards.
Within that system, there are a lot of other players. There was talk about the role between science and industry, and there is, from the federal family, a number of groups that not only help with planning in terms of looking at the behaviour of products, looking at the sensitivity and the long-term effects. We work closely with scientists from Environment and Climate Change Canada, DFO and Natural Resources Canada, so there is a lot of integration on that side.
In terms of when we’re actually responding to a spill, we are also often working with the province. In our case, it’s the B.C. Ministry of Environment, but municipalities are also going to be involved in spills, and First Nations. When you look at how a spill is managed, it’s through something called unified command. That typically involves the Coast Guard, the Province of B.C., on the West Coast at least, First Nations, municipalities and the polluters. It’s very important that those groups can work together.
At the end of the day, it is ultimately the Coast Guard that does have that authority but I believe that provision is to ensure that those groups of people can work effectively and closely during a response.
The Chair: But you do that now, do you not?
Mr. Lowry: That is correct. I believe a lot of these provisions are looking at clarifying some of the existing powers and response measures that are in place and they’re clarifying those. That’s what we see as a lot of these measures improve.
The Chair: Help me out, Mr. Lowry. It doesn’t say that. It says that would grant the Minister of Transport the authority to enter into agreements with these groups, municipal, Indigenous and provincial, to exercise powers or perform the duties under the act that are specified in the agreement.
What duties, exactly? And what does that have to do with working together? It seems to me that it would allow the minister to enter into an agreement with the province, a municipality or Indigenous group to perform duties under the act that presently you have.
Mr. Lowry: That might be, and I apologize. I can’t speak to the intentions of the drafters of that piece of the bill, but it is our understanding that a lot of what we’re looking at is clarifying or enhancing what we have in place today.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Thank you, Mr. Lowry and colleagues. This is a very interesting topic.
You know, no one wants a spill to happen, and while there is no spill, there is no worry. But when a spill happens, and most of the time the substance that causes it is petroleum. When an emergency happens, we look at the source of the problem and then the path of that dispersion of the contaminant, and then to the receptors. In this case, the receptors are the ecology, the biodiversity and the fish.
No one wants to see mammals, cetaceans or ducks in petroleum, but I am telling you that no one really wants to eat a fish or a shrimp that has tumours or is deformed because of the contamination with petroleum.
Research, as you both said, is very important. We talked about petroleum, but petroleum is very different. The substance that burned in Lac-Mégantic evaporated very quickly, and if it is in the water in the ocean, it will evaporate quickly. But the other more viscous, heavy and dense petroleums are going to stick, float and remain and be recalcitrant to all the processes of biodegradation.
Do you really think that we are ready for all kinds of spills and that everybody in the network is ready to answer to these spills? Do they all know the difference and how quick and how fast or what is more toxic or less toxic? Is the answer an efficient answer?
Mr. Lowry: I think there are a couple different pieces there. I’ll back up a little bit to some of the tools we have as spill responders to clean up a spill.
The main one used in Canada is called mechanical recovery, and what we’re doing there is using booms to collect the oil and also booms to protect the sensitivities that have been identified. Once that oil is collected with booms, you use skimmers to recover that product.
Now, the different types of oil, as you mentioned, do have different characteristics. We have the heavier products. We have your crudes, diluted bitumen and bunker C, and for that we use brush skimmers, which we found to be very effective. We responded to a diluted bitumen spill in 2007, and our brush skimmers were very effective in that situation. As you move across the spectrum of petroleum products and you get into the lighter ends, some of the lighter ends like marine diesels simply evaporate. You can’t clean it up, because there is no product left. That said, there are also skimmers that will work with that product.
Different types of products use different types of skimming equipment.
You can also use dispersants, as was mentioned earlier. We’re not allowed to use dispersants in Canada without prior approval, so that’s not something we currently have in our toolbox and it’s not something we plan to use in a spill. With the Deepwater Horizon spill, they used dispersants. The idea behind dispersants is that you break down the oil so it’s more manageable by foreign bacteria in the ocean. There are bacteria in the ocean that have evolved to consume petroleum products, so biodegradation is part of the response.
The final tool in the toolbox is in-situ burning, which is lighting it on fire. So there are different products for different types of response.
[Translation]
Mr. Cusson: Mr. Lowry knows those types of products better than I do. Behaviour will differ with the type of product used. For example, light crude oil evaporates very quickly. The problem is that evaporation is determined by temperature.
As I mentioned a little earlier, when water temperature is very low and falls below zero, you can expect salt water to evaporate much more slowly. In that case, we recover pollutants in different ways.
[English]
Senator Plett: Mr. Lowry, in your answer to Senator Galvez — and I’m not sure whether I heard the word right — but you said dispersants. Is that what you called the one system of cleanup?
Mr. Lowry: Dispersants, yes.
Senator Plett: You say we aren’t using that in Canada, yet when you said what it was, it seemed like a logical way to do a cleanup. Why would we not be using that in Canada?
Mr. Lowry: We’re not applying for those because of Environment and Climate Change Canada regulations, essentially. We need to meet the regulations that are set out by the department. We can apply to Environment Canada to use dispersants. If that was approved, in that case, we would look at dispersants.
There is also a lot of work being done through the Oceans Protection Plan at looking at when and where dispersants are more appropriate and having pre-approval for use in those areas. For example, you may not use dispersants in a harbour, but maybe off the coast, it’s suitable to have dispersants in place. There is a time and place for different products. The Government of Canada, through the Oceans Protection Plan, is reinvestigating what that might look like.
Senator Plett: It seems to me that if we’re talking about the environment, whether it’s climate change or anything else, the faster we clean up a spill, the fewer problems we would have with the environment.
Mr. Lowry: That is correct.
The one thing that spill responders can have an effect on is with the speed we respond to a spill site and the speed at which it is cleaned up. There are a lot of other factors outside of our control, like there is in a forest fire-fighting situation. That’s why, when we’re looking at a response, Transport Canada requires that we have to have the oil off the water in 10 days. There are time standards that exist in the current regime, and it’s all based on improving that speed and having speed of recovery as fast as possible.
Senator Dawson: As you know, I always agree with Senator Plett. I have a problem with the urgency. If you have to ask Environment and Climate Change Canada for permission to use a dispersant during a spill crisis, if we know the history of governments, it can be long. So I have the same issue. It worries me.
[Translation]
You mentioned Old Harry, which is a jewel coveted by Newfoundland and Quebec and covered by Canada. The division of responsibilities for the operation of the St. Lawrence, for example, raises the problem of shared jurisdiction among Quebec, Newfoundland and Canada. We agree the present government has decided, for better or for worse, that the St. Lawrence will be an economic development tool for Quebec.
How can we at Québec-Océan address these potential jurisdictional disputes? I understand the Quebec government isn’t part of the solution since it doesn’t have a cleaning system, but, if it grants operating permits, it’s part of the problem.
Mr. Cusson: You raise a very good point. That’s why the research group began looking into the problem several years ago. The Old Harry basin was apparently detected by a company that’s in fact concealing what could be vital information about the amount of oil in that field. If I remember correctly, a large part of the reservoir lies on the Quebec side. Newfoundland promptly instituted proceedings to start drilling and conduct tests to determine whether there was in fact a lot of oil. I’m convinced that researchers from Memorial University and Newfoundland-based researchers from Fisheries and Oceans Canada are cooperating fully with Quebec scientists in an attempt to understand what is going on. As you know, that was in the wake of the incident that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. There were, of course, fears that something might happen.
As regards jurisdiction, I couldn’t tell you. People sensed an urgent need to cooperate with researchers to try at least to establish a status report. Funding was obtained in Quebec to form the Notre Golfe network and publish a book, as you’ve seen. On the other hand, I’m not aware of what happened in Newfoundland.
Senator Dawson: You mentioned Notre Golfe. However, it’s the same gulf for Newfoundland. Do you also cooperate regularly with Memorial University?
Mr. Cusson: I’m not in the best position to answer your question. However, I could tell you who to talk to. We have other people working on this file. Since the funding comes from Quebec, sometimes it’s difficult to organize multi-province groups. The science is shared very openly among the researchers from other provinces.
Senator Gagné: I’d like to begin with a question for Mr. Cusson, and then I’ll ask Mr. Lowry a question.
Mr. Cusson, you say on the last page of your presentation that a marine spill fund should take into account the fact that the duration and intensity of environmental impacts are hard to assess. More research is required. Let’s go back to the proposed amendments. I’m trying to fit your observation into the framework of the act. Would you be able to explain to us what that means in the context of the act?
Mr. Cusson: I may have missed the details, with regard to the act, as to how much additional money would be granted. I don’t have that figure.
When spills have occurred on other occasions, enormous amounts of money were granted.
I read the transcript from yesterday’s meeting. Figures of $405 million or $410 million were cited. These are paltry amounts of money. I agree that companies should be compelled to set aside larger amounts to address this kind of problem. It’s very easy to see how a spill can start and the impact it has on communities. However, the situation becomes much more unclear the moment it stops.
Yesterday we discussed claims, procedure and how much time it would take. I’m not sure I can tell you how long the impacts might last. However, I can tell you that fisheries have not yet recovered from the incident in the Gulf of Mexico, which gives you an idea of the extent of the damage. Now, how to prove it? That’s another matter.
Senator Gagné: Should funding be reassessed on a regular basis?
Mr. Cusson: I think so, because cleanup costs will explode and risks will increase. As to the probability that spills will occur, they’ll just occur, like what happened last week. We aren’t talking about operational factors; we’re talking about operational incidents. We’ve stopped talking about disasters and spills; we simply talk endlessly about procedures. That scares me because the media say the oil has disappeared and there’s nothing more to do.
Senator Gagné: All right. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Lowry, I have perhaps a follow-up question to Senator Tkachuk’s question to you. Do you feel the proposed amendments will have any effect on your relationship with Transport Canada in the context of his question?
Mr. Lowry: No, I do not. These amendments as proposed will have no direct relationship to response organizations. They’re mainly around clarity and authority for the Coast Guard and removing liability limits for the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund. I would be happy to elaborate in the existing lability and compensation regime if any of the senators would like some clarity there.
Senator Gagné: Of course we would.
Mr. Lowry: The existing regime for liability and compensation has three levels. The first level is with the vessels themselves. They have a strict but limited liability. It doesn’t matter if they’re responsible for the incident or not, they must pay for the cleanup. However, it’s limited to the size of that vessel.
Once that limit or threshold is reached, there are two other funds that come into play. One is the international fund. There are $800 million or $900 million in there. Then there’s also the Canadian Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund, which these amendments address, and there is more money in there. All told, we are looking at $1.3 or $1.4 billion currently available for spill cleanup and remediation.
The bill is proposing that for the Canadian Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund, we remove the per incidence liability amount and also if that fund is depleted because of a large spill, there are mechanisms to replenish that fund. That’s what we’re really looking at to improve the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you to both. Mr. Cusson, I think my questions will be directed to you.
First, I have a lot of empathy for the stuff you’re laying out here today. In fact, I’ve been speaking about it for years. We have a situation where we have refineries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence estuary, and we have a refinery in the Bay of Fundy and they require heavy oil. They need it. There are jobs and millions of dollars involved. At the moment, most of that oil is coming from Saudi Arabia, sometimes Venezuela, different places. It goes through Nova Scotia’s water through the Bay of Fundy or the Cabot Strait to the refineries in Quebec.
As mentioned here today, the Exxon Valdez is always held up as an example of loss of oil in Canada, but it was not the first great loss of oil. The first great loss was the Arrow in Chedabucto Bay in the 1970s. I was 15 years old and I remember it very well. They lost about 10,000 metric tonnes, which is about a quarter of the loss of the Exxon Valdez.
The second one was the Kurdistan. It broke up, split in two and had a structural failure in the Cabot Strait heading to Quebec. Both of these occurred in the winter. I’ve often said to people, “What would have happened to the Kurdistan if it broke up in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the middle of winter?”
There is a solution to heavy oil, which we need. Instead of worrying about this, we can take out all the risk, don’t you agree, if we brought the oil from Western Canada and brought it to the refineries by pipeline? We can take all the oil out of the water, we wouldn’t have any of that risk and we wouldn’t have to worry about dealing with a spill. What is your opinion with regard to that as a solution?
[Translation]
Mr. Cusson: That’s a complex question. The issue of the origin of the oil is an important topic for those of us who work on climate change. You understand that the oil that comes from Saudi Arabia or that could have been pumped from the Beaufort Sea, in Northern Canada, would have been oil of very high quality. Transporting oil from Western Canada is another problem since the oil sands produce an enormous amount of greenhouse gas. We’re shifting the problem. I’m not saying the solution isn’t to replace one with the other. Marine transport is relatively safe; the problem is how far we should go and what action we should take to limit the damage. I’m out of my comfort zone on this.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: I was speaking about your presentation. Your presentation wasn’t about climate change or greenhouse gases. Your presentation was about dealing with a major oil spill in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and I sympathize with you on that. But if we took that heavy oil coming to Canada out of the water and brought oil from Western Canada, you would have no risk whatsoever. As a Nova Scotian, I’m concerned about this risk because we share the risk of everybody in the Maritimes and in the St. Lawrence estuary of this heavy oil going into the water, but unlike Quebec, Ontario or New Brunswick, we don’t share in any of the upside. We only share in the risk.
If the oil comes from Western Canada, you would rather oil break in a pipeline that can be turned off at a moment’s notice and contained as opposed to even high-quality oil from Saudi Arabia in the water. Would you not agree?
Mr. Cusson: I follow. The thing is, it depends where the petrol is passing. If it passes in a sensitive environment, there might be a problem. Some environments might be more resilient or could cope a bit better with oil spills than others. In the case, for example, of oil from Canada passing with pipes, one of the problems is if they pass above an important reserve of water. The problem is exactly the same. It’s where the ship passes that can be the problem.
I don’t see that the Baffin Bay is worth less than the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Senator MacDonald: Bay of Fundy.
Mr. Cusson: Bay of Fundy, sorry. We need to understand that we need to choose wisely where our source of energy would pass.
Senator MacDonald: But that’s what I’m saying. This continent is crisscrossed, honeycombed with pipelines. Some of them are 50, 60 or 70 years old and we have no means of using them. But when it comes to a brand new pipeline with state-of-the-art technology, shutdown systems, surely I support you on this. But the way to achieve this is to get the oil out of the water and the way to get the oil out of the water is to take Canadian oil to market.
The Chair: How does heavy oil from the West — it’s not all heavy oil, mind you, but some of it is — it produces more CO2? It has to be refined in the Maritimes, it is pumped and it is the same gas in my car and the car in the Maritimes as the gas that comes from Saudi Arabia. There is no difference.
Mr. Cusson: It’s a good question. I’m not saying something is wrong, but it’s the extraction that is costly in terms of the procedure for the CO2 emissions. That’s where the problem is.
The Chair: And there’s none in Saudi Arabia? Of course there is.
Mr. Cusson: No, it’s almost pure, I think. I’m not a specialist on that.
Senator MacDonald: I’m sure our environmental standards are at least as —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome to the Senate, Mr. Cusson, and thanks to our guests for their presentations.
Will this bill establish faster or slower mechanisms for resolving orphan well cases?
Mr. Cusson: It’s clear from what I understand that we can react much more quickly. If we have the funding, it’s far easier to delegate tasks to other authorities. Mr. Lowry said a little earlier that there are several levels working under the Canadian Coast Guard and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. They obviously aren’t everywhere. People from the local communities are ready to respond much more quickly. I think that, if there are more resources, the response will be more consistent, more integrated and much faster; that’s clear.
Senator Boisvenu: I mentioned wells, but I really wanted to talk about spills.
The other problem — I worked at the Department of the Environment for about 15 years — concerns spills in adjacent zones between two countries such as the United States and Canada. Will this bill establish an arbitration mechanism to determine who intervenes and under what statute?
Mr. Cusson: I’m going to let Mr. Lowry answer you since he knows more about those matters.
[English]
Mr. Lowry: Yes, thank you for the question. I can address that.
There is an existing treaty between Canada and the U.S. It dates back to the mid-1970s, and it does address directly what happens if there’s a spill that may potentially or will cross the international boundary.
In Canada, what that means is the Canadian Coast Guard will work in partnership with the U.S. Coast Guard in managing that spill. Now, on the West Coast, that’s exercised on a regular cycle. Every two years there is an exercise between Washington State and B.C. managed by the two Coast Guards and also a two-year exercise between Alaska and B.C., again managed by the two countries’ Coast Guards. There is a treaty in place that looks at spills that will impact international boundaries between Canada and the U.S.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Are the Americans working on a similar regulatory framework to the one we have before us?
[English]
Mr. Lowry: Yes, it’s very similar. Both countries’ regimes that were set up were lessons from the Exxon Valdez. The two regimes are actually very similar. There are some slight variations, but there are similar response organizations in the U.S. that operate in the same way that our organization does on the West Coast.
Senator Galvez: I have one little note that, to my knowledge, these dispersants were found toxic during the BP Deepwater Horizon and that’s the reason we don’t use dispersants as simple products, because they can be toxic.
I know that several departments of the Canadian government have paid for studies to assess the areas on the Canadian coastlines that are more vulnerable to risk because of traffic and all kinds of factors increasing risk. I’m sure you are aware of these studies. WSP did a huge study on the areas that are more at risk. The results of this study is that the West Coast in the area of Vancouver and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Can you tell us why, just for people to understand, these two zones are the most vulnerable and the highest risks for these spills to happen?
Mr. Lowry: Certainly. Maybe just one more point on dispersants. There’s a very important role, as we mentioned, for science in spills. So responders are not taking those actions without the guidance of scientists. When it comes to the use of dispersants or any other product, there is what’s called an environmental unit in the command post, and they will do a Net Environmental Benefit Analysis. Obviously an oil spill is a terrible situation and you’re looking at two terrible options. We’re looking to the scientists to provide guidance on which is the best of those two options. They do perform that Net Environmental Benefit Analysis.
In terms of the studies around risk, when we’re looking at risk, we’re looking at two pieces. We’re looking at the probability and at the consequence. On the probability side, the reason why the southern portion of B.C. around Vancouver Island is considered high risk is that is where the international shipping lanes are. Shipping traffic comes in off the west side of Vancouver Island near Port Renfrew. When I say shipping, both American and Canadian traffic comes in that area. The U.S. traffic will continue down to Washington State, and the Canadian traffic comes up into the Port of Vancouver. Those are established shipping lanes and that is where the majority of shipping traffic happens on the West Coast.
I’m not familiar with the east side, but that is the reason the southern portion of B.C. is highlighted as high risk, because of that probability.
Senator MacDonald: Your last statement there about southern British Columbia being high risk, what about Prince Rupert and Port Simpson? Are they high risk or lower risk? They have much less traffic up there and they’re all deep water, no ice. North of there, the Americans move oil constantly out of Valdez, Alaska.
Mr. Lowry: No, that’s a good point. The majority of the shipping does happen in that southern shipping lane. We’re looking at thousands of transits a year.
Now, the Port of Prince Rupert has increased in terms of volume. They’ve done a significant expansion on their container terminal up there. We are seeing increased traffic up at the Port of Prince Rupert, which is why, as an organization, we’ve established a response base up there. We have just added two new vessels in the last couple of years. So we will also grow to meet new risks. So there is a risk up there. It’s not nearly as significant as in the southern portion in terms of overall volume of traffic, but we do have a presence there because that risk has increased over recent years.
Senator MacDonald: But there’s much less tanker pressure in the north.
Mr. Lowry: Yes, there are no tankers in the Port of Prince Rupert.
Senator MacDonald: Vessels but not tankers.
Mr. Lowry: If I could add one more thing. When we’re looking at spills, we’re not just looking at oil tankers. We’re looking at all vessel traffic. That includes deep sea vessels that carry bunker fuel on them. Those are a potential source of risk as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Cusson: I’d like to add a point related to Senator Galvez’s question. The Gulf of St. Lawrence has been targeted as a sensitive area because it’s an estuary. It’s an estuary with a semi-enclosed sea that contains a route for traffic of all kinds, and there are a lot of commercial fisheries, which are very important, such as the lobster, snow crab and shrimp fisheries. We have areas where cold water rises from great depths thus promoting extremely productive spawning. That’s one of the reasons you find whales near the Mingan Islands, in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at the mouth of the Saguenay River Fjord.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for attending our meeting today and helping us with this piece of the budget.
For the second panel today, senators, we have, from the Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Marine Shipping, by video conference from Halifax, Peter Ellis, Executive Director. Welcome, Mr. Ellis.
From Ecojustice, Joshua Ginsberg, Lawyer and Director of Legislative Affairs. Thank you both for attending our meeting. We’ll begin with Mr. Ellis by video conference, followed by Mr. Ginsberg.
Peter Ellis, Executive Director, Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Marine Shipping: Thank you, senator, and thank you for allowing me to participate in your discussions this evening.
[Translation]
My remarks today will reflect the observations I made in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on November 6. As the chair said, I’ve held the position of Executive Director of the Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Marine Shipping for more than a year and a half.
[English]
Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Marine Shipping is an independent, not-for-profit organization that sponsors research and produces communications and engagement programs related to sustainable marine shipping in Canada. We were launched in the summer of 2015 with seed funding from Transport Canada, Alberta Energy and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Our purpose is to provide impartial, reliable, evidence-based information on shipping in Canada on the premise that better information leads to better decisions. Our independence is protected in our funding agreements and all of our program is accessible on our website at www.clearseas.org.
My observations today are based principally on some work that we’ve done through our research and website publication, engagements with stakeholders, participation in many forums and working groups related to the Oceans Protection Plan and other marine shipping-related forums, as well as observations from media and social media.
I offer that the importance of marine shipping to our well-being and prosperity is underappreciated by most Canadians. I’d also like to highlight that, to gauge Canadians’ attitudes towards marine shipping, Clear Seas conducted a public opinion poll in partnership with the Angus Reid Institute in the spring of 2016. Recently, at the end of October, we completed another round of polling to see if there were any emerging trends or changes. The data is being analyzed now and we aim to publish the results early in December. A common theme that was raised in 2016 and that persists today is that, although Canadians view shipping as safe, they are concerned about potential environmental impacts, particularly oil spills.
The proposed legislative changes that you’re considering are clearly aimed at enhancing confidence in and effectiveness of what is already a sound and safe system.
Section 689 of Bill C-86 providing the explicit authority of the minister to enter into agreements with the Indigenous groups, stakeholders and other levels of government clearly recognizes the complexity of the marine environment, its many jurisdictional interfaces, the issues of Aboriginal rights and title and the variability of local conditions. These are realities that are already recognized at the tactical level in such things as the Canadian Coast Guard’s plan for response in Vancouver, called the Greater Vancouver Integrated Response Plan for Marine Pollution Incidents, or the GVIRP, as you might have heard it called.
I suggest that development of such agreements should be subject to extensive consultation and engagement with stakeholders.
The proposed authority of the minister to make interim orders, section 690, is an application of the precautionary principle to allow greater flexibility to respond to short-fused developments. Notwithstanding the interim nature of the orders, these decisions should be evidence-based and consider the best information available at the time. The threshold for implementing such orders needs to be defined in terms of the urgency and severity of the situation.
The modifications that are being proposed to the Canada Shipping Act to enhance the flexibility to intervene earlier in cases where pollution may occur, which are reflected in sections 699 to 702, supports more timely action, which is a key element of effective spill response. Potentially preventing what are already rare pollution incidents or containing such events more swiftly, such as to limit the spread of a spill, are important elements of reducing risk and adverse consequences. Likewise, the authority to enter onto private property and use private property in a response scenario is likely to improve effectiveness.
The provision of immunity for persons providing assistance bounded by what is reasonable in the circumstances is also supported. It should be noted that this change may alleviate concerns that American response personnel have expressed in the past with regard to their liability potential in trans-border operations. Their perception is that they are at greater liability if they are lending a hand in Canada.
Although viewed as deterrents, the changes to administrative and monetary penalties applied judiciously will also clearly support the polluter pays principle and enhance public confidence, which has been undermined somewhat by the proceedings following the Marathassa spill.
The changes to the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund are also likely to increase confidence in the system by broadening the scope of what can be compensated. While extending the compensation available to economic losses where property has not been directly touched by pollution makes sense and is consistent with the polluter pays principle, it raises some questions as to what impacts that will have on things like insurance rates, civil liabilities and other second and third order effects of these changes. I believe you’ve heard evidence about this yesterday or the day before. These impacts need to be clearly understood.
For some, I’d also note that this change will not go far enough. There are some people out there who consider that compensation ought to extend to compensation for loss of use of public land in areas for recreational, cultural, religious and other reasons.
Clear Seas supports the provisions of this bill, but notes that additional consultation and engagement with stakeholders are required as this moves forward. I would also note that the focus seems to be on the response phase and there isn’t much that is being brought in this particular bill to look at the prevention side of the situation.
[Translation]
Thank you once again for allowing me to take part in this meeting, and I’m prepared to answer your questions, Mr. Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ellis, for telling us who funds your organization. I’m sure Mr. Ginsberg will do the same.
Mr. Ginsberg, please proceed.
Joshua Ginsberg, Lawyer and Director of Legislative Affairs, Ecojustice: Thank you, senators, for inviting me to speak today regarding the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act and the Marine Liability Act proposed in Bill C-86.
I’m a lawyer with Ecojustice Canada. Ecojustice is Canada’s largest environmental law organization supported by approximately 20,000 individual donors throughout this country. With offices in both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, Ecojustice is dedicated to ensuring the legal protection of Canada’s oceans, and my own practice does include marine matters, particularly in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
I’m going to make my submission today on the proposed changes to the Shipping Act. My colleague Margot Venton appeared before a committee of the other place on the same matter and my comments will reflect and build upon what she said.
The proposed amendments to the Shipping Act reflect our expanding understanding of the environmental impacts associated with shipping such as ship source pollution, physical disturbance and noise pollution, and takes a precautionary approach to mitigating these impacts. The approach is also adaptive, which will help address uncertainties associated with broader threats to the marine environment such as climate change.
The legislation builds upon our existing tools. Speed controls via a Notice to Shipping under the collision regulations made under the Canada Shipping Act are one useful tool to implement urgent measures. This legislation makes use of that model and expands it to fill a gap in the law. It provides interim measures that protect the marine environment and adds a regulatory backstop to those measures.
Now, as you have heard already in your hearings, the existing Notices to Shipping tool was used in August 2017 for the speed limit for North Atlantic right whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence to protect them from ship strikes. In that case, the measure was explicitly taken on an urgent and precautionary basis while DFO and Transport Canada worked to better understand the problem. The ministers at the time described it as a precautionary measure taken as a part of efforts to “do everything possible to prevent further whale deaths.” The scientific advice followed thereafter.
The North Atlantic right whale example under the collision regulations shows that immediate precautionary action, such as what is contemplated by these amendments, are effective. The existing law is simply not equipped to address the full extent of threats that whales face, such as physical and acoustic disturbance, which is why these amendments are useful.
Physical and acoustic disturbance threatens migratory cetaceans such as right whales and other species, including southern resident killer whales in the Salish Sea.
The southern resident killer whale population has declined over the past summer to just 74 animals. Pollution and disturbance from marine vessels along with reduced prey availability are identified as key causes of decline and barriers to recovery for these whales.
To survive, killer whales need an acoustic environment that allows them to hear the subtle clicks of echo location and distant calls of other family members. Ship noise interferes with both of those things.
For migratory cetaceans such as right whales, the effects of climate change are altering the availability of prey, which has a detrimental effect on their breeding. Rapid intervention in the form of an interim order may be necessary not only to avoid ship strikes, as we saw recently, but also the impacts of ocean noise and increasingly unpredictable sources of food and timing of feeding, and those whales do feed in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Despite knowing for nearly 20 years that physical and acoustic disturbance from vessels threatens whales and despite our increasing knowledge of the effects of climate change, little action has been taken to address these threats. That’s in part because the Shipping Act does not explicitly allow for the regulation of ocean noise nor does it clearly enable Transport Canada or DFO to order the kinds of mitigation that are required to address ocean noise such as speed reductions, route changes and, importantly, noise caps, vessel design and retrofitting. Those tools were only used to address marine safety and not protection of the marine environment. That’s something this legislation remedies.
As a result of the legislative gap, limited action has been taken to date to address physical and acoustic disturbance from vessels. What action has been taken has been through voluntary initiatives. The voluntary approach has failed to limit the whales’ decline.
Clear and enforced rules work to regulate conduct. As a result of mandatory and enforced vessel slowdowns put in place under the Shipping Act on the Atlantic coast to protect endangered North Atlantic right whales, no whales were killed this year by vessel strikes. We need similarly strong legally binding rules to protect southern residents and other whales from ships and ship noise.
The proposed amendments to the Shipping Act fill a gap by adding a clear rule-making power for the protection of the marine environment, section 692 of the regulations for protection of the marine environment, and additionally the proposed interim order provisions, section 690, provide for a useful tool that allows for a nimble response to new and emerging issues such as shipping noise and other emerging issues such as climate change.
Finally, it can take years to develop regulation. An interim order allows for quick targeted action to address a problem while creating space for developing more comprehensive and permanent regulation. Our one recommendation here would be to extend the period of the interim order to reflect what we understand to be a realistic time to develop a regulation, which is really closer to two or three years, rather than requiring the extra step of going to cabinet for such an extension.
Experience shows that progress was made in pollution reduction for both airplane noise and tailpipe emissions for vehicles following the imposition of regulation, and we need to take the same successful approach with the environmental impacts of shipping.
Thank you very much, senators. I would be very pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ginsberg.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: A representative from the Chamber of Shipping came here Tuesday, and she was critical of one aspect of the amendments regarding a spill, and I will read to you the clause that that organization does not like:
. . . any kind of loss, damage, costs or expenses arising out of actual or anticipated oil pollution damage, including economic loss caused by oil pollution suffered by persons whose property has not been polluted.
The industry is saying that this is going too far. Not only do they have to be liable for damages but also for people whose property has not been polluted. They say this does not make sense.
I want to hear from you about that. You were generally both supportive of those changes. Are they going too far on this particular point?
Mr. Ginsberg: Well, I didn’t speak specifically about the Marine Liability Act. I’ll defer, I think, to Mr. Ellis on that point.
Mr. Ellis: To answer your question, senator, the existing compensation scheme under the SOPF is very narrowly focused, and this opens the aperture to actually recognize that there are impacts that go beyond the actual physical contact with oil. So in that case, it makes a lot of sense. It’s not perfectly aligned with the international conventions, but the SOPF itself acts or exists in addition to the international conventions. I think you heard from Ms. Legars yesterday morning as well on this.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: For you it’s perfectly fine the way it’s written here because it opens up new possibilities.
Mr. Ellis: I’m not bragging that I’m not a lawyer, but I’m not a lawyer. I really can’t address the issue of what those potential second and third order consequences of this are. I said in my remarks that I think those need to be fully understood before moving in that direction, but we should be moving in that direction.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: We have here a witness who says that the amounts in the expedited claims, clauses 725 and 726, are very small. Can you tell us if it appears small for you as to what should be put aside in case of penalties and emergencies? That is, the amount of money in case of a spill or an emergency?
Mr. Ellis: Senator, the $35,000 is for claims that meet a criterion to be processed, let’s say more expeditiously than the more significant claims. I think the rationale is that that dollar threshold would reflect a smaller, less significant event, something that might happen in a marina or something like that. I’m not really sure. That’s where that $35,000 threshold for the more expeditious resolution of claims is.
I think there’s also provision in exceptional circumstances to raise that to $50,000.
My understanding is that the emergency fund is a different issue. That is the SOPF being able to advance money to the Coast Guard during an emergency response and, likewise, the central fund of the Canadian government being able to advance funds to the SOPF should that be necessary.
Senator Galvez: I think I made a mistake. Clause 744 talked about the penalties of $50,000 and $250,000.
Mr. Ellis: In terms of the administrative and monetary penalties, we support the idea of increased AMPs primarily as a way to restore or to enhance confidence in Canada’s system. The notion of the Marathassa case, for example, dragging on for quite some time in the courts, undermines a bit of the confidence that folks have in the system. This may be a way to enhance that.
Having said that, this would be very much an application with the exception in the industry. I think Mr. Ginsberg talked about the shipping industry more in terms of their voluntary approach to being more sustainable. By and large, the industry is very forthright, forward-looking and quite diligent with their compliance. That’s the perspective on that.
I’ll use the Green Marine as an example. They are an industry association that works ahead of regulators and encourages their members to exceed environmental regulatory norms.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Is there any research or data on the determination of an effective monetary penalty that wouldn’t be perceived as a mere operating cost? Do we have an idea of what a deterrent amount might be?
Mr. Ellis: I’m sorry; we definitely haven’t done any research on that question, and I’m not aware of anyone who has.
[English]
Senator Plett: Mr. Ginsberg, you said that you would prefer that the length of time of interim orders be increased to two to three years over the one year that it presently is. I’m a little surprised at that. I really felt that your presentation was to try to move things along. In most other legislation, interim orders must be approved by cabinet within 14 days.
Why do you think an interim order should stand for up to three years? Aren’t you concerned that this could lead to a complete lack of consultation from stakeholders?
Mr. Ginsberg: Thank you for that question, senator. With respect to the length of time that an interim order will last, I would agree with the comments of the assistant deputy minister who appeared before you yesterday and clarified that just because there is the potential for an interim order to last one year, or perhaps more, doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be in effect for the full time. However, the flexibility allows the government and shipping industry to address the range of risks and interest in situations that can’t always be anticipated. The purpose of this legislation is intended to be precautionary.
Furthermore, the purpose of the legislation is to jump start the regulation-making process. There may be situations where a short and sharp interim order solves the problem, but in general the idea is to create, from experience, a robust regulatory regime which simply doesn’t exist now. The regulatory apparatus should get going at the same time as the interim order to provide those accountability and consultation measures that you reference. If the idea is to make regulations, our point is why not simply do that rather than go to cabinet? Let’s get the regulatory apparatus done.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your presentations, gentlemen.
[Translation]
My question is for Mr. Ellis. Bill C-86 would grant Fisheries and Oceans Canada the power to take measures to repair, remedy, minimize or prevent pollution damage where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a vessel has discharged, is discharging or may discharge a pollutant. Did I hear you correctly? I don’t have your remarks before me, but you said that not enough consideration was being given to prevention in this bill. Is that correct?
Mr. Ellis: Thank you for your question. I think the fact that we’re in a position to act before a spill occurs is a prevention factor. However, other things could help, such as awareness and education programs and research and development initiatives. That’s simply the point I wanted to make. What we’re also talking about is facilitating action by anticipating a spill or pollution event. This is very late.
I would point out to you, however, that pollution, spills and oil slicks are very rare in Canada in particular. As we told you yesterday, pollution incidents are declining despite a continuing global increase in oil shipments and marine traffic, and smaller quantities are lost when spills do occur.
Senator Cormier: I’m originally from the Atlantic coast, more specifically from the Acadian Peninsula and Gulf of St. Lawrence region, where there are a lot of fishermen. On the prevention issue, do you believe the fishing industry is adequately aware of the dangers? If we had to warn them, is there is something we should add to the act or regulations that would promote a government initiative to increase awareness in the fishing industry, for example?
Mr. Ellis: I’m sorry, senator, I’m in a very poor position to talk about the fishing industry; I know very little about it. Clear Seas really focuses on commercial merchant traffic.
Senator Cormier: To conclude, do you think the bill should contain something that addresses the issue of prevention, since you spoke about it, of awareness campaigns and other initiatives? Should the bill include something of that sort?
Mr. Ellis: As several people have noted, many elements are already included in the bill you’re considering. I think some consideration could have been given to addressing the prevention issue in greater detail.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Thank you for being here, Mr. Ginsberg. I think the number you mentioned earlier in your presentation was 27,000 individual donors; is that correct?
Mr. Ginsberg: I said 20,000.
Senator MacDonald: Okay, 20,000 it is. Are they all Canadian donors? Are there any American donors or non-resident donors?
Mr. Ginsberg: I don’t presume to know the identity of all of our donors, but I know we have 20,000 donors across Canada.
Senator MacDonald: Does that include non-resident donors?
Mr. Ginsberg: No, I don’t know the answer to that.
Senator MacDonald: Would that be a separate number? Does that 20,000 include non-Canadian donors, or are they all Canadian donors?
Mr. Ginsberg: The 20,000 are all Canadian donors, to the best of my knowledge. I’m not on the philanthropy side of the organization, but that is my understanding.
Senator MacDonald: That’s a safe place to be.
Do any organizations donate, particularly offshore organizations, that you’re aware of?
Mr. Ginsberg: It may be, senator, that we have some donors that are charitable foundations. I don’t presume to know their situation.
Senator MacDonald: Could you find that out?
Mr. Ginsberg: I don’t, frankly, see what relevance it is to the discussion we’re having, but if it does — if you could explain, I would appreciate it.
Senator MacDonald: I think the source of funding is important as a Canadian. I want to know who is invested in this and why they’re invested it in. I’m not questioning your work. I’m just curious where the money comes for an organization like this because there is a lot of foreign money pouring into the country in similar situations. I’m curious as to whether that information is available. That is all.
Mr. Ginsberg: I don’t know if it’s available. I can say that certainly the vast majority of our donors are Canadian. I don’t know if others who have an interest in the protection of the Canadian environment also support our work. If they do, I welcome it.
Senator MacDonald: All right. Thank you.
The Chair: Does Tides Canada give money to your organization or Tides United States?
Mr. Ginsberg: I don’t know the answer.
The Chair: Have they ever given money?
Mr. Ginsberg: I don’t know the answer.
Senator Plett: I don’t want to belabour this, but I think Senator MacDonald clearly asked a question: Can Mr. Ginsberg provide that information? I think it is relevant, and I’m sure that information must be available. So I would ask, chair, that Mr. Ginsberg provide that information to the clerk for our study.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Thank you, witnesses. We have no more questions.
We’re going to proceed in camera.
Thank you, Mr. Ginsberg and Mr. Ellis.
(The committee continued in camera.)