Mr. Belsher:

I would encourage the members if they doubt my words to read the speech of the minister who certainly laid out the framework of what is in this piece of legislation.

The legislative committee heard expert testimony from witnesses representing industry groups, investment groups, environmental groups as well as government experts in the field of pollution prevention and response. After consideration of this testimony the committee recommended important changes which will strengthen Bill C-121 in the areas of the public input through the clear delineation of roles and responsibility of the public advisory councils. They will also strengthen the Parliament oversight role to ensure that the important pollution response improvements are implemented on a timely basis.

The previous speaker referred to the advisory councils but we had to be very careful to make sure we were not asking the advisory councils to become the enforcement arm of this important piece of legislation. That is the role of the Coast Guard. But the commissioner who is a member of the Coast Guard certainly can have input from all these advisory councils.

We also accepted an amendment, and I forget which of the opposition members put it forward, which says there shall be an advisory council in each of the three geographic areas: the Pacific area; the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes basin; and the Atlantic and Arctic. It is very essential that there be advisory councils. If the commissioner feels there is something more specific, permission is given to put together advisory councils in those particular areas.

Bill C-121 represents an important piece of new legislation for protecting Canada's marine environment. This legislation forms a part of the government's marine environmental emergency strategy announced in June 1991. Mr. Brander-Smith from British Columbia was put in charge of a study. It took several months and cost in the order of $3 million. It heard from many organizations and travelled from coast to coast. The essential parts of this report have certainly been adhered to.

The hon. member for Skeena says it is not being done fast enough but speed and when it gets done are not the essential parts. It is important that we know what is

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

progressing and that it will be in place within a certain period of time.

We know this bill will accomplish a number of very important tasks. For example it will oblige the private sector to fund further improvements to marine spills response capability. It will increase the maximum fine for polluters to $1 million and authorize the adoption by Canada of two important international conventions.

During second reading debate on Bill C-121 and subsequently, members have expressed their concern that Bill C-121 does not adequately address the issues of marine pollution prevention which were identified in the public review panel report.

The government's marine environmental emergencies response strategy has indeed addressed many important pollution prevention activities. For example, after July of this year Canada will require that new tankers operating in Canadian waters have double hulls or equivalent environmental protection features. Existing tankers will be required to either be retrofitted or phased out.

This was worked out in concert with the marine traffic in the world market as well as the Americans. A timetable has been established as well as specifications of what will be required. Canada has been part of that and for that reason we felt it was not necessary to specifically put that type of provision in this piece of legislation.

The government's strategy has increased the level of foreign vessel inspection. It has expanded the aerial pollution surveillance on both coasts and has implemented numerous regulatory changes which have strengthened the pollution prevention functions.

In the Canada Shipping Act we already have the provision that the pollution control officer can direct where and when ships can go. He also has the power to make sure they alter what they are doing when they are doing it if he deems it necessary to make sure pollution or environmental aspects are being taken care of.

While all of these pollution prevention initiatives are very important, we must not forget the importance of being prepared to respond to spills. This is where Bill C-121 will play a critical role.

I want to thank all members of this House and particularly the members who participated in the committee that examined Bill C-121. It took us until 10 o'clock p.m. last Wednesday to go through this and all of us wished we could have had more time.

We know the summer recess is coming upon us and the amount of work the Coast Guard has done in the consultation process over the past two years has been very significant. We were told this when the Coast Guard came before us and gave testimony. This has not been glossed over. This is something that is very essential to the tanker traffic that takes place within Canadian waters.

The all-party agreement which has facilitated rapid consideration of this important bill is very much appreciated and signals the importance that all parties place on environmental issues. I add my thanks for the all-party agreement of last Friday. We brought report stage in and waved the 48-hour rule so we could have this debate today. This bill will be off to the Senate for its perusal as well.

We believe that Bill C-121 should be passed by the House to permit the early implementation of its important provisions which will improve Canada's capability to respond to marine spills. This bill has been formulated and put together with this in mind.

Again I want to say thank you to the members opposite for their input and the amendments they put to this bill. I believe with their amendments this bill is better leaving the House now on third reading than it was when it left here after second reading.

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned during his comments that we now have a date when the 10,000 tonne and 25,000 tonne emergency response capacity equipment will be available. As he knows, one of the amendments I put forward during the committee process gave the date of January 1, 1994 for that equipment to be in place. It also specified that double hulls be in place for all of Canada's fleet no later than January 1, 2000.

I wonder if the hon. member could tell Canadians the dates when the capacity will be up and running pursuant to the legislation. On what date will we have double hulls for the whole of the Canadian tanker fleet and where can we find those two things in the legislation?

Mr. Belsher:

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said I did not feel it was necessary to put the dates for when there will be double-hulled vessels in our waters because this is something that has already been agreed to by the shipping community. That has been worked out within the international marketplace. I believe at the very outside the last date would be 2015. Dates have been ascertained and placed on each Canadian vessel that has

June 7, 1993

been listed in Canada as to when they will cease to exist for the role they are now carrying out in our own waters.

With regard to when the clean-up mechanisms will be in place we added amendments in 660.11. They state that the minister shall no later than one year after the coming into force of this act and thereafter every two years review the operation of the section of this act. If the minister deems there is not sufficient progress being made in making sure that the pollution controls are up and ready and the advisory committees are advising the commissioners they feel they are not ready, then the minister can unilaterally take that kind of action. The bill does not put a specific date.

The member knows that in British Columbia there is an organization called "Burrard Clean" which is funded by the oil companies. It has added a great deal of capability on the west coast. It has been completely funded by the industry and we hope it will never be called upon to use its total resources but the facilities are already there. The Coast Guard has always had the responsibility for north of 60 and that will continue to be the case.

As we go into each of the other sections across our country other organizations will have to be brought to the fore as well to take the leadership in this.

.(1535 )

Mrs. Catterall:

Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm something with the hon. member. We have had some discussions about an error in the committee's report to Parliament which shows a difference in the French and English versions with respect to clause 6 on page 7.

I believe we have agreement concerning the time I speak. I am told by the Table that it is necessary to seek unanimous consent to have the English brought into conformity with the French. I am seeking the assurance of the member from the government side that consent will be given.

Mr. Belsher:

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for being alert and bringing that to the attention of this House. Certainly we would be glad to give our agreement such that the English version should

Government Orders

read the same as the French because there is a misplacing of a clause in there. We would certainly agree to that.

Mr. Fulton:

Mr. Speaker, the House will thank my sharp-eyed friend from Ottawa West for having caught that problem. I trust the Table understands that the unanimous consent that is being given now by the House is to bring the English into direct compliance with the French. It is the French that is correct. It is the English that has the error.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):

Is there unanunous consent of the House to correct the English version of the bill?

Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):

Agreed and so ordered.

Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by referring to the parliamentary secretary's gratitude to us for hurrying this bill through.

I would not say his gratitude is misplaced because indeed we did try to be co-operative in seeing that Bill C-121 came into law before we found ourselves in a dissolution of Parliament and off into an election campaign for fear that it would possibly take a good number of months before this legislation could be enacted.

It is legislation that we support. We believe it is a measurable improvement to the existing situation and therefore we were keen to see it go through.

However I would like to point out, as I did at second reading of this bill, that we do not feel the government dealt with the issue of oil spills in a sufficiently prompt and open fashion. This bill has come forward very late in the parliamentary cycle for no good reason. This is in the face of the Brander-Smith report and in the face of requests as pointed out by the Auditor General of Canada and requests from cabinet that there be a departmental response for the Brander-Smith report.

As the Auditor General pointed out, no response was forthcoming until we finally found ourselves not that long ago presented with Bill C-121 and a request to deal with it on an urgent and expedited basis so that it could become enacted.

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

It was with the co-operation of members of the legislative committee who were appointed to deal with this issue that the matter was able to be heard through the committee quickly but certainly without the advantage of widespread consultation and based on an understanding that any proposals or any kind of significant or substantive change to the bill as proposed would not be accepted. By substantive change I refer to any introduction of a charge such as that recommended by the Brander-Smith panel on ships that did not have double hulls or double bottoms.

The lack of ability to get into what is really the essence of this bill and to provide for substantial change I think has weakened the process. While as I say we are glad to have it through at least in the sense that it does provide an advance on the existing state of legislation with respect to oil spills, I think it is our view-and I wish to signal this-that it is not an adequate response. It is an interim response and more will need to be done soon.

The Brander-Smith report we will recall came as a result of a panel appointed in June 1989. The panel held extensive hearings across the country and examined the question not only of response to oil spills, which this bill primarily deals with, but also prevention.

I think it is very worthwhile for Canadians to understand what an important problem this is. We tend to have our attention attracted by dramatic spills such as the Exxon Valdez of course and the breakup of the ship the Braer off the coast of the Shetland Islands last Januaiy. That ship was destined on that voyage for Canada and would have been entering Canadian waters within days of its breakup on the Shetland Islands. Its sister ship at that time was in a Canadian port.

While we focus on these very dramatic breakups the reality is that the spillage of oil and other dangerous products for that matter is a continuing problem on a regular basis world-wide. According to the Brander-Smith report: "According to available research data more than one major spill from a tanker accident will occur in Canadian waters every year. These large spills cause visible and devastating damage to the environment. We

have been told by experts that they are inevitable. Presumably this is because human error in one form or another is the cause of most tanker accidents and human error can never be completely eradicated. Faced with the possibility of catastrophic environmental damage it is understandable that at the hearings Canadians questioned whether so much error really is normal. For the purpose of illustration the Alaska oil spill commission which studied the 44,000 tonne Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 compared the Exxon Valdez tanker operation to the U.S. airline industry and estimated that one and a half airline crashes would occur every day in the United States if airline safety was no better than tanker safety. A spill of the same magnitude as that from the Exxon Valdez could happen at any moment in Canadian waters. Indeed without better prevention efforts it will happen".

Brander-Smith goes on to say that unless the situation changes Canada will experience over 100 small spills, about 10 moderate spills and at least 1 major spill every year based on current levels of tanker traffic. A catastrophic spill in the order of 10,000 tonnes can be expected about once every 15 years.

What we are talking about here is not the remote and inconsequential occurrences that may happen from time to time by unavoidable accidents, but the continuing risk of major spillage of oil off our coasts if we are not in a position to act to prevent it.

Brander-Smith's commission comes in its opening chapter to some very startling-at least to me-conclusions. They say that they were appointed to consider two questions. First, are tankers safe? Second, are we capable of responding effectively to spills and mitigating their environmental consequences? I again quote: "The answer to both questions is an unequivocal no". Brander-Smith finds that our tankers are not safe and our ability to respond to a major spill is inadequate.

The thrust of this report was that the first priority needed to be prevention. When we talk about prevention in the case of oil spills we know because of the human error factor that prevention can never be absolutely ascertained. However, it is clear that improving the structures of ships and tankers is key to limiting the occurrence of oil spills off our coasts and other coasts.

June 7, 1993

Therefore by virtue of international agreement new tankers are being built with double hulls. Over time single hulled vessels will gradually be eliminated. That in itself is not a total solution.

I think it is generally conceded that had the Braer been double-hulled it still would have broken up off the coast of the Shetland Islands. The sea was simply too high. Because of its location on the rocks in that situation even a double hull would not have prevented that one.

The key point is this. Because so many of these disasters are caused by the human factor the technology of the ships must be such that it compensates for the occurrence of human error.

Double hulling or double bottoming is a major contribution to that. What we do know is that many of the ships on the seas today carrying oil products are capable with a very small error of judgment by a ship's crew to contributing to a major environmental disaster such as that which we have seen in Alaska when the Exxon Valdez went down.

I think it is also important to put into perspective the size of some of these spills. We will recall from my previous quotation that the Exxon Valdez was a 44,000 tonne vessel. Consider the spills that have occurred recently.

In 1988 the Athenian Venture broke up in the North Atlantic en route to Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland. It was 27,000 tonnes. The Amoco Cadiz in 1978 off the French coast spilled 220,000 tonnes. Remember that the Exxon Valdez was 44,000 tonnes. The Torrey Canyon in 1967 off the English coast was 117,000 tonnes.

On it goes. The Nestucca spill caused significant damage off the west coast of Vancouver Island. I think the member for Skeena referred to this one in his speech. It was only 875 tonnes and relatively small compared to some of the others. There were mystery spills which killed an estimated 18,000 sea birds in Newfoundland in January 1990. These were likely a fraction of the size of the Nestucca spill. The Nestucca was 875 tonnes and the Exxon Valdez was 44,000 tonnes. We get into some of these large vessels and we are into the range of 200,000 tonnes or five times larger than the

Government Orders

Exxon Valdez spill. The catastrophe which we court if we fail to deal with this is of giant proportions.

I had the occasion a year or so ago to visit with my colleagues, the member for Dartmouth and the member for Burin-St. George's, at a number of shipyards in Atlantic Canada. If I might be permitted a slight digression I can say that if there is anything that we need in Canada in our industrial sector it is a strategy to deal with the problems that our shipyards in various parts of the country have been facing. These shipyards are on the east coast and west coast and are even along the St. Lawrence.

This is an industry in which highly skilled, well trained and well paid individuals are finding that the work has just simply disappeared. What an opportunity it is to rebuild some of our shipyards on the basis of rebuilding some of our ships.

There is a need to encourage a rapid conversion to double-bottomed and double-hulled vessels. These can be retrofitted on existing vessels. This should be obvious. It could stimulate a very significant improvement in the prospects of many of our shipyards if that were to advance at a more rapid rate.

The Brander-Smith report had a number of things to say about prevention in addition to the levy which has been discussed at some length by previous speakers that would have encouraged the use of double hulled vessels and double bottomed vessels. It has also suggested that the Canadian Coast Guard should be given additional resources to significantly expand its capacity to inspect foreign tankers and ensure on-board compliance with statutory manning requirements and ship schedules.

The best rules in the world are inadequate if they are not enforced. The Coast Guard has given us assurances that it has increased the rate of inspection on vessels in Canadian waters so that it does inspect vessels on an annual basis. I think all of us look at the estimates of the Coast Guard and wonder where it is getting the resources to carry out this additional responsibility.

I do not know whether the assurances are reliable or not, but it seems to me clear that the resources the Coast Guard have are being increasingly stretched. Whether the ability is there to perform the tasks which the Braer, the Valdez and the other spills have demonstrated are so

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

crucial, is a question of whether those resources are adequate.

Brander-Smith recommended that the Coast Guard develop more stringent operating and chartering guidelines for tankers. Some progress is being made on that. The Coast Guard needs to work closely with chemical and shipping industries to develop training and certification programs for tanker and terminal personnel that emphasizes safety and pollution prevention, design construction and inspection standards for chemical barges as well as tankers.

Brander-Smith says that to deter polluters the Coast Guard must deploy three dedicated aircraft-east coast, west coast and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence-equipped with spill detection and evidence gathering technology. Clearly this is essential if we are going to have any confidence that the rules are being enforced.

Brander-Smith says that to improve its investigative and prosecution capability the Coast Guard must deploy additional personnel, appropriate technology and equipment and designate larger numbers of more rigorously trained pollution prevention officers. It must also issue stricter regulations governing loading, unloading and transfer operations at terminals to reduce the risk of operational spills.

I go through these one by one to emphasize the fact that the focus needs to be not just on the response to spills, which is really the key component of Bill C-121, and obviously an objective which we support, but on prevention. Clean-up is never adequate, it will never be adequate. We can hope to do better, we can hope to do the best that technology permits, but prevention is the key to the environmental imperative which this bill, at least in form, attempts to acknowledge.

The other important point to make is that also included in our concerns about this bill is adequate reference to the issue of compensation. We have seen the devastating consequences of a major spill on our coasts. It is of course questionable whether compensation can ever be adequate in the case of a major spill. What has often been the case where there are even minor spills is that the burden of clean-up has fallen on local communities, local residents of shorelines, often on volunteers who come from distances in order to contribute to assisting the clean-up, the saving of wildlife, and so on.

There needs to be a clear legal responsibility for compensating for the costs of those clean-up operations. That is something which requires additional work. There are jurisdictional questions that abound on that issue. It is an important area of further effort. Again, had there been more time for a bill such as this I think that a committee would have studied that issue as well as some of the other issues at much greater length.

In conclusion, I will reiterate once again the fact that we want to see this bill enacted. We would like to see it through the Senate as quickly as possible. The parliamentary secretary refers to it going to the Senate. That is not the only thing going to the Senate these days. For some of the other arrivals in the Senate one thinks of oil spills as well, but that is another matter.

Natural disasters you mean.

Mr. Manley:

In the spirit of co-operation that we have had around this bill I think that it is important that we see it enacted into law as soon as possible with improvements and changes to come in due course, I hope very soon.

Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism)):

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could .not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or (2) with respect to report stage and third reading of Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications.

Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I wish to give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allocating a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

Shame.

June 7, 1993

Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments by my colleague from Ottawa and I would like to say that I concur.

Living on the east coast of Canada, and indeed having been born and raised in Cape Breton at the head of the shores of Sydney harbour, I have a keen interest and understanding about the problems which this bill seeks to remedy.

I remember as a young boy growing up in New Waterford where many times we would have storms. At one point, down by the Barachois Cove, New Waterford, during a particularly early vicious storm I saw a tanker and two barges come ashore just down the road from where I lived. Thank goodness the two barges were empty of oil and the tanker was empty as well. They were coming in trying to seek some respite from the storm.

Clearly, growing up close to a marine environment as I did in Atlantic Canada it becomes very, very clear that the effects of a tanker spill or of a disaster such as when a ship sinks or comes ashore and loses its oil cargo, its diesel fuel, the impact on the marine ecosystem are absolutely devastating.

I recall that when small ships went down close to the mouth of Sydney harbour we would lose our beaches. We could not swim there, not just for one or two months but for a couple of years. It would take the ice-clampers coming down to remove the oil for the winter and take it somewhere else. It was not that it dissipated, it went to somebody else's beach.

My colleague mentioned one thing that perhaps this bill should be dealing with that it does not is the whole issue of prevention. He talked about double hulling and double bottoming of these tankers that are plying waters. It is something that this government should have really grappled with. Indeed he made some reference to a visit that he made to somebody at the East Coast Shipyards

Government Orders

which is reducing the number of people in its work force because business simply is not there.

However in the Irving yard in Saint John, New Brunswick when we were looking at the frigate program, it was clear that one of the things that they see as an imperative is legislation which would require quickly double hulling and double bottoming of vessels that are plying Canadian waters. Not only is that good for the environment, but it is also good for the Saint John shipyards and other shipyards in Canada which would see their levels of employment at least stabilize and perhaps-just perhaps because that particular yard is one of the best mid-sized shipbuilding yards in Canada-see the employment levels go up.

He also talked about the Canadian Coast Guard maybe not having the resources. The Canadian Coast Guard's east coast base is in my riding of Dartmouth. I know that it has been under the gun over the last number of years as this government seeks to cut wherever it can.

The third thing is who does pay? When we deal with prevention which may be a costly matter, we are also dealing with some cost effective measures, societal, environmentally and employment wise.

I want to ask my colleague who is the transport critic for the Liberal Party if he believes that the government has been short-sighted in not bringing in legislation that would see prevention as the number one priority legislatively as opposed to compensation once these spills do occur.

Mr. Manley:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes the point that we have before us legislation that does not focus on prevention or compensation but simply on response and perhaps a minimum measure in that area.

I suppose to be entirely fair the answer is very simply this. This government has sought to find a legislative formula that would not provoke too much controversy in the shipping industry over the course of the next few months when it is going to the public, but which would enable it to bring forward legislation to say what it has done about marine spills as a result of the Exxon Valdez and the Brander-Smith report. What we have is this legislation. It has more or less insisted that the opposi-

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

tion parties accede to rapid timetables to see that it is provision at least provides up to $200 million in accessi-enacted, albeit thinking that it is inadequate. ble compensation should there be a major accident?

I suppose having just heard the minister of state for small businesses get up and bring the closure motion with respect to the telecommunications bill, we may well assume that closure would have been brought down on this bill as well if either of the opposition parties had insisted on a fuller process. The reality is very simply this. The government did find a formula that the shipping industry was willing to live with and that is what it has put in this bill. It did not concern itself overly with the view of environmental groups, especially when it got agreement from most of the environmental groups as well as from the opposition parties that this bill was a measurable improvement of the status quo and therefore merited support. So far, so good.

We face the prospect, and we can almost hear the rhetoric now, of the Tory Party going out on the hustings this summer claiming that this is one of the things that it has done for the environment. It did something for the shipping industry because that industry knew that measures were coming. It feared the imposition of the levy recommended by Brander-Smith and lobbied ferociously to prevent it, successfully as it turned out, and was willing to accede to this legislation in the hope that perhaps at least for a number of years that would be the end of it.

As far as I am concerned my colleagues and our party agree, this will not be the end of it if we have something to say about it, and we will have something to say about it.

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, I have just a short question to the member for Ottawa South.

I think the member is aware of the legislation passed in 1973. The ship-oil source pollution fund was converted in 1989 into the maritime pollution compensation fund which has a present value of $200 million. Just for the record I think it is important to get at least the word out that even the Coast Guard admits that that is an inadequate compensation fund for many of the sizes of accidents that our coastline faces.

Does the member agree that section 7(10), as is now included in Bill C-121, by providing a reverse onus