There are about four different elements of division 22 that are worth mentioning, very briefly.

One is, to your question, clarifying the lead federal agency in spill response and incident response. That's what's contemplated in these amendments, to make it clear, if necessary, that the Coast Guard's direction and orders supersede those of any other federal agency.

The primary element of these amendments is removing ambiguity about when the Coast Guard in particular could take action. There's not a material change in the role of a shipowner or in the role of the Coast Guard. This is, rather, about increasing some options from our proactive response. There's no limitation necessarily now to wait until there's a likely discharge of a pollutant into the water, but rather, a discharge that may occur. In that threshold, there's a significant difference in the ability of the Coast Guard to respond and/or the shipowner, which, of course, is always the preferred option and the underpinning of our polluter pay principle here in Canada.

There are a couple of other amendments that speak to crossing over private lands, if necessary, to effect an immediate response, as well as extending immunity to people who advise the Coast Guard and our partners, including shipowners, response organizations and others, to make sure that we can mount the best response for each individual incident. That's what, I think, is the most important thing, that each incident has its own specifics, and my colleague spoke earlier about all the different variables at play.

Of course, what I'd like to say is this really allows us to right size the Coast Guard's response to a situation. We can scale it up or down as needed, but the important thing is that we're there as soon as possible assessing things and making the right decisions with the right parties involved. As I say, it's always with the shipowner or polluter, in this case, or potential polluter, to make sure that we prevent any damage to the marine environment.

Transcript

Discussions (0)