Madam Chair and committee members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today.

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—so we're about three years old—with seed funding from Transport Canada, Alberta Energy and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Our purpose is to provide impartial, reliable and 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 on some of the work we've done through our research and website publications, engagement with stakeholders, participation in many forums and working groups related to marine shipping, and of course 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. To gauge Canadians' attitudes toward marine shipping, we conducted a public opinion poll in partnership with the Angus Reid Institute in the spring of 2016. We've just completed another round of polling on Canadians' attitudes to see if there are any trends. The data is currently being analyzed, and we aim to publish the results by the end of November.

A common theme raised in the 2016 poll and that persists today is the concern Canadians have for the potential environmental impacts of shipping. The proposed legislative changes are clearly aimed at enhancing confidence in and effectiveness of what is already a sound system.

Clause 689 of Bill C-86, for example, in providing the explicit authority of the minister to enter into agreements with 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 considerations. These realities are already recognized at the tactical level in such plans as the Canadian Coast Guard's greater Vancouver integrated response plan, for example. I suggest the development of such agreements should be subject to extensive engagement with stakeholders.

The proposed authority of the minister to make interim orders in clause 690 of the bill is an application of the precautionary principle, allowing greater flexibility to respond to short-fuse developments. Notwithstanding the interim nature of the orders, these decisions should be evidence-based and consider the best information available at the time. Enhancing the flexibility to intervene earlier in the cases where pollution may occur, but has not yet occurred, supports more timely action, which is a key element of effective response. Potentially preventing already rare pollution incidents or containing such events more swiftly to limit the spread of a spill are important elements of reducing risks associated with shipping. Likewise, the authority to enter 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 supported. It should be noted that this change may alleviate some concerns that have been expressed by American response personnel with regard to their liability in potential transborder operations. The changes to administrative and monetary policies applied judiciously will clearly support the polluter pays principle and enhance public confidence, which has been undermined somewhat by lengthy and inconclusive proceedings such as those 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 loss indirectly related to pollution incidents makes sense and is consistent with the polluter pays principle, it raises significant questions as to the impacts on insurance rates, civil liabilities and other effects. These need to be clarified and clearly understood.

For some this change will not go far enough, as a portion of the population believes that compensation ought to extend to such areas as the loss of use of public land for recreational, cultural or other reasons.

Clear Seas supports the provisions of this bill, but notes that additional engagement with stakeholders is required as this bill moves forward.

I would also note that the focus seems to be on the response phase, with little being added to the preventive pillar.

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to participate in this meeting.

I'm now ready to answer your questions.

Transcript

Discussions (0)