Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 11 - Evidence, November 25, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday November 25, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:30 to continue its study on the substance of Bill C-43, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I declare this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications open. Today, we are continuing our study on the content of Bill C-43, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. We are reviewing Division 2 of Part 4 which amends the Aeronautics Act.
[English]
Today, we have two witnesses. Vanessa Warren is from the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition, and she is with us via video conference.
[Translation]
We would also like to welcome Mr. Bernard Gaudreau, the Mayor of the Town of Neuville.
[English]
I will invite Ms. Warren to make her presentation.
[Translation]
After that, Mr. Mayor, you will have the floor.
[English]
Vanessa Warren, Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition: Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate. I am Vanessa Warren and I am here on behalf of Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition. We are a coalition of local environmental and advocacy groups working to protect Burlington's protected countryside from ecologically and socially damaging development. I am here today to try and convey the real impact of the current legislative gap in the Aeronautics Act as it applies to private aerodromes. To say the loophole is big enough to drive a truck through would be a massive understatement. I also hope to offer a reasoned counterpoint to the entrenched and blinkered views of COPA, the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, on this issue.
The simple fact of the matter is that private aerodromes have all the federal protections and autonomy, almost sovereignty, of a major commercial airport, like Pearson for example, but precious few of the controls. When the Aeronautics Act was written, its intent was to be sweepingly permissive in the same way that the Railway Safety Act was, and we have seen how permissive and unregulated it became in that case.
COPA has fought to preserve this hands-off approach against any interference from other levels of government. Aerodromes do not need zoning or building permit approval, nor do they pay municipal development fees. There doesn't need to be a demonstrated need for an aerodrome to be created or expanded. There is no federal inventory or plan for transportation networks or corridors. In fact, in Burlington, the airpark is tucked precariously between escarpment cliffs and Pearson airspace, with Hamilton airport only a moment away.
Airparks have no consultation mandate or process and do not need to limit their noise, lighting, property line set-backs, or hours of operation. As primarily uncontrolled airspace, there is no tower to record or control flights, so pilots often abuse airspace rules and become a serious interference on the lives of neighbouring residents.
Aerodromes are not required to have a wildlife management plan, as airports do, or an emergency plan, as airports do. There are no environmental controls for runoff from plane washing or de-icing. But, most lucratively, they can run large-scale and multi-year fill operations.
I'm a farmer. So why am I so informed about the federal jurisdiction surrounding aerodromes? It's because I and many other members of my community have spent the last two years trying to stop an unregulated fill operation at the Burlington Airpark. I am now working to try to halt its expansion.
The Burlington Airpark is located in the protected countryside at the base of Mount Nemo and the Niagara Escarpment, a UNESCO biosphere reserve. Century farms, rural residences, protected water courses and land rich in agricultural heritage surround it. One hundred per cent of the residences around it rely on clean drinking water from the ground.
In July 2007, Mr. Vince Rossi purchased the Burlington Airpark from the Kovachik family, who had founded and operated it since 1962. In its 45-year history, the airpark had been quiet and primarily recreational. Much of the property was leased to local farmers. Almost immediately after its purchase, the new airpark owner dropped the airport certification and sought a municipal variance to store approximately 8,000 cars on the property. This was not aeronautical, so the municipality and neighbours fought the parking lot and won.
In November 2008, the new owner, working with Rogers, proposed a 65-metre cellphone tower. Fortunately, this federally regulated industry does have a consultation process, and even the local pilots joined the community in having this development quashed. As an aside, the airpark did end up with a smaller cellphone tower, in a less populated area, but hardly aeronautical.
In September 2008, the new owner hit pay dirt and began accepting fill at the Burlington Airpark. Within the first five months, approximately 50,000 cubic metres of fill had been imported and dumped on this farmland and a regionally significant woodlot had been destroyed. Neighbours appealed to the airpark and local government to mitigate traffic noise, dust, runoff and siltation, but were advised repeatedly that because the owner had indicated that the entire property would eventually be runways, taxiways, aprons, hangers and terminals — all aeronautic — that there was nothing to be done.
The fill operation continued, unregulated and unchecked, for five more years. In February 2013, the airpark owner sought another variance. This time it was to purchase additional prime agricultural land designated greenbelt protected countryside and to extend the airpark's main runway to 4,700 feet. That's 700 feet longer than runways at Buttonville and Toronto Island, and this airpark could still be unregulated.
By July 2013, conservative estimates put the amount of fill dumped on the airpark property at 500,000 cubic meters. A conservation regulated area had been filled, and an environmental review of the few soil reports that were available found petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals and carcinogens, like benzopyrene, in concentrations high enough for Terrapex Environmental to refer to the airpark as an unlicensed waste disposal facility on the basis that it has accepted contaminated soil. The reports from this review also noted that there was no assurance that the data represented the worst case soils placed at the site.
A lot of advocacy work from our community and our local government — not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses — has gone into the precedent-setting win that will allow the City of Burlington to finally get a handle on the environmental damage on airpark property, but the scope is limited, dealing exclusively with the quality of the soil and storm water management. This will protect our well water, but neighbours whose fence lines are now nearly two storeys below the grade of the new airpark and who have, or may have, helipads and hangars built feet from their homes are struggling to know how to proceed with their now almost valueless properties. This is of course providing that these aeronautics plans ever become a reality, because there is no development plan filed with anyone, at any level of government. None is required.
There are at least five other aerodromes in Ontario alone, where vague and amorphous aeronautic developments are accepting hundreds of thousands of truck-loads of unwanted and potentially contaminated dirt from GTA development projects. All of them are swallowing up the productive farmland and green spaces that provincial and municipal governments are struggling so hard to protect through legislation like the Greenbelt Act, the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act. I hope that the example of the Burlington Airpark provides a lens with which to examine these proposed amendments.
While a political solution is not ideal, it is at least something, where there is currently nothing. The inclusion of the concepts of public interest and a consultation process are extremely welcome.
COPA, in its Guide to Private Aerodromes, repeatedly advocates that the federal government and only the federal government have the jurisdiction to control aeronautics, including the power to determine where to establish aerodromes and whether to establish aerodromes, and how such power is exercised — except, it isn't exercised. Currently the act is basically 100 per cent permissive. There is no federal plan for "where" or power over "whether." Those things are completely a function of the desires of private business owners.
These proposed amendments are the first glimmer of control over "where" and "whether" and, therefore, our first glimmer of hope to close an unjust and increasingly exploited loophole in an extremely powerful act.
Thank you, again.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Warren.
[Translation]
Mr. Mayor, you have the floor.
Bernard Gaudreau, Mayor, Town of Neuville: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Honourable senators, I want to begin by thanking you for the privilege of appearing before the committee. I would like to inform you that my presentation will be in French.
[Translation]
Allow me to introduce myself: I am Bernard Gaudreau, and I have been the Mayor of Neuville since 2009. I am also a lawyer by training and, as far as that is concerned, I would like to point out that the positions and ideas contained in my brief only reflect my views as the mayor of the Town of Neuville.
It is an immense privilege for me to appear before you this morning, honourable senators, to speak to the legislative amendments to the Aeronautics Act.
For your information, the Town of Neuville is located close to Quebec City and it has just over 4,000 citizens. The town is a member of an association which brings together Quebec's prettiest villages, and Neuville is recognized for the richness of its heritage and its agricultural production.
Before sharing with you my views on the proposed legislative amendments, I think this is a good opportunity to go over the main facts regarding the construction of the aerodrome in Neuville.
In October 2010, the Supreme Court handed down two decisions which reaffirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government in the aeronautics sector. In December 2010, barely two months after those two rulings were made, the Town of Neuville was informed that a group of private developers wanted to build an aerodrome on its territory.
In January 2011, the Town of Neuville's advisory committee on urban affairs, which is comprised of both citizens and elected representatives, expressed its disagreement with the idea of building an aerodrome on its territory. Later on, the Town of Neuville's council also expressed its concern with regard to the implementation of this type of project on its land.
In April 2011, the Town of Neuville met with senior officials with the Federal Department of Transportation to talk about the project and to try to share with them their concerns with regard to land development and public safety. These are two areas which fall under municipal jurisdiction. But everyone was aware that the legislative framework in effect provided no direction when it comes to aerodromes.
In July 2011, the Town of Neuville formally sought a meeting with the Minister of Transport, but the request went unanswered. Towards the end of 2011, the Town of Neuville realized that it could not count on any legislative measures, at the municipal, provincial or federal level, to help with monitoring the development of an aerodrome on its land.
Given the circumstances, and to ensure that the concerns of citizens are taken into consideration, in the fall 2011, the representatives of the Town of Neuville met with the private proponents, firstly, to get up to speed on their development project, and secondly, to express the concerns of Town of Neuville residents.
In November 2011, the Town of Neuville went ahead and signed an agreement with the proponents, for the sole purpose of managing the aerodrome's operations. It is important to clarify that in no way did the signing of this agreement by Ville de Neuville represent any acceptance of the development plan for the aerodrome on its land.
In March 2012, the Government of Quebec, through four ministers, sent their concerns to the federal Minister of Transport with respect to the issues arising around the building of an aerodrome in Neuville.
Again in March 2012, the Town of Neuville received the formal support of the Union of Quebec Municipalities. In June 2012, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities threw its support behind the Town of Neuville's approach and called on the federal government to consult local municipalities on decisions affecting the use of land for building private aerodromes.
In September 2012, the Union of Quebec Municipalities then asked the federal government to consult municipalities on decisions affecting land use to build aerodromes and to respect their jurisdictions over land development.
My presence here this morning, honourable senators, as mayor of Ville de Neuville, is part of the ongoing, numerous steps undertaken to improve Canadian legislation as it applies to aerodromes, for the benefit of all Canadians.
All agree that while aeronautics activities fall under federal jurisdiction, cooperation with municipalities is not only desirable, but essential, because of their responsibilities regarding land use and safety and security.
In Quebec, the Act respecting Land Use Planning and Development delegates jurisdiction over land use to local municipalities.
While local municipalities have jurisdiction over land use, they cannot currently enforce it, when the issue involves the development or expansion of an aerodrome. In fact, not only do the municipalities lack the authority to enforce their regulations on land use, but federal legislation does not contain any oversight and supervision mechanisms dealing with the development or expansion of an aerodrome.
As a result, a proponent may currently build an aerodrome wherever he sees fit in Canada. Clearly, this situation is unacceptable to us. While Bill C-43 does outline some amendments to the Aeronautics Act, we believe that they could be improved. We believe, in fact, that the Aeronautics Act should establish a federal structure with clear and precise rules making it possible to adequately monitor the development and expansion of aerodromes in Canada.
In this sense, in a spirit of cooperative federalism, we believe it would be beneficial for the federal government to use the knowledge and expertise of local municipalities in land use.
We believe that local municipalities should play a leading role in the development or expansion of an aerodrome. In these circumstances, federal legislation governing aeronautics should be enhanced by the implementation of obligations to comply with municipal regulations, with a view to harmonious cohabitation and in the collective interest of all citizens.
In conclusion, we respectfully submit, senators, that Canadian legislation governing the development and expansion of private aerodromes should promote the common good of all citizens, and should be based on the principle of ensuring the equality of all citizens under the law. The Ville de Neuville has been attempting to have this democratic principle recognized since 2011. Public confidence in our Canadian and municipal institutions depends on it.
Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you to both of our witnesses for their presentations here this morning.
I heard, from both of our witnesses, a whole lot of problems that we have but not a whole lot of solutions, other than when, sir, you said at the end of your presentation that we should follow municipal regulations.
Ms. Warren, specifically on the Burlington aerodrome, you said it was founded in 1962. In 1962, where was the aerodrome? Was it outside of the city entirely and now the city has developed around it? What was the situation back then versus now with regard to citizens living close to it?
Ms. Warren: Thank you for your question.
I don't think that's changed very much. It's now designated greenbelt protected countryside. It's still very agricultural. There are rural residences, I am sure more than there were in 1962, but the airpark at that time and right up until it was sold operated very much in harmony with its neighbours. It was small and primarily recreational; and a lot of it was still farmed. The family that owned it rented it out to farmers.
I don't think the context in which it exists has changed, but it will change dramatically if it becomes a Buttonville-sized airpark, which is what we're looking at, potentially.
What has changed over the five-year fill operation are runoff, siltation, road destruction and the changing of grades because the airpark owner wants to pave everything on this enormous property; and that has become very destructive.
It's difficult to outline what specifically we'd like done. It's so enormous that you could outline so many ways that the regulations could be tightened, from building permits to site alteration, which Burlington has just won the right to oversee on the airpark property, and everything from hours of operation and lighting to when and where the air traffic can be over residents' homes. It's enormous because the act gives all the same privileges as a Pearson airport but does not control these private aerodromes; so the regulations could go on forever.
Senator Plett: I would like your opinion, either one of you, please. I asked a question here a few weeks ago: If I'm a farmer who owns a small Cessna 150 and builds a short landing strip adjacent to my farm, I'm considered an aerodrome. Let me take that one step further. As a farmer, I'm also a crop duster and have a spray plane that I park outside my farm. In your opinion, should the regulations be different for my operation than they are in Burlington or in your village, mayor?
[Translation]
Mr. Gaudreau: In fact, senator, the main issue for us in the present file is ensuring that federal legislation recognizes that municipalities can play a leading role in the development or expansion of an aerodrome. We want to have the possibility of using measures for control, supervision or oversight. These measures can be used in parallel with federal legislation. We do not want to supplant federal legislation, on the contrary, but we already have the expertise. In terms of land use, we want that expertise to be taken into consideration in the proposed legislative amendments, so that the development or expansion of an aerodrome can be the object of greater oversight than it is currently.
For the time being, there is a legal void that makes it possible to develop a private aerodrome without any oversight or control measures. When we apply legislative standards, we should be in a position to be able to defend a principle of equity and ensure that the standards are applicable to all citizens regardless of the nature of the project.
We believe that the development of an aerodrome in Canada is a new issue and that there must be some kind of supervision. We are obviously offering our support, our expertise and our skills to the federal government so that we can examine this together or put in place a permanent structure based upon clear and precise rules to outline a satisfactory regulatory process that is in the interest of all and that applies to all aerodromes in Canada.
[English]
Senator Plett: Ms. Warren, should a small aerodrome like the one I described have different regulations than the one you have in Burlington?
Ms. Warren: The flip side of that question I would put right back is this: Should it have all the privileges federally regulated as Pearson has? Should it be able to decide that it doesn't want a low spot any longer because it can't fly its plane there and so fill in an agriculturally or environmentally sensitive area at great profit? I don't know the answers, but a 4,700-foot airfield that is unregulated and uncertified seems ludicrous.
I also think that because there is no way to plan a transportation network because it's privately run, we could have aerodromes on farmland at every third or second property. It gives all of those privileges of autonomy to the landowner, who may financially need other income streams. It's not necessary to have an aerodrome on every second property.
In Burlington's case, there's Hamilton airport, Pearson, Brampton, and many other airstrips. I don't see the need necessarily for a developed aerodrome that's uncertified, nor does our municipality, our region or our province. The autonomy of it is difficult. As the mayor said, there's a vacuum.
Senator Plett: Would your concerns be addressed if it were certified?
Ms. Warren: I'm told by my contact at Transport Canada that the airpark dropped its certification. It had been certified for a very long time, but with new certification rules, it couldn't be certified because of safety issues — being under Pearson airspace and too near the escarpment cliffs. As well, the airpark owner doesn't need to certify and is incentivized to not certify because the cost of doing so is high. It's my understanding that he couldn't certify it if he tried because of the safety issues.
Senator Eggleton: This proposal in the budget bill, clause 143, adds a section that permits the Minister of Transport to make an order to prohibit a proposed development, expansion or operational change if it's likely to adversely affect aviation safety or if it is not in the public interest. Do you support that amendment? Does the amendment not go far enough? The mayor has mentioned that there should be some more specific municipal reference in there. Perhaps both of you could expand on that. Fundamentally, do you support this amendment? Is it a step in the right direction or does it not go far enough?
[Translation]
Mr. Gaudreau: Yes, senator, it is a step in the right direction, but a small one. We would have liked to have seen a bigger step. Yes, we are happy to see that the minister, under the legislative proposals, will be given or granted certain powers in addition to the ones the minister currently has. However, as you know, local communities and municipalities are the ones grappling with development projects. These communities are the ones that have to live with the impact of an aerodrome on a daily basis. So being involved in the project is of the utmost importance to us, and clearly, we would like to be involved as a main player during the development or expansion of an aerodrome, and have a say as the local municipality. In that light, we would have liked the bill to go a little bit farther.
[English]
Ms. Warren: I would agree completely that, as I said in my presentation, this offers a glimmer of hope where there was none before. It offers a political solution, which is not always the best as a regulatory solution would be better.
There are certain areas in the act, for example, whereby the minister can require certification of an unregistered aerodrome if they consider the area to be "built up." However, there is no definition of "built up," which creates enormous problems. In this amendment, terms like "public interest" scare me because what is that? Do we have to be built up to be considered to be in the public interest? It could be much more specific and focused on regulations.
Senator Plett: I want to go back to my first question about how many people lived around there. I guess this is voicing a concern more than a question.
As all senators know, I'm from a small farming community. Over the years, we have not had problems with airplanes, but we have had other problems. Now it would be considered a bedroom village close to Winnipeg, and of course it's a farming community. Manitoba, along with the province of Quebec, is known for raising a lot of fine pork.
We have an issue where farms are out here — and much of this is the fault of the farmers, not necessarily the fault of the people who move out but the fault of the farmers a few years ago. When grain prices were poor and land prices were high, they developed their properties and sold large two-acre pieces of land to people who wanted to have clear blue skies and fresh air. They moved out and all of a sudden found out the air wasn't as fresh as they thought it might be, and now we are having problems in Manitoba with regulations and moratoriums on farms building barns.
I guess my concern is very much the same thing here. Winnipeg's main airport is right in the middle of the city and it never used to be. People built around it and now they are saying, "Well, maybe we should move the airport because there's a lot of noise and a lot of problems."
Really, Ms. Warren, you did answer my question earlier when you said there's not a lot of difference in Burlington now than there was back then. I'd be happy to have you comment, but this is more an observation than a question. I think we need to understand — and Senator Eggleton pointed out the clause that gives the minister some authority — and we need to be careful when we give too much authority, certainly to municipalities, because their interests will be in their municipality, and rightfully so, not in the adjacent municipality. As a federal government, the interest has to be for the entire country and all Canadians, not just for one municipality. When we give too much authority to municipalities to veto certain issues, if you will, I see that as being problematic for not only aerodromes but for many other issues.
If you have a comment, please go ahead. If not, I'm fine with that too.
Ms. Warren: I would comment briefly that in Burlington's case, we're talking about development that has flooded farm fields so that they're no longer farmable. There are always urban/rural tensions when you get gentlemen farmers and large rural residences. I don't think this is a "Nimbyist" response in any way. It's about fairness for all citizens. It's about the idea that I, as a farmer, have to be very careful about what I put on my property and the environmental ways that I manage my property; but my neighbour, an airpark, has no rules whatsoever. I have to get appropriate permits to build my barn, but an airpark does not. It can put any building anywhere, as long as it deems it to be aeronautic.
I think it's about finding a balance of fairness for all owners: farm owners, landowners and citizens. I understand why the Aeronautics Act was permissive, but I think there's too big a gap. It has to be levelled out.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Mayor, did you have a comment?
[Translation]
Mr. Gaudreau: Senator, I would like to take this opportunity to provide some clarification.
Local municipalities have all of the knowledge and expertise when it comes to land use. All municipalities must generally adopt a sustainable development plan that takes into account the demographic pressure they have been facing in recent years.
In my view, a city's municipal council is the entity that has all of the knowledge and experience for effective urban planning and for identifying zones or areas where an aerodrome could be built. The worrisome part of the current legislation is that local municipalities have no authority over the development or expansion of the aerodrome. We are not asking for a veto, because I realize that jurisdiction over aeronautics falls to the federal government, as it should. However, we are proposing to work in conjunction with other government authorities to put in place a structure that will enable people to have confidence in our institutions and will ensure they are consulted during the implementation of a project like this.
We are talking about private aerodromes, not about public aerodromes or airports. These are isolated cases, and as I said, municipalities should play a lead role in conjunction with federal authorities.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: To follow up on that, I didn't think you were asking for a veto at the local level. I gathered that you wanted to make sure that local interests, particularly municipalities, are consulted in this process. Is that correct? If we advise the federal government that, yes, we approve this legislation, but we want them, in the implementation of it, to consider local public interests, including municipal consultations, would that do it?
[Translation]
Mr. Gaudreau: In part. Yes, we would greatly appreciate being consulted, not at the discretion of the parties, but as a requirement, so that the local community can then consult its residents. We do not believe that power should be discretionary, but that it should be a statutory obligation under the act.
Since 2011, we have been calling for the Aeronautics Act to include mandatory compliance with municipal regulations, provided that it leads to harmonious cohabitation. Through public consultation and in conjunction with federal authorities, we want to give citizens who have to live with the aerodrome in their backyards the power to speak frankly and to make their recommendations, so that ultimately, these people can be heard and participate in the decision-making process.
[English]
The Chair: Would you like to add something, Ms. Warren?
Ms. Warren: No. I think that comment is completely valid.
I do personally wish that there was some way to establish a need because I'm concerned about the concept that an aerodrome can be established anywhere, at any time. I think it's important that because these are private businesses — it's not public infrastructure — perhaps a demonstration of need is necessary in order to develop in the way that they can. But I think first and foremost is that they consult and that it fit into the municipality's zoning, for sure.
Senator Eggleton: I'm surprised that municipal organizations in both Ontario and Quebec — the Federation of Quebec Municipalities or the Association of Municipalities of Ontario — or the national association, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, aren't here. I'm not aware of their position on this matter.
I know, Mr. Mayor, you've referred to the FCM and the FMQ, but I am not sure that we have their information, their position on this amendment. Can you comment on that? Why do we just have the two of you if this is a larger municipal interest?
[Translation]
Mr. Gaudreau: Senator, first of all, because this file has a direct impact on my local community. I am confronted with this problem on a daily basis.
As regards the official positions of the Canadian and Quebec federations and the Union des municipalités, those organizations all voted on resolutions. If you wish, we can send you those resolutions, because they were ratified at their respective annual conventions. I cannot tell you why they are not here today, but what is important for me is to have Town of Neuville here to tell you about a real case, that occurred in Canada, and that is likely to occur again in the months and years to come elsewhere, if federal legislation is not changed.
[English]
Ms. Warren: In Burlington, I was the person who informed our city council about this amendment, and they subsequently sent in written submissions to the House of Commons committee. I'm not sure whether they went to the Senate committee. I think it was a very last-minute, under-the-radar thing for even the municipalities that are most affected. I'm not sure why you don't have comments from larger bodies.
Senator Eggleton: We do, by the way, have a letter from the Mayor of Burlington indicating Burlington City Council supports the amendments as proposed by the government in the Aeronautics Act.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: We have received a written presentation from Mr. Martin, from the Neuville aerodrome, that we will send you. Mr. Mayor, we would appreciate it if you could send us the two resolutions adopted by the Federation of Quebec Municipalities and the FCM.
[English]
If members agree, we will adjourn for a few minutes and go in camera to deal with two issues. One is the report stage that we have to go through and questions that we would want to ask. Senator Plett wants the floor on an issue concerning the CBC report.
(The committee continued in camera.)
——————
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, if you agree, we will go to Bill C-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Is there an order in which you want to make a presentation, witnesses? Who is the first volunteer? I'll designate Mr. Dawson, then. Just so it's clear, we don't know each other. We're not related and this is the second time I have met him as a witness.
Mr. Dawson, the floor is yours.
Dave Dawson, Director, Airports and Air Navigation Services Policy, Transport Canada: Thank you. Good morning. I am pleased to outline the aviation industry indemnity act.
Air industry participants, including carriers, airports and air navigation service providers, as well as other suppliers to the industry, require sufficient insurance coverage to operate. Insurance is required by regulation, commercial contracts and for fiduciary reasons.
Air industry participants need two types of insurance coverage: general risk and war risk. "War risks" is the term that the insurance industry uses to describe potential damages caused by acts of violence. These include acts of war but also other actions like civil unrest and, of particular concern in recent times, acts of terrorism.
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, insurance providers invoked short-term cancellation clauses for war risk coverage, leaving the air industry in a predicament. The absence of a workable legislative framework necessitated the government's use of the Royal Prerogative to provide the coverage the aviation industry required.
This bill, the aviation industry indemnity act, would allow the government to provide aviation war risk liability coverage in a dependable and transparent manner. It will allow the tailoring of such assistance to the specific needs of individual industry participants and to rapidly adjust to changes in circumstances. General risk markets are not affected and do not need to be addressed by this bill.
The aviation industry indemnity act would provide the Minister of Transport with the ability to offer an indemnity; it would not guarantee one. The minister would undertake regular assessments of the aviation war risk insurance markets and decide if an indemnity is necessary. The minister would also be able to provide an indemnity on very short notice, especially in the kind of emergency situation when rapid action is necessary.
Because aviation industry participants have differing insurance needs, the bill provides for tailoring an indemnity to meet the individual needs. This flexibility ensures that coverage remains available to Canada's aviation industry when and if it is necessary.
The bill includes provisions that allow the Minister of Transport to attach terms and conditions to an undertaking. These include the amount of indemnity to be provided and whether the aviation industry will have to purchase some insurance on its own. This is particularly important when there is instability but not complete market failure. This approach provides the additional benefit of encouraging commercial insurance markets to optimize coverage and divides the risk between the government and the air insurance industries in a way that is most appropriate to the circumstances prevailing at the time.
In conclusion, this bill will allow the government to provide aviation war risk insurance coverage in a dependable and transparent manner, as and when needed, due to limitations in the commercial insurance markets.
Thank you.
Sylvain Lachance, Executive Director, Legislative, Regulatory International Affairs, Transport Canada: I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to discuss the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 that form part of Bill C-3, the safeguarding of Canada's seas and skies act.
These amendments focus on three key areas. The first addresses gaps in civil and criminal immunity protection for those who respond to an oil spill. The amendments will extend immunity to certified Canadian response organizations when they respond to a spill that occurs when a vessel is loading or unloading oil at an oil handling facility and provide the same level of immunity for agents of a certified response organization when responding to an oil spill in Canadian waters.
The second will enhance current requirements for oil handling facilities to reduce the likelihood of a spill from occurring. Amendments targeting new oil handling facilities would require anyone proposing to operate a facility to notify the minister and to submit oil pollution prevention and emergency plans at least 90 days before operations begin.
The minister will be able to compel anyone who proposes to operate a facility to submit any information or documents required to assess compliance and the facility may not begin operations unless the plans meet the regulatory requirements.
Other amendments target oil handling facilities that are already operational. Operators of oil handling facilities wishing to make a significant change to their operation — for example, transfer rate, product, et cetera — must notify the minister at least 180 days beforehand. This includes an obligation to revise and submit plans to the minister 90 days before making the change; prohibiting the facility from making a change to operations unless the plans meet the requirements set out in regulations; and requiring these plans to be kept up to date.
The proposed changes will also provide the minister with the ability to direct the operator of the facility to update or revise a plan and submit it, and to take measures if it is believed an oil handling facility has discharged, is discharging or is likely to discharge oil.
The minister can now also monitor measures taken to repair, remedy, minimize or prevent pollution damage, and direct operators to take necessary measures to achieve this.
Finally, the minister will have the power to designate an oil handling facility as part of any class regardless of its class as prescribed in regulations.
The third series of proposed amendments creates a fair and effective alternative to prosecution when dealing with minor to moderate contraventions of the pollution prevention and response requirements of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and pursuant regulations. Currently, there are only two options for dealing with non-compliance with Part 8 of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and its regulations: either prosecute infractions or take administrative actions like suspending the certification of a non-compliant response organization. Both options are drastic and potentially expensive.
Extending administrative monetary penalties to Part 8 offers a flexible enforcement tool that provides a quick yet effective and fair means to address non-compliance.
Actions such as failing to submit updated plans, notify the minister of a change in operations or update plans following a change in operations will now constitute offences.
I would be happy to take your questions about these amendments.
Daniel Haché, Director, International Marine Policy, Transport Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, honourable senators.
The purpose of the proposed amendments to the Marine Liability Act is to fill a gap in the current liability regime for ships and to ensure that Canadians and the environment are well protected from certain risks of marine transport, namely from hazardous and noxious substances.
These amendments achieve this by implementing an important international convention in Canadian law that makes shipowners strictly liable for all losses and damages by ensuring that shipowners carry the appropriate amount of compulsory insurance for the risks associated with the cargoes they carry and by providing Canadians with access to an international fund to provide compensation beyond the shipowner's limit.
These amendments are important and necessary because while Canada has an excellent maritime safety regime and record, it is important to have in place a robust liability and compensation regime to ensure that polluters pay for incidents and that Canadian centres are protected by modern legislation that includes proper compensation.
For many years, Canada has been at the forefront internationally in the development of a global regime to address this issue. In 2010, the International Maritime Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations, adopted the 2010 Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention. The convention has been developed with the participation of Canadian stakeholders who widely support the passage of the proposed amendments to the Marine Liability Act.
These amendments contain all of the provisions necessary to implement this new convention in Canada and will allow for its eventual ratification. By ratifying the 2010 Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention, Canada will gain access to approximately $400 million in compensation for a single spill of hazardous or noxious substances.
Shipping is truly and inherently a global industry. The international shipping industry is responsible for carrying 90 per cent of world trade and is critical to the functioning of global commerce. Ships operate on the world's oceans and waterways and are constantly on the move from state to state to connect global supply chains and deliver goods and people to their markets and destinations. These amendments will mark a major improvement in ensuring adequate protection for claimants and victims of hazardous and noxious substances incidents.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. MacDougall?
Aline MacDougall, Director, Portfolio Policy and Governance, Transport Canada: Good morning. I'm pleased to be here today to speak to an amendment to the Canada Marine Act.
Canadian ports play a significant role in marine transportation and contribute to the economy of our vast country. As a result, the Canada Marine Act was enacted in 1998 and established the Canada port authorities regime.
There are currently 18 port authorities. Each one is an autonomous entity, operating independently from the federal government. They are located across Canada. Each port authority is incorporated under its own letters patent. They are mandated to commercially manage their marine infrastructure and services in a manner that encourages and takes into account input from users and the community in which a port is located.
Port authorities are managed by boards of directors composed of between 7 and 11 directors. The Governor-in-Council appoints the majority of the directors on the boards. These individuals are nominated by the minister and, in most cases, in consultation with port users. Municipalities and provinces also appoint directors to port authority boards.
The Governor-in-Council sets the effective dates for most appointments in the Transport portfolio. In the case of port authorities, subsection 14(2.2) of the Canada Marine Act stipulates that appointments come into effect when port authorities are notified and are, therefore, not set by the Governor-in-Council. This qualification appears to be a unique constraint to the Governor-in-Council's powers to appoint.
As a result, an additional administrative process is required to track and monitor effective dates for appointments to port authorities. This process affects a total of 95 Governor-in-Council appointments, representing one third of all appointments in the Transport portfolio.
The government is proposing to amend the Canada Marine Act in order to standardize the effective dates throughout the Transport portfolio. This amendment would allow the Governor-in-Council to set the effective dates of the appointments to port authorities, improving the efficiency in administrative processes.
This change would only affect the effective dates of appointments to port authorities, and no other changes to the qualifications or other appointment requirements would be made.
Lieutenant Colonel Martin Leblanc, Chief Investigator, Directorate of Flight Safety, National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: These are our proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act.
[Translation]
Allow me to introduce myself: I am Lieutenant-Colonel Martin Leblanc. I am the Chief Investigator for the Royal Canadian Air Force. I am here today on behalf of the Airworthiness Investigative Authority, the AIA, for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian armed forces. I am also assisted by Mr. Jim Armour, my Senior Investigator, and Mr. Alex Weatherston, our legal counsel; both of them have worked on the development of this bill.
[English]
One of the responsibilities of the airworthiness investigative authority, the AIA, is to conduct safety investigations into matters concerning military aviation safety, an activity the Minister of National Defence is charged with undertaking under the Aeronautics Act.
These amendments correct deficiencies that presently exist regarding the AIA's ability to properly carry out thorough safety investigations when civilians are involved. These amendments are critical to the proper conduct of military aviation safety investigations because they provide appropriate tools to the designated investigators to carry out their duties in a competent, transparent and independent manner.
The sole purpose of safety investigations is to identify aviation safety deficiencies and to make safety recommendations to prevent their recurrence. Such investigations are only for safety purposes, and they cannot be used for disciplinary and/or administrative purposes. This is very similar to the processes already in place and used by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the TSB. Within the department's Flight Safety Program, this creates a free and open reporting culture because the outcome of the investigation process is a "blameless" series of findings and recommendations aimed at prevention.
[Translation]
Over time, the participation level of civilians in military operations and training has greatly increased. Civilian activities range from total maintenance of search and rescue and transport fleets to the lease of civilian-owned training aircraft in Moose Jaw and Portage la Prairie. The National Defense Act provides the legal authority for investigators within military elements and situations because lawful orders may be given to ensure the cooperation of military aviation safety investigations. However, this act does not generally apply to civilians, and with the increasing involvement of civilian persons in military aviation sectors, investigators lack the statutory authority to carry out their mandated investigations.
[English]
Of note, the TSB is prohibited by the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, the CTAISB Act, from investigating military aviation accidents unless they involve civilian aviation facilities or non-military aircraft.
The proposed Aeronautics Act amendments correct this situation by importing many powers and provisions that are largely consistent with those that the TSB utilizes, but the powers would be made available for military investigations where civilians are involved. Civilians and the aviation industry are completely familiar with these processes.
In summary, this legislation gives the AIA's designated investigators the appropriate powers to investigate matters concerning military aviation safety, regardless of who is involved and where the occurrence happens.
Because both the TSB and military investigators will have relatively the same requirements to safeguard privileged information, the sharing of such information would be facilitated during coordinated investigations involving TSB and military investigators.
Last and most importantly, the safety of the men and women in military aviation, the civilians involved in military aviation and the general public will be greatly improved because transparent and thorough aviation investigations will take place.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present our amendments.
Senator Batters: I'm not a regular member of this committee, so I appreciate the opportunity to be here today on this important piece of proposed legislation.
My home province is Saskatchewan, the proud home of 15 Wing Moose Jaw. It was nice to hear Moose Jaw said in French. It's also the home of Canada's famed Snowbirds and the NATO Flying Training in Canada program. I'm particularly interested in the proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act.
Clause 19 of the bill seeks to create the airworthiness investigative authority under the Department of National Defence to investigate incidents or accidents involving military aircraft or installations and civilians. Overall, the new provisions in clause 19 are comparable to the provisions in the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.
Mr. Leblanc, you just outlined a number of provisions that help us to understand this, but could you explain in more detail the existing process for investigating incidents or accidents involving military aircraft or installations and civilians? Also, could you tell us why it's necessary to create a new investigative authority rather than assign the full responsibility to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada?
Lt.-Col. Leblanc: I will answer the latter question first. If you recall, the CTAISB Act precludes the TSB from investigating military aviation safety matters unless it involves civilian facilities and non-military aircraft. The powers to investigate military aviation safety matters under the Aeronautics Act through the Minister of National Defence are delegated to the AIA.
Currently, flight safety is progressed primarily through contractual agreements with DND and our civilian counterparts. We rely strongly on the goodwill of the civilian aspect to participate in our safety investigations.
Although in the past it has been a problem on a few occasions, it is not the norm, I must say, because aviation safety is something that everybody has at heart, military and/or civilian; but we have run into issues. One ongoing investigation involves a weather forecaster. An aircraft had to be recovered at an airport well below Visual Flight Rules Weather Minima, which could have caused a great risk to the aircraft and its occupants.
Senator Batters: Can you tell us a little more about the existing process? You explained why it's necessary to have a new investigating authority, but the existing process applies only to military aircraft, and you said that the civilian aspect needs to be brought in because right now it is done voluntarily. You need to have those rules in place, do you not?
Lt.-Col. Leblanc: Yes. Currently under the National Defence Act, we could compel a military member to provide a statement or to provide any evidence that would be important for the investigation. With civilians, we rely on goodwill. If for whatever reason they do not wish to participate or contribute to the investigation, they have that option because the law does not compel them to provide a statement or evidence, even though they might have evidence crucial to the outcome of the investigation.
Senator Eggleton: On the question posed by Senator Batters about why you wouldn't use the Transportation Safety Board, you said that it's prohibited by the act. Well, either way, we're going to change the legislation, so why wouldn't we just change that legislation?
You said in your presentation that:
. . . the TSB is prohibited by the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, the CTAISB Act, from investigating military aviation accidents unless they involve civilian aviation facilities or non-military aircraft.
Why wouldn't we just change it to say that the TSB could do that? In that way, we wouldn't have to duplicate it by putting in a second agency, which you point out in your remarks would be very similar. Why not just change that act, use the same board, and add military expertise as would be necessary in dealing with military aircraft? Why wouldn't we just do that?
Lt.-Col. Leblanc: One of the big differences, sir, is that the TSB investigators write their reports for the TSB board. For us in military investigations, we report to the minister. The minister has the authority, if need be, to not make a report public. One example could be the involvement of a fighter aircraft. Making such an investigation public could divulge information regarding our defence capabilities or vulnerabilities. As we report to the minister, the CTAISB Act does not apply. The minister's authority is under the Aeronautics Act.
Senator Eggleton: I suppose we could make that change in terms of the reporting, but I see your point.
Senator Plett: I have two questions, one for Mr. Dawson and the other with regard to the Marine Liability Act.
I apologize if I should be more familiar with insurance for aviation war risk, but I'm not. I would like you to explain more clearly what kind of insurance the government offers. You said the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act would allow the government to provide aviation war risk liability coverage. Give me an example of that.
Mr. Dawson: It's a coverage, not an insurance. For example, we have a program in place whereby the industry has to buy some insurance of its own for both general insurance and war risk issues. If there's an incident, then the government would top off or add money to the pot to cover the costs of the incident.
An example of an incident would be the attacks on New York, whereby the intention of the people who did that was to harm the state and they used aviation as a means of doing that. As a result of that incident, the plane and the people in it were more readily identified as covered by insurance. What wasn't directly clear and is still being straightened out to this day is who covers the people on the ground and in those buildings and how much it will cost?
Because these things are unforeseeable, can be quite large, and the air insurance industry for a long time has not been willing to bear that risk and those costs, the purpose of this program is for the government to step in and help.
Senator Plett: It is offering some kind of indemnity for the innocent people. Obviously, criminal activity wouldn't be insured. I guess if we send a fighter jet in somewhere, the pilot and the jet are not covered by this type of policy. If some innocent bystander were to get caught in the crossfire, he might be insured.
Mr. Dawson: Yes. A plane becomes "in flight" the minute it pulls away from the gate. If a bomb were detonated on that plane near another plane, that other plane would be a third party.
Senator Plett: That explains it.
Under the Marine Liability Act, I understand that we ask all of our carriers to carry liability insurance. I appreciate all of that. What are we doing to enforce a ship from another country carrying the types of liability insurance that we're asking our people to carry?
Mr. Haché: I brought with me my technical expert, François Marier, and I will ask Mr. Marier, with your permission, Mr. Chair, to come forward and answer the question.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
François Marier, Manager, International Marine Policy and Liability, Transport Canada: Honourable senator, thank you for the question. The convention imposes a compulsory insurance requirement on all ships that are flagged in the states that are members of the convention, as well as all ships that are calling at ports in those same states. So if Canada were to become a party to the convention, all Canadian flagged ships would have a requirement to carry the adequate amount of insurance, and all foreign ships that call at Canadian ports would have the same requirement to demonstrate evidence of insurance certified by a state party.
Transport Canada would be issuing certificates of insurance, as we currently do for oil tankers and for bunker oil pollution, to all Canadian ships, as well as any foreign ships that require them if they're not flagged in a state party.
Senator Plett: Just to be clear, the way things are right now — and I'll use Russia as an example because some Russian ships come into our waters — we don't have regulations that they have to carry a certain amount of insurance when they are sailing in our waters?
Mr. Marier: Not for this type of risk. This covers hazardous and noxious substances, so anything from chemicals to LNG. For those kinds of risks, there is currently no requirement for them to have any kind of insurance.
Senator Eggleton: First of all, with respect to the aviation industry indemnity act, "act of terrorism," one can understand that in the context of an organized terrorist attack. But we've had a lot of discussion lately about what they call "lone wolves," or an individual who carries out an act which may or may not be considered terrorism but could, in fact, bring a plane down, all on that individual's work. Would that be covered in this, too?
Mr. Dawson: If the spirit of the person's actions was to harm the state or to use the airplane as a tool to achieve their goal, yes.
Senator Eggleton: That would all be spelled out in the indemnity?
Mr. Dawson: Yes, and then each case would be evaluated case by case, based on the merits of the details.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you.
I have a question that our researchers have raised. I don't know much about this, but I'm interested in your comments.
In November 2013, the Tanker Safety Expert Panel observed that the national standards of Canada's preparedness and response regime made it inflexible and inappropriate for the different risks facing coastal regions. To what extent does this bill address the expert panel's concern and recommendation for a risk-based area response planning model?
Mr. Lachance: Thank you for that question.
When this act was put together, or the amendments to the act were put together, the result or the observations or the findings of the tanker safety panel were not available. So they do not address them, per se, but they go some way to reinforcing the current regime that we have.
Some measures have been announced lately on the first phase of the report for area response planning. I think that's what the panel was alluding to at the time. What we had was a one-size-fits-all, 10,000-tonne cleanup capacity throughout the country, and the panel recommended that we implement what's known as area response planning. Those measures were announced lately and are being implemented as we speak.
Senator Eggleton: So there is implementation of it?
Mr. Lachance: Yes, there is implementation.
Senator Eggleton: Is that being done through regulation?
Mr. Lachance: Some will be policy work, program design, regulations and so on. All the tools that we have at our disposal will be used.
Senator Eggleton: Next is the Marine Liability Act. I was listening to Senator Plett's question, and I'm not clear how much of this is covered. The 2010 Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention I understand involves a capping of the liability in case of a spill of hazardous and noxious substances.
I need to understand this. Are we not holding the ship or the owner of the ship responsible for any and all damages, which I think we've seen from some of these incidents in the past involve tourism, fishing industry, private property plus the ecological damage? Is there some limit on the liability of the companies that create this problem?
Mr. Haché: Senator, thank you very much for the question.
The shipowner is, firstly, strictly held liable, so he has to have compulsory insurance and the certificates to prove that. That liability is limited; it's not unlimited. Depending on the tonnage of the ship, that's what determines the level of liability. After that, the compensation fund would kick in, up to a total of about $400 million. So it's a shared responsibility between the shipowner and the shipper, or the one who owns the cargo on the ship. That's how it's done.
If there is a spill of hazardous or noxious substances and it goes beyond the limit of liability of the shipowner, then there would be a levy of all the countries that contributed to this convention in order to supplement the level of compensation, up to a total of about $400 million.
Senator Eggleton: Four hundred million doesn't sound like an awful lot if it's worldwide, and some of these spills could be enormous in terms of cost. We wouldn't be the only country that would be tapping into this 400 million.
Mr. Haché: No, we wouldn't be.
Senator Eggleton: So who picks it up beyond that, when this fund runs out of money? I thought I heard you say that they can put money back in, but it's still only up to 400 million. What happens if it goes beyond the capacity of the company and their insurance, beyond the capacity of this international fund? Who picks it up then?
Mr. Haché: At this point in time, it is capped at 400 million, and then those claims would be prorated within that amount.
Senator Eggleton: So people could have damage occur and might only get 10 cents on the dollar?
Mr. Haché: It would be possible, yes.
Senator Eggleton: Not a very happy circumstance.
The Canada Marine Act, these 18 port authorities, do they support this amendment? You say the Canada Marine Act stipulates that appointments come into effect when port authorities are notified and are therefore not set by the Governor-in-Council — so this would be to make it set by the Governor-in-Council — and to standardize effective dates throughout the Transport portfolio, which I can understand. Are they supportive of this? Is there anything here beyond a simple amendment?
Ms. MacDougall: It's a simple amendment. I don't know that they have been consulted. As it works now, they get notified once the Governor-in-Council approves it. We notify the port and they acknowledge the notification. So it's an administrative process.
Senator Eggleton: They have not been consulted on this, though, so you don't know if they —
Ms. MacDougall: I can check. I wasn't here at the time this started, but I can certainly double-check on that.
Senator Eggleton: I would be interested to know.
Senator MacDonald: The port authorities were established in 1998. I assume the goal was to emulate what was done with the airport authorities in the country. What has been the track record of the port authorities in the last 16 years? Have they developed ports in the way airport authorities have developed airports? If you could do a litmus test on their success, how would it be measured?
Ms. MacDougall: Thank you for the question. I would love to answer that except it's not my area of responsibility. I'm responsible for the Governor-in-Council appointments for the Transport portfolio, but I can bring the question back to my colleagues.
Senator MacDonald: I would like that question brought back because we have discussed airport authorities a lot but we haven't discussed port authorities much, and of course these are bigger ports. There are also authorities for smaller ports in DFO. We don't have a lot of feedback on these authorities and what they have accomplished.
Ms. MacDougall: I will bring the question back.
Senator MacDonald: In regard to insurance, I want to be educated on this a bit. Providing Canadian access to an international fund to provide compensation beyond the shipowner's limit, how does this apply? Does it apply differently inside Canadian, international or foreign waters? If a Canadian ship is in another country's waters or if a foreign ship is in our waters, how do these insurance provisions apply?
Mr. Haché: As Mr. Marier said previously, all countries party to that convention would be following the same program. If we go to a country that has signed onto that convention, then they would be protected from us. A ship from another country coming to Canada that is party to that convention would be the same.
Senator MacDonald: Are there provisions that differentiate between a catastrophic loss of oil in an inland waterway like the Gulf of St. Lawrence or the Bay of Fundy, as opposed to the open ocean off of Prince Rupert or Point Tupper, for example? There are two examples on the East Coast. In 1970, the Arrow went down in Chedabucto Bay and the short-term damage was substantial. The medium-term damage was marginal and the long-term damage was almost non-existent. In fact most of the damage was done when they took the sludge from the beach and plowed it into the marshlands; there are no ducks left there now. This is the type of thing that was done.
On the other hand, when the Kurdistan went down in the Cabot Strait, it rolled over in the middle of the night and no one knew it was gone for about 24 hours. It ended up on the bottom of the ocean and there was almost no damage. There will obviously be a lot more damage if there's a catastrophic loss of oil in an inland waterway. Do the insurance provisions account for that in terms of where these ships are operating?
Mr. Haché: For oil, the program is already in place, with a limited liability according to tonnage for the shipowner. Then there are two international funds to which Canada is party and we even have our own domestic fund. All of those strata in the program apply to all Canadian waters up to a total of $1.36 billion right now. We have that as we speak.
Senator MacDonald: The liability is based on tonnage.
Mr. Haché: First, the owner is held strictly liable according to tonnage and that limits their liability.
Senator MacDonald: Is there liability according to the toxicity of what they're carrying?
Mr. Haché: No, there is not.
Senator MacDonald: There is a big difference between LNG getting into the water or bunker sea.
Mr. Haché: Yes, there is.
Senator MacDonald: Is there no provision for that?
Mr. Haché: No.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Welcome to our witnesses, and thank you for appearing before the committee. My question is for Mr. Lachance. In its first report, tabled in November 2013, the tanker safety expert panel observed that the national standards of Canada's preparedness and response regime make it inflexible and inappropriate for the different risks facing coastal regions.
To what extent does this bill address the expert panel's concerns and recommendation for a risk-based area response planning model?
Mr. Lachance: Thank you for your question, senator. In fact, this bill was prepared before the expert panel tabled its report, which does not necessarily deal with those concerns.
However, what the expert panel was referring to was the fact that the current regime calls for an equivalent response capacity across the entire country, in other words, a cleanup capacity for a spill of 10,000 tons of oil. The regime served Canada well, despite all of that, and the regime has worked well for several years. However, it is time to make some adjustments and to adapt our response capacity based on different sectors, locations, and the fragility of some areas.
The government recently announced the implementation of new measures aiming to respond to the expert panel's concerns and to establish what is called area response planning. That is exactly what we are currently implementing.
[English]
Senator Plett: Getting back to the aviation industry indemnity act, in your presentation, Mr. Dawson, you also state:
The aviation industry indemnity act would provide the Minister of Transport with the ability to offer an indemnity; it would not guarantee one.
Then you state:
The minister would also be able to provide an indemnity on very short notice, especially in the kind of emergency situation when rapid action is necessary.
What criteria would the minister use to decide that he would not offer the indemnity? I think of the families of everyone killed on the ground. Maybe in the New York situation they would have been, but I'm sure everyone there would have thought that they should be covered.
The last comment about an "emergency situation when rapid action is necessary" almost sounds to me like offering insurance after the fact. A person finds out he has cancer and then he goes and wants to buy life insurance. At that point the insurer would probably say he should have come a little earlier.
Mr. Dawson: I will address the second one first.
That is meant for instances where the government wants to, for example, take citizens out of Libya. That happened in the past. That probably would occur on fairly short notice. For the government to rent a commercial plane, that plane's insurance would not be valid. The government would need to be able to say, "I cover you, so ahead and do what I ask you to do, please." That's the sort of short notice we were anticipating with this.
With regard to instances when you're asking why the government wouldn't just have this all the time, if you think back to 2001, it was put into place because the insurance industry withdrew and said they were not willing to cover because it was too risky and cost too much and the chances were that they were going to lose.
Since that time, the insurance industry has rebounded and the government has been providing a program whereby we force the industry to go out to the airlines and airports to get some insurance, and if something happens we will cover. If we found today, for instance, that the insurance industry was quite strong and that the insurance companies were willing to offer the amounts that are required and anticipated, it would be a question of why the government would offer a program to cover when the industry already has sufficient insurance.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
Senator Eggleton: I have a quick question to Lieutenant-Colonel Leblanc regarding the authorities being recommended in this bill for the airworthiness investigative authority. As you point out, it's a similar process to what's already used by the Transportation Safety Board. Is there a cost estimate to set up this parallel authority?
Lt.-Col. Leblanc: I'm not aware of any additional cost that would come with this in the sense that part of the investigation compels a witness to provide a statement. That's not an additional cost. There is no cost associated with having the ability to seize evidence for investigative purposes. Mind you, the evidence, the tear down at the manufacturer, for example, could incur costs, but that's the normal process of an investigation.
One of the authorities that we're seeking is to have the ability to cordon off an accident site for general public safety purposes, so there are really no additional costs. It is authorities based.
Senator Eggleton: Do you have the staff resources now to do this?
Lt.-Col. Leblanc: Within the investigative office here in Ottawa, we don't have all the integral resources, but the Flight Safety Program, the network of flight safety investigators at the wing level and unit level augments us. Also, in the example of site security, we could ask for military police to augment us to provide site security. Within the Canadian Armed Forces, we have the resources. They might not be integral to the DFS.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you.
The Chair: I would like to thank the witnesses for their participation.
Colleagues, as you know, by reference from the Senate, we have to report on Bill C-43 by Thursday, so we will adopt the short comments that we mentioned earlier concerning Bill C-43 tomorrow night. Also, having no additional witnesses for Bill C-3, if you agree, we will go to clause-by-clause consideration also tomorrow night. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: See you tomorrow night.
(The committee adjourned.)