Transport Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We've heard a lot from both the questioners and the officials. I just want to take it a step further before we make a decision on this. Are there any other considerations that you can give us with respect to what's been asked here in terms of the amendment? Are there any other things we should take into consideration before we proceed with something like this?

[Aiden Ryan]

I would just reiterate that the purpose of the Marine Transportation Security Act, just in fact already approved by the committee, is to address security risks and threats to the marine transportation system and the health of persons in it.

The Canada Shipping Act already provides the legal framework for regulating marine navigation and safety for the purposes of protecting the public interest and the environment.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Basically what you're saying is that this can be considered somewhat redundant.

[Aiden Ryan]

Yes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Are there any other questions or comments on this?

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I am trying to understand what the problem is with amendment NDP‑3, whose purpose is to establish a list of areas where anchoring would not be allowed. That is what I understand from this amendment. The definition of the area in question would be added later in a schedule. We are simply debating the possibility of not allowing anchoring in certain areas. I am trying to understand how this is a problem. In my opinion, it might be very logical for anchoring not to be appropriate everywhere. On the question of the areas, that could be discussed in a second phase.

I would like to make sure I understand correctly. How is it preventing the minister from directing a vessel to one place or another? If I understand correctly, it will be possible to amend the schedule by regulation. The minister will therefore have the power to make amendments later; he will have all the leeway needed for doing that. Maybe there are members or witnesses who can explain this or clarify it for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Heft, you have the floor.

[Rachel Heft, Manager and Senior Counsel, Transport and Infrastructure Legal Services, Department of Transport]

I think it's important in this instance to remember section 16 as a ministerial order power. As such, it is discretionary. It's intended to be used, as we've discussed, to deal with circumstances in which there are risks to the security of marine transportation and coastal communities, etc., as has been suggested.

However, what we're trying to do is predict situations in which the power would be used and limit the minister's discretion to direct that the vessel take anchor elsewhere. I think that in an attempt to do that, we're dealing with theoretical situations, and we're removing the power of the minister to deal with a security risk and a potential security risk that could be resolved.

Because of the theoretical nature of the question, it's hard to describe a situation in which it could be potentially be necessary for the anchorage to take place in the areas prescribed in the schedule, but I suppose that is the nature of the problem: It's that we don't know what risk the minister may face, and there may be a justifiable reason to direct a vessel to a specific location that would otherwise be prohibited.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Heft.

I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Just to follow up on that, would safety be the primary rationale for having to direct a vessel to a sensitive area?

[Rachel Heft]

The legislation's scope is meant to relate to security risks. Given the original scope of the ministerial order power would be a security risk, I assume that the movement of the vessel from one location to another would be to improve the security situation and not cause a greater security risk to exactly the communities you're describing, but in the absence of a fact situation that we could point to, it's hard to justify or argue against the prescribing of the areas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I appreciate that. It does seem that with the amendment we just voted on, we've expanded the breadth of reasons for which the minister would direct a vessel beyond traditionally defined security to include environmental security, human health and community well-being—so a broader definition of security.

I'm wondering whether there is language we could add to this amendment that would allow for really exceptional circumstances, for instance, to say something like “to remain outside of the area described in the schedule” or “outside of any other area specified by the minister, except in cases where no other safe option exists” or “except in cases where the minister believes”. I think “believes” is the word that's used elsewhere in the act. At the risk of wordsmithing, this is where I'm going with my thinking around these exceptional circumstances. I don't think anyone on the coast would want the minister to avoid directing a vessel to a parking lot to deal with an emergency in those extreme cases, but the idea here is to indicate that there are certain areas into or through which people don't want the minister directing ships unless there's no other option.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Heft, go ahead.

[Rachel Heft]

I think it's fair to say that if there were some discretion built into the order power that would allow for the zones in the schedule to be accessible when the situation so required or where the minister determined, as you say, that the situation would improve or lessen the threat, that would probably address the concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Heft.

I see that Mr. Strahl's hand is up.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think the amendment Ms. Murray and Mr. Bachrach have crafted together already deals with—I don't have the exact wording written down here—the marine environment and the well-being of coastal communities. If the minister feels those are under threat, and he's taking control of a vessel to prevent that from happening—so using this specific area prohibition—then, as Mr. Bachrach said, he will later and other amendments will later try to ban anchorages in there altogether. However, right now, again, I think those amendments that have already been made should give comfort to people in those areas that the minister is not going to take a leaky oil vessel and park it in the southern Gulf Islands if doing so is going to create a threat to the environment.

This is overly prescriptive and redundant, and, in fact, I'd say again that having the minister use this section to ban the use of legal anchorages that are perfectly used right now and that would be used only in an emergency is extremely short-sighted.

You cannot predict what will happen, so you're taking out of the minister's tool box tools that could actually protect people, the environment and communities. You're taking those tools away from him by saying, “Even though it might be the safest place to go, you can't go there.” I think that's very short-sighted, and, again, I believe we've heard from the witnesses that doing that is not an advisable course of action.

I don't think we can amend our way around it. For the people wanting to expand the minister's power to protect the marine environment and the well-being of communities, I believe that has already been addressed. This actually presents a risk to marine safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Are there any other questions or comments?

I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Bachrach, perhaps, before we go to a vote. Go ahead.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

In the interest of trying to build consensus and address the concerns that have been raised by the officials, I'd be happy to propose some other wording with the forbearance of our clerk and perhaps a bit of direction as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You wouldn't be able to, but if you shared ideas on, perhaps, better wording, one of your colleagues could then propose....

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'll put it out there that if someone were to move a subamendment that added the wording, “except in cases in which the minister determines that no other safe option is available”, I would vote for it. I might be the only one.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

In fairness, I'll put that out for discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We now have a subamendment moved by Mr. Badawey. Do we have discussion on that?

I have Mr. Barsalou-Duval.