Evidence of meeting #13 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ships.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
It would oblige them to obtain the necessary insurance.
4:05 p.m.
Chair, National Maritime Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
What forces them to insure is being a good operator: insurance is risk management. If you're someone like Sears Canada, for example, I suspect you don't have insurance because you're big enough to look after it yourself.
Those of us who have insurance on our cars and our homes and our boats have it because if we have an accident we can't simply write a cheque right there and then, and we ask an insurance company to do it for us. Good operators with a bottomless bank account don't need insurance. They can look after any claims they're presented with themselves; they can self-insure. But what you find is that most operations have cashflow issues, so they don't have bottomless pits of money. From a risk management point of view, they spread their risk around, saying that if A happens, then this insurance company will look after it, and if B happens, then that insurance company will look after it.
I think the whole idea of compulsory or not compulsory insurance is getting away a little from the true focus, which is on having a minimum safety standard and making sure the good operator is running a good tourism operation.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for joining us today on a bill about which, certainly in my office, we've had a lot of difficulty getting information. I thank you for coming forward and providing it today.
Mr. Bowie, I'm curious. You have this fleet of ships that are reaching their due date. Typically, what would be the value of a ship like this?
4:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Shipowners Association
That will depend on the individual ship, but to replace a ship like that, you'd be talking about $50 million or $60 million per ship.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
And is the problem with the Canadian shipyards that they're just not handling this size of ship, or is it the particular type, or why have they quit providing them?
4:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Shipowners Association
In many cases it's a question of the size of the shipyard and whether or not the dry dock is capable of accommodating them. In other cases, shipyards—such as Davie, for example—don't have an interest in building these kinds of ships. Their business model is based on larger offshore types of value-added products that we don't provide. Our ships have a high component of steel and are essentially for bulk movements. So the yards that have the capability don't have the interest.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
And are the yards that are providing ships providing offshore ships that would not fit under this duty? Is it that the duty would not apply to them outside Canadian waters?
4:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Shipowners Association
I'm sorry, I'm not too clear on your question.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
How many of those ships that they're building are being favoured by the duty that's on? Would the majority of them get an economic advantage out of this 25%?
4:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Shipowners Association
A lot of the work they are doing is maintenance and repair on our fleet, and certainly the Canadian yards are critical for that. Some of the yards have taken advantage of an Industry Canada policy that provides a financing facility for foreign shipowners to have those ships built in Canada, but they're mainly focused on smaller ships, such as tugs and that sort of thing, for which they can get the benefit of the industry program and then either supply them here or overseas.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
But would the duty apply to the tugs and to the other boats?
4:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Shipowners Association
It would not apply to foreign shipowners who have them built in Canada. They can benefit from this program and therefore improve.... Because there are a very limited number of Canadian shipbuilders, essentially they need to focus on niche markets.
The other main role of the Canadian shipbuilders is to support our marine security requirements as a country, so they're very focused on responding to the needs of the Canadian Coast Guard and the navy, on the kinds of ships they need in order to provide safety and security services for this country.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Okay.
Mr. Barker, thank you for your presentation. I don't know that I have any other questions for you. Sometimes the fine aspects of the legal agreements are difficult, but quite clearly what you're saying is that these waivers are still going to be much...as to how they're made up, how they're written, how they're signed, and the process by which the waivers are in place for adventure tourism operations will be subject to law. They can either work or not work.
4:10 p.m.
Chair, National Maritime Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
That's correct, Mr. Bevington. What I'm saying is that if you take adventure tourism out of part 4, it goes back to the way it was. All part 4 does is say that waivers are null and void, so if you're out of part 4 and you're in adventure tourism activity, waivers are there. If a waiver is well written, it stands up. If it's not well written, it won't stand up.
4:10 p.m.
Chair, National Maritime Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
There's case law and precedent; it will be business as usual for the adventure tourism industry.
4:10 p.m.
Chair, National Maritime Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
I believe they are. The message I've been getting is that they were happy before 2000 and they will be happy after 2000 if you pass the bill as it exists today.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses who are here today. I appreciate having the opportunity to speak with you.
I thought I should clarify that unfortunately I was not able to be here on Tuesday, so one of my colleagues, the member for Pembroke, Cheryl Gallant, did sit in. I know she was able to ask several questions regarding her riding.
I want to change the focus a little.
Mr. Bowie, you mentioned that these amendments were brought forward and came about because of a paper that was produced in 2005 and also because of consultations that were conducted with all members of the marine community. Can you expand a little on that? I'm interested in hearing about what kinds of consultations took place. Was it just with shipbuilders or was it indeed with all parties in the marine community?
4:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Shipowners Association
Certainly that question could best be answered by the government witnesses, if you get a chance. I believe the minister may speak to this. That would be a question for him.
My understanding of the consultation process is that Transport Canada determined that there was a need to review the Marine Liability Act. A number of issues had been identified by all stakeholders across the system with respect to the current legislation. They produced a position paper on all of the issues that they identified and that were identified by stakeholders such as the adventure tourism industry, shipowners, and ship suppliers. They then went out with that paper to a broad cross-section of stakeholders, sought their input, and as a result of that input, made recommendations to this committee in Bill C-7. So my understanding certainly is that although we had specific discussions about issues that were of interest to domestic shipowners, there was broad consultation, as I said, with ship suppliers, tourism interests, and others across the country.
