Bill C-7 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends Parts 3 and 4 of the Marine Liability Act to clarify certain rules of the limitation of liability of owners of ships for maritime claims and liability for the carriage of passengers, in particular the treatment of participants in adventure tourism activities.
It also amends Part 6 of that Act to implement the Protocol of 2003 to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 as well as the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001. The enactment continues, in Part 7, the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund and modernizes its governance. With respect to Part 8, it includes general provisions relating to the administration and enforcement of offences under that Act and creates a maritime lien for Canadian ship suppliers against foreign vessels and establishes a general limitation period for proceedings not covered by other limitation periods.
Finally, this enactment amends the Federal Courts Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Marine Liability Act

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Western Arctic for his fine work on the committee, because we are in a congratulatory frame of mind. He is a valuable member for his party.

I thank him for thinking of the contribution of the Liberal Party members on the committee as being valiant and worthy of the support of those who are toiling hard in that very valuable career of law. I am sure, given his grit and his fight, he would be very happy because he fights tooth and nail to get the support of the manicurists and the dentists.

He talked in terms of whether we had glossed over some of these issues. Could he take a moment to reflect upon the debate that addressed the issues of adventure tourism? In his presentations in the committee he also took a very pro-adventure tourism position, especially as it relates to those he sees in operation in Western Arctic.

I know he did not want to gloss over the dangers associated with some adventure tourism. Could he give us some of those views again? I am not sure they came across very thoroughly in the presentations we have seen in the House today on the third reading on the bill.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his perception about the nature of the debate. The adventure tourism debate is one that is not an easy debate. Coming from an area of the country that has considerable adventure tourism, not simply in my own community but across the north, it was important to understand that there would be a definition around adventure tourism. I was not completely satisfied with the definition, but within the bill the government has the ability to put forward conditions and regulations that can carefully define the industry.

In some of the presentations from the witnesses, they were very concerned, and I think my hon. Bloc colleague talked about this in his speech as well, about the potential for operators of non-adventure tourism to take advantage of the law to reduce their liability insurance by offering waivers.

We were quite clearly looking at defining that for adventure tourism. When people are on a Maid of the Mist tour underneath Niagara Falls, it is not considered adventure tourism. The proposed bill will not allow the operators of vessels like that, and I am sure the operators of the Maid of the Mist are not interested in this, to take advantage of the situation to reduce their cost of their liability insurance.

Those were some of the intricacies of the adventure tourism section within the bill.

Laws are made by man and man is not perfect, or humans to be more specific. The bill is not perfect, but it is the third iteration of this issue in front of Parliament, and it is the best so far.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, my question to the member once again deals with the adventure tour operators. It seems to me that one of the ways groups got around expensive insurance programs in the past was to develop their own self-insurance program. In fact, 100 years ago when Prairie farmers could not get insurance for their farms, they banded together and formed mutual insurance companies, like Wawanesa, Red River and all sorts of other well-known insurance companies, which are around to this day.

Perhaps the adventure tour operators, if they find insurance too expensive, should get together and self-insure and develop a pot of money that they could use to pay claims. Then they could insure—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I will have to interrupt the hon. member in order to give the hon. member for Western ArcticWestern Arctic an opportunity to respond before the call for the vote.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, the insurance industry does not have many participants in adventure tourism right now. It is really a limited market. That evidence was presented at committee. The potential for co-operative action on this, with the extremely large liability costs without the waivers, is unlikely.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will have approximately four minutes for questions and answers when debate resumes.

The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This bill affects a number of regions of Canada. I should start by saying that, naturally, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill in principle. This bill follows on the signature by the Government of Canada of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001, as well as the protocol of 2003 to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992,

It was high time that the government honoured its international commitments. Not only does integration of these new instruments and principles into federal law guarantee higher compensation to victims of marine accidents, but it will also have positive repercussions on the Canadian compensation fund.

Withdrawing the prohibition for adventure tourism activities to use waivers in order to be exonerated of civil responsibilities toward their passengers is a good thing for us as well. By their very nature, these activities involve a degree of risk that participants must assume. Although this change may at first glance seem to be sufficient, it will be necessary to evaluate its repercussions in committee. The creation of a maritime lien for Canadian ship suppliers against foreign vessels was equally desirable, but again it is essential that it be studied in committee because that will make it possible to determine the scope of this addition and to suggest improvements to it as well.

I will close by stating that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Newton—North Delta.

I have the honour to speak today to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Marine Liability Act. I will restrict my comments to the maritime lien that is proposed in clause 139.

I am not a member of the transport committee but I have attended four different meetings. I was a substitute at the first meeting and I noted a serious problem in the legislation, so I came back for three other meetings to see if we could fix it. I proposed amendments specifically with respect to this maritime lien and those amendments were discussed on May 7. I am disappointed to say that the government voted against them so I am here today to explain the situation and ask the Conservatives to reconsider them. However, at a minimum, Canadians need to know that they voted against these proposed amendments and why they did.

Specifically, clause 139, the maritime lien, which is what we call a right, states:

A person, carrying on business in Canada, has a maritime lien against a foreign vessel for claims that arise

(a) in respect of goods, materials or services wherever supplied to a foreign vessel for its operation or maintenance, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, stevedoring and lighterage; and

(b) out of a contract relating to the repair or equipping of a foreign vessel.

It is a lot of language but, in short, it means that if a foreign vessel comes into Canada and a person supplies services to it, the person has a right to get paid and attempt to exercise that right against the actual ship.

The next question is whether this right actually does anything for the person. The problem is that it does not because, in most circumstances, that right would be meaningless. Although the person would have the right to get payment, how would the person actually do it because, generally speaking, people will have extreme difficulty trying to get the money?

We need to look at this on a very practical basis. If people are owed $200, $500, $2,000 or whatever it may be, how will they get their money? Although this proposed maritime lien would give people the right to try to get the money, what do they need to do? With the way the current system is written, which has a gap in terms of the remedy, people must sue. Therefore, if there is a foreign vessel in a port that owes people money and it is about to leave, there is nothing people can do about it. If it is from a foreign country, people will need to hire a lawyer and try to sue somewhere even if a judge will accept jurisdiction in a foreign country. This is not a practical right because there is no way to exercise this.

Even if the ship were to remain in Canada, people would need to hire a lawyer, which means money. Whatever the bill may be, whether it is $400, $500, $800 or more, people need to hire a lawyer in order to sue, pay a filing fee and then try to get an order to stop the ship or sell the ship in order to get their money. People would then need to prepare motion material, which means a notice of motion, an affidavit or two and a documentation order, that is assuming they could even find a lawyer who can get it into court. Even if they do find a lawyer who can get into court, they then have to wait. It could be a number of hours and the lawyers charge by the hour. Assuming they could even find a lawyer and even find a judge, they may end up spending a few thousand dollars trying to enforce a debt of a few hundred dollars that is owed. People will not do it.

Once again, I am not on this committee but I kept coming back because I thought this would be better for Canadians. Sections 128 and 129 already have a provision for a designated officer to direct a ship to stop and to issue a detention order if it looks like something untoward has occurred. What that would really mean is that some problems would be solved. First, a ship escaping or leaving Canada would be stopped. Once it is here it would not be able to go anywhere, which means we are preserving that right and that lien.

Second, if a detention order were issued, part of it would say that the foreign vessel must pay a certain amount of money before it could be released. It just keeps the status quo. It keeps it there. The owner can pay the money and go or go in front of a judge, which puts the onus on the foreign vessel owner to actually do something. At least Canadians would be protected.

With the amendments that I proposed, which I am disappointed to say that the Conservatives voted against, ships would be kept in Canada and they would either have to pay or go before a judge. That would skip the first layer of having to actually hire a lawyer and spend all that money.

The Canadian Bar Association had a representative who said that he was opposed to these amendments. I understand that because I am the former secretary of the Ontario Bar Association representing approximately 17,000 lawyers. The job of the Ontario Bar Association and the Canadian Bar Association is to represent lawyers. I am particularly disappointed with the parliamentary secretary, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, who is also a lawyer. He said that he knows how a court works, and I believe him, but he was supporting lawyers. In essence, he said, “You can hire a lawyer, you can pay a lawyer and you can get into court and we'll leave things the way they are”. That means that people who cannot afford a lawyer or people who have very small claims will not have any fair redress. I am very disappointed with that because our job is not to represent a particular constituency group, but Canadians in general. Although I am lawyer, I am here to represent the people of Brampton West and Canadians. I am very disappointed with the government for this.

I would like to read some specific quotes by the parliamentary secretary when he was at the committee on Thursday, May 7. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure gave examples and said, “You've got a large, expensive ship...with a small bill, whatever it may be, owed to Canadians, and I just don't see that as being appropriate”.

In essence, he was siding with the foreign vessels and with the lawyers over Canadian citizens who may be owed money but, for some unfair reason, the foreign vessel has refused to pay them. I do not see that as appropriate for a member of Parliament.

A second quote by the parliamentary secretary reads, “I believe lawyers can be called on a phone--I know I was available most nights until midnight--and can do a lien and find a judge in time to do it, even after hours”.

What he is saying is that we will not be changing the system, we will not be making it better for Canadians and constituents. We will keep it with lawyers. We will keep this as an expensive system even though the amounts in question are so small that either people will not bother and, therefore, will be treated unfairly, or they will not be able to afford to exercise their right. I find that quite disappointing.

The legal counsel for the Department of Transport acknowledges that this change would be something that would be added to the legislation. He says that it would be an element to the way in which a maritime lien is enforced and a positive step to help Canadians and our fellow constituents.

Despite that comment, the parliamentary secretary and the government, for whatever reason, just voted against all of this to defeat what I think would be a very positive change for Canadians.

Although this may seem complicated, it is not. It is as simple as this. There is a new right, a maritime lien under clause 139. There would be no way to practically use this unless there is a substantive change. It just would not happen on an everyday practical basis.

I proposed a substantive amendment that would create a remedy so Canadians could enforce and use this maritime lien. It would help Canadians, who we should be focusing on, and innocent service providers, not advocacy groups, such as the owners of foreign vessels or lawyers. There is nothing wrong with lawyers making a decent living but we can cut out the first step for the benefit of Canadians and still require a court as a second step. This would save money and protect the rights of Canadians.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton West for his insightful contributions to a sometimes very technical debate that has everything to do with serving Canadians and ensuring the commerce of this land operates on an even keel, no pun intended, and with total transparency so that all consumers and contributors are protected.

As he said, his suggestions were turned down by the government even though virtually all of the representatives who came forward said that the rights of Canadians could be protected if we could have a minor amendment linking the vessel owners in a contractual arrangement with those who were utilizing the vessel for purposes of commerce. They do not necessarily need to be the same individual. However, as long as there could be a contractual connection, then we might not need those amendments.

I am wondering whether the member for Brampton West would clarify that for us, because the government accepted neither of those positions. In negating either of those positions, is it his opinion that the rights of Canadians are that much diminished? Could the House stand for diminishing the rights of Canadians?

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for supporting my amendment and recognizing immediately that additional work was required to make this legislation better.

I am always concerned when somebody puts something down on paper that sounds good and looks good but does not actually do something, which is what the government has done with respect to this maritime lien in clause 139. The average person will not be able to use it or will choose not to use it because the amounts of money that we are talking about, generally speaking, that Canadians will seek to go after are quite small in relation to what they will need to pay a lawyer. On a practical basis, they may not even have the opportunity because these vessels may leave Canada. Some may come back and some may not come back.

I believe that to make this maritime lien an actual right that will work, we need to do more. Why put it in there if it is not going to work? I would encourage the government and members of the committee to reconsider this for the benefit of their constituents.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for noticing this and taking the time and effort to go back three times. He clearly feels very strongly about this. I also thank him for his attention to the bill and for his very thoughtful discussion.

I am wondering if the member could share why he thinks his amendment was voted against, especially when the vote was in favour of a foreign vessel over Canadians.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I think that it was voted against simply because of politics. From what I saw in the committee, there was an agreement that they would simply vote against all Liberal amendments. I do not think they actually considered it.

When I was able to sit down with some of the members of the committee afterward, I believe many of them were actually supportive, in theory, of this extra protection but I think politics trumped what was right on behalf of Canadians. That is why I am here and that is why I am asking the Conservatives to consider this and to do what is right on behalf of Canadians, rather than simply focusing on what their political objectives might be in trying to defeat Liberals no matter what.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-7, which represents some badly needed updates to the Marine Liability Act. These updates are essential in an age when Canada's waterways are becoming some of the most hotly contested in the world.

Whether it concerns land, sea or air, the world has undergone a revolution over the past 20 years with regard to making polluters pay. Responsibility never seems to be properly demonstrated to organizations or individuals until the perpetrators are hit in their pocketbooks.

Bill C-7 would bring Canada into line with several international conventions that have come into effect in recent years.

In British Columbia the threat of accidents occurring as a result of oil tanker traffic is always of great concern.

In terms of oil spills, the Exxon Valdez disaster will remain in our minds forever. It spilled 41 million litres of oil, one-sixth of the oil it carried, and polluted 2,000 kilometres of coastline. Hundreds of thousands of birds, fish and animals died right away, including somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 seabirds, thousands of sea otters, hundreds of harbour seals and bald eagles, a couple of dozen killer whales, and a dozen or more river otters.

Over the past two years there has been furious discussion in my home province about the validity of the federal government's statement dating back to the early 1970s in regard to a moratorium on oil tanker traffic along the B.C. coast. While I am not going to delve into that particular debate in my speech today, I am going to try to point out that we as a country must be better prepared to mitigate any future incidents should they occur. With this in mind, I am pleased that the first convention this bill would ratify is the Protocol of 2003 to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992.

More specifically, this change to the act would provide an additional tier of compensation for damages resulting from the spill of persistent oil, mainly crude oil, from tankers from about $405 million to $1.5 billion per incident. In citing this provision, let me attempt to properly convey the sensitive nature of British Columbia's fragile and pristine coastal areas.

According to Statistics Canada, the total cargo handled at Canadian ports and marinas in 2006 was 466.3 million tonnes. The domestic tonnage handled in 2006 represented 136.2 tonnes. What must also be noted is that these figures do not include vessels that are used for recreation, tourism, or purposes other than cargo transport.

This leads me into the next provision of the bill that is extremely important for British Columbia, namely, the exemption of liability for the marine adventure tourism industry.

Before I talk about this industry and its growth potential, I want to point out one simple fact. All marine adventure tourism operators are required to have a minimum of $1 million in liability insurance, and a certificate of insurance must be delivered prior to a license being issued. This requirement alone is reason enough for operators to be exempted from part 4 of the act. Combine this with the fact that waivers are a standard practice for water-based adventure tourism activities that are inherently fraught with danger, and there are enough guarantees in place to ensure safety associated with that industry.

Operators cannot always be at risk of frivolous claims, particularly with activities where one of the main attractions is the risk involved. The fact is that the west coast of British Columbia provides an unparalleled setting for ecotourism, adventure travel, nature tourism or sustainable tourism. These are currently the fastest growing segments of the tourism industry on the west coast. They present risks, but they also create jobs in British Columbia. By current projections, the estimates for anticipated labour demand in the area of adventure tourism and recreation will be 13,100 workers by 2015. This is nothing to scoff at.

This bill is an indication that Ottawa understands the unique nature and characteristics of operators within marine adventure tourism. This is a substantive bill. Although I have only had time to touch upon a couple of main issues, I would like to make a couple of salient points to conclude.

Bill C-7 represents the culmination of many years of important work that parliamentarians on all sides of the House have engaged in. It is very specific in its amendments to the Marine Liability Act and therefore is very limited in the kind of attention it might garner. However, these are the kinds of amendments that can make industries more globally competitive and more important, protect Canadians from dangers that often only become apparent when it is too late.

This is an important bill. It has been a privilege to stand today to articulate my support for it.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to elaborate further on some of the benefits this legislation might have for the port of Vancouver and in the other ports in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

The port authorities on the Lower Mainland are very anxious to ensure that the commercial legislation and the regulatory system benefit the enterprises that they think are crucial to the development of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. In fact, representatives appeared before members of the committee, myself included, and talked about the economic advantage the port of Vancouver has for British Columbia and for all of Canada.

In the course of the last couple of governments, beginning with the one that I was privileged to be a part of, the Liberal government under Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien established a Pacific gateway to develop the Canadian economy through the Lower Mainland port authorities.

I am wondering whether the member would take a few moments to explain how this legislation enhances the economic benefits and opportunities for those ports and for the transportation system in western Canada that emanates from those ports.