Debates of Feb. 19th, 1998

Canada Shipping Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member has moved for the adjournment of the House. Does the hon. member have the consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Call in the members.

And the count having been taken:

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe you will find that the member for London—Fanshawe entered the Chamber after you read the motion and should not have been counted in this vote.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe you will also have to strike the votes of the following members on the basis that they left their chairs and left the Chamber during the vote: the member for St. John's East and the member for Wanuskewin.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

What did he say, Wanuskewin? Madam Speaker, I do not think there is a member for Wanuskewin. I am not sure where that is, but the other member that was mentioned was in the Chamber the entire time. He might have got up from his chair, but he was in the Chamber the entire time.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was in the Chamber well before I was required. The bells were still ringing. The most I may have done at some point is shifted to talk to a colleague. I was here in plenty of time.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I think the record will show that I was here for the vote. My vote has been recorded. I just left to go out into the hallway afterward.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We will accept the word of the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 89

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I declare the motion lost.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-4, which amends the Canada Shipping Act as it pertains to maritime liability. It has taken a long time, too long in fact, for the bill to get to this stage, but because it is here now I am very pleased to speak to it.

I come from Saint John, New Brunswick, where we have the largest tankers in the world coming into our harbour because we have the largest privately owned oil refinery in Canada. I have had the pleasure of being taken out in a helicopter to fly over the largest tankers in the world. It is something to see.

Also in Saint John, New Brunswick, we have something that is unique in Canada and not anywhere else in Canada. It is a swivel anchor because we have the highest tides in the world. Mr. K. C. Irving devised this swivel anchor. When the largest tankers in the world come in, they hook on to this anchor out in the bay. As the tides rise we can see the tankers swing around and swing back again. It is very unusual.

I want my colleagues to know that Saint John, New Brunswick, is a very unique place. I invite all my colleagues to visit Saint John. When they come we will take them to the refinery so they can see what I am referring to.

The bill began as Bill C-58 in 1996. It went through a committee process and died on the order paper with the election call in April 1997.

There are important changes contained in the legislation. It is certainly a shame that the government did not recognize the importance of it at that time but instead chose other priorities over this one.

However, having said that, we are here now and we are dealing with the bill. I am pleased to be here to speak to it. The bill will substantially increase the amount of compensation available to Canadian claimants for maritime claims in general and for oil pollution damage in particular.

It also harmonizes Canadian rules for maritime liability with those of other maritime nations and will enable Canada to accede to relevant international conventions. This point is important. We must bring our rules into harmony with those of our major trading partners that carry both import and export cargoes each day to and from Canadian shores.

With respect to the part of the bill dealing with limitation of liability for maritime claims, Bill S-4 amends part IX of the Canada Shipping Act to implement the provisions of the 1976 convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims and its 1996 protocol.

Bill S-4 therefore will—and I am sure all my colleagues in the NDP would want to hear this—first, substantially increase ship owners limits of liability; second, allow cabinet on the recommendation of the transport minister to implement new limits of liability to reflect inflation; and, third, limit the liability of owners of small ships of less than 300 tonnes to $1 million for loss of life or personal injury and $500,000 for other claims.

It will also extend the application of the liability regime to all ships operating in Canada's inland waters, not just sea going vessels. Finally, it increases liability limits for owners of docks, canals and ports for property damage claims to the greater of $2 million or an amount based on the tonnage of the largest ship that has docked in the area in the last five years.

Another important aspect of the bill relates to oil pollution liability and compensation. Bill S-4 will amend part XVI of the Canada Shipping Act to implement the provisions of the 1992 protocol to the 1969 civil liability convention and the 1971 convention on the establishment of an international fund for compensation of oil pollution damage.

This will make ship owners liable for clean-up costs for oil pollution damage, and that is long overdue. It will make compensation available for pollution damage caused by tankers with residues of oil remaining from their previous cargo. It will also make it possible to recover costs incurred for preventive measures in anticipation of a spill from a tanker.

The maximum compensation currently available to claimants in an oil pollution incident is approximately $120 million. As a result of the bill, the amount will be more than double that to $270 million. That is important and is long overdue.

In summary, we are pleased to support the legislation. As I have stated, it is long overdue and very much needed in the maritime industry in Canada. We are supporting it because it will improve the compensation for the benefit of all Canadian claimants involved in any maritime accidents in general and certainly for purposes related to pollution claims.

Also the important harmonization of our laws with other nations in the world benefits every participant. Here I am speaking about all participants involved in maritime trade, shipowners, cargo owners and charters, by providing consistent, internationally recognized and accepted rules which deal with the economic consequences of unfortunate accidents at sea.

Without these formal rules, international shipping on which Canada relies to a tremendous degree would otherwise become extremely expensive and unpredictable. As a result, it would have negative consequences for the Canadian industry on the whole.

We support the legislation and only wish that it could have been moved a little more quickly through the legislative process. I want to thank all of those who were involved in bringing it before the House and the senators who worked so hard to make sure it was here today. It is good legislation and we will support it.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, could the member comment on the appropriateness of whether or not the bill should be brought forward from the House of Commons or from the Senate?

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, I feel it does not matter whether it comes from the Senate or from here. It is whether it is a good bill or a bad bill and whether we have an opportunity to vote on it and to speak on it. It is long overdue and I am pleased that it is here. If it was the Senate that made it come here today, I am pleased because, coming from a shipping town, it is long overdue.

Being in the House today and hearing the comments that are being made about other people who also work for the betterment of Canadians, I found it tugging at my heart. Yes, we are also saying there has to be Senate reform and the senators are saying this. It is not just the Reformers who are saying it. Everybody knows that.

However, to do what we did today was a waste of time and energy and a cost to taxpayers. This should not have been done. We should have continued on with the debate. This has tugged at my heart. It was not easy because I know people who work hard in the Senate and I know some who do not show up. You deal with it. The majority of them work hard. If we need to make changes then we can deal with it in a way in which we do not have to point fingers at people.

As far as the bill goes, whether it came from the House, from the government side, from this side or from the Senate, if it is a good bill we deal with it. This is a good bill and I am pleased to be here to say that.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I too wanted to lend my comments to the hon. member and thank her for her remarks on this piece of legislation, Bill S-4.

I remind those opposite who spoke so negatively to the fact that the bill came forward through the Senate that in 1986 the government initiated Bill C-58. It was introduced in the House. The House dealt with it at second reading and put it into a committee of the House of Commons. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport dealt with the issue, heard witnesses, put forward the amendments, came back to the House of Commons at report stage and then, because of an election, it died on the order paper.

I will answer the hon. member's question about why we did not move it sooner because of its importance in the marine sector. We dealt with the marine sector in our dealings with the Canadian port authorities.

We were seized with Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act. That took precedence. The member would agree with me that Bill C-9 is a very important bill for Canada. That is why we dealt with that bill first. At the same time we had the opportunity to move the bill, this particular bill, the old Bill C-58 which this House dealt with, through the Senate as Bill S-4. We are just making effective use of valuable legislative time.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that it does not matter where the bills are introduced. We supported the NDP's motion today because of the procedural move, as all opposition parties voted against the government in a procedural move.

We have waited a long time. A city like mine has the largest tankers in the world at our ports. We can see them out there with the oil rigs. We are saying that this is long overdue. I thank the hon. member on the government side for working to ensure the bill's consideration in the House today. I thank all of those who were involved in bringing this bill before the House today.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate on behalf of the NDP to the parliamentary secretary that if he does not like democracy, he should think of another line of work.

The bill has very good merit but that is not what upsets us. The fact is that amendments were made in the Senate where senators are appointed and not elected. That is why we voted to adjourn today. If the member does not like democracy in action, that is just too bad.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

The Senate could have made amendments anyway you dummy.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If Hansard will show he used unparliamentary language against me, I would like him to apologize before this House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair did not hear any unparliamentary language.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

We did.