House of Commons Hansard #77 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was defence.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to three petitions.
Jim Peterson Liberalfor the Minister of Finance
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Jim Peterson Liberalfor the Minister of Finance
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Don Boudria Liberalfor the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Bill Gilmour Reform Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-382, an act to allow the electors of a province to express an opinion on who should be summoned to the Senate to represent the province.
Mr. Speaker, as it presently stands, several provinces have Senate selection acts. Alberta is going to use its this fall to elect senators in waiting. However, there is no requirement for the Prime Minister to recognize that elected person.
The purpose of my bill is to ensure that the Prime Minister looks at the will of the people of the province and appoints to the Senate those people duly elected by a province that has a selection act in place.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my honour to present three petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners from various cities and towns in British Columbia point out the need for a major reform of the Canadian tax system. As this is the time of year when people fill out their tax returns, I suspect that most people would agree.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition, a very lengthy petition and signed by members of the city of Kamloops as well as, interestingly, Fredericton, New Brunswick, points out a whole set of arguments against the MAI and simply calls on Parliament to urge the government to reject the current framework of MAI negotiations and instructs the government to seek an entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve a rules based global trading regime that protects workers, the environment and the ability of government to act in the public interest.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, the third petition concerns the retirement package that is being contemplated by the government and will be introduced soon.
The petitioners point out a number of concerns they have in terms of what this retirement package could include, going on record early in opposition to a number of initiatives.
Gérard Asselin Bloc Charlevoix, QC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to lay before this House a petition signed by 71 residents of the riding of Charlevoix, and the municipality of Saint-Aimé-des-Lacs in particular.
This petition contains the signatures of the mayor, fire chief, councillors, volunteer firefighters and citizens of the municipality.
Volunteer firefighters often represent a community's only firefighting force. Not once since 1980 has there been an increase in the tax exemption for expenses incurred in discharging their duties.
The petitioners therefore ask that the government double the tax exemption on volunteer firefighters' expense allowance from $500 to $1,000.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from scores of citizens in the Peterborough area who are concerned about the continuing existence of nuclear weapons. These petitioners believe these pose a threat to the health and survival of human civilization and the global environment.
They pray and request that Parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from some hundreds of citizens of the Peterborough area who are concerned that the people of Iraq have suffered untold hardship in the wake of the gulf war and subsequent sanctions with an estimated death toll of a million people.
The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to reject the military option against Iraq and, in conjunction with those nations already committed to the non-military route, to patiently pursue diplomatic efforts toward solving the present impasse.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians, including Canadians from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that our police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they discharge their duties and that when one of them loses their life in the line of duty, we all mourn that loss. Often the employment benefits they have do not often provide adequately for their surviving families.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, I was starting to think I should wave a flag to get recognized.
I am tabling a petition signed by 1,298 citizens of the riding of Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans and elsewhere in Quebec, who consider that using natural substances like herbs, plants, vitamins and minerals should be a free choice made by consumers.
They also consider that health professionals such as naturopaths, herbalists, phytotherapists, homeopaths and acupuncturists are trained to advise their clients on these natural products.
These petitioners ask that the Government of Canada not restrict in any way the quantity or dosage of plants, herbs, vitamins, minerals and trace elements, so as to preserve the consumers' right to choose how to care for their own health and prevent disease and to consult with any alternative or allopathic health professionals they see fit.
David Iftody Liberal Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present this morning from a number of communities in my riding, Niverville, Steinbach and the Grunthal area, all dealing with the same subject matter.
These people are concerned about amendments to section 43 of the Criminal Code dealing primarily with the discipline of children.
It is their view that the rights of parents are to be protected under these circumstances, that the best interests of the children are protected by parents and not the state.
May I conclude on their behalf by saying therefore the petitioners request Parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's Criminal Code as it is currently worded.
Peter Goldring Reform Edmonton East, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this Chamber today as a servant of the constituents of Edmonton East. I am pleased to discharge my duties today by presenting to this House a petition.
This petition asks for the very prudent review of the mandate of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to discourage the provocation of pornography and rather to encourage the broadcasting of ecclesiastical programming to support morality and wholesome family lifestyles.
The petitioners ask this House to heed their words and I concur.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Is that agreed?
Don Boudria Liberalfor Minister of Transport
moved that Bill C-15, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Stan Keyes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
This bill will bring about much needed change to the principal legislation governing the shipping industry. It is the beginning of a two track overhaul that promises an up to date modern statute to benefit the marine sector in this country.
The transportation industry is a vital component of our economy. As we know, the marine industry operates in the context of an international and domestic environment which provides considerable challenges and opportunities for Canadians. The industry and related services employ more than 400,000 Canadians and contributes more than $20 billion to our gross domestic product.
Every work day 2.3 million tonnes of freight are on the move in Canada. A substantial amount of work has been done in an effort to modernize the national transportation system to meet the demands of a global marketplace and prepare this sector for the coming century.
In order to achieve these objectives the government has pursued a number of initiatives in all modes particularly in the area of streamlining regulations and legislation. It will become increasingly difficult for Canada to compete in the international market unless we pursue transportation policies that are consistent with other nations with whom we trade and compete. This is a significant reality for the shipping industry.
The Canada Shipping Act is the foremost piece of safety legislation governing the marine sector. It is also one of the oldest pieces of Canadian legislation. It has not been renewed since it was enacted in 1936 and is beginning to show its age.
When enacted in 1936 this legislation was based on 1896 British merchant shipping law. Still today it contains outdated provisions for such things, if you can imagine, as a $10 fine for being drunk, or providing a ship's master with the authority to auction off a dead sailor's belongings. That is in that legislation. The Canada shipping community of course deserves better.
The complete reform of the Canada Shipping Act is being undertaken with the following three goals in mind.
One, to simplify the legislation by replacing outdated terminology using everyday language, harmonizing with other regimes and taking out excessively prescriptive details.
Two, to make the act consistent with federal regulatory policies. These policies reduce reliance on regulations and permit alternative approaches such as compliance agreements, performance standards and voluntary industry codes which are much more consistent with today's regulatory practices.
Three, to contribute to the economic performance of the marine industry. By reducing prescriptive elements and the administrative burden imposed by current legislation, industry will have increased flexibility in maintaining the travelling public's safety.
This government is committed to action. Our determination to reform the Canada Shipping Act is heavily influenced by industry's continued support for modern shipping legislation. Previous attempts to revitalize this legislation during the seventies were protracted and did not accomplish the necessary changes. With industry support this time the government cannot help but succeed in making these essential changes.
At this juncture I would like to take this opportunity to thank those in the marine industry for their ongoing input and support of this initiative. Their feedback during consultations not only helped direct this project but also will go a long way to ensuring the future success of this bill.
As I mentioned earlier our approach to reform is in fact a two track process. The first track has evolved into Bill C-15 and enables us to achieve desired changes by adding a new introduction to the act and updating part I, which primarily deals with ship registration and ownership.
A new introduction to the Canada Shipping Act will modernize the statute and provide direction and focus for the remainder of the legislation. In addition, this introductory section will provide a general framework for the rest of the act.
The proposed introduction clarifies basic ministerial responsibilities reflecting the reorganization of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada and provides umbrella authorities for consulting with stakeholders, issuing directives and responding to emergency marine situations.
A new preamble will make the Canada Shipping Act simpler and clearer to understand. The minister and I have had the opportunity to meet with many stakeholders. We have learned that it is the marine community itself which requested that the Canada Shipping Act contain a preamble which states up front the overall objectives of the act, as is often done with other pieces of modern legislation.
The changes in Bill C-15 begin the modernization and streamlining of a statute that is in much need of an overhaul to eliminate the confusion and complexity it currently perpetuates.
The proposed amendments in the bill will modernize the Canadian ship registration system by allowing for the introduction of an electronic ship registry system which can be more easily maintained. This is a futuristic departure from the current paper log system.
Since we have outstanding marine legislation on the agenda from the last session of Parliament, we have included several important provisions of former Bill C-73. Other provisions will be incorporated into the second track of the reforms.
One of the urgent items from former Bill C-73 includes amendments to the Quebec harbour pilots pension plan. In recent years there has been an extensive overhaul of the administration of pension plans. One plan not affected by this overhaul was the pension fund administered by the Corporation of Pilots for and below the harbour of Quebec. This initiative will bring some recognition to this plan and improve the protection of rights for members belonging to this plan.
These changes will make affected pensioners subject to recent legislative initiatives rather than rules which predate Confederation. It will also improve the corporation's ability to manage the pension fund.
This two track approach is a beneficial way to proceed since it shows immediate progress on reforms in the first track while allowing departmental officials to continue the momentum in completing the second track of the reform. This approach has been taken to demonstrate the government's interest and competence to make quick, genuine and responsive progress.
I would like to stress that the government is sensitive to concerns raised by stakeholders and quite frankly, members of Parliament on this side and that side of the House, pertaining to small craft or pleasure craft licensing.
The Minister of Transport gives his assurance that he is open to suggestions on improving the legislation at committee stage. In fact, he has even gone so far as to say we are going to be removing certain clauses in the bill at committee stage, particularly those dealing with the pleasure craft or small craft licensing.
The minister and I, having looked at the bill and these particular clauses, feel that improvements can be made and should be made. That comes to us from the stakeholders and members of Parliament.
Transport Canada's legislative initiatives remain consistent with the overall federal transportation framework which emphasizes a national vision of safety, security, efficiency and environmental responsibility. These are the changes that the minister and I would like members' support in order to realize.
It is my belief that Bill C-15 will help ensure that Canada's shipping industry has the necessary tools to operate effectively in the 21st century.
Peter Goldring Reform Edmonton East, AB
Mr. Speaker, this new legislation which is listed as an amendment to part I of the Canada Marine Act is actually a replacement. Much of the old act cannot be traced in the new legislation.
There is no question the existing act is obsolete. It was after all passed in 1936 when Canadian vessels were defined as British, when records were kept in ledgers and when prescribed fees for certain documents and government services were in the 25 cent to $1 range.
Reform cannot express opposition or support for this highly technical bill until we have heard from industry representatives in a committee. This is especially true since we anticipate that the government has already drafted amendments which will be introduced at committee stage. It is our understanding that the government proposes to remove some problematic changes proposed with respect to the regulation of small vessels.
The bill contains two and a half full columns describing things which may in the future be regulated by governor in council with no reference to Parliament. There was a lot of this in the old act, but Bill C-15 confers wider ranging powers to the governor in council to regulate registration, the marking of vessels, fees, fines and licences.
This bill would give the governor in council almost unlimited power over specifications for the manufacturing or modification of small vessels. Hopefully that will be one aspect of the bill which the government proposes to withdraw.
The replacement part I will modernize the ship registration system. For example, the proposal to allow foreign owned vessels bare-boat chartered to Canadian entities to be registered as Canadian ships makes sense. Conversely, Canadian ships bare-boat chartered to a foreign lessee will be barred from flying the Canadian flag.
Bill C-15 gives Transport Canada full authority and responsibility for ship registration and related activities currently performed by Canada Customs. Another quaint Canadian custom is being eliminated.
Of course it would not be a Liberal bill without bestowing upon the minister another juicy patronage plum to be handed out. In this case Bill C-15 empowers the Minister of Transport to appoint a chief registrar who will be responsible for establishing a Canadian register of ships.
There will be mandatory registration for all Canadian owned ships exceeding 15 tonnes gross tonnage and not registered in a foreign country. The register will record the name and description of the ship, its official number, its tonnage, its owner's name and address, and the details of all its registered mortgages.
The chief registrar will have the authority to establish the criteria for applying for registration and will be required to approve the name of a ship. Canadians can rest easy because Bill C-15 gives the minister the authority to order that a name be changed if he believes the name would prejudice Canada's international reputation. No risqué innuendoes will be allowed in either official language.
The registry certainly needs updating. There are currently 45,000 entries on the ship registry, which is a physical impossibility. There are not that many vessels in Canadian waters. Bill C-15 will enable suspension and closure of registry entries, so inactive and bygone ships can be taken off the list.
As well, there were no provisions in the antiquated Canada Shipping Act for an electronic registry, meaning that the whole thing had to be on paper. Now the nation's ships, like its citizens, will be objects of computerized lists.
The registration of a Canadian ship could be cancelled or suspended due to improper markings, expiration of the certificate of registry and a ship's loss, wreck or removal from service. Ships can be reinstated too. A certificate of registry will have to be on board a ship in order for the ship to operate. Don't leave home without your licence.
Under the current CSA certificates of registration do not expire. Section 53(2) would keep certificates in place for up to three years in order to provide a transitional period during which ships can be brought under the new rules.
Bill C-15 continues the tradition observed in most maritime nations, except the U.S., that a ship be divided into 64 shares. The custom is variously attributed to the fact that ships traditionally had 64 ribs or the fact that under Queen Victoria shipowners were taxed 36% and were allowed to keep the remaining 64%. Now we have progressed to the point that in Canada millions of ordinary folk have to hand over fully half of their incomes to three levels of government. Under Queen Victoria they had taxation; under king Jean we have predation.
The minister will continue to appoint tonnage measures to calculate a ship's tonnage. Shipowners and shipbuilders will continue to be allowed to mortgage their ships and have that mortgage placed on the register.
When there is a change in ownership, owners of Canadian ships will be required to notify the chief registrar. If an unqualified person acquires a ship, an application for redress could be made to a court. For the record, a qualified person means a Canadian citizen, or permanent resident, or a company incorporated in Canada, or a province.
The old CSA exempts from annual inspections ships not in excess of five tonnes gross tonnage carrying more than 12 passengers and are not pleasure boats. Bill C-15 would raise that limit to ships not in excess of 15 tonnes gross tonnage. However, inspectors will be able to conduct spot checks on these vessels. It is not clear to me if this is an area in which the government now plans to change in committee.
Bill C-15 grants the governor in council the power to make regulations to prevent pollution resulting from the discharge of ballast water, thereby reducing the risk of oil spills in Canada's waters, including the Arctic. We already have zebra mussels and lamprey eels in the Great Lakes. Perhaps these regulations will be prevent future ecological disasters. The current requirement for ships to have on board an oil pollution prevention plan will be extended to shore based loading and unloading facilities.
Retired members of this fund, the St. Lawrence pilot pension, are subject to an act over 100 years old and to the antiquated internal rules of the corporation of pilots. Bill C-15 would redefine the pilot fund, recognize the plan as a registered pension plan, make the Pension Benefits Standards Act of 1995 apply, define the status of the plan with regard to the Income Tax Act and allow the governor in council to make regulations to carry out this part of the legislation. Of course, these pilots will continue to rip off Canadian shippers and grain producers but that relates to legislation other than to Bill C-15.
On balance, this seems to be a good housekeeping bill but the Reform Party will have to hear from the stakeholders before passing judgment.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I am pleased to speak on Bill C-15. I would love to start my speech, particularly since I have 40 minutes, by saying: C-15 at last!
Bill C-15 was first read on October 30, 1997. I am not going to cry over spilt milk. I am pleased to see it back on the order paper. But it took nearly nine months of gestation before the government could produce a bouncing baby bill for us.
As it was presented for first reading, this bill contained certain irritants as far as we are concerned, and I shall return later to this point. My speech will not have a negative tone—on the contrary. This bill contains several worthwhile elements which the Canadian shipping industry has been demanding for years, if not decades.
I do not want you to think that I am going to start off on a negative tack, but one does have to be realistic. What I have to say is based on what we have before us in Bill C-15.
I will return in a few minutes to certain commitments made by the hon. member for Hamilton West, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, commitments which, if they ever materialize, could make agreement in committee and during debate at third reading much easier to reach.
With this bill, which is called an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the Government of Canada has undertaken a total revision of the Canada Shipping Act, which dates back to early in this century. It ought, therefore, to be brought up to date and into line with the way things are done in world shipping circles in this day and age.
So, in this respect, Transport Canada showed us that it considered this legislation out of date, too restrictive and confusing as it stood and it initiated the current reform. As I mentioned earlier, this law is no longer relevant to the needs and modern development of shipping. Bill C-15 before us could be described as serving essentially to modernize an old law.
We will work hard in committee, even though I said we would be very co-operative. The Bloc Quebecois considers that the aim of this bill is to simplify legislation. Another aim is to make the law compatible with the federal government's regulatory policy. A third aim we discovered involves contributing to the financial performance of the shipping industry.
Shipping is vital to a country like Canada and to a future country like Quebec, which have oceans as borders and navigable waterways. We in Quebec have a road to the sea—the St. Lawrence Seaway—which crosses the entire province. So it is important to have legislation that reflects economic imperatives. In terms of economic development, shipping is vital. I will come back to this later, in any case.
Primary responsibility for this bill lies with Transport Canada, although the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has an important role to play. A few years ago, in 1995 or 1996, I believe, responsibility for the Canadian Coast Guard was transferred from Transport Canada to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The fleets of the coast guard and of the department were amalgamated. However, given that shipping remains the responsibility of Transport Canada, the roles of the two departments are very closely interrelated. We can see, in the bill, that the role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is very important.
Let us now look at the main features of this reform. Among other things, it sets out to assign responsibility for electronic registration of ships and related activities to Transport Canada, and responsibility for registration of pleasure craft to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I will return to registration of pleasure craft later in my speech.
Another feature of this reform is the possibility of renewing ships' certificates of registry. An additional feature is the new optional registry for certain foreign ships subject to a financing agreement and those that are bare-boat chartered, in other words, that have no crew outside Canada.
The final feature of this bill, and one of the most important, concerns a particular category of employees. I am talking about the modernization of the administrative and financial frameworks of the pension plan administered by the Corporation of the Lower St. Lawrence Pilots serving the port of Quebec City and below. It was partly for these St. Lawrence pilots that my “at last” was intended earlier. As is well known, this professional corporation has been waiting a long time for this reform of its pension plan.
Rapidly, the background to this bill, as the parliamentary secretary and the Reform member for Edmonton mentioned, is that it is an amended version of earlier Bill C-73, which made it only as far as first reading, on December 9, 1996, and which died on the Order Paper when the federal election was called in April 1997.
As the parliamentary secretary indicated, this bill is part of a complete overhaul of the Canada Shipping Act, in partnership with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. More specifically, Bill C-15 is the first component of the first part. The second component, which will parallel the first one, will consist in a series of amendments which, based on our information, should be drafted and ready by the spring of 1999.
Let us now look at the Bloc Quebecois' position regarding certain parts of the legislation. As I said, the bill provides for a sharing of responsibilities between Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
On the face of it, this idea does not present any problems. However, there are certain parts—and hopefully this issue will be resolved by the time the bill reaches third reading—which deserve very careful attention on our part, and on the part of taxpayers and certain groups. You will see in a moment to whom I am referring.
Why are we alerting public opinion about this legislation? Last year, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans held consultations. We know how this is done. The government floats trial balloons, but it has a very good idea of what it wants to do. Since its foundation in 1990, and including during the 1993 Parliament when it formed the official opposition and since the new contingent of 44 members arrived in 1997, the Bloc Quebecois has demonstrated its will to respect democracy on a number of occasions, and not just during the recent flag incident.
But the government, in its desire to respect democracy, undertakes vast consultations that cost tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, these consultations are sometimes a sham because—and this is what I started saying earlier, this is what is good about democracy—whether we like it or not, the government is elected to govern, which means it is there to make decisions.
This does not keep it from making stupid or arbitrary decisions. Such is our role in opposition, to act as watchdogs, to be vigilant. I call upon the public to be vigilant as well.
When I referred to consultations, broad consultations, last year Fisheries and Oceans, via the Coast Guard, carried out consultations on instituting a fee system for pleasure craft.
This is serious. There is no longer any reference in Bill C-15 to pleasure craft. In the second reading version of C-15 we have before us here, there is a reference to “vessels”. I met with Department of Transport officials who confirmed to me that the Bloc Quebecois definition of this term, an extremely broad one, was included in this bill. There was a plan to include that definition in Bill C-15, which we have before us, or in other words to institute a system of fees for pleasure craft.
It was clear that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was using Transport Canada to deliver the bad news. It was clear that the government wanted to assume the right, give itself the possibility of registering pleasure craft and charging registration fees.
At the present time, only those with motors of 10 HP or more have to obtain registration and this is issued free of charge.
When I asked specific questions of senior Transport officials, the government never denied this. The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that the intent behind this measure is to impose mandatory registration for all kinds of vessels. One can easily conclude that such a measure will lead to a form of fee setting by government, once again making some degree of cost-recovery possible.
The Bloc Quebecois does not object to the logic of requiring certain types of motor boat, big motor boats, what people call cruisers—my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm should give me a hand—boats with motors over ten horsepower—
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
Outboard motors. That's right. The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to having big boats registered. However, with this provision—and that is where it makes no sense, and they never convinced me otherwise—they wanted to force people to license and pay fees for pedal boats, rowboats and the flat bottom boats used in wildlife sanctuaries, in northern Quebec, northern Ontario, northern Manitoba and the riding of my NDP colleague from Churchill, who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Transport.
They wanted to charge a fee to register pedal boats, flat bottom boats, rowboats and sailboards. This is absolutely scandalous. I said to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and member for Hamilton West—he is here and cannot contradict me on this “You are making a huge mistake. You will be charging people for services they are not getting”.
In northern Quebec, around Mistassini, north of there, in Abitibi, north of Schefferville and in all the little spots where the coast guard has no jurisdiction, the government wanted to force people to pay a fee. That is totally crazy.
I direct my remarks to all hunters and fishers in Quebec and everywhere in Canada. I tell them to watch out. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and member for Hamilton West said in his speech—I wrote down what he said—“We will be removing certain clauses in the bill, particularly those dealing with pleasure craft licensing”.
The Bloc does not criticize for the pleasure of it. When the government uses its head and is reasonable, when it listens to our arguments and accepts them and when it uses common sense, we are obliged to recognize it and support its action.
I took note of the commitment made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport. I hope he will act on this commitment in committee and withdraw these provisions of the bill, which are an absolute aberration.
You have come to know me since 1993, and I am the kind of person who believes greatly in fair play. I have a background in labour relations. I have worked with labour unions. We have been forced to sit down and talk things out on a number of occasions, but when we were done, we always concluded our meetings with a handshake.
This to tell the hon. parliamentary secretary that, if he keeps his word and does what he publicly committed to do, we will agree to complete second reading, consideration in committee, and to pass this bill at third reading. I give him my party's word on this. However, I want to make sure that the parliamentary secretary will hold his end of the bargain.
Earlier, I urged all hunters and fishers in Quebec and Canada to watch out, as well as all recreational boaters and anyone who has a cottage 15 or 20 kilometres away from their ordinary place of residence, has a small craft or canoe and enjoys a leisurely ride on the lake after dinner with the wife and kids or the family mutt.
That is when the government realized I hope it made no sense to charge a fee to these people, to start asking them to register a paddle boat, a canoe or other small craft in areas not even patrolled by the coast guard. Investigators would have had to be hired to take an inventory of all these crafts, which would have cost more than the fees collected. The government acted sensibly and paid attention to our representations, I am grateful for that.
However, people should watch out. The government may try again, differently, under the cover of a different bill. This government can hide things from any of us. As it stands, this fee has been lifted, or so they said, but we must remain vigilant.
Furthermore I find it unfortunate that there is nothing in this bill on shipping, an important industry, to encourage shipbuilding. The Bloc Quebecois will have to think up a strategy in this respect.
As we know, Quebec is the only province that streamlined its shipyards. Before the Conservatives came to power in 1984, we had three shipyards in Quebec. The Conservatives said we had to streamline our shipyards' operations in order to be competitive.
Quebec closed two of Canada's three largest shipyards. It agreed to shut down Canadian Vickers, in Montreal, and MIL, in Sorel, and to keep only the MIL Davie shipyard, in Lévis, across from Quebec City, and some other very successful shipyards that can compete on the international market. These include the Verreault shipyard, in Les Méchins, and Mr. Hamel's shipyard, on l'Île-aux-Coudres.
So, Quebec is the only province to have acted thus. Before the Conservatives came to office, Quebec accounted for 50% of Canada's shipbuilding activities. Following the streamlining exercise that took place under the Conservatives, Quebec now accounts for only 33% of shipbuilding activities in the country.
What is deplorable is that, while Quebec was streamlining its shipbuilding activities, the Conservatives gave subsidies to help open about 10 shipyards in the maritimes, including St. Mary's, in Newfoundland. That shipyard could not even complete the construction of drilling rigs, which it began some years ago, and it had to send them to St. John Shipbuilding or to Halifax. This is a double standard, with one treatment for Quebec and another one for the rest of Canada.
All this took place under the Conservatives. I could give examples of things that happened under the Liberals, but 40 minutes is not long enough to do so. The bottom line is: Conservative or Liberal, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
We reserve the right to move amendments to encourage shipbuilding. There are people in Quebec who have clear ideas on the issue. We already had the opportunity to meet Mrs. Verreault, from the Verreault Navigation shipyard, in Les Méchins.
We would have liked the federal government to follow the Government of Quebec's lead. The Quebec government's budget, brought down by Bernard Landry on May 9, 1996, if memory serves, contained tax incentives for ship building in Quebec. But there is nothing from the federal government.
Before wrapping up, I am going to go back to something I mentioned earlier, something I am happy to repeat. This bill modernizes the administrative and financial frameworks of the pension plan administered by the Corporation of Lower St. Lawrence Pilots for and below the Harbour of Quebec.
Pilots' groups had long called for this. Bloc Quebecois members can only indicate our approval of this provision. I do not think the pilots were asking for charity. Maritime pilots, particularly those on the Lower St. Lawrence whom I know a bit better, are proud folks. They are professionals, people who like their work, who are concerned about maritime safety and the environment. What they were asking for was not charity. All they wanted was for their pension plan to move into the next century. This was an old provision that needed to be updated.
In conclusion, I note the undertakings given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and member for Hamilton West—now there is a long title—and I want to repeat that we will co-operate in committee, if he does as he says. I have no reason to think he will do otherwise.
I will even go a bit further. I offer the government the opportunity to skip the recorded vote on this bill. If there is agreement, we could, at the end of debate this morning, deem the bill agreed to on division at second reading, which would move things ahead more quickly and allow this bill to be referred to committee as soon as possible.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-15, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts brought forward by the Minister of Transport.
We in the New Democratic Party agree that it is time to bring some clarification to the Canada Shipping Act. We have all heard that the shipping act is second only in size and complexity to the Income Tax Act and could use some updating. However, the government is also taking this opportunity to bring forward some amendments that have raised concerns.
As I said, the New Democrats believe it is time to reform the Canada Shipping Act. Bill C-15 intends to do just that by adding a preamble to the Canada Shipping Act to clarify its objectives, definitions and interpretations, and to lay out the roles and responsibilities of the ministers of transport and fisheries and oceans. Currently there is no introductory part to the Canada Shipping Act.
We understand that ministerial accountabilities must be clarified. Reoganization of the departments of the coast guard, fisheries and oceans and transport has resulted in a lack of clarity within the shipping act regarding ministerial responsibilities. There is need to clarify those responsibilities, those of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and to provide clear legislative authorities for the operation of their departments.
Questions have been raised with regard to that response. I will note some of these questions and concerns. Why are the powers divided between the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans? These powers have already been divided.
As it now stands, the Department of Transport is responsible for ship safety, but the Canadian coast guard is in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The result is that when ship safety officers from the Canadian coast guard have to board vessels, two departments, transport and fisheries and oceans, have to be involved, unless ship safety instead goes to the Department of Justice and travels to RCMP vessels or goes to the defence department and uses military vehicles.
It was brought to my attention that Bill C-15 replicates the wording of a certain international marine centre. In a paper, the executive director of that centre wrote about the primary elements to achieve competitiveness in international shipping: tax free status at the corporate level, a flexible manning regime and the application of ship safety standards that are genuinely international. I cannot help but feel worried that Bill C-15 could replicate the wording of this centre. A tax free status at the corporate level sounds familiar.
Second, it calls for a flexible manning regime. What exactly does that mean? I am almost afraid to ask. It is common knowledge that sailors' human rights are often violated on foreign vessels. We cannot accept in Canada the lowering of working conditions for sailors. We do not want a system, as in some countries of the third world, where sailors have no rights aboard a ship and where they are at the mercy of the company they work for.
Finally, it calls for the application of ship safety standards that are genuinely international. This would be acceptable only if those standards are higher than Canadian ones, and I doubt that.
An article in the Montreal Gazette noted that federal fisheries observers are afraid that some foreign ships they are assigned to are in such poor shape they could break apart and sink. We can expect that it is not only fishing vessels which are in bad shape. We should not be compromising the environment or sailors' lives.
The executive of the marine centre has suggested that Bill C-15 will allow vessels which are owned abroad to be transferred to the Canadian registry. Operating in international trade, these vessels would fly the Canadian flag but would not be taxed in Canada. They would carry non-resident crews who would not be covered by the provisions of the Canada Labour Code. A Canadian flag of convenience deep-sea fleet would be an inexorable threat to domestic employment in the coasting trade. We need legislation from the government to ensure this does not happen.
Under language in section 18 of the new act, foreign built equipment could more easily be brought into Canada. The only restriction on chartering a foreign vessel and working it in Canada would be that it not be registered in another country while it is being bare-boated in Canada. Why would domestic operators use Canadian built vessels when they can charter or purchase those more cheaply abroad?
Advocates of unrestricted trade would argue that Canadians can compete with anyone, that technology and know-how are more important to market success than cheap labour, but this does not cut it in the shipbuilding industry.
This change would allow U.S. shipyards to build vessels for the Canadian coastal trade, but the Jones Act of the United States will deny Canadian shipyards the same opportunity in the U.S. market. As it is, U.S. shipyards have the competitive advantages that come from contracts for military vessels which effectively subsidize the overhead costs of commercial boat building.
On the west coast, the domestic fleet relies on cross-border trade for a significant portion of its revenue. Under the proposed changes, freighters or tugs and barges could be bare-boated from abroad, carry non-resident crews and compete for this international business.
On the Great Lakes, the loss of cross-border business could have even more dramatically negative consequences.
Has the government considered the implications for Canada-U.S. relations? Do we believe that U.S. coastal operators and unions, who aggressively defend their country's cabotage rules, would happily accept price cutting competition from Canadian flag vessels carrying low paid Philippine, Indonesian or Burmese crews?
We have heard concerns about the fact that ships under 15 tonnes will be exempted from mandatory registration under the act. Their registration will be optional under section 17. The department's logic is that registration of the large number of small vessels is neither practical nor necessary.
However, towboats of under 15 tonnes tow equipment and fuel barges as well as log tows, competing with vessels which are registered and required to meet Transport Canada's vessel standards. The unregistered vessels not only undercut vessels which meet standards, they are doing work which is hazardous to the environment and to other marine traffic. Often their equipment does not meet minimum standards. Their operators are often not certified.
Some of the major objectives in the Canada Shipping Act are to protect the health and well-being of individuals, including the crews of ships, promote safety in the marine transportation system and protect the marine environment from damage due to navigation and shipping activities. If the act is designed to provide a level playing field then all vessels engaged in commercial activities should be registered and inspected, regardless of tonnage. As well, the act should require risk assessment in standards of equipment and certification.
Registration should be required for all vessels towing field barges or other hazardous goods. It is important for the safety of our waterways. It has also been brought to my attention that with the downturn in the fishery on the east and west coasts many fishermen have turned toward tourism as an alternative source of income. This has led to an increasing number of tour boats. These boats might be under 15 tonnes. Are we going to put our tourists at risk on boats that were not duly inspected because they were less than 15 tonnes? Let there be no misunderstanding. I am not suggesting the small pleasure craft need to be inspected. I, along with my colleagues and the transport committee, will have to work against this.
Now, the inspections. I strongly oppose the government authorizing any person, classification society or other organization to conduct the inspections. This section is contrary to the stated objections of the new act. Privatization of inspection will not encourage viable, effective and economic marine transportation. What it will do is increase bottom line pressures to cut corners to do things the cheap way rather than the safe way. It is very worrying to think that the minister will hand over the inspection of ships from Transport Canada inspectors.
Were this amendment to pass into law, the job of inspecting oil tankers and chemical tankers operating in Canadian waters could become a patronage appointment. Even if the inspections were to be handed over to classification societies, there is still some cause for concern.
In 1996 Transport Canada marine safety branch inspected 1,184 foreign flag ships. Of these 10% were detained as being in such poor condition that they were not allowed to sail until they had done major repairs. Yet every one of these ships had valid certificates issued by a classification society. It is no wonder that each year statistically 10 bulk carriers sink without trace, usually taking their 25 person crew with them. Yet, as the crews are mostly from third world countries, we rarely hear of it.
It is very obvious that when classification societies are allowed to operate without government supervision the market sets the standards for safety with the job always going to the cheapest, usually the least safe operator. Are we ready to accept such a system in Canada?
We suffer from the cuts to airports. We suffer from the privatization of port police. Are we now going to have to suffer because ship safety will go down? We cannot put our safety and our environment in jeopardy. The classification societies include disclaimers of responsibility in all their documents and several court cases over the years have shown them immune from being sued, even where there is evidence of negligence.
A further point of concern is in section 317-1, inspections by others. The revenues generated by Transport Canada ship inspections will now be handed over to the private sector. A figure of $12 million per annum has been stated. Canada must compete with the United States and we are at a competitive disadvantage.
The United States has the Jones Act. The act is extremely protectionist. We do not have an equivalent act in Canada to protect Canadian interests. The U.S. with its Jones Act ensures the cargo that is carried between U.S. ports is carried aboard U.S. ships that are U.S. built, U.S. registered, U.S. owned, U.S. crewed and repaired and serviced by U.S. firms. So much for free trade.
In many cases the trade in Canada has become dominated by foreign flag vessels flying flags of convenience from low jurisdictions such as Panama. It is alleged by some in the industry that Canada Steamship Lines, the company owned by the finance minister, has made use of these tax evading measures.
It is time to implement a Jones-like act in Canada that would require minimum levels of Canadian content in shipping activity. Furthermore, it is time we insisted that ships traversing Canada's inland waters be Canadian built and Canadian flagged. There are many needed changes in the bill, but we can do better.
To conclude, my party will not support Bill C-15 as it is today.
