Debates of April 2nd, 1998

Committees Of The House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the Members of the Standing Committee on Transport, the Clerk, two Researchers and one Interpreter be authorized to travel to New York and Washington, D.C., on Monday and Tuesday, May 4 and 5, 1998, to gather information in relation to their study on the National Passenger Rail System.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That 10 Members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development be authorized to travel to Calgary from May 4 to May 6 for the purpose of participating in the Canadian Energy Research Institute Conference on Climate Change and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability), be read the third time and passed.

Canada Shipping Act

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to speak in favour of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act. Bill S-4, introduced in the Senate on October 8, 1997, will amend parts of the Canada Shipping Act which deal with liability for maritime accidents and oil pollution damage.

Bill S-4 reintroduces amendments to the Canada Shipping Act first introduced to the House of Commons as Bill C-58 on September 19, 1997. Bill C-58 completed committee stage as proposed by the Standing Committee on Transport in its report to the House of Commons on December 11, 1996. The bill died on the Order Paper in April 1997 when the election was called.

The bill was introduced through the Senate because it had already passed the different stages in the House of Commons during the last parliament and the government wanted it to be passed in the fastest way.

I wish to take this opportunity to mention again, as my New Democrat colleague did at second reading, that the NDP does not support the practice of introducing bills through the Senate. Canadians elected 301 representatives last June. They are sitting in this Chamber, not in the Senate.

I believe a majority of Canadians want major reforms to be made to the Senate and, although I oppose bills coming through the Senate, I will certainly use these opportunities to remind this government that it is ignoring Canadians. Although we do not support the practice of introducing bills in the Senate, we are in favour of this piece of legislation which is long overdue.

Bill S-4 is a part of the Canada Shipping Act reform. Parts of the Canada Shipping Act are old and out of date with today's reality. The NDP believes that it is time to modernize the Canada Shipping Act.

The revision of the existing limitation of liability for maritime claims is a very important step toward modernizing the legislation. The existing regime with respect to limits for general maritime claims in the Canada Shipping Act is largely based on the 1957 international convention relating to the limitation of liability of owners of sea-going ships.

The limits on liability set out there have naturally lost value as a result of inflation over the years. As a matter of fact, most maritime nations consider the limits of liability set out in 1957 to be inadequate.

The 1957 convention was replaced by the 1976 convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims and its 1996 protocol is the global standard for limitation of liability for maritime claims. Bill S-4 will permit Canada's accession to it.

The Canada Shipping Act amendments in Bill S-4 will also implement the provisions of the 1992 protocols to the 1969 convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the 1971 convention on the international fund for compensation for oil pollution.

The maximum compensation available to claimants in an oil pollution incident will increase from $120 million to $270 million, which consists of the shipowner's liability under the civil liability convention and a supplementary amount available from the international compensation fund.

When we know that tragedies such as the Exxon Valdez can happen, we know it is advisable to increase the liability of shipowners for environmental damage.

Just a few years ago we had the Irving Whale disaster. The company, a very large and well known company, did not pay in the project to refloat its barge. It is the Government of Canada, in other words the Canadian people, that had to spend millions of dollars.

Large corporations have to be more responsible. They have to be more accountable. It is our environment that has suffered and we must ensure its protection. We will be supporting the bill.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill S-4, the Canada Shipping Act amendments.

Few countries in the world have as much interest in this issue as we have in Canada because we are virtually surrounded by water. We have water east, west and north. We have the Great Lakes and the seaway.

The bill has been nurtured through the system for many years. We are really pleased to see it and we will be supporting the bill.

The bill will substantially increase the amount of compensation available to Canadian claimants for maritime claims in general, especially for oil pollution damage as a result of shipwrecked oil tankers.

The current Canada Shipping Act provisions dealing with limitation of liability of maritime claims are based on the 1957 international convention relating to limitation of liability of owners of seagoing vessels. Most maritime nations consider limits of liability inadequate mainly as inflation has eroded their value and it only make sense as those were developed in 1957.

The bill began as Bill C-58 in 1996 when it went through the committee process and died on the order paper with the election call in April 1997. There are important changes contained in the legislation and unfortunately the government did not make it a priority to move it ahead quickly enough, but at least it is here now. Now that it is here we are dealing with the bill and I am pleased to be here to speak on it.

The bill will substantially increase the amount of compensation available to Canadian claimants for maritime claims, for oil pollution damage in particular. It harmonizes Canadian rules for maritime liability with those of other maritime nations and will enable Canada to accede to the relevant international conventions.

With respect to the limitation of liability for maritime claims, Bill S-4 amends part 4 of the shipping act to implement provisions of the 1976 convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims and its 1996 protocol.

Bill S-4 will, first, substantially increase shipowner limits of liability, long past due. Second, it will allow the cabinet on recommendation of the transport minister to implement new limits of liability to reflect inflation. Three, it will limit the liability of owners of small ships less than 300 tons 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 Canadian internal and inland waters, not just seagoing vessels, which is very important.

Finally, it increases the liability limits for owners of docks, canals and ports and 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.

Atlantic Canada and all Canadians welcome the aspect of the bill that relates to oil pollution liability and for compensation for oil pollution damage. Bill S-4 will amend part 16 of the Canada Shipping Act to implement provisions of the 1992 protocol to the 1969 civil liability convention and the 1971 convention on the establishment of an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage.

This means it will make shipowners liable for clean-up costs for oil pollution damage. It makes compensation available for pollution damage caused by tankers with residues of oil remaining from their previous cargo. This also makes it possible to recover costs incurred for preventive measures taken in anticipation of a spill from a tanker.

The maximum compensation currently available to claimants in a oil pollution incident is approximately $120 million. As a result of Bill S-4, the amount will more than double to $270 million which is still probably not enough but it is a good start.

In summary, we are pleased to support this legislation. It is long past overdue and very much needed in the maritime industry in Canada. We are supporting this because it will improve compensation for the benefit of all Canadian claimants involved in any kind of marine accident in general and certainly for purposes related to pollution claims.

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

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

Again, we support this legislation and only wish that we could have moved it through the system a little more quickly.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, being the last to speak on Bill S-4, I am not going to go through the bill in any detail, which will be good news for everybody.

The bill is long overdue. It will be welcomed across the country and throughout the world.

It was ironic, however, when I was reading the very last of my notes. This is a little humour here. It is talking about the failure to file information with the Minister of Transport regarding oil shipments resulting in a summary conviction of $100 for each day of default. I know there are members who have paid that much of a fine for speeding. I thought that portion of the bill was a little lax. It could have been more. However, this is a good bill.

When the bill was introduced today by the hon. gentleman from the government side, he thanked those people who had worked on the bill. He thanked the Standing Committee on Transport. I appreciated his remarks. We did have a good round of looking at the bill in committee. We had a great deal of support from all the members of the committee. We had a great deal of support from the chairman of the committee.

I spoke to the bill on second reading. I totally disagree with a bill of this nature originating in the Senate and then coming here, even though we can call this a housekeeping bill. Members in my party and other opposition members also disagree. This is not good practice. We do not think we should have a bill come to us to examine amendments made by an unelected body.

That may not seem like a very big thing to a lot of people. I picked up the papers the other day. There were some things in there about me because of some of my criticism, some of the criticism from my colleagues and some of the criticism from all the parties about this practice. I assume it was a generalization that I was being somewhat hypocritical. No one who knows me, who has been on the transport committee with me, would say I am hypocritical. That was the tone, because we disagreed fundamentally.

This is a good bill. There is nothing wrong with the bill. Some amendments were made and passed. But the opposition claims that the last place bills like this should originate is the Senate. Bills dealing with huge amounts of penalties, huge amounts of fines, huge amounts of liabilities should not originate in the Senate and then come here asking the elected people to put our stamp on it. We deem that incorrect. I am sure most members do. If members from the government side really looked at it they would also deem it incorrect.

I am pleased that we are going to support this bill. We think it is a good bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has been remiss in not asking for questions or comments on members' speeches but I assume in light of the debate there were none.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, for the Solicitor General of Canada]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

When shall this bill be read the third time? With leave of the House, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, for the Solicitor General of Canada]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to rise in this House in support of Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

This bill provides RCMP members serving abroad as peackeepers in special duty areas with medicare benefits and death benefits. This means they will be covered 24 hours a day in case of work-related disease, invalidity or death.

We need to pass this bill as soon as possible.

Like any other government employees, RCMP members are eligible for government benefits if they suffer from a work-related disability or injury or if they die as a result of a work-related accident.

Pursuant to existing agreements, there is a difference between work-related incidents and those that are not and that difference is usually easy to make: the work-related incidents are defined as occurring only during work shifts.

However, in some cases, the distinction we need to make between “during working hours” and “outside working hours” is not so clear.

Take, for instance, the RCMP members who are currently serving abroad as peacekeepers.

Pursuant to the Special Duty Area Pension Order, the governor in council can designate as special duty areas any geographic area outside Canada where peacekeepers may be exposed to hazardous conditions not normally associated with service in peacetime. These dangerous areas are called “special duty areas”.

The bill acknowledges that when RCMP peacekeepers are posted in special duty areas, they never really stop serving and running risks, even when their shift is over.

Under the current act, RCMP members who are injured while posted in a special duty area must prove their disability is directly related to their service or the performance of their duties.

When Canada started taking part in international peacekeeping missions and sending members of the armed forces to areas of armed conflict, it was acknowledged that it would be unfair to oblige these individuals or their department to prove that injury or death was attributable to their work and occurred while the individual was on duty.

Under the Special Duty Area Pension Order, any injury, disease or disability sustained by a member of the Canadian Forces while on a peacekeeping mission in a special duty area is presumed to be directly related to the performance of his or her duties. In case of death, benefits are transferred to the victim's family.

Therefore, under this order, military personnel are considered to be on duty 24 hours a day for the purpose of employment- or service-related benefits. The order also acknowledges that the security of these people is always threatened.

However, in dangerous areas, even when serving side by side with Canadian Forces personnel, RCMP members are eligible for benefits only if the injury or disease occurs during a normally scheduled work shift.

RCMP personnel posted as peacekeepers in special duty areas are treated differently from their counterparts in the Canadian Forces, even though they face the same risks and circumstances.

At the present time, for instance, members of both forces are deployed in Haiti and the former Yugoslavia , which have both been declared special duty areas.

Under the Special Duty Area Pension Order, members of the Canadian Forces are considered to be on duty around the clock, if injuries, illness or fatalities occur.

On the other hand, RCMP personnel are considered to be on duty only during their shift. In keeping with the purest tradition of the RCMP, its members sought out this type of mission and volunteered for it. In so doing, they are perpetuating a tradition of which Canadians are proud, and one which has earned them their international reputation as major contributors to world peace and security.

Canada has an obligation to ensure that these courageous women and men, as well as their family members, are eligible for the same benefits as their Canadian Forces counterparts.

The purpose of today's bill is to remedy this abnormal situation.

I also wish to note that in addition to disability benefits, Canadian forces peacekeepers who are injured or taken ill while serving in special duty areas are entitled to the benefits provided under the veterans independence program. This program provides funds for services necessary to maintain a member in his or her own home as an alternative to institutional care. This includes housekeeping services and modifications to accommodate wheelchair access in a member's residence.

These special pension benefits take into account the increased risk associated with peacekeeping duties. The amended legislation will extend the same kind of program benefits to disabled RCMP peacekeepers.

This legislation reflects the changing role of peacekeeping in general. Adding to their traditional role as an arbiter of conflict, peacekeepers are now contributing to the broader reconstruction of society, the peace building phase that follows a peaceful settlement.

Through the volunteered services of RCMP peacekeepers, Canada has provided what many countries need most to sustain peace: respect for democratic tradition and a method for enforcing the rule of law. A troubled country may be able to build on the traditions and expertise demonstrated by the RCMP and Canadian forces peacekeepers to establish a new respect for law enforcement and respect for the law itself.

Passing this bill is the best and fairest action we can take. I am sure I speak for all members of this House in wishing that no Canadian peacekeeper, whether a member of the RCMP or a member of the armed forces, will ever need to use health insurance benefits, disability insurance or death benefits as the result of a mission to a special service area.

If such a need should ever arise, however, it would be only fair for RCMP members to benefit from the same extra protection, as provided in this bill for themselves and their family members.

I believe all members of this House recognize the importance, as far as equity is concerned, of the amendments being proposed to the RCMP pension plan.

I trust that I shall be able to count on the support of all the political parties in this House to ensure that this important bill is passed promptly.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Employment; the hon. member for Crowfoot, Violence against women.