Debates of April 2nd, 1998

Judges Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the vote stands deferred until the end of Government Orders on Tuesday, April 21, 1998.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Canada Shipping Act

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, for the Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability), be concurred in at report stage.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

For the information of members this is the report stage concurrence motion on which there is no debate.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, for the Minister of Transport]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to members about Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability) for this third reading debate.

Before I talk about the bill I have been asked by the Minister of Transport to acknowledge the critical role that has been played by the members of the House, the senators and the standing committees who have undertaken a thorough examination of this legislation.

I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to thank members from the other side of the House for their support. We see in Bill S-4 a good example of our ability to work together for the benefit of Canadians.

This legislation was first introduced by the former minister of transport as Bill C-58 in the last Parliament. At that time the House Standing Committee on Transport held hearings where industry groups expressed their general support for Bill C-58. Their concerns have been addressed by the standing committee. The amendments proposed to the legislation have since been included in this bill, Bill S-4.

I would also like to thank the senators and particularly the members of the Senate standing committee on transport and communications for their work on the bill. Of course the bill is a Senate bill.

They adopted an amendment to the legislation to remove from the bill a proposed modification to the definition of pollutant which raised concerns among industry representatives who appeared before the committee on transport and communications. This amendment to Bill S-4 will allow more time for discussion between the government and the industry on the definition of pollutant and whether it should be modified in the future.

The changes to the Canada Shipping Act which I will outline would not have been possible without the dedicated efforts of government officials, in particular those from Transport Canada and the Department of Justice. Throughout the process of this legislation, officials from the Department of Transport have spoken at length with the industry, including the shipowners, passengers, cargo owners, the oil industry, marine insurers and the marine legal community. I take this opportunity to thank these industry groups for their participation in this reform and for their contribution toward and support for the new legislation.

I am thoroughly convinced and I am sure every member of the House will agree that this new legislation represents an important step toward modernizing Canadian maritime liability regimes. It will improve considerably the amount of compensation available to claimants for maritime claims in general and for oil pollution damage in particular.

The proposed legislation consists of two sets of amendments. There are those relating to limitation of liability for maritime claims in part IX of the Canada Shipping Act, and those relating to liability of compensation for oil pollution damage in part XVI of the same act. In both cases the amendments will provide for the implementation of international conventions on maritime liability and therefore will harmonize Canadian maritime liability legislation with the legislation in other major maritime nations.

The key policy objective in respect of global limitation of liability is to achieve an equitable balance between the interests of the shipowners on the one hand and of potential claimants on the other. Our current legislation concerning limitation of liability for maritime claims contained in part IX of the Canada Shipping Act is based on an international convention adopted in 1957. One can easily imagine that the limits of liability set out in that convention and by this very fact in our existing legislation are very low.

For example, the current limits of liability for ships below 300 tonnes, which includes most pleasure vessels, is approximately $140,000. We can appreciate that this limit is totally inadequate. I can assure the House that this feature does not help either the claimants or the shipowners. The new limits for ships below 300 tonnes has been set at $1.5 million which is more in line with the liability levels long established in the automobile sector.

For ships over 300 tonnes, the new limits of liability are based on the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims and its protocol adopted in 1996. The 1996 protocol to the convention contains a new procedure for future amendments of limits of liability which responds to concerns that the method of revision of the limits was too cumbersome and too costly. It will now be easier to amend the limits in the international convention.

The spirit of this innovative provision has been incorporated into Bill S-4 to ensure that the limits of liability in the Canada Shipping Act keep their value over the years to come. It will now be feasible to increase the limits in the Canada Shipping Act by order in council to keep up to date with any increases in the limits adopted under the 1996 protocol in the future.

As members probably know, the Minister of Transport signed on behalf of Canada the 1996 protocol last September. This protocol is a major step toward the modernization of international maritime law and we can be proud to be at the forefront of this international initiative. We will be in a position to formerly ratify this important treaty when Bill S-4 is passed.

Let me turn to the second issue contained in Bill S-4, the revision of the existing regime of liability and compensation for oil pollution damage. This regime was last revised in 1989 when Canada implemented and acceded to the 1969 international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the 1971 international fund convention.

The 1969 convention established the liability of owners of laden tankers for oil pollution damage, while the 1971 fund convention provided complementary compensation to the extent the protection under the 1969 convention was in adequate.

In addition to participating in the international oil pollution compensation fund, Canada has its own domestic compensation fund called the ship source oil pollution fund. This is a fund of first resort for all claimants for oil pollution damage in Canada and in waters under Canadian jurisdiction. Canadian contributions to the international fund are paid from the ship source oil pollution fund.

Bill S-4 will implement the provisions of the 1992 protocols to the 1969 and 1971 conventions.

Under the 1992 protocols the amount of compensation available for pollution damage caused by oil tankers was increased from $122 million per incident to approximately $270 million per incident.

The 1992 protocols also bring a number of important changes including a provision to make it clear that shipowners are liable for the costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement where oil pollution damage from a ship results in the impairment of the environment.

The proposed legislation will enable Canada to follow many other countries which have terminated their membership in the 1971 regime and moved to the 1992 regime. If we do not take the same action as others we will continue to be one of the major members still under the old regime. While not entitled to any improved compensation, Canada would also then be exposed to higher contributions to the international fund due to the reduced membership of nations under the old regime.

With the passage of Bill S-4 Canada will now be in the position to accede to the 1992 protocols.

I urge all my colleagues to join us on the government side and lend their support in order to pass this bill so that it can receive royal assent as soon as possible.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was rather amused at the hon. member's long preamble in which he thanked everybody in sight for their co-operative efforts in this bill. He included the Standing Committee on Transport.

I believe the current standing committee had about as much input into this legislation as I will have into the election of the next pope.

There is an interesting coincidence here that we are debating Bill S-4, a bill relating to marine liability, just after the signing of a new international agreement on inter-regional action to eliminate substandard shipping. On March 24 and 25 delegations from 33 marine nations, European commissions, the International Maritime Organization and the International Labour Organization all gathered in Vancouver to discuss the tightening and control of safety, labour and environmental standards of merchant vessels

There was a remarkable degree of consensus on the need to continue stringent inspections and to control vessels, especially bulk carriers and tankers when they enter seaports. There was also agreement in principle on the international exchange of inspection data in order to establish black lists of consistently offending vessels which would then be barred from the ports of all nationals represented at the conference.

International control of the safety of ships received its greatest impetus just 20 years ago with the grounding and break-up of the Amoco Cadiz off the coast of France. This led to stringent European port state control under the Paris memorandum of understanding of 1982. The Paris memorandum of understanding provided the pattern for the Tokyo memorandum in 1993, a memorandum of which Canada was a founding member. Canada subsequently joined the Paris MOU in 1994. Canada and Russia are therefore members of both groups, the only two countries that are.

Under these memoranda any ship which has not been inspected by a co-operating state during the previous six months, most bulk carriers and tankers and all passenger vessels are subject to inspection upon arrival at a seaport. The inspection target for each country in the Paris memorandum is 25%. For the Tokyo memorandum it is 50% of ships in the entire region with most inspections taking place in the wealthier countries, very few in the less developed.

The number of substandard ships plying the seas is mind boggling. Of 29,700 ships subjected to port inspections in 1996, 8% had to be detained in port until they remedied deficiencies. In Canada the rate of detentions for the last two years has been 10%. Deficiencies may range all the way from substandard crew accommodations through defective or inadequate firefighting or lifesaving equipment to structural defects so severe that a vessel is quite literally unseaworthy. The latter of course are disasters waiting to happen.

The names of detained vessels are published quarterly as a warning to other port authorities to give them special attention. These reports are also available to shippers who might wish to be somewhat selective of those to whom they entrust their goods.

Unfortunately rogue vessels operating below standards or at the thin edge of acceptability may offer rates as much as 15% below those of legitimate carriers.

An ongoing problem referred to by almost every national delegation at the conference is the failure of flag states to enforce adequate standards at their end. One delegate compared flag state control to the fence at the top of a cliff and port state control to the ambulance sitting at the bottom. If states offering flags of convenience were diligent or even interested in marine safety, receiving ports would not have to be nearly so diligent and the necessity to detain vessels for repair would be much less common.

However, with most trading nations now subscribing to port control of vessels, it is becoming increasingly difficult for unsafe ships to find a berth. Moreover, the practice of naming and shaming ships that have been detained points fingers at the flag states with the lowest standards and will tend to discourage insurers and responsible shippers from doing business with ships carrying those flags.

On the whole the conference was one of those rare international frolics that actually reached some useful conclusions and which should contribute to greater co-operation and information sharing to the general benefit of all countries.

A cursory overview of the new maximum liabilities set out in Bill S-4 clearly indicates that the minor costs of port inspections compared to the costs of major marine disasters, not to mention the preservation of human lives and protection of the environment, make inspections one of the world's best investments.

With the ever increasing co-operation between maritime nations with respect to safety and marine liability it is important that our liability legislation be harmonized with that of other countries. Bill S-4 accomplishes this. Increased liabilities will add a little to the cost of marine insurance but commercial vessels insured in mutual protection and indemnity associations will probably see no substantive increase in insurance rates because coverage already provided by mutual associations is unlimited. Their rates are already proportionately high. Pleasure crafts are mostly already insured to the levels of liability set forth in Bill S-4, much as private automobiles usually have far more coverage than the minimum required by law.

There is no question that commercial shipowners not covered in mutual associations will have increased insurance costs. The new rates based on the size and frequency of claims will be an encouragement to commercial shippers to maintain a decent safety record. If all major maritime states subscribe to the new regime the costs of insurance which are ultimately borne by shippers through higher rates should be evenly and more or less equitably distributed among the trading nations.

One of the most important features of this bill is that the limit of liability on an oil spill by a tanker not covered by a mutual association will be increased from $120 million per incident to $270 million. That may not be too relevant because I believe that most tankers are in mutual associations and therefore have unlimited liability. For the few cases where there are ships with nothing but their individual insurance policies, that very large increase in the limit of liability is very significant. The oil spill liability limits for smaller ships will also be increased but these increases will be proportionate to their gross tonnage.

All in all, Bill S-4 is useful legislation. The Reform Party supports Bill S-4 even though we are going to have hold our noses with regard to its origin in hog hollow, that other place down the hall.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to address Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability).

The Bloc Quebecois will support this bill, which is excellent since it extends maritime liability to shipowners. We think it will allow us to avoid situations such as the case of the Irving Whale , where a disaster occurred but maritime liability was inadequate. The proposed legislation sets specific limits.

While we support the bill, it should be pointed out that it was first introduced in 1996, as Bill C-58. Bill C-58 had reached committee stage and had been amended by the Standing Committee on Transport which tabled its report to the House of Commons on December 11, 1996.

However, the bill died on the Order Paper because, members will recall, the Prime Minister called an early election in April 1997, only three and a half years into his first mandate. But the legislation followed its course, and has now been sent here by the Senate. However, if it had passed third reading in the spring of 1997, the bill would already be in effect.

Bill S-4 basically seeks to implement old international conventions, namely the 1976 Convention on Limitations of Liability for Maritime Claims, the 1996 Protocol, the 1992 Protocol to amend the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, and the 1971 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage.

We are talking about a period of more than 25 years. This is rather astonishing, given the context. I remember because I was on the Standing Committee on Transport in the fall of 1996. It was urgent and absolutely essential that this bill be passed in order to harmonize our legislation with that of other countries. This bill, without wishing to detract from it, is only now becoming law. In my opinion, this tells us that the government does not view shipping as very important.

There is another thing that should not be forgotten. During the 1993 election campaign, the Liberal Party candidates in the Quebec City area—including the present Prime Minister's chief of staff, who was a Liberal candidate in the riding of Québec—promised to hold a summit on the future of shipbuilding. Shipbuilding and shipping are related, in my opinion, because there cannot be any navigating until ships are built.

It happens that my riding is home to the most important shipyard in Quebec, the Lévis shipyard, which, in its heyday, had 3,000 employees, but which now has about 500. The Lévis shipyard is not the only shipyard in this situation. Other shipyards elsewhere in Canada, including Saint John Shipbuilding, the two Great Lakes shipyards and shipyards in western Canada, are also in a slump.

The Liberal candidates at the time, however, said that, given the number of jobs involved, something absolutely had to be done. But, one election later, we are still trying to pass a bill that will harmonize our legislation with an international convention Canada helped negotiate. But it is one of the last of the major nations to pass a bill harmonizing its legislation with this convention. The Liberal government therefore does not seem to think shipping is very important.

Coming back to the summit on the future of shipyards, when they were in opposition in 1993, the Liberals said that it was extremely important that a summit be held the following year, but they did not hold one.

The years went by, and then, in August of last year, the premiers met in St. Andrew's, at the invitation of the former premier of New Brunswick, Mr. McKenna. This bill was on the agenda, and all those present adopted the position that something had to be done quickly, and this was not just any old group, but all the premiers together, who were in agreement on this.

Over the months, a number of stakeholders, such as the Shipbuilders' Association of Canada, Canadian shipbuilders and shipyard workers, expressed their views. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mrs. Verreault, CEO of Les Méchins shipyard in the Gaspé, who worked so hard to inform the various stakeholders and the government.

Unfortunately, cabinet is turning a deaf ear, so much so that, during their recent convention, Liberal supporters passed a resolution, reminding their own government that they absolutely have to do something for the shipping industry and especially the shipbuiding industry.

We all like to watch ships go by. As can be seen from Lévis and as many members from ridings located along the St. Lawrence can tell you, there are a lot of ships out there, but unfortunately, very few of them are built in Canada. It is a bit disappointing to see that the Liberal government fails to realize that this means of transportation, which is the most cost efficient, energy efficient and environmentally friendly, is important.

That is why members from this side of the House and some members from the other opposition parties, including the hon. member for Saint John, keep reminding the government that something absolutely has to be done for the shipping industry. All opposition parties agree on this. As I said before, even supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada agree on this. Despite this growing consensus, the government refuses to budge.

One of those who should normally address this issue is the Minister of Finance, but he does not dare to take part in this debate, because he says he is in a conflict of interest. He refuses to address the issue, because, as he puts it: “You know, I have an interest in Canada Steamship Lines. Even though it is held in trust, I cannot talk about it”. He neither defends nor promotes this industry, so nothing is being done. Nothing.

As a member representing a riding where there is a big shipyard, every time I hear opposition members talk about this issue, I hasten to support them. I try to do everything I can to contribute to every debate we have in this House that deals with shipping, the Canada Shipping Act and shipbuilding.

I have been speaking on this subject for five years. But until something is done about it, I think it is the duty of a member of Parliament to raise this issue in the House during debate to show Canadians how important it is.

I will quote some figures since time allows me to do so. Shipping is a vital component of trade. With an annual volume of 224 million tons, shipping contributes $2 billion to our GDP each year. But let us not forget that the vast majority of these ships are not Canadian.

I will quote more figures. Shipping would allow us to maximize the use of fuel—we do have to use fuel for various things—by 926% compared to other means of transportation. It would also allow us to reduce accident risks by 610%.

I will make a comparison, using as an example a ton of goods and five litres of fuel. Here are some telling figures. By plane, the distance covered would be six kilometres only; by truck, it would be 100 kilometres; by train, 333 kilometres; and by boat, 500 kilometres. The difference is huge.

These figures were quoted by Mrs. Verreault in a presentation she made on shipping. One laker, a ship that sails the Great Lakes, can carry 25,000 tons of grain, but it would take 500 railway cars carrying 50 tons each or 833 trucks carrying 30 tons each. These figures may seem incredible, but they are real. They were verified.

All I want to say is that we must give more consideration to shipping. I invite all my colleagues to do so.

Often, just before question period, we see more colleagues from different parties return to the House. Therefore, it is just the right time to get the attention of those who just came in before question period so that members on the government side listen to what the opposition has to say.

I also invite them to listen to what their constituents have to say. The millennium scholarship fund is fine, but what their constituents want for the next millennium is to have means of transportation that are more environmentally friendly.

International summits were held on that subject. This year, in Kyoto, there were discussions on the reduction of greenhouse gases, which have a detrimental effect on the ozone layer and the environment.

In conclusion, I invite all my colleagues, especially my Liberal colleagues, to urge cabinet members to put this issue on the agenda and to ask the industry minister to examine this and see to it that a shipbuilding policy is finally developed.

[The Speaker]

We will resume debate after question period. The member for Cumberland—Colchester will have the floor.

It being 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Maple Syrup Festival

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to rise and advise the House of a special occasion which will occur this Saturday, April 4, in Elmira, Ontario.

As the dreary days of winter draw to a close, each year residents of the Waterloo—Wellington riding and visitors from around the world converge on Elmira to celebrate the tapping of maple trees and the promise of spring.

This year our riding celebrates the 34th annual maple syrup festival. On behalf of my constituents I would like to invite hon. members and all Canadians to attend this wonderful Canadian event.

I would also like to acknowledge the many volunteers whose tireless efforts each year ensure the continued success of the festival. All residents of Waterloo—Wellington thank them for their dedication.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I taught math for 31 years and I want to talk math with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

A total of $5.5 billion is targeted for about 400,000 on reserve natives. If we divide that we get almost $14,000 per person or about $55,000 per year per average family.

How can a family with a take-home income of $55,000 live in abject poverty? It is easy. They do not get the money. Government officials, native officials, band councils, chiefs, lawyers and endless advisers get the money. There is nothing left for ordinary band members.

What happens when one of them points this out? They get hassled and threatened. What happens if they write a letter to the minister? Their letter is sent to their hasslers. What happens if someone asks for a impartial independent inquiry? They are ignored and called names.

I urge the minister to do her math, recognize that there is a big problem and get to the root of the matter with an independent inquiry.

Poultry Industry

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why did the chicken cross the road? It was to get to the food bank.

The chicken farmers of Canada are calling upon all members of parliament and senators, their families and their staff to enter the great Canadian chicken cook-off recipe contest.

For the winner we will ship 1,000 kilograms of Canadian chicken to the food bank, soup kitchen or charity of choice. That is enough chicken to make over 3,000 meals for Canadians in constituencies the real winners.

The information on the contest has been sent to all MPs' and senators' offices. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your recipe.

Thomas D'Arcy McGee

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

Mr. Speaker, Thomas D'Arcy McGee was a journalist, poet, Irish patriot, Canadian statesman and Father of Confederation.

During the 1860s he was the first and most eloquent Canadian political leader to argue for a union of all the British North American provinces into one great nation spanning the continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In his many brilliant speeches he held forth a new nationality in which peoples of two major languages and many cultures and religions would overcome their differences to unite and form a great new nation, Canada.

April 7 will mark the 130th anniversary of the tragic assassination of D'Arcy McGee. A hundred and thirty years later we live in a Canada which is the realization of his vision and his prediction, a prosperous and peaceful Canada where disparate peoples live together harmoniously.

This is the Canada D'Arcy McGee dreamed of, worked for and even died for. As Canadians we owe him our thanks. Vive le Canada.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to fetal alcohol syndrome or FAS which is having devastating effects on its victims, their families and society.

Last week in my riding of Prince Albert 100 people had to be turned away from an overcrowded presentation about this burgeoning problem.

Here are some of the facts. Fetal alcohol syndrome and its milder form of fetal alcohol effects have been called the leading cause of mental retardation in the western world. A recent study conducted in British Columbia showed that 23% of its young offender population had FAS and a further 12% had a milder form. It is estimated that 15% of adult prison populations suffer from one or both.

FAS is not reversible. It is a life sentence. It would be appropriate for the House to act to end this national disaster. The unborn have the right to a full life unhindered by fetal alcohol syndrome.

Member For Sherbrooke

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Sherbrooke for his courage and his dedication. It is not just anyone who would accept to set aside their aspirations and leave their team to venture into troubled waters.

Following the October 1995 referendum, I took the time to thank him and congratulate him for his helpful participation in the referendum campaign. It was the least I could do.

To all those who would now want to depict him as the emissary of so-called English Canada, a most divisive expression if there is one, I say “rubbish”.

This young man, the member for Sherbrooke, who is leaving this House today deserves, as does his family, the support of all those who believe in this great and noble collective enterprise that Canada represents.

On behalf of the people of Ottawa—Vanier, I assure him of my support and I wish him and his family Godspeed.