Debates of May 4th, 2001

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order respecting questions on the order paper.

I have a complaint that is a weekly sort of rant. Under the provisions of Standing Order 39 members are allowed to put up to four questions on the order paper. I wish to remind the House and the Canadian public that those questions are put on the order paper for a very specific purpose. The House allows that provision in the standing orders in order to allow members of parliament to do their job.

I have had two questions on the order paper well in excess of 60 days with no response from the government. Madam Speaker, with the generosity that you exercise from the chair, could you imagine any government minister putting questions to the government and having to wait more than 24 hours for those answers? The fact is the government has the resources to answer those questions today if it wants to.

There is such a thing as transparency. In the business of politics there should be transparency. This restricts my ability to represent my constituents.

To conclude, this is a very important topic dealing with the Department of Human Resources Development, the abuse of shellfishers in eastern Canada and the violation of the code of ethics of government employees.

It is important that the Canadian public and members of parliament know the answers to those questions. It is inexcusable that we have to wait in excess of 60 days for answers to very important questions.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is assiduous in pursuing answers to his written questions.

The government makes every effort to provide answers on a timely basis. It is worth noting that oftentimes the way the questions are prepared involve many person hours taking into due regard the amount of resources and the amount of research that must be put into obtaining an answer. We have often seen replies in the House in the form of documentation that is a half-inch to an inch thick and involving more than one ministry.

Regrettably sometimes these answers take more than the presumed reasonable amount of time. I realize that the hon. member has two specific questions on the order paper. In light of his representation today he can be sure that I and others who are involved in the preparation of these answers will look for a reply very soon.

The House resumed consideration of Bill S-2, an act respecting marine liability, and to validate certain by-laws and regulations, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motions Nos. 1 and 2.

Marine Liability Act

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make some brief comments on behalf of my colleague, the member for St. John's East, who has carriage of the legislation. Coming from St. John's he obviously understands the necessity for requirements with respect to marine liability.

As I understand it there are two amendments. One was put forward by the member for Prince George—Peace River. It calls upon the House to amend clause 39 of the bill to make liability insurance for passenger vessels mandatory as of January 1, 2003. Our party agrees with it. We believe that anyone who is carrying passengers should have mandatory liability insurance.

The other one comes from the member for Windsor—St. Clair. It keeps the current wording of clause 39 that allows the government to introduce compulsory liability insurance by regulation if it sees fit. However the amendment adds a second part requiring vessel operators without insurance to post a notice to that effect until such time as liability insurance becomes compulsory.

We agree that if there is no liability insurance covered by the carrier of that particular vessel it should be posted for customers to see. Customers would then have the opportunity of deciding whether or not to use the carrier.

The bill consolidates Canada's marine liability law and incorporates into Canadian law a number of international conventions to which we are a signatory. However, nowhere in the 117 pages of the bill does it say a vessel owner must have the kind of liability insurance that the bill endlessly talks about throughout the whole document. That in itself is absolutely astounding. We would never think of taking to the roads without liability insurance. When we drive on roads we not only have collision but also liability coverage should we be at fault or be involved in the injury or death of other parties.

That is what we are suggesting should happen here. It should apply not only to ocean going vessels but to those vessels that may carry passengers and operate inland. There are a lot of lakes and waterways in Canada. We believe that any Canadian passenger vessel should have the mandatory requirement of carrying liability insurance.

That is not asking very much because there is not a huge cost associated with it. It is just good business. Whether or not it is the law the carriers should carry such insurance, but we know that some carriers feel for whatever reasons that if they do not want to they should not be forced to.

That is why we are suggesting the amendments put forward by the members for Prince George—Peace River and Windsor—St. Clair should be accepted by the government so that the changed legislation would serve Canadians better. I put that on the record on behalf of my colleague from St. John's East.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address a few items in Bill S-2. I cannot resist the temptation to draw attention once again to the fact that Bill S-2 comes from the Senate. I would ordinarily have no objection to a bill coming from the Senate. I know some members of the Senate. Some are very honourable people and they work very hard. That is fine, but I really wish they were elected.

There is something wrong in a modern day democracy when members can actually introduce bills which affect our lives and they are not even elected. It is like reverting to a time when kings used to tell people what to do. If the people did not obey they were clubbed with a mace, similar to the one we have in the House. That was the original purpose of the mace, to enforce the law of government or the law of the king.

I object that the bill comes from the Senate. It should have been introduced in this elected House. We will not flag in our zeal to have an elected Senate. I have had several conversations with some senators and have urged them to push for an elected Senate. As I told them, I am sure that with their popularity they would probably be elected anyway. They have nothing to worry about. It would give the position a lot more legitimacy.

Today we are dealing with the liability insurance of shipowners. It is curious to me that shipowners of the few ships registered in this country are not required by law to actually carry liability insurance. It is very strange.

I have a couple of vehicles. I am required by law to carry liability insurance, not only for someone who happens to be in my vehicle but if I happen to injure someone in another vehicle.

As a matter of fact, I had a conversation with someone just a few weeks ago about the required liability insurance on my motorcycle. I said it was really unfair that the liability insurance on my motorcycle was almost as high as it was on my car. I said that was really wrong because if I was in an accident, although I am well padded, it would still result most certainly in serious injuries. Yet I had this huge liability. I said my little 400 pound vehicle with a 400 pound rider was not going to cause nearly as much damage as if I had hit somebody with my 6,000 pound Suburban. So that insurance was very unfair.

The point I am making is that I am required to carry liability insurance in the event that something happens, so I comply with that law.

It is beyond me why the government would choose not to include such a provision for shipowners and the protection of their passengers. It really boggles the mind. Every provincial government has required public liability insurance. Taxis have to. Buses have to. Airlines have to. Who does not have to? The shipowners. Again, s stands for senate and s also stands for ships.

I have to digress. I am on the finance committee and so I have great interest in taxes and things like that. It is a curiosity to me that there are some Canadians who actually own ships who do not even register them in our own country. I suppose they think that the tax regime here is unfavourable to them, so they fly flags of convenience, as they are called, registering their ships in some other country where either the taxes are lower or do not exist at all. I am not aware of this, but it seems to me that this particular bill would possibly not even apply to ships which are not registered in Canada. That is a whole other question which ought to be addressed.

There is an amendment put forward by our transportation critic which is a very fine amendment. During the committee hearings on the bill, there were representatives who said we should have compulsory insurance. There were representatives from the insurance industry who said they were ready to provide it, that they would write it up and that everything would be in place. Notwithstanding that, government officials said there was some barrier and that they could not do it. However the insurance people said “Yes we can. What is the impediment?” They said it was all ready to go. The government said in those committee meetings that it would introduce regulations which would make insurance compulsory.

Listen to this very fine amendment. I know it has already been read into the record but it is such a fine one. The motion that our party is putting forward, which must be passed, is just common sense. It says “The Governor in Council”, that is the Cabinet, “shall make regulations by January 1, 2003”, that is over a year and a half from now, “requiring insurance or evidence of financial security be maintained to cover liability under this part”.

I do not see a person in the House rising to speak against the amendment. There has not yet been one. That is because there is no rational argument against the amendment.

My big task then is to persuade the 172 Liberals over there to support the amendment. That is the challenge. I feel that I am doubly offended. First, the bill came into here from the Senate and not from this elected place.

The second way in which I am offended is that I do not know if the Liberal members, who are in the majority in the House, all 172 of them over there, are even hearing my arguments. I am telling them there is no rational reason to reject this amendment. If they would only show that they have an ability to hear an argument, to understand it and show some wisdom when the vote is called and rise unison say that yes, it is a great amendment, it makes sense and is consistent with all other transportation facilities in the country, therefore we will support that amendment. There is just no other way.

In a way I am wasting my time putting forward this argument. Anybody who would read it and think for about .38 milliseconds, because that is how long it would take, could compute that is the only reasonable response.

Will they do it? Dare I express my pessimism about it. It seems to me that for the sole reason that this amendment came from the opposition rather than from the government the members will be told “No, we want to be agin this one”. In unison they will stand up and say that they will not vote for common sense, that they will not vote for a rational argument and that they will not vote for the protection of passengers embarking on trips on ships which originate in Canadian ports. They will do as they are told and vote against the amendment.

That is what I cannot understand. That is where I suddenly have difficulty understanding what goes on here.

I have stated the case as strongly as I can on that amendment. It is absolutely mandatory, it makes sense and it is for the protection of passengers. Furthermore, it is totally doable. The insurance people have told us it is. There is no loss to the government. All it is is a requirement that these shipowners who take passengers on will have the ability to cover a possible loss. That is so standard in the industry all over the world. It is unbelievable that in this country we even hesitate on that.

I have about two seconds to say that the NDP motion is the backup one. It says that in the event that these Liberals do not think on the Canadian Alliance amendment, they have an opportunity to bail themselves out partially by requiring that these shipowners post a notice clearly visible to passengers boarding their ships that there is no insurance on their ships. That also makes sense. We insist nowadays that consumers be informed of what their food contains, so they should be informed of what coverage they have when they go on a ship.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is the House ready for the question.

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at report stage of the bill. However the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 7, at 6.30 p.m.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions between the parties and I think you would find agreement in the House to further defer the recorded division requested on report stage of Bill S-2 until the end of government orders on Tuesday, May 8.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, in view of the expeditious passage of that stage of that bill, the House might have a disposition to see the clock as 1.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 1.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.