Debates of May 13th, 2009

Marine Liability Act

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question really was for the parliamentary secretary to the minister, but the member for Eglinton--Lawrence is extremely well informed on any topic he speaks to, so he could probably answer my question.

The member probably knows that insurance markets are international and they are also very cyclical. There are times, say over a three to five year cycle, when insurance companies cut premiums in half and expand coverage, and then just as abruptly they turn around and ratchet premiums up four, five or ten times the price and cut back the coverage.

We are taking a real risk when we pass legislation mandating something, expecting that somehow the insurance, while it might be available today, will be available two or three years down the road. What happens if the insurance markets dry up? In other areas, an extra option is given that if an insurance policy cannot be provided to the regulator, a monetary guarantee or some other alternative has to be put up if the insurance is not available.

Would the member like to comment on that? I have a follow-up question for him after that as well.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has suggested, his question would be best directed to the government that proposed this legislation.

As a member on the committee, I dealt with some of this. I think a member from his own caucus was present when some of these issues were discussed.

I cannot speak to the practices of insurance companies in part because I share his views about their practices and how they set their rates and deal with their own customer base. They really do hold many of their clients in a disadvantaged position. That was raised.

I referred to the adventure tourism business as an example. Those are small and medium size businesses and essentially family operated environments. They have a difficult time getting insurance coverage anyway. This legislation, in my interpretation and I think in the interpretation of others, makes it unnecessary.

When people such as the hon. member suggest that might not be an advantage for the client, he is right. I took pains to give the example in my presentation that was provided to the committee of a business that operated for 20 years, paid in excess of $1 million in premiums, but the customers only accessed $70,000 in payment for liabilities.

On the commercial side, presenters before committee, lawyers and I think insurance people as well, said all of these concerns are addressed by other laws, laws of the sea, liability, maritime, both national and international. It is all a part of doing business and it is all factored in when the shipper or the ship owner puts the vessel in the water or puts products into the vessel. That has already been considered.

This legislation would augment the amount of liability required for those having goods that may, if there is an accident, damage our coastal environment.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my follow-up question concerning Bill C-7 deals with the whole adventure tourism industry question.

I did sit in for a while at committee when the bill was being considered. It does not seem to me to be overly prudent to exclude the adventure tourism industry on a blanket basis and allow waivers to take the place of financial responsibility. I am really concerned that the public is not going to be protected with this measure.

I recognize that a lot of presentations were made at committee and that people have considered this whole option, but in spite of amendments being suggested that the member would support that would have helped this matter out, the committee decided to proceed with the exemption for the adventure tourism industry.

Is there some way other than making the industry take out insurance policies that the public could be protected? Could there be some sort of guarantee or a fund which the adventure tourism industry association could build up over a few years to pay for liability claims that result from certain accidents in this type of business?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that Adventure Tourism is captured by the current legislation and that this legislation essentially took it out of what is called part 4. Therefore, it does not make it necessary for it to have to be captured by legislation in order to be held liable under other parts of the legislation.

I gather, because I cannot speak for them, that other members on the government side and other opposition members were convinced by that particular argument. I shared the member's views and presented amendments that were defeated by the government and the other two opposition parties, including his own. We presented what we needed to do in order to address those concerns without expressing any malice. The other two opposition parties and the government side were more convinced by the argument that said that just because we were taking it out of part 4 did not mean that we could not hold other people liable. I cannot say more than that. They were convinced by that argument and we on the Liberal side were not.

However, the legislation passed through committee because that is the way things happen. We need to vote on some amendments.

I am glad the hon. member still shares the concerns that I expressed in committee and that I put forward in writing through amendments. However, the Adventure Tourism business operators and tourism associations in general, I guess, made a compelling enough argument for the committee to accept the view that it is okay to take Adventure Tourism out of part 4.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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 Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Correctional Service Canada; the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East, Oil and Gas Industry; the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's, Revenue Canada.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

During the few minutes I have to speak, I would like to take the time to go over the entire bill in order to ensure that our viewers have a clear understanding of this bill.

First of all, our party will be supporting this bill.

I would like to read part of the summary, which can be found on the first page of the bill, after the title:

This enactment amends Parts 3 and 4 of the Marine Liability Act to clarify certain rules of the limitation of liability of owners of ships for maritime claims and liability for the carriage of passengers, in particular the treatment of participants in adventure tourism activities.

The articles affected by this bill relate directly to liability and insurance. The bill limits the liability of shipowners in cases of maritime claims. This is a rather complicated text for shipowners. Among other things, it limits them to 2,000 units of account, because before the change, certain excesses in applying the act forced the industry to appeal to the government, asking that the legislation conform to international standards. That is the purpose of this bill.

The same applies to “liability for the carriage of passengers, in particular the treatment of participants in adventure tourism activities”. The act was amended in 2001, and all passenger carriers were required to have insurance. The Marine Liability Act makes shipowners liable and requires them to have insurance.

Shipowners wanted their claims limit to be the same as the international standard, so one sector in particular, the adventure tourism sector, approached the government. The sector has been having major difficulties since the amendments to the Marine Liability Act, which I mentioned earlier, came into force in 2001. Given the requirements for insurance and coverage, the premiums got so high that businesses had to close their doors or operate without insurance, becoming outlaws.

That is pretty hard to understand, unless we realize that adventure tourism operators are often small and medium-sized businesses. I will try to explain because I am not sure that all of the committee members have understood.

In his speech, the minister said that discussion of these amendments began in 2003. A committee considered the matter in 2005. The reason things are not any further ahead in 2009 is that we have had minority governments. It started back in the days of the Liberals, and the government has not had a chance to amend the bill.

The industry was under pressure from insurance companies, and their sky-high insurance rates were adjusted. Earlier, one of our NDP colleagues said that prices fluctuated in the insurance industry. Oddly enough, premiums have gone down this year because this bill is before the House. That is a fact. Faced with the fact that this bill will not apply to adventure tourism, insurance companies have finally talked to each other and decided to stop that kind of exploitation, which is exactly what it was. In terms of accidents, it has been shown that there are far fewer accidents related to adventure tourism than to waterskiing and downhill skiing, for example.

Adventure tourism covers river rafting operations, but some Niagara-based businesses take their clients right up to the falls.

We now have adventure tourism. I am smiling because I am a notary and sometimes we joke with our lawyer colleagues. One of the lawyers was saying that when he goes on an adventure tour, he wants to be safe. He wants to be on a boat that he knows is insured. He said he had gone on a whale-watching expedition. There are some on the St. Lawrence. Adventure tours now use small vessels for whale-watching, the same kind of boat used for river rafting. They can get closer to the whales but the risk is greater. There is a market for such expeditions. Some people like to take greater risks. If the lawyers do not wish to take risks, they can go on the big cruise ships, which carry insurance. Those who want a bit more excitement and adventure will take the smaller boats and try to get closer to the whales. That is the reality.

I was not referring to my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin because taking risks does not bother him. I have seen his photographs and he is not afraid to get close to the animals. He went on a photo safari and you have to be careful when you get close to the animals.

Adventure tourism is a growing market. We know that Quebec is lucky to have hundreds of thousands of bodies of water, lakes and beautiful rivers. There are many small and medium-sized companies in this sector and the lawyers mentioned that in Quebec many companies do not have insurance. They do not have the money to pay for the insurance. However, there is a market for this type of tourism and this bill addresses the situation. It excludes adventure tourism from this requirement, but not just haphazardly.

We must take the time to read section 37.1 of the act, on page 5 of the bill, which states:

This Part does not apply to an adventure tourism activity that meets the following conditions:

(a) it exposes participants to an aquatic environment;

(b) it normally requires safety equipment and procedures beyond those normally used in the carriage of passengers;

Of course, if the rafts go close to the whales or people go downriver in speed boats, passengers wear rescue belts and get some training before beginning the activity so that they are aware of the danger. People can always decide not to go if they do not want to. The operators have measures in place. The same clause also says that:

(c) participants are exposed to greater risks than passengers are normally exposed to in the carriage of passengers;

Yes, there are whale-watching excursions on bigger vessels on the St. Lawrence. People who do not want to take any risks go on those boats. Those boats have insurance. There is no problem. However, people who do want to take more risks are aware that they have to take more safety precautions. They have to wear their life jackets, which is not the case with cruise ships or day boats. I will read the next part of the clause:

(d) its risks have been presented to the participants and they have accepted in writing to be exposed to them;

All participants have to sign a document saying that they understand the risks and will not hold the operator responsible in case of an accident. The bill continues:

(e) any condition prescribed under paragraph 39(c).

This is about mandatory training, a short preparation course. That is how it works. It is not true that some people will not be covered. There are requirements. I think that people who have signed the document are aware that the activity requires more safety precautions because they are required to wear life jackets at all times. Sometimes things are done differently than on cruise ships or day boats. These people know that they are participating in adventure tourism and that if a serious accident happens, which nobody wants, after they have signed the waiver, they cannot sue the operator.

Of course, I can understand that people who do not take part in such activities will be thinking that they will end up not being covered by insurance if they are on a cruise ship. That is not what it is all about. We are talking about activity that is far closer to the aquatic environment. That is the reality. Think of white water rafting, but also of boats that go close to falls, like the ones at Niagara Falls. People want to see them up close, as close as possible, and things can go wrong.

It is the same thing when a person goes out whale-watching in an inflatable, in order to be able to get as close as possible. There have been reports on this. We have to respect aquatic life, but this is far closer than a person can get with a cruise ship or a day boat in order to observe marine life. We could name other similar activities. Those watching can surely think of a lot of other activities that take place on water.

When we are engaged in this type of activity, adventure tourism, and we have to sign a waiver in case of accident, i.e. something indicating that the operator will not be held responsible, we always have the choice of just not going. We have a choice not to take part in this activity, to say that we are not prepared to take responsibility on ourselves for what might happen. That does not mean we are unfriendly, and the operator will understand that. It is a reality, but we cannot prevent an industry from developing, especially in Quebec with all its waterways. There is such potential, and operators have succeeded in developing a clientele.

I might add that the young generation—which I hope I can still count myself as part of—wants a little more excitement in their lives and their activities. There is a whole generation of skateboarders and wakeboarders, and I know my colleagues have said how dangerous this is. People get hurt all the time doing water skiing and wakeboarding. I have a lakeside property and I know that. These, of course, are private properties and people who engage in these sports are responsible for their activities.

At present, there is real potential for activities that are much more participatory than passive, in other words, involving sitting and watching. Some people prefer to get more involved. We must recognize that. When legislation forces businesses to insure themselves, it is like winning the lottery. Insurance companies tell themselves that the legislation will force people to pay, either to their company or to another. They are charged so much that they cannot even operate, grow or even make a profit.

Of course, this bill addresses more than just that. I will continue reading from the summary, which can be found before the first page, and I quote:

It also amends Part 6 of that Act to implement the Protocol of 2003 to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 as well as the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001. The enactment continues, in Part 7, the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund and modernizes its governance.

I am sure we all remember the Exxon Valdez disaster off the coast of Alaska, which of course had certain repercussions for Canada. In order to avoid another situation like that, it is important that the oil pollution fund, created in Canada, is well funded, that enough money is collected, that the fund is properly governed and of course, that it is modernized to conform to international standards under the 2003 international protocol. This will allow us to renew it.

As I said, studies were conducted in 2005 and the industry had no criticisms in this file. Both the legal community and the industry agree. This file suffered too many delays to be passed quickly. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have been dragging their feet on this. They could have passed it quickly, but no, they delayed until 2009.

We have to modernize this fund, because we never know what sort of accident could happen. No one wants oil pollution. The Conservative government is looking at developing the Arctic. There is ice and there is the Northwest Passage. A lot is happening in this regard. But there could also be oil and fuel spills and shipwrecks.

We are taking more and more risks, and that always surprises me. There should be ice in the Northwest Passage. If people were really thinking about their children and grandchildren, the rest of Canada would have done as Quebec has done for a long time: it would have tried to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and complied with the Kyoto protocol. Then we might not be talking today about developing the passage through the Arctic for marine traffic. We would be talking about a good sheet of ice, a good ice floe. That would be good for us, for our children, for our grandchildren and for future generations. That is not what the Liberals started. They started making the ice melt in the north. The Conservatives have picked up where the Liberals left off, and they think that everything is great. That is a fact.

This is what happens when we do not take action to reduce greenhouse gases and we always say that it is not our fault and that things are worse elsewhere. We blithely talk about running ships through ice floes. And we create funds because there could be oil spills. The government is not developing the north and the Arctic for the sake of the people there, despite what it would have us believe. In fact, it is because of the undersea oil there. That is the real reason. There is a reason why the Russians are trying to take some of our land. While this is going on, we have to stand up.

As I said, if Canada had fought to reduce greenhouse gases, there would be nothing but ice in the Arctic and we would not be discussing this today. One day, people who are fed up will pass judgment on the Conservatives and the Liberals. Their children and grandchildren will tell them that when they were in the House of Commons, they did everything they could to despoil the planet.

Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois is Quebec's conscience in this House, At least, the written record will prove that we warned them. That, too, is a fact.

And now for the last part of the bill. Part 8 includes:

—general provisions relating to the administration and enforcement of offences under that Act and creates a maritime lien for Canadian ship suppliers against foreign vessels and establishes a general limitation period for proceedings not covered by other limitation periods.

This has given rise, once again, to debate between the legal community and the industry on the maritime lien, although not necessarily on the need for one, but on its implementation and the text that was tabled. The request was made by our Quebec and Canadian suppliers.

The United States has a lien. Some Canadian vessels must be repaired or may wish to obtain or purchase services or goods from American suppliers. If they do not pay, a lien is created and the ship can be seized. That is not the case in Canada. It does not apply to American vessels that arrive here. If our suppliers were not paid, there would be no way of asserting our rights or creating a lien on the ship. Canadian shipowners told us that we needed this legislation to be fair but that our Canadian vessels should not be covered by this legislation. We are asking for reciprocity with the United States. Having said that, we did not reach an agreement.

I will read the applicable clause of the bill because it is not that long. This is what clause 139 says about a maritime lien:

139. (1) In this section, “foreign vessel” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.

(2) A person, carrying on business in Canada, has a maritime lien against a foreign vessel for claims that arise

(a) in respect of goods, materials or services wherever supplied to the foreign vessel for its operation or maintenance, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, stevedoring and lighterage; or

(b) out of a contract relating to the repair or equipping of the foreign vessel.

My colleague for Manicouagan is quite aware of this because he spends his time in such ports as the ones in Sept-Îles or Baie-Comeau. Thus—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Moving on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech on this bill. He never ceases to amaze me with his eloquence and his ability to see something pleasant in serious topics. I really like to work with him in committee.

Today he has baptized the Bloc Québécois, if I may use a religious term in a secular context, as the “conscience”, not only of Quebec, but of Canadian law. Does he feel that the activity of his party with respect to this law presented to us by the present government is sufficient, given the current challenges and conditions, not the climatic conditions but the legal ones, that is the penalties and accountability for international businesses in Canadian waters and in the Canadian waters of the largest province, Quebec? Does he feel that this role of conscience he attributes to his party is sufficient to balance out the inactivity, or unproductive activity, of the present government?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for Eglinton—Lawrence for his kind words about me. If he lived in my riding, perhaps he would vote for me. That would be interesting.

The bill as introduced is an adjustment to international laws. I could, of course, disagree with the fact that we are discussing this entire matter of a fund in the event of oil spills. I gave the Arctic as an example because it is distressing to think of there being no more ice and ships being able to travel wherever they wish. Nevertheless, as a country we will have to adjust. Taking Quebec as an example, if we were a country, we would have to adapt such a law to international laws.

Where I disagree with my colleague's opinion is in discussing adventure tourism, as he knows. I say we are the conscience of Quebec in this House because adventure tourism is very much a reality in Quebec. There is some in other provinces, but because of the St. Lawrence River and our hundreds of thousands of lakes and waterways, Quebec has a great many small and medium businesses involved in adventure tourism. For us it is important to see that industry covered by this bill and everything placed in its proper perspective.

The way that adventure tourism has been excluded, by the obligation to sign a waiver if one wants to participate in it, is a good way of maintaining that industry and not killing it off with unaffordably high insurance premiums.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again, my comment is for my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. He asked whether I would vote for him if I lived in his riding. I hope that he would vote for me in Eglinton—Lawrence. Today, however, we are talking about conscience. We have here in the House our colleague from Don Valley West, who is an expert on issues related to conscience. He is a clergyman.

I would like to know if my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel talked to the member for Don Valley West before standing up to say that his party serves as the House's conscience?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know which religion my Liberal colleague subscribes to. However, I can comment on the Liberal Party's demands and the amendments it proposed, particularly with respect to maritime liens.

I know that his colleagues worked hard to present amendments that are in line with the Canadian Bar Association's position. However, the Bar and his colleague are trying to tell us that the shipowner should be prudent. There should be a contract with the owner when the service is provided or when a subcontractor works on a boat so that the lien can come into effect.

I have a very hard time accepting that, because owners can be in any country around the world. When we asked departmental officials about this, they said that they were aware of the Canadian Bar Association's position and that of other lawyers who specialize in maritime law. They said that this was the best solution because it was easier for suppliers. The purpose of the legislation is not to protect shipowners, but to protect suppliers who end up not getting paid by owners.

I know that they worked hard. I know that this is a legal issue, but the departmental officials who analyzed the legal situation had a very strong position, and I would say that they did a better job of convincing me than my Liberal colleague did. Who knows—maybe that will change down the road.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I thank all those who applauded me from across the House. That is very nice. It really speaks to the goodwill that came out of the transport committee in bringing forward the third reading of this bill to amend the Marine Liability Act.

I may not have served as much time as many of my august compatriots on the transport committee but in the time I have been here I did feel that this bill was a good example of parliamentarians working carefully on a bill that had very little partisan aspects to it and very little ideology. It is a pretty straightforward bill that would put into place certain international conventions and then ratify them. These conventions have been around for a very long time in which Canadian law has picked up, in one way or the other, over that time and there are provisions within those conventions.

The bulk of the bill's importance was within the conventions but that did not necessarily translate into the time the committee spent on those particular aspects of it. More of the committee's time was spent on the Adventure Tourism aspect of it and the opportunities for establishing liens against foreign vessels in Canadian waters.

The committee's work should be applauded by all members of the House because it does represent good work together. However, it is not like this committee does this all the time. We have differences. Quite clearly, the debate that took place over Bill C-9, the amendments to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, showed that when the issues are controversial and they speak to differences in ideological direction on the committee there will be a healthy debate and a strong presence by all parties.

The functioning of the committee is good but this is a committee that is also in charge of infrastructure. What I have seen here on the committee is a failure to deal with infrastructure issues. We saw that quite clearly with a vote at the last committee meeting on a motion brought forward by a Liberal member to examine right away the aspects of the infrastructure stimulus moneys that had been put forward in the budget. The motion was defeated because there was a reluctance on the part of two of the parties to deal with a very important part of parliamentary business, for which this committee is responsible. The committee has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that the work that is going on under the infrastructure stimulus program is well understood and well expressed in the committee.

I find that these types of issues sometime need to come back to Parliament as well. We need to have exposure of what we are doing on the committee in order for the committee to work properly and for individual members on the committee representing their parties to understand that there is are reactions to the positions they take.

I was quite willing to accept that with Bill C-9. I had to come and stand up again in Parliament to debate amendments to try to bring sense to the bill as I saw it. I exposed the workings of the bill because I considered it inappropriate but I suffered the consequences in the vote and did not get what I wanted. Nonetheless, the House understood what was going on in the committee and it understood what was happening with the bill, which is a better situation for everyone. Infrastructure is important and I hope the committee will come around, as it has come around with Bill C-7, to work on the issues that are important and in front of the committee.

I mentioned earlier that two aspects of the bill were under some degree of scrutiny and that they were clearly understood by the committee as to their impact on citizens in Canada. The impact of ratifying conventions when enormous sums of money may or may not be utilized for the purposes of cleaning up oil spills or other types of pollution that occur in waterways was probably not that well understood by the committee and we simply accepted the good advice that came from a variety of witnesses and experts in international law who gave us the assurance that these larger issues matched up to what was good for Canada.

There is background to this. In May 2005, Transport Canada put forward a marine law reform discussion paper in which many of the points in the bill were brought out so that the legal communities had many years to take a look at it and understand what was happening with the larger conventions.

When it comes to the smaller issues, such as Adventure Tourism, there were many more grounds for improvement in the bill and the government, in bringing forward a number of amendments, admitted that, which was a good step forward. We have come to a better understanding of how Adventure Tourism waivers will work in the system and how this bill would enhance the ability of the industry, which is not a huge industry and a very seasonal industry.

I understand the Adventure Tourism industry because in my hometown of Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, we have probably one of the largest whitewater rivers in Canada with class six rapids. For many years we had Adventure Tourism with rubber rafts on that river but the nature of the risk involved with these rubber rafts, bringing people in and putting them on the river, made the business of Adventure Tourism very difficult and expensive to operate.

Adventure Tourism is not a gold mine of opportunity and the cost of insurance is a drag on the system. The opportunity to use waivers to allow people to engage in Adventure Tourism is with the understanding that they take on the risk themselves for the activity that they are involved in as long as the operator provides a certain measure of safe conditions, equipment, professional conduct and trained guides. When those are in place, the waivers are acceptable and there is a prior understanding by the people involved in the Adventure Tourism that the waivers are something they can either accept or not participate in the activity. They have that knowledge prior to showing up at the river's edge with their families for the Adventure Tourism opportunity.

All of those things were discussed. We went through them in detail in committee and heard from many witnesses and I think we came to a satisfactory solution on Adventure Tourism. However, this would be the third attempt by Parliament to come to grips with it. There was a law in place prior to 2000, then another law was put in place in 2000 and now we have another law in 2009. This subject is not perfect and will not likely to be perfect but it is the third iteration of the understanding of the nature of the liability that Adventure Tourism operators take on.

This subject is not perfect, and not likely to be perfect, but this is the third iteration of the understanding of the nature of the liability that adventure tourism operators take on. We worked on it and I think in all conscience all parties tried to come to a good understanding on this issue.

Then we took on another issue that was controversial, and a number lawyers were present to debate this with us. This issue was the nature of maritime liens and whether maritime liens, as outlined in the bill, would be effective to ensure Canadian suppliers would get their money out of foreign boats before they escaped to the high seas.

There was considerable debate on this. There was a sense that if we gave it to the lawyers, it might not be good enough because lawyers might not be available, their fees might be too high, the timing might not work right and the foreign vessel would escape Canadian waters and the Canadian supplier would be out the dollars for whatever type of provision had been given to the boat. There were differences of opinion on it, but they were differences of opinion that were primarily technical. They were not going to stop a ship supplier from putting a lien against a boat. They might make it a little more difficult, they might make it expensive, but it was there for the ship supplier to do it.

This was the compromise we finally achieved in putting the bill forward to Parliament. My Liberal colleagues made valiant presentations about the nature of the lien and the nature of work of lawyers, and I thank them for that. The Liberal Party is well supported by lawyers. They like those intricate details of how these things work. I appreciate the work they did. I think we have came to a solution on that one.

The bill is now before us. The good work of the transport committee in agreeing to put the bill forward, with the unanimous support for it at the end, suggests it should pass through Parliament just like a foreign vessel slipping out of Canadian waters without paying its bill.

We are not at the end of debate at the transport committee. We saw this in the previous Parliament when the safety management system in the bill to amend the Aeronautics Act was fought tooth and nail by my party, and to good success. We kept it from coming back and being foisted upon the Canadian public in a fashion that it could have been without the hard work of the New Democratic Party. We stood day after day and debated the issue to ensure it did not go forward.

That kind of work will continue in the transport committee when the occasion requires it. At this point in time, though, we can be congratulatory and we can be happy about the work we have done. Parliament now has the opportunity to move forward in a consensual fashion with the Marine Liability Act.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Western Arctic for his fine work on the committee, because we are in a congratulatory frame of mind. He is a valuable member for his party.

I thank him for thinking of the contribution of the Liberal Party members on the committee as being valiant and worthy of the support of those who are toiling hard in that very valuable career of law. I am sure, given his grit and his fight, he would be very happy because he fights tooth and nail to get the support of the manicurists and the dentists.

He talked in terms of whether we had glossed over some of these issues. Could he take a moment to reflect upon the debate that addressed the issues of adventure tourism? In his presentations in the committee he also took a very pro-adventure tourism position, especially as it relates to those he sees in operation in Western Arctic.

I know he did not want to gloss over the dangers associated with some adventure tourism. Could he give us some of those views again? I am not sure they came across very thoroughly in the presentations we have seen in the House today on the third reading on the bill.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his perception about the nature of the debate. The adventure tourism debate is one that is not an easy debate. Coming from an area of the country that has considerable adventure tourism, not simply in my own community but across the north, it was important to understand that there would be a definition around adventure tourism. I was not completely satisfied with the definition, but within the bill the government has the ability to put forward conditions and regulations that can carefully define the industry.

In some of the presentations from the witnesses, they were very concerned, and I think my hon. Bloc colleague talked about this in his speech as well, about the potential for operators of non-adventure tourism to take advantage of the law to reduce their liability insurance by offering waivers.

We were quite clearly looking at defining that for adventure tourism. When people are on a Maid of the Mist tour underneath Niagara Falls, it is not considered adventure tourism. The proposed bill will not allow the operators of vessels like that, and I am sure the operators of the Maid of the Mist are not interested in this, to take advantage of the situation to reduce their cost of their liability insurance.

Those were some of the intricacies of the adventure tourism section within the bill.

Laws are made by man and man is not perfect, or humans to be more specific. The bill is not perfect, but it is the third iteration of this issue in front of Parliament, and it is the best so far.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, my question to the member once again deals with the adventure tour operators. It seems to me that one of the ways groups got around expensive insurance programs in the past was to develop their own self-insurance program. In fact, 100 years ago when Prairie farmers could not get insurance for their farms, they banded together and formed mutual insurance companies, like Wawanesa, Red River and all sorts of other well-known insurance companies, which are around to this day.

Perhaps the adventure tour operators, if they find insurance too expensive, should get together and self-insure and develop a pot of money that they could use to pay claims. Then they could insure—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I will have to interrupt the hon. member in order to give the hon. member for Western ArcticWestern Arctic an opportunity to respond before the call for the vote.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, the insurance industry does not have many participants in adventure tourism right now. It is really a limited market. That evidence was presented at committee. The potential for co-operative action on this, with the extremely large liability costs without the waivers, is unlikely.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will have approximately four minutes for questions and answers when debate resumes.

The House resumed from May 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-310 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #65

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (right to repair), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Competition Act

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-273 under private members' business.

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

Vote #66