Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability) be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to begin debate on the bill, an act respecting ship owners liability for maritime claims in general and for oil pollution damage in particular.
The purpose of this act is to modernize Canadian legislation concerning the limitation of liability of maritime claims, which are set out in part IX of the Canada Shipping Act and with liability and compensation for oil pollution damage set out in part XVI of the same act.
The revision of the existing limitation of liability for maritime claims is a very important step toward modernizing this legislation.
This regime is unique to the marine mode. Its intent is to allow shipowners to limit the amount of their financial responsibility for certain types of damages occurring in connection with the operation of a ship. The limitation is calculated on the basis of ship size and applies to all claims arising from the same accident. This feature enables the shipowners to assess their potential liability, which is an essential condition for commercial insurability.
Over the years, the current limitation of liability as set out in the Canada Shipping Act has become hopelessly outdated.
The regime is based on an international convention adopted in 1957 and, consequently, the limits of liability have lost much in their value due to inflation.
This has led to constant efforts by claimants and the courts to find ways to break the limitation order and to recover fully the losses incurred.
Another area of concern is the limitation of liability to the owners of vessels of below 300 tonnes, including pleasure craft. Recreational boating has by far the largest number of accidents and these involve, many times, serious injuries and loss of life.
Therefore we need to raise substantially the current limit of liability which stands at approximately $140,000, which is applicable to pleasure craft so that claimants have a better chance of recovering their losses.
In short, the inadequacy of the limitation amounts, coupled with consistent efforts by claimants to break the limitation to obtain full compensation, is the principal reason for the revision of this regime.
Maritime claims were adopted by the International Maritime Organization to replace the 1957 convention. Because the limits of the 1976 convention have been eroded also by inflation, the International Maritime Organization revised the limits by a protocol adopted in May of this year. Thus, our proposal provides for the
adoption of new limits which meet fully Canadian needs at this time.
With regard to pleasure vessels, the proposed limit of liability of $1 million for loss of life or personal injury will be more in line with the liability levels long established in the automobile sector.
The new limit is not expected to have any dramatic impact on the insurance cost of pleasure vessels. As with other types of insurance, it will be the future claims experience of pleasure vessel owners which will determine the cost of their insurance under the new regime.
I will now turn to the second issue presented in this bill, the revision of the existing legislation concerning shipowners liability for oil pollution damage.
We have come a long way since the Nestucca and Exxon Valdez incidents on the west coast of North America which first brought home to us, particularly to those in my home province of British Columbia, the dangers of marine oil spills.
In British Columbia we have benefited from the province's role as an international maritime gateway, one whose dynamic ports channel millions of tonnes of goods around the globe.
On the other hand, we must live with heavy maritime traffic negotiating some of the narrowest passages in the world and bearing cargo that if spilled would spell disaster for our fragile and irreplaceable marine ecosystem.
More than 20 years ago in this House I founded the House of Commons Special Committee on Environmental Pollution.
From 1969 to 1973, along with various other groups including the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Defence Fund, the Cordova District Fishermen's Union of Alaska and the Friends of the Earth in the United States, we were before the U.S. courts under the National Environmental Policy Act, 1969 to deal with the issue of the then proposed Alaska pipeline.
Our court activities were successful. We did, through the courts, require that an environmental assessment, including an environmental assessment of the marine aspects of that proposal, be done.
At the time there was an Arab oil embargo, an OPEC oil embargo, and President Nixon was determined to change the outcome of our legal case.
Therefore through a little used device in the American system which required the executive and legislative arms of government determining that their legislation should not go before the courts, we ultimately were denied the fruits of our legal victory.
Even so, I should add the issue was hard fought and in the final vote in the Senate of the United States there was a tie vote. Then Vice-President Spiro Agnew cast the deciding ballot against our case.
Nevertheless, the battle was worthwhile and success did come in a somewhat unexpected way. To obtain the approval of the line, many concessions were made.
With respect to the sea route, which is the major cause of concern for Canadians, many concessions were made with respect to the type of ships and marine safety. Yes, there was some eight years ago the Exxon Valdez incident. Yes, it is possible there will be another, but the risk to our coast was substantially reduced by that battle some 20 years ago.
In 1989 I again studied this matter for the provincial government. It gives me a great deal of satisfaction to recommend to the House my study at that time, which runs to 184 recommendations which I am sure members will find of interest.
It also gives me great pleasure at this time to bring forward the legislation that will do a great deal to deal with the issue of compensation. Bill C-58 will enable Canada to accede to the 1992 protocols on civil liability and the fund convention.
