Stan Keyes

[Broadcasting Act, March 11th, 1998]

I would like to thank members of the Conservative Party for the applause but maybe they should wait for the answer.

I want to give the hon. member who is asking the question my interpretation of the facts as I see them in an answer that he surely will respect.

New Brunswick has chosen to operate a new Fredericton to Moncton highway as a public-private partnership using tolls. The province announced on January 23, 1998 that Maritime Road Development Corporation was to construct and operate a 195 kilometre four lane controlled access highway from Longs Creek, west of Fredericton to Magnetic Hill, west of Moncton.

The total capital cost of this project was $887 million. The cost includes new construction at $584 million plus the payment to the provinces for work completed or under way on various sections of $123 million, which does not include the $32 million federal contribution, plus land costs and construction interest costs. The overall agreement is for 50 years.

The highway will be open by November 30, 2001, but New Brunswick plans to start collecting tolls on the existing four lane Trans-Canada Highway between Moncton and River Glade starting July 1998.

The current provincial highway financing agreements are silent on tolls as they were never contemplated at the time the programs were established. The federal government has no legal basis to prevent provinces from imposing tolls on provincial highways, including those highways that have received federal contributions.

The federal government entered into these highway agreements because it wished to accelerate the construction of safer and more efficient highways. In this case New Brunswick has advised that the federal contributions are being deducted against the cost base that would be used to establish the tolls and the annual provincial payment for the remaining capital cost.

I hope the hon. member is absorbing all these important facts because he has hit a dead end on this road—

[Division No. 96, March 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, given the hon. member's intervention, I guess there really is no need for an answer of any kind.

The hard working member for Sarnia—Lambton raised an important question concerning trade corridors in the national highway system. The member's question demonstrates his keen awareness that transportation is a strategic asset that can drive a country's economy. To capitalize on continental trade links we need not only the right rules and regulations, but we also need to have the right infrastructure.

Transport Canada certainly recognizes the importance of north-south trade corridors, but also the critical importance of their productivity with east-west highways. In this regard the department is currently working, as the member is obviously aware because it was stated in the House moments ago, with the provinces to update a national highway system study.

Highways in Canada are under provincial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the federal government has assisted the provinces with highway construction since 1919. Future cost shared programs must consider highways important to our trade, whether north-south or east-west.

Federal departments are also actively promoting trade and traffic through co-operative efforts with counterparts in the U.S. to enhance the efficiency and operation of border crossing facilities. In this regard the federal government is well aware of and closely monitoring proposals being considered in the U.S. for funding in areas such as trade corridors and border gateways.

In summary, there are a number of cross-cutting issues which affect trade and transportation corridors. We must recognize that while there has been strong growth in north-south trade the east-west dimension remains critically important and we must co-operate in and co-ordinate the deployment of intelligent transportation systems in order to enhance trade and reduce congestion. We must pursue standards harmonizing under the NAFTA. Finally, we must explore the trade benefits which may be possible through the maximization of modal efficiencies and inter-modal linkages. There may also be important environmental benefits inherent in this total approach.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the students of McMaster University, Mohawk College and other post-secondary institutions in the great riding of Hamilton West, I repeatedly wrote to the Minister of Finance suggesting he assist students faced with increasing tuition fees and rising debtloads.

What a response. In the first balanced budget in nearly three decades the minister did what? He introduced the Canada study grants for students with children. He extended the repayment period for Canada student loans to 15 years. He increased contributions to granting councils such as the MRC.

He allowed Canadians to temporarily withdraw from RRSPs for lifelong learning. He extended the education credit to part time students. He introduced the Canada education savings grant. He launched the Canada millennium scholarship foundation.

He improved Canadians' access to the information highway. He provided employees with EI premium holidays to hire youth and he offered tax relief to students who must pay interest on their debt.

What a difference five years of Liberal government make. Thanks to the Minister of Finance, Canada's most valuable resource are the first to benefit from a balanced budget.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 20th, 1998]

Prior to the transfer on November 1, 1996, the Transport Canada/NAV Canada Safety Oversight Committee, SOC, was set up. The purpose of this committee is to provide a focal point between both organizations for the exchange of information and resolution of matters relating to the safety performance of NAV Canada.

Members of the Committee include: the assistant to the president, Safety and Quality, NAV Canada; the manager, Safety Policy, NAV Canada; the director, Air Navigation Services and Airspace, Transport Canada; and the chief, Air Navigation Services and Airspace Safety Oversight, Transport Canada.

As of November 25, 1997 the SOC has met nine times to discuss issues raised by Transport Canada as follows:

November 29, 1996

Issues Development of NAV Canada's safety management program. Decrease in CADORS reports. Development of risk indicators.

December 20, 1996

Issues Information on high profile events. Reports on Sioux Lookout.

February 7, 1997

Issues Power outage at Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International Airport. Lack of details in CADORS report.

February 19, 1997

Issues Follow-up to power outage at Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International Airport. Information on power outage at Ottawa. Power outage at Kelowna

March 12, 1997

Issues Reinforcement of pilot/controller “read-back” procedures. Glide path anomalies at Calgary. FMS database/chart congruence. Controller proficiency checks.

May 14, 1997

Issues Review of “ATC Radar Display Systems Safety/Reliability Review”. Status of recommendations of Uncontrolled Aerodrome Advisory Working Group. Final report on Lester B. Pearson International Airport power failure—NAV Canada to act on identified deficiencies.

July 9, 1997

Issues Safety Report on Calgary Terminal Relocation. Handling of ad hoc reductions in service. Follow-up FMS—charting harmonization. ASTRA Report 1/97 follow-up. Controller/Flight Service Specialists language testing. Report on Gander Moncton Airspace consolidation, implementation and contingency plans.

September 30, 1997

Issues Transport Canada's involvement in future NAV Canada Safety Reviews. NAV Canada to comment of Transport Canada's FFB/OII observer protocol. NAV Canada's security plans. NAV Canada's plans on Aeronautical Information Services.

October 31, 1997

Issues Monitoring of language/phraseology anomalies. NAV Canada to develop policy on other ad hoc situations that do not fall under regular NOTAM/CADOR notification. Year 2000—Millennium Bug.

[Division No. 89, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The debate is not germane to the bill.

[Division No. 89, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to the Chair, it may be a point of information for the Chair on this point of order, but when debate is occurring on this particular bill, and we are talking about S-4 and how it applies to marine liability, some may question whether this is part of the debate.

However, when the hon. member rises to speak on whether or not the Senate should have initiated this particular bill, I think the Chair has to keep in mind that the Speaker of the House of Commons has already ruled on S-4 and its legitimacy on whether or not it came from the Senate. I would submit to the Speaker that any references as to whether the bill originated here or there is out of order and we can stick to the issue at hand, which is marine liability.

[Division No. 89, February 19th, 1998]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I must admit, but it was a term of endearment.

[Division No. 89, February 19th, 1998]

The Senate could have made amendments anyway you dummy.

[Division No. 89, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I too wanted to lend my comments to the hon. member and thank her for her remarks on this piece of legislation, Bill S-4.

I remind those opposite who spoke so negatively to the fact that the bill came forward through the Senate that in 1986 the government initiated Bill C-58. It was introduced in the House. The House dealt with it at second reading and put it into a committee of the House of Commons. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport dealt with the issue, heard witnesses, put forward the amendments, came back to the House of Commons at report stage and then, because of an election, it died on the order paper.

I will answer the hon. member's question about why we did not move it sooner because of its importance in the marine sector. We dealt with the marine sector in our dealings with the Canadian port authorities.

We were seized with Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act. That took precedence. The member would agree with me that Bill C-9 is a very important bill for Canada. That is why we dealt with that bill first. At the same time we had the opportunity to move the bill, this particular bill, the old Bill C-58 which this House dealt with, through the Senate as Bill S-4. We are just making effective use of valuable legislative time.

[Canada Shipping Act, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for his intervention. Quite frankly, I am used to the accusations, innuendoes and unproven circumstances from the hon. member for Charlotte so it does not really trouble me very much.

In fact the hon. member is quite confused because this bill and its contents have nothing at all to do with the discussions in the House yesterday on a completely different bill and a completely different issue. As usual, the hon. member for Charlotte is confused and misled.

The convention I speak of also provides special provisions for the liability of shipowners to their passengers. This will be a new feature in our legislation which will apply to passenger vessels, ferries, tour boats and other vessels where passengers are carried on a ship under a contract of passenger carriage.

Concerns were raised in the last Parliament that such a provision might not cover all passengers travelling by ship in Canada, specifically those carried without a contract of carriage. In response to these concerns the Standing Committee on Transport proposed an amendment to Bill C-58 to ensure “persons other than crew carried on a ship without a contract of carriage” will benefit from the same regime of liability. This is of particular importance where passenger ships are hired by individuals or organizations for special occasion use by their clients, guests or employees, or where carriage of passengers by water is provided as part of land tour or hotel packages.

Bill S-4 also modifies some provisions of the convention in order to better meet Canadian requirements, in particular in respect of the application to all ships and the application to any person in possession of a ship. These modifications have been made in conjunction with the definition of shipowner to ensure that the new regime will continue to apply to all vessels, seagoing or not, and also to people who have possession of a ship, for example ship repairers.

The Canada Shipping Act currently establishes limitation of liability for owners of docks, canals and ports. This regime is strictly domestic in nature and provides a reciprocal balance to the regime applicable to shipowners in the sense that both shipowners and dock owners can limit their liability against each other.

This regime has been maintained in Bill S-4 with the following amendments. The limits of liability have been increased. The right to limit liability has been extended to servants and agents of the owners of docks, canals and ports in order to achieve uniformity with a similar provision respecting the agents and servants of shipowners. We have removed any reference to the nationality of the largest ship for the calculation of the limit of liability to achieve a more flexible application of this provision which currently uses for this calculation the largest British ship in the area of the accident.

Before I turn to the second issue presented in the bill, the regime of liability and compensation for oil pollution damage, I will address the economic implications of the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act in respect of the global limitation of liability. In respect of commercial vessel owners, those who are insured in mutual protection and indemnity associations, generally known as P and I clubs, will not likely see any substantive change in their insurance rates since the coverage already provided by these associations is unlimited.

Some commercial ship owners who are not currently insured in the P and I clubs may experience an upfront increase in insurance cost as a result of this revision of limits proposed in Bill S-4. In most cases the actual impact will depend on actual claims experienced under the new limitation regime.

The same applies to pleasure vessel owners. The vast majority of them are already insured to the level of liability proposed in this revision, while others will have to seek additional insurance to be fully protected against the new limits.

The adjustment that is likely to occur in the pleasure vessel insurance market under the new regime is not expected to raise the cost of pleasure vessel insurance to a level that would approach the level of other types of personal insurance, especially auto insurance. Most pleasure vessel owners already carry a liability insurance in the range of $1 million so they should not expect any increase in their cost of insurance as a result of this new legislation.

The second issue in Bill S-4 is the revision of the existing regime of liability and compensation for oil pollution damage. This regime was last revisited 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 that protection under the 1969 convention was inadequate.

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.

The 1969 and 1971 conventions were updated in 1992 when protocols were adopted under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization. Under the 1992 protocols, the amount of compensation available for pollution damage caused by oil tankers was increased from $120 million per incident to approximately $270 million.

A number of other important changes were made in the 1992 protocols to improve the original conventions. Shipowners are now liable for the cost of reasonable measures of reinstatement where oil pollution from a ship results in damage to the environment.

The geographic scope of application of the convention will now include the exclusive economic zone of Canada which extends 200 nautical miles from shore. The protocols also extend the convention to claims for preventive measures taken before a spill to prevent or minimize pollution damage.

Finally, this convention now also applies to empty tankers with specific reference to the voyage subsequent to the voyage during which it was carrying oil.

Bill S-4 will implement the provisions of the 1992 protocols, thus increasing the level of compensation available to victims of pollution damage caused by oil tankers in the future.

The proposed legislation will enable Canada to follow many other countries that have terminated their membership with the old regime and moved quickly to the 1992 regime.

Until Canada follows suit, we will continue to be exposed to higher contributions to the international fund due to the reduced membership in the old regime.

I therefore strongly urge this House to consider this important legislation expeditiously. The sooner Canada can accede to the new regime, the better.

I would like to take a moment to discuss the amendments proposed to Bill S-4 by the Senate. These amendments remove from the bill a proposed modification to the definition of pollutant, which raised concerns among the industry representatives who appeared before the standing Senate 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.

I am pleased to endorse, on behalf of the government, the amendments made to this bill. I urge others to do so.

In conclusion, the changes I have outlined here for the Canada Shipping Act would not have been possible without the continued support of our stakeholders.

During our consultations, Transport Canada officials have spoken at length with shipowners, passengers, cargo owners, the oil industry, marine insurers and the marine legal community.

I take the opportunity to thank these industry groups for their participation in this reform. Their strong support of this bill has been very gratifying for all those involved.

I know the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport is involved in the study of rail passenger transportation in this country. Due to the importance of moving quickly on this legislation, I would hope that my colleagues and I can move to spend a day on Bill S-4 in committee so that we can deal with it expeditiously partly because also we have dealt with this bill in its old form before the dissolution of the last Parliament.

The industry has indicated to us that it has been there, it has done that, it has talked to the committee and now it wants to move forward with this piece of legislation.

I look forward to my colleagues on both sides of this House coming together and moving quickly with the legislation when it comes before committee.