TRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 29, 2001

• 1059

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I think I see a quorum. We're dealing with Bill S-2, the Marine Liability Act.

We have two witnesses. We have Mr. Buna and Mr. Cedric Miller from the insurance brokers. Gentlemen, welcome.

Normally what occurs is you have about seven minutes each to give us your positions. Members like to ask questions, so we don't like you to go on for too long. After you've given us your words of wisdom, we will go to questioning. The first round is ten minutes and subsequent rounds are five minutes after that.

Who will go first, Mr. Miller or Mr. Buna?

• 1100

Mr. Addy Buna (B.F. Lorenzetti & Associates (Ontario) Inc.): My name is Addy Buna. I'm an insurance broker in Toronto. I have approximately 35 years of experience. The first 10 years or so were on the underwriting and claims side of things, and for the last 25 years I've been an independent insurance broker.

I have my AIIC designation, my RIBO licence, and I belong to various associations and committees, among which are the Canadian Maritime Law Association, the Canadian Board of Marine Underwriters, and the Association of Average Adjusters of Canada.

I understand some of these groups and associations have been before you and have approved the legislation we're discussing. I want you to know that I'm not representing them, but I also—more or less—approve the legislation that is before us here. But I would like also to have the requirement of mandatory insurance on the part of these vessel operators.

I've read the summary of the brief and I've read Mr. Collenette's views on it. He made the comment that it gives the public the ability to get their claims settled promptly. But without compulsory insurance, no one knows who is going to pay those claims.

I can relate back to a tragedy in Ontario only last summer, where a bunch of school children were taken on an excursion in Georgian Bay, and the vessel sank and two of the children's lives were lost. That shipowner did not have any insurance. If this bill is presented, the situation we are facing with regard to that shipowner would be the same, and the parents of these children would still have the uncertainty of who is going to pay their claim.

Insurance for liability on marine vessels is readily available and inexpensive. I really believe the bill should go forward, but including the requirement of mandatory insurance. Thank you.

The Chair: That's nice and succinct.

Mr. Miller.

Mr. Cedric Miller (Insurance Wholesaler, UFANS Insurance Services): I won't be even as long as Mr. Buna.

I've been in the marine insurance industry for over 30 years. I started my career in Lloyds in London and have been involved as a wholesale broker assisting smaller brokers place marine insurance. We have had over the years—and still do—a number of passenger vessel accounts from Newfoundland through to the British Columbia coast. So I have had a fair amount of experience in this class of business. I make the same comment as Mr. Buna: we support the bill.

There certainly is no difficulty in finding insurance to cover the liabilities of the owners, and the costs are very reasonable. That's really all I need to say at this point.

The Chair: We have either Andy or Brent. Who is going to lead off?

Go ahead, Mr. Burton, from the Alliance party.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): No. I will submit to Mr. Hill.

The Chair: Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Is there any other system dealing with marine transportation in Canada that does require any form of compulsory insurance that you know of?

Mr. Addy Buna: Systems or controls. For example, I know the Toronto harbour commissioners will not allow vessels to dock within a certain framework of the Toronto harbour unless they can produce evidence of satisfactory insurance. I know that Ontario Place marina and a lot of other marinas will not allow a vessel to dock there unless they can produce a certain degree of evidence of insurance.

I know that the St. Lawrence Seaway will not allow a one-shot venture through their system unless the owners of that vessel can produce satisfactory insurance. The St. Lawrence Seaway does not ask normal trading vessels for evidence of insurance. I'm talking about the contractor with the one-shot deal.

There are a number of other controls out there that are in place, but they are generally not really government regulated.

Mr. Jay Hill: Do you know whether or not it's true that oil tankers in Canadian waters have to file some proof of insurance?

• 1105

Mr. Addy Buna: I believe oil tankers have to submit evidence of insurance at the first port of call they dock.

Mr. Cedric Miller: That's correct. Yes, I think that's right.

Mr. Addy Buna: But that's just oil tankers, not carriers of radioactive material, or—

Mr. Jay Hill: Or other types of potential pollution?

Mr. Addy Buna: Yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: Obviously, at least some people have expressed a concern that we have to be very careful in this area to not make our carriers uncompetitive—or people who would normally use our dock facilities or port facilities—by imposing something on them that our neighbours to the south don't impose.

Mr. Addy Buna: Well, our neighbours to the south do impose restrictions on vessels. For example, if a Canadian vessel called at Minneapolis, it would have to produce a certificate of financial responsibility as soon as it docked. Generally speaking, that certificate of financial responsibility is available through a U.S. insurance carrier. It's called a water quality insurance syndicate, and I believe it's also available through the London P and I club as well. All foreign vessels that call into a U.S. port have to produce this document. They've had to produce this document—oh, I've been in it since the late 1960s, so maybe I'll just say, to be safe, since the mid-1970s.

Mr. Jay Hill: If we had a system in Canada where compulsory insurance was imposed upon the industry, is it possible it would create a disparity in the sense that a ship would want to divert to Boston instead of Halifax, or to Seattle instead of Vancouver, because the same requirements or similar requirements wouldn't exist in the United States?

Mr. Cedric Miller: I think the requirements in the United States are probably more stringent than we would have here.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

Mr. Addy Buna: Wouldn't you want them to divert if they didn't have insurance?

Mr. Jay Hill: I guess that's arguable then.

Mr. Addy Buna: If you want to remove the threat.

Mr. Jay Hill: Just to sum up—this is what I gathered from your presentation at any rate—both of you don't see any compelling reason why we shouldn't have compulsory insurance included in Bill S-2?

Mr. Addy Buna: That's true.

Mr. Cedric Miller: Yes, I agree.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

The Chair: That's fine.

Mr. Andy Burton: I would like to pursue this certificate of responsibility.

Quite often the government tries to regulate things. My view is that quite often insurance is a good way of regulating an industry. If certain carriers are assessed to be an unreasonable risk to the insurer, they won't receive insurance, and if you have something like a certificate of responsibility in place, you don't have those kinds of carriers in the market. It's almost a way of self-regulating the shipping industry.

Would you have any comments on that point, or whether that's a correct analysis?

Mr. Addy Buna: Yes, that is correct. Generally speaking, when you get into the larger or older vessels, insurers would like to have an independent marine survey conducted on that vessel before they would consider underwriting it. So perhaps a coast guard certificate would not be enough and they may insist on a marine survey. A surveyor may require certain repairs or modifications to be undertaken in order to make that vessel fit for the purpose it was intended.

Mr. Andy Burton: When you refer to mandatory insurance, what risks are you referring to? Would it be for spills and—

Mr. Addy Buna: I am referring to pure liability risks. If they don't want to insure the vessel against collision, like physical damage to the vessel, that's neither here nor there, but when that vessel causes damage to third parties, then there should be some minimum financial guarantees that they can pay those bills.

• 1110

Mr. Andy Burton: I personally believe a defect in this bill is the amount of liability coverage to individuals. I think it's capped at $350,000, and I know for somebody who's seriously impaired for the rest of their life and loses their income and so on this is totally inadequate. What is your view on this?

Mr. Cedric Miller: I believe this figure is equivalent to what is given in other jurisdictions.

Mr. Addy Buna: That's the Athens convention.

Mr. Cedric Miller: That's where the figure came from, the Athens convention.

Mr. Addy Buna: The $350,000 and any other limitation this government chooses to set is a start. And I don't know if there are any lawyers in this room, but the first thing lawyers do is they try to get the limitation set aside and they go for the bigger chunk of the pie. If you even look at the airline crashes under I think it's the Warsaw convention on aircraft, they try to find a U.S. manufacturer of something there so they can just set everything aside. The limitation thing is a start, and we could spend days and days talking about limitations.

But the other thing is I sell insurance. I have to convince these people to buy insurance, and I certainly would attempt to sell far more than $350,000 a passenger. I don't know if we can discuss limits here, although I'd love to.

The Chair: Are you through?

Mr. Addy Buna: Yes.

Mr. Andy Burton: The problem the carriers would have in Canada if we had a higher limit is a lot of shippers would drop out of our market. Would that be the concern?

Mr. Addy Buna: No. I brought with me here the rule book of a P and I club. A P and I club is like an insurer; and Cedric is the walking encyclopedia on P and I clubs. I dug out information from our office on four tour boats. One of them has a 150-passenger capacity. The highest has a 225-passenger capacity; the lowest has a 74-passenger capacity. For the full range of unlimited liability, the 74-passenger vessel pays a premium of $2,621 and the 225-passenger vessel pays a premium of $4,264. What do you pay for your car insurance? What do you pay for your snowmobile? And you have to have insurance on your snowmobile and you have to have insurance on your car.

Mr. Cedric Miller: I would agree that I probably have 20 accounts with the same sort of premiums and limits.

It's not expensive to buy the coverage.

Mr. Addy Buna: I believe these people are writing you a letter.

The Chair: Andy.

Mr. Andy Burton: So basically my interpretation of this is that cost would not be the factor if we wanted to increase the caps on this?

Mr. Addy Buna: No. It's an attitude. I've heard the line, “I don't want any insurance, they can have my boat.” I've heard that a lot.

Mr. Andy Burton: But if it has no equity in it, it's fully mortgaged, it's not much of a remedy.

Mr. Addy Buna: No, it's not.

Mr. Cedric Miller: Probably if it's fully mortgaged, the bank will insist on them having insurance anyway. It's the fellow who owns the thing 100% he's talking about.

Mr. Addy Buna: Good point.

The Chair: We'll move on to Mr. St. Denis of the Liberals.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.

I gather from your comments that of the number of issues involved in Bill S-2 there is just the one issue that is of concern to you, the issue of the compulsory insurance.

Mr. Addy Buna: There were two minor ones that showed up on the plane on the way here, or in the cab.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mention those and then I'll get back to the compulsory issue.

Mr. Addy Buna: Yes.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: So it's a fair characterization that it's the compulsory insurance?

Mr. Addy Buna: Yes.

• 1115

Mr. Brent St. Denis: As you mentioned at the outset, and I think it's quite acceptable not to agree with the association with which you're involved, but the Canadian Board of Marine Underwriters, which you're members of, I assume, had taken the other view on the issue of compulsory insurance. They were satisfied with the fact that there will be a further study and further work done on a compulsory insurance regime, and in fact supported Bill S-2 as it stood. And, again, in my view there's no problem with the fact that you don't agree with the organization you're involved in.

Could you, for the benefit of members, wear two hats for a moment and explain, as you see it, why the parent body would be okay with the plan as it stands, in contrast to how you as a member see it? Again, I don't have any problem with that, but it would be helpful for us to see both sides as you or Mr. Miller would characterize it.

Mr. Addy Buna: The Canadian Board of Marine Underwriters primarily underwrites cargo insurance, which is stuff that goes on a boat, and hull insurance, which is physical damage to the hull, and they will do P and I insurance, which is the liability insurance, generally speaking, on pleasure craft, yachts, and smaller work boats, like tugboats and small barges and so on. They don't do passenger liability at all, and they don't do P and I insurance for the larger vessels.

I think they admitted to you that they don't do much of what I'm discussing here. I got this from hearsay when I talked to Art Payne, who I believe was here last Tuesday. Was he here?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I don't recall that, but I'll....

Mr. Addy Buna: They're not really into what I'm discussing.

Mr. Cedric Miller: The Canadian Board of Marine Underwriters encompasses not only underwriters and insurance companies, but it also has associate members such as ourselves, who are brokers.

Mr. Addy Buna: We are associate members.

Mr. Cedric Miller: So it's just one association.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: This bill, of course, had a life in a previous Parliament as well. It didn't get passed for a number of reasons, including an election. There were a lot of stakeholder discussions. Did you have an opportunity at that time to raise your concerns, as well?

Mr. Addy Buna: One, this was never brought to my attention until last Friday. And as a member of the Canadian Board of Marine Underwriters, and also as a member of the Canadian Maritime Law Association, I do get reports from them in their newsletters and in their meeting reports, and what have you, and they never went into that detail. Honest to God, I don't know how I missed this. I really don't know how I missed it.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Given that there is a commitment to further work on compulsory insurance, if you had a choice today, would you say, hold up the bill until that is all resolved, or would you say, let's go ahead and we're prepared to participate in the study of a compulsory insurance regime? What would be your—

Mr. Cedric Miller: What would be our preference?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I think it's as much up to the stakeholders as anyone. I think it would be reasonable to characterize Bill S-2 as a step in the right direction. There's never been a perfect piece of legislation, and this certainly wouldn't be, but I think we'd all agree, including yourselves, that it's a step forward.

I'm not aware there is a timeframe, but the fact is that this will be undertaken. So I'm asking you if you would want to see this held up so that a study would follow later and then the bill be brought back at some other time. Or would you like to see this go ahead, in the knowledge that there is going to be that study and review and stakeholder involvement, including yourselves, no doubt, if you're interested—and I'm sure you would be—in designing such a system? If you have any comments on how such a system would work, I know I'd be pleased to hear that.

• 1120

Mr. Addy Buna: We have parallel systems in place already. If you look at the trucking industry, the insurer of a commercial trucking operation has to file certificates of responsibility with all the trucking authorities throughout the nation. If the trucks go into the United States, they also have to file the states the trucks are involved in.

It's pretty simple to get this thing going. I'm not a systems or a mechanics person but we don't have to reinvent the wheel here. How long of a delay would there be? I don't want to be a person who came to Ottawa just to cause a delay of several years. I have no idea what you're talking about, but if it's a delay of a couple of weeks or something—

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I couldn't tell you.

Mr. Addy Buna: It is a step in the right direction and I said that at the beginning. I do support the bill. I would like to see this enhancement to the bill that I mentioned to you. Cedric and I found a couple of other minor things that maybe should be enhanced in the bill. But I don't ever want anyone to say that I'm the one who shut this thing down. It is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I appreciate your agreeing with that general characterization, even though I appreciate you'd rather see the compulsory insurance in this. There is an undertaking to carry out that review and to further advance the yardsticks, if you want. I think it's as much a responsibility of the stakeholder community to drive that forward as it is the government's. I think the partnership that has evolved on this and other issues where there's a lot more stakeholder involvement in the early stages of legislative drafting is a model you'll see more of, not less, quite frankly. So I would think that if we move on, take the steps we have before us, and then, in cooperation with the stakeholder community, move to the next level, that could work very well.

Do I have any more time, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: You have about a minute and a half.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Just for the record, you're probably aware that the Canadian Maritime Law Association was also here on Tuesday and supported the bill as it stood. So I'm hoping we'll be able to get on with the bill later this morning and proceed with the dialogue as necessary on the compulsory insurance. The commitment to go on to the next stages is there.

So any ideas you have to give here now or in the weeks to follow on the particulars.... I don't know if it's a simple thing or a complex thing to do. I'm less of an expert in insurance than you are, and you've admitted that you're not an expert in—

Mr. Addy Buna: The mechanics.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: —the mechanics. So it would certainly require sleeves-up work by a great number of people to design a system that is effective and makes sense for all sectors of the industry.

I think, Mr. Chair, that if there are others with questions, I'd be glad to give up my time.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll move on to Mr. Laframboise of the Bloc Québécois for 10 minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): I was extremely apprehensive about just what the bill aims to do, but I must tell you that I am in complete agreement with some parts of the bill, specifically Parts 1 and 2, that establish a liability program for passenger carriers. I am in complete agreement with that. Marine transport is at a turning point and it is only logical that those who travel by ship, whether on a tour or for any other reason, be covered by a liability like people who travel by bus or airplane. I think it's a good thing, and timely.

• 1125

The problem is that Clause 39 does not establish a program, a safety net. So, the message we are sending people is that, in the future, if they ever travel by ship, on a tour, a trip or for any other reason, they will be covered, as the carrier will be liable for any damages caused. The problem is that there is no safety net to guarantee that people who suffer damages will be reimbursed.

Obviously, when I questioned the government officials, the people who drew up the Bill, they told me that no market study had been done yet, and one has to be done before insurance becomes mandatory.

You tell us today that there is no problem, that the insurance business can support mandatory insurance. That's what you say. The explanations I'm looking for are about that.

What we were told is that in-depth analysis is essential because the insurance business is not in a position to absorb mandatory liability insurance at this time. You, on the other hand, say the industry is ready to take on mandatory insurance for marine transport of passengers. Is this true gentlemen?

[English]

Mr. Addy Buna: Totally true.

Mr. Cedric Miller: I would agree with you 100%.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: No response could be clearer than that. Obviously, if I had known the insurance business was able to handle it, as the representatives of the government should have known... So tell me why the government does not want to make this service mandatory. You seem to be wondering how your last answer can be checked out.

You told us earlier that a carrier who lands at a port is obviously required to file proof of insurance if he wishes to board passengers. It's as simple as that. A structure can be introduced that will ensure that shipowners, or those who engage in marine transport, will be obliged to file certificates of responsibility with the authorities at their ports of call to prove they are insured. You tell us this is done elsewhere, in other countries.

So, if this service ever became mandatory, the insurance business, if I have understood correctly, could absorb it at a very competitive price. Will the insurance rate be changed or remain the same? What do you say, Mr. Buna?

[English]

Mr. Addy Buna: The rates would be the same whether insurance is compulsory or not. The rates depend on the risk that's involved, the undertaking that's involved, not whether something has been legislated.

The other thing too is that, even though the government would ultimately regulate the minimum limit you would carry—for example, in automobile insurance, there's a minimum limit you have to carry—some operations may require a significantly higher limit to be adequately protected. So the vessel owner and operator can choose whether to buy just the minimum limit or to buy a higher limit. The rates would not be affected at all.

Mr. Cedric Miller: I agree.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I have no further questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'll go to Mr. Burton—it's the chair's prerogative, and hopefully you'll bear with me—then I'll come back to Mrs. Desjarlais, and then Mr. André Harvey.

Mr. Andy Burton: I'll submit to Mr. Hill, if I may.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just a few follow-up questions in light of the parliamentary secretary's concerns. The one thing that bothers me—it doesn't bother me when he said he's not an expert on insurance because it's hard enough to be an expert on anything, let alone everything—is that in representing the ministry, he says he doesn't know whether compulsory insurance is good or bad.

• 1130

In your estimation, do you think sufficient time has passed—by his own admission, this bill has been around for quite some time; this is the third reincarnation of this legislation—that the ministry should have some handle at this time on whether we should be imposing compulsory insurance or not? Or would you not care to offer an opinion on that?

Mr. Addy Buna: How long has this been going on?

Mr. Jay Hill: A long time. Years.

Mr. Addy Buna: Has the subject not been raised before?

Mr. Jay Hill: I don't know. I wasn't on the committee before.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): It was not raised to this degree.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay. Let's leave that for the moment then.

I think his question to you was, will this hold up the bill. I have an amendment to propose to clause 39 that we will be discussing, I'm assuming, later today when we get into clause-by-clause. This amendment, were it to pass this committee and amend the bill, would require compulsory insurance by January 1, 2002—in other words, nine months from now. If it were to pass, it wouldn't hold up the bill at all. So there's no danger of holding up all the good things this is going to do.

In your estimation, would nine months be sufficient for the government to get the administrative details in place as to how they are going to—for lack of a better word—police that compulsory insurance? Obviously there has to be some checking to ensure that people are carrying the insurance once you make it compulsory. As for the insurance companies, in response to the question from my colleague from the Bloc, I'm assuming by your answer that there's no problem with the insurance companies complying in the nine-month period.

Mr. Addy Buna: The government is already policing insurance—all over the place.

Mr. Jay Hill: So you can't see any reason why the legislation would be held up?

Mr. Addy Buna: No.

Mr. Jay Hill: And January 1 of next year would seem to you to be a reasonable timeframe to—

Mr. Addy Buna: Insurance companies are already providing documents and certificates to governmental agencies attesting to limits of insurance—as I told you before, for truckers, for example.

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes.

Mr. Addy Buna: So it's already there.

So I can't comment on the mechanics, but it's there.

Mr. Jay Hill: As far as you would know, there's no reason why—

Mr. Cedric Miller: No reason at all.

Mr. Jay Hill: —compulsory insurance imposed by next January 1 would delay this bill one iota?

Mr. Addy Buna: Let me just say this, as an example—and I don't know if it can possibly work—but obviously the passenger-carrying vessels, for example, have to get a coast guard certificate. Right?

Mr. Jay Hill: Right.

Mr. Addy Buna: So the coast guard has this little file with that little passenger vessel in it. Every year the insurer of that passenger vessel has to file with the coast guard a certificate of financial responsibility. You just slide it in the file. I don't know if that will work.

Mr. Jay Hill: But there's no reason why it shouldn't?

Mr. Addy Buna: I don't know. I'm not there.

Mr. Jay Hill: And just so we're perfectly clear, this legislation—and if we were to amend it to contain a compulsory insurance requirement—doesn't apply to pleasure craft, does it?

Mr. Addy Buna: No, right now it doesn't apply. There is no legislation on pleasure craft at all with regard to insurance. But haven't they set some limits in Ontario? It's $2 million or something. I'm not—

Mr. Cedric Miller: One and a half million.

Mr. Addy Buna: Yes. For some reason, Ontario decided to go with one and a half. But that doesn't require insurance. Most pleasure craft are very easily insured on homeowner policies. The Canadian Board of Marine Underwriters is it when it comes to pleasure craft. They'll do that.

But once you get into the larger vessels, they're not there. They're not in the market.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

Mr. Cedric Miller: Pleasure craft are insured because, were they more—

Mr. Jay Hill: One more?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

Just so we're perfectly clear on the amount of potential liability, under this legislation, this international agreement that it sort of adheres to, it's roughly the equivalent of $350,000 Canadian.

• 1135

Like my learned colleague across the way, the parliamentary secretary, I'm not an expert on insurance, but I have spent a lot of money—as most of us in this room have—on car insurance over the years. I know what was normal twenty or thirty years ago is changing rapidly. Many people carry $2 million or $3 million in third-party liability on their automobile now.

Just so we're perfectly clear, you believe this obviously is a step in the right direction, but would you share our concerns—concerns that were put forward by all of the opposition on the committee, I think—that this $350,000 would quite likely be too low, even in today's day and age, let alone down the road.

Mr. Addy Buna: Yes, quite likely it is too low, but your friend over there, the lawyer, would probably find a terrific way of setting that limitation aside and going after the jugular. That's why you'd have me. I would tend to sell a higher limit to my client than $350,000 per passenger. It has happened before with aircraft in aviation disasters, as I mentioned earlier during this discussion.

I would assume the $350,000 would be an amount that would be payable under absolute liability. By absolute liability, I mean that if a ship went down with a whole bunch of people on board and nobody ever found out how or why it went down, or if there was an act of God or whatever, these people would have access to a pool of money at $350,000 a passenger. That's similar to what aircraft have right now. It's more of a benefit really, isn't it? There is no benefit from death—I shouldn't have said that. They call it life insurance, but it's really death insurance.

I think it's a start.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hill.

André Harvey, from the Liberals. No? We will go to Madam Desjarlais then.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I want to thank you for your frankness, and I apologize for being late and missing your presentation. As one of, I believe, only two transport committee members who are here from the previous transport committee, I want to especially thank you for bringing this issue forward and for becoming aware of it.

I will willingly admit it was not a big issue in the previous discussions, and I would have felt great disappointment with myself, having been part of a committee and someone who supported this bill, knowing the concerns that are out there and realizing the seriousness of this issue. I guess it pays to not just consider it a piece of legislation that was all ready to go, and to re-evaluate legislation when it comes before a new committee.

So I'm not going to accept your apology for holding up the bill, because I think it would be the right route to go right now. I would suggest that the figures you gave us for the insurance costs are extremely reasonable when you consider someone operating a business with that many passengers.

I'm curious if you know what type of cost the bus industry has for, say, insuring a passenger bus. What would those types of costs be?

Mr. Addy Buna: I have no idea.

Mr. Cedric Miller: We don't handle that type of insurance.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, I just wondered if you had some idea.

From my perspective, the parliamentary secretary has indicated that it has been a long time since this legislation came to the table, and that we don't always have a perfect piece of legislation. I think this is an opportunity for us to strive to have the perfect piece of legislation by addressing the issue of compulsory insurance, and we'll certainly support any amendments along those lines.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis, from the Liberals.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I wasn't sure if Bev was here when I was asking the witnesses to elaborate on their concerns on compulsory insurance, but they acknowledged at the very beginning that they're members of a larger organization that supports the plan as put forward—and I certainly agree that they don't have to agree with their parent body.

Mr. Buna or Mr. Miller, one of you mentioned that there was compulsory insurance within the U.S. regime. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the limits of compulsory insurance are very low. I don't know what they are—maybe you can tell me—but they're very low. Compulsory insurance is only for the overnight kinds of operations—where you have overnight facilities—and for boats of fifty passengers and up, so it's not as.... To me, it supports the notion that we do the study.

• 1140

As was mentioned in the opening remarks, when the bill was introduced by the officials—and I'll quote:

...the current insurance practice will be studied to obtain a better understanding of the key elements and structure of a compulsory insurance system for passenger vehicles, including time lines for its introduction.

To characterize it, the U.S. has a system that doesn't completely explain it is a rather patchwork system, so I think it supports the view that we need to do the study and get on with it. There's a commitment there to get on with the study.

I'll speak to Mr. Hill's amendment later, when he brings it up, but there's a good reason not to agree with his amendment.

Do you have a comment on the U.S. compulsory insurance? Are you familiar with the holes in their—

Mr. Addy Buna: Yes, I am. It is low, but so is this; so is what you're sitting on. What's your point? Bingo, you win, but I'm just telling you there is compulsory insurance in place there. That was my only point.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: But would you characterize it as a comprehensive compulsory insurance system?

Mr. Addy Buna: It has to do with vessels from foreign ports calling on U.S. ports. They have to provide a certain certificate of financial responsibility. Currently, it's only available from two sources. It's been in place for a long time, and it probably needs a lot of work now to get it into the next century.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude my remarks.

Our American friends probably need to do a study of their compulsory insurance system, too, to fill in all the cracks and holes in what they are facing.

I'm hopeful we'll be able to move forward. When it comes to compulsory insurance, I think any problems that need to be worked out can be worked out with the full participation by the stakeholder community.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Fitzpatrick was on before Mr. Hill—or you could share your time.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): I'll be very quick, hopefully.

Maybe you gentlemen aren't experts in this area of insurance, but I would like to pursue it anyway to see if you can help me out.

In Saskatchewan, where I come from, I'm not an insurance expert from the legal side, because we have a thing called no-fault government insurance in that province for motor vehicles. I'm not in tune with the principles of insurance law in other jurisdictions.

Prior to the introduction of that no-fault insurance, I do recall that the province did have legislation excluding gratuitous passengers in a motor vehicle accident. If you were negligent in operating a motor vehicle and you had a spouse or somebody with you, they could be barred from recovery for damages because they were a gratuitous passenger.

In terms of pleasure craft, I'm just wondering whether either one of you gentlemen would know whether this gratuitous passenger provision applies for passengers on a pleasure craft.

Mr. Addy Buna: I don't think it applies.

Mr. Cedric Miller: No.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: There's no statute or legislation that imposes that matter.

Mr. Addy Buna: No. All automobile policies in all jurisdictions have statutory conditions. There are no statutory conditions on marine policies.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: That's all.

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

I guess the one thing I'm having a little bit of a problem with is that the.... One is that we've seen bills passed before where there's an unwritten commitment on the part of the government of “Well, take this in good faith, and we'll fix it later”, and then somehow it doesn't get fixed later.

• 1145

So I would throw that on the table, since the parliamentary secretary has referred to “a commitment” at least three or four times in the last half hour. I don't know what you were reading from, but there's no commitment, in writing, that I have ever seen.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It was in the presentation by officials in the first session, at the introduction of the bill. It's on the record.

Mr. Jay Hill: So it's on the record that the bureaucrats at Transport Canada have made a commitment to study this.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: No, this is a commitment made on the record relative to Bill S-2. It's a government commitment.

Mr. Jay Hill: I see.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It doesn't matter who reads it into the record.

Mr. Jay Hill: That settles that, then. We have this ironclad commitment.

I want to pursue this business the parliamentary secretary was talking about a minute ago with regard to the U.S. system. It's my understanding that what he alluded to is quite correct, but it's also my understanding that under the U.S. system there's no upper limit.

Once Bill S-2 goes into place, as you said, Mr. Buna, it's possible that you could clear all the hurdles and get that upper limit. A good lawyer could exceed the upper limit in a successful court action. There is an upper limit in Bill S-2 that is not there in the American system. Is that correct?

Mr. Addy Buna: Yes. My only comment about the American system was to tell you that there was a system.

Mr. Jay Hill: Right, of some compulsory insurance.

Mr. Addy Buna: Yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: And to your knowledge—

Mr. Addy Buna: There are minimum limits.

Mr. Jay Hill: Minimum but no maximum.

Mr. Addy Buna: Right.

Mr. Jay Hill: This would be imposing a maximum. Now, whether it would hold up in a court of law is questionable, but there is a maximum imposed in Bill S-2.

Mr. Addy Buna: Yes, there is a maximum, but again, I made my comments earlier, so I'm on the record. Depending on the circumstances of any casualty, the maximum can always be set aside. You know, there are all kinds of things out there—unseaworthiness, due diligence on the part of the owners, and so on. There are precedents out there already to get limitations set aside.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hill.

I'll go to Mrs. Desjarlais of the NDP.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: With regard to the need for compulsory insurance, are you aware of any type of accidents that have happened where passengers haven't been able to access insurance?

Mr. Addy Buna: I guess you came in late. I had mentioned the True North II accident in Georgian Bay.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That would be the one with the young students on it?

Mr. Cedric Miller: Yes.

Mr. Addy Buna: He had no insurance. Even if you passed this legislation we still would be looking at the same situation insofar as that vessel is concerned.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Really, if we don't put it within this legislation, and if the government doesn't support that type of an amendment, then to Canadians and to anybody else who comes into our country and gets on a passenger boat or tour boat, where you expect that if something happens there is going to be some type of liability to the owner—you're paying for the service you're getting, and it's a business—would we be saying “To heck with boat passengers, they don't deserve the same kind of consideration or access to insurance that people in cars, buses, planes, or any other mode of transportation deserve”?

Mr. Addy Buna: I don't know if I'd put it that way, but it's pretty close.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Good enough.

The Chair: Okay.

Any further questions for our witnesses?

Brian.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Perhaps I could make one point of clarification. I'm looking at article 3, “Liability of the carrier”. It is a condition that you establish neglect or fault on the part of the carrier to access the $350,000 personal liability. So it isn't strict liability.

Mr. Addy Buna: Under the Athens convention I think it is strict liability, isn't it?

Mr. Cedric Miller: I believe so.

Mr. Addy Buna: I believe it's strict liability. As soon as I saw Athens, I stopped reading.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I can read the section right to you, if you like.

Mr. Addy Buna: Okay.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: It says:

The carrier shall be liable for the damage suffered as a result of the death of or personal injury to a passenger and the loss of or damage to luggage if the incident which caused the damage so suffered occurred in the course of the carriage and was due to the fault or neglect of the carrier.

• 1150

So you'd have to show it. The plain reading of this provision is, as a lawyer, you'd have to prove that somebody was at fault. It's not a strict liability provision.

I would also interpret the balance of that section to mean that $350,000 is the maximum amount you can recover. That's the intent. No matter how many lawyers you get on the case, and so on, the intent here with this article is that you're not going to recover more than $350,000.

Mr. Addy Buna: I'm not the lawyer here, but I think you're deviating from the Athens convention.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: That's what I'm reading from.

Mr. Addy Buna: You're reading the Athens convention?

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Yes.

Mr. Addy Buna: I'd have to look at it again, but—

That's not the same as the Warsaw convention, then, is it?

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: But this one seems to be pretty clear. I don't know—

Mr. Addy Buna: Yes. I can tell you that the limitations in the Athens convention have been set aside, given certain sets of circumstances.

The doctrine of gross negligence goes beyond what you guys are talking about. If somebody is practically criminal in the maintenance and activity of his vessel and that blatant disregard of common sense causes injury or death, do you think that thing will prevail? I don't think so. I hope not.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: It's very easy for us to confuse American tort law and American jurisdiction with other jurisdictions.

As a Canadian lawyer, quite often I wish I had the opportunity to take my case to an American court.

Mr. Addy Buna: I'm not talking about American courts. I'm talking about British courts, and we follow them very quickly. If you look at the doctrine of seaworthiness, you'll see all kinds of limitations set aside for unseaworthiness on the carriage of goods.

For example, if a vessel issues an under-deck bill of lading and does not have the option to carry the cargo on deck, and the cargo gets blown off the ship because they put it on deck, that's an unreasonable deviation and the limitation gets set aside. It's that simple. It wouldn't even go to court. It happens all the time. You don't have to worry about the Americans. We have enough here.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: There had been mention that it's basically strict liability. If an accident happens, you're going to be able to access that without courts and lawyers, and so on. My point is that the wording in this section says “fault or neglect”. That means if the carrier denies liability, the passengers or the harmed individuals are going to have to hunt down a lawyer and go to court and establish that there was fault or neglect on the part of the carrier. So it's not strict liability. That's the only point I was making, if I'm reading the section right.

Mr. Addy Buna: All right.

The Chair: Are there any further questions for our witnesses?

If not, I thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate your input. The committee will consider what you have said, and we thank you very much for coming.

Our next witness, Mr. Earley, apparently missed his flight, so we don't have any further witnesses. With the committee's permission, I will suspend for two minutes until the clerk gets the pertinent information to you, and then we will go clause by clause.

Thank you very much.

• 1154

• 1158

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to reconvene. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), we'd like to proceed to the clause-by-clause reading of Bill S-2, the proposed Marine Liability Act.

We have some proposed amendments from Mr. Hill. Are there any other amendments by other members?

I want to know how to deal with this. Since the first amendment occurs at clause 39, if I could have the unanimous consent of the committee to go from clauses 2 to 38, I would appreciate that.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Clauses 2 to 38 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 39—Regulations)

The Chair: Mr. Hill, would you make your amendment on clause 39 and tell us what it's all about?

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first amendment to clause 39 is very straightforward. Taking into account the best of intentions, I believe, on the part of the government and the parliamentary secretary as its representative here today, in view of the fact that at some point, sometime, somewhere down the road, Parliament may end up coming back and amending this legislation so that we do impose compulsory or mandatory insurance requirements on commercial vessels, I would still feel, despite those assurances, much more comfortable if we had a definitive timeline for the imposition of compulsory insurance. I think ample evidence has been presented to the committee and ample concern expressed at least on the part, I believe, of all four of the opposition parties represented on the committee in this regard.

• 1200

Therefore, I move that clause 39 be amended so that the words “may make regulations” are replaced with “shall make regulations by January 1, 2002”. Therefore, it would read as follows:

The Governor in Council shall make regulations by January 1, 2002, requiring insurance or evidence of financial security be maintained to cover liability under this Part.

The Chair: For debate, we will go to Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Jay's intentions.

I have two points. I quote from the presentation made:

...the current insurance practice will be studied to obtain a better understanding of the key elements and structure of a compulsory insurance system for passenger vehicles, including time lines for its introduction.

So that is there.

As to the notion that the Governor in Council can be required to do a certain thing by a certain date, there's a legal difficulty with that. A court ruling with regard to the Governor in Council in a similar case in Ontario caused the court to say he shouldn't do those kinds of things because it could create problems for courts later on.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I have a point of order. That decision in Ontario was about using Orders in Council. As a matter of law, you can't use that to impose taxes on people, the probate fees. To me, it's not relevant to this point.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: My comments stand, Mr. Chair. So we won't be able to support Mr. Hill's amendment, as well-intentioned as it is.

The Chair: The points have been made. Next we have Mrs. Desjarlais from the NDP.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I have a question about the government's commitment. When did that come about? At what point did they say they would monitor and commit?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It's in the transcript of the March 20 meeting.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So their commitment was as of March 20 and not when the initial discussions on this bill were taking place.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I don't know the history, Bev.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I think that's an important factor.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: That commitment is there.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: If the government made that commitment two or three years back or at some point when the discussions were taking place by previous bodies with regard to the compulsory insurance, they should already be well on their way to doing that. It would be my view that in actuality there is no firm commitment from the government to do that, because, obviously they haven't started on it and this has been before the House for sometime. I would think there are reasonable grounds to ensure that this is cemented in the bill. I think the people of Canada and certainly any passengers on any tour boats or whatever should have assurances that those businesses will have finances available should there be a problem.

Obviously, I support the amendment. I'm extremely concerned about the roundabout way the government appears to be approaching this. If there is a firm commitment to ensure that all the travelling public within Canada have the same rights, I think it's important that the same type of legislation and the same types of insurance policies are in place to ensure that happens. Otherwise, we're leaving them out of the loop.

In a brief discussion the parliamentary secretary and I had, it was suggested that nobody is lining up as this isn't a big issue. It's probably not a big issue because people expect that there is insurance and that there is a commitment to liability. Often we have situations, as I'm sure is the case in Georgian Bay, where people are asking, how can that be? How can that person not have insurance? This was a business. It was operating.

• 1205

If we want this issue to be talked about across the nation and for people to know that when they hop on a passenger boat in Canada they're at risk, if we want to put doubt within the industry and to cripple the industry—because I think there is the potential to do that, where people will fear getting on boats because there may not be insurance—then I suggest that the government go along the route they're going to use and that they won't get support for this legislation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Desjarlais.

I have Mr. Laframboise, followed by Mr. Fitzpatrick, and then I'll go over here.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I will support Mr. Hill's amendment for the good and simple reason that...

Listen, when we questioned the government officials who drew up the bill, they told us that a major study was needed to find out whether the insurance sector would be able to absorb the responsibility of mandatory insurance.

The representatives of the insurance sector have just told us there is no problem, that the insurance network is capable of assuming this responsibility. I am trying to understand why we should tell our good people they will be covered by whoever transports them by ship, that that person is liable.

On Tuesday, industry representatives told us that most carriers are responsible and already have insurance. The problem is that we fear the insurance business will not be able to absorb mandatory insurance even though the insurance people tell us there's no problem.

I find it reasonable that they be given until January 1, 2002 to set up the entire operation, although I don't see why the members of the government party still have the idea that officials must be given time when they have already had plenty of time to contact the insurance business and have it confirmed that, as we were told today, there is no problem, that the whole thing could be in place tomorrow morning with no increase in premiums or costs to those already paying insurance.

So, I don't see why a safety net is not put in place for the population, because the people are going to think that, once the bill is adopted, they're covered. Because we are introducing a liability regime, and they are already covered on the highway and in the air, it is normal for them to think they will be covered on the water.

They are being sent an equivocal message when they are told they are not covered, that the government is considering it, conducting studies and analyses. I'm amazed, first of all, that Transport Canada officials told us the insurance business couldn't handle it, whereas people in the insurance industry have just told us it's not a problem. Some people have not been doing their jobs, and it's not us.

Today, the members of the government party say we'll begin by listening to our officials who agreed to do the analysis. I believe them. This will take time, and there is certainly a hidden agenda. Why are they seeking to delay something that, for the people in the insurance industry seems self-evident? It's not a problem for them. Introduce the mandatory system, and it can be up to standard at reasonable cost, more reasonable than the current highway transport situation.

I'm not going to repeat myself. I will support Mr. Hill's motion.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mario.

I understand there are officials here. Maybe they could take their places and give the members on both sides all the relevant information so that when they vote, they will know some of the reasons as to why and why not.

I'll go to Mr. Fitzpatrick. While Mr. Fitzpatrick is making his intervention, perhaps the officials could see if they have some more information to offer.

Mr. Jay Hill: I have a point of order. This is highly irregular. We had one witness on this very subject who we aren't even going to hear before we've gone to clause-by-clause consideration. It's just like, well, he missed his plane and is not available, so we're just going to go to clause-by-clause consideration. Yet you're going to bring back the officials, who have already been given a chance—

The Chair: I'll only do this if we get unanimous consent. If we get unanimous consent, fine. If we don't have it....

Mr. Jay Hill: I don't think you're going to get it.

The Chair: Okay. We don't have it. I just thought that maybe you wanted some more information and that everybody should have the information.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I think there has been doubt about the information we've had in the past.

The Chair: All right. That's fine.

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

• 1210

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Here is point number one I'd like to raise on this matter, and it's an important point.

Government has lots of regulations in place in the name of safety and the public interest and so on. To me it's a mountain of regulation. It's very hard for a lot of people to decipher and sort all this stuff out. We've created a regulatory nightmare, and quite often a little bit of common sense brings certainty to the whole exercise.

The point raised by both of these gentlemen—they confirmed it—was that requiring mandatory insurance eliminates a lot of rogue carriers, unsafe carriers, from the system. We don't need a whole lot of bureaucrats to sort that out; the insurance industry will ferret that out. So that's one good thing in itself to deal with.

We haven't had a disaster that I know of in recent times involving a carrier in our waters, but all it's going to take is one to find out we've got a very questionable operator with no financial security and so on, and a whole bunch of victims with no recourse because this outfit didn't have any insurance.

Maybe we could have avoided the problem in the first place by having mandatory insurance. The insurance industry wouldn't have given them one of these certificates of responsibility, so they couldn't be in business. That's one point.

The second point is this would ensure that victims have at least a minimal pool of resources from which to recover. The point these gentlemen raised in here is that this is not a high-cost factor. If we're in competition with the U.S. for shipping and so on, just reaching their minimal standards shouldn't put us at a detriment. We've got to be competitive with these people, but if we move up to their standards, how are we uncompetitive?

I don't know how many times I've heard government people lament about bringing American-style standards to Canada—“We've got higher standards in Canada”, “This is Canada”, and so on. It's amazing we're talking about a standard here that's much lower than American standards, and it's interesting that government members are not saying “Let's make sure we at least reach American standards”.

An objection I really want to go on record with is to Mr. St. Denis' comment about Mr. Hill's proposed amendment being illegal based on an Ontario decision. That Ontario decision dealt with the power of government through regulation to impose taxes. Everybody can recall the details of how probate fees in Ontario were extremely high, far higher than the costs of administering the probate system. It was a cash cow for the government.

The court said, you're trying to do through the back door what should be done through the front door. This is a tax bill and you have to bring it before the House; you can't do it by regulation.

We're not proposing a tax regime here through regulation. All we're saying is we want to ensure that there's compulsory insurance in place, which is a far different thing. I don't see any problem at all with the legality of this regulation.

If this thing is going to be illegal, then there are going to be a whole lot of other illegal pieces of legislation and regulation in this country, because we do this regularly with legislation—allow the Governor in Council to fill in the details of legislation with regulations. There's nothing unusual about this.

I really can't see any major objection to this clause. To me it's just basic common sense, and if we've got the public interest at stake, why don't we support it?

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you not to forget the chair. We don't want a two-way fight. It's always through me.

We'll go to Marcel Proulx—

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): No, I'm fine.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo, then.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Members will certainly be aware that we often deal with legislation in the absence of any regulation. The regulations come after the bill. The bill has gone through the full process and receives royal assent, and then the Order in Council provides the necessary regulations to guide the legislation.

There's no disagreement here, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the insurance requirement. There is no dispute. It's unanimous around the table.

The motion before us from Mr. Hill is to change the word “may” to “shall”; in other words, to lock in the date.

• 1215

In our experience, the issue is that as the committee is now dealing with Bill S-2, the process will follow its course. Bill S-2 will have to go back to the House after we've dealt with it. We have a summer break coming up. I don't know how long it's going to take before we finish the report stage, and then the third reading, and then it goes to the Senate—and the Senate itself may very well require that some work be done—and finally, there's gazetting and whatever,

My point is, if we put in this legislation “shall, by January 1, 2002”, should the legislation not be assented to and enacted by then, then the bill would actually require an amendment, meaning it would have to come back to the House. It would be self-defeating.

In any event, although the members argue very eloquently about the need for the insurance, there is no disagreement on that point. The issue is simply with regard to locking in a date, which, under certain circumstances, may very well not be met and then the bill would have to come back to us to be amended.

If we want the bill to go forward, we should understand that the disagreement here is over the Order in Council process and the timing of the regulations. This is dependent on other factors, many of which will be outside of the control of the cabinet.

For the record, we support the clause and the intent of the clause. The concern is simply with regard to creating a technical problem with implementation.

The Chair: Okay. Now I have Mrs. Desjarlais, followed by Jay Hill.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It's good to hear the members here supporting the need for compulsory insurance. It's good to hear this, and if the date is the only issue, you won't have a great problem getting consent to change it. That's if there really is a commitment to compulsory insurance and the date's the only issue. But I guess the proof will be in the pudding now, won't it?

As I said, I certainly would have no qualms about changing the date. If it means we're going to see compulsory insurance coverage of passengers on tour boats, we can work along those lines. Since the motion was Mr. Hill's, I'll leave it to him to make any changes.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Hill.

I'll give Mr. Hill the courtesy, since it's his motion, to wrap it up.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, in rebuttal to Mr. Szabo's comment about the Senate, the Senate dealt with this legislation. It was introduced in the Senate. The Senate dealt with it in one day, so holding up the bugaboo that they might somehow delay it another six months or a year before it will pass is a bit deceptive, to say the least. I recognize that if it is amended, it would have to go back to the Senate. But given how quickly they dealt with it the last time, I wouldn't expect they'd hold it up for very long to debate one amendment.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I'm sure you're right.

Mr. Jay Hill: Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record with a concern regarding the vote we are about to take.

Mr. Harvey seems in a hurry to call the question on this particular amendment, even though we only have a handful of amendments to deal with, of clauses potentially in some dispute. But the amendment we are about to vote on is to me very fundamental to the entire bill.

I had put forward the name of Mel Earley as another witness and he couldn't make it today. So after months, indeed years, of dealing with this particular legislation, all of a sudden we're in a big hurry, and the government members obviously have their marching orders to vote down any and all amendments.

Let's put our cards on the table. We can see the way this is going. We have their assurance that somehow at some point in the future we're going to have compulsory insurance built into this legislation, but as my colleagues have said, that's small consolation if we end up in the meantime with some maritime disaster that would have been covered, at least allowing next of kin to have access to some insurance if something falls through the cracks.

• 1220

There's a world of difference between “may” and “shall”. All of us as legislators know that. We've all been around long enough to understand that. If we pass this amendment, we will be forcing the department's hand to impose compulsory insurance in the future. All of us can leave this room today comfortable with that knowledge, not that it's some unspecified date in the future.

In light of that, Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly open, as are my other colleagues who support the amendment, to changing it to 2003—give the stakeholders another year to ready themselves for this. If the date is the problem, as has been indicated by Mr. Szabo, then let's change the date. I'm quite amenable to a friendly amendment to my amendment. But as I said—and I'll just sum this up—there's a world of difference, all of us know, between saying the Governor in Council may make regulations requiring insurance at some unspecified time in the future and setting it in stone that they shall at a certain date.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Harvey of the Liberal Party.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): I am not a permanent member here, but I have listened carefully to the comments of Mr. Hill and Mr. Laframboise on the fact that it has been said that the market was not in a position to take on this responsibility in the short term. When you requested that the Transport Canada officials who notified the Parliamentary Secretary of this restriction appear before us here, what surprised me, quite honestly, is that the Opposition refused for several minutes, several short minutes, to agree to have the Transport Canada people come and testify to round out the information transmitted to the Parliamentary Secretary, in other words that the insurers were not in a position to take on this responsibility in the short term.

My Opposition colleagues believed the insurers when they said they could handle the business. Mr. Chairman, you know that a salesman always has product, as long as delivery is far enough in the future. I would have appreciated having the Transport Canada people take four or five minutes of our time to explain the technical viewpoint they transmitted to our Parliamentary Secretary.

I have listened respectfully to the comments of my colleagues and Mr. Szabo, but one item of information is missing, Mr. Chairman. The Transport Canada people will fill in the gap.

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: I have a point of order on the proceedings, and perhaps you can enlighten us all, Mr. Chairman. Transport Canada officials who are present in the room today had the opportunity already, as they should, to enlighten us as to the various clauses and the contents of this legislation. My point merely was that I had put forward the name of a witness who I felt could adequately and with a lot of knowledge debate this very subject. I'm certainly open to adjourning the proceedings so that Transport Canada can appear before the committee at some future date again, but also that my witness, Mr. Mel Earley, would be available as well. That's the point I'm trying to make. In fairness to all the members of the committee, we should get some balanced representation, and that's what I've been seeking to do.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I understand the witness who isn't here was going to give his views in strong support for the mandatory insurance issue. It's unfortunate he's not here, but the issue is not in dispute. I want to repeat again that the government, I understand, is not disputing this. The concern is very simply the date. I suspect the clause here, if it were to say no later than January 1, 2003, or something like that, probably would be acceptable. That could get us out of this circle.

Mr. Jay Hill: Make an amendment to my amendment and I'll support it.

• 1225

Mr. Paul Szabo: But the problem here is that we're guessing. The issue here is that the Order in Council timing really is at the discretion of the cabinet. So is the taxation issue. There are precedents here. I'm pretty sure the advice we would get from, for instance, our House leader is not to create special circumstances. I think the parliamentary secretary would confirm that the requirement for the mandatory insurance is not in dispute.

On that basis we have to assume that once the bill moves through its various iterations and the required notice in the various forms to the industry, consulting with them as to some of the details and their questions, there is no doubt going to be an exposure period. Our opinion is that, realistically, it is very possible that January 1, 2002 just isn't going to happen.

Again, it is not a dispute with regard to the clause. But the process is not to tell the Order in Council when they have to do certain things, because there are just too many other things beyond their control.

The Chair: I have Mr. St. Denis, and then I'll come back to you, Brian.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I wanted to underline again that the commitment is there to pursue the issue of compulsory insurance, including timelines for its introduction. For this side, I would like to leave it at that. We accept the good intentions of the amendment, but we can really go no further than the commitment that has been made.

The Chair: Mr. Fitzpatrick of the Alliance Party.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I want to deal with the point raised by Mr. Szabo about the date and enforcing something prematurely. My legal training would tell me that all we'd have to do is take January 1, 2002, out of there and insert the word “forthwith”, which does not mean immediately, but precisely what you're saying. As soon as the system is ready to implement—

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's comments, and I would move that the question be called.

The Chair: Okay. We have a motion that the question be put—

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Actually, there were three of us, I think, who had our hands up before the question was ever called, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes, but I think the procedure is that we vote on that, and if it's turned down, then we proceed that way.

All those in favour that the question be put?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: We're doing a roll call.

The Chair: There's a motion by Mr. Szabo that the motion be put. All those in favour of that motion so indicate.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: What are we voting on?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: That the motion be put.

The Chair: Some of you want to speak, so I'll go to Bev Desjarlais. Apparently, according to the clerk, we can't do that.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: As to Mr. Szabo's comments about the commitment and our recognition that “may” and “shall” mean two very different things, certainly from my perspective, and I get the same impression from my colleagues, but I won't speak for them.... If the legislation should state “shall” and if that commitment the parliamentary secretary has in writing in front of him is really a commitment, then let's show that commitment to the Canadian people where it should be shown, and that's in legislation before the House of Commons, not on a piece of paper, like the red book or any other piece of scrap, that could be thrown away once the election is done or once this bill passes through the House. The bottom line is, if there is a real commitment, then let's see “shall” in the wording.

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, because the committee is new and has a lot of new members, I think it is important right at the outset of our deliberations—this is the first piece of legislation we've had—that all clearly understand the rules.

• 1230

Is it the intent of the chair that at some point in the discussion, and I'm not saying this particular amendment is the time, if the opposition parties, one or all, decide to filibuster a certain issue, if they feel it is that important—that may be the case, if not now, then at some point in the future—this committee will operate in such a manner that at any point they deem it appropriate a government member is going to be able to call the question and the chair will recognize that and cut off discussion on a particular subject?

I think it's important that all of us understand the rules and how the committee is going to operate right up front. We have a lot of legislation and a lot of issues to deal with in the very near future, so let's understand where we're going here.

The Chair: I understood from the clerk that it was at my discretion, and as you noticed, I waived that off; in this particular case I said no, I thought the debate should continue, so I allowed it. That's what happened today.

Mr. Jay Hill: I appreciate that.

The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman—and I think colleagues are making it as well—is that with all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, we would feel much more comfortable.... If you don't want to have a date.... My colleague has made the suggestion that we have “shall forthwith” inserted. If that's not acceptable, pick a date. If a date is not his problem, then let's just drop all dates, as I think Bev was suggesting, and just have “The Governor in Council shall make regulations requiring”, and leave it wide open. But have some commitment other than the parliamentary secretary waving a piece of paper in the air and saying “Yes, there's a firm commitment on the part of the government at some point in the future to have compulsory insurance.”

With that, Mr. Chairman, we'll allow the vote.

The Chair: For your edification, I understand from the clerk that if you want to change the wording a bit, you can do that with unanimous consent, or somebody else will have to propose it. Is it your wish to modify it in any way?

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, I was just showing my complete openness—and I think my colleagues on the opposition side were agreeing with this—to the government members. If it's the particular wording or the date that's causing a problem with seeing a firm commitment placed into this legislation, we were just showing our openness to the government to suggest something else. It's not my intent at this moment to amend my own amendment, Mr. Chairman. I'm just showing a willingness to do that if the government wanted to suggest something.

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, if Jay wants to amend his motion, we would agree to let him do that in whatever way he wants. But from this side, we've made a commitment, as it's been expressed, and we won't be able to support the motion. We don't have a problem with him changing his motion, but we won't be supporting a compromise of our—

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: A point of order. My understanding is that when we're on committee we leave our political caps in the hallway and we vote on these things individually using our common sense. If I hear the word “we”, is this a predetermined decision that all you folks are just going to follow the...?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: We have an agreement on this side to get the government's legislation done.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: That may be okay in the House. I wish we could leave that outside when we come to committee.

The Chair: I appreciate what I'm hearing. I think all sides agree that people need to be insured. There are concerns with people's lives and the fact that they are insured. I'm not too sure if it's the framework or what's really causing the delay.

Is there any further discussion on that motion?

Go ahead, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just in reply to the parliamentary secretary suggesting that I should consider perhaps—I can't remember exactly how he worded it—amending my own amendment—

Mr. Brent St. Denis: If you wanted to—I wasn't saying you should; I was saying if you wanted to.

• 1235

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay, he was saying if I wanted to. But in light of the fact that I don't know what, if anything, the government is prepared to support, it would be kind of foolish of me to amend my own amendment. I've already given considerable thought to this amendment.

I think it would be wise to have some time limit placed in the legislation. I chose January 1, 2002, giving the industry and the government nine months to prepare. I still believe that is adequate, and I believe the stakeholders, the shipping companies themselves, would need some certainty to prepare for the impending need for compulsory insurance. If there was a date in there and they knew for sure it was on such and such a day that there was a requirement that they would have to have insurance, then they would have insurance by that day. I think it would be unfair of them to just have it so loose that they wouldn't know when the Governor in Council is going to pass this, and all of a sudden next week they need to have compulsory insurance. They would need adequate time to plan for that, and that's why I put a time limit in, both to ensure that the passengers would be comfortable that after January 1, 2002, there would be insurance in place when they step onboard a vessel, but I was also thinking of the shipowners, so that they can adequately prepare for that provision.

In light of the fact that I don't hear any firm suggestion of how to get around the dilemma they seem to be in about not wishing to support the amendment in its present form, I'll have to let it stand as I submitted it. There was considerable thought put into it before I put it forward in its present form.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hill.

[Translation]

Mr. Laframboise, Bloc québécois.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, I know that the members of the government party will eventually approve what has been proposed by the officials, and that's where the shoe pinches. I cannot understand that the officials told us in committee that the insurance business was unable to take this on and that an in-depth study was necessary, which seems to be so complicated that it hasn't been done yet, and that the members of the government party support this. I'm flabbergasted.

There is talk of safety. You said so yourself, Mr. Chairman. There was talk of the safety of the population and our constituents. I feel very uncomfortable for my colleagues across the floor who, today, are siding with the officials whereas the insurance business is capable of taking on this responsibility. It was up to them to meet with their officials before coming here today. It is not up to us to do so.

I have heard what I had to hear, I have asked the questions I had to ask, and I have been misled. The Transport Canada officials misled us when they said the insurance business was unable to take on this responsibility and, furthermore, that they would need to do a study so complicated they haven't had time to do it, and it will be a very long time before it's finished. Today, I have been misled.

Members of the government party are going to join in the officials' game, and that I cannot accept. I will never accept it. I don't know what I'm going to do, but for the people I represent, I find this is a serious error. We have been misled here, in committee, and government officials are the ones who have misled us. You, the members of the government party, have decided to support them. No problem, except that if we had known from the outset that the insurance business was able to take on this responsibility, the discussions we have had in committee would have been different, Mr. Chairman. Those are my comments.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Laframboise. You've put your feelings on the record.

I think I've heard some very strong feelings from this side of the House. Your concern is that Canadians are protected and you want it done as quickly as possible, and that is recorded.

Is there any further discussion? Are you ready for the question? Do you want a recorded vote on this?

Some hon. members: Yes.

• 1240

(Amendment negatived: [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 39 to 50 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 51—Liability for pollution and related costs)

The Chair: Mr. Hill, this is your amendment.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Given the way the previous amendment went, it won't be my intention to spend a lot of time dealing with my amendments to clause 51. I'm sure the—

The Chair: Before you get into it, I'm told by the clerk that I should tell you that on consequential amendments, those votes have carried, for the record. I'm just trying to follow....

The Clerk of the Committee: If I may clarify, this is to say that because the amendments are consequential, the vote on the first amendment will cover the three that come after it. Whether they are accepted or negatived, the vote for the first one covers all three—just to clarify.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Let me be clear on that. We haven't debated those motions, but—

Mr. Jay Hill: The ones we're dealing with now.

The Chair: I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.

Mr. Jay Hill: The amendments I'm proposing to clause 51 come about out of concern that I, and I believe others, expressed during the time the committee was dealing with witnesses appearing on Bill S-2. This deals with the fact that clause 51 specifically refers to oil pollution. Yet when I raised that issue...I can't remember exactly who the witness was, Mr. Chairman, but the witness referred me to subparagraph 51(1)(c)(i), which refers to paragraphs 678(1)(a) to 678(1)(c) of the Canada Shipping Act. Whoever was testifying at the time said that all other forms of pollution liability of a shipowner and a shipping company were covered under paragraph 678(1)(a) of the Canada Shipping Act.

• 1245

Yet, Mr. Chairman, when we look to the exact wording of section 678 of the Canada Shipping Act, it states:

678(1) Where the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that a ship has discharged, is discharging or is likely to discharge a pollutant, the Minister may

Then it lists (a), (b), and (c).

Under paragraph 51(1)(a), as contained in Bill S-2, it says:

51(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Part, the owner of a ship is liable

(a) for oil pollution damage from the ship;

The intent of the motion I'm about to move merely removes the word “oil”. In other words, it would read, and I move that the amendment is:

51(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Part, the owner of a ship is liable

(a) for pollution damage from the ship;

The three consequential amendments, Mr. Chairman, likewise would remove the word “oil”.

I don't think there's a need to go into it entirely. The committee can, if it so chooses. They are consequential to that amendment. They remove the word “oil” and leave it stand at “pollution”. In other words, the owner of a ship is liable for pollution that his ship causes. It's unequivocal.

I'm not a lawyer, and I always say, thank goodness I'm not a lawyer. I have to be careful saying that now that one of my colleagues who sits besides me is.

At any rate, my understanding is that if section 678 stands the way it is, with “other pollution” being referred to only in paragraph 51(1)(c), as it refers to paragraphs 678(1)(a) to (c) of the Canada Shipping Act, when it deals with oil pollution it's unequivocal. The owner of a ship is liable for oil pollution damage from the ship.

The other is at the discretion of the minister because subsection 678(1) says, “Where the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that a ship has discharged”, etc.

I don't understand why we would pass a piece of legislation that, on one hand, treats oil pollution unequivocally and the shipowner is liable, yet other potential pollution, be it radioactive or whatever, is somehow treated differently, where it's the minister who has to believe “on reasonable grounds that a ship has discharged”, etc.

The intent and the purpose of these four amendments, Mr. Chairman, is very clearly to clear up any ambiguity and would state throughout clause 51 that the owner of a ship is liable for pollution damage from the ship—not solely oil pollution, but all pollution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay. Would you just make sure you say “I move”?

Mr. Jay Hill: I thought I did that two or three times in my long, rambling introduction to the amendments.

The Chair: Okay, you might have.

Mr. Jay Hill: But I will. So be it. I move.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chairman, as with the other amendment, there's no question of the member's good intentions and our support of his good intentions, except we're getting into overlap of legislation and jurisdiction.

If I could comment, it may seem we're picking on oil. In fact, as we know, even for those of us who aren't in the shipping industry, oil is a part of the machinery of a ship. We're not talking so much about oil being carried in a ship as cargo, but about oil as used in the operation of a ship that ends up in ballast and ends up out in the water as waste oil.

• 1250

Canada has signed on to the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea. We did this in 1997, and it will be adopted in concert with the international community.

So it's not a matter of picking on oil as a cargo, as I understand it. The fact is that oil is part of the operation of a ship. Just to make it very clear, we're looking at those oil slicks that are out there because a ship is doing something it shouldn't be doing before it enters a Canadian port.

I just don't agree that Jay's amendment really raises the bar. Maybe it would in fact enhance some confusion and misunderstanding. But we totally agree. We don't want pollution in our domestically controlled waters. So as not to create any confusion, I can't support his amendment, as well-intentioned as it is.

The Chair: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I take precisely the opposite position of Mr. St. Denis on that point. The Senate, if I understand it correctly, has criticized the House for ambiguities and poor draftsmanship in their legislation.

When you look at this piece of legislation, you find one section dealing with pollution, and then you go to another section in which they stick oil in before pollution. You have an ambiguity in your legislation already, with multiple interpretations of it. If I heard Mr. St. Denis correctly, it almost implies that there are different levels of pollution. An oil slick is something we should all be concerned about, but if a ship full of PCBs emptied her load in our waters, that's not the same thing. To me, pollution is pollution, and this section is pretty clear as to what it wants to do with polluters. Why do we just limit it to oil? Why don't we apply it to all the polluters in the system, have one standard for all of them, remove the ambiguity, and make the job of the Senate easier when it reviews this thing?

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I would just add, Mr. Chair, that, as we all know, we will soon be kicking off Bill C-14 with the minister on Tuesday, I believe. Then, in the sessions to follow, we'll be pursuing Bill C-14.

There's a certain jurisdictional...“overlap” isn't the right word to use, but the Canada Shipping Act also deals with this issue, and we don't want to be creating overlap problems. It's not a matter of picking on oil. Yes, oil is a cargo, and it's one of many cargoes that can pollute. But oil is also used in the operation of a ship. Whether a ship is carrying a bunch of cars, it can still see oil let out into the ocean by improper operation of that ship.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Jay Hill: I'd just like the parliamentary secretary to expand on that a bit more. Is he implying that because a nuclear-powered U.S. destroyer comes into our waters and is fuelled by uranium rods, it's somehow not a problem if that ship happens to go down, whereas because the vast majority of ships are oil-fired, somehow we have to have special legislation because of the type of fuel they use? I don't understand where—

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chairman, I don't want words put in my mouth. Pollution of any form is not acceptable. It's just that we're talking about a technical separation of issues. I mention again that Canada has signed on, as of 1997, to the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, which will be adopted. I can't give you a date, but it will be adopted in due course.

Rather than having an overlap, we agree we don't want pollution of any kind. But even a nuclear ship has oil, just in the operation of the gears, if nothing else. There's oil on every ship.

The Chair: Mr. Fitzpatrick, of the Alliance party, please.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I still don't follow the argument. If the ship is spilling oil—you know, we remove this word—can they hide behind something by saying it isn't really pollution? To me, it's pollution. I don't understand the point.

• 1255

I don't accept that there's overlap between the bills, either. I perceive the other bill to be an enforcement bill. You're more into the criminal area. We have inspectors out there, and if they find things that are done wrong, they can charge these people, bring them before court, and fine them. This bill basically deals more with the civil side of things if something happens, with the rights of people who have been injured because of something that went wrong, with the ability to claim for damages and so on. It seems to me that we're dealing, in this act, with the civil consequences of pollution.

I don't really follow the argument for why we need a specific section in case the engine leaks some oil and leaves a little slick on the water. It seems to me that if we just use the word “pollution”, it covers that oil as pollution. It almost implies that there's some sort of intent that isn't obvious behind all this, that somebody behind the whole legislation wants something in there just to deal with this particular thing.

I'm scratching my head. It has to be something better than what you're raising, sir, with all due respect. That doesn't sound to me like a compelling—

An hon. member: It doesn't make sense.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: —strong argument that just jumps out of this legislation. It would make me think there's something more sinister behind this thing that isn't so obvious.

The Chair: Mrs. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: What is the reason behind specifying oil and not just pollution? Why is that the case?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Is it through you, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: It's debate, so that's fine. She wants some information.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I'm not sure any argument I make will adequately convince or explain—

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I'm just asking what the reason is.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: My best explanation, Bev, is that we have signed on to the international convention, and in due course I think it's—

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: But how is signing on to the international convention on oil pollution...? How is not putting oil in this legislation contravening signing that agreement?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I would only offer that you don't want to have overlaps.

Not being a technical expert on all aspects of the bill, I could use the assistance of some of the experts, who we were not allowed to have up here for some of the technical information. If I may, however, I'll quote an able adviser:

All pollution caused by pollutants that are listed under the Canada Shipping Act is covered. The reasons for separation of oil and other pollutants are different international obligations.

That goes back to the international convention, so why would you create an overlap if you didn't have to have one?

No disrespect, but somehow I get the impression that you think we're disrespecting the oil industry. Of course we're not.

Oil can be a cargo, but it may not be a cargo. It may just be oil used in the operation of a ship, and there have been...sadly, it's an all too common occurrence. So I think it's just important to make sure this issue is kept front and centre.

The Chair: Did you have anything else, Bev?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That's it, Mr. Chair. I didn't have anything else.

The Chair: Mr. Jay Hill, please.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, might I pose a question to the parliamentary secretary? Here again, it's obviously his intent to ensure that everyone on his side of the room votes down these four amendments that all have to do with the same issue.

Perhaps he could explain why it is so clear and unequivocal that under subclause 51(1) it states:

51(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Part, the owner of a ship is liable

(a) for oil pollution damage from the ship;

That's it, period. Whether it comes out of the tanks or whether it comes out of the cargo, he or she is liable. Yet, under the Canada Shipping Act, subsection 678(1), which covers all other types of pollution, it comes down to where the minister believes, on reasonable grounds, a ship has discharged.

• 1300

If you want to treat all pollution the same, if that's the intent, and you're saying you believe that any pollution is bad—that's easy for all of us to say—then why the difference?

You're saying you don't want to create a problem where you treat things differently. That's exactly what this legislation, the way I'm reading it, does. It treats it differently.

One states unequivocally that in oil pollution you're liable. The other states that for all other types of pollution it's up to the minister to believe on reasonable grounds.

So could you explain to me why you want to treat pollution differently?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, Jay is referring to a bill that will be soon before the committee, so I would invite you to hold those questions on the Shipping Act until that time.

Mr. Jay Hill: I asked you the question. Do you have an answer before you vote down this amendment?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I don't think I will talk about the Shipping Act here today.

Mr. Jay Hill: But the Shipping Act is referred to in paragraph 51(1)(c) of the bill we are debating today and pertains directly to the amendments that I placed forward, so how can you not talk about it? It's there.

When I questioned the witness about that, the disparity of the treatment between oil pollution and other types of pollution, he referred me to paragraph 678(1)(a) of the Canada Shipping Act, and I'm just asking for some clarification from you, sir, as to why you want to treat all other types of pollution differently from oil pollution, because that's what it does.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, I'll rest with the final comment that our international obligations have required us to separate the two. And I have referred earlier to the international convention we signed on to. So I don't know if I could ever adequately convince my friends across the way as to the position we have. I would certainly encourage further discussion and dialogue in the context of the Shipping Act.

But we totally agree that pollution of all forms is not acceptable.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Fitzpatrick of the Alliance.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: My recollection of the discussion that took place with the minister or people from the department is that there may be differences in the limits of liability between oil and other hazardous products because of conventions and so on. This section doesn't to me really pertain to that question of the limits on this thing.

The question I wish Mr. St. Denis and the other members of the committee would address themselves to is if we put the word “oil” in this section, are we excluding other types of pollution from hazardous products and so on from civil liability? That's a question I'm not clear on.

I think one of the things we should be doing on this committee with this act is to give the legislation absolute, 100% certainty as to intent, not leave ambiguity in the legislation. That's what the Senate has been saying. We're doing too much of this stuff, and here's an opportunity to tighten this thing up and make it clear, and not leave it to lawyers later on to argue technicalities on this stuff.

I haven't heard a really strong compelling argument today from your side why we should not favour this amendment. It seems to me it brings certainty to this legislation.

The Chair: Mrs. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Chair, the meeting was scheduled to go till 1 p.m. and I'm sure many of us have commitments. It's after 1 p.m. and we have a lot still to go through, so I would like to make a motion to adjourn for today.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I prefer we keep going.

The Chair: We have a motion to adjourn. I'll put the question.

(Motion negatived)

Mr. Jay Hill: So from now on, if we don't have a scheduled time.... We debated this as well in the past, that some people wanted to sit longer and some people didn't.

• 1305

Mr. Chairman, from now on are we just going to go over time whenever the government members decide that's appropriate?

The Chair: I hope not. I think what we find ourselves in today was the fact that perhaps the bill looked simple and we thought we had enough time to do it. We got stuck on two points. I hope this won't be the pattern.

Is there any further debate or discussion?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I think it's time for questions.

The Chair: We have a motion then by Mr. Hill that we vote an amendment on clause 51.

Mr. Jay Hill: I request a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We don't have any further amendments.

(Clause 51 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 52 to 131 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Clerk: You can't continue. You don't have quorum.

The Chair: I don't have quorum. We need members of the opposition.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: We'll get a few members here if you give us a couple of minutes. How many do we need for quorum?

The Clerk: We need members of the opposition.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: How many do we need?

The Clerk: Two more.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Marc, you just stay here. We'll get two bodies. They can't hold up the business of the government like that.

The Chair: We'll suspend for ten minutes or as soon as the members show up.

• 1307

• 1312

The Chair: We'll reconvene the meeting.

(Clauses 52 to 131 inclusive agreed to)

(Schedules 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House without amendments?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Could we have missed any in there because they were walking out?

The Clerk: No.

The Chair: Is there anything else for the good of the committee? The committee is adjourned until Tuesday.