STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 20, 2001

• 1101

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I think I see a quorum, and I would like to commence the meeting. The first order of business is a motion. Is Mr. Hill here?

A voice: He's actually in the hallway on his way in.

The Chair: Mr. Hill, we've started and we're waiting for you. You have some motions. Do you want to lead on them?

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CA): Yes, Mr. Chairman. I guess we'll deal with them in order, starting with motion number one.

The Chair: Why don't we deal with two? I'm suggesting this. You don't have to use it. Then we'll deal with the rest.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay. Item two obviously deals with the issue we raised in one of our first meetings, which deals with the speaking rotation—the questioning of witnesses. What I have submitted is a motion for consideration. It is the speaking rotation or questioning rotation that's taken from the fisheries committee.

What I'm endeavouring to show here, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a blatant unfairness with the rotation we have instituted at this joint committee of transportation and public works, and that we should consider changing it. That was the purpose in putting forward this motion.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Marcel Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If my memory serves me right, we voted on this the first time we discussed it, and we arrived at a proposal that was acceptable to the majority. Now, I can see where the official opposition party doesn't agree with the way we have done it. We certainly don't agree with what they are proposing here, so maybe we can have a compromise on this.

My proposition would be to rescind—I'll wait until he's ready to listen so that he knows what he's voting on, if we have to vote.

My suggestion, Mr. Hill, is that we rescind the first agreement that we arrived at, that we reject your motion, and that we leave the time allocation to the good judgment of the chair. I'm sure that, depending on the subjects that are on the table, you will be interested in having more time or less time. In this way, we can move on with our business. Instead of painting ourselves in the corner, so that we have to change this again, let's leave it to the discretion of the chair.

Mr. Jay Hill: So nobody else wants to know the debate...

The Chair: I think there's some movement here, and if I were you, I would accept it and see how things work out. At least you are not getting what you were locked into before. But it's up to you.

Paul Szabo.

• 1105

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I presume that should the proposal from Mr. Proulx not turn out to be acceptable, the committee would entertain a motion to formalize changes if, as, and when that should occur. Would that be the understanding?

The Chair: Okay. So he's saying that if it doesn't work out, then they'll revisit it.

Mr. Jay Hill: I'd certainly be agreeable to withdrawing this particular motion on the understanding that we rescind the existing allocation time, which—as I have already said—must be viewed by anybody's point of view as unfair to the Canadian Alliance. I would also be agreeable on the understanding that there would be discretion used by the chair in light of that very point, that within your discretionary powers you want to try to waive the reality of the House of Commons and of this committee, namely that the majority of committee members—half or slightly over half—sit on the Liberal side and that the Canadian Alliance makes up half of the opposition in the House of Commons. Thus, they should be allotted a quarter of the time—roughly—for questioning of witnesses.

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

Procedurally now, so I don't get into trouble, I want to check with the front here. We did have a motion before with our organizational meeting. Do we need 48 hours to do this, or could we do that now?

The Clerk of the Committee: If there is unanimous consent, you can. You can rescind it now if you want.

The Chair: All right.

Well, do I have unanimous consent...

Oh, Mario. Sorry about that, Mario.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would certainly not give my consent to the change. It had already been agreed, and to my knowledge, every party had the time needed to ask questions at the previous meetings. The meetings even ended earlier than anticipated because there were no more questions.

I don't understand what is going on. We have got involved in a puerile process of the "my father is stronger than your father" variety. Everything was going well up until then. Why, Mr. Chairman, are we trying to change everything? A motion was voted on by everyone, and thus far, we have not been short of time.

If the discussions were ever to become interminable and we were unable to ask our questions, then I would say yes and we could look into the matter then. But at this point, no one has been short of time. I simply don't get it.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Brent St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): By not giving consent, Mario won't allow us to rescind the other motion. So it would have to go through a notice for that purpose. But I think Mario does make a good point. For example, today, if we were to use this formula—with great respect, we have a couple of parties that aren't even here. So if we move in the direction at the next meeting of rescinding the motion—we can't do it now because Mario has not given consent—and move towards a system where for the time being the chair will use his judgment, I think you'll find that the opposition probably gets even better treatment than the numbers warrant, simply because of the situation. I gather that Jay and his colleagues are prepared to move in that direction.

The Chair: Okay. Again, for the last time, so we get everything square—I don't want to be accused of any wrongdoing; I'm the servant of the committee. Would the member of the Liberal Party... Would that notice have to be in writing for the next meeting?

The Clerk: That's right.

The Chair: Okay. Somebody will have to do that—if it's the understanding that it's going to be notified—so that the other opposition parties have enough time, and they could do that. Okay?

I think we've dealt with that matter with regard to the allocation of time. Could we move to the other topics, Mr. Hill? Do you want to lead off—one, three, four, and five?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Do we have time to withdraw that motion?

The Chair: He said he did.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CA): I would like to thank my members for reconsidering that position. I appreciate that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, motions one, three, four, and five all deal with what I feel is the chair's unilateral manner of acting both in cancelling the meeting last week and in summoning witnesses to appear before us today to enlighten us and to respond to questions from committee members on Bill S-2. There was no discussion—that I'm aware of—with all parties. Indeed there was no discussion about what our future work agenda is.

• 1110

My understanding very clearly from the minutes of the meeting of February 27, which have been circulated to all committee members, is that we were going to have a number of briefings from the three departments: the Department of Transport, Public Works, and Treasury Board. Then immediately thereafter the committee had decided collectively that we were going to have a meeting to discuss, debate, and decide upon future business the committee was going to deal with and in which order we would deal with that business.

There was no decision taken by the committee to deal with Bill S-2 up front, first of all, or whatever. Furthermore, when that decision was taken to deal with Bill S-2, if you look at the minutes, the meeting was already adjourned. A discussion took place between the chair and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport that resulted in the meeting and the witnesses who are appearing today being called.

That's the purpose of these four motions. I think that's very clear to all.

The Chair: First of all, I might have misunderstood that it was my discretion to call the meeting, and I felt at the time that I needed to have all the players here. This will not happen again.

Perhaps we should have the clerk explain exactly what was said in the minutes so that we can clear that up for the record. I think we should then move on, because I think to some degree we had agreed to discuss Bill S-2 here today. Paul.

The Clerk: While the chair had adjourned, he essentially stopped and recognized Mr. St. Denis, and then later on Mr. Marcil also spoke. The interpretation I've received on this issue is that in fact because the chair was still recognizing members and the members were still seated, the meeting was still in progress.

Mr. Jay Hill: According to my reading of those minutes, with all due respect, there was no motion taken at any point in time that we would deal with Bill S-2 or any other business before we had a chance to discuss what the committee collectively felt were its priorities. I think that's the whole point I'm endeavouring to make with these motions.

The Chair: If you look at the minutes, you'll see that it says the chair will slot S-2 for the 20th. I recognized Mr. Marcil at that time.

I can tell you that in the future we won't have these misunderstandings. It was my understanding that we were to continue the way we did. You had a different point of view. I'll make it perfectly clear before we leave here exactly what's going to happen.

I have Serge on my list, followed by—

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Can I just raise a question on that as a new member?

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: It seems to me that if the process in the committee is going to work effectively and we're going to get good quality work out of the committee, it's very helpful to know where we're going. We shouldn't have an ad hoc approach to decide what we're going to deal with. I think we should spend some time as a committee determining what are the priorities and the things we're going to focus on. We should try to get an agenda for the whole spring session and get an idea of where we're going with this committee. I think that's a point that should not be lost here. I think we could all agree that would be a good process, to establish and to try to prioritize what type of issues and matters we're going to deal with on this committee, rather than just have it go from week to week in a kind of guessing game as to what's going to be dealt with by the committee.

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis.

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

There's no question that there are some particular issues of a non-legislative nature that all members want to see dealt with, and I'm sure time will be provided for that.

But that said, the committee is a master of its own business, but not 100%. If I understand the way the system works, I believe that if bills are referred to a committee by the House, they take precedence over studies. So even if I want a study, for example, on bus regulation, I'm not going to get it as long as there are bills that are referred to us. Right now we have two. Bill C-14 was dealt with just last week, and there are going to be a couple more transport bills. I'll let the other parliamentary secretaries speak to their own bills. Soon we're going to have four here at committee. The House of Commons has asked the committee to deal with these bills. If we look at future business as having two sections, there are bills, which we have to deal with whether or not we want to, really, and there are studies over which we do have ultimate jurisdiction.

• 1115

Looking at the program, we're not going to have time for some weeks to get to studies, so we do have time, in my view, to massage the agenda as to the kinds of study items. Legislatively, we don't really have much choice. We have to deal with stuff referred to us by the House. I don't think we should confuse legislative business with study business.

I would argue that we should move on with Bill S-2 and the other bills, and in future meetings we can deal with the study issues when we know we'll have time later on. Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise from the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: All parties in the House of Commons decided that Bill S-2 should be referred to a committee. The time has come, Mr. Chairman, to deal with it, and you are right to say that we should begin today.

As for the rest, with respect to putting off the meeting, I place my confidence in you, Mr. Chairman, because you are the person who is aware of what directions the committee should take. You have acted in good faith and you have all my confidence on this point.

With respect to future work, there will probably be an opportunity to hold a meeting on the subject. It will probably be the next meeting we hold. I therefore feel that this is the way to go. Let us discuss bills because all parties of the House of Commons have told us that Bills S-2 and C-14 are to be studied by the committees. I hope that we are going to do so. That is our job.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks, Mario. I have Mr. Tirabassi on my list, and I'll go to Serge after that.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With all due respect to my colleague from the Alliance across the way, with which I share the situation of being a new member, in a perfect situation I think it would be a great starting point to come in with a fresh slate and new issues and to start with a briefing and then to kind of ramp up. The reality is that there are carry-over issues—and this is just the way I see it as another new member—from the previous Parliament that have to be dealt with here, and the legislation, as was mentioned, is one of them.

I don't see anything wrong with getting right into the issues. At the same time, time permitting, we can weave into that some briefings on other issues so that as new members we have a better understanding. But I don't think we can hold up the business of this committee because we want to start with a nice, clean package and what we believe to be a full understanding of all issues and then move off the mark from there. We're four meetings in, and we're still not off the mark. So I would support a combined approach, that we move on with the current issues and bring in some briefings as time permits.

The Chair: Serge Marcil of the Liberals.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chairman.

In my view, the problem is a problem of time. The tradition here in Ottawa is that federal parliamentary committees only sit when the House of Commons is in session. There are legislatures here in Canada, including the Quebec National Assembly, where the work of the House begins in mid-March and concludes at the end of June, but where, on the other hand, parliamentary committees only sit beginning in the month of January. Under such circumstances, it is only logical that bills should be referred to committees by the House while it is sitting.

However, the committees may be asked to study all matters that they can or are required to study at times other than when the House is sitting. To the best of my knowledge, the Rules provide that the Transport Committee or any other committee may be called to sit at any time during the year, and not exclusively during the period when Parliament is in session. We could thus be asked to sit in January, August or September. If so, we would be given terms of reference. It would thus be possible to do that.

At the National Assembly, there are additional per diems when the committees do not sit at the same time as the House. This does not exist here, but it could still be done.

• 1120

[English]

The Chair: Thanks, Serge.

I think we'll look for unanimous consent to sit in July and August.

Jay.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, I have a few points to make in rebuttal to some of those being made by the other members.

So that our guests, the witnesses who were asked to appear today, are very clear about at least one of the four motions I put forward, the first motion states that “the witnesses scheduled for the briefing on Bill S-2 be dismissed until the future work agenda of the committee is established and agreed”. The witnesses should know that I have no intention of showing any disrespect for them. Their time is valuable, and I appreciate that fact.

I am trying to make a point here, that it is up to the committee, not the chairman, to decide, upon the future business we will conduct.

My understanding was that at the very first meeting we had—and we can go back to the minutes and check that—a lot of Liberal members wanted to have briefings by the various departments. I at that time said I had availed myself of a three-hour independent, personal briefing with the Department of Transport last fall. That was open to anyone who wanted to do it. But it was the members over there, with all due respect, who said they wanted to have briefings. Instead of getting right into the legislation, they wanted to have a briefing from the department. I agreed to that. I thought, that's fine. I didn't have a problem with that, even though in my personal case it was a bit redundant.

The second point I want to make, with all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, is that legislation gets referred to committees all the time. I don't believe it takes precedence, that you have to deal with it in the way in which it's referred to the committee. The committees are masters of their own destiny—that's what the government always tells us. If the committee decides this legislation can be set aside for the time being, because something is of more importance, then it sits there until it's dealt with.

So for the parliamentary secretary to leave the impression with the new members on this committee that somehow, because the House refers these two bills—and two more coming pretty quickly—our time is consumed with the minister's agenda of getting these four bills through Parliament is a bit erroneous, to say the least.

The last point I'll make on this is that if the government hadn't decided to put these bills through the Senate, we wouldn't have quite the problem, the immediate backlog at the start of this Parliament, with bills hitting this committee, bang, bang, bang, bang. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the math and figure out that if we're going to deal with four transport bills, we're going to deal with nothing on public works, nothing on Treasury Board, and nothing else in the transportation portfolio—nothing other than the minister's agenda and these four pieces of legislation.

So if we wanted to have a meeting and call, for example, Mr. Milton before us to cross-examine him about some of the problems Air Canada is currently experiencing and our airline industry is experiencing, we wouldn't be able to do that, because our time is all taken up with what the parliamentary secretary views as the precedence.

The Chair: Mr. Hill, I don't think that's what's going to happen. I think we'll do some things concurrently. You'll probably get Mr. Milton here. So let's just work it out. I don't think that's going to be the case.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your assurance on that. But my whole point is that with any other committee I've ever sat on, there was a meeting at the front, and we hashed all this out without having witnesses cooling their heels waiting to appear before us. We had a meeting like this, hashed it out, and decided upon a work agenda—

The Chair: Yes, but if you look—

Mr. Jay Hill: —and we haven't done that.

The Chair: If you look at the minutes, we're going in accordance with what we've said.

I'll pass this on, exactly what we said. I don't think today is any different from what we've agreed on. So you must have a different interpretation from what we've done.

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I can see a major function of the committee is to review legislation and deal with it, but with all due respect too, under the Canada Transportation Act, we have a high-powered committee that has a mandate to review transportation policy. They're working on that. They have to come down with a report on July 1. They're dealing with some major policy considerations, such as rail competition, access to rail competition, mergers, and so on.

I watched it on television when Air Canada and Canadian Airlines had their merger and Ottawa was in a crisis management mode. I hope we can look ahead here a bit and see some things coming down that we as a committee should be getting prepared for, doing some meaningful homework before the thing is dropped in our bucket. I'm sure if that happens, we're going to quit reviewing legislation. We're going to be into that sort of thing.

• 1125

Further, the act mandates these reviews anyway, so this whole review process is almost like legislation itself, if it comes down with major recommendations and so on. I'd like to have a road map. I don't like driving around without a road map—it bothers me. I don't like being kept in the dark. I don't like a crisis being dropped in my lap and having to deal with it without doing any homework.

Sure, we could put down bills that have to be dealt with, but let's look at other matters we can see on the horizon that we should be dealing with, and if we get time, start dealing with them. But to sit in the dark on the whole thing, that to me doesn't seem to be the way to do things.

The Chair: Thank you for your input. Mr. St-Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Brian's comments are actually an argument for moving on with legislation, because if we want time for the studies, we should just get on with legislation and dispense with it.

Jay is right, the committee could absolutely refuse to deal with Parliament's business. But we had an election, and there's a government in place with an agenda. In fact, the bills we have before us, the two and others to follow, have a lot of support out in the stakeholder community, so there's a wish among the public as well that we get these done with.

I think if we move on and deal with the legislation expeditiously... Not to say that from time to time we wouldn't have extra meetings or interject a non-transport issue. I think Serge's point about sitting—we don't have to sit exactly when the House sits—is a good one. I think, with the chair's good guidance, we will be able to accommodate almost everyone's wishes at the end of the day.

The Chair: We have these motions. How does the committee want to deal with them?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I guess we could vote on them.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Jay Hill: I'm not so naive as not to see the way it's going. So I don't want to take up any more of the committee's valuable time going through an exercise in futility by voting on these motions, when it's very clear that at least the government members present are going to vote them down. Why bother?

I'll withdraw the motions for now, with the understanding that our next meeting after today is a meeting to discuss future work, so that it isn't just pulled out of the air that we agreed that on Tuesday the 20th we were going to do as it's shown in the minutes. I don't recall that happening. I would like to know when those minutes were circulated, because I certainly didn't have them for quite some time afterwards. If you notice, even in what's been presented to me here, what was agreed to was that there would be a meeting to discuss future business on March 15—in other words, preceding any other business, including the business today, which is scheduled for consideration of S-2. That meeting did not take place, and I guess that's the whole point.

I think the committee should meet. We were supposed—I did it immediately after the February 27 meeting, and I hope other committee members did it as well—to submit our individual priorities to the chair. My understanding was that we were supposed to have a meeting to hash through those and try, as Brian says, to get a road map of where the committee thought it wanted to go. That has not happened. I will withdraw my motions if there's an understanding—and we see it in the minutes this time—that this will happen at the next meeting.

The Chair: Just one question. The next meeting is scheduled with Treasury Board. What are the committee's wishes with regard to Treasury Board? Mr. Hill had said that it should be—

Mr. Jay Hill: I'll amend that—after the Treasury Board, because that's the way it was originally agreed to, that we would have the individual briefings from the three different departments, and then have a meeting to discuss future work. After the Treasury Board officials appear, we should have that meeting.

The Chair: Mr. St-Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I can see where Jay is coming from. But we have S-2 started, and we're going to have a Treasury Board hearing. Let's continue with S-2, and at the first opportunity, even before the Treasury Board briefing, Wednesday afternoon, have our future business meeting. But let's get on with Bill S-2. I'm sure there are witnesses. Maybe the opposition has some witnesses they want to present, but let's keep moving with Bill S-2. Again, we've got to use our valuable time effectively.

• 1130

The Chair: Yes, Serge.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I have a question. I am confused by some of the things I heard earlier.

When a bill is introduced in the House, we speak of first reading. It is then sent for a section-by-section study to the parliamentary committee. Is this a requirement? Can the committee refuse to study a bill? I don't think so. It is an obligation. It constitutes a reading in due form and it is at this stage that amendments can be made. My question is clear. Does a committee, any committee, have the power to refuse to study a bill? I would like an answer.

[English]

The Chair: The clerk informs me that it has never happened. It is part of the legislative process and the refinement of a bill to have witnesses, so when a document goes back to the House, it has had a further look.

The Clerk: Essentially, it's the will of the House that the committee study it.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: This means that it is the most important part of the committee's work, even though it has other tasks.

[English]

The Clerk: It is a part of the committee's mandate.

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Serge, I think you need to understand the point I'm making, which is that, yes, we need to deal with the legislation, but when we deal with it, we have a lot of discretion collectively as a committee. We don't have to deal with Bill S-2 now just because it has landed on our desks. Do you understand? Now we have two bills. Have we had a meeting to discuss which one we feel stakeholders are more concerned about? Should we deal with Bill C-14 first or Bill S-2 first? We haven't had a meeting to discuss that. Pretty soon there will be two more on our desks. Are we just going to deal with them in the order they're referred to us, or are we as a committee going to prioritize them? The point I'm making is that we do have some discretion as to when we deal with them. There's no question that they have to be studied and that we have to deal with them. The question is when.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask another question. The questions I am asking are very important to me.

The House can order a committee to study a bill. I understand Mr. Hill's argument. If the House does not specify an order, the committee can decide on the order in which it will study the bills. If the Speaker of the House asks that the bill be referred to the committee for study, this constitutes an order of the House. Is it the House that sets an order of priority for bills, or is up to us to do so? If the latter, we could decide to postpone our study of Bill S-2, or any other bill, until next fall.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, the procedure is that it leaves the House and it comes here. I think Mario alluded to that earlier on when he said it was the will of the House that it should come here.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address that point. I think if you study history, Serge, you will see that many times in our history bills have come to various committees and have died there. It happens all the time with private members' bills. It even happens with government bills, where they believe or find out that there is so much opposition to a piece of legislation that they're better off to allow it to languish in committee. Because the government has the majority of the members on the committee, they can ultimately do whatever they want when it comes to a vote. The bill ends up just sitting there until Parliament is prorogued or until Parliament is dissolved and an election called. In either case, the legislation dies in committee, and this happens all the time. This is just to inform you.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo of the Liberals.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Hill is quite right in what he's described to the committee. We can only guess at how much time would be required for Bill S-2. The fact is that no one person decides that. The committee has to decide it in consultation. Every party is going to get an opportunity to suggest witnesses and so forth. To organize the calendar you really need that future business meeting to take place, at least with regard to the things we see.

• 1135

What I'd like to suggest to move us along because... I think there's a commitment to have the future business meeting. The briefing is set, we know, for a couple of meetings from now.

There were two other motions that were presented to us. One was Mr. Burton's, and it was with regard to a specific study. I suspect that he may want to hold off on that until the future business meeting in order to make recommendations or to make his pitch for a specific study. That might be a better place to do it.

The second one—and I think maybe the committee might be disposed to agree—was that we would like to make a request to the appropriate ministers to appear before the committee with regard to the estimates, given that everybody has time restrictions. It might be that the sooner we get this started, the sooner we can find out when they're available and so organize our schedule.

So if you're amenable, I would certainly support the proposal that we make a request to the ministers to appear so we can deal with the estimates. I suspect we may want to seek the concurrence of other parties.

The Chair: Mr. Burton, Mr. Hill has withdrawn his motion.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, CA): Yes. I'm prepared to go along with Mr. Szabo's comments. We could leave my first motion until the appropriate time as long as we're prepared to consider it at that time.

As to the second one, my motion has basically been made for me. If it's the will of this group, I put that motion forward and look for support.

The Chair: Just a minute. For the record, to make sure we know what we're voting on, do I have unanimous consent to rescind this motion, based on the understanding we've agreed to?

The Clerk: I could finish off with Mr. Hill's. Mr. Hill had asked that there be an understanding that the meeting following the March 22 meeting will be convened to discuss the future business of the committee.

Mr. Jay Hill: That the meeting immediately following the briefing... We can have it at the same time; I don't care. We can just sit for an hour longer after we've had the briefing by the Treasury Board on Thursday.

But whenever we have the next meeting, whether it's the same day, that night, or on a Sunday, I don't care so long as that meeting is allocated to the discussion and establishment of a future work agenda for the committee.

If that's agreed upon, Mr. Chair, I will withdraw motions one, three, four, and five.

The Chair: Okay.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: That brings us to Andy and then Marcel.

Mr. Andy Burton: On my first motion then, if there's an understanding that this can be brought back at the appropriate time after we've dealt...

The Clerk: There's no problem with that.

Mr. Andy Burton: There's no problem with that? Okay. As to my second motion, do I need to read it out, Mr. Chairman, or is it clear?

The Clerk: What you can do is wait for the next meeting on future business and bring the two of them up then.

Mr. Andy Burton: I think it might be appropriate to bring up the second one now.

The Chair: Do we have any discussion on motion number two?

Marcel Proulx, for the Liberals.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: In that second motion it says “as well as the Presidents and heads of Crown Corporations”. If this means bringing them along with the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Public Works, I have no problem. If they want the presidents and heads of crown corporations separately, I don't agree because we'll be here until August.

Mr. Andy Burton: No, the intent is—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: If it means concurrently, there's no problem.

The Chair: Is that clear? It's written down in black and white.

All those in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Okay. Can we move on with the business of the day, then? I would ask the officials to take their places at the table and give us a ten-minute briefing, and then we'll go to questions until one o'clock.

• 1140

• 1142

The Chair: I'd like to reconvene the meeting and ask Jerry to lead off. We'll have ten to twelve minutes from our visitors and then we'll go to a round of questions.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek (Director, International Marine Policy and Liability, Department of Transport): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jerry Rysanek. I am acting director general, marine policy, in Transport Canada.

It is a pleasure for me to appear before your committee today to present Bill S-2 the new Marine Liability Act. The purpose of this act is to modernize Canadian legislation in the areas of passenger liability and apportionment of liability, and at the same time to consolidate existing marine liability regimes into a single statute.

I would propose to review Bill S-2, more specifically starting with new legislation in parts 4 and 2 respectively. The new regime of a shipowner's liability to passengers, as set out in part 4, is the principal policy objective of the new act. This is an initiative born out of concerns for those passengers who may be involved in an accident during carriage by water. Well over 40 million passengers travel by water in Canada every year and yet there are currently no statutory provisions in Canadian law that establish a shipowner's liability for loss of life or personal injury to passengers travelling by ship.

The result is that the only recourse for passengers is to file a suit against shipowners and have the claim determined in accordance with ordinary rules of negligence.

The bill also recognizes the importance of ensuring that shipowners have the financial resources to compensate passengers. I wish to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that clause 39 in part 4 of this bill contains provisions that allow for the introduction of regulations requiring shipowners to maintain insurance or other financial security. The shipowners will have to provide evidence of this security to ensure that it is sufficient to meet their obligations to passengers as set out in part 4.

• 1145

The government will be monitoring the implementation of this bill very closely. While we are confident that most shipowners will respond quickly to meet their new obligations, the current insurance practice will be studied to obtain a better understanding of the key elements and structure of compulsory insurance for passenger vessels, including timelines for its introduction.

This initiative, Mr. Chairman, is an important contribution of Bill S-2 to the protection of Canadians travelling by ship.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, let us now look at the second objective of the policy contained in this bill, which is to introduce a new act on the sharing of responsibility. This act is needed to handle various important aspects of liability in a situation in which the complaining party is in part responsible for its own losses.

In the past, two rules of common law were a source of major concern for maritime communities.

The first rule prevents a complaining party from collecting anything if it is proved that it contributed to any extent whatsoever to the damage suffered.

The second rule covers situations in which the respondent party pays for all losses without being able in turn to claim any contribution from anyone else who may have caused the losses.

[English]

Historically, the common-law provinces under their constitutional power over property and civil rights recognized the harsh effects of those outmoded common-law rules. They have replaced them with legislation that allowed courts to apportion liability and to permit litigation parties to claim contribution and indemnity from other persons.

In its 1996 decision of Bow Valley v. Husky and its 1998 decision of Ordon v. Grail, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was unjust to continue to apply the common-law rules to negligence claims arising from navigation and shipping activities.

In the light of this decision, new legislation is needed to establish a uniform set of rules that apply to civil wrongs governed by Canadian maritime law. Thus this legislation set out in part 2 will eliminate the uncertainty that currently exists as regards the legal basis for the apportionment of liability in maritime cases.

[Translation]

As already mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the new act would also make it possible to consolidate the existing regimes of marine liability and related matters, which are currently found in a variety of statutory instruments.

This single-window approach to marine liability would make it possible to prevent the future proliferation of distinct legislative measures in the area of marine transport.

When liability to passengers and the sharing of liability were being considered during work on the new act, it was found that it was neither practical nor effective to leave the various liability regimes scattered in a variety of statutory instruments.

Thus we came up with this act, which combines the various marine liability regimes of into a single act. It will include provisions on fatal accidents; limited liability with respect to marine claims, liability for sea shipping; and liability and compensation for damages resulting from pollution.

• 1150

[English]

Current provisions on fatal accidents are located in part 14 of the Canada Shipping Act, and they have been brought forward to part 1 of this bill in appropriately modernized language.

In the context of this regime, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a few words in response to a point raised during the second reading speech about the definition of “dependant” in clause 4.

As a result of Bill C-23, which was passed last June, we were able to improve Bill S-2 by taking into account the benefits achieved by Bill C-23. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that this omnibus legislation amended various acts, including the Carriage by Air Act. We therefore followed the latter model to make sure the definition of “dependant” is consistent in both the air mode as well as the marine mode.

Similarly, the provisions for limitation of liability for maritime claims have been transferred here from part 9 of the Canada Shipping Act. They are set out in part 3 of this bill, and there are no new changes proposed in this legislation.

Turning now to part 5, Mr. Chairman, you will find a regime of liability for the carriage of goods transferred here from the Carriage of Goods by Water Act. This act was last revised in 1993, and it was the subject of a recent review, followed by a report to Parliament by the Minister of Transport in December 1999.

No changes are proposed in this regime at the present time, except for the adoption of a new provision on Canadian jurisdiction. That provision will assist claimants to pursue in Canadian courts the recovery of damage to cargo.

Finally, in part 6, you will find a regime of liability and compensation for pollution damage. It has also been transferred from the Canada Shipping Act, part 16. This regime governs the liability for all pollution damage caused by tankers and pollution damage caused by other ships in all Canadian waters.

I would like to add that we are not proposing any substantive change at this time, except for a clarification that is required to keep pace with modern technology in offshore exploration. I am referring, Mr. Chairman, to the development of floating storage units intended for use in oil exploration. Consequently, a new provision has been added in this bill to make it clear that these units are also covered under this legislation—in the same manner as other ships—when they carry oil as cargo.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, with this clarification, I can conclude this overview of the existing regimes that are to be consolidated in the Marine Liability Act. I nevertheless wish to note that other liability regimes are being established, in particular those currently being developed by the International Maritime Organization, such as the liability regime for spills of ship fuel and a new protocol for the Athens Convention on mandatory insurance. I believe that the Marine Liability Act will be very useful in the future as a logical basis for these new regimes, if Canada were eventually to decide to adopt them.

[English]

Consultations conducted by Transport Canada with various industry groups also covered the proposed consolidation of existing legislation. I am pleased to report to you that industry stakeholders welcome this initiative, which would provide a comprehensive system of marine liability regimes in one location.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly mention that we are also taking this opportunity to deal with a couple of housekeeping matters. I am referring to part 7 of this bill, which will validate Ports Canada harbour dues and fees collected by the Laurentian Pilotage Authority. The purpose of this exercise is to remove any ambiguity about the validity of the increased harbour dues and Laurentian Pilotage Authority's fees collected by the respective authorities.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the key features of the proposed Marine Liability Act before you include a new regime of shipowners' liability to passengers, a new regime for apportionment of liability, and consolidation of existing liability regimes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

• 1155

We'll go to Jay Hill of the Canadian Alliance for the first round of ten minutes.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today. Again, I'd like to apologize for the delay you had to experience while we went through the technicalities of how our committee functions, or doesn't, as the case may be.

I'd like to start by referring to page 2 of the submission you just gave. At the end of the third paragraph, you're referring to clause 39 of part 4. The last sentence of your English text says:

The shipowners will have to provide evidence of this security to ensure that it is sufficient to meet their obligations as set out in Part 4.

I don't see that in clause 39. As I read it in the briefing book, under the heading “Regulations and Orders”, clause 39 states:

The Governor in Council may make regulations requiring insurance or other financial security to be maintained to cover liability to passengers under this Part.

How can you say in your submission or your speech or the presentation you just made that shipowners will have to provide evidence of this security, yet it very clearly states in the bill that the Governor in Council may make regulations? Am I missing something, gentlemen?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: No, you are not missing anything. I think it's the economy of words in a speech. It has to be read, of course, in the subsequent paragraph as well.

Clearly, you are right. Clause 39 provides for regulations to be adopted in the future for introduction of compulsory insurance, if it is so decided. I tried to describe that in the subsequent paragraph, where I say we first have to monitor the implementation of the bill, and we have to study what compulsory insurance would involve and be prepared for it. Also, I recommend to the government timelines for its introduction. So perhaps the use of the future tense, “shipowners will”, is probably not very accurate. It is subject to the adoption of the regulations under clause 39 in the future.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

Following up on that, as has been noted, this bill has been around for quite some time. The issue has certainly been around since time immemorial, almost since there have been boats bobbing around on water. If people suffer injury or some loss, I guess they're always free to sue the shipowner if they believe the shipowner was negligent. Since the government brought this forward, why would it be that they haven't made it compulsory already? In other words, why hasn't the study you just referred to already been done?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: You're quite right. This has been around for some time. The policy work on this particular regime and the policy paper that the department published go back a number of years. It was in that policy paper, when we introduced it, that we raised the question of compulsory insurance and received a form of response to it. But I'll be very frank: The response was largely negative from all sides, because the issue of compulsory insurance was, I think, viewed in terms of what problem we're trying to cure. At the moment, one has to be frank. There are no major problems in terms of unsatisfied claimants. We know we have accidents, of course, but I don't think we could say there is a major problem here in terms of shipowners not being insured and claimants going empty-handed.

So it's a measure whose time has come. It's being debated internationally at the moment, as well—that's what, in the amendments, I refer to as the Athens Convention that is being discussed. Canada will have an opportunity to look at this measure and to see whether we will also follow the international model of compulsory insurance, or whether we will have our own in the future.

Thank you.

Mr. Jay Hill: I'll leave that for the moment and go to part 6. Starting at the bottom of page 6 and continuing at the top of page 7 in the English text, you state:

This regime governs the liability for oil pollution damage caused by tankers and pollution damage caused by other ships in all Canadian waters.

• 1200

Does this act pertain to pollution other than oil? Again, I don't want to read anything into the remarks you made, sir, but it would seem to me that, given the way you worded that—“the liability for oil pollution damage caused by tankers and pollution damage caused by other ships”... What is encompassed in that? Is it more than just oil?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: Definitely. Part 6 covers all types of pollution damage. The major part that I think is more active than others is certainly oil pollution. I think that's where the emphasis is placed in my speech. But part 6 also covers pollution caused by other pollutants. Specifically, clause 51 of part 6 has that scope and deals with shipowners' liability for oil pollution damage, as well as shipowners' liability for pollution caused by other pollutants.

Mr. Jay Hill: Can you show me where in clause 51 it says it's dealing with pollution by other pollutants?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: Yes, but it is due to the structure of legislation that one has to read a little bit into it. Paragraphs 51(1)(a) and (b) are devoted to liability for all pollution damage. It is paragraph (c) that deals with pollution by other pollutants. But it is there where you have to make the jump to the Canada Shipping Act for the source of that liability. That is in section 678 of the Canada Shipping Act. Section 678 of the Canada Shipping Act describes the responsibilities of shipowners for damages caused by other pollutants. So it's a combination and a structure of legislation. We didn't touch it. It's here before you the way it has been in the Canada Shipping Act for over fifteen years.

As far as I recall, there have not been any problems in the past with the structure of the legislation, and I haven't heard anything about the idea that there might be problems with ambiguity. So we have not touched it; we have left it as it is. Section 678 of the Canada Shipping Act will continue to provide the source of legislation for pollution by other pollutants.

Mr. Jay Hill: Without getting into a really technical discussion about how this bill was drafted, why would it be deemed more appropriate to include oil under clause 51 at all? Couldn't you have just said, for example, “for pollution damage from the ship”, taking out the word “oil”? Further down, instead of saying “in respect of measures taken to prevent, repair, remedy or minimize oil pollution damage from the ship”, just go with “pollution”. It's then very clear to everyone that any pollutants transmitted to the oceans, seas, or waterways from a ship are covered under this act. It would be very obvious to all.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: Of course, I wouldn't be able to speak for the draftsmen or those who structured it, but when we look at it, again, I think one of the reasons why it is handy to keep it separate is that the oil pollution liability regime has a close connection to Canada's commitments under international conventions, and specifically the international convention on our civil liability for pollution damage and international oil pollution funds. For pollution caused by other pollutants, it is a strictly domestic regime that has no connection to any international obligation.

I think it is handy—at least, I believe stakeholders find it handy—to deal with the two types of pollution separately, largely because of our different obligations. I haven't certainly drawn to our attention that it is inappropriate.

Mr. Jay Hill: Do I have any time left?

The Chair: You have about a minute.

Mr. Jay Hill: Make it quick, Brian.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: It seems like this connotes varying standards. Is the international standard to deal with oil pollution a higher standard than domestic? I remember the raising of a ship in the St. Lawrence here a few years ago that contained some deadly toxic substance. In its own right, it might have been more dangerous and more of a problem than even oil. It just seems to me that pollution is pollution and environmental disasters are environmental disasters. This thing seems to connote different standards. I'm wondering if the standards under international obligations are higher or lower than our domestic standards.

• 1205

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: The standards for pollution caused by oil and other pollutants are fairly similar, but the big difference is the money. Under international convention, the shipowner's liability for oil pollution is much higher than for other pollutants. It's strictly the monetary aspects expressed in the law that are different.

Just to give you an example, by participating in international treaties, at the moment the compensation package following an oil pollution incident by a tanker would provide Canada with coverage of about $270 million per incident. If the same-sized ship caused damage by other pollutants, the limit is around $40 million. So the money is the difference. But the basis and the conditions for liability are fairly similar.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll move on to this side of the table. Who wants it?

Dominic Leblanc of the Liberals.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is more a technical question. I don't know a great deal about marine liability law, but I'm just curious. Am I correct in understanding, from the last two paragraphs of page 3 of the English version, that the two common-law rules...

[Translation]

This is perhaps a question for our lawyer colleague, Mr. Gauthier.

[English]

Am I correct in understanding that one of the common-law rules now basically removes any regime of contributory negligence? Unlike provincial laws on contributory negligence in regular automobile accidents, or in other civil lawsuits, that's never been accepted in marine liability cases. It currently does not exist at all—any contributory act of a claimant removes the claimant's ability to recover.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: If you'll allow me, I'll respond to that question. I have been with the bill for some time, so I learned some of the legal questions as well.

That's quite correct. At the moment, that common-law rule removes any contributory negligence on the part of the person who might have been partly responsible for the loss. A simple example: if you are responsible for slipping, you didn't see the sign properly, and it can be demonstrated that you really were partly responsible, even 1%, you will lose 100% of the claim. Part 2 will change that and will try to establish proportionate distribution between you and the shipowner. This will make it a little bit more fair, which the provincial system has been for a long time.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: The intent would be to make it fairly similar to a provincial law of contributory negligence.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: Exactly.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We'll move to Mario right away.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: If I have understood correctly, we moving towards a liability regime, and one of the areas will be passenger transportation, which is all to the good. This constitutes a choice. It is something the people want. You are correct. Canadians statutes are not necessarily the same as those in the Quebec Civil Code, which already provides for the sharing of liability and other things by those responsible for an accident.

Part 1 of the bill considers physical injury and fatal accidents. It establishes that the family may be entitled to receive compensation for damages caused.

Part 2 of the bill considers the sharing of liability among all those responsible for an accident. Each must pay in proportion to the fault. This is a good thing.

On the other hand, the problem arises in Part 4 of the bill, which genuinely considers liability with respect to the transportation of passengers on water. There is some mention of carrier liability, but they are not required to take out insurance. You stated this clearly.

Section 39 states:

39. The Governor in Council may make regulations requiring insurance [...] to be maintained...

• 1210

How can we introduce a liability regime that is completely in keeping with the will of the people, users, and XXIst century realities, without requiring carriers to have an insurance regime that would enable them to pay for damages caused? What would this mean? It would mean that some would have the financial means to pay damages and that others would not.

In the end, the industry would end up playing a game. There would be those who would behave responsibly and set money aside so that they would be able to pay damages and those who would not be responsible and would not set money aside. There would also be those who would not collect the dues required to establish funds that would enable them to reimburse for damages. There would be those who would pay for insurance, which would increase the price of their tickets, and who would do all that in order to be able to pay for protection, and there would be those who would not take out insurance, and would nevertheless, of course, compete with other firms.

I am having trouble understanding. I thought that the government was going to come up fairly quickly with rules to require the industry to have insurance. You are saying this is still in the future. You can't tell me... Based on what I understood of what you just read, you are going to watch how the industry behaves and then decide whether an insurance regime will be established. Have I understood properly?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: You have understood correctly. As I explained earlier, at the moment, in the Act we have, there are no provisions that make insurance mandatory.

[English]

We hope that following the proper studies, when we understand what is involved with introducing compulsory insurance, the government will also consider whether to do it in harmony with other countries. One issue worth mentioning is that if we do this today, we would be the only country in the developed world that imposes compulsory insurance on shipowners for carriage of passengers.

So I think this is a question of timing, and also a question of the problem. As far as we can see, most shipowners operate in a very prudent manner, and the expectation is that the majority will certainly insure against the new liability. But I think you have a point: some of them might not do it. That's something the government will have to watch in the future and decide at the appropriate time whether to introduce compulsory insurance for ships.

But it's first and foremost a matter of knowing what is involved here, on a nationwide scale.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: It goes a little further than that. It is a message that we are sending to all the people of Canada, a message that says that a liability regime will be established for marine transport. Whether they travel by ship, plane or automobile, everyone will now know that they are covered if they ever have problems or accidents.

The Act implies that we will be covered, but that there can be no guarantee that the company transporting us will have the money to reimburse us if there are ever damages. That is the message being sent.

When you say that you are going to do an analysis of the industry, does this mean that there already are analysis plans or that this is for some time in the future?

[English]

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: I think we would certainly have to work through the issue of insurance with the various industry groups involved, particularly small shipowners. I don't think we need to worry about the large shipowners operating in Canada, because we know they are well protected already. But I think we will have to deal with some of the associations dealing with small shipowners and establish some form of cooperation with them. We will also have to look at the insurance market, particularly the Canadian insurance market.

When it comes to compulsory insurance, one of the important issues is what do you do with an uninsurable owner. It's one thing to impose insurance on owners and tell them to get it, but it's another thing to tell insurers to provide it. That's a question we haven't yet examined.

• 1215

Those are the issues we will have to look at. We will also have to look at the International Maritime Organization model, which is being developed as we speak, to see whether it could be a suitable model for us to follow. There is some work to be done. That is something for the future, I would have thought.

The Chair: Mario, are you through?

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I have a final small question on that.

So you are telling us that even though an obligation can be imposed, you did not analyze the insurance market before introducing a bill on liability that can apply to everyone. You have not analyzed the insurance market to determine whether marine transport could be included in the insurance market. That is what you are telling me.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: We have not done the work required to introduce this bill.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I'll go to Serge Marcil.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: This is bill on marine liability and it does not necessarily require all shipowners to take out insurance. I find that somewhat odd.

I thought that the Act itself would include a section requiring all firms to have insurance to cover at least liability. What I understand is that the Act is intended to make owners liable, but that it is not mandatory. What happens when a small company that has no insurance has a boat sink, causing a great deal of damage to the environment or loss of life? Does the Canadian government have a compensation fund to offset the fact that the shipowner has no insurance?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: Allow me to add that this bill constitutes an major change for shipowners. For shipowners who transport passengers, it is a...

[Editor's note: Inaudible]

...because then, according to the Shipping Act, shipowners could

[English]

contracting out. At the moment, contracting out is allowed in marine passenger boats. At the moment, the shipowners are in a laissez-faire system. We are bringing the law in such a leap forward that the simultaneous introduction of compulsory insurance would certainly meet with certain difficulties.

I think it is also correct to say that there is compulsory insurance in aviation and for personal automobiles in most provinces. But this all came after liability regimes were established. Here we are doing the first step: we are actually telling the shipowners, “You are no longer allowed to contract out, that's gone. You will now be liable for up to a specific amount. It's not some sort of a fiction any more; it's before you.” I think it was the gradual approach that got us the all-round support we needed from the various stakeholders.

Speaking on behalf of the shipowners, I suppose this is a major change for them—from a laissez-faire system into a strict liability regime. But you're right, insurance is not there yet.

The Chair: Are you through?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I have another question. I understand that the change being made is enormous. The approach is different and so on. However, if I have understood correctly, at the moment, any boat can use shipping lanes or other Canadian navigable waterways and the Canadian government does not require the shipowner to have insurance. At the moment, there is nothing to require this.

• 1220

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: Exactly. It does not exist at the moment.

[English]

The Chair: Moving right along, I go to Mrs. Desjarlais, before I come back to Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): It never really hurts to rehash a bill that's been around for a while, as has been indicated, because I think there was somewhat of an impression given that those regulations would be put in place so that there would be compulsory insurance, that it wasn't just a matter of at the whim of or in time.

So I am concerned that we're now getting wording of:

...the current insurance practice will be studied to obtain a better understanding of the key elements and structure of a compulsory insurance...

I think we continue to be misleading if we aren't up front with the fact that we know the system isn't there, that we know there needs to be an insurance system in place.

The following statement right after that is:

This initiative, Mr. Chairman, is an important contribution of Bill S-2 to the protection of Canadians traveling by ship.

But in reality you're not giving them that protection within the legislation, simply by leaving it up to the regulations having to come into place.

So I am concerned now that this bill really wasn't doing what some of us thought it was intended to do. After what length of time would you foresee this regulation coming into place?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: If I could first go back to my remarks, I think when I talk about important contributions for Canadians travelling by ship, it is in regard to the very fact that we actually are establishing a liability regime, that we're giving both parties specific rules in order to know exactly what to expect following an incident, rather than operating in a vacuum.

I think that's the advantage, that's the major plus, and it seems to work in many other countries without any problem, and there you don't have a lineup of unsatisfied claimants complaining that the owners were not insured. But we are sensitive to it. The regulation was put there for the government to decide in future.

I'm not in a position to talk about the timing, obviously, but it's meant seriously and it will have to be looked at. And statistics should be looked at in harmony with other countries. Marine is an international business, and it would not serve us very well just to start with a domestic regime without paying attention to what some of our trading partners or some of our partners in the marine world are doing.

So it's a question of the evidence of problems as well. The compulsory insurance in other modes of transport were, I believe, introduced in response to specific problems, particularly in the automobile mode. We don't have that experience yet.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I have one other short question.

You mentioned something about the possibility that an owner might not be able to get insurance and wondered what would they then do. I'm wondering if you would foresee that there are some owners who wouldn't get insurance, and what would be the reason why an owner wouldn't get insurance?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: If the committee will have witnesses, as I believe you will, and you pose the question to them, particularly the shipowners, you may well hear that some of them may be actually legislated out of business, particularly those small owners who may be operating with a relatively modest insurance policy today and who may be looking at a different insurance policy in the future. Some of them may not be able to obtain insurance, some of them will be uninsurable by the standards of the Canadian insurance market, and some of them may be out of business as a result of it, if it is a condition of operation to have insurance. That happens when compulsory insurance is introduced.

So whether or not compulsory insurance would provide a safety net for shipowners of that type, and whether public money in any way should be involved in the insurance of shipowners who are not insurable, is perhaps a matter of future debate. That happens, of course, in the automobile mode. But those are questions that are very important to look at in the future.

• 1225

The Chair: Are you done? Thank you.

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Yes.

I think there's an area in here that is clearly defective in my mind. It jumps right out at you. It's the limit of liability for a passenger on a commercial carrier. I understand it's $350,000. I think most members here would know—their financial planners would probably tell them—that the day you retire you had better have at least $1 million set aside if you want to live comfortably in your retirement, assuming, of course, you don't run into some major diversion in life, and so on.

The figure $350,000 isn't very much. I can conjure up a dentist losing his right hand. Not only does he have a physical handicap and a disaster, but he has a financial disaster on his hands. If you have a person who's a paraplegic and is in a wheelchair or disabled... for their physical needs alone $1 million is nothing; $350,000 is a drop in the bucket. This person will still have a family that is dependent on them and so on, and this is a financial disaster as well. In my view, this $350,000 cap is very inadequate.

If I were one of the carriers in the marine industry, I would smile at the premiums I'd have to pay for coverage like that. But it's really not much assurance to the public who use the system. Surely we could come up with some more adequate limit than $350,000. It's going to be in legislation too; it has no flexibility. My understanding is that if it's in the legislation we'd have to bring it back before the House some day to update it. We all know we have inflation in this world. What might look adequate today can easily be inadequate in five years from now, so I think there are problems with that.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: I think there are two points in response to your concerns.

Certainly $350,000 does not make anyone a millionaire, I agree with you. But, again, one has to see it in the context of where it's coming from, where we're starting from. We're starting from zero with shipowners; we're starting with shipowners who are allowed to put on your ticket no liability whatsoever.

Try to recover under that condition. Half of the legal community says you have no chance of recovering; half of the legal community says maybe you will. Here we're providing a figure that is established in law, and which I may add is similar to the aviation mode. You wouldn't get much more if you were to be involved in an airline incident. With the airline regime it's a little bit all over depending on where you fly, with whom you fly, and whether it is domestic or international. But certainly in the international, you wouldn't get much more. It's a step forward, starting from zero, of providing some form of guarantee for everybody who is on the ship, whether it's 20 passengers or 1,000 passengers, and doing away with zero liability.

I should only add to this that the question of the limit is one of the issues being discussed at the moment in the International Maritime Organization, and Canada is participating, of course, in the debate. The chances are pretty good that the figure that will come out next time will be substantially higher. Accidents will not make anyone millionaires in the future. I don't think that will be the case.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I'm not raising that point. I'm talking about having something reasonably adequate to take care of the disaster that happens to somebody who's severely taken out of the picture. I think $350,000 might not even pay the mortgage on the house. What's a person going to do? Go on welfare or social assistance to carry on? He's got a family to take care of. I'm saying it's just inadequate. I'm not saying the sky is the limit either, but I just don't think in this day and age that's a very adequate limit.

The Chair: We're into five-minute rounds now. I'll go to Larry Bagnell, and then I'll come back to Mario, and then perhaps to Jay.

It looks like you might have lots of time left yet.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Other than the $350,000 limit and the lack of compulsory liability that you mentioned, are there any other differences between the regime that air carriers in Canada have to follow and the one being proposed here related to liability?

• 1230

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: Because the airline industry's limits are greater, depending on which airline you fly and where you fly, to do justice to your question I would say the following. In domestic travel, it is about the same. It's $300,000 per seat in terms of the compulsory insurance the airline must have. We're talking about $350,000 in terms of a ship.

On the international carriage, it ranges from $75,000 U.S. to what I believe is unlimited liability by way of inter-airline private agreement, not legislative agreement, where some of the major airlines have agreed not to impose any limit on liability.

In terms of statutory liability, certainly the marine is about the same domestically and is actually more than the airline internationally. But in terms of private agreements, it's a different ballgame altogether for airlines.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I was actually asking about the other provisions, contributory negligence and all those provisions in this act.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: I must admit I am not aware of how contributory negligence provisions operate in air carriage. I have not studied it. I just know that in terms of contributory negligence for any torts in provinces, it's exactly the same as we have here; it's adjusted according to the percentage of your fault. But exactly how it is in the aviation mode, I admit I am not sure.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I have one more question. Does joint and several liability apply here?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: I don't think that's the issue. Joint and several in terms of the tort... yes, those who are responsible for the wrong have a joint and several liability, of course.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mario.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like first of all to make a final comment on passenger transportation.

What is worrisome is that no analysis of the insurance market was done. We could end up in a world in which carriers are responsible, but where insurance is so expensive that the vast majority of those who engage in marine transport do not carry insurance. They would be numbered companies which, if legal action were ever taken against them, would simply go bankrupt. This has happened in other industries.

What is worrisome for me is that you have not analyzed the insurance industry to determine whether it would be able, when the act comes into force, to offer insurance at competitive rates so that most companies could obtain insurance. If that was not done and the result turned out completely otherwise, we would have a serious problem in terms of the liability regime available, or guaranteed to the people. Lastly, there would be no money for the vast majority of those who travel by ship. This worries me a great deal.

This is not what my next question is about. My next question has to do with liability and compensation for pollution. You are reiterating what appear to be the international conventions on compensation funds, compensation and amounts to be collected from shipowners who do not become a party to the convention.

I would like you to tell me what is the percentage of shipowners who are not a party to the convention and who would be subject to the act, and what is the percentage of those who are a party to the convention. What percentage of the industry have become a party to the convention and are governed by international standards, and what percentage would come under this act?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: The international conventions on civil liability for hydrocarbon pollution apply only to ships that transport oil.

[English]

It applies only to tankers, and it has to be a tanker. If it is not a tanker carrying oil in bulk, the international conventions do not apply; it is the domestic regime that applies.

• 1235

In terms of percentages, I would answer your question this way. Canada receives in Canadian ports about 30 million tonnes of oil every year. I would have to look at exactly how many ships are involved in that transportation. I don't have the details, but I can provide them later if that is the wish of the committee. But I certainly know the volume of oil that is covered by the international conventions. It's a substantial amount, about 33 million tonnes of oil.

I can certainly tell you that obviously the tanker trade is not a majority trade. It would have to be a minority compared to the ships that carry the rest of our trade.

The Chair: You have a minute, Mario.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Is the compensation provided in this act the same as that provided in the convention? By that I mean what is collected from shipowners, whether by tonnage or capacity. Is it the same as what is used in the international conventions?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: I thought I had answered that question. The provisions establishing liability are the same, but the amounts are different.

[English]

For an incident caused by an oil tanker, the amount of compensation that this law would provide, as I said, is about $270 million. That's the maximum. It depends on the size of the ship, and it's graded. I would have to know the exact size of the ship to tell you the exact limit, but the maximum is about $270 million per incident.

For all other ships it's a much smaller amount, and they are of course not covered by the international convention. I think I used the figure of around $40 million as the maximum amount under this act for pollution by other ships.

The Chair: Thank you, Mario.

Serge Marcil of the Liberals.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Is this regime similar to the existing one in the United States, or is the American regime stricter than the Canadian one?

[English]

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: I believe you're referring to the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Certainly the U.S. legislation provides much higher limits of liability. I believe it goes up to $1 billion per incident. In terms of the conditions of liability, I have not reviewed the U.S. one recently, but I think we're operating on the premise that the conditions are fairly similar in terms of the basis under which the shipowner is held liable, the basis where he might not be liable, and the geographic scope of application. In our case, we cover up to 200 miles of shore. So does the United States.

So I think the main difference is again the monetary figure. The U.S. legislation provides for much higher liability. I should say, as with the passengers, the International Maritime Organization just started a review of these conventions to which Canada is a party. The review of limits is the first order of business. The new limit that will come into force in Canada about two years from now will be over $400 million Canadian per incident, increased from $270 million per incident.

So that's where we will be in about two years from now, but it's still different from the United States.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: In the United States, must all shipowners obtain insurance? Does the American government require all ships on waterways to take out insurance, whether in terms of passenger transportation between islands for the various ferry boats or in terms of shipping?

• 1240

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: I am very happy to be able to answer this question, because I forgot to explain with respect to civil liability for pollution, that Bill S-2 provides for mandatory insurance for all shipowners. We do not have mandatory insurance for passengers, but there is already mandatory insurance for pollution.

It is exactly the same as in the United States. There is mandatory insurance under the Oil Pollution Act. As for passengers, there is a slight difference.

[English]

We don't have any, as I've just explained, for passengers, neither does the United States, with one exception: the insurance requirements apply to ships that have a greater capacity than 50 passengers and that operate overnight, that have overnight accommodation. But the limits of that insurance were established years ago, and it's basically considered a meaningless system. I don't have the figures in front of me, but they range from $5,000 to $12,000 to $17,000 to $18,000 per person. Those are very old and outdated limits. So effectively, the United States has no compulsory insurance either, certainly not for daytime ferries or daytime trips.

The Chair: Thank you. I'll go to Jay Hill, and then we'll go to Bev Desjarlais after that, unless the Liberals have something.

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

I note that you said there isn't a long line-up of cases—for the courts, I presume you mean by that. Are you familiar with the tragic incident that took place at Tobermory in Ontario, I think it was last summer?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: Yes, I know about the incident.

Mr. Jay Hill: Two young children were drowned.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: Yes, I know—

Mr. Jay Hill: The ship owner didn't have any insurance.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: So I am told, yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: When we're talking about tragedies such as that, I don't think we should be concerned about the numbers of lawsuits or litigation that's pending, because to those two families the fact that no insurance was carried and they had no recourse, even in some small way, to compensate for their loss is truly tragic. I just wanted to make that point.

How many countries, if you have the knowledge, have signed on to this Athens protocol?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: The Athens Convention is currently in force, I believe, in 17 countries, mainly European countries. Canada is adopting the provisions of the convention, but we are not a party to it.

Mr. Jay Hill: Were there any countries that were party to the convention, but actually didn't sign on to it?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: I would have to research the question. I believe your question is, are there countries that adopted the provisions without becoming contracting parties to it?

Mr. Jay Hill: No, the opposite—that were part of the process, the protocol, whatever, and then ultimately didn't accept it, or didn't adopt it in their country, in other words, didn't pass legislation to accept it.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: No, because the 17 are those who signed the convention and became parties. The two steps go together.

First, we must understand what is the effect of a signature for an international treaty. The signature for an international treaty is simply a symbolic expression of interest in that treaty. In this particular case, those who signed eventually ratified it. This is different from a signature of a final act of a treaty. Forgive me if I am being too technical, but if there would be a treaty... This week in London there is discussion of a new international treaty; 70 countries are participating in it, including Canada. They will all come up on Friday and sign the final act. Perhaps only 15 of them will eventually ratify the convention. So those are the differences in respect of signing.

Those who sign subject to ratification, as far as the Athens Convention—

Mr. Jay Hill: What I was asking is, did all 17 countries ratify it, so that all 17 countries have the same cap, roughly equivalent to $350,000 Canadian, on any claims by passengers that are injured?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: Yes, including those limits. In fact, I would say some of the 17 still have the old limit. In the initial convention of Athens the limit was lower, around $88,000, and some of them still maintain that limit. But others have moved to the protocol of 1990 and adopted as a limit the equivalent of $350,000.

• 1245

Mr. Jay Hill: My colleague raised the fact of inflation and what have you. Can you explain to me in relatively simple terms how it's possible for the limit on the amount that a company could ultimately be held accountable for because of oil pollution can go up—you said that in a couple of years it's going to go up from the present limit—while the limit per passenger is locked in?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: I think this is a result of a reality of the last 20 years. As you know, oil pollution attracts enormous attention. Oil pollution has been, I think, the bad boy of the marine industry over the last 20 years, and the international community has reacted intensively on the various regimes, to make sure they are in place, to make sure that come the next Exxon Valdez, there is money to deal with the pollution. The international community wasn't very quick to react to the Titanic. It took 50 years to develop the first regime, in the form of the Athens Convention in 1974, some 60 years after the Titanic.

So it is the attention. The fact that in two years we will have new limits of liability for pollution damage is the result of intensive work in the international maritime organization in light of some of the recent incidents you might have seen. There was the Erika incident, particularly, off France, which led to pressure and very quick reaction, so that new limits will come into force two years from now.

For passengers the debate is still on—another meeting, a couple more meetings of the International Maritime Organization before the new figures are adopted and we know what they are.

So it's a different degree of attention and focus, I think. Oil pollution always seems to have received more attention because there are more incidents with oil pollution than with passenger ships.

Mr. Jay Hill: It's a small consolation for those, for example, in the tragedy off Greece, when the ferry sank the other day, that they're not as important as fish.

The last time this bill was being dealt with, part 1, dealing with personal injuries and fatalities, was suspended. Why was that?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: In part 1 in the previous bill, Bill S-17, one of the issues we were looking at, in terms of modernizing the language, was the definition of dependant. When we introduced Bill S-17 in March 2000, it was at the same time as the government was working on Bill C-23, which dealt with issues of family dependency. So it was difficult to adopt a provision in a concurrent bill without knowing which way Parliament, and eventually government policy, would lead. I think we had no choice but to suspend that provision, wait for the outcome of Bill C-23, and fix Bill S-17 in the future. But of course, in the meantime Bill S-17 was lost due to the election, and Bill C-23 passed. So we took the benefit of looking at Bill C-23 to fix Bill S-17 in that provision—

Mr. Jay Hill: Is that where the definition came from, Bill C-23?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: That's where the definition comes from, specifically from the Carriage by Air Act amendments made by Bill C-23, so that the marine and aviation are now uniform.

The Chair: Okay. You're out of time, Jay.

Mr. St. Denis.

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

I have just a short question. In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be glad to give up some time to the opposition.

Thank you for being here, gentlemen.

• 1250

We don't have Bill C-14 yet, and I'm not intending to ask a question on Bill C-14, the Shipping Act 2001, but I gather from the comments that there seems to be overlapping jurisdictions—possibly made quite necessarily—when it comes to marine environment issues under the Shipping Act and pollution liability under Bill S-2.

What is the boundary between the two, so that when we do have Bill C-14, we will understand where Bill S-2 ends and Bill C-14 starts with regard to the environment and so on?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: I appreciate your question because it would be my sincere hope that the conclusion is not reached that we do have a bit of a problem of overlap.

The issue of separating liability and putting it into one act was designed precisely for that reason, namely, to make sure that economic measures—what we are talking about are economic instruments to deal with the post-mortem effect of an accident—are separated from technical measures or safety measures, which is what the Canada Shipping Act will do.

The linkage I referred to—which I think has to be preserved—is that in this section, which supports the liability section here, we deal with the responsibility—in this case of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans—to take certain measures dealing with the pollution caused by other pollutants. I think that responsibility and the menu of those responsibilities are properly placed in the Canada Shipping Act 2000 or 2001 in the future, as part of other measures dealing with a response to our pollution.

So the design of the act to deal strictly with liability was actually intended to make sure that these two issues are well understood and that the economic measures are not mixed up with technical measures.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I have a very short question. When you were commenting on the U.S.'s liability, did you say that if they had 50 passengers and they had an overnight, then they had compulsory insurance in place?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: Yes, but I said of such small amounts so as to make the compulsory insurance meaningless.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay. Are you aware of any other countries that have compulsory insurance in place for passengers?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: No, I am not aware of any.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Of any at all?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: None.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay. Now since there's an indication that it really hasn't been a big problem, why would we foresee that there wouldn't be an insurance component available for these shipping companies? We have huge dollars of liability as far as environmental concerns, so if there really isn't a big problem out there, certainly there should be an affordable insurance process available for the few instances that we obviously do have.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: If industry is going to be reporting on the bill to you, I think you probably will hear two issues.

As far as insurance for large ships—let's take a 1,000-passenger ferry—under this law its limit will be $300 million per incident. These ships already have that cover, but not in a Canadian market. There is no insurer in the Canadian market that can provide that insurance. That's the first thing you will hear. They all rely on international insurance markets, largely the London market. For them the change in this legislation doesn't mean much, because they're already protected. They have that cover.

When it comes to the small shipowners—let's take a 100-passenger tour boat doing a day trip—that limit is $35 million on that ship. You will hear from the market that they probably can provide that kind of cover. There may be some problems. The shipowners may be looking for insurances in offshore markets, as well, for that kind of limit. It's a matter of capacity. But one thing you will hear definitely is that they have no problem. The insurance market is prepared to do it. The insurance market is prepared to respond to the legislation, but I don't think—and I wouldn't wish to speak for the market—that the insurance market is prepared to insure every ship that comes its way. They will have the right and choice to decide.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm finished.

• 1255

The Chair: Mr. Hill, and Mr. Fitzpatrick, whoever wants to go.

Mr. Jay Hill: Isn't having any limit meaningless, if they're not required to carry insurance?

Take the case that I referred to of the two children who were drowned and the parents cannot get the $350,000. They can't get anything. What's the point in having a limit of $350,000 if they can't get anything because the shipowner wasn't required to carry any insurance?

So what's the point of having a limit if there's no assurance that they'll get any compensation?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: I think the point is to tell shipowners that laissez-faire has come and gone. You now have liability. This is the figure. As prudent owners I think most of them will go and get the cover. Now, as to whether or not another tour boat will operate without insurance, I agree that no amount of monetary preaching, no limit, will make them insure unless we compel them to insure. I understand that. There is no ironclad guarantee that every owner will do it.

I think the insurance industry can speak to it as well. They will play a role. I think they have already said that they will play a role, not necessarily as a policeman. But it is the professional liability of insurance brokers and agents to ensure that their clients are properly insured. However, the client may say “I won't do it; $35 million liability insurance is just too much.”

Mr. Jay Hill: I'd like you to explain just a little bit more, if you can, the point that Bev was making.

On the one hand, if you're arguing that there isn't a big problem out there, and that's why we don't need compulsory insurance—there's not a long line-up of people with lawsuits pending—then logic would say that the premiums should be affordable. I think that's the point Bev was endeavouring to make.

You can't have it both ways. If there's not a lot of litigation, then an insurance company should have the premiums down to a level where even if you brought in compulsory insurance, the shipowner would be able to afford it, since the premiums would be low enough because there are not a lot of claims.

Do you see where we're coming from on that?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: If I understand your question, I think the insurance industry will be better qualified to respond to it than I am. But I think for some shipowners—and I can assure you I met a number of them—the issue is “I don't have any cover now. I have never had it for years. I didn't need it—zero—or very limited cover, and very limited premium.”

If you take, for example, a 20- or 30-passenger tour boat, for them to look at a new cover, which is now close to $10 million in terms of the liability exposure, may bring some premium that they have not seen in the past—some invoices for premiums that they have not seen in the past. For them it is a very important cost.

So again I should leave it to the industry to respond as to what they expect this would mean in terms of capacity and cost. But if I were to judge by the previous testimony of the industry, when the bill was discussed last year, I think the industry certainly has not come forward saying this will be enormously expensive. But it may be expensive for those who have never done it in the past.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I have a follow-up. With regard to this area Jay is raising, it seems to me that if there's no mandatory insurance, it really depends on the solvency of the company. If it's a big company with a nice balance sheet and so on, the person will be able to recover. If it's Exxon, for example, they have deep pockets, and you will be able to collect from them. But if it's somebody else, you're going to have problems.

Now in other parts of the insurance industry itself—life insurance, for example—all the life insurance companies in Canada participate in contributing to a pool, so if one of their companies was insolvent, somebody wouldn't be left holding a life insurance policy that they couldn't collect on. We have this in the banking system. The people who participate in the financial services sector contribute to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. If something goes haywire, there's a pool of funds.

• 1300

Looking beyond conventional insurance, it seems to me there are ways of creating a pool of funds that wouldn't be a huge economic burden on the carriers in this country but would ensure there is a pool of funds for people. Their life has become a disaster as a result of an accident, and the funding is just totally inadequate to deal with the disaster they're facing. They didn't cause the problem, but they have it.

There are other instruments, too, such as bonds and sureties. There are lots of industries. If you want to participate in a business or industry, you have to be able to post a bond. That clears out a lot of the insolvent or questionable types of people in the business because they won't get the surety or the bond. It seems to me there are things that could be looked at here that would not have a major economic impact on the industry, if they would look at it a little bit creatively instead of just putting up barriers and saying they don't want this, they never had it before, and so on.

This is a new century. I like the principle of laissez-faire, but let's be realistic here. The public in this country would be fairly astounded, I think, to realize this is what they're getting when they use a public carrier in our system.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: Certainly, I think the insurance industry would be interested in your second point dealing with pooling and the efficiency it may produce in terms of the premium cost.

But you also dealt with a different issue. You dealt with the issue of solvency of insurers. This is not involved in this bill, of course. We're not dealing with it here.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: No, I'm thinking about solvency of the carrier. The carrier doesn't have the financial whereabouts to meet its obligations. It's creditor-proof or judgment-proof. All the victim can look for is insurance in those cases.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: I agree. As I said earlier, one of the issues that has to be discussed with both the shipping and insurance industries is what provisions could be made for owners that are not insurable. That's much along those lines. There are some models in other modes of transport. Whether or not they will be adopted in this case, I cannot say at this time.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: There is an advantage to having insurance requirements or requiring them to be bonded or so on. We can have all sorts of safety regulations in the other bill, but this is a very effective way of clearing out of the system carriers that just don't meet adequate standards. That's a very effective way of policing that and making sure that people who are carrying passengers are up to half decent standards. So that's a plus out of it. My point of view is that the insurer or the person putting forth the bond won't cover some these outfits if they feel they're a higher risk or an unreasonable risk.

The Chair: Are you through?

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis has one question.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I have just a quick question along the lines of some of the questions here. On the basis that under this regime the shipowner would not yet have a compulsion to be insured, does the aggrieved passenger ever lose the right to sue? Even if the shipowner is insured to the maximum of $350,000, is the aggrieved still able to sue beyond the $350,000 through the court process, or do they lose that right to sue through the courts for an amount beyond $350,000? In the case of a shipowner that has no insurance, can they sue outside the system through the courts for that first dollar and up?

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: It's in part a legal question. Hopefully, there won't be any cases, but if a shipowner doesn't have insurance, the right of the aggrieved passenger to sue under those provisions is protected. You will be heard and you will have your settlement. But the question is, where will you get it if there was no insurance?

In terms of suing outside the regime, I wouldn't see the benefit of it because it is the law that actually protects those rights to sue under specific conditions, and hopefully to recover.

• 1305

In terms of whether there is any provision in this law whereby a passenger who is dealing with a shipowner who has insurance can successfully sue and break through the limit of $350,000, yes, there are specific provisions whereby under certain circumstances he can sue, and if he is successful, he can break the limit and recover more. There are very specific provisions in the law that deal with those circumstances.

The Chair: Are there any other questions for the witness? How about the research staff?

Mr. Rysanek, thank you very much for coming. But next time make sure Louis Gauthier says something.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!.

The Chair: We appreciate your input and your help, and thanks for coming.

Mr. Jerry Rysanek: Thank you.

The Chair: We're adjourned, ladies and gentlemen, until Thursday.