Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and
Communications
Issue 19 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 9, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill C-15, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 4:50 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: On our agenda today is Bill C-15, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
We welcome to the committee the Honourable David Collenette, Minister of Transport; Ron Jackson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security; Bud Streeter, Director General, Marine Safety; Mark Gauthier, Senior Counsel, Legal Services; and Carrie Hunter, Director, Legislation and Regulations, Marine Safety.
Welcome, Mr. Minister, and members of your staff.
The Honourable David Collenette, PC, MP, Minister of Transport: It is a pleasure for me to be back here addressing the transport and communications committee. Our experience over the past two or three weeks with respect to Bill C-9 was very positive and we hope that this will prove be the case as well with Bill C-15.
[English]
I am pleased to talk about this bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act. It will bring much-needed change to the principal legislation governing the shipping industry. It is the beginning of a two-track overhaul that will deliver an up-to-date, modern statute to benefit the marine sector in Canada, as well as the Canadian public.
The bill is a critical step towards ensuring that the Canadian shipping industry conforms to modern shipping practices and is in tune with technological advancements.
In 1936, the legislation originally came into force, based on 1896 British merchant shipping law. Today, it still contains outdated provisions reflective of its age, such as issuing $10 fines for being drunk, or giving a ship's master the authority to auction off a dead sailor's belongings. No major overhaul of the statute has ever taken place, and the minor amendments that have been made in the past have never provided the changes that are required. The marine industry deserves better, particularly given the economic contribution it provides, and it has been asking for better.
As you may know, the marine industry operates in an international and domestic environment which provides considerable challenges and opportunities for Canadians.
The industry and related services employ more than 400,000 Canadians, and contribute more that $20 billion to our gross domestic product. Every workday, 2.3 million tonnes of freight are on the move in Canada.
[Translation]
Also, our latest figures show that movement of international cargo is on the rise and is currently at an all-time high. A substantial amount of work has been done in an effort to modernize the national transportation system to meet the demands of a global market-place and prepare this sector for the 21st century.
In order to achieve these objectives, the government has pursued a number of initiatives in all modes, particularly in the area of streamlining regulations and legislation.
It will become increasingly difficult for Canada to compete in the international market unless we pursue transportation policies that are consistent with other nations with whom we trade and compete. This is a significant reality for the shipping industry.
When we look at many of our counterparts, who also derived their shipping legislation from the same British origins as Canada, such as Australia and New Zealand, we see they have already enacted significant amendments to their legislation.
[English]
The complete reform of the Canada Shipping Act is being undertaken with the following three goals in mind:
First, to simplify the legislation by replacing outdated terminology, using plainer language, harmonizing with other regimes, and taking out excessively prescriptive details.
Second, to make the act consistent with federal regulatory policies. These policies reduce reliance on regulations, and permit alternative approaches such as compliance agreements, performance standards, and voluntary industry codes, and are much more consistent with today's regulatory practices.
Third, to contribute to the economic performance of the marine industry by reducing prescriptive elements and the administrative burden imposed by current legislation. Industry will have increased flexibility in maintaining the travelling public's safety.
[Translation]
Our determination to reform the Canada Shipping Act is heavily influenced by industry's continued support for modern shipping legislation. Previous attempts to revitalize this legislation during the 1970s were protracted and did not accomplish the necessary changes. With industry support, the government cannot help but succeed in making these essential changes. The marine industry has been providing ongoing input and support for this initiative. Their feedback during consultations not only helped direct this project but will also go a long way in ensuring the success of this Bill.
As I mentioned earlier, our approach to reform involves two tracks. The first track has evolved into this Bill, C-15, and enables us to achieve desired changes by adding a new introduction to the act and updating Part 1 which primarily deals with ship registration and ownership.
A new introduction to the Canada Shipping Act will modernize the statute and provide direction and focus for the remainder of the legislation.
[English]
The proposed introduction does clarify basic ministerial responsibilities, reflecting the reorganization of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada. It also provides umbrella authorities for consulting with stakeholders, issuing directives, and responding to emergency marine situations.
A new preamble will make the Canada Shipping Act simpler and easier to understand. I have had the opportunity to meet with many stakeholders, and I have learned that it is the marine community itself that requested that the Canada Shipping Act contain a preamble which states up-front the overall objectives of the act, as is often done with other pieces of modern legislation.
The proposed amendments in this bill will, for the first time, allow a ship to be registered in Canada in the name of a foreign corporation, on condition that the corporation has a real presence in Canada. This may be accomplished if the corporation has a subsidiary or a branch office in Canada, or if there is a ship management company in Canada. This reflects modern shipping practices, and provides more flexibility to the international shipping industry. Allowing foreign corporations to be placed on our register could result in more ships under the Canadian flag, and consequently more employment opportunities for Canadians.
[Translation]
As well, proposed amendments will modernize the Canadian ship registration system by allowing for the introduction of an electronic ship registry system, which can be more easily maintained. This is a tangible improvement from the current paper log system.
Some urgent amendments from the former Bill C-73 have also been incorporated due to the need to implement these changes expeditiously. For example, amendments have been made to the Quebec harbour pilot's pension plan.
In recent years there has been an extensive overhaul of the administration of pension plans. One plan not affected by this overhaul was the pension fund administered by the Corporation of Pilots for and below the Harbour of Quebec. This initiative will bring some recognition to this plan and improve the protection of rights for its members.
These changes will make affected pensioners subject to recent legislative initiatives rather than rules which pre-date Confederation. It will also improve the Corporation's ability to manage the pension fund.
[English]
To summarize, the changes in this bill begin the modernization and streamlining of a statute that is much in need of an overhaul to eliminate confusion and to reduce its complexity.
This two-track approach is a beneficial way to proceed, as it shows immediate progress on reforms in the first track, while allowing departmental officials to maintain the momentum in completing the second track of reform. This approach has been taken to demonstrate the government's interest, and its competence to make quick, genuine and responsive progress. Transport Canada's legislative initiatives remain consistent with the overall federal transportation framework, which emphasizes a national vision of safety, security, efficiency and environmental responsibility. These are the changes that I would like your support in realizing.
It is my belief that Bill C-15 will help ensure that Canada's shipping industry has the necessary tools to operate effectively in the 21st century.
I do have my officials present. This is a much more technical bill than Bill C-9, so I will be leaning on them more, because they are truly the experts.
Senator Forrestall: I hate to go back to those days in the 1970s when we previously attempted to do something about this. I would not wish to suggest that the administration then was more inept than it is today. In any event, I suspect that you will get your wishes today, although you could not get them 20 years ago.
The different approach in the rewriting of the Canada Shipping Act is welcome. The minister pointed out that when it is finished it will make a plausible, readable, and understandable statement. Whether it is right or wrong remains to be tested. Whether it will serve the ministry, as the minister hopes, remains to be seen. It must be put to work and tested. We already know that serious questions ought to be addressed in a number of areas. Frankly, there is not much public interest in this bill. I do not believe that is because it is a technical bill. It is more likely because people do not tend to think of the Canadian shipping industry, because we do not have one.
You talk about the billions of tonnes of goods moving around the country, and the fact that 400,000 people are employed in the industry. They are moving freight, no doubt about that, but trucks and trains are working on the waterfront and working on deliveries. These people are not on ships, moving goods and materials around between Canadian ports. There is some bulk movement on the St. Lawrence River. There is some bulk movement out on the West Coast. However, we do not have a Canadian merchant marine.
This leads me to my first serious concern. The authority of the bill will allow foreign-built ships to sail under the Canadian flag. This might have some merit. Is there a quid pro quo? That is, if you wish to come into our country will you do your repair work in our yards? The bill is silent on this matter.
As the minister will recall, this was a matter of great concern. When you stop to think about it, it has wide ramifications. The government of the day could be leaving itself open to political pressures that could lead to the establishment of a Canadian flag of convenience for tax purposes. In any event, that is a concern that we have.
Any gain in this immediate area has to do with the crewing. Your language would suggest that this will open up doors for Canadian seamen. I would think that it would; I would hope that it would.
Perhaps your colleague, the immigration minister, was not aware of what is happening, but somehow directions were ordered a week ago that struck fear into the hearts of Canadian seamen about being able to participate in the offshore oil patch and gas patch. We need a definitive answer to that, and I am sure that there is one. I hope that it was an oversight. When people start talking about having one practice prevail over another, we sit up and take notice.
Those are my three distinct questions in that one area. I would appreciate it very much if you could address those.
Mr. Collenette: I will let my officials help me out on this, but the act before us is about safety. I do not feel it is an appropriate place to talk about ship building or ship building policy, although I know that you have an interest in this particular area. That is really something which Minister Manley deals with in the Department of Industry and, of course, the Department of Finance also deals with. Those departments and the Department of International Trade work with the ship building industry to address their concerns.
One key element of this bill is the ability of foreign owned companies to have a real presence of Canada. They will be able to register their ships here, and this is aimed at fostering the desire of companies to register their ships in Canada. This will promote the industry and create other economic benefits for Canada and Canadians. It is not a subject which we should examine in further detail, because it really is industrial policy.
We are committed to maintaining high standards for safety and crewing, which eliminates the possibility that we will ever be considered a flag of convenience. Foreign nationals who register a ship in Canada will be subject to the same requirements as a Canadian-owned ship. I may be a little out of line here, but I draw attention to the Atlantis Two, the ship out in the Port of Vancouver. That situation shows that our own shipping standards are being enforced, and properly so.
Canada showed leadership at the recent Port State Control conference in Vancouver, where we brought together the members of the Tokyo and Paris MOUs to work for greater harmony in international shipping standards. The situation of the Atlantis Two bears witness to the good work done by our department in this regard. You may have seen some television reports on that. We will be auctioning off the ship to help discharge the company's obligations to pay the crew to send them back home. They have been stranded in Vancouver for eight or nine months.
In the same way that the question was somewhat eclectic, the answer is equally eclectic, but I hope I have answered some of your points.
Perhaps Mr. Streeter will address the question on immigration.
Mr. Bud Streeter, Director General, Marine Safety, Transport Canada: The issue to which you refer relates to the recent decision to permit foreign national crews to continue to operate on foreign registered vessels outside of the 12-mile limit. Internationally, we only have the right the impose Canadian requirements, including Canadian operations within the 12-mile limit.
There are offset agreements which impact on the offshore. We are presently working with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and our colleagues in Immigration Canada to really assess the impact of that decision and whether or not the board, which has the overriding authority on that, will in fact accept it.
Senator Forrestall: Minister, I am afraid you did not answer the question.
Up until now, Canadian seamen had been involved in the offshore where there was need for what we used to call specialty ships -- heavy-anchor, moving, supply ships. One or two ships from the offshore had foreign crews. They came in, did a job, and left. They did not ply the trade. I know something about it, because my eldest son spent 10 years of his life out there.
My concern goes farther than that. I am concerned that we will lose control. If someone from Brazil can, very efficiently and cheaply, bring a Brazilian-registered vessel and crew into Canadian waters to do Canadian business, how long will a Canadian-registered vessel last? They just cannot compete. There is no way that they can compete. We will be losing business.
That may be an extreme example, but how do we protect against that?
Mr. Streeter: The operation of the offshore sector off the East Coast of Canada is due to intergovernmental agreements within the responsibility of the provinces, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, and the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. The crewing of foreign vessels operating in that zone is an issue on which quite frankly, they are to take the lead.
In terms of the safety aspect in this act, our mandate is vessels involved in cabotage -- which is trade between two Canadian ports -- and vessels registered in Canada. In all cases, if vessels are registered in Canada or if they are operating in the cabotage trade, they must meet our safety standards. The application of our standards in the offshore is a matter of a memorandum of understanding signed by the federal government and provincial governments, and we act in that matter as technical advisors. As I said, we have been working with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board in this case to determine what that impact is.
In this case, the vessels in question will be temporary vessels. They will be in for short periods of time to do further seismic surveys, as a result of the awarding of recent tracts of exploration contracts.
Senator Forrestall: I know that was a specific case where Canadian crews would just not be able to find jobs.
Mr. Streeter: That was the decision last Friday. The minister said clearly that, if the vehicle is registered in Canada, irrespective of where the ownership is, it must meet Canadian manning and safety standards. We are not compromising that in any way in Bill C-15.
Senator Forrestall: What about a ship that is built in a very inexpensive country, labour-wise, coming and making application to be allowed into Canada? From a capital point of view, how does a ship built in Canada compete? When it costs us $40 million to build a ship, and it costs someone else $18 or $20 million to build the same vessel, something is wrong. We will not tax them away. There is no quid pro quo. That is, we do not say: "We will let you come in if you do two of your next three major lifts in a Canadian shipyard. You can go offshore for one, but come back for two out of three." That is a quid pro quo. There is none of that. There is no protection for Canadian jobs. If we give it away now, we will never get it back. It will be lost to us.
The minister now has an opportunity to make a very clear statement -- an unequivocal statement -- that Canadian jobs will be protected, and that Canadian seamen will be protected. Further, any vessel allowed Canadian registry for the purposes of competing for business in Canada will meet every safety standard, and will be crewed according to Canadian law. It will also be subject to Canadian labour standards, provincial laws, labour laws, and federal labour laws -- where either or both might be applicable -- and so on. In the absence of such provisions, there is quite a bit of fear among some of these men and women who work in this field.
We still have about 3,700 registered members in the Seafarers' International Union of Canada. Throw in the guild and the others, we still have 4,000 or 5,000 men or women in this industry, although that figure was 7,000 or 8,000 less than 10 years ago. We would not want to lose those jobs. We could crunch some numbers. We had a very attractive proposition in the 1970s.
The concerns are there. I would hope that you would make some very firm statements that, if something works negatively that way, you would consider mending it. This could be done in an omnibus bill, if it is not possible to do so before then, and could reach back and correct some of the difficulties.
Mr. Collenette: Senators, we will take that as a representation, and we look forward to discussing it further with you when we come back with Part II.
Senator Forrestall: You will not give me that assurance, however.
Mr. Collenette: I would like to have the benefit of a better discussion with my colleagues. There is not an unwillingness to move in that direction.
Senator Forrestall: I am looking for an assurance to Canadian seamen and seafarers that their jobs are not at stake, and that no action by this or any government will place them in jeopardy.
Mr. Collenette: We are not in the business of trying to restrict job building.
Senator Forrestall: We never are, but those are consequences.
Mr. Streeter: Senator, there nothing in Bill C-15 that implies that we are opening up Canadian-owned ships to foreign crews. We have the support of the unions that we mentioned for these tranches. We are discussing personnel requirements as part of tranche two; the second slice of this amendment to which the minister referred. We are having wide-ranging consultations with more than 500 industry associations. We will be pleased to address the issue again during the tranche two discussions.
Mr. Ron Jackson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Transport Canada: Honourable senators, in terms of your concerns, a foreign-owned vessel coming into Canada under a Canadian flag will need to meet the high safety standards of the current vessel and crewing rules. As Mr. Streeter said, we are not opening up the register, and the Canadian flag is not a flag of convenience.
Senator Forrestall: You both know as well as I do that the owner of the vessel will insist on a captain -- from the United Kingdom, for example -- because that person has served on the vessel before. After that, the chief engineer, the second engineer, the pump man, the boatswain's mate, and the chief mate are all mentioned. Pretty soon no jobs are left for Canadians.
Clause 379.1 gives the minister the authority to designate ships as special purpose ships. Can you give us some examples of special purpose ships?
Mr. Collenette: Generally, ships are not mass produced. Each ship is built for a specific purpose, and from a unique set of plans. As I understand it, situations have arisen where vessels do not fit into the four existing categories of ships described in the CSA, namely, cargo, passenger, fishery and pleasure ships.
On occasion, ships are used for general purpose, which does not fall within the general scope of construction design, crewing and safety. In that case, designations of "special purpose ship" and "special purpose personnel" comes into play. These designations are required to ensure that special purpose ships --such as scientific research vessels or sail training vessels -- and the personnel working aboard them operate safely.
That should address some of the points that you raise. I could go on and talk about some of the more specific points on these vessels if you wish me to do so.
Mr. Streeter: One high profile example which was my indoctrination to marine safety was the caravan stage barge. Our regulator could not cater to a troop of actors who wanted to bring their art around the country, but who did not fit into one of those four categories. However, if we had a "special purpose ships" provision, we could have dealt with them flexibly. We made some legal arrangements to do that. It is those types of vessels that, from time to time, do not fit the four basic criteria, and that must be dealt with in order to permit their operation and to ensure the safety of the system.
Mr. Collenette: There is no linkage between special purpose ships and foreign ships with foreign crews operating in Canadian waters and flying a Canadian flag.
Senator Johnson: We will have a better context with the bill before us next fall. It seems, however, that clause 8 of this bill gives wide powers to the Minister of Transport and to the Minister of Fisheries, with few guidelines on how these powers are to be used.
I was struck by the fact that the minister believes that the power to exempt a ship from the application of this bill is in the interests of preventing damage either to property or to the environment. That is a broad exemption. When you are drafting the legislation for the new bill, what will the guidelines be in this area?
Mr. Collenette: The objectives of the proposed legislation make it clear that there are special provisions for both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries in the area of marine safety.
For example, it gives the Minister of Transport the ability to grant exemptions from specific provisions, in order to protect the interests of public health and safety. It also gives him the ability to take measures to protect property and the environment.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans also is authorized, in a like fashion, to take immediate action or to contain such things as oil spills, which is a great fear that we have, given the kind of coastline that we have in Canada. These provisions can be deployed to anticipate any emergency that we can imagine, but they can only be used where a serious situation exists or is deemed to exist. We must have the authority to act quickly where this kind of problem arises. Giving the minister that kind of flexibility improves the overall safety of the marine community, as well as protecting the interests of the Canadian public.
In his speech in the Senate, Senator Forrestall expressed some reservations about the power of the minister in this regard, and the lack of accountability thereof. Ministers must have some flexibility to act without coming back to justify their actions. They do find themselves accountable for their actions upon returning to Senate committees or to House of Commons committees, however, as well as being held accountable on the floor of the House of Commons. I do not think that we should assume that something nefarious will occur when ministers exercise these powers for emergencies.
Senator Johnson: I also find it interesting that clause 241 of Bill C-28 exempts companies from taxation in international shipping. What is the effect of this clause when combined with the ship registration clauses?
Mr. Jackson:Bill C-28 is a clarification to the Income Tax Act of 1991, which provided that foreign-owned vessels with a significant presence in Canada would be exempt from paying income tax on their international shipping business. However, if they did any domestic business, they would be taxed.
The flagging provisions in Bill C-15 contain an ability for a foreign-owned vessel whose holder has a significant presence in Canada to operate under a Canadian flag. In that case, we would have a foreign-owned Canadian-flagged vessel that, were it plying in international trade, would be exempt from Canadian income tax on that part of its earnings.
Mr. Streeter: The primary reason for that legislation was to attract ship management companies to the Port of Vancouver when they were looking for an alternative to Hong Kong. These are foreign-owned companies in the province of British Columbia but, at the time, the industry was interested in attracting office management structures. They would love to have the ships as well, but, first, they wish to attract the office management structures. As Mr. Jackson says, Bill C-15 permits them to register in Canada, if they wish to do so.
Mr. Jackson: This practice is consistent with other international practices.
Senator Johnson: It is part of the upgrading of an ancient act.
Senator Forrestall: That is interesting. I may not have heard you correctly.
People who fly for Canadian and Air Canada can stop paying taxes when they are flying outside the country, but sailors cannot stop paying Canadian taxes no matter where they are in the world. Even if they are not on a Canadian-registered vessel, they are still Canadians and must pay Canadian income tax. Why is that?
Mr. Collenette: I am not sure you are correct, but we will take your word on it, and get an answer to that question. That is something that I have not heard before.
Senator Forrestall: I hear about it every third month when my son comes home. We have close friends who live in the Caribbean and commute to do their daily work. They come up here to work for four or five days, and then go home for two weeks. They do not pay Canadian income tax.
Senator Rompkey: Is that because they live in the Caribbean?
Senator Forrestall: They do not live in Canada, nor does my son. He lives on a ship, and he is away for about 11 months of the year. When he is in Canadian waters, he should pay Canadian income tax, but when he is out of Canadian waters and is earning his money from a third country, I am not sure about that.
Mr. Collenette: Perhaps this should be addressed to the Minister of Finance when he appears before you on the Estimates. We will try to get you some information, however.
Senator Forrestall: A few moments ago I mentioned my sadness over the rate at which young Canadians enter seafaring as a career. I do not know how, through this bill, we could encourage young Canadians to attend our schools. Are they modern enough? How do they stand up to the requirements of modern technology in shipping, navigation, engineering, et cetera? Why do we not offer a Master Mariner Bachelor of Science degree? Why do we not do some things that might make seafaring a more attractive career for people?
I will leave you with that. I think that it is necessary. Failure to do this will force us to open Canadian waters to foreign ships and foreign crews. In many cases today in modern merchant fleets, the crews are young, well-educated, highly-trained and very competent people. My young fellow is one of the youngest senior ice pilots in Canada. He is very good. He spent many years manoeuvring around the Canadian Arctic as a youngster.
We do not train people. When we need someone, we go offshore to find someone to do the job.
Mr. Collenette: You have addressed the issue head on. There has been a worldwide decline in people with mariner skills, and that certainly applies in Canada. That may have something to do with the size of our fleet, and we would like to address that in Part II. We would like to have a statutory way of assisting the promotion of employment and career opportunities for Canadian merchant mariners.
Having said that, we are still involved in providing training programs. We are active in the approval of facilities, instructional and training programs, cadet training programs, and the like. We support approved training institutes by providing them with simulators.
You may say that we could be doing more. Again, there is the issue of priorities and money. This department has been cut back considerably in recent years, as has most of government. However, this is another area where we should decide to do something if funds become available.
Generations back, I come from a maritime tradition myself. I think that a country like Canada, with the longest navigable coastline in the world, would be turning its back on both its past and its future if it did not assist young people pursuing this noble profession.
Perhaps we can talk about this when we bring Part II forward in the fall.
Senator Adams: You mentioned the ship that was seized in the harbour in Vancouver, and you said that you may be auctioning that ship. Is that ship privately owned? If it is not fit to leave the dock, what will we do with it?
Mr. Collenette: I believe it was reported in the news in the last couple of days that one of our inspectors boarded the ship and found many structural deficiencies and safety violations. The necessary work was ordered and was done. The owners did not pay. The crew was left on board, and they had not been paid for quite a while. They were getting rather desperate.
Through the normal channels, we tried to get the owners to discharge their responsibilities. I believe that it was as a result of a news report on CBC a couple of months ago that the owners were shamed into coming up with $50,000 in back wages. In the meantime, we have been pumping fuel onto the ship to drive the generators. Canadian suppliers have been paying for that.
We have now decided that enough is enough. We cannot have this debilitated ship in Vancouver harbour indefinitely with these hostages on board, which is what these poor people are.
The auction of the ship has been ordered. That will solve the situation. I am sure that there will be buyers. Some of the people who have already put up money for fuel and repairs will probably bid on it. As a result of the negligence of the owners, a Canadian company will probably end up owning that ship. I assume that they will use it, and surely not just for scrap.
Mr. Streeter: There are international conventions which apply in cases like this. In conjunction with the suppliers, action was taken and the vessel will be sold. Of course there is a priority in terms of who gets what. Back payment to the crew is the top priority. Next are fuel suppliers and other suppliers. If anything is left after that, it will theoretically go to the account of the owner. However, in these one-ship companies it is very difficult to find the owners.
Mr. Collenette: The conference in Vancouver was one of those nightmares for ministers and governments. There were 30 countries present, including many ministers. This was a landmark effort by the Canadian government to bring together the European nations and the ones signing the Tokyo MOU, who are largely from the Pacific Rim where standards are not as high. We brought them together and agreed upon some improvements in world shipping standards, and we got no publicity for our efforts.
Unfortunately, the two princes were in Vancouver for those two days. The media was most apologetic, but they had other things to do, like going to Whistler and covering the exploits of the princes.
Perhaps we should send out a summary on this to members of the House of Commons and to senators. I think that Canadians just do not understand how highly regarded we are in the setting of international shipping standards, and what we did to bring the two MOUs together.
The question is a good one. It shows how we can lead, and it does not take money. It does, however, take commitment and principle. The lead we took on land mines did not take much money; it took principle, commitment and the use of our persuasive influence as a middle power. That influence is respected around the world, and we can use it to deal with substandard shipping in this case.
Senator Adams: In the meantime, we end up paying the salary and wages.
Mr. Collenette: The owners were shamed into paying $50,000, which gave them some money. When the ship is auctioned, the proceeds will pay off back wages and any other outstanding commitments, such as fuel bills and that type of thing. We do not get the money. However, those people who have provided services, including the crew, are the ones who will be compensated.
Senator Adams: Are you talking about a private company which ended up paying the crew? Is a private company paying for the painting of the ship?
Mr. Streeter: As I think we have tried to explain, the vessel will be sold for a sum of money. The first priority will be to pay the back wages of the crew. We will then pay Canadian suppliers. The cost of arrest and sale will have to be paid. The person who buys the ship will receive without the crew and without any other obligations. He or she will then have to determine whether to paint it or to scrap it. If there is any money left over, legally, it would be held pending identification of the owner. Under international convention, it is the owner's money. In this case, I doubt very much that there any money will be left over.
The Chairman: Thank you, minister and officials, for appearing before us today.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that we move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 3 to 19 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 20 to 35 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Is it agreed that I report the bill, without amendment, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The third item on the agenda is the future business of the committee. I will let Senator Forrestall describe the work of the subcommittee.
Senator Forrestall: Madam Chairman, we are pleased to present the first report of the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety to the whole committee.
As you will recall, on October 30, 1997, we were authorized to examine and make recommendations upon the state of transportation safety and security in Canada, and to complete a comprehensive review of technical issues, legal and regulatory structures, with a view to ensuring that transportation safety and security in Canada are of able to meet the needs of Canada and Canadians in the 21st century.
We have done a great deal of travel. We have amassed an enormous amount of information, some of which has been filtered through, and a great deal of which has not.
It is fair to say, Madam Chairman, that the size of the mandate was far greater than either myself or our former colleague Senator Davey anticipated.
A second phase of our work needs to be done. In fairness to the committee, it may be very difficult for this committee to devote the time that will be needed to go through the evidence, go back and refine recommendations, and find resolutions to some of the problems. To that end, the principal recommendation of the first report is that the report be presented to the Senate of Canada. We ask the Senate of Canada, in its wisdom, to name a special committee of the Senate to take the papers and the work that has been done to date by the subcommittee of your committee, Madam Chairman, and to complete the work and report at a future date.
I am grateful to everyone. We have talked to virtually everyone involved in transportation in Canada. We did an enormous amount of travel. We have been out west. We have been north. We had a very successful visit to Europe, where we had the privilege of riding in high-speed trains. The accident which we saw last week is perhaps the reason that we should be looking closely at this technology and its capacity to meet the stress and the strain.
The issue that confronts your subcommittee at this time, Madam Chairman, is how best to continue what we believe to be work that is vitally important to all Canadians. Given the size and importance of the subject-matter, I commend the recommendation to you.
We recommend the immediate establishment of a Senate special committee on transportation safety, and that all of the evidence adduced by the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety be referred to this special committee.
We looked at alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and mandatory drug testing. We looked at zero tolerance. We looked at a wide range of important questions in these areas.
Madam Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions.
I submit the report.
Senator Poulin: Would you be comfortable if I moved that the report of the subcommittee be adopted, and that the chairman table the report in the Senate?
Senator Forrestall: I would be pleased at that suggestion.
Senator Poulin: I do so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: As to the date at which the report will be submitted, this will be discussed further at the special committee level.
Senator Forrestall: The committee is responsible to the chamber. With the direction of clerical staff and others, we can sort out the details. We could submit our report as an attachment to the report of this committee.
The Chairman: You may then speak on it, if you wish.
Senator Johnson: Is this the extent of your report? Do you have anything more?
Senator Forrestall: No.
Senator Johnson: I was wondering what you found out about highway safety in terms of the trucks. That has been such a big issue. You do not really have anything in here on that subject.
Senator Forrestall: We do not have anything in this report except the recommendation that the special committee offer the evidence that we have adduced.
Senator Johnson: After your meetings with the various groups, what was your general feeling about the issue of safety in the air, on the water, and on the roads?
Senator Forrestall: There is no question in the minds of any of the members of the subcommittee that safety standards in Canada are among the highest in the world. Notwithstanding that, the carnage on our highways continues. The causes range from faulty equipment and improper training to drugs, alcohol, and other abuses.
With sadness, we have learned that, unless we do something about air transportation, there will be a major air crash somewhere in the world once a week within a few years.
Canadians fly all over the world in increasing numbers. If we are to protect Canadians, we must do everything possible to ensure that how they get to and from a destination is safe, and that the destination itself is safe, too.
It is also important to note that Canada receives passengers from all over the world, passing through at least of those two of our major airports. We can pretty much rest assured that they are not carrying bombs. However, that is two out of 1,000 airports. There is much that must be done. We have learned some of those lessons.
The chairman will recall some members of the committee laughed at me when I said that we should put parachutes on aircraft. I was referring to ultra light aircraft and experimental aircraft. You might have noted the tragedy of two experimental helicopters. Had both of those aircraft had parachutes, the outcome would have been different. There are things out there that we can do to make life safer, but we must do them.
The Chairman: We will report to the chamber tomorrow, and you can take it from there.
The committee adjourned.