Bill Casey

[Canada Shipping Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill S-4, the Canada Shipping Act amendments.

Few countries in the world have as much interest in this issue as we have in Canada because we are virtually surrounded by water. We have water east, west and north. We have the Great Lakes and the seaway.

The bill has been nurtured through the system for many years. We are really pleased to see it and we will be supporting the bill.

The bill will substantially increase the amount of compensation available to Canadian claimants for maritime claims in general, especially for oil pollution damage as a result of shipwrecked oil tankers.

The current Canada Shipping Act provisions dealing with limitation of liability of maritime claims are based on the 1957 international convention relating to limitation of liability of owners of seagoing vessels. Most maritime nations consider limits of liability inadequate mainly as inflation has eroded their value and it only make sense as those were developed in 1957.

The bill began as Bill C-58 in 1996 when it went through the committee process and died on the order paper with the election call in April 1997. There are important changes contained in the legislation and unfortunately the government did not make it a priority to move it ahead quickly enough, but at least it is here now. Now that it is here we are dealing with the bill and I am pleased to be here to speak on it.

The bill will substantially increase the amount of compensation available to Canadian claimants for maritime claims, for oil pollution damage in particular. It harmonizes Canadian rules for maritime liability with those of other maritime nations and will enable Canada to accede to the relevant international conventions.

With respect to the limitation of liability for maritime claims, Bill S-4 amends part 4 of the shipping act to implement provisions of the 1976 convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims and its 1996 protocol.

Bill S-4 will, first, substantially increase shipowner limits of liability, long past due. Second, it will allow the cabinet on recommendation of the transport minister to implement new limits of liability to reflect inflation. Three, it will limit the liability of owners of small ships less than 300 tons to $1 million for loss of life or personal injury and $500,000 for other claims. It will also extend the application of the liability regime to all ships operating in Canadian internal and inland waters, not just seagoing vessels, which is very important.

Finally, it increases the liability limits for owners of docks, canals and ports and for property damage claims to the greater of $2 million or an amount based on the tonnage of the largest ship that has docked in the area in the last five years.

Atlantic Canada and all Canadians welcome the aspect of the bill that relates to oil pollution liability and for compensation for oil pollution damage. Bill S-4 will amend part 16 of the Canada Shipping Act to implement provisions of the 1992 protocol to the 1969 civil liability convention and the 1971 convention on the establishment of an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage.

This means it will make shipowners liable for clean-up costs for oil pollution damage. It makes compensation available for pollution damage caused by tankers with residues of oil remaining from their previous cargo. This also makes it possible to recover costs incurred for preventive measures taken in anticipation of a spill from a tanker.

The maximum compensation currently available to claimants in a oil pollution incident is approximately $120 million. As a result of Bill S-4, the amount will more than double to $270 million which is still probably not enough but it is a good start.

In summary, we are pleased to support this legislation. It is long past overdue and very much needed in the maritime industry in Canada. We are supporting this because it will improve compensation for the benefit of all Canadian claimants involved in any kind of marine accident in general and certainly for purposes related to pollution claims.

Also, the important harmonization of our laws with other nations benefits every participant. I am speaking about all participants involved in the maritime trade, shipowners, cargo owners and charters providing consistent internationally recognized and accepted rules which deal with the economic consequences of unfortunate accidents at sea.

Without these former rules international shipping, which Canada relies on to a tremendous extent, would otherwise become extremely expensive and unpredictable. As a result it would have negative consequences for the Canadian industry as a whole.

Again, we support this legislation and only wish that we could have moved it through the system a little more quickly.

[Broadcasting Act, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary will be a little familiar with this question because I have asked it several times and I never get the right answer.

I urge the parliamentary secretary to listen to the question, think, and answer for himself, not a canned written answer by the department. This is not a highway issue. It is not a provincial issue. It is an issue of government responsibility on behalf of the federal government.

In September 1995 the federal government signed an agreement to put $16.2 million into a highway on one condition. That condition was that the province put $16.2 million into that highway as well. That is $16.2 of taxpayers' hard earned money. They each agreed to put $16.2 million into it.

However, as soon as the federal money was in, the province removed its $16.2 million. All of the government money is entirely the federal contribution of $16.2 million. Even though the province agreed to split this 50:50 it does not have one red cent in this section of highway.

We contend that it is the federal minister's responsibility for the $16.2 million. He was entrusted by the taxpayers of Canada to look after that $16.2 million and he cannot look the other way any longer. He must and he should and I hope he will act.

It is worse than that. It is worse than the fact that the province of New Brunswick took its $16.2 million out. The New Brunswick minister of transport recently said it was always the province's intention to recover the provincial share. Here Sheldon Lee was signing a contract saying the province was going to put 50% into this highway but on the side he says it was always the province's intention to not honour its word and take its 50% back.

It is even worse than that. Even though the province of New Brunswick is signing a contract saying it will put in $16.2 million if the federal government puts in $16.2 million, the minister of finance for the province of New Brunswick, Mr. Edmond Blanchard, said “We have always intended that the provincial money we invested in these sections of road would be recovered”. Here they were, signing a contract saying the province was going to put 50% in when it had absolutely no intention of doing so.

The minister said yesterday and at other times in this House that he will never let it happen again anywhere. He even acknowledged yesterday that there is an issue that has to be dealt with in future agreements. However, he is obligated to fix this agreement and not future ones, that they will look after themselves but this agreement must be fixed.

The $16.2 million of federal taxpayers' money must be accounted for. The contract is not completed yet. It does not expire until the end of March. The highway is not finished. The minister must tell the province of New Brunswick to put the money back, just like the province agreed to do in September 1995. It is not complicated. The province agreed to put $16.2 million into this highway. It has not put in one red cent.

Will the parliamentary secretary now tell the minister to tell the province of New Brunswick to put the money back and carry on with enforcing the contract in the same way it always should have?

The other question is why are the people of New Brunswick being subjected to this foolishness when no other Canadians will be subjected to it in the future according to the minister? The minister said he would not allow this to happen anymore, anywhere else. Why is New Brunswick being forced to take this treatment?

[Highways, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in September 1995 the federal Minister of Transport signed a contract to pay $16.2 million to build a highway in New Brunswick between Moncton and River Glade on the one condition that the provincial government also contribute $16.2 million to the highway.

Both the province and the federal government paid their $16.2 million, but immediately the provincial government took its share back out. Now tolls will be charged to make up for the missing money. The result will be that one truck making one trip per day for a year from Fredericton to Truro will pay over $27,000 a year in tolls.

I have received almost 1,000 letters from people from the affected area. They request that the Minister of Transport demand the Government of New Brunswick to restore its share of the money and honour the terms of the contract it signed.

I will deliver these letters to the minister today, which reflect the outrage of the people in the area, and demand that the minister provide the same treatment for the people of New Brunswick as for the rest of the country.

[Highways, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, clause 5.2(d) of the agreement says that any modification of the financial agreement requires the approval of the federal Minister of Transport in writing. If the minister did not approve this change in writing, in effect the federal government has broken a contract as well.

Did the minister agree in writing and will he table that agreement today?

[Highways, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is time for a good highway question. In September 1995 the Minister of Transport put $16.2 million into a highway project in New Brunswick on one condition, that the province of New Brunswick put $16.2 million in as well.

As soon as the federal money was in the province pulled its money out. The people of Canada entrusted the minister to look after their $16.2 million.

Will the minister now call the province of New Brunswick to put the money back as it agreed?

[House Of Commons, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. Again, as the last speaker said, this has nothing to do with flag waving or singing songs; it has everything to do with an attempt to influence your decision and intimidate, as far as I am concerned.

If you consider that members from the government party and the official opposition both took a position that said if you did not as Speaker make a decision that they wanted that they would make every effort they could to remove you as Speaker, I think that has to be intimidation and a deliberate attempt to influence your decision. If you consider the timing, this is what is critical here. Had they made these comments after your decision, that would be one thing, that they should question your decision, but to do it just before your making a decision is a deliberate attempt to try to influence your decision.

In the newspaper article in question none of the members talked about their position. They did not try to support their position. All they did was try to intimidate the Speaker by the threats, as it says here in the newspaper article: “we'll demand Parent's removal as Speaker if he rules in favour”. As another member said: “There will be grave consequences if he doesn't rule in favour”. Two other members warned “that Parent will face demands for his resignation if he does not rule it the way we want him to rule”.

In my view, there is no question about this being a deliberate attempt to influence your decision. As the previous speaker said, I urge all members to make this a unanimous decision to have this go to committee and have it resolved.

[Access To Information Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate this opportunity in this extended question period to bring up a subject I brought up on December the 4 about responsibility, about accountability and about obligations, that is the federal government's obligation with respect to certain federal-provincial agreements to do with highways in Nova Scotia. It has now extended to New Brunswick since I brought this up in December.

The federal government and the provincial governments sign agreements. When the provincial governments do not honour them, when I raise it in the House, the hon. minister replies all highways are a provincial issue, ask the province. But the fact is this is not about highways. This is about specific federal-provincial agreements.

With respect to this multimillion dollar agreement, it says a management committee shall be established as of the date of execution of this agreement and shall consist of two members, one member appointed by the federal minister, one member appointed by the provincial minister. The management committee will be responsible for administration and management of this agreement. They will review and approve all projects. They will change any projects on schedule B. Annual reports will be approved. Approval of the proposed contracts and their modifications where they affect the financial commitment of the present agreement relating to any projects included in schedule B. It says the decisions of the management committee shall be in writing and shall be acted on only if taken unanimously.

So the management committee is one member from the federal minister's department and one from the province, and all decisions must be unanimous. That means the federal government in this case is responsible on these issues, and again this is a question about accountability, responsibility and obligations.

Since I brought that up in December, the same thing has happened in New Brunswick, and it is exactly the same agreement with the same words. The federal government must acknowledge and must realize its obligation to police this.

In this case, the federal government said it will put 50% of the money into a highway if the province puts 50% in, and it agreed to do that. Now the province has taken its 50% out, which means that 100% of the money provided by government is from the federal government. That changes all the ratios. It changes everything.

I recently got a report from the Department of Transport, the federal department. It says $32,474,270 has been paid on a specific piece of highway between Moncton and Petitcodiac, New Brunswick. That was before the end of March last year. This year they have projected to spend another $5.7 million. That is $38,174,270, and it says right here the money was paid out to somebody to build that highway, but the provincial minister says there is no taxpayer money in it, the highway has never been paid for.

The provincial minister says the money did not go to pay for the highway. He says the highway is not paid for. The federal minister's report card says they paid $38 million to somebody.

Under the terms of this agreement the federal minister is responsible to answer to where the $38 million has disappeared. There is $38 million disappeared. The feds say it went to build the road. The province says it did not go to build the road. But this $38 million cheque went to somebody and we would like the federal minister to take up his obligation in accordance with this agreement which is very clear. He is a member of the management committee. There are only two on it. All decisions must be unanimous and in writing.

So, if $38 million is going to go somewhere—

[Access To Information Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise today on the act to amend the Access to Information Act, Bill C-208.

I am sure that this is one of the most important tools we have to work with as members of Parliament to help us access information which is not readily available in other circumstances, not only us, but corporations and individuals throughout the country. It is the key to the confidence in our system and it also is the key to checks and balances which are so important in a Parliament like this one where government does have an awful lot of control over all information and can hold it back should it decide to. This gives us access to it.

Speaking of access to information, I tried to find out to whom the access to information officer reports and I could not get access to the information. It was kind of interesting. I called several offices and I could not find out to whom he answers. Finally I did find out from the Library of Parliament and also a very helpful official in the access to information office that the access to information commissioner actually reports to the President of the Treasury Board and then through the Speaker to Parliament.

I was really concerned about that because recently I tried to access information. I tried to use the services of the ethics commissioner. When I went to a meeting with the ethics commissioner, the first question I asked the commissioner was “What is your term of office and how are you hired?” He said “I am here at the pleasure of the Prime Minister”. I think the results of his conclusions on the question that I asked put him in a conflict of interest because he only keeps his job at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.

I was pleased to learn that at least the access to information commissioner is actually hired by Parliament and voted on. So it is very helpful and gives me a great deal of confidence in the commissioner, as opposed to perhaps the little less confidence I have in the ethics commissioner.

Anyway, back to Bill C-208. It is the shortest bill I have ever seen. The point is very simple. Up until now the access to information bill has had no punishment, it has had no sanction. It has had no way to punish people if they have destroyed, denied access or altered documents or anything. There was no teeth. There was no enforcement.

Bill C-208 provides that deterrent, that enforcement tool. It makes denying information, destroying information or altering information a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or a $10,000 fine. That is a pretty serious deterrent compared to what is there now. There is no deterrent if an official destroys information or refuses access to someone. There is no sanction. There is no punishment.

This is very timely. We can be sure that if somebody, as they approach the shredder with the document that they should not be shredding, thinks of the five years and the $10,000 penalty, they will think twice about it. It is a very important tool. It does provide us in Parliament with the tools to make sure that the government is accountable, and it gives people confidence in government.

A further amendment that we would like to see, although we are supporting this in the Conservative Party, is an amendment that gives at least limited access to documents of the Privy Council. I realize there are some documents that should not be available and we could not have total access to everything, but there are documents that we would really think are appropriate to have access to through the access to information office.

However, all things considered, the Progressive Conservative Party strongly supports Bill C-208. We congratulate the drafters of this bill. We hope those same people will now move over to the code of ethics amendments and will draft amendments to ensure that the ethics commissioner also has to answer to Parliament instead of having his job at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.

I conclude my remarks by saying that the Conservative Party supports this bill entirely and we will be voting in favour of it.

[Infrastructure, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, not one of those people wrote a cheque for $25 million. In my meeting with the ethics counsellor the other day he said there were many issues of concern that should be of concern to the Minister of Transport. Maybe that is why John Grace, Canada's information commissioner, said that the ethics counsellor should answer to Parliament in the same way as the auditor general.

Will the prime minister commit to having his ethics counsellor answer to Parliament at least on this issue?

[Infrastructure, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the prime minister. I appreciate his earlier mention but his own code of ethics states that at no time shall a former minister act on behalf of a company in connection with any ongoing proceeding to which the government is a party and on which the minister advised the government.

In the case of the New Brunswick highway Doug Young was a minister, he is now acting on behalf of a company, it is an ongoing proceeding, the government is a funding partner and Doug Young did advise the government.

Considering that, will the prime minister explain how his code of ethics could possibly clear his former minister?