Bill C-23 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence

This enactment amends the Canada Marine Act to clarify and make technical changes to certain provisions. As well, the amendments
(a) modify the Act’s purpose;
(b) modify a port authority’s access to federal funding;
(c) add provisions regarding the power of a port authority to borrow money;
(d) provide additional regulatory powers to the Governor in Council;
(e) add provisions regarding port amalgamation;
(f) modify provisions regarding the appointment of directors of port authorities; and
(g) add a penalty scheme and streamline certain other enforcement provisions.
The amendments also include transitional provisions, corrections to other Acts and consequential amendments to other Acts.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill S-207, An Act to repeal legislation that has not come into force within ten years of receiving royal assent--Chapter 20

Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence--Chapter 21

Bill C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts--Chapter 22

Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord--Chapter 23

Bill C-58, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2009--Chapter 24

Bill C-59, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2009--Chapter 25

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Judges Act--Chapter 26

Bill C-287, An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day--Chapter 27

Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget--Chapter 28

Bill C-60, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (court martial) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act--Chapter 29

Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act--Chapter 30

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the government took a major step forward this week to maintain a competitive economy, our theme for this week, and I am happy to advise the House that yesterday the Standing Committee on Finance agreed to report the budget implementation bill back to the House by May 28.

This is excellent news. The budget bill ensures a balanced budget, controls spending, and invests in priority areas.

This week also saw the passage of Bill C-23, which amends the Canada Marine Act, and Bill C-5 on nuclear liability at report stage.

Today, we are debating a confidence motion on the government’s handling of the economy. We fully expect, notwithstanding the minority status of our government, that this House of Commons will, once again, express its support for the government’s sound management of Canada’s finances and the economy.

Tomorrow, will we continue with maintaining a competitive economy week by debating our bill to implement our free trade agreement with the countries of the European Free Trade Association. It is the first free trade agreement signed in six years and represents our commitment to finding new markets for the goods and services Canadians produce.

If there is time, we will also debate Bill C-14, which would allow enterprises choice for communicating with customers; Bill C-7, to modernize our aeronautics sector; Bill C-32, to modernize our fisheries sector; Bill C-43, to modernize our custom rules; Bill C-39, to modernize the Grain Act for farmers; and Bill C-46, to give farmers more choice in marketing grain.

The government believes strongly in the principle of democracy and the fundamental importance of human rights. Next week we will show our support for that with strengthening democracy and human rights week. The week will start with debate on Bill C-30, our specific land claims bill. The bill would create an independent tribunal made up of superior court judges to help resolve the specific claims of first nations and will, hopefully, speed up the resolution about standing claims.

We will debate Bill C-34, which is our bill to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement. We will debate our bill to provide basic rights to on reserve individuals, Bill C-47, to protect them and their children in the event of a relationship breakdown, rights that off reserve Canadians enjoy every day.

As I said, we are committed to strengthening democracy in Canada. Yesterday, I had an excellent discussion on Senate reform with members of the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee. That discussion will continue in this House next week when we debate our bill to limit the terms of senators to eight years from the current maximum of 45, as foreseen in Bill C-19.

We will also debate our bill to close the loophole used by leadership candidates to bypass the personal contribution limit provisions of the election financing laws with large, personal loans from wealthy powerful individuals and ensure we eliminate the influence of big money in the political process.

With regard to the question about estimates, there are, as the opposition House leader knows, two evenings that must be scheduled for committee of the whole in the House to deal with those estimates. Those days will be scheduled over the next two weeks that we sit so they may be completed before May 31, as contemplated in the Standing Orders.

There have been consultations, Mr. Speaker, and I believe you would find the unanimous consent of the House for the following:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on Friday, May 9, starting at noon and ending at the normal hour of daily adjournment, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My officials and I are here today to discuss the 2008-09 main estimates for the transport, infrastructure, and communities portfolio. This is my third opportunity to appear before this committee and to deliver the main estimates. Since my first appearance, significant progress has been made within the portfolio. As you know, it is a wide-ranging portfolio that brings together Transport Canada, Infrastructure Canada, and 16 crown corporations.

In this portfolio we continue to tackle some of the most important issues facing Canada today, including the productivity of our economy, transportation safety and security, environmental sustainability, and the quality of life in our cities and communities, as supported by public infrastructure.

Members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities have made important contributions in each of these areas, and I'd like to take this opportunity at the outset to thank you for your active involvement in the legislative agenda and the number of important policy decisions and questions that have an impact on the portfolio.

Specifically, I'd like to thank the members of the committee for its study of Bill C-23, which modifies the Canada Marine Act. The proposed amendments will strengthen the operating framework of Canada port authorities, helping to build a stronger and more competitive marine sector. Also key was the committee's participation in the study of rail safety and the subsequent amendments to the Railway Safety Act.

I also thank the committee for its consideration of the future role of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the NWPA. We believe that the NWPA, one of the oldest pieces of legislation in Canada, needs to reflect current economic needs and respond to the increased volume and variety of uses of Canada's waterways. I look forward to working with you as we move forward on this and other issues central to transportation and infrastructure in Canada.

Over the past year, this government has made serious investments in transportation and infrastructure throughout Canada. In doing so, we are improving the quality of life of Canadians, and making Canada more competitive on the world stage.

As you know, we are moving forward on Canada's biggest infrastructure program ever. The Building Canada Infrastructure Plan is $33 billion worth of investments in matters that are important to Canadians, such as the environment, the economy and stronger and better communities.

Our plan provides an unprecedented, long-term, predictable investment that will allow provinces, territories and communities to plan for the future. In fact, more than half of the funding—$17.6 billion, to be exact—is going to municipalities through the 100 per cent GST rebate and the Gas Tax Fund, to modernize Canada's infrastructure.

It is expected that Building Canada, with other levels of government and funding partners, will generate at least $50 billion in new investments. Since the Prime Minister launched the Building Canada Plan last November, we have made significant progress in implementing this plan. We have signed framework agreements with eight provinces and territories, and we are well advanced and close to concluding agreements with the remaining provinces.

And, we are investing the gas tax in over 2,000 community projects.

Under Building Canada, we are making early progress through priority investments across Canada. These investments support a more productive economy, such as our $100 million commitment to improve highways in New Brunswick, and a cleaner environment. As you know, we have announced $1 billion in funding for public transit across the Greater Toronto area to reduce gridlock.

We are also making key investments to support the delivery of clean drinking water, such as the $50 million investment in the Huron Elgin London Clean Water Project in Southern Ontario.

We are supporting more liveable communities—such as the $40-million investment in the Centre of Sport Excellence in Calgary, and the $8-million contribution for the cultural precinct, Quartier des Spectacles, in Montreal.

In addition to the Building Canada plan, we continue to take action in each transportation mode. With respect to public transit, we brought investments to $1 billion per year, and in budget 2008 we've set aside $500 million to support capital investments, through the public transit capital trust.

In the rail sector, we passed Bill C-8, protecting rail shippers from potential abuse of market power by railways. We also began a review of rail freight service and signed two memorandums of understanding with the Railway Association of Canada. The first enhances the security of rail transportation in Canada, and the second addresses the issue of railway emissions. Both underscore the central role of railways to trade in Canada.

We are also making significant gains in the air sector. We are very encouraged by the progress that has been made in the year since we launched “Blue Sky”, and the momentum for more liberalized air travel continues to build.

Last June, when Prime Minister Harper met his European colleagues at the Canada-European Summit, the leaders agreed to launch negotiations for a comprehensive air services agreement between Canada and the European Union.

I am very happy to report to this committee that one year after the launch of “Blue Sky”, the third round of negotiations has begun in Brussels. This is good news for travellers and for the travel industry.

In the marine sector, as I mentioned previously, with your assistance we have moved ahead with amendments to the Canada Marine Act. I was also happy last month to announce that the Government of Canada is providing $101 million over five years to help Marine Atlantic Inc. acquire a charter vessel that will address increasing traffic to and from Newfoundland and Labrador.

We've made progress in building a more sustainable transportation system as well, and we must. Transportation accounts for about 25% of all Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. That's why we're moving forward with national fuel consumption regulations for new cars and light trucks. It's also why we're moving ahead in key areas of our ecoTransport strategy, which covers all modes of transportation.

We are also working with our provincial and territorial colleagues to improve our environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by delivering clean water, green energy, and cleaning up contaminated sites.

Honourable Members, this is the work we are currently doing and, as you can see, we have accomplished much together. But much more work yet remains. That is why I am asking you today to recommend that Parliament approve the spending in the Main Estimates that were tabled by the President of the Treasury Board on February 28.

The 2008-2009 Main Estimates for the portfolio, which total $4.544 billion, include $1.032 billion for Transport Canada and $2.456 billion for the Office of Infrastructure Canada. The remainder of the funding is allocated to the various Crown corporations.

Because we don’t have time to go into all the numbers, I would instead like to briefly discuss the two major components of this portfolio—Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada.

For Transport Canada, the 2008-2009 Main Estimates—$1.032 billion—show a net increase of $173.3 million from the $859 million level in the 2007-2008 Main Estimates. The $173.3 million net increase is due to increases of $293.5 million for new initiatives, and changes to ongoing programs that are offset by $120.2 million in decreases in funding for the winding down of programs and government-wide reductions.

Of the $1.032 billion, 9.7 per cent—or $100.1 million—is for flow-through payments, including: $54.9 million for the Confederation Bridge; $41.9 million for the St. Lawrence Seaway; and, $3.3 million for the Victoria Bridge.

The remaining resources of $932.2 million, combined with respendable revenue of $345.6 million, represent a $1.28-billion budget that is available to the department to cover the following expenses: $471.7 million for grants and contributions programs; $382.5 million for personnel costs; $278.3 million for other operating costs; $78.2 million for capital; and, $67 million for employee benefit plans.

Let me now turn to the Infrastructure portion of this portfolio.

The total funding being sought is $2.456 billion, a net increase of $437.8 million from the $2.018 billion in the 2007-2008 main estimates. The $437.8 million net increase is due to the greater spending on infrastructure programs, and in particular I would like to mention $327.8 million for the provincial-territorial infrastructure base funding program, for the second year of this program, and a $197.5 million increase for the gas tax fund, which steps up in total from $800 million to close to $1 billion this year.

These increases were offset to some degree by decreases in funding for programs where most of the commitments were made in previous years.

Of course the estimates also provide for funding needed for the operations of the department and for the delivery of its programs in the amount of $37.5 million.

As Minister, I have a number of other portfolio responsibilities that do not require any appropriations from Parliament and are therefore not displayed in the Estimates. They include: the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund; the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority; the Pacific Pilotage Authority; the Atlantic Pilotage Authority; the Laurentian Pilotage Authority; the Blue Water Bridge Authority; Ridley Terminals Inc.; the Royal Canadian Mint and Subsidiaries; and, Canada Lands Company Ltd.

Honourable Members, my limited time today does not allow me to go into detail regarding all the items on this list. However, I believe the numbers I have presented today demonstrate the importance this government places on the priorities we have identified under this portfolio.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the Committee’s questions on our overall approach, or on any of the specific measures contained in these estimates.

Thank you.

[Graham Fraser]

The purpose of amending the act is to remedy that problem. If I understand correctly, that's Bill C-13. I don't know if it changed between Bill C-23 and the last version of Bill C-13, but it requires that informations be—

The House resumed from May 5, consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence, be read the third time and passed.

Canada Marine Act

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, having worked on the committee to ensure that the bill would provide the detail and implementable advantages that it purported to do when it was first presented. As a member of Parliament one has to assume a certain sense of responsibility. One has to examine the intent of the legislation, question the minister, probe the bureaucracy, and then go out into the field and consult with those who are going to be first and foremost impacted by the legislation. Without undue modesty, I did all three.

As a concession to a new member of the NDP, we asked at the very last meeting dealing with Bill C-23 if we could have more detail for that new member, and I see that the member is paying attention so that is good. That member was invited to bring forward new witnesses with proposed amendments. The only people he was able to come up with were the ones we have talked about, such as people involved with Community Air who came as individuals, and a councillor who came as an individual. As for amendments, I know that listeners cannot see, but when I put my index finger and my thumb together, it forms a zero. There were none. When the member says that there are people who rejected amendments, I am still at a loss to understand which amendments were presented that were rejected. There were none.

I come back to the concept of what the legislation was intended to do.

I have great respect for all members of Parliament who come here to represent the views of their citizens. They come here to address the issues that are germane to the growth of Canada. A parliamentarian of great note thanked his constituents for voting him in as their representative but he also said that he was now a member of the Parliament of Canada.

As a member of the Parliament of Canada, each and every one of the members on that committee looked at all the port authorities to see what they needed in order to become viable commercial entities capable of meeting the challenges of the economies of tomorrow.

As a member of the former government, I said that at least from its intent the legislation was worthy of consideration. We will see if it is worthy of support. I said it and I might have been selfish, but indulge me for a moment. When I was in government with my cabinet colleagues and my caucus colleagues, we fashioned a policy that we thought would enhance the future of Canada and all Canadians. Whether they lived in downtown Toronto, Yukon or Atlantic Canada, it did not matter. The policy was designed to ensure that we would have gateways of access and success in the west, in central Canada and in Atlantic Canada. We thought we were all-encompassing.

We had provisions in place for all of those ports that some might say are northern ports, those which the coastal areas of Atlantic Canada and British Columbia might think of as secondary ports, but they are very important ports. More important for all of Canada, we wanted to position the port authorities such that they would be able to meet the challenges of the economies that were beginning to develop everywhere around the world.

At the very first instance we asked if these ports were commercially viable. Some ports are bigger than others. We divided them into two tiers. It is no secret that the first three are Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax. We put in a cutoff of $25 million. Those ports do that amount of business. They are the ports that will be the fulcrum for transportation around the world.

There are other ports, tier two, which are equally significant,perhaps locally, but they are not the hubs around which spokes will be developed. We recognize that. However, that does not mean they should not be prepared to take advantage of the vagaries of commerce. We could dispense with them, move them over to one side, eliminate them, say they have no value, and then watch as their communities languish while commerce takes a look someplace else. We thought that would not be responsible for Canadians and so we said that we needed to make sure that some of these ports can amalgamate.

Quite frankly, the ports in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia needed to have one authority for efficiency and effectiveness purposes. They needed to be able to make the investments in their infrastructure so that they could receive commerce from the interior of Canada, the interior of the continent, and make sure that it could be expeditiously shipped to those ports and those markets in the Orient and southeast Asia and along the western coast of Canada and down along, I guess we would call it, the eastern Pacific rim.

In order to do that, we had to give those ports the legislative authority to amalgamate; to ensure that they could borrow on the open market commensurate with their commercial ability; and to be like other corporate entities, capable of accessing government advantages through infrastructure programs as an example, or through other programs that would give them the advantage that all Canadians would expect of any of their organizations that would be directed to enhancing the Canadian livelihood, the standard of living and the quality of life. That is what we all intended to do.

We sought witnesses from all sectors of the economy and society, and indeed governments, as my colleague from Yukon said, from all orders of government, one might say from all levels of government, but all governments interested. We sought their advice. We sought the advice of those in the industry and the businesses, the port authorities that came before us. We asked them where the deficiencies were in the legislation, what they needed to do. We invited everyone. It may be that others might not have heeded the call. It is rather unfortunate. But we took that extra step; we went out and sought the advice of those who would be impacted.

It is interesting. For example, the former speaker concentrated everything on Toronto. I am a citizen of Toronto. I have lived all of my life there. I am a specialist. I went there and got all of my education over and over again so that I could say, yes, I am from Toronto. I hold no place higher than anyone else, but I will not take a second position to anyone else about how my city has developed, should develop and what is important for its citizens whom I have been proud to represent for these last almost 20 years. I have learned in those 20 years that somebody can make a distinction between the spin indicated for a particular purpose and good sound public policy.

Here I am as the transport critic for the official opposition supporting a piece of government legislation that has gone through all of the appropriate filters, examinations and critiques. As I indicated, I avowed very early it is because it was generated by the former government of which I was a member.

This is a happy confluence of two different parties, two different governments, recognizing the import of this bill for all of Canada. In fact, even the Bloc Québécois on that committee said that this bill was good for transportation policy, irrespective of the colour of the party in power. Surely that has to be the test of good legislation. I do not think the government can take full credit for it. Nor am I reaching back into the past to say that it is ours and that is why we are doing it. Nor do our colleagues in the Bloc say that it is their legislation and they will put their brand on it.

This is something where, collectively, members of Parliament came from the various regions of the country. As I indicated at the beginning of my discussion, they were elected as representatives of their people, but they came here to become members of Parliament. That meant they assumed the obligation to see everything from the prism of the public good.

Three of the four parties in the House support this legislation, wholeheartedly, after having gone through the appropriate examination and underscoring the fact that we were talking about strengthening the commercial viability, the ability to borrow and the governance models of all these ports. I hearken to point out that each and every one of these ports has representatives from the communities in which they are located, representatives who are suggested and recommended by the municipalities in which they are located.

Yes, they must finally receive the stamp of approval of the then minister of transport, but even in my own city, that port authority has representatives from the municipality, the province and the federal authority. All three orders of government are represented in a port authority, which number one objective must be to ensure that if there are advantages to be gained from commerce to be shipped through the Great Lakes, some of it be resident in the area of Toronto.

One might ask how big a port is it. Despite all the criticisms, it ranks, according to Transport Canada and according to the volume of operating revenue, number eight in the country. It is not bad for a port that is not supposed to be doing anything. Only 10 other significant ports rank below it. What we have seen over the course of this last little while is the ebb and flow of commerce, the value of commodities that are shipped from the interior of our great country to other parts of the world, is making its way through a transportation system in which various ports are key.

For example, I think of the great port of Thunder Bay, which at one time was the second most important inland port in all of Canada, second only to Montreal. It has suffered some decline partly because a lot of the materials, a lot of the commodities, minerals as well as lumber has been shipped out west through the port of Vancouver, now Prince Rupert.

This does not mean that all the investment Canadian governments before us made in building a seaway to ensure all the products were produced in the centre of Canada, my province being most significant in this regard, would come through a St. Lawrence Seaway system, of which the port of Toronto is a very important element. However, it is not the only port in the Great Lakes Seaway system. We have seen more and more investments in the port of Montreal. It has begun to flourish in a way that people had not anticipated.

One can be morose, critical or shortsighted and say that we should forget all those 19 major ports throughout the country because those people in one port city of the country might be interested only in the land development side of the port authority. Therefore, we should forget about the flow of commerce, transportation and goods from the markets, which are particularly Canadian, out to an export environment where they will enhance the standard of living of all Canadians.

Happily, the majority of members of Parliament in the House do not have that same disposition. Happily, members of Parliament recognize their obligation to the Canadian common weal. Happily, we have saner minds in the House that are prepared to take a look at what must be done.

What must be done includes not only those gateways to central and western Canada, but to all those ports that provide the world with an avenue into Canada, coming from the Atlantic ports, of which Halifax is the largest and is the most commercially viable. However, it is not the only one.

We have a tendency to focus on all those that are of great interest to us. I have a particular soft spot in my heart for the port of Halifax. It is the port which received me when I first came to this country. It is a wonderful place. I am surprised we have not made much more of Halifax than it currently is, but it ranks as either the best or the second best. It is among the top three natural ports, natural harbours in the entire world.

The port of Halifax is a gateway for everything that could come from Europe and Africa. The most logical place for all that commerce to come in through is either Halifax or Saint John. In fact, there are others, but Halifax is by far the biggest. Through it, we could build that kind of an infrastructure, that kind of a network, which would enhance the economic viabilities of so many communities throughout all of Canada.

Bill C-23 speaks to the importance of marine ports. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, and you know this better than others because of where you come from, all those marine ports are tied to a road and rail infrastructure that spreads out in a network through the rest of the marketplace, which is North America. There are none that are better positioned to do that, in my view, than Halifax or mainland Vancouver, Nanaimo, Prince Rupert, Fraser River Valley and Montreal.

There are other ports, but those hubs ought to give Canada the advantage that other countries naturally cannot enjoy. Therefore, we have been gifted by the bounty of geography and the good Lord, some might say, and we should take advantage of it.

I come from a city that is one of the most advantaged in the world. I am not anxious to see us lose one of those elements that give us this great advantage, even if, over the course of the last several years, we have allowed it to slip into an inferior position relative to others. However, such is the competition among Canadians that the competition among these port cities and port societies all enhance the livelihood of the citizens they serve. They might serve most directly those with which they are adjacent, but they serve the larger Canadian advantage that all of us share and advocate when we run for office.

Members in the House sometimes might put partisan advantage and partisan diatribe ahead of our obligation as members of Parliament. While I am capable of engaging in that kind of dialogue and would reserve it for fun moments, for serious moments like this one, I call on all members of Parliament to do what I know my caucus will do, and that is support a bill that is absolutely focused on ensuring the Canadian advantage is maintained by giving port authorities good governance and access to loans and an opportunity to enhance the infrastructure for greater commercial viability down the road.

My colleagues on the committee all felt that way. Those who did the work, appreciate this most. Those who appreciate this most, will support it. Those who support it, know that its intent is good. This is what the Liberal Party will do and it will vote for it.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, speaking about misleading, the Conservative government consults but it does not listen.

The City of Toronto actually has put forward two motions that have said very clearly that the Toronto Port Authority must be returned to the citizens of Toronto, that it should be disbanded. That motion was very clear. It was supported. It was voted on democratically. It was submitted as evidence to the transport committee.

The Conservative and Liberal members of Parliament choose not to look at facts and the black and white motions from the city of Toronto. Then they say they have consulted everybody. A lot of municipalities say they want to see local councillors on these port authorities, but no, port authorities cannot have local councillors. Perhaps they are not very accountable. That is why they do not want elected representatives on these bodies that have a say over how funds are used and how lands are used, lands that are supposed to be for all Canadians, not for the chosen few, the big corporations, the elite and the most powerful. These lands are supposed to be for all Canadians, but they have no say.

No city councillors are allowed to be on any of the port authorities. However, if one is a friend of the Conservative government, if one used to work for a former finance minister in the Harris government or a few of the Conservative MPs, one can be appointed to the Toronto Port Authority, for example. They have control over these lands. They have control. What kind of accountability are we talking about? What kind of democracy are we talking about? What kind of consultation are we talking about? How is the Conservative government listening to the people of Toronto?

No wonder there are no Conservative MPs from the city of Toronto. Over and over again, it has not been listened to. A local councillor, Mr. Adam Vaughan, was a witness for Bill C-23 and said he was very opposed to this bill. Guess what? He was shouted down. He was told that perhaps he did not really represent the City of Toronto and that perhaps he did not really represent the citizens of Toronto. I am sorry, but Mr. Vaughan was elected and there is absolutely no reason to say that the citizens have not--

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is misleading the public about the impacts of changes to the Marine Act through Bill C-23.

If anyone opposite wonders why cities are so upset with the Conservative government, they need to look no further than this bill which will further reduce infrastructure funding for cities. Moreover, it changes the governance regulations for port authorities, like the unaccountable, unelected and undemocratic Toronto port authority.

Currently, port authorities are legislated to be self-sustaining. They are not supposed to depend on the federal government for handouts or subsidies.

The government is ramming through a bill and has opposed all of the NDP amendments which would allow the Toronto port authority, and other port authorities, to apply for federal infrastructure funds desperately needed by cities like Toronto and others across Canada. It also would extend the terms of the board of directors, decrease the size of the board, and make the port authorities even less accountable.

The Liberals do not even bat an eyelash. They simply roll over and are letting the Conservatives pass the bill to avoid public scrutiny. They together in fact oppose hearings at committee, hearings that Parliament could conduct across Canada so that we could hear from municipalities and citizens about the bill. That was opposed even though the NDP proposed it during the debate at committee.

It is too bad that the 20 members of the House elected from Toronto in the Liberal Toronto caucus will not listen to the city councillors, the mayor and advocates for our city. They have said that the bill is bad for our ridings, bad for our economy, and will not do anything to fix Toronto or any other city's crumbling infrastructure. It is too bad these MPs are afraid to face the good citizens of Toronto.

The bill is a clear signal that the Conservatives cannot be trusted to give cities what they need to grow and prosper in the 21st century. On the weekend, on both Saturday and Sunday, across Canada and especially in Toronto there were Jane Jacobs walks. Of course, people know that Jane Jacobs is a renowned urban philosopher, a planner, and it is her version of cities that are world renowned.

She urges Canadians and Parliament to close a dangerous Trojan horse down. What she is talking about is of course the Toronto port authority. Why? Because the port authority was imposed by the former government, the Liberals, against the wishes of Torontonians. It was formed through changes in the Marine Act in 2001.

In downtown Toronto we have 100,000 people living at the Toronto waterfront and another 100,000 who will work there when all the developments are finished. The Toronto official website says:

Toronto's waterfront is our front porch to the world. With the right kind of investment, the waterfront will become a necklace of green, with pearls of activity; people living, working and enjoying it with pride and passion.

The Toronto port authority vision, on the other hand, is to create an industrial strip dominated by an airport. These two visions are obviously incompatible. Instead of a strip of green with 215 acres of land, we now have an airport and planes flying out creating about 2,865 kilograms of CO₂ pollution in the air. It certainly is not the vision of a clean, green waterfront.

Jane Jacobs is not alone. Another very famous Torontonian was Allan Sparrow, who unfortunately passed away from cancer last week. Mr. Sparrow was the founder of a group called Community AIR, with 2,000 members in Toronto. It has been pushing the federal government to put the port authorities back into the hands of the citizens.

As a former Toronto city councillor, Allan Sparrow inspired a generation of reform-minded progressives with his ahead of his time thinking about our environment. He dreamed of a clean and livable city that all could enjoy. His role in shaping the Toronto we know and love today should not be forgotten. His legacy will live on in the movements that he inspired, such as closing the Toronto Island Airport and, of course, promoting a clean and livable waterfront community.

I want to talk about the contrast between the Toronto Port Authority and Allan Sparrow's vision. He said:

As for the ongoing battle over the future of the Island Airport lands, some things never change. The privileged and civically disengaged will continue to pollute and degrade Toronto's waterfront with their “save a few minutes at all costs” life style...at the end of the day, the larger community will prevail, but not without struggle.

Why is the Toronto downtown waterfront important? I want to talk about the neighbourhood that surrounds the waterfront. The waterfront communities, through Allan Sparrow, designed the beautiful St. Lawrence neighbourhood as a new, model downtown community at that time. It embraced a mix of affordable and market priced housing, centred on a park and community recreation centre. There were non-profit projects. Whether people are young or old, they enjoy living there. It is the same thing in the Harbourfront area with the Harbourfront Community Centre. This has happened all along the waterfront.

What Mr. Sparrow was particularly good at was that as a businessman he looked at the business case of the Toronto Port Authority and at its financial statements. He was very clear that in 2006, for example, the financial statements of the Toronto Port Authority showed that it made $5 million in revenue but spent $5.2 million to operate. It was obviously a money losing operation.

Mr. Sparrow was a very good business person. He founded a consulting company, Domicity, which in fact helped the federal government quite a few years ago in regard to attracting IT investment to Canada. He led missions to Japan, Korea and the Silicon Valley. We know that he was a person who knew a lot about businesses and a lot about large private and government organizations.

Allan Sparrow very clearly said that the port authority was unsustainable and that the business case it presented would forever lose money. Because of that, he knew that the expansion of the island airport by the port authority would be a disaster for the City of Toronto and its plans to create a clean and green waterfront.

He was also very concerned about the increase in air traffic bringing water and noise pollution to one of the most densely populated parts of the city. In his very focused and deliberate way, Allan Sparrow decided he would do everything in his power to stop it. In 2002 he founded Community AIR and was the group's spokesperson in the formative years of the fight.

As the number of people involved in fighting the port authority grew, more people went to the annual general meetings of the port authority. It became more obvious that these port authorities were not at all accountable. It was noticed that when the port authorities conducted their environmental assessment process, it really was not a clear and open process. This very strong organization, which represented the City of Toronto and the citizens of Toronto, was not given a voice.

I wish that the Toronto Port Authority had people like Jane Jacobs and Allan Sparrow on its board of directors so that the people's voices would actually be heard in these port authorities. What do we have instead under Bill C-23? We have a smaller board of directors whose terms can be extended not just once but twice.

The former Liberal government appointed a lot of its friends to the port authorities, and in the last two or three years the Conservatives have been appointing lobbyists and a former Conservative staffer of the finance minister to the port authority, whereas citizens and the people who represent the users and who really know something about running ports are not appointed. The Jane Jacobses and Allan Sparrows never have a chance to have a say in how the Toronto Port Authority is being run.

It is a disgrace. This bill is a step in the wrong direction. We know that every political movement is built on the shoulders of those who came before, whether it is the Jane Jacobses and the Allan Sparrows of the world or someone else. Their leadership, their personal style and their vision of what great cities and countries are all about have been missed completely in the bill.

We note that if lobbyists or political friends can have a contract or a term renewed twice, we are looking at nine years of them being in a port authority that has absolutely no say from the local cities or citizens or the elected councillors.

We have also noted that the bill has no accountability. Many municipalities are speaking against it. We oppose access to federal funds for the Toronto Port Authority and other port authorities because it would drain the funds from a central pot and the crumbling infrastructure of municipalities would continue to crumble.

We also note that the bill will give the minister authority to expand the borrowing limits of port authorities. If they go bankrupt, guess what? It will be taxpayers who will be left holding the bag or trying to pay off those debts. Or maybe the Toronto Port Authority, as it has done before, will sue everyone. It sued the city of Toronto and the federal government and made off with a lot of money, with millions, in fact.

Another change in Bill C-23 that is a dangerous area is that it licenses landholdings. It would allow port authorities to license landholdings to third parties with absolutely no input and no comment from local municipalities.

In yet another area, Bill C-23 gives no standards for security measures. For the port authority in downtown Toronto, right by the CN Tower and hundreds of thousands of residents of that highly dense area, there are really no standards for security measures.

Bill C-23 also does not give the Auditor General any power to investigate port authorities' financial practices, so the port authority is not accountable financially, and neither is it accountable to local citizens.

For those reasons, the NDP and residents of Toronto will continue to fight and will strive to return the port authorities to the people of Toronto and the citizens of Canada. Bill C-23 concerning Marine Act changes is certainly a step in the wrong direction.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23 today. Before I begin I want to say that our thoughts are with the over 4,000 people who may have died during the tragedy in Burma on the weekend.

On November 16, 2007, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities introduced Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence, in the House of Commons. The bill is very similar in respect to its predecessor, Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act and other Acts, which was introduced in the House of Commons on June 22, 2005 by the previous Liberal government. The bill died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament without having passed first reading.

Just to ensure our critic knows where I stand on this, I am in favour of the bill to modernize and increase the efficiency of our ports. I have a few questions and concerns on certain elements, but they are basically bringing forth the main points that we had in our bill. We are in agreement with the modernization of the ports in this trading world and to do anything that would make it more efficient and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are so critical to my area in the north.

In 1998, during the Liberal government's term in office, the Canadian Marine Act received royal assent. This was the first comprehensive legislation to govern several aspects of Canada's marine legislation. In addition, the act allowed for the establishment of Canada Port Authorities, port facilities and continued divestiture of certain harbour beds.

The Canadian Marine Act assisted in the commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway and contained provisions for the further commercialization of federal ferry services.

In 2003, the Canadian Marine Act was subject to a legislative review and, since 2003, Transport Canada has carried out a number of studies from which it was able to compile several recommendations to improve the Canadian Marine Act.

Canada's policy framework of 1995 for federal ports focused on the elimination of overcapacity in the new government structure to support a more commercialized system. Global trading patterns have changed in the context in which federal ports operate. Port modernization is required to ensure that ports have the tools needed to compete in a global trading environment and to support the government's new national policy framework for strategic gateways and trade corridors.

The Canada Port Authorities have locations now in St. John's, Belledune, Halifax, Saint John, Sept-Îles , Saguenay, Trois-Rivières, Montreal, Hamilton, Toronto, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Port Alberni, Nanaimo, Prince Rupert and Vancouver which will be amalgamated with the Fraser River and North Fraser.

Some aspects of the bill are administrative and some are more substantive. Certain administrative aspects were made to increase the clarity and consistency between both language versions. One changes the purpose so it would recognize the significance of marine transportation and its contribution to the Canadian economy.

Our party, in developing this act in the first place, is very supportive of this modernization of the ports. In fact, our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, announced before this past Christmas about a number of new ports in Nunavut, small boat harbours, which is very exciting. Unfortunately, the government has only announced one port, which is one commercial harbour in Nunavut, and we would certainly like a lot more small boat harbours in Nunavut.

The government also announced the enhancement of the military harbour but we have not seen much progress on it to date and we certainly would like to see that initiative related to harbours proceed.

During second reading on this bill, I asked questions as we have had problems relating to consultation with many bills in this Parliament. I was happy to find out that stevedores and longshoremen were consulted. The government had to do some research to find that out but I finally got the answer to that question. The opinions of the pilotage associations are very important. I meet with them usually once a year and they have very important considerations. Of course, also the port authorities, which we know had major input into this bill.

The purpose of the bill, over and above the technical amendments I talked about, is to do a number of things. I will talk about each of these things in more detail and maybe some specific elements of the bill on top of that.

First, the bill would modify the port authorities' access to federal funding.

Second, it would add provisions regarding the power of a port authority to borrow money.

Third, it would provide additional regulatory powers to the Governor in Council.

In some things related to the amalgamation of port authorities, the way in which the directors on the boards of the port authorities' would be pointed would facilitate the processes.

The bill adds provisions regarding port amalgamation, which, in the original times, were not needed because there were so few major ports operating. We now have many more ports to accommodate the huge increase in the world shipping trade. I will list them later on in my speech.

The sixth item related to the bill is that it would modify provisions regarding the boards of directors the port authorities.

Finally, it would add a penalty scheme and streamline certain other provisions.

Before I go into each one of those, I want to state that there are 19 Canadian port authorities right now when we are talking about the amendments related to port authorities. These are located in each of the regions in which gateway and corridor initiatives are being started. I will refer to those later on as well.

One of the areas in which I am interested and hope to hear from the government about is the amendment, as of November 2007, that contribution funding for implementation of security enhancements would no longer be available to Canadian port authorities. I wonder why that has been allowed to expire and why something else was not put in place. I know that is the intent of this bill but, as I will talk about later, I do not want it to detract from money that would be available for other security provisions.

I know a bill was put in place to allow security investments in ports, for instance. I also know that the Canadian Fertilizer Institute approached us for a similar program so it could invest in the very expensive security requirements for fertilizers and dangerous chemical items to make it more competitive in the world markets and more competitive for our agricultural markets.

The bill would give ports the ability to use some of their lands for different purposes, not just for the port itself. In general, I am very strongly supportive of this provision for two reasons. The first reason is that there would be no incentive for a port to expand to cover future contingencies. As we have seen, there have been great increases in shipping in the world and yet some of our ports could not keep up and then, all of a sudden, the land is all gone.

When condos, art centres and other big structures are built on waterfront land that should have been reserved for a port, it becomes very difficult to expropriate them when the land is needed for a port. It would be hard to get public opinion behind it to use that land and it would be very expensive and wasteful.

For long term planning, we need to set aside that land up front, but if it were to be set aside and left vacant, there will be all sorts of public pressure from every group, commercial enterprise, government, other transportation facilities, convention centres and everyone who wants that land for something else.

This bill would allow that land to be used for other purposes and generate revenue for the port authorities, which should be as self-sufficient as possible, of course, until such time as it is needed.

I definitely am in favour of that, with the exception that we must ensure that once again things are not put on the land that would cause the same problem, permanent structures such as condominiums, transportation networks or art centres, something that cannot just be taken down when the land is needed. I think this is a good provision but it needs to be watched carefully to ensure it is used properly.

For Canada, the ports are more important than for many other countries because we are a trading nation. The parliamentary secretary said that in his speech at second reading. In that light, I hope the government will stop closing important consulates around the world because they are just as important for us as a trading nation.

I said earlier that I would talk about the increase in the number of ports and talk about why we need to deal with things like amalgamations in this bill. In British Columbia, where there was originally one major port, it now has one in North Fraser, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Nanaimo and Port Alberni, all to help the great expansion of trade to Asia. That is why we need coordination, not only with the ports themselves but also with the other types of transportation that feed into the port.

All the investment cannot be in the port land itself, because we also need to invest in the appropriate bridges, roads, parking and customs facilities in a type of corridor strategy. When we did the west coast port corridor we envisioned all of those items. I hope the Conservatives enhance and speed up the investment in that Pacific corridor at the rate that we had envisioned.

A few years ago we missed an opportunity to re-enhance the capacity of the Halifax harbour to handle the giant ships coming into the marketplace. I hope we do not miss that in the future.

When we are talking about the gateways, I want to assure my colleagues in Quebec and Ontario that we are not just talking about the Atlantic and Pacific gateways, which I have mentioned. We also need to ensure there is investment in the St. Lawrence--Great Lakes corridor and the St. Lawrence Seaway. That corridor has good potential because many of those ports would not be in competition with the east or west. They would be taking goods directly inland in a more efficient and economical way. This would help to build efficiencies in Ontario and Quebec in their ports on the Great Lakes and on the St. Lawrence River.

The distance between Montreal and Rotterdam is 5,813 kilometres, while the distance between New York and Rotterdam is 6,154 kilometres. Therefore, there is no reason that we cannot get that faster entry into the heartland of the Americas if we ensure we have just as efficient a system for getting the goods into our ports as opposed to ports like New York.

In spite of increased shipping around the world, Canada's use of that particular route has dropped. The total amount of goods transported via the St. Lawrence dropped from 130 million tonnes in the early 1980s to approximately 100 million tonnes 10 years later, only to have around 105 million tonnes since. Thus, since 1980, the ports on the St. Lawrence have received less merchandise than the 150 million tonnes they received in 2007. It was 25 million tonnes less than what was being transported on the St. Lawrence in the early 1980s.

Over the past 30 years the carriage of goods by ship has grown in the world 600%, while traffic on the St. Lawrence has dropped from 130 million tonnes in the 1980s to the current 105 million tonnes. Even the Mississippi River, which is a competitor to get into the heartland of the St. Lawrence, saw its traffic increase from 450 million tonnes to 700 million tonnes. I want my colleagues in Ontario and Quebec to know we are thinking of them and that our vision of ports includes them in the modernization and investment of their ports.

Those were introductory remarks. I want to now go on to the major components of the bill.

First, I will talk about the borrowing limits. It is certainly important to make sure that ports can make their investments, that they are borrowing efficiently and that everything else as a system is monitored and controlled. It should be done in such a way as to ensure they have secure borrowing and can be able to pay the bills. To date, the government has not had to step in. We would not want a situation where there was excess borrowing where ports could not control themselves.

The next area is access to contribution funding. This is perhaps my biggest concern with the bill. It is related to making ports eligible for funding through existing programs. Of course, we all agree that ports have to have funding, but it is perplexing to me as to why the government, if it believes in that, just does not provide the funding and why it would want to take the money from other federal government programs as opposed to providing a program for the ports. For instance, the ports want funding for infrastructure and security, which of course what we want, but why would the government take that money from other areas?

We have limited infrastructure. The government, fortunately, after extensive lobbying, carried on the infrastructure programs to the tune of $33 billion but changed the conditions. Most of the municipalities across Canada have not heard how much of that they are going to get. I have said time and time again in the House, and I know the Minister of Finance has heard me, that municipalities have to get the same amount of infrastructure money as they did under the previous government, which was $33 billion, and they need to know the rules so they can apply it and it is not distributed all over the place.

The municipalities have not heard for so long, the new rules are not out, and there is worry across the country. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Association of Yukon Communities have been wondering when they are going to hear what the rules are and how much of that money they are going to get. Are they still going to get the same amount of the infrastructure money as they did in the past?

The primary reason these programs were started in the first place was for the municipalities of this country. The Liberal Party will never cease to stand up for the municipalities to ensure they get their fair share of that funding. That is why, when there is a provision in this bill that adds another important need for funding to the same pile money, it is very worrying to me. Everyone will certainly be watching to make sure the ports get their money, but that the municipalities in Canada are not deprived of the funds they so desperately need.

The House resumed from April 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, our week devoted to action on the environment and health of Canadians is proving to be a success. We just passed Bill C-33 at report stage with the support of two of the other three parties. This is our bill requiring that by 2010 5% of gasoline and by 2012 2% of diesel fuel and home heating oil be comprised of renewable fuels. It represents an important part of our plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. Debate of this bill at third reading will now be able to commence tomorrow.

We have also started to debate two bills to improve the safety of food, consumer products and medical products in Canada.

On Monday we debated Bill C-52, to create the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and yesterday we debated Bill C-51, to modernize the Food and Drugs Act.

We also introduced Bill C-54, to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins. We will continue to debate these bills today and tomorrow.

During these uncertain economic times to the south, our government has led the way on the economy by taking decisive and early action over the past six months to pay down debt, reduce taxes to stimulate the economy and create jobs, and provide targeted support to key industries. In keeping with our strong leadership on the economy, next week will be maintaining a competitive economy week.

We plan to debate the following bills intended to enhance the competitiveness of certain sectors of the Canadian economy: our Bill C-23, at third reading stage, to amend the Canada Marine Act; our Bill C-5, at report stage, on liability in case of a nuclear incident; and our Bill C-14, at second reading stage, to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

We will also debate at second reading Bill C-32, which modernizes the Fisheries Act, Bill C-43, which amends the Customs Act, and Bill C-39, which amends the Canada Grain Act. We will also begin to debate Bill C-46. This is our bill to free western barley producers from the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly by giving them the freedom to market their own products. We will debate at third reading our bill to amend the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-7.

My friend, the member for Wascana, the Liberal House leader, said that government business and the doing of business in the House of Commons appeared to end on Tuesday. That is because next Wednesday and Thursday will be opposition days, and I would like to allot them as such at this time.

In terms of the question he raised with regard to Bill C-293, which is a private member's bill, I understand it is scheduled to come before the House in early May. At that time the House will have an opportunity to deal with the matter.

In terms of estimates and witnesses appearing before committee of the whole, the government does have to designate those to occur before May 31. Late last night I finally received notice of which two departments were identified and we will soon be advising the House of the dates that will be scheduled for consideration of those matters in committee of the whole.

Canada Marine Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When the House returns to the study of Bill C-23, there will be 13 minutes left for the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-23 on port lands and port authorities.

First, it is ironic that earlier today the parliamentary secretary accused the NDP of delaying the bill. In actual fact the questions from his members during questions and comments have delayed the bill, so I will not get my full 20 minutes today, which will delay it further. I certainly intend to take my full 20 minutes because I have a lot to say on this.

I represent Vancouver East. The whole of my northern boundary borders the port of Vancouver, from Cambie Street to Boundary Road. Over many decades, whether it is myself as the current member of Parliament or whether it was the former member of Parliament, Margaret Mitchell, we have dealt with many issues concerning the port of Vancouver.

I want to acknowledge that there is a national and economic significance in terms of trade and economic activity to the ports in Canada. The port of Vancouver is an incredibly important economic engine in Vancouver and in British Columbia and, indeed, in Canada. There is no question we need legislation that lays out the importance and the mandate of that function.

I have also learned, over 11 years of being a member of Parliament, that the interface between the port and what happens on port lands and the local community, because sometimes it is a residential neighbourhood, or a commercial neighbourhood and the municipality of which it is a part, is a very important question. It is some of those issues that I want to focus on today.

We were told earlier by the parliamentary secretary that we were delaying this bill. We think it is very important that we have adequate debate. We are not delaying the bill; we want to have adequate debate.

I point out that at committee the parliamentary secretary said everyone was in favour of the bill and the ports came out in favour. On January 29, only two port authorities came as witnesses, Vancouver and Montreal. On the second day of hearings, there was one city councillor, someone from the community airport impact review in Toronto and an individual. That was it. Then the bill went clause by clause. In fact, it went through with lightning speed.

Unfortunately, the NDP amendments at the committee were ruled out of order. Those amendments would have addressed some of our serious concerns about bill, concerns about the questions of accountability, jurisdiction and mandate as they relate to the local community.

As I mentioned earlier, Vancouver has had significant issues over the years relating to the port activity, the adjacent residential neighbourhoods and the city of Vancouver as a whole. One of the NDP amendments would have ensured that a majority of the board of the port authority would be made up of municipal councillors. As well, the land use plan that a port authority might develop would be approved by the municipality.

This has been a very key issue for many years, in that port authorities can approve developments and legally do not have to abide by municipal zoning. In some cases that has happened in a voluntary way. Vancouver has had a lot of interaction and cooperation between the port authority and the city of Vancouver in developing various plans over the years. However, there is nothing legally binding in the legislation to ensure that happens.

When problems arise, the port authority, as a legally standing body, has the ability to put through a development that may be detrimental to local residents, to the adjacent residential community and, indeed, to the city as a whole. That creates an enormous amount of conflict. That conflict does not need to happen if only we could structure the port authority in such a way that is in context and is reflective of the interests of the city as a whole.

Again, I want to emphasize that no one is questioning the important mandate ports have and the fact that they need to be given scope and authority to do their work.

However, as we see in the bill, we are now moving into a territory where, for example, a port authority could be making decisions about non-marine functions, activities on land that may have a negative impact. There will be no oversight for that from the local municipality.

Those of us who have been municipal councillors were very used to going to public hearings. We were very used to having zoning bylaws where there is a due process. None of that will apply here.

As we see, port authorities getting this vastly expanded mandate that will allow them to bring in land uses that are not necessarily primarily or strictly port related will cause all kinds of conflicts.

We have already seen that conflict in our community, whether it was with the Lafarge Concrete facility that had been an ongoing battle in east Vancouver for years or whether it was with other potential developments that the port wanted to approve. Residents had to organize and go up against the port authority and a board of directors that really had no accountability to people.

That is why it is so important that we have some municipal representation on those port authority boards. That is a very serious concern for us. I also have major issues around security with ports, and I will address that when I speak in the next round on the bill.

I do want to say that we believe the bill would have been far better off if it were sent across the country in terms of holding public hearings. I know there are many local resident groups and people who have been very interested in the issue of port development who would have wanted to comment on the bill.

Unfortunately, they never got the opportunity to do that, so here we are now at the eleventh hour of the bill at third reading and some of these very fundamental questions will remain unresolved and not dealt with.

I will continue to speak on that. I appreciate the fact that I will have further time when the bill comes up and I certainly intend to deal with the concerns that we have in the NDP.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the presentation by my colleague on Bill C-23. I also heard his comments and suggestions concerning the involvement of municipal representatives in the governance of port authorities. His own party will have a lot of work to do because his critic, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, had some far from friendly discussions with the councillor from the City of Toronto when he appeared before our committee. The situation within his own party will have to evolve.

I am concerned by what is happening in Toronto, namely the dispute between the city and the port authority. Without an envelope for the development of the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes corridor like the one for the Asia-Pacific gateway, and if port authorities were ever allowed to apply for funding under infrastructure programs to which the cities have already applied, we can just imagine the dispute that would arise in Toronto, for example. I would not want such conflicts to erupt in other cities that have port authorities, either, such as Montreal, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Sept-Îles or Saguenay.

The only money available in the budget for the building Canada fund has been allocated to the Asia-Pacific gateway. There is no more money and we should not be imagining there will be more. I hope that my colleague will agree that we should establish a specific budget for the development of the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes corridor.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for York South—Weston for his support of the bill.

The bill is critical to getting the infrastructure built in Canada to ensure our long term prosperity. Unfortunately, the NDP members seem to be hellbent on opposing the bill. They are obstructing it. They are delaying it. It is going to negatively impact the economic prosperity across the country, especially in British Columbia.

As the House knows, I am from the west coast. I understand the needs of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, which administers the largest port by a long mile in Canada. I had a chance to meet with representatives from the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority yesterday. They advised me of a project that they intended to bring forward under our building Canada plan. This project is one where they are working together with the cruise lines that come into Vancouver bringing tourists.

As we know, when these large ships berth in Vancouver, they continue to run their engines to provide power for their ships and that creates more and more greenhouse gas emissions. That is exactly what our government is fighting against. We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority has recognized that and so have the cruise lines. They have come forward with an expensive project to install something called “shore power”, clean power that would be available to the cruise lines to use while they were berthed in Vancouver.

To do that, the port authority will need federal funding. Under section 25, at present there is no ability to receive federal government funding. Bill C-23 would make that possible and would allow organizations such as the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to access critical federal infrastructure money to build those kinds of facilities, which would reduce the impact on our environment.

Does the member believe that what are essentially commercial disputes between the Toronto Port Authority and the city of Toronto should stand in the way of implementing such critical legislation as is Bill C-23?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Let me say that if the hon. member is not trying to delay the legislation, we know that 90% of the House is in favour of it, as is everyone we heard from, from all cities, all provinces, all municipalities and even the member's own city, the city of Burnaby, as well as the cities of Nanaimo, North Vancouver, Port Alberni and Port Moody. All of these cities have been consulted on this and we have not heard any negative effects of that consultation.

At this stage, if the NDP is not trying to delay it, I would ask for unanimous consent. We know that the other parties will agree, so will the NDP agree to pass Bill C-23 at all stages now?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that infrastructure is the responsibility of our provincial partners, but the federal government is allocating the most money in 60 years to help our partners and to help the deficit, which the member has brought up.

Indeed, we have developed really good policy, which the member knows--or at least the member who sits on the committee knows--in relation to consultations with the communities. Indeed, board members and council members have to act in the best interests of the city they represent, just like board members of the port have to act in the best interests of the port itself. There is a fiduciary obligation on them to do so.

However, I did notice that the member from the Bloc mentioned earlier that there was no money for the St. Lawrence and Quebec. That is just not true. The St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes even had $15 million allocated some time ago from the government in relation to security, as well as $350 million for climate change for the province of Quebec, $1 billion for security, and $2.1 billion for gateway and border crossings. All of these things are great initiatives by this country, which Quebec, the people of the St. Lawrence and the people of Montreal can take advantage of. All the ports in Quebec can do so.

In relation to the member's comments earlier, he said that the NDP was not trying to obstruct the legislation, so I would ask now for unanimous consent to pass Bill C-23 at all stages.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence, be read the third time and passed.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-23 this afternoon. It is a bill to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other acts in consequence.

The legislation before us will do a number of things, including modify a port authority's access to federal funding, add provisions regarding the power of a port authority to borrow money, provide additional regulatory powers to the governor in council, add provisions regarding port amalgamations, modify provisions regarding the appointment of directors of port authorities, and add a penalty scheme and streamline certain other enforcement provisions.

This legislation has appeared before this House in the past. It is similar to legislation introduced by the previous government. We debated it on a number of occasions here in the House. It comes out of widespread consultations about changes that were necessary to this kind of legislation. Unfortunately, we believe that it does not cover all of the areas that were noted in that broad consultation process that happened a number of years ago. There are still some flaws with this legislation.

That is why we will continue to do our job as opposition members to raise important questions that we think need to be answered. We raise issues to put on the record things that we think could have been included in this legislation or changes that should have been made to the legislation before it is passed by this House. We see that very much as our responsibility as members of Parliament in this corner of the House. With that being said, there are some concerns.

As the member of Parliament for Burnaby—Douglas, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is very important to my community. Although there is not a lot of port activity associated with Burnaby, the north shore of my riding does border on Burrard Inlet. There are a number of sections of port authority property along that coastline. Notably, Berry Point is one of the pieces of port authority property that has been considered for development in the past. That particular piece is very important to the people in North Burnaby, to the people who live in Burnaby Heights and on Capitol Hill, two neighbourhoods that adjoin Berry Point.

We have seen in the past when the port authority floated ideas about the port development of Berry Point that people in the neighbourhood mobilized because they were very concerned about how that development was going to proceed. At the time, that development was put off. People in North Burnaby are very concerned about the operation of the port authority.

There are also a number of petroleum loading facilities along the north shore of my riding and the south shore of Burrard Inlet in Burnaby related to the Chevron refinery and to the operation of the pipelines that deliver product from the oil fields in Alberta to the coast and to British Columbia. Those are also of concern to people.

The possibility of, for instance, an accident that would result in the discharge of petroleum products into Burrard Inlet is always of great concern in my area. We certainly saw the disastrous consequences of a pipeline accident where a contractor broke a major oil pipeline in Burnaby and caused hundreds of thousands of litres of crude oil product to go into Burrard Inlet. We are very well aware in Burnaby of the consequences, and the importance of having a port authority that is responsive to the kinds of activities, actions and uses of the port lands and of the operations of the port itself.

There is also Barnet Marine Park which is part of the shoreline of Burrard Inlet in my area which is also connected to the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.

The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is a recent amalgamation. One of the things that is contemplated by this legislation is that port authorities can amalgamate. What we saw in the Vancouver area was the port of Vancouver that specifically deals with the port on Burrard Inlet amalgamating with the North Fraser port, the port that exists on the Fraser River, and the Delta port which is the port mainly used right now for export of coal. These three ports amalgamated recently into one port authority, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. There were some questions raised about that.

There are concerns from the smaller communities that were part of the smaller ports about how this new amalgamated port authority will carry out its responsibilities.We will remain interested in how this new arrangement shakes down and how it serves the communities and the people of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

This particular legislation has raised a number of concerns. The NDP spokesperson on transport issues, the member for Windsor West, was very active in committee in raising concerns that we have in this corner of the House. We know from the people whom we work with on this legislation that he took a very active role in trying to ensure that those issues were discussed at committee.

I do not believe, as has been suggested today certainly by the parliamentary secretary, that it is a delaying tactic, that it is the NDP trying to put off consideration of this legislation. This is important legislation and we recognize that. We also recognize that port authorities are very important to our communities and to our economy. Many people in my constituency work in the port authority. The city of Burnaby obtains property tax revenue from the port authority. All of these things are very important.

It is certainly not our intention to delay unnecessarily legislation that we know is very important. However, it is also our job to make sure that we raise the concerns that we have and ensure that they are fully debated in the House.

We have a number of concerns about this legislation, particularly in relation to port authorities. One of the concerns is around the boards of directors of port authorities. We are concerned that the number of directors of port authorities has been changed and that the boards are not particularly representative of the concerns of municipalities.

The number of municipal representatives, either elected municipal officials or appointees of municipal governments, are very limited by this legislation. We are very concerned about that. Ports have a very direct effect on the communities of which they are a part. The cities and citizens of those communities have a great interest in how the port is developed, and the kinds of uses that happen on port land. That certainly is a concern, as I have noted in my constituency where people want to make sure that our municipality, the city of Burnaby, has the ability to influence the decisions made by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.

We are concerned that municipalities are not well represented on the boards according to the legislation. We think that port authorities would benefit from the experience of municipal governments, of municipal councillors and the people whom they might appoint to port authorities, because they have local experience. They have the kind of experience and knowledge of the local communities that will only facilitate the operation of the port, that will only facilitate relations with those communities and with the people who live near the port lands and the operations of that port. That is very important for the functioning of the ports.

It is not all about facilitating the expansion of ports or the development of the port. It is about ports being good neighbours and working in the context of the communities of which they are a part. We need to ensure that those communities have the ability to directly raise their concerns.

Related to that is our concern that when it comes to the development of plans for the use of the lands that are owned by port authorities, municipalities also need to have some direct input into that process. Port authorities have significant real estate holdings. They certainly do in the case of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. They can have a very direct effect on the development of communities by how they choose to use the lands that they have at their disposal.

Given the fact that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority exists in very built up urban areas, it is very important that the port authority cooperate with municipalities in any development and land use planning. Right now there is no requirement that that happen. We heard earlier the Liberal member say that he was hopeful that kind of exchange would happen. Hopeful is great and I am hopeful too that that will happen, but I think it is incumbent on legislation to also point to the need to do that and to make certain requirements of port authorities to seek out that kind of exchange with municipalities.

Very difficult situations can arise. I mentioned earlier that when there were plans floated for the development of Berry Point in North Burnaby, there were very serious concerns from the people who live adjacent to Berry Point about how their lives would be directly affected by the uses the port authority was suggesting a number of years ago.

In east Vancouver, and I know the member for Vancouver East will likely speak to this issue, as she has in the past, we have seen that the development of a cement plant on port authority lands was extremely disconcerting to the people who lived in the neighbourhood adjoining that development site. There was a long and difficult discussion in the community of Vancouver around that particular decision by the port authority to suggest that it was an appropriate place for this kind of development.

We know there is a real concern in our communities about the land use development of port authorities, how they go about it and how it combines with the plans of municipalities around the appropriate growth and development of the cities they are responsible for. We need to make sure that this is part of any legislation governing the jurisdiction and the way that port authorities work for Canadians. That is a very important piece as well.

A number of times today I have raised a concern given the changes in this legislation to the financial arrangements available to port authorities. That includes extending the borrowing ability of port authorities and also the ability for port authorities to now compete directly for infrastructure funding, something they did not do in the past. They were funded with allocations from the federal government. This legislation now will allow them to compete directly with municipalities for federal government infrastructure program funding.

We want to ensure, given these new financial arrangements, that there is appropriate oversight and that ultimately there is accountability for this, since some of the direct responsibility for it is moved away from the government. In the past, the government had to approve borrowing arrangements and make direct allocations. There was in that system some kind of accountability on the part of the government.

We are now concerned that there may be gaps in accountability with regard to how the borrowing and financial arrangements of port authorities are carried out. That is why we have suggested that the port authorities should come under the jurisdiction of the Auditor General of Canada and that the Auditor General should be able to exercise her oversight and her ability to make suggestions about how those financial arrangements have worked out. This is something that we think is very significant in all of this.

We are also very concerned about the ability of port authorities to now compete directly with municipalities and communities for infrastructure funding. We know that infrastructure funding is incredibly limited. Despite what moneys have been put in by the government, the funding is still not nearly enough. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has made that very clear. The FCM has said that there is an infrastructure deficit of $123 billion in Canada. The money the Conservatives have directed towards infrastructure in no way comes close to meeting that need.

Now with this legislation we are increasing the demands on that infrastructure funding by opening those programs to port authorities. We know that port authorities have significant infrastructure needs, so we need to make sure that in the competition for this funding there is some fairness and that appropriate funding is available to ensure those needs are addressed, both the needs of the port authorities and the needs of the municipalities and communities that are facing very serious deficits when it comes to infrastructure.

That is absolutely true of our community of Burnaby. We need to make sure that the funding is available and accessible by municipalities and that there is no further restriction on the municipalities' ability to do that important work. We know that in so many of our communities the public physical infrastructure is collapsing and needs significant injections of support from the government.

This is one of those things that Canadians have always done collectively. As citizens, we believe it is appropriate to cooperate to make sure that those kinds of infrastructure arrangements are available and that kind of funding is available to make sure that our cities function appropriately in so many ways. We need to make sure that we have not added an extra demand on infrastructure funding without offsetting it by additional funding. That is also a serious concern with this legislation.

The whole question of security needs at our ports is one that we know has been controversial too. We know there is not a consistent plan across Canada for port security. In many of the measures that have been floated recently with respect to security and which are in the process of being put in place, the emphasis in some ways has been on the workers in those port facilities and how they might pose a security risk. The emphasis is being put on measures that individual workers need to meet to ensure they are appropriate for working at our ports.

However, there are many other concerns around port security, including such things as the surveillance of cargo that comes through a port. We know that only a small fraction of cargo that moves through our ports is actually screened for security purposes. This is another important concern that we have around the security of our ports system.

I have been very supportive of the workers, members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and others, who are very concerned about the kinds of requirements that are being made of individual workers who have long histories of dedicated service in our ports. They have been raising concerns about what is now is being demanded of them around security issues in order for them to continue to hold their jobs at our ports. That concern continues.

There is also an issue around foreign investment in our ports and how that relates to security. That needs to be considered and it is not part of this legislation. We need to make sure that foreign investors are also screened around issues of security. We need to make sure that we have this important interest covered when it comes to the operation of our ports. We believe that is necessary when we are looking at the whole situation of ports in Canada.

At committee we raised a number of issues that we thought should be part of amendments to this legislation. I want to go through some of them just to be clear about where we are coming from on this important bill.

As I say, we know the importance of the appropriate operation of our ports. We know that they are important to the economy of Canada, to the future economy of Canada, and to the communities of which they are a part. We know how many workers are directly associated with the operations of our ports. All of that is extremely important, so we have to guarantee that these important institutions and these important industrial developments are doing the appropriate job for our country, our communities, our economy and Canadian workers.

We had some concerns that we put in the form of amendments. Sadly, none of them were successful at committee. That is of concern to us. We brought specific issues forward in the form of our amendments.

We are concerned about land use policies at the ports and said that they should be restricted so that all non-marine land use functions would have to be approved by the municipality. That seemed very reasonable. If it is a non-marine use of port property, we think the municipality has a particular interest in that kind of land use.

We said that we should restrict the functions of a port authority so that all non-marine functions would essentially be severed from the port authority's purview. So if there were a non-marine use, that would be directly under the purview of the municipality, not the port authority.

We said that all port authorities should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Auditor General for examination. I have already spoken to this point. It is one that we think is very important.

We said that a majority of the board of a port authority should be made up of municipal councillors or municipal appointees because those people have the experience necessary.

We said that the entire land use plan of a port authority should be approved by a municipality. We know this is very controversial, but we also know that it relates to the impact of ports on local communities.

We also said that a national security test should be established for foreign investment at a Canadian port and an annual security audit should be performed at all ports to ensure security needs are being met and are being done consistently at ports across Canada.

Those are some of the concerns that we in the NDP have raised with respect to this legislation. Again, we appreciate its importance. We look forward to continuing our participation in this important debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

When we last considered Bill C-23, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel had 10 minutes left for questions and comments.

The hon. member for York South—Weston.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence, be read the third time and passed.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence.

For the benefit of our listeners and my colleagues in this House, it is important to briefly go over the content of the bill. This bill has a very specific objective concerning Canada's port authorities.

I will use Quebec as an example. Not all the ports in Quebec that our citizens are familiar with will benefit from this legislation. Five ports have port authorities. Those port authorities are autonomous management companies. They are in Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City, Port Saguenay and Sept-Îles. They are responsible for the administration of the ports, as well as domestic and international trade, and they form what is known as the national port system.

This bill targets these ports that have port authorities, autonomous management companies. They have constantly changing needs. There is a reason I previously gave the example of the port of Vancouver. The Liberals created the Asia-Pacific corridor, and the Conservatives have put money into the Pacific gateway. But both the Conservatives and the Liberals forgot that Canada had other maritime gateways. The St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor is another extremely important gateway.

This bill enables port authorities to take advantage of infrastructure programs. We have to be careful, though, because the $33 billion in funding announced includes only one infrastructure program. I am not making that up. It is in the Conservative government's budget. It was in the economic statement last fall. Of the $33 billion, $1 billion is set aside for the Asia-Pacific corridor and the Pacific gateway, which means for the port of Vancouver and, I believe, Fraser port.

What this will mean for other ports once this bill is adopted is that they will have to apply for funding to other infrastructure programs, many of which are intended for cities.

This is important to us. I want to tell my Conservative and Liberal colleagues that the Bloc Québécois is the conscience of Quebeckers. That is why Quebeckers elected us: to point out the gaps in all the bills that apply to Quebec. We are happy to do this, and that is why we work collaboratively.

We will support this bill, but we have to be able to raise red flags. We are the only party that raises red flags for Quebeckers. Once again, the funding announced includes money only for the Pacific gateway. The Liberals created the gateway, and the Conservatives have continued funding it. We shall see what happens.

As I said earlier, this bill will enable port authorities to apply to various infrastructure programs, something they were prohibited from doing by the legislation that created them.

When the port authorities were created, just like when the airport authorities were created, they were supposed to pay for themselves. That is why users and shipowners pay fees to use port facilities. Airports have their airport improvement fees—the AIFs that people pay every time they buy a plane ticket. These authorities were supposed to pay for themselves.

In the marine transportation sector, economic development is tied to development. The industry is changing, and marine transportation is growing. Major new facilities will be needed in various ports for all kinds of reasons.

Earlier, someone talked about how the Montreal port needs $500 million. An application will probably be submitted for that money. The port of Montreal wants to be able to accommodate cruise ships. Montreal is one of our most beautiful cities, along with Quebec City and other cities. I mean those with ports, like Sept-Îles. The member for Manicouagan, who is doing such a good job of representing the region, knows that the city of Sept-Îles is a very beautiful city. We also have Port Saguenay, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières and Montreal. Among other things, Montreal would like to invest a lot of money in facilities to accommodate passengers there. That could mean an investment of about $500 million.

The Bloc Québécois would like to see that happen. However, we would not want Montreal to apply for funding from infrastructure programs and be competing with applications from the City of Montreal. We do not want what is happening in Toronto to happen in Montreal.

I am from Quebec, and I stand up for the interests of Quebeckers. With all due respect to the members from Ontario—I have no idea what they are doing about it—the City of Toronto and the Toronto Port Authority are at war. I do not want to see these conflicts get any worse and spread to the other ports I mentioned earlier—Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City, Sept-Îles and Saguenay. Port authorities can now apply for funding from infrastructure programs, and they do not necessarily have the same vision as the cities. It is important to emphasize that.

We have to tell the Conservative government that it must not give all of the money to the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor. It will have to invest money. We know that is not in this year's budget, but we hope that the Conservative government will listen to us and that next year, there will be significant funding for development of the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes corridor.

This bill will also allow the borrowing limit to be increased. The port authorities, the port of Vancouver among others, have maximized their borrowing capacity, likely as a result of their rapid growth, and would like to do business like any other private organization. That is more or less the case. They will be allowed to make borrowing rules and access the markets with their income. Their borrowing limit is being increased to allow them to further their own development.

The port of Montreal is not asking for this because it does not have any debt. That is why the Bloc Québécois has to be the conscience of Quebeckers. If the port of Montreal could apply to infrastructure programs, it would not borrow money and go into debt just because other ports, like the port of Vancouver, are in debt. There needs to be some logic in all this and every port should be allowed to develop within their own limits.

In addition to the increased borrowing limit and the ability to apply to different infrastructure programs, governance is being improved and the ports will be allowed in their letters patent to manage real property. This is something the port authorities asked for in order to have more latitude in managing the federal government's assets and to be able to purchase property and other facilities.

All this is because the ports are undergoing intensive development. They want to be able to make forecasts and acquire property before an expansion. They wanted to have the financial ability to plan and not have to wait until the last-minute. Sometimes while they are waiting to acquire the land around a port, the price goes up. If port authorities could plan their investments over ten or more years, they could immediately start acquiring land and rent it out in the meantime, for other purposes, until they can use it to achieve their development objectives.

We have to be careful. We cannot allow them to become speculators for the government. Once again, the Bloc Québécois will be the conscience of Quebeckers. We will make sure the bill is used appropriately by the port authorities. We are prepared to give them this chance to develop and plan their development. However, we do not want this to interfere with the major development the cities are planning in their own jurisdictions. That is where we draw the line because when we allow port authorities to apply to the same infrastructure programs as the cities, there is a problem.

No one can tell us otherwise. There is only one envelope for marine transportation and that is the billion dollars for the Asia-Pacific gateway announced by the federal government. No other monies have been set aside in the infrastructure program for the St. Lawrence—Great lakes corridor in particular, which is an underutilized corridor. Earlier I heard a Liberal member say that they had contributed to its development.

The St. Lawrence Seaway is underutilized. I will give you some statistics. The total amount of goods shipped on the St. Lawrence fell from 130 million tonnes in the early 1980s to 100 million and 105 million tonnes in recent years. Once again, even with a 5 million tonne increase in the past three years, we have nevertheless lost 25 million tonnes in marine shipping on the St. Lawrence since 1980.

However, over the past 30 years, shipping has increased 600% internationally. On the Mississippi system, which is the St. Lawrence's direct competitor, shipping has increased from 450 million to 700 million tonnes. There is not one Liberal who can boast about that in this House.

Since the early 1980s, the St. Lawrence has lost out with shipping falling from 130 million to 105 million tonnes, whereas on the Mississippi shipping has increased from 450 million to 700 million tonnes and international shipping has increased by 600%. Once again, the governments, both Liberal and Conservative, underestimated the capacity of the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes corridor, which is the main access route to the central United States. Again, the governments overlooked Quebec and Ontario.

It must be said—we are very honest—when we defend Quebec and the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes corridor, we are defending the Great Lakes and Ontario, whether the Liberal members like it or not. They have a majority in Ontario, and have seen marine transportation in the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes corridor decline, but it did not seem to bother them, and it does not seem to bother them now.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois is alone in defending this very important St. Lawrence—Great Lakes corridor. Why? Because we have five very important ports in Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City, Port Saguenay et Sept-Îles. We want these ports to be able to develop without having to compete with municipalities. That is why we will call for an independent program.

Yes, this bill is important so that port authorities are able to increase their borrowing capacity, acquire land to plan their development over the next 10 years, and apply to infrastructure programs. But these ports in Quebec and in other regions, such as Ontario, should not have to compete with municipalities in the other infrastructure programs, because there was no money allocated for the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes corridor, as there was for the Pacific gateway.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois is proud to be the conscience of Quebeckers. It is the only party in this House to do so.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank my friend for his support of Bill C-23.

As a member of the transportation committee, I too had an opportunity to participate in the discussion and hear witnesses. Not one witness spoke against the legislation.

I come from the west coast. The Vancouver Fraser Port is very important to me. It is very important to the economy of British Columbia and to the economy of the country. Any delays at all in moving the legislation forward will hurt our economy.

Mr. Gordon Houston and Mr. Duncan Wilson, representatives from the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, visited me yesterday.They expressed serious concern, and it was not about the legislation. Their concern was about the delays that were occurring in the House. There was consensus at committee that this was excellent legislation and that it was important for the productivity of our country, yet the NDP is delaying and obstructing it.

Does the member know why that is occurring and will these delay have an impact on the ability of the Montreal Port Authority to move ahead with improvements to its facility?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today from a Liberal Party perspective on Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence. This bill is mainly comprised of technical changes and amendments.

Normally, when the House receives bills of this technical nature, members of Parliament will often rely on the bureaucrats to highlight deficiencies in the present act or acts. In this case it is my understanding that the transport committee has made changes based on consultation with all stakeholders and this bill has everyone's support.

It is common knowledge that transportation in Canada is essential. And when I talk about transportation, I am talking about all types of transportation, including water, road, air transportation and so on.

Transportation has always been an essential part of building this country from the beginning, when our forefathers came here by boat and continued to use seaways as a primary mode of transportation until the invention of airplanes.

Furthermore, let us not forget that water was one of the few efficient ways of travel in Canada's formative years. And then, how can we forget, the building of Canada's railway from east to west which was the cornerstone of unifying and keeping this country together.

Things have evolved and our way of doing things has changed, but the transportation sector is still essential to this country's economy. The Liberal Party has always been a part of the transportation sector's evolution.

There is no denying that the Liberal Party, whether in government or in opposition, has always been a part of laying the groundwork to ensure that we have a network of infrastructure and transportation to allow this wonderful country to reach its fullest economic potential.

Our Canadian ports are fundamental to the development of trade. They enhance the opportunities for every Canadian to access our abundant natural resources across the country, so that they can be sold to foreign markets that can utilize the product for value added or for direct consumption.

Trade is a key factor in the Canadian economy and without the necessary infrastructure and means of transportation, Canada would be unable to reach its maximum potential to benefit all Canadians.

With that being said, as parliamentarians we cannot afford to miss opportunities to promote our Canadian ports. These kinds of initiatives would compel us to utilize portions of our infrastructure funds, in addition stimulate our rail network and a pan-Canadian road network to encourage growth, and to develop an economy that goes beyond a micro-economy and expand it to a regional and national one.

In 1998, under 13 years of successful Liberal government, the Canada Marine Act received royal assent. The Canada Marine Act was the first comprehensive piece of legislation to govern several aspects of Canada's transport legislation.

The Canada Marine Act was a component in the commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the framework for a strategic gateway and trade corridors, and included provisions for the further commercialization of federal ferry services.

In 2003, a review of the legislation was compiled to ensure that the government continued to make all the ports in Canada economically competitive, specifically ports in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

May I remind the Conservative government that the bill before us comes from a Liberal bill, formerly C-61. I am pleased that the Conservatives have the ability to recognize good fundamental pieces of legislation that are beneficial to the Canadian economy and place partisanship aside.

If it were not for the NDP and the Bloc forcing an election, good pieces of legislation such as Bill C-23, Bill C-7, Bill C-3, Bill C-11 and Bill C-8, all based on Liberal transport bills which died on the order paper, could have been passed much sooner.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities heard from port authorities, other stakeholders and read written submissions to the committee on Bill C-23. An overwhelming consensus between stakeholders seems to exist, indicating that the committee should move forward and adopt Bill C-23 which is why we are debating this in the House today.

Some of the benefits of Bill C-23 include access to contribution funding. The fact that access to contribution funding will now be permitted, the Canada Port Authority can apply for contribution funding for infrastructure and security for environmentally sustainable projects.

The bill also addresses governance. With the changes in the governance policy in the Canada Marine Act, the port authorities would now be more in control of their destiny as they would have the ability to promote a more stable, long term management framework.

Bill C-23 would also allow for borrowing limits. With this act, the port authorities would now have the ability to borrow and, thus, would directly allow the Vancouver Port Authority, the Montreal Port Authority and the Halifax Port Authority to move to a commercially based borrowing system.

Bill C-23 would also allow for amalgamation. In the act, the Fraser River port, the North Fraser Port, would be allowed to amalgamate with the Vancouver Port, which would allow for a centralized body and would, in turn, be beneficial to all British Columbian ports in terms of efficiency, whether it be financial resources, human resources or other benefits that would arise from centralization.

The bill also addresses enforcement. Bill C-23 would also give the port authorities the ability to enforce minor violations by having the ability to impose monetary penalties, making it easier to enforce and manage minor violations.

Again, it is my understanding from members of the transport committee, and I cannot stress this enough, that all the stakeholders appearing before the committee spoke positively toward the bill. Members in the House should not confuse the positive aspects which came out of the committee that considered, deliberated and debated Bill C-23.

I urge all members to support the legislation for the good of the Canadian economy.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise in the House for the third reading debate on a bill that is critical to the realization of some of Canada's key economic, transportation and trade priorities: amendments to the Canada Marine Act. This act is the economic framework for, among other entities, Canada's port authorities.

It has been well recognized that while the implementation of the Canada Marine Act has greatly contributed to the success of the marine industry, in order to better respond to the future market demands, changes now reflected in Bill C-23 are required, and they are required as soon as possible.

Bill C-23 is extremely important to our Canadian ports and, indeed, it is very important to Canada's economic prosperity.

I would like to remind members that the bill is the result of extensive and very broad based consultations that date back to 2002 with the Canada Marine Act review.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Communities and Infrastructure, of which I am a member, heard widespread industry support for Bill C-23, not only unanimous support from the membership of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, but also from the Shipping Federation of Canada and the Chamber of Marine Commerce. They have all endorsed these positive changes that our government has brought in under the bill.

The Association of Canadian Port Authorities has been very clear in its submissions. While the Canada Marine Act has worked fairly well overall since its inception in 1998 and has been beneficial for the users of the ports, now the time is right to make changes that will allow port authorities to respond to shifting global supply chains and trade markets and to play an even larger role in Canada's economic prosperity. This is very important to us.

The Shipping Federation of Canada, representing virtually all of the trade moving between eastern Canada and ports overseas, has urged the government to move swiftly in ensuring its passage. It has stated:

--the amendments...will go a long way towards addressing the financial constraints under which Canada's ports have operated since the Canada Marine Act was passed in 1996, thus ensuring that Canada has a strong and competitive ports system that can fully meet present and future trade objectives.

The Chamber of Marine Commerce has stated:

--Bill C-23 appears to be the badly needed next step in the evolution of the competitiveness of Canadian ports and the future prosperity of Canada's system of marine commerce.

Those are the chamber's words, not ours. It has also encouraged all parties to act toward the swift passage of the bill in the House of Commons and the Senate.

We have heard from witnesses appearing before the standing committee that the various port labour interests also support these changes. We have been informed that the unions view these proposed changes positively as facilitating port growth and in turn creating jobs for their members from coast to coast to coast.

The message to the standing committee from industry stakeholders was very clear: we need to move quickly on Bill C-23.

When asked during committee how urgently the bill is needed, Mr. Sean Hanrahan of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities responded:

If all of this could be done with final proclamation by spring [of this year], that would be the best.

Mr. Hanrahan elaborated further:

Trade is projected to double by 2020, and that is 11 years away. We simply have to dovetail everything that encourages commercialization and development at the same time as we hit this impending growth.

Those are not my words. They are not the words of members of the government and they are not the words of members of the opposition. They are the words of the people who operate in our ports and they are saying that we should pass this bill quickly, that Canada needs it.

Indeed, I am pleased to inform the House that the standing committee concluded its clause by clause review very swiftly, somewhere in the range of 30 minutes, resulting in only one minor change to the bill to correct a typographical drafting error. This change in fact was a government sponsored amendment to bring the French and the English into consistency.

I should note that a minor consequential amendment to correct a drafting oversight is also in the works. This consequential amendment will simply fix a reference to the new numbering of paragraphs that is necessary to the acceptance of the government sponsored amendment.

I would now like to briefly address some of the key provisions of the bill.

Bill C-23 will recognize our ports as the significant economic contributors that they are to this economy. It acknowledges the role of marine transportation, signifying the government's recognition of this sector's vital contribution to Canada's economy, especially by ports that are critical to international trade. We are a trading nation and our success, the success of our economy and the success of our future generations, depends on the efficiency and effectiveness of our ports.

Many stakeholders have requested these amendments, suggesting that in order to respond to the challenges ahead, an explicit recognition of the marine industry's vital contribution to Canada's economy is essential to fostering further growth and the future success of our marine transportation industry.

Trade, capacity pressures, aging transport infrastructure and increasing pressures on transportation lands in urban settings are now part of the marine environment. Canada port authorities are critical components of trade gateways and require new tools in a new era of trade to respond to market forces in a timely manner in order to support Canada's international and domestic trade.

“Advantage Canada”, introduced by this government, made “modern transportation infrastructure” a core element of the government's agenda and recognized that Canada's ability to compete on the world stage is highly dependent on the efficiency of larger ports such as Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax. This bill takes great steps toward their efficiency.

We must ensure that Canadian port authorities have the tools they need in the years ahead, not just today but in 10 and 20 years from today. Bill C-23 introduces much needed flexibilities, enabling Canada port authorities to compete and prosper in this global market.

Bill C-23 will facilitate trade and complement our gateway and corridor initiatives such as the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative, the Ontario-Quebec continental gateway and trade corridor, and the Atlantic gateway, all three very important to jobs in this country. The flexibilities it will provide are absolutely imperative for Canada to take advantage of trade opportunities, both today and in the future.

It is imperative, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that our ports have access to a suite of modern financial instruments. How can they be successful without that flexibility?

In a speech delivered in British Columbia on May 4, 2007 at the International Conference on Gateways and Corridors, the Prime Minister indicated that the government would “make it easier for them to obtain financing for expansion and improvements”, referring to the ports.

New measures are required if ports are to expand their capacity to meet new demands.

Refining a framework, as proposed in Bill C-23, to provide more borrowing flexibility and access to relevant contribution program funding would also encourage the private sector and would encourage it to invest. This would enable governments to make targeted infrastructure investments that are in the public interest where important funding gaps in the system cannot be met by other levels of government or private investors.

Currently, Canada's port authorities are prohibited from accessing contribution funding, while other transportation modes do not have these legislative restrictions. We are bringing in an even playing field. Does it make sense to treat our ports differently from other modes knowing that it will limit their opportunities at a time when ensuring sufficient port infrastructure is absolutely critical to our success and to the success of our gateway and corridor initiatives?

Bill C-23 would permit CPAs to access federal contribution funding specifically for three things. The first is capital infrastructure projects. The second is security, which is so important since 9/11. The third is environmental initiatives, which are important to all Canadians.

More and more, we see the significant impact that transportation has on our environment. This is certainly true when we speak of our major marine ports, where a convergence of rail, road and marine transportation is part of everyday business and operations.

Many ports are already exploring new, greener ways of doing business, covering both land and waterside operations, from a greater use of diesel electric gantry cranes to more efficient and effective lighting and incentives for cleaner marine fuels and the exploration of alternative shore power.

Given the future economic benefits of more energy efficient transportation systems and improved quality of life for our local communities in particular, which all in this House are trying to do, this is an area where it makes eminent sense for the government to allow for strategic, focused funding at ports that is related to environmental sustainability. We want to encourage the environment in every aspect of Canada's economy, and we are doing that.

I would like to remind members that as of the end of November 2007 contribution funding for security enhancements through the Marine Transportation Security Act was in fact discontinued, yet security enhancements continue to be required for Canada's port authorities.

Canada's port authorities, shipping lines and shippers have all made it very clear that the federal government should continue to contribute toward the cost of national security, particularly in light of the funding being provided to ports for increased security in the United States. We should have and give to them a competitive environment so they can succeed against their competitors in the United States.

It is essential that the government maintain a sound security posture to reassure the travelling public and its partners, to ensure the continued flow of international trade, and to make our country more secure.

Without question, the Canadian port authorities must be able to operate their assets in a commercial manner. They need to be able to set fees and negotiate commercial leases and contracts that are market driven and competitive. They also need a more dynamic and responsive borrowing regime that is adaptable to changing circumstances. This is paramount if our ports are to take advantage of the anticipated increase in trade.

This amendment is important not only for the ports, but for Canada's entire economy. That is correct: the economy of Canada. We all know that major financial investments require the collaboration of a number of parties, be it the port authorities themselves, the municipalities, the provinces, other modes of transport or private sector investments.

Currently, port authorities can only seek an increase in their borrowing limit by making a request to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to amend their letters patent. It is quite the process. It takes a long time.

With this new amendment, those ports that meet certain conditions, and have the capacity to do so, could assume a larger debt obligation consistent with a borrowing code, to make sure they can pay it. Such a regime would maintain the accountability this government stands for, yet would allow ports to respond to opportunities more efficiently and recognize their changing financial circumstances as our trade doubles in 11 short years.

Recognizing that many of our ports are already operating at capacity today and feeling the pressure of increased trade, it is not difficult to imagine the capital infrastructure funding that will be required for our ports to respond to the anticipated growth in trade in the coming years.

Patrice Pelletier, CEO of the Montreal Port Authority, told the committee that the authority would need to invest a minimum of $220 million to maintain existing infrastructure and an additional $500 million to make necessary expansions to the port over the next five years, and that is only for the port of Montreal.

Captain Gordon Houston, CEO for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, told the committee that this port has $350 million worth of commitments on its $500 million borrowing capacity in addition to a $1.3 billion terminal that is to be built, bringing the total up to somewhere around a $1.7 billion requirement, potentially. Those are the port authority's words, not ours.

These amendments to the Canada Marine Act will also strengthen governance. It is hard to argue against strengthening long term stability and continuity in the governance of our Canada port authorities.

Although the Canada Marine Act already allows for amalgamation of ports, as was evidenced in the recently amalgamated Vancouver Fraser Port Authority which we see as being very successful in meeting the demands of international trade, it is recognized that certain amendments would make future amalgamations easier and these amendments are welcomed. When a strong business case exists for the amalgamation of ports in the future, Bill C-23 would ensure that the process is clear and the transition transparent and streamlined.

In conclusion, Bill C-23 is extremely important. The ports have been waiting for these changes and are encouraging all parties, from the Liberals to the Bloc to the NDP, to pass this bill as soon as possible. I would, therefore, encourage all members in the House to pass this bill as quickly as possible, so that our colleagues in the Senate can start the process of reviewing this bill without any delay and we can get one step closer to this bill, a very important bill and the future of our economic prosperity, becoming law.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence, be read the third time and passed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motion in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House of Commons has just now voted to approve the budget implementation bill at second reading. The bill will now proceed to the Standing Committee on Finance where it will be studied by members of that committee.

I know that the Liberal Party originally said that it adamantly opposed the bill, so we welcome its change of heart yesterday with its help to defeat the NDP motion, which would have effectively killed the bill, and its kind cooperation today to make sure it passed at second reading.

As I am sure the Liberal House leader is aware, the passage of the bill is important to the stability of the Canadian economy during a time of global economic uncertainty and to reduce the immigration application backlog that is causing Canada to lose much needed talent from potential immigrants. We hope it will be dealt with quickly at committee so that we can have it back to the House for third reading, where I am sure it will once again receive the same warm greeting.

Today and tomorrow, we will continue to debate Bill C-23, which amends the Canada Marine Act; Bill C-33, which will regulate a renewable content of 5% in gasoline by 2010, and 2% in diesel fuel and heating oil by 2012; and Bill C-5, which has to do with responsibility in the event of a nuclear incident, as part of Improving the Health and Safety of Canadians Week.

Next week will be a stronger justice system week. We will start by debating, at report stage and third reading, Bill C-31, which amends the Judges Act to allow the application of additional resources to our judicial system.

We will also consider Senate amendments to Bill C-13, which is our bill to amend the Criminal Code in relation to criminal procedure, language of the accused, and other matters.

We will then continue by debating Bill S-3, our bill to reinstate modified versions of the anti-terrorism provisions--the investigative hearings and the recognizance with conditions provisions--in the Criminal Code. This important piece of legislation, which has already passed the Senate, will safeguard national security while at the same time protecting the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. I hope all members of the House will work with the government to ensure its quick and timely passage.

We will debate Bill C-26, which imposes mandatory prison sentences for producers and traffickers of illegal drugs, particularly for those who sell drugs to children.

Lastly, time permitting, we will start debating Bill C-45, which has to do with our military justice system.

With regard to the bill dealing with aboriginal human rights, we understand, sadly, that the opposition parties gutted the relevant provisions and protections in it. Therefore, I am surprised by the enthusiasm of the opposition House leader for it. Perhaps if the members are, as they were on Bill C-50, prepared to reverse their position and support the restoration of those meaningful principles, we would be happy to bring it forward again.

Canada Marine Act

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the amendment that was tabled. Of course there have been some points raised about relevancy, and I want to start by talking about the fact that our duties as parliamentarians include paying very close attention to bills that come before the House.

I wish I could say that errors and omissions in bills are a rarity, but unfortunately in the tenure of this House we have already seen a voter identification bill with such serious flaws that the government had to introduce another bill to try to correct one error. There should have been appropriate scrutiny of that bill by all members of the House instead of the New Democrats standing alone to oppose it because we were concerned about its very deep and serious flaws.

People talk about the waste of taxpayers' money. If appropriate attention had been paid to the voter identification bill, the government would not have had to introduce a bill to fix it, which then took up House time and parliamentary time. Now there is another bill before the House for which a minor amendment has been produced.

The member for Windsor West has done extremely good work in raising some very serious concerns about this bill. The question the NDP has is whether a simple amendment of the letter “a” is sufficient to correct all the flaws in the bill. Of course we would say no, it is not.

I want to thank the member for Victoria for her very good words and I will be echoing some of them, because I too have been a municipal councillor. A number of us on the New Democrat side of the House have been municipal councillors and understand that the rubber truly does hit the road in our communities with municipal councils. I want to talk a bit about the importance of this bill to our local communities.

There is a port authority in my community, the port of Nanaimo, and it is a very important part of downtown Nanaimo. The reason New Democrats have been speaking is that we are very concerned about the ongoing health and vitality of the ports. Certainly there were some positive things in the bill, but there were a number of things that we are concerned about in terms of maintaining the vitality of those ports.

In my own city, the port of Nanaimo businesses generate 3,700 direct jobs and $115 million in direct wages. There are in excess of a total 10,000 jobs nationwide related to the port of Nanaimo after including a multiplier--these are the induced and indirect effects--and these jobs generate $335 million in total wages.

In British Columbia, port of Nanaimo businesses generate over $160 million in direct gross domestic product and over $410 million in direct economic output. The total national economic impact of the port of Nanaimo, including indirect and induced impacts, is estimated at $500 million in GDP and over $1.1 billion in economic output.

Direct employment is employment that can be attributed to the operation, management and tenancy at the port of Nanaimo, including firms on site at the port and port-dependent businesses off site. Indirect employment is employment in goods and services supplier industries that result from the presence of the port of Nanaimo's direct employers.

An example of port of Nanaimo indirect employment would be the supply of machinery to value added manufacturing tenants at the port of Nanaimo. As such, indirect employment is generated in industries that supply or provide services to the port of Nanaimo businesses. This brochure I am reading from concludes by saying, “Port of Nanaimo produces jobs!”

Anybody who has ever visited my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan and this my part of my community, Nanaimo, sees a vibrant port. The port has a commercial fishing fleet. During the summertime, people come from literally the whole Pacific northwest to enjoy the activities that take place. A walkway built around the port is heavily used. Any Sunday afternoon people will see families from all over the city enjoying the very beautiful walkway.

That leads me to one of the points that the member for Windsor West has raised around the importance of how the boards of directors are made up at these port authorities. Port authorities have a distinct local flavour. They have a direct impact on jobs, recreation, environment and businesses. One would hope that the board of directors would ensure a linkage between the local community and the port itself.

The member for Windsor West has rightly identified some problems with the number of board members and the appointment procedure. One would hope that every effort would be made to ensure that local voices are adequately represented on these boards of directors, because that participation in the local economy and local livelihoods is important. Instead, Bill C-23 fails to address some of the concerns raised by the member for Windsor West.

Other members have raised issues around land use planning at port authorities, connections with local municipal councils or regional districts, and the broader connection to community.

The member for Victoria raised the fact that as former municipal councillors we are hoping that more municipal councils become greener. One way we are encouraging municipal councils to become greener is to look at this triple bottom line accountability that everybody is talking about: people, planet and profits, in the simplest way.

We of course want to see port authorities planning integrated into municipal planning. The city of Nanaimo and most municipalities in British Columbia have something called official community plans, OCPs. These official community plans lay out a vision for the community and are regularly reviewed. If municipalities are going to deviate from the official community plan, they often must have hearings or pass special zoning amendments.

When I was on the municipal council in North Cowichan, the development of the official community plan was a wide, community based consultation process. People from all over the community came together to talk about their vision for the community, whether it was with respect to recreational use, land use planning or community identification. There was a myriad of issues.

As the port of Nanaimo and the city of Nanaimo go through their community planning process, it is very important that the port be integrated into that official community planning process. Again, it is important that these plans consider the triple bottom line.

There are substantial land use planning issues around the port of Nanaimo. When the port makes a decision about land use planning, it must fall in line with how the residents of Nanaimo want their community to look. Unfortunately, when we look at appointments for boards of directors, it does not ensure that this very close linkage happens.

We have examples in other areas. The member for Trinity—Spadina has raised some issues around the Toronto Port Authority. The member for Vancouver East has raised issues around the Vancouver Port Authority and how it often goes off willy-nilly without considering the important issues the community has outlined as its future vision for that liveable community for their children and their grandchildren. Local representation is essential in terms of making sure that ports fit in with a community's vision.

In addition, the member also raised some issues around transparency. Among other things, the member for Windsor West called for the Auditor General to have the power to probe port authorities' financial practices. One would think the Conservatives would welcome this kind of oversight, because they often talk about transparency and accountability, yet when they have an opportunity to do that, they fail to follow through.

That would have been an important amendment. If we are talking about adding the letter “a”, why not just stretch it to “Auditor General oversight and accountability”? Those are two very good uses for the letter “a”. They would have been welcomed by the New Democrats as an improvement to the bill.

It is time for me to wrap up. Although we will be supporting the amendment on the letter “a”, once we get through the amendment stage I would encourage all members to vote against the bill itself.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23. It addresses some of the valid concerns of Canada port authorities with the current conditions of the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Pilotage Act.

Port modernization is required as part of the government's new policy framework for strategic gateways and trade corridors. This is to bring Canada's ports more in line with what is happening around the world where ports are obtaining government funding for infrastructure, environmental and security initiatives. This includes long term access to federal funding for security considerations as well. This has been intended to satisfy our international trading partners' security concerns.

These goals we support. Our ports are the face we show to the world. Their development and their management should be the best in the world.

My criticism of the bill stems from my observations as a local councillor in a small city with a harbour authority. The bill is deficient as drafted and amended and does nothing to ensure more public accountability for the use or management of what we should remember is public property. It does nothing to ensure the sustainable development of Canadian ports and harbours.

At committee, my colleague from Windsor West presented some amendments that would have gone a long way to ensure accountability. His amendments were deemed inadmissible by the chair because they supposedly went beyond the scope of the bill. It is clear that the bill was deficient as drafted initially and this is what I would like to speak to.

Parliamentarians of this government and the former Liberal government gave the bill such a narrow scope and seemed clearly unwilling at committee or in the drafting of it to address some of the problems of accountability in dealing with the management of lands that belong to the public and that should be managed in the public interest.

I would like to give an example of what our party's critic tried to do at committee. He presented an amendment. I quote what he said:

This amendment here is intended to provide some balance, and also, hopefully, provide better relations between the port authorities in some areas where there are some difficulties. We all heard from testimony that even if you're appointed to the port authority through a municipality--it doesn't matter where, with the federal government, etc.--your loyalty is still, at the end of the day, to the port authority. What I'm hoping through this amendment is that you're going to see greater weight for people in that area.... But we heard testimony that--for anybody who is appointed there--the number one priority is to administrate the port.

In support of the argument made by my colleague, the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority includes a couple of elected representatives, a mix of groups from the tourism sector, the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, and the Victoria-Esquimalt Harbour Society, which is also largely industry representatives. Those are all fine organizations, but they do not necessarily represent public interest. Several private interests do not constitute public interest. Essentially in Victoria and across the country we have private clubs that control public properties with no accountability to the public.

Although one would think the elected officials appointed to the board would be accountable to their electors, this is not the case either. Instead, as my colleague pointed out, they must commit their loyalty to the board, not to their electors, Certainly in Victoria the board has taken on an even more corporate model.

There is an obvious problem of possible conflict of interest that might arise, but even more so, this is happening with the complicity of the federal government. Neither Conservatives nor Liberals seem to see any problems with that.

It was clear in reviewing the testimony at committee that agencies' interests were represented during the review of this bill, but I did not see how the interests of port communities were represented. I think it is fair to question whether the interests of port agencies always coincide with those of the community. I would say that is not the case judging from some of the examples that were identified.

Rather than dwell on the problem, I would like to propose a measure to the government that could have been added in drafting Bill C-23 to really modernize the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Pilotage Act that would have ensured that the interests of the communities were served by port authorities and that would have ensured the accountability in the governance of what is public property, that is, what does belong to the public. The principle is what I would call a triple bottom line approach. This is a business principle that measures corporate or government performance along three lines: profit, environmental sustainability and social responsibility.

Triple bottom line considers people, planet and profit, the principle being that environmental quality and social equity are just as important as profit. In fact, the phrase “triple bottom line” was coined by John Elkington, co-founder of the business consultancy SustainAbility. He wrote Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century Business. Triple bottom line reporting has become increasingly popular among large companies worldwide. A KPMG survey shows 45% of 250 global companies publish a corporate report containing details of environmental and social performance.

Adding a clause in the bill requiring that all presently held federal harbour or port properties be managed or divested to port authorities on a triple bottom line basis would begin to ensure public values--

The House resumed from April 9 consideration of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence, as reported, with amendment, from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Motions in amendment

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide the House with some background on this legislation.

On November 16, 2007 the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities introduced Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence. This bill is very similar in most respects to its predecessor, Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act and other Acts, which was introduced in the House of Commons on June 22, 2005 by the previous Liberal government. That bill died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament without having gone beyond first reading.

In 1998 during the Liberal government's term in office the Canada Marine Act received royal assent. The Canada Marine Act was the first comprehensive legislation to govern several aspects of Canada's marine legislation.

In addition, the act allowed for the establishment of the Canada port authorities and continued the divestiture of certain harbour beds.

The Canada Marine Act assisted in the commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway and provisions for further commercialization of federal ferry services.

In 2003 the Canada Marine Act was subject to a legislative review.

Since 2003 Transport Canada has carried out a number of studies from which it was able to compile several recommendations to improve the Canada Marine Act.

Canada's 1995 policy framework for federal ports focused on the elimination of over-capacity and a new governance structure to support a more commercial system.

Global trading patterns have not changed the context in which the federal ports operate. Port modernization is required to ensure that ports have the tools needed to compete in a global trade environment and to support the government's new national policy framework for strategic gateways and trade corridors.

Currently, Canada port authorities are located at St. John's, Belledune, Halifax, Saint John, Sept-Îles, Saguenay, Quebec, Trois-Rivières, Montreal, Hamilton, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Port Alberni, Nanaimo, Prince Rupert, and Vancouver, which has been amalgamated with the Fraser River and the North Fraser.

The amendments would include: a modification of the act's purpose; modification of a port authority's access to federal funding; adding provisions regarding the power of a port authority to borrow money; providing additional regulatory powers to the governor in council; adding provisions regarding port amalgamation; modifying provisions regarding the appointment of directors of port authorities; and finally, adding a penalty scheme and streamlining certain other important provisions.

The Liberals supported the bill at second reading in order to send it to committee for further study.

I would like to elaborate on the amendments, the first one being access to contribution funding.

Canada port authorities would be permitted to apply for contribution funding related to infrastructure, environmental sustainability, and the implementation of security measures. The borrowing limits are a tiered approach. They would be implemented to permit larger Canada port authorities, those with $25 million in operating revenues for three consecutive years, to move to a commercially based borrowing regime. Certain Canada port authorities would be subject to a code that governs borrowing in their letters patent rather than a fixed borrowing limit, as well as enhanced accountability requirements.

Under the amalgamation provisions, the legislation would include a provision that would allow for a consistent approach to facilitate any potential future amalgamations of CPAs and would complement the regulations established in May 2007 with respect to amalgamation.

With respect to governance, the bill incorporates new proposed amendments related to governance that are more responsible to Canada port authority needs and promote a more stable, long term management framework.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-23 and, specifically, to this amendment. It is a small amendment, but I would also like to thank the parliamentary secretary, as per his comments, for opening this up as a larger debate.

He talked about people supporting this bill. He talked about how it is a Conservative bill as opposed to a Liberal bill. He talked about how he was not going to waste taxpayers' money. Although, I would remind him that this is the government that paid $250,000 for a throne speech.

This is the government, his own department, that put $116 million of taxpayers' money out the window on an ecoauto feebate program. We actually saw money from Canadian taxpayers going overseas to automotive manufacturers located in Korea, Japan and elsewhere. He has raised all those types of issues in this context.

However, I want to go back to this amendment because I think it exemplifies something, but I also want to say that the New Democratic Party will be supporting this amendment because it is a technical one for language purposes, but we will not be supporting this bill.

This amendment is a glaring example of the type of work that needs to be done to actually put in a proper bill to update our ports, and we are supportive of that.

The amendment is a result of a mistake. It begs the question, “What other mistakes are in this bill?”, and that is the problem. I myself, as a committee person, have proposed several amendments to try to change the bill, to make it a better bill, to balance it out, and to make it more strategic. I have some examples, but I want to make sure first of all that viewers here understand that we are not here wasting taxpayers' money. We are talking about a very important bill.

I take offence in terms of the parliamentary secretary trying to blame the committee for missing this error. It was his government that decided to table this bill. It was his government, supported by the Liberals and the Bloc, that wanted to very easily pass this through committee and had plenty of opportunity to make sure that it crossed all its t's, dotted all its i's, and made all its a's work out. But apparently it could not do that.

The member for the Liberal Party said there were thorough discussions with regard to this. We really only had a few sessions at committee. In fact, it was passed very quickly through our committee and that is one of the reasons why there has been a mistake of this magnitude.

It is really offensive for the parliamentary secretary to come in here and blame the committee, when the government really wanted to ram this through and it got help to do that. We really only had about an hour of time to study the bill clause by clause.

If the parliamentary secretary wants to talk about the sloppiness with respect to this issue, then he should be looking at himself and his government for not delivering a proper bill in its current context. That is the problem that they face.

We made some amendments that we thought would add more substance to the bill. Apparently. the Conservatives did not add amendments that added substance; they added technical elements just to make sure it met language laws and would not end up in the court system.

However, we actually made amendments that were significant. One of those amendments was to subparagraph 8(2) of the act. We wanted to introduce the following:

a number of individuals comprising a majority of the board of directors who are either municipal councillors for the municipalities mentioned in the letters patent or appointees of those municipalities.

The reason that we submitted that amendment as opposed to the government's amendment that we are talking about here is because this bill is going to reduce the board of directors in many types of port authorities across the country. That is problematic because it undermines the democratic representation that is necessary for those port authorities. What we are going to see now is government appointments taking on a higher prestige level than before.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, to address the amendment to Bill C-23 proposed by the Conservative Party.

First of all, my colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence, who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party, was quite right to make the comments he did concerning this amendment. It is a very superficial amendment, but it is so important that it is delaying the passing of the bill. Once again, I have a very hard time listening to the parliamentary secretary, a Conservative member. They seem to want to blame the opposition when it comes to discussions on the amendment. Yes, it might seem very minor, since it is an amendment to align—which the Bloc Québécois will support—but it is also important to say that it is a mistake on the part of the government. If Bill C-23 has not yet passed and, once again, the entire marine community does not benefit, it is because the bill was not completed by the Conservative government.

The Conservatives can say what they like. I would very much like to be able to support the government—in committee, the Conservatives were proud that the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois were supporting them—but I hope they will show a little respect here today when they ask us, once again, to vote in favour of this amendment. We will do so, but it is also very important that they understand that they are the framers of the bill. If there was a mistake in the bill, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals are not to blame. It is the Conservative Party's fault.

I trust it will be democratic and permit us to explain to all those listening, to the citizens in our ridings and to all those interested in marine transportation, that Bill C-23 must be made complete and that this amendment will improve it. Yes, the Bloc Québécois will support it, but it is important also that the Conservatives understand that the bill was delayed because they did not do their job. Once again, they were in too much of a hurry to introduce the bill. Of course this is typical of the Conservative Party, which is not very rigorous in the way it operates. There is a reason why several committees are paralyzed in this House. That is how the Conservatives operate. However, they will never be able to prevent us from rising to point this out to them and to make them understand this, even if we do support them on occasion.

Bill C-23, first introduced by the Liberals, was reintroduced by the Conservatives. The Bloc Québécois supported it then and will do so today. We wish to help the marine transportation sector. However the bill must be complete.

The proposed amendment is being made for consistency. Those following this matter closely will say that the devil is in the details. Today, this small detail is forcing the government to ask for the support of the House in order to adopt this amendment, which is an important one, even though it is small and consists of only one line. We want to prevent legal proceedings from being taken against the minister—in this case—which could jeopardize the application of all of Bill C-23.

Naturally, I hope that the Conservative members and the parliamentary secretary will understand that it is important for the citizens watching us to know why such minor amendments are made. It is because they are important to an understanding of the law as a whole. We will need it if we ever have to go to court. We have to have a complete bill in order to prevent port authorities from having certain situations, that they believed could arise, challenged in court. That is why this amendment, although minor, is important. And, I will say it again, we will vote in favour of this amendment.

To us, everything is important. Every line, every sentence, every clause in Bill C-23 is important. The government can count on the full support of the Bloc Québécois in implementing this bill, as amended by this amendment, which the government had neglected to make. Once again, the Conservative Party is the legislator and it had neglected this. Again, we can assure the government of our full support so that the marine sector can have space to develop. That is what was lacking.

This is what will enable Bill C-23, as amended, to really help the marine sector develop fully. The port authorities that own the ports and manage the land adjacent to seaports must be able to borrow the money they need and move forward. This bill will mean they can get what they need to develop and keep pace with the surge in marine transportation. This sector is expanding rapidly and needs Bill C-23, as amended by today's amendment.

I hope that the Conservatives will understand that this is important. People who followed the progress of Bill C-23 in committee were wondering why it had not been adopted. It was because the bill contained a small typographical error that the Conservative Party had neglected to correct. Today that error has been corrected, and the Bloc Québécois is proud to support this measure in the interest of the entire marine sector.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the amendment was put forward by the government and accepted by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. The amendment we are debating today corrects a drafting oversight to correct a reference to reflect the new numbering of paragraphs in the proposed amendment to section 25. It brings conformity between the French and the English in this case.

I will not waste the time of taxpayers. We have already debated the issue of Bill C-23, and I do not want to be ruled out of order, Mr. Speaker, as you would do if it went anywhere except for the amendment itself. I do not want to delay such an important bill. How much can we talk about an “a”, which is simply the change?

I would like to read supportive quotes in relation to Bill C-23 from the Shipping Federation of Canada, the Chamber of Marine Commerce and the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, but again, Mr. Speaker, you would rule me out of order because it is not on the point of the “a”.

Clause by clause took 27 minutes, almost a record in the House, because this is such an important bill for our marine industry. However, Mr. Speaker, you would rule me out of order, so in this case I ask that all members of all parties support the bill and the change in the “a”, which is so important to bring conformity between the French and the English.

Having said that, I am done with the debate.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-23. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I shall now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the opposition House leader for performing his basic parliamentary duty by asking the Thursday question. We have missed it once or twice. I believe it is important that this government have the opportunity to inform the House of its legislative agenda for the coming week.

Today we have started to debate the budget implementation bill. It incorporates the measures that were announced in budget 2008 and adopted by this House on two different occasions.

These are prudent, focused, responsible measures, including the tax-free savings account, $350 million for the Canada student grant program, and more money for police officers, the environment, health, and infrastructure for our cities.

We will continue to debate the bill tomorrow as well as throughout next week. The government has read reports that the opposition is going to delay and obstruct the passage of the bill. I hope that does not happen.

Next week will be improving the health and safety of Canadians week. A number of measures will be announced to accomplish this goal.

I cannot provide any details on these exact measures, but I am sure hon. members will agree that these are excellent initiatives that will improve the health and safety of Canadians.

Next week we will also debate changes to the Judges Act, Bill C-31; the Senate amendments to Bill C-13, our legislation to amend the Criminal Code in relation to criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other matters; and Bill C-23, which amends the Canada Marine Act.

The government will also debate—and pass, we hope—important bills to enhance the economy and accountability. There will be Bill C-33 to regulate a renewable content of 5% in gasoline by 2010, and a 2% requirement for renewable content in diesel fuel and heating oil by 2012.

We will also debate Bill C-5, which deals with responsibility in the event of a nuclear incident, Bill C-7, which amends the Aeronautics Act, and Bill C-29, to create a standard process for dealing with loans made to political parties, candidates and associations.

I would like to indicate that next Tuesday will be an allotted day.

In terms of the question on creating a committee of the House regarding Afghanistan, I thank the member for his question. We did receive a letter from him asking about that yesterday. We appreciate the support of this House of Commons for the motion, which has allowed the Prime Minister to travel to Bucharest and obtain the commitments that have been obtained from our NATO allies and allow that mission to continue.

We do believe it is important for that committee to be formed so it can operate shortly, and we will be proceeding with that soon.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I just wanted to pass on to the committee members that I made a speech yesterday to a marine association, and except for my jokes, the biggest applause was in relation to Bill C-23, our amendments, and the regulatory changes. They really believe that regulatory changes are absolutely critical, and it's probably the best reception I've received from any group thus far. They were very happy with what we've done with Bill C-23. I just wanted to pass that on to everybody. I forgot to do that earlier, but they were very, very pleased.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, December 4, 2007, your committee has considered Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence and agreed, on Thursday, February 7, to report it with an amendment.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

A shortage, okay.

Mr. Nathwani, I was reading in your resume that as part of your judicial hearings and regulatory developments, you led the Canadian utilities submission to the House of Commons on Bill C-23, which actually established the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

It was interesting to read your quotes in The Globe and Mail:

The decision to rush through legislation to overrule the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and restart the...reactor to resume production...could not have been more timely, apt, relevant and correct. The ability of all parties in the House of Commons to take necessary action is...in sharp contrast to the CNSC's failure to evaluate the broader consequences to “life safety” of Canadians.

I have a question on that. The CNSC, when we were debating this in Parliament, not only actively opposed, but they really didn't want to go anywhere with this legislation. Why do you think we were right on this issue? But more importantly, as part of your risk management background, what kinds of things should CNSC have done, rather than just take this oppositional approach?

[Ekaterina Ohandjanian]

To tell you frankly, we have not studied the potential impact of other acts but the fact of the matter is that this issue is governed by the Investment Canada Act. We had this kind of concerns with other attempts to use C-23 or the Canada Marine Act to cover issues already dealt with in the Investment Canada Act. I'm talking here about a broader issue, the threshold reporting requirements found in the Act, which may not necessarily apply to the ports.

We cannot fully assess the impact of this provision nor what it would mean for the Public Safety minister. Legally speaking it is not appropriate to include this provision in a piece of legislation that deals with economic policies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Once again I will have to rule that this amendment is inadmissible since section 23 of the Canada Marine Act is not being amended by Bill C-23. It is inadmissible to propose such an amendment.

(Clauses 27 to 32 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 33)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, I do. I can either share it with you or read it to you in English. I can share the French. Would you prefer I give you the document or just read it?

I'll read it to you. It basically says, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” It's my opinion that the introduction of this framework for consent is contrary to the principle of Bill C-23 and therefore inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Again, I would have to rule that inadmissible. The amendment seeks to amend section 43 of the Canada Marine Act. Since it is not being amended by Bill C-23, it is therefore inadmissible.

This moves us to clause 22.

(On clause 22)

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 12. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 4, 2007, we will consider Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence.

Joining us today we have Emile Di Sanza, Janet Kavanagh, Guylaine Roy, and Ekaterina Ohandjanian.

We are doing the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-23 today. If I may, I'm just going to ask for a little bit of direction from the committee. Everyone has the order that the clauses and the amendments are in. If the committee wants to deal with the grouping of clauses up to each amendment, we can actually get to the meat of the amendments and discuss them. If that's agreeable, I will proceed that way.

With that agreement, I will ask, shall clauses 1 to 4 inclusive carry?

(Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 5)

Criminal Code

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly to Bill C-13. This bill is similar to Bill C-23, which was debated in the House.

I may be a rookie here but I remember Bill C-23 very well. We were in favour of the bill but the government decided to dissolve Parliament. So here we are, debating the same bill all over again, except that the number has changed.

The context is fairly important as we start, Bill C-13 is really Bill C-23. It contains so many important new aspects to make our criminal justice system work more equitably and to modernize it. It is why I was proud as a member of the Liberal justice team and as a member of the Liberal justice committee team to approve it and to send it on for eventual approval and royal assent.

Alas, the Prime Minister and his team decided that they were afraid of the environment. Their new Minister of the Environment had failed so miserably to act on the environment that they had to scuttle the whole Parliament because they were afraid of a couple of bills that might change things. In that mess, in that melee unfortunately, this good justice bill was killed and had to be reintroduced again.

One might ask, what difference does it make? It makes a difference to people who care about the criminal justice system. It may not mean a lot to people, but one of the biggest things we could have done in the last two years that I have been here would have been to modernize and make more effectual our criminal justice system, to move the maximum fine to be imposed for any summary conviction offence from $2,000 to $10,000.

A $2,000 fine is within the means of many people, but a $10,000 fine for a serious summary conviction offence, that does not warrant jail time, is a serious fine and might very well have a deterrent effect on those type of crimes for which a fine is appropriate.

There were many other amendments, which could be in effect and the law in the country now, that were just simply thrown away.

Language rights are very important in my province of New Brunswick which is officially a bilingual province. I represent the city of Moncton, which is an officially bilingual city. This is bread and butter for New Brunswick politicians. It is disturbing to me that the parliamentary secretary, when asked why Bill C-23, which contained many provisions to improve the delivery of justice services in both official languages was not given the priority of other bills, turned his answer to Bill C-2 and the tackling violent crime bill.

I asked why Bill C-23, which everybody agreed upon, was given second shrift to Bill C-2 and of course why was Bill C-2 killed?

This love child of the Conservative justice agenda, why was it killed by the Prime Minister? Was he so afraid of other bills which showed the incompetency of his own ministers?

It seems shocking to me. It included: Bill C-10, involving mandatory minimums which was a bill improved upon at committee and which had passed the House; Bill C-22, which modernized issues surrounding the age of consent and the age of protection, and provided for the first time a close in age exemption which made the bill very palatable in protecting young people; Bill C-32, for which Mothers Against Drunk Driving had been clamouring for some time; and, Bill C-35, a reverse onus on bail provisions which in effect codified the existing treatment of the law by jurists in the country, jurists who are exceptional jurists.

I have said this for two years. It seems like I just got here but I am here again defending judges and saying that they were enacting the provisions of Bill C-35 long before we had to make it law. Finally, there was Bill C-27, with respect to dangerous offenders.

Those were all bills that were moved along and would be law now had the government not pulled the plug on its own agenda. It euthanized its own criminal justice program.

In light of the Conservative vote on the capital punishment issue today, it is not surprising that Conservative members believe in terminating things. They have terminated their own hopes and dreams for criminal justice.

However, we want to move Bill C-23 along, which is now Bill C-13. It is an important bill that will deliver a lot of valuable aspects to the criminal justice system.

However, as I move to what is probably bread and butter for me as a New Brunswick politician, the language of the accused, I want to highlight what the bill will do and what it has done in the past. It is important to note the existing context.

At the request of the accused, a judge will order that the accused be granted a preliminary inquiry, a pre-trial procedure, and trial before a judge without jury, or judge with jury, who speak the official language, one or the other, which may be the language of the accused.

If the accused speaks neither English nor French, a judge will order that the accused be granted a preliminary inquiry or trial, without a judge and jury, who speak the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony. The court is also required to provide interpretation services. That is the existing set of laws.

What Bill C-13 does to improve upon that, in clause 18 of the original bill, is to suggest that once the accused appears in court, the judge is required to advise him or her of the right to trial in the official language of his or her choice, but this requirement, as it exists now, is only if the accused is not represented by counsel.

What Bill C-13 does, which Bill C-23 did and which we all agree on, is take away the issue of representation and says that the judge must advise the accused, whether represented or not, it was a false barrier, to his or her right to have a trial in the language of his or her own choice. That was a good change and it leads me into some of my further debate points when I say that the judge was required to advise the accused of his or her languages rights.

I know the member for Beauséjour is a member of the bar. He is experienced in certain criminal proceedings and would know, coming from a francophone milieu, that it is critically important that the gatekeeper for language rights in that context, the provincial court judge in most instances, has that positive duty to inform a judge of his or her right to a trial in the language of his or her choice. It is important to know that the judge is already doing that.

With respect to preliminary inquiries and the trial in both official languages, clauses 18 and 21 changed it so that they became more accessible. Trials in the proper language of the accused, either French or English, would be improved by this bill.

I might add, as an aside, that the translation of documents would be ameliorated certainly by these amendments and we are all in favour of that.

I guess where the rubber hits the road is what to do with the amendments presented by the Senate. My friend, the parliamentary secretary, discussed at length some of the amendments, and I want to counter on the two on which we might have a more elaborate discussion.

We know that this bill is aimed at modernizing our criminal justice system and making it more effective. That goes without saying. My party had indicated that it would support the passage of this bill when it was first introduced before prorogation. It was the bill that I mentioned earlier, Bill C-23.

In the context of this modernization, it is important that the rights of all Canadians be respected with regard to the use of official languages in court proceedings.

Canadians, particularly those in minority language situations, know they have certain rights under the Criminal Code, but it is the federal government's responsibility, and I suggest our responsibility as lawmakers, to ensure the application of those rights is clear and that the judicial process is not delayed.

The way the government presented its view of language rights in Bill C-13, a justice of the peace or court judge would only be charged with finding some way to ensure that accused persons are informed of their language rights. That is really not enough.

One of the amendments that we proposed should be supported. We are in argument with the government on this, at least according to the parliamentary secretary's speech. It is important to say from the outset that the judge already has a duty to advise the accused of his or her rights. The language says that the judge must ensure that the accused knows of this option.

I have witnessed many first appearances and I am very confident in the ability of our judges to advise accused persons of their rights. It is commonly done throughout the province of New Brunswick and in any federally appointed court system where official languages are important.

The amendment proposed by the Senate would ensure that the federal government takes on its responsibilities through its agents to inform any accused persons of their right to proceed in the official language they understand. The Senate amendment simply takes out any potential middleman in the administration of justice. The judge would inform the accused of his or her rights.

I do not think that it is an undue burden for a judge. If there is clear communication during court proceedings, we are simply providing for clear access to justice for all those involved. It falls in line with our democratic society's pledge to have an expedient judicial process and it takes out the aspect of appeal.

I think the government wants efficacious legislation but I cannot be sure sometimes because some of the legislation it presents is so poorly written and so hastily delivered, only for the purpose of a television spot on the news, it is not always clear. In this case, however, if the government would only support this Senate amendment, it could have efficacious and fair language policy through the Criminal Code.

Sadly, the other Senate amendment respecting the reporting on official language requests is not one that the opposition can support. We cannot agree with it because it would require the Minister of Justice to report on the language of proceeding or testimony in criminal matters across this country.

There can be no way that all attorneys general in all provinces and in all territories would have the means to uniformly report on this. As the parliamentary secretary rightly commented, it is not the minister's mandate. In saying this, I do not mean that the Minister of Justice is not competent. I mean that he is not competent in the law to do such reporting. For that reason, we support the government in its opposition to that Senate amendment.

I understand the Senate's concern with ensuring that there is accountability in respecting language rights but we can surely do a more effective job in ensuring this by using the other resources that are in the community.

I know well-known jurists and hard-working jurists in my own province.

They are Sacha D. Morisset and Christian Michaud, who are both members of the Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick. They often highlight the statistics with regard to French language trials in our province. If it can be done in New Brunswick, I am sure it can be done in Canada.

Again, we do not support that Senate amendment.

In short, we are very happy to get moving with this important legislation. We are happy the Senate took the time to improve the bill by suggesting that judges, who are the gatekeepers in our system, have the duty to inform an accused of his or her rights respecting language in this country.

It is bedrock in this community and this country that we offer services in both languages with respect, at least, to the Criminal Code of Canada and the criminal justice system.

On this one amendment from the Senate, I urge members of the government to agree with the Senate and with the Liberal Party and its justice team that it will make the situation with respect to the delivery of language rights in this instance a much better thing.

I am very proud to suggest that we support the bill and one of the amendments suggested by the Senate, which is one of the two that are excluded from the government's list in the final motion.

I want to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words “agrees with Amendments No. 2, 4, 5 and 6” and substituting therefore the words “agrees with Amendments No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6” and by deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “disagrees with Amendment No. 1”.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Just to shoehorn in at the end. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister for appearing here today, and thank you to the minister for taking the initiative to talk about Windsor as a critical border gateway as part of the central Canadian trade corridor.

We often talk about the Ambassador Bridge and the million dollars per minute in two-way trade. I think what is seldom talked about is the amount of economic activity that passes under the Ambassador Bridge along the Detroit River connecting the upper Great Lakes and the lower Great Lakes.

Short sea shipping is seen by many in the community as a real possibility for future growth for a smaller port like the port of Windsor. How does Bill C-23 help smaller ports? I think we've heard a lot from the bigger ports testifying before us here, in particular with respect to the new borrowing limits and things like that. But how is Bill C-23 going to help a smaller port like Windsor become more competitive, capitalize on its opportunities, and become a larger port?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Colleagues, I'm pleased to continue the discussion on Bill C-23, which basically proposes amendments to the Canada Marine Act. As you may know, the CMA required the Minister of Transport to complete a review of the provisions and application of the act.

In 2002 the government appointed a panel to undertake coast-to-coast consultations on the Canada Marine Act and to report back to the Minister of Transport with recommendations. Very broad-based consultations were held and generated extensive and substantive input from stakeholders, including all levels of government, Canada port authorities, marine transport companies, marine industry associations, as well as associations representing other modes of transportation, shippers, logistics companies, and labour organizations. The result was the CMA review report tabled by the Minister of Transport in Parliament in June 2003, which subsequently provided the direction of Bill C-61.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-61 aimed to build upon the commercial operating environment envisioned by the National Marine Policy of 1995 and the subsequent Canada Marine Act of 1998. It reflected an approach that responded to industry concerns, recognizing the importance of promoting strategic investment and productivity improvements.

Bill C-23 addresses many of the same recommendations flowing from the CMA Review. I believe that Bill C-23 goes even further in terms of optimizing our port regime in order to compete in today's global economy and putting Canada's major ports on a more competitive footing with their international counterparts.

The ports have been waiting a long time for these changes. Canada Port Authorities have told us that these proposed amendments are fundamental to the success of Canada's . marine ports in today's global environment. A number of provinces have also echoed a similar message.

If we wait any longer, opportunities could be lost. Opportunities that have the potential to have a significant and long-term positive impact on regional economies and ultimately on the Canadian economy.

Marine transportation accounts for almost a fifth of the volume of Canada's exports to the United States and over 95% of the approximately 162 million tonnes of commodities and processed goods Canada exports to other countries. All parts of the country benefit from the production and employment generated by the marine sector.

While the largest absolute impacts are in British Columbia, followed by Ontario and Quebec, the positive economic effects of marine transport activities extend to all regions of the country. Clearly, the marine sector makes a significant contribution to the output of the economy, is a creator of high-paying jobs, and also a significant generator of federal, provincial, and municipal revenues. The proposed amendments in Bill C-23 would have a positive impact on the marine industry and would position Canada port authorities, which are so important to Canada's economy, to respond to the emerging trends in globalization and to support Canada's national trade objectives.

At this point, I think it's important to distinguish between the legislative proposals of Bill C-23 and any related and complementary policy initiatives that may be put in place. As part of our commitment to openness and transparency, and also to ensure that you have a comprehensive understanding of the modernized strategy envisaged for our port authorities, we have shared with you the various policy initiatives that are being pursued.

I understand that a number of questions and comments have been raised concerning land management policy initiatives, and I have provided additional information and I trust have responded to these questions. These policy initiatives are very important and of course necessary. They reflect the result of significant analysis and examination, including third-party studies in some cases. They are initiatives that will have an immediate impact on industry within the existing legislative framework. However, they do not make up the substance of Bill C-23 but are complementary to the bill's provisions.

While Bill C-23 is national in scope, I understand that it has generated significant discussion regarding the role of municipalities.

Our cities are economic generators by themselves, but they also serve as essential transportation hubs and gateways, providing access to ports, airports and border points. This means that what happens in cities is essential to the rest of the country. Through the $33 billion Building Canada Infrastructure Plan, we will fund investments in transit, local roads and highway projects to help mitigate our growing congestion problem.

We are convinced that these investments will have a major impact on Canada's competitiveness; on the environment, and on the quality of life of Canadians. The Building Canada Plan underpins a national emphasis on trade gateways.

We cannot talk about trade gateways without talking about ports. In addition to the Asia Pacific Gateway and Corridor initiative, l signed a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in July 2007 to develop the Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway and Trade Corridor.

There are many marine-related opportunities along the St. Lawrence River and throughout the Great Lakes. Opportunities for increased short sea shipping that have the means to alleviate congestion, facilitate trade, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase the efficiency of the transportation system through better utilization of waterway capacity.

In October 2007 the federal government also signed an MOU with all four Atlantic provinces to advance the important work of development and developing a forward-looking Atlantic gateway strategy. There are many opportunities to explore that, and that will include our ports.

I understand some concern has been raised with respect to community involvement in port activities, particularly related to land use. On this issue I would like to note Captain Houston's remarks of last Tuesday. He confirmed that there is a significant history of ensuring that the municipalities have a lot of say in how the port is developed, over and above what is required by the port authority.

For the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Captain Houston explained that a municipal liaison forum has been established that brings together the board of directors with municipal councillors on a regular basis to ensure that the views of the community are understood and considered. In addition, each and every project that is implemented in the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is submitted to the development process of the municipalities of jurisdiction for their comments, and wherever possible their comments are accommodated.

I'd like to add that I have seen this process in action recently. Working with the communities of Delta, Surrey, and Langley, as well as others, including Transport Canada, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority has been part of a team effort that has created the Roberts Bank rail corridor, a series of nine overpasses that will facilitate traffic flow and reduce congestion in the lower mainland near Roberts Bank.

The needs of municipalities are clearly being considered in activities related to the ports, but equally important, regular dialogue is now occurring to ensure that all parties can learn from each other. The proposed amendments in Bill C-23 are absolute imperatives for the success of our gateways and corridors strategy.

While all of these separate and complementary initiatives are important, the reason I'm here today is to discuss Bill C-23, amendments to the Canada Marine Act.

This bill has five key components. The first amendment is designed to level the playing field for Canadian ports with other ports around the world. Bill C-23 removes the prohibition against federal funding in respect of contribution program funding for infrastructure, environmental sustainability, and security.

Currently, with very few exceptions, our Canadian ports are prohibited from accessing federal appropriations, while ports around the world are receiving increasing government funding for capital, environmental initiatives, and security enhancements. In addition, transportation sectors other than maritime are able to access these funds. It does not make any sense to discriminate against Canadian port authorities when we know that ports are an integral part of our long-term objectives, particularly regarding our national gateways and corridors strategy.

As you know, one of the objectives of our national policy framework for strategic gateways and trade corridors is to optimize the efficiency of the existing multi-modal transportation system. Greater use of the marine mode, especially with initiatives such as short sea shipping that are eligible for funding under the Building Canada Fund, will be a key solution to get goods off congested highways and railways and help protect our environment at the same time.

Short-sea shipping is also a priority for the United States, and we are working closely with our U.S. colleagues to further develop these opportunities. So let's put our CPAs on a more level playing field with the other transportation modes and the ports of other countries.

We are proposing amendments to the Act that would provide the option of a commercial borrowing regime for ports earning revenues of over $25 million a year for a period of three consecutive years. These amendments will allow the largest, most diverse CPAs to make financing decisions that are affordable, prudent and sustainable. For those eligible ports that choose to implement a commercial borrowing regime, they would be subject to a code governing borrowings in combination with commensurate accountabilities on the part of the Board.

Amendments are being proposed that are geared to providing long-term stability and continuity in the governance of CPAs. Bill C-23 provides for an additional term of re-appointment of board directors, thereby increasing the maximum tenure for a director from six to nine years, three terms of three years. Incumbent directors would remain in office until a renewed or new appointment is made. I would add that this is a term of a maximum of nine years.

On the subject of governance, I would like to clarify a very important point, one that is often forgotten or not well understood. You may recall that Captain Houston also noted this point in his remarks before this Committee. Specifically that Board members are appointees. Their fiduciary duty is to represent the best interests of the port authority board members. The act moreover stipulates that board members are not there as representatives of the people that nominate them – this is a matter of law, as such, and it does not matter whether it is one appointee or three appointees, board members must represent the best interests of the port.

Other amendments related to facilitating future amalgamations were warranted. You may be aware of the three ports in the lower mainland that amalgamated, effective January 1, 2008. The proposed amendments in Bill C-23 would put in place additional provisions for a consistent and streamlined approach to responding to potential future amalgamations, should the need arise.

The administrative monetary penalty amendments that are part of this package would provide ports with a modernized enforcement regime consistent with similar legislative impacting entities such as the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. Moving away from the lengthy court system for regulatory offences and introducing an independent review-and-appeal process has been demonstrated to result in a more efficient and cost-effective process, benefiting both the enforcement officers and the users of the marine system.

Mr. Chairman and honourable colleagues, I believe that these proposed amendments are the right thing to do for the marine transportation system. They are long overdue, and they are a critical part of this government's overall policy and frameworks supporting transportation and trade in Canada. They are also integral to the long-term objectives of the three national gateway and corridor strategies: the Asia-Pacific one, the continental one, and the Atlantic gateway.

Bill C-23 is required to ensure that Canadian ports have the tools they need to compete in a global trade environment and in support of their role with the national policy framework for strategic gateways and trade corridors. And it's the right time to make these changes for the Canadian economy.

Thank you very much, Chair and colleagues, for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe, I'm sorry, but as I stated earlier, I would call the meeting at this point in time and allow for the exchange of our witnesses and for the minister to come forward.

I want to thank the witnesses for attending today and for a lively, spirited debate. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

We'll recess for a few minutes to allow the minister and his officials to come in on Bill C-23.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

There's not much time left, but I just want to clear up something.

I was glad to hear Mr. Vaughan talk about the intelligence of our approach to infrastructure. What I was concerned about initially was the confusion of this bill with a series of other issues that have absolutely nothing to do with this bill. But the connection has been made by Mr. Freeman and Mr. Iler, deliberately, with the island authorities and with the City Centre Airport, and then by Mr. Vaughan suggesting that the resources for the port come only out of lawsuits.

I want to put on the record that the lawsuit to which they have made reference is one where the federal government—and you had one of the lawyers here before this committee explain what happened—sat down with the province and the municipal government and tried to extricate the city out of a lawsuit it was going to lose. You heard that as testimony in this committee and that the Government of Canada handed over $35 million in indemnities in order to keep the city safe, harmless from what the city viewed, because it signed on to the agreement, as an irresponsible action against the port authority among other players.

I don't think we get a clear picture of things if we confuse one with the other. So Mr. Freeman, and Mr. Iler in particular, I'm afraid that if you want to make an impact on Bill C-23, you'll have to do it a little differently.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Order, please.

Can we have the mikes shut off, please?

Mr. Vaughan, I do want to just remind you that this committee started reviewing Bill C-23 in December. Regrettably, whether you were or weren't informed in a timely fashion is a point of debate. But the time has expired, and I'll go to Monsieur Laframboise.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

What does that have to do with Bill C-23?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Freeman, that may be your key issue. We're dealing with Bill C-23. We were considering amendments. The chairman quite generously allowed individuals to come forward. You're appearing as an individual, but you claim that you are a member of a community in Toronto that is very much.... By the way, I live in Toronto as well.

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 11 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 4, 2007, we are examining Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act, and other acts in consequence.

Joining us today, from the Community Airport Impact Review, is Mr. Bill Freeman. As individuals, we have Mr. Adam Vaughan and Mr. Brian Iler.

I will advise the committee that we have the minister coming at twelve, so I will stop the proceedings short of twelve o'clock so that we can have the full hour with the minister, as I presume most of the members of the committee want.

The witnesses here today have been advised that because of the time restrictions, we are asking them to make a three- to four-minute presentation; then we will do the question-and-answer segment around the table as time permits.

I don't know whether the witnesses have picked an order in which they would like to speak, but we will start with Mr. Vaughan. You have four minutes.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I don't know if people are aware of this, but at least in my province--and I've heard it from several provincial ministers--the navigable waterways act is often a duplication of resources, and it slows up a lot of development. It causes some environmental concerns. And indeed, quite frankly, it is a nightmare in rural Canada. I would like to put this motion that we deal with at least looking at the navigable waterways act and the impact it has on governance, on use, and on environmental protection. I would like to study it. It's an act that goes back over a hundred years in many cases, so it needs something up to date.

To put it into perspective, if I had a ditch, and if this pen--which doesn't float, but it could possibly be a pencil, for my example--floated, that ditch would be a navigable waterway, and it would require a tremendous amount of input by the federal government. The difficulty with that is it's already required by many provincial governments, the same exact work, and it takes sometimes up to two or three years to get something done. This includes building a bridge, building a walkway. Mr. Watson had an example this morning of something that happened in his riding. A little ditch requires just a walkway for pedestrians, but it can't be built and has been held up for some years, simply because it has been deemed a navigable waterway, even though a canoe would never float in it no matter what happened. This is the difficulty.

I've looked at interpretation bulletins. I've looked at different situations. And I think the best thing to do is study it and have all members of this committee do so. I think we do have some free time to do it. For instance, the suggestion of one hour with the department next Thursday may even be possible, to at least get a preliminary on it if we do have time. I know that's a bit fast, but I think it would be appropriate.

I just wanted to mention as well that the minister, even though he's coming to speak on Bill C-23, is also prepared to answer questions on infrastructure, because I know that's been an issue. I would like to see maybe some future meetings deal with the infrastructure aspect, probably some time in the next 30 or 40 days.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I find myself in a position where I must say something on behalf of some of my other colleagues, most especially Mr. Don Bell, who could not be here, and especially given that Mr. Houston is here representing the lower mainland ports.

I just want to advise the committee that our B.C. caucus has in fact met not only on the amalgamation of the ports, but also on the impact of Bill C-23 on both the lower mainland and the larger issue of the Pacific gateway. And without putting any words into their mouths and constraining what we will do or say on this, I just thought Mr. Houston might want to know that the members of the Liberal caucus are in sync on movements in that area. That will make Mr. Fast very, very happy, I'm sure. It's important that the stakeholders also know where members of Parliament are coming from—as I say, that has nothing to do with those of us who are much more parochial—because we want to advance the issues of the continental gateway as it starts with and ends in Toronto.

[Patrice Pelletier]

I can perhaps address part of it, but I'll let you judge if it has something to do with Bill C-23.

There are three gateways in the country: Atlantic, continental, and the Pacific. In terms of the continental gateway, there is a subdivision that addresses the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes and one that addresses southern Ontario. The idea is to come up with a plan together. That plan is driven in terms of the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes. Right now there is a market study that will give the common strategy about what the market is and how this market can be conveyed to the end destination.

People within that gateway are getting organized the same way as the Pacific gateway. They have organized themselves very well. I think Gordon can talk about this.

I see a little bit of the same thing in many respects. We didn't talk about environment, but there is action with Green Marine--Alliance verte--in our part of the world. That is before laws and really avant-garde of auto regulations toward improving the environment. I see a convergence toward this. I don't see that because it's a smaller authority or an authority in a different basin or adjacent basin that it will be disfavoured.

I think the element underlying all of this is how we increase trade from a national perspective. We know there are gateways. We have to interlink with the southern Ontario gateway, which is very different from ours, but we're connected because we know where we're going. Sixty percent of the trade coming into Montreal stays in Canada, 40% goes to the United States. And 75% of that 40% goes to the Midwest, because that is the hub for merchandising and so on. Our neighbours in Ontario have to deal with the same issue. Personally, I see convergence in terms of our overall objective.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I suspect he's doing that because he wanted somebody to make an intervention on behalf of a Great Lakes gateway from an economic perspective in terms of developing the entire economy of Canada.

I thank you, gentlemen, for pointing out that there is a Pacific gateway strategy. The government members are keen to take full credit for it. We're not going to engage in partisanship, but it is one of the gateways. On the other, I see Mr. Hanrahan and Mr. Leroux, along with Monsieur Pelletier, have done well, speaking about the gateway that comes from Atlantic Canada and through the Port of Montreal.

I want to thank you before I make my comment on focusing strictly on the changing economic and trade patterns that impact on the way the port authorities see the world, and the way they must prepare for the world.

We have a variety of ports in Ontario. Mr. Watson has pointed to one, Windsor. There are several others. I'm thinking in terms of my own home city—Toronto—although other people might view themselves as expert on what happens in that city. I know that what you'll want to do is give us an indication about why it's important to think about the macro-economic changes for which we must prepare. That's why I asked you—and I'm wondering, Mr. Hanrahan, whether you'll do it perhaps from a different perspective—to talk in terms of governance issues in a CPA that will take into consideration any potential or foreseeable differences with local authorities about developing the infrastructure for changing trade patterns--why it would be important from your perspective that the jurisdictional authorities vested in CPAs, and confirmed by the courts, stay within the structure of material that must be dealt with from an investment perspective locally, but within a larger perspective.

And I'm taking the lead from Monsieur Pelletier, who said that the Port of Montreal really has a great dependency on the northern European market, secondarily on the southern Mediterranean, and thirdly from the Indian market accessing the Atlantic through the Suez Canal. This strikes me as a more studious approach to what should be happening with a port like Montreal if it's going to be a gateway into the Great Lakes basin, the northeastern United States, the midwest United States, and the biggest market in Canada, the Golden Horseshoe.

Those Canadian ports that are resident in the interior of that gateway, the Great Lakes ports, must have a similar strategy based on significantly similar economic assessment of where the future is going. So I'm wondering whether from your perspective the governance issues addressed by Bill C-23 are focused appropriately on that expansive mode, or whether they should concentrate, notwithstanding the jurisdictional decisions that have already been confirmed by the courts, on local issues only.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses here today.

I have two questions. One will be for you, Mr. Hanrahan.

You obviously have some of the larger ports represented here and talking about economic development. What does Bill C-23 mean for smaller ports—say, for Windsor, Ontario, or for Hamilton, or ports like that?

Secondly, the question I want to ask the bigger ports here is this. It seems that in order to capitalize on the economic expansion you need to do, there are currently two hindrances. One is access to the significant federal funds that are available, whether it's the billion dollars of Asia-Pacific money or $2.1 billion for the borders and gateways initiatives; and the second obstacle is the ability to access more private capital.

The question for you is, could you have moved ahead on some of your projects more quickly had a bill like this been in place months ago, years ago, or whenever?

I'm getting to a timing issue here. If we delay this, is that going to mean a problem for you? Could you have moved ahead more quickly? Because those two obstacles are clearly going to be removed by a bill like this.

Those are my questions.

[Patrice Pelletier]

Absolutely. I spoke to the former president of that organization as well as the new one, whom I met, and to Mr. Gagnon, the director general. Moreover, there has been a meeting of all the CEOs of St. Lawrence ports, namely Quebec City, Sept-Îles and the Saguenay. We met to discuss Bill C-23 and the amendment. We unanimously supported the bill and we continue to do so.

[Captain Gordon Houston]

No. We went to the municipalities and made sure they knew that the amendments were under way and that Bill C-23 was there, because there has been some discussion in the lower mainland on the new port authority. They wanted three appointees instead of one.

They're not representatives, they're appointees, so their fiduciary duty is to the port, not who put them there. So it doesn't matter whether it's one appointee or three appointees, they still have to vote in the best interests of the port.

That is the only thing we have gotten back from the municipalities that would indicate they have a problem. We told them we as a port could do nothing about it, and to wait until the changes to the act come through and then go forward with it. I don't know whether they have or not, but we advised them to do it that way.

[Sean Hanrahan, Chair, Association of Canadian Port Authorities]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning. Thank you for having us here today, and belated happy new year to all committee members.

My name is Sean Hanrahan. I'm the CEO of the St. John's Port Authority in Newfoundland and I'm also the chair for this year of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities.

With me is Mr. Patrice Pelletier, who's the new CEO at the Montreal Port Authority, and Captain Gordon Houston, who is the CEO of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. We also have Gary Leroux, who is the executive director of our association.

Ms. Lisa Raitt, who is also a member of our executive, was to come here but is absent due to pressing business in Toronto. She sends her regrets as well as her full support of the brief to follow.

Again, Mr. Chairman and committee members, I'd like to thank the committee for the invitation here this morning, and indeed I'd like to thank the government for moving forward with these key amendments to the Canada Marine Act.

I will address the issues related to the proposed amendments in Bill C-23, but first I'd like to offer a brief introduction. I don't anticipate my remarks will be any longer than five or seven minutes, Mr. Chairman.

The Canada Marine Act, which created the Canada port authorities or CPAs, has been beneficial for governments, for the public, and most importantly for the port users. Section 4 of the Canada Marine Act outlines clear objectives for port authorities, and since 1998 CPAs have lived up to these very important policy goals. The act stipulated a strong public policy role for ports and at the same time mandated them to be self-sufficient and commercial. Further, CPAs must subscribe to rigorous management regulations as well as environmental assessment regulations conferred on them by the act. And finally, we as ports send to the federal treasury for general use a percentage of gross revenues every year. In addition, we also make payments in lieu of taxes to our respective municipalities, as set down in the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act.

Since the inception of the CMA in 1998, Canada's 19 port authorities—which are now actually 17 port authorities, given the west coast merger—grew the amount of cargo annually in Canada from 240 million tonnes to 280 million tonnes. In dollar value that's $100 billion to $146 billion. Since that time, all CPAs have made investments in infrastructure, undertaken environmental initiatives, ensured strong security measures on port property and other facilities, and continue to facilitate trade and commerce to the benefit of all Canadians. As a trading nation, 40% of Canada's GDP depends on trade, and more than one-quarter of that trade is shipped via the Canadian ports system. Port authorities are mindful of the need to continue to facilitate this trade while carrying on their important stewardship role in the cities and harbours in which we do business.

What is a CPA itself? In general, we are a construct of the Canada Marine Act, and from an operational perspective exist as landlord ports with many diverse tenants, which, by and large, have long-term commercial leases with us as landlords. The port authority ensures that these businesses have what they need for the safe and efficient flow of freight, and, given the cruise industry, the passengers as well. While a port authority itself as an entity may have only a relatively small staff to fulfill their mandate under the Canada Marine Act, there are thousands of other people who work on port property with the myriad of enterprises that involves, all of which are generating millions of dollars in economic activity and in taxes paid to each level of government.

Port authorities have been called vital economic engines because of the contribution they make to the local and regional economies. They will continue to be crucial in this regard, with the growth rate in trade projected to double by 2020. Port authorities and all landside connections, road and rail, must prepare for this trade. If we aren't ready, Canada's prosperity will be diminished. Ports operate in a highly competitive world, and we ignore that at our peril.

The proposed amendments to the Canada Marine Act will add to Canada's competitiveness. I make this statement with the unanimous support of our full membership. Seven issues on which amendments have been proposed have also been unanimously approved by our membership. I'll go through them now.

The first issue is the introductory provisions to the act itself, mainly based around section 4. Changes to the Canada Marine Act, indeed, have been a long time coming. In fact the five-year mandatory review was completed in June of 2003. Here we are now another five years later, in 2008, but with what I feel to be a better product in front of us. The proposed amendments are indeed a right step for Canada's major ports. The proposed changes acknowledge the vital role that port authorities play in the economic health of the country, and they do so by providing more flexibility to grow and prosper. In so doing, the amendments in no way relinquish or reduce any responsibility on our part for full accountability under the act. CPAs have always played an important role in the coordination of transportation in and around ports. We are all only as strong, however, as our weakest link—and of course that is the message to all of us, so that all levels of authority or government ensure that roads, bridges, rail lines, and other transportation infrastructure are operating at their full peak. The CMA and the proposed changes provide an excellent framework for port authorities to do business in Canada. The Association of Canadian Port Authorities endorses the proposed changes to section 4 of the Canada Marine Act to more adequately recognize our role as vital economic engines in Canada.

Second is the fees and leases issue, and the definitional issues surrounding them. This is in regard to sections 2 and 53 of the act. For port authorities to continue to operate their assets in a commercial manner and to remain self-sufficient, a critical component of our ability to do so is to set fee schedules, as well as to negotiate commercial leases and contracts. Experience has shown that it is imperative that lease and rent negotiations be market driven, and not be subject to external review or adjudication or amendment. Government and port authorities have long agreed on this need; hence, the value of this proposed amendment to bring the regulation and the definition in line with practice—and also, frankly, to bring these in line with Federal Court of Appeal dicta in this regard. The ability to set fees based on commercial needs is a critical element for port authorities to remain self-sufficient, as required under the Canada Marine Act. The association again endorses the amendment of the definition of fees and leases.

Number three—access to government funding programs—is related mostly to section 25 of the current act. Port authorities are currently prohibited from accessing federal funding programs. ACPA, our association, has long argued that port authorities should have program parity with other Canadian commercial enterprises, which have such access. We have pointed out that the federal program guidelines and the criteria themselves ought to dictate who receives funding. In the current situation, port authorities are at a disadvantage with respect to federal programs. For example, access to security funding after the tragic events of 9/11 had to be provided by a consequential amendment to another act, the Public Safety Act, rather than our own Canada Marine Act. Unfortunately, the three-year window provided in that act has now closed, and port authorities are now ineligible for any future funding from this specific security contribution program.

Another example of how this has impacted port authorities relates to Transport Canada 's freight efficiency program. Denying access to programs like it prevents CPAs from taking on development projects that could lead to more efficient and sustainable freight movement.

Finally, many public and private enterprises have accessed important federal funding to enhance infrastructure in order to facilitate the movement of goods and people. As noted earlier, and as stated in section 4 of the act, port authorities have an important public policy role to facilitate trade, and yet we cannot obtain federal infrastructure support for this important function.

On the list of conditions set out for a port authority to receive federal contribution funding as per the proposed amendments, the association indeed supports the amendment, without question. However, it would make a very minor amendment to the actual wording. Proposed subparagraph 14(b)(iv), which relates to the current section 25, would be amended to have the word “and” deleted and the word “or” substituted to more accurately express the intent of the clause.

Item four is our borrowing limits, and this relates to sections 28 and 30 of the act. We have asked for changes to the current borrowing regime under the Canada Marine Act, and we are very pleased that this has been addressed in the current bill. This amendment will provide the opportunity for port authorities to work with government to establish appropriate borrowing frameworks that meet the diverse requirements of Canada's 17 CPAs.

The development of a workable borrowing code remains a key part of ensuring the success of this policy initiative. Port authorities will work with government officials to seek minor improvements to the draft borrowing code to ensure the effectiveness of this proposed new mechanism. We endorse whole-heartedly the proposed amendments related to borrowing limits.

Item five is amalgamation, and this pertains to section 13 of the act. The Canada Marine Act review panel had recommended that amalgamations be permitted where there was a strong business case to do so. The proposed amendments to the Canada Marine Act provide more clarity related to the transition to such amalgamated port authorities, and are welcomed. We endorse the proposed amendment.

Item six pertains to section 14 of the act and the board of directors term renewal limits. Port authorities have benefited greatly from the new governance structure created under the Canada Marine Act in 1998. This structure recognizes the importance of having local representation in place on our boards. It also recognizes the important need to have broad experience on the board, with directors nominated from each level of government, and the majority of directors selected by the federal minister after consultation and receipt of nominations proposed by the user classes of a port authority.

While the various nominating parties nominate directors, once on the board, under current governance law, the fiduciary duty of a director is to the port authority. The proposed amendments strengthen this structure by providing an additional three-year term for directors that allows port authorities to benefit from their experience. Finally, the idea of having directors remain in place until they are reappointed, or until another director is appointed, would prevent situations where vacancies exist for an untenable length of time. We endorse the proposed amendments in this regard.

Finally are enforcement provisions that relate to section 61 of the act. The proposed amendments related to enforcement provide port authorities with a more efficient process for ensuring compliance with regulations under the act, while also providing a suitable review and appeal mechanism of such enforcement decisions. The proposed amendments to address regulatory non-compliance would also preclude the need for redress to the courts in many cases. ACPA endorses the proposed enforcement provision in the Canada Marine Act.

Mr. Chairman, I have outlined seven particular issues and the amendments pertaining thereto with which the Association of Canadian Port Authorities unanimously agrees. We feel Bill C-23 is a huge advance for our industry. We encourage quick and speedy passage of the legislation, and look forward to any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning. Welcome, everyone, to meeting number nine of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Just before we start, I'd like to wish my colleagues a belated happy new year, and welcome back.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 4, 2007, we have Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act, and other acts in consequence.

Since we've had some discussion, I think I'm going to take the chair's advice. I'll introduce the chair and he can introduce the people with him, and then move to his presentation.

With that, I'll welcome Sean Hanrahan for the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. Welcome, and please proceed.

[Ekaterina Ohandjanian]

If I may supplement, it actually does, in the sense that we have an amendment in Bill C-23 that recognizes for the first time the link between the Marine Transportation Security Act, which is the proper legislative scheme for security-related provisions or regime, and the Canada Marine Act. So for the first time we've linked the two together. We can anticipate that if there's the will to provide substance and further security-related mandate on the part of the port authorities, that would be done through the Marine Transportation Security Act, but because of the link, it now recognizes that it's doable.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

In terms of the changes in the process for borrowing, I think right now—if I understand this correctly—an increase in the borrowing limit requires a recommendation by the minister. There has to be an independent financial assessment of that. Treasury Board has to sign off, as does the Minister of Finance, and finally cabinet.

The downside to this is that it takes a long time to get approval for an increase in the borrowing limit. The upside is that there is a certain amount of check and balance to it.

On the new changes that are being proposed or contemplated in Bill C-23, how many and which ports would be affected by the new borrowing code? That's my first question.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Our government has announced, in successive budgets, funding for the Asia Pacific gateway, of about $1 billion, I think. For borders and gateways, the funding is $2.1 billion, for example.

Do the changes in Bill C-23 with respect to accessing federal money contemplate access to these funds, or are those funds already accessible to ports? In other words, are these changes necessary in order to access that money, or are these changes needed to access future funds that may be announced?

[Emile Di Sanza, Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, honourable members of the committee.

I'm very pleased to make a presentation to this committee on the proposed amendments to the Canada Marine Act as contained in Bill C-23. This suite of amendments recognizes the underlying importance of marine transportation to the Canadian economy. This is reflected in the proposed changes, initially in the introductory provisions of the act; and indeed, throughout the various measures, the proposed amendments aim to promote the competitive viability and sustainability of Canada port authorities.

The national marine policy of 1995 emphasized the elimination of overcapacity, promoted cost recovery in marine transport, and mandated self-sufficiency for the port authorities. It also instituted a consistent governance structure for all major ports. The objectives of the national marine policy relative to ports have largely been met through the Canada Marine Act, the legislation that introduced a commercial approach to managing the national ports system and marine infrastructure.

Modern transportation infrastructure is important to a country's ability to be competitive in the global market. This ability depends largely on port efficiency and access to the necessary port infrastructure. The national strategic and legislative frameworks governing the ports are reliable, but must be adjusted to respond to new pressures and demands. Greater flexibility is required in the financial tools available to the ports so that they may be competitive on international and domestic markets.

Marine transport and ports are key aspects of the gateways and trade corridor initiatives that have been announced.

On page 3 of the handout, we see that 19 port authorities are part of the national port system. Each region covered by the initiative on gateways and corridors includes a number of port authorities. The Asia-Pacific port and corridor, on the west coast, includes several CPAs, as do those in Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic.

The key consultations resulting in the draft amendment, were held in fall 2002 by the Canada Marine Act Review Panel. The panel went to 11 cities and 7 provinces, where it heard more than 75 presentations and received over 140 written submissions. These consultations were exhaustive. They were aimed at all levels of government, port administrations, marine transport companies, marine industry associations and associations representing other modes of transport, namely shipping, logistics companies and union organizations.

The result was the Report on the Review of the Canada Marine Act tabled in Parliament by the Minister of Transport in 2003. This report was subject to ample deliberation and served as a source of information for the department. Regular and ongoing consultations and follow-up with marine stakeholders have also contributed to the ongoing work at Transport Canada on policy development. A number of other events have also contributed to further discussion between stakeholders and parties interested in the marine sector.

The genesis and foundation of Bill C-23 can be found in the former Bill C-61, which was introduced in Parliament in June 2005. Many of the provisions in Bill C-23 indeed build on those of Bill C-61.

Based on representations and more recent stakeholder consultations, the following provisions are proposed: to allow port authorities access to federal contribution funding for infrastructure, environmental sustainability, and security; secondly, to introduce more flexible corporate financing options; thirdly, to improve port governance; fourthly, to complement existing regulations regarding possible amalgamations of port authorities; and finally, to introduce administrative monetary penalties as an alternative enforcement scheme for regulatory infractions on port lands and to streamline certain other enforcement provisions.

During the CMA review, many stakeholders voiced concerns regarding the low profile of the marine industry and requested that the Government of Canada recognize the importance of the marine transportation sector.

Accordingly, the amendment includes the addition of the following into the bill, at clause 3: the introduction would recognize the contribution of the marine sector to Canada's economic health; there would be a new objective confirming the government's commitment toward the success of the ports; and finally, there would be coordination and integration of transportation at ports through enhanced financial and operational flexibilities.

Slide 7 in the presentation deck that was circulated speaks to access to federal contribution funding. Changes in the economics of marine transportation have necessitated a re-examination of the general prohibition that currently exists in the act—that's section 25—against federal funding to Canada port authorities. While ports around the world are receiving increasing funding for capital, environmental initiatives, and security enhancements, Canadian ports are generally prohibited from accessing federal appropriations. The only exception in recent years was with respect to security enhancements at the Canadian port authorities.

Without these changes, Canadian ports will not be well positioned to compete with international ports. An amendment to the Canada Marine Act to make Canadian port authorities eligible to apply for federal contributions for capital costs of infrastructure, environmental sustainability, and security projects would set CPAs on an equal footing with other ports and other transportation sectors. You will find these at clauses 14 and 15.

The bill, however, does not propose the creation of a new funding program. Rather, it would allow Canada port authorities to apply to contribution programs that either currently exist or future contribution programs that may be developed. In all cases, of course, the port authority would have to present a very strong business case that fits the specific program criteria.

Allowing Canada port authorities access to funding for environmental sustainability projects would provide new tools for ports to address environmental concerns through the application of new technologies—for example, to improve emission controls at the ports.

I should point out that the Canada Marine Act is an economic legislative framework. Issues relating to such things as accidental oil spill, spills of noxious substances, releases of invasive species in ballast waters are not addressed in this act, but they are addressed through a number of other statutes and programs.

With respect to security, as of this month any contribution funding for the implementation of security enhancements is no longer available to Canadian port authorities. In order to ensure that Canadian port authorities continue to have access to potential security funding in the future, this amendment would be required.

With respect to financial instruments, page 9 in the deck deals with a modified borrowing regime. Presently Canada port authorities can seek an increase in their borrowing limit by making a request to the Minister of Transport for supplementary letters patent that increase the borrowing limits set out in their letters patent. An increase would require the recommendation of the minister, supported by independent financial assessment of the port authority's debt capacity and ability to remain financially self-sufficient. Approval is then required by the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, and finally the Governor in Council.

We are proposing amendments to the act that would allow borrowing based on a code governing the power to borrow in combination with commensurate accountabilities on the part of the board. You will find these at clauses 5, 17, and 18.

Those ports earning revenues of over $25 million a year for three consecutive years—and at this point that would involve Vancouver, Halifax, and Montreal—could, and I stress here “could”, if they chose to do so, implement a commercial borrowing regime that would be subject to a code governing borrowings. This code is detailed and can be found in the documents provided to committee members, part of the briefing binder.

A complementary policy initiative—and this is not reflected in the bill per se—would also provide for a more streamlined process for ports that request changes to existing borrowing limits within the current regime. This policy initiative would provide Canada port authorities with a clear indication of the steps involved and the precise information required for requesting borrowing limit increases. This in turn, we believe, could allow Canada port authorities to better plan their investments in a timely fashion.

Page 10 of your deck deals with governance issues. Other elements of Bill C-23 relate to strengthening the governance provisions of the Canada Marine Act, which would provide greater clarification regarding the terms of appointment for the board of directors. These changes are geared to providing long-term stability in the governance of Canada port authorities. Many of these will be found at clause 10.

Specifically, these amendments would provide for an additional term of reappointment of board members, thereby increasing the maximum tenure for a director from six to nine years, in effect three terms of three years each. In addition, incumbent directors would be able to remain in office until renewed or a new appointment is made, up to a maximum, of course, of the nine years. This would increase overall continuity and stability of the board and ensure that boards are able to continue to function.

These amendments do not, however, change the composition of the board, nor the criteria to become a board member. The majority of board members will also continue to be nominated by the users of the port and appointed by the Governor in Council. Municipal, provincial, and federal governments would continue to appoint a nominee to the board.

Page 11 of the deck speaks to amalgamation. New and emerging trends in the economics of marine transportation have provided an opportunity to explore options that could make Canada port authorities possibly more efficient, competitive, or able to respond more quickly to emerging opportunities and growing business volumes. Of particular interest are integrated port operations, such as amalgamations of port authorities.

An integrated port authority may be a possible and viable option for certain CPAs that are in regional proximity, so as to address competitive pressures in a manner that maximizes business opportunities. This is addressed in various clauses, principally clauses 5, 9, and 16.

With respect to regulations and enforcement, current legislation contains an array of alternatives to court actions. These alternatives are intended to address instances of non-compliance with respect to regulatory offences, and we're not talking here about criminal offences for which criminal prosecutions would obviously continue to apply. But in the case of regulatory violations, alternative enforcement mechanisms such as an administrative monetary penalty regime would offer a more efficient, more cost-effective way for both the enforcement officers and users to respond to enforcement issues while utilizing a recognized independent review and appeal mechanism.

I turn now to the complementary policy initiatives that support the proposed amendments.

I spoke earlier about a key policy initiative as it relates to streamlining the process for borrowing limits. We've developed guidelines to streamline and simplify the current process. These guidelines are contained in your briefing binder. These guidelines would provide Canada port authorities with a clear indication of the steps involved and the precise information required prior to requesting a borrowing limit increase. We believe, by virtue of clearer, more precise guidelines in this respect, that some of the issues associated with seeking borrowing limit increases in the past would be precluded.

Finally, there is a second key policy initiative that relates to land management flexibility. Transportation sectors are increasingly facing pressures related to land holdings. Some key ports are facing encroachment from developers or facing capacity limitations, which are adding pressures on the preservation of critical port lands or transportation corridors, particularly in, but not strictly limited to, the urban areas.

It's important to find the right mechanism to maintain ports as economic generators for national, regional, and local economies. Equally important, we need to find ways to encourage ports to invest in and manage land holdings for the long term. Such effective short-term use of properties under port management by way of leasing or licensing to third parties would be desirable. This would assist Canada port authorities in generating revenues on those lands until such time as the port was ready to develop the property for port purposes. This would be done principally through supplementary letters patent, which would be issued for each Canada port authority.

It should be noted that the legislative change related to land management—and that is in clause 23 of Bill C-23, which proposes amendments to subsection 45(3.2) of the Marine Act—is being made simply to bring clarity and transparency to the existing provisions. The rest, with respect to this policy initiative, would be done by virtue of the letters patent.

It is important to note that all permitted activities would need to be compatible with port operations and must take into account the land use plans of adjacent communities. A number of strict conditions will need to be met before these lands can be leased for interim uses, and these conditions will be required to be included in the leases between the port authority and the third party. This is outlined in an issue paper, which we've provided in the briefing binder that was circulated to committee members.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that committee members may have.

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the sixth meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. The orders of the day are consideration of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act, and other acts in consequence.

Similar to the last bill that we did, we have to open it up by saying we're going to start with clause 1, which then allows our witnesses to present and for questions to be asked.

Joining us today from the Department of Transport are Mr. Emile Di Sanza, director general, marine policy; Valerie Devlin, acting senior strategic policy adviser, marine policy; and Janet Kavanagh, director of port policy, ports policy. As well, from Justice Canada, we have Ekaterina Ohandjanian, legal counsel.

Welcome. I'm sure you're familiar with the routine. We'll ask you to present, and then we'll ask our committee members, if they have question, to proceed.

Mr. Di Sanza, please begin.

Canada Marine Act

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence, because I have the privilege of representing the federal riding of Halifax.

While I do not want to lay claim, in any way, shape or form, to the port of Halifax being the exclusive concern of the federal riding of Halifax because three additional federal ridings abut one way or another on some part of the Halifax Harbour, I think it is fair to say that the riding of Halifax is the most historic riding to make up part of the port of Halifax.

The Halifax port is an incredibly important part of the economic development infrastructure and, to state the obvious, the transportation infrastructure of the Halifax metropolitan region and, indeed, the province of Nova Scotia and the whole of Atlantic Canada.

Before I begin speaking to the amendments to the four bills that are affected by Bill C-23, I want to take the opportunity to talk about the vision, the creativity and the innovation of the former mayor of Halifax, Allan O'Brien, who, in the late 1960s, had the vision to see that we needed to do a great deal to enhance our port capacity. He knew that container shipping would become a huge factor in the shipment of goods in the modern era. Container capacity in the city of Halifax was an important innovation undertaken at that time and it remains an extremely important part of the economic capacity of the port of Halifax, which continues to play a major part in the economy of the region and of our country.

People talk about the concept of the Atlantic Gateway. I hope it does not seem presumptuous to say this, but I think it is fair to say that Halifax has been one of the major economic gateways to Canada and to all of North America for over 400 years. In a sense, it does not need to compete for the notion of being the major Atlantic Gateway but, at the same time, a major collaborative effort is under way to strengthen the port of Halifax so it can be an even more effective economic driver for goods coming to the North American continent.

When I had the opportunity to talk with my provincial New Democrat candidates in Nova Scotia recently, the official opposition in the province of Nova Scotia, it was pointed out to me that it was not well-known that the port of Halifax, in many instances, offers the fastest and the most effective route into North America.

The bill that is now before us addresses a number of valid concerns that have been brought forward over a period of several years. However, I hope we can further enhance the capability of the port of Halifax and other Canadian ports as well to play an even bigger role as a gateway into North America.

I think members of the House are aware of the history of the bill that is now before us. It resulted from a consultative process across the country in 2003, when a legislative review of the Canada Marine Act was conducted, and in a 1995 policy review for federal ports on the elimination of overcapacity and the new governance structures needed to support more successful commercial operations and a more comprehensive system of transportation, of which the Halifax port is only one component.

There was a great deal of interest in that review process at the time. I think some 75 hearings were held with 140 submissions by a variety of stakeholders from across the country. Therefore, in part, the changes contained in Bill C-23 came out of that review process.

It is my view and the view of my colleagues, several of whom have already very ably spoken to the bill, that the bill should be supported at this stage of second reading to go to committee. It is also our view that some amendments are needed to some areas of the bill. It would be our contention that at committee these amendments ought to be fully considered and, hopefully, supported, adopted and brought back to the House. If the necessary amendments are made, I and my colleagues would see this as an important step forward in strengthening our capacity to play an even greater role in this country of effective ports into the North American continent.

A number of positive things can be said about the bill. A number of provisions in the bill would improve access to funding by port authorities for infrastructure improvements. There are some areas in which there are infrastructure improvements needed to the port of Halifax and other ports. The original marine act did not actually allow for port authorities to get access to federal funding. This is being addressed in the bill and it is long overdue.

The bill also would provide the port authorities with the ability to borrow money for port purposes on the port authorities' credit. This is an important provision that needs to be supported. It is an important start but it is our view that the borrowing power that would be made available to port authorities needs to be increased beyond where this present bill establishes that limit.

Another important amendment, which, I guess, would be mostly true of the port of Halifax, explicitly states the historical importance of our ports to the Canadian economy and to the North American economy. This positive statement is particularly timely at this juncture. We know how important our ports are but we also know there are particular challenges that need to be met in the context of the current events happening and the current security threats that need to be taken seriously.

One of the areas in which we are very adamant that there needs to be improvements in Bill C-23 relates to the security challenges that our ports are facing. I think it is fair to say that a missed opportunity in the current drafting of the bill is to tackle the importance of streamlining, standardizing and strengthening both the funding for national security measures in our ports and also for the way in which the security provisions are actually handled.

The disbandment of the port police was very controversial when it took place a number of years ago. I know the New Democratic Party expressed some major concerns about it at the time. At the very least, I think one has to say that the disbandment was done in a very ad hoc way and was premature.

What Bill C-23 would enable us to do with some appropriate amendments is to actually recognize that there needs to be a more coherent, comprehensive, streamlined process dealing with security.

This is almost unbelievable but at the moment the 19 different major port authorities literally have 19 different systems addressing their security needs. Some ports have a combination of federal, municipal and provincial police. Some have various partnerships and relationships with private security firms. In Halifax, for example, we have a contract with the municipal police augmented by private security firms for commercial port users.

I had a professor who would talk about the lack of a really thorough, systematic approach of whatever regulatory nature that looked like a dog's breakfast. In this day and age, in particular, we need to be concerned about a more comprehensive and coherent approach to port security.

It pains me to say this but we in the city of Halifax have a very real concern these days about the increase in violence in some pockets of our communities. This is not unusual nor is it exceptional to Halifax. I am pleased to take the opportunity to say that we in the city of Halifax are blessed with one of the finest police forces in our country. We have an outstanding chief of police and deputy chief of police who absolutely understand what it means to say that we need to take this challenge seriously and that what it requires is being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. They do not only express that as some kind of a convenient slogan. They act on it and they engage the whole community in the process of identifying where the kind of preventive and rehabilitative measures are needed that would actually get that job done, while, at the same time, recognizing that there are instances in which the public is not being adequately protected from some of the offenders who threaten their very security and in fact their lives in many cases.

It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that at committee there are some amendments brought in to take a more coherent or comprehensive approach to the security challenges we face.

It may not be so obvious to people who live in landlocked places but ports are a wonderful asset and a wonderful resource. However, particularly with the increase in commercial activity and the potential for massive containers to be brought in on container ships, there can be real challenges to identifying illicit drugs or illegal arms that are stowed in those containers by hostile individuals who have anything but our best interests at heart when they do that.

I am not saying that it is frequent, but, and I believe this figure would apply today or recently, the figures would indicate that only 3% of the containers coming into our ports now are actually inspected. I am not an authority but I do know there are some challenges. I do not know what percentage it should be but it seems that 3% is a very low percentage of container inspection to determine whether there are threats to our security.

I do not want in any way to create the impression, because I do not believe it is true, that the port of Halifax has bigger challenges in that regard than other ports, but I think what it does underscore is that we need to have a more streamlined, comprehensive approach to security, and this is the time to do it.

I recall in part with amusement, but I also remember how furious I was at the time, that on the eve of the 2004 election there was virtually a Liberal rally conducted in Halifax where there was a great deal of fanfare about funding coming into the port of Halifax to improve our security protection in the aftermath of 9/11.

Honestly, we could not tell that it was not a Liberal rally. There were three cabinet ministers that flew in at, of course, public expense to make this big announcement with great fanfare, but actually it was totally lacking in specifics. A whole two years later, when I was making inquiries to find out about the delivery of those promises, not a single penny had flown at the time to fulfill those promises.

If the new provisions of Bill C-23 are appropriately adopted, we will be supporting it if the necessary amendments can hang within it. Let us not turn it into a kind of pre-election fanfare thing, which I think would do a disservice to the fact that the consultation process that has taken place has involved all of the stakeholders, all of the levels of government, and recognized that this is something of interest to the security and well-being of our individual citizens, and obviously to the well-being and success of our local, regional and national economies.

Mr. Speaker, with those words, I am pleased to indicate my support for the legislation to be passed at second reading. I look forward to a lively committee process where other concerns will be addressed, including some real problems about shrinking down the numbers of members on the port authorities. This does not allow for a diverse representation as is really needed to ensure that all interests are fully considered at the decision-making level of our port authorities.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23. I will be speaking to a number of points. In particular, I would like to speak about the funding, the regulatory process and the process of appointment to the board.

Before I get into that, I would like to talk about the port of Nanaimo. There has been much discussion in the House about the impact of ports on our local communities, how important the ports are to many communities from coast to coast to coast and also the need to ensure that there is some local decision making.

I have a document here called “The Economic Impact of the Port of Nanaimo”. It is dated May 2003. In order to give some sense of how important our local port is to the city of Nanaimo, I would like to quote from the document:

Port of Nanaimo businesses generate 3,700 direct jobs; $115 million in direct wages.

There are in excess of 10,000 total jobs nation-wide related to the Port of Nanaimo, after including multiplier (indirect and induced) impacts. These jobs generate $335 million in total wages.

In British Columbia, Port of Nanaimo businesses generate over $160 million in direct Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and over $410 million in direct economic output.

The total national economic impact of Port of Nanaimo (including indirect and induced impacts) is estimated at $500 million in GDP and over $1.1 billion in economic output.

DIRECT EMPLOYMENT is employment that can be attributed to the operation, management, and tenancy at the Port of Nanaimo including firms on-site at the Port and Port-dependent businesses off-site.

INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT is employment in goods and service supplier industries that results from the presence of the Port of Nanaimo's direct employers. An example of a Port of Nanaimo's indirect employment would be the supplier of machinery to value-added (manufacturing) tenants at the Port of Nanaimo.

As such, indirect employment is generated in industries that supply or provide services to Port of Nanaimo businesses.

Port of Nanaimo produces jobs!

That is a heading in the brochure. I have covered some of the numbers. It says:

An estimated 3,700 direct jobs are attributed to the Port of Nanaimo activities, or 2,800 direct person years of employment. These employment figures represent employment in two sectors related to the Port -- Port Operations and Port Land Users. Port Operations employers are those that provide facilities or services involved in maritime trade and shipping through the Port of Nanaimo. Port Land Users are firms that have strategically located at the Port because they require access to the Port to operate.

Some of those jobs include terminal, forestry, government, retail, food and beverage, aviation and ships services. Those are the on-site jobs. The off-site jobs include government, forestry, trucking, shipping, aviation, retail, food and beverage, ships services, tow rail, contracting and fisheries.

We can see the importance of ports in my community. Unless we think that ports are a recent innovation in the city of Nanaimo, I have some numbers here from the Assembly Wharf which falls under the port of Nanaimo. I will not go through the pages and pages of history of the port, but the Assembly Wharf, which is an important part of the Nanaimo downtown, was originally conceived in 1931.

In 1937 there was the completion of the first wharf with creosote pilings and wooden decking. It was mainly used for loading scows during the first couple of years. An overhead ramp was used for access around the coal wharf marshalling yard. In the early stages the wharf was 60 feet wide. It is known as A Berth. Anyone from Nanaimo will know about A Berth.

Over the years the Assembly Wharf continued to grow. In 1951 there was considerable federal money put into a wharf addition. In 1965 the third berth at the Assembly Wharf was completed. In 1974 there were 18 materials handling vehicles listed and a second steel warehouse of similar size was completed to accommodate newsprint. Later on, there were other mills, including the Harmac mill, which unfortunately is now in bankruptcy protection. Downtown Nanaimo was a thriving hub of shipping activity. Sadly, over the last number of years as various mills have closed down and of course as coal mining disappeared a number of years ago from the Nanaimo area, there have been some changes in what is happening at the wharf.

This bill partly attempts to address the funds that go into port authorities and the kinds of infrastructure that need to be considered.

Certainly when we talk about infrastructure in the port of Nanaimo, it is important that local municipal councils are included in any kind of decision making.

As a former municipal councillor, I was involved in land use decisions and rezoning. Often any kind of collaborative relationship between port authorities and municipal councils tends to be voluntary. Although certainly, as the member for Trinity—Spadina pointed out, there is language around collaborative frameworks and those kinds of things, the reality is it often does not happen.

In July 2005 the port of Nanaimo put out a press release regarding the Nanaimo Assembly Wharf lands because of some other development that was happening in downtown Nanaimo. Some concerns were raised around the Assembly Wharf lands. In the press release of July 22, 2005, it said:

With CIPA Lumber having left the Assembly Wharf site in 2003, the Port realizes that the Assembly Wharf is underutilized. The Port is currently in the process of working with a forestry consultant to determine what opportunities are available for additional cargo movement through the terminal as a result of the ongoing restructuring of the major companies in the forestry sector. In the same study, the Port will also review options regarding non-traditional cargo within the shipping and industry sectors served by the Port.

The Port is also engaged in a long-term strategic planning process to assess the Port's need for industrial land over the next 10 or 20 years. The future uses of the Assembly Wharf will be determined by consultation over the next few years with the City and other community stakeholders.

In the press release from the Port of Nanaimo there is an acknowledgement of the importance of working with the local council around land use planning, but it is not consistent. I would argue that across this nation of ours the local municipal authorities have to have substantial input into the use of those lands, or as has been pointed out by other members, perhaps they should be under the control of municipalities and cities. The importance around this cannot be understated. Many of our port authorities are in the downtown cores and are very visible.

In the city of Nanaimo, the downtown core surrounds land owned by the port authority. Any decisions made on the port authority directly impact on every other aspect in the downtown. Whether it is traffic flows, environmental considerations, other decisions around rezoning and land use, water, these all impact. Any decision made on the port authority impact on every other aspect of the local council. If those decisions are made in isolation, we often end up with unintended consequences.

West Coast Environmental Law in “The Green Infrastructure Guide” talks about issues, implementation strategies and success stories, but it points to the need for integrated planning and a green infrastructure approach. I want to talk about a couple of these things because they directly relate to the development that happens on port authority land. It states:

Taking a greener approach to infrastructure development not only mitigates the potential environmental impacts of development (e.g. improving stream health and reducing energy use) but makes economic sense as well, when all of the impacts of conventional development on “natural capital” and the services rendered by natural capital are taken into account. By softening the environmental footprint, avoiding waste and finding efficiencies, local governments can increase their long term sustainability.

It goes on to talk about the need for public debate on risks and choices:

Clear public policy choices need to be made vis-à-vis how limited financial resources should be allocated...and what sort of environmental impact will result from the community's infrastructure design.

In the past, ports were not always the most environmentally friendly places to operate. For example, some of the construction of the Assembly Wharf was creosote. Nowadays it is highly unlikely that creosote would be used in a marine environment because we know of its impacts.

If a community wants to tout itself as being environmentally sustainable and as having green infrastructure, it is very important that local municipal councils are integrated into the decision making process around what happens on port lands. Ports are far more conscious now than they have been in the past.

In my riding there has been a tremendous amount of discussion around cruise ship terminals. One of the areas of concern is that cruise ships need to be environmentally responsible for all of their outputs, whether it is the fuel they burn or the waste they dispose of. If a cruise ship terminal were to be considered for the city of Nanaimo, it would be important for the city to have some impact on any decisions around building it. There are pros and cons, but it is a good example of the importance of including municipal councils in the decision making process with regard to what happens on port lands.

The issue of security has also been raised. Many people feel that the security measures outlined in this piece of legislation are insufficient.

The Canadian Marine Act review which was done a couple of years ago made a number of recommendations. Unfortunately, not all of them are included in the current piece of legislation. Regarding security, observation 9 indicated that it is appropriate for the Government of Canada, rather than the marine transportation industry, to bear the expense of implementing national security measures.

In the current climate there is more and more concern around security measures at ports and ferry terminals. It would be incumbent upon the government to ensure that there is appropriate funding and oversight of security forces.

One of the pressure points is that some of our trading partners are anxious about the level of security at our ports and in other places in Canada. Given some of the events that have happened over the last several months, any security measures put in place should have some accountability. I want to highlight one instance that happened in August. I will quote from a letter from one of my constituents:

I respectfully request that you press for a full and public inquiry into the violation of our constitutional right to freedom of assembly by the actions of the Surete du Quebec officers, acting as agents provocateurs, during a peaceful protest at Montebello, Quebec on August 20, 2007.

On August 20th, 2007, I was in Montebello, Quebec working on a documentary entitled 'Trading Democracy for Corporate Rule' about the secretive Security Prosperity Partnership and North American Union. I was following a group of intelligent, peaceful and reasonable people including prominent Canadian patriot Maude Barlow when three masked undercover Surete de Quebec police officers carrying rocks approached the police line clearly intent on stirring up violence within an otherwise peaceful protest.

Since releasing this footage on Youtube I have subsequently discovered evidence within this footage that clearly shows one of these masked undercover officers striking a member of the riot squad in the face mask and then banging the large rock in his hand into the shield of another officer. This illegal assault was a clear act of incitement, violating section 63 of the Criminal Code of Canada and was a direct attack on the constitutionally guaranteed rights to peaceful assembly and security of the person for the people who were in attendance at this protest....

The Surete du Quebec claim that these undercover officers were given rocks by radicals. If this is the case then the security cameras which covered every inch of the protest site should reveal this. I shot three hours of footage at this protest and the only people I taped with rocks were these undercover officers.

He went on to say that the Canadian public has a right to know what evidence the security camera footage contains, who the other undercover officers were at this protest, and so on. He concluded by saying:

This incident at Montebello undermines the confidence of Canadian citizens in their police forces. I would like to know why a public inquiry has not been called to investigate these illegal covert activities on the part of the police? Does the government respect the Canadian constitution and if so when will it call for a full public inquiry into this outrageous attack against our constitutional rights?

The reason I raise this is in the past there have been some problems with marine port authorities regarding security. I think many of us support investment in security at port authorities, but it needs to be a system that is open, transparent and accountable.

While I am talking about openness, transparency and accountability, one of the things the port authorities currently are not subject to is any oversight by the Auditor General. We often hear discussion in the House about how federal government funds are spent, what kind of accountability and reporting process is in place and the transparency around all of this. I argue that this would be a good case to ask the Auditor General to have some oversight on, because federal money flows into these port authorities. It would help alleviate some of the criticisms about how money is allocated and spent.

I also want to talk briefly about the regulatory powers. There is a mechanism within the legislation to look at some regulatory powers. In the past there has been some discussion about establishing compulsory pilotage areas. One of the concerns that has been raised is the process currently does not mandate that pilots are included in establishing these compulsory pilotage areas. I think it would be a problem if port authorities had some say and pilots were excluded from the process. It is another failing in the bill.

As well, many people have talked about the process around board appointments. A couple of years back, the port authority in Nanaimo was down some board members. The process of appointing board members was long, slow and painful. If these boards have spending authority to oversee the healthy operation of a port, yet there is foot dragging in appointing board members, how boards can continue to function when they do not have the required number of board members?

In addition, in the current act before us there is no mechanism to ensure a local presence on these boards. More than anything, if we are talking about local accountability and integrating those port authorities into the communities, ensuring that land use decisions are made respecting the processes in communities, it would seem important to have either elected representatives from municipal councils present on these port authorities, or some other mechanism to ensure the local voice is at the table.

Again I come back to the whole piece around land use decisions. Because these ports have such a critical role in our neighbourhoods, it is very important that those local representatives have some sort of say in what happens in that land use for the local area.

In our community of Nanaimo, the port authority has done a really great job of ensuring that walkways have been developed in our communities. However, sometimes the other decisions have not always been done in conjunction with the local council.

Although there are some positive aspects of the bill, there are many gaps in what we feel a revision of this kind should have included, certainly in terms of the context of the fact that this marine review happened a number of years ago. The fact that the marine review, which had extensive consultation, did not come forward with a number of recommendations that would have made this act a much better act is a little disappointing.

Therefore, at this point in time we would look toward some amendments to make this a better bill.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the Canada Marine Act. It had an unfortunate amendment a few years ago, debated at length during 1997. At that time the minister of transport, Mr. Collenette, said that it was important to have a new Canada Marine Act than have an act that would include some of the ports. He said it would then download some of these ports to their own board of directors.

The minister added that he needed to be satisfied that the port was likely to remain financially self-sufficient and that it was of strategic significance to Canada's trade and diversified traffic.

The city of Toronto has a port that does not meet any of the criteria set out in clause 8 of the Canada Marine Act. It is not self-sufficient. It is not significant to Canada's trade and it does not have highly diversified traffic. One would think that the Toronto port would not be taken away from the hands of the city of Toronto.

Unfortunately, that did not happen. At that time there was a great deal of political interference. It appeared that a former Liberal member of Parliament, in April 1997, decided to take the matters into his own hands and wanted to develop the airport, in this case, without the interference of the city of Toronto. The Canada Marine Act was amended at that time to include the city of Toronto's port authority even though it did not meet any of the criteria.

It seems from all the media reports and all of the discussion at that time, that the inclusion of the Toronto Port Authority was done purely for political reasons. At that time there was a serious number of lobbyists. When we look at the lobbyist registry, there was a large group of lobbyists at that time lobbying the federal government to make sure that happened.

The federal government said that it was not a good plan. The government had an adviser from Nesbitt Burns. It did not recommend that the Toronto port be included, based on the financial reasons alone. At that time there was also a royal commission on the future of the Toronto waterfront. It recommended a restrictive role for the Toronto Port Authority so that the city of Toronto could get on with developing its waterfront.

Against both of these two recommendations, the Toronto Port Authority still got included in the Canada Marine Act at that time. To make matters worse, the federal government then appointed people who certainly did not meet the criteria. It seems to me there was controversy over the appointments of members to the board of directors. This was June 8, 1998 and the transport minister at that time, Mr. Collenette, was accused of manipulating the appointment process.

Indeed, the Toronto case was not isolated. Vancouver and Halifax were also quick to cry foul, so it does not surprise me today that members of Parliament from both Vancouver and Halifax will want to speak later on about this issue. The National Post headline of August 18, 1999, said: “Collenette skirts rules to appoint Liberal allies: New port authorities: Shipping groups outraged by political 'manipulation'”.

In fact, there was a series of subsequent headlines. One said that the bill, when it was going through third reading, would give communities more control over the ports and that it would establish “a fair, collaborative framework for the management of commercial ports”. It sounds good. More community control and a fair collaborative framework were supposed to be brought forward.

What happened? At that time the minister appointed directors that were not nominated by the user groups and used their power. Clause 14.1 of the Canada Marine Act gives the minister the flexibility and discretion to nominate as user directors persons other than those persons recommended by the classes of users to ensure an appropriate mix of board members, et cetera.

What happened was that the Liberals at that time decided to put in some of their own appointees and did not follow the guidelines. It seems to me that the Conservatives are also following that tradition.

We now have a port authority that has very little local control. Under this bill it would have access to the infrastructure fund. That is a problem. Why? Because when the infrastructure fund was first created, the idea came from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. All the projects were supposed to come from the municipalities, a third being matched by the provincial government and a third being matched by the federal government. The plan, as originally envisioned, would allow the local municipalities to have control over this infrastructure fund.

Through the years the former Liberal government then made it its own fund and many of the municipalities then had very little control over it. It got worse and worse, and it is not clear with the Conservative government how the criteria is going to be established for the infrastructure fund.

If the port authority, like the Toronto Port Authority, has access to this infrastructure fund and because it has very little control by the local communities and government, it could have access to a lot of funds that were supposed to be destined for municipalities to fix highways, potholes, build community centres and all of those things. This part of the bill is very worrisome.

What happened in Toronto was that soon after the Toronto Port Authority was included in the Canada Marine Act, it decided to initiate lawsuits against the city of Toronto. It threatened lawsuits with the federal government and sued the local community group Community Air.

Not only do local communities have no influence over the appointments into the local port authority but the first thing the port authority did after the Canada Marine Act was passed with amendments and political interference was to sue every level of government other than the province of Ontario in order to gain funds for itself because it was never financially self-sufficient.

There were land use changes and planning. There was very little public input. In the last few years the city of Toronto was not even notified of major changes at this port authority when it decided to make changes in the local area.

The port authority has also recently threatened to take one third of Little Norway Park, a popular park in the local neighbourhood, because it is running a substantial airport there so it is needs to find room for parking spaces, queueing lanes, and all kinds of space for taxis to park, et cetera. That is certainly not an appropriate use of land for that little area. On top of that, this port authority, because of its various lawsuits, has obtained somewhere between $35 million from different parties.

The entire operation was run by one board member because the rest of the board either resigned or were not reappointed. During the period the port authority was trying to go after the federal government, it had only one member sitting on its board.

The port authority also used $300,000 of taxpayers' money to run advertising campaigns to justify its existence. If this bill were to pass, I cannot see for the life of me why we would contribute infrastructure funds to an organization that is in fact into suing everyone. It has no local control and has used at least $300,000 for advertising campaigns to justify its existence.

As a result of this port authority not having any local input or control, the revitalization of Toronto's waterfront has slowed down. Lots of speeches have been made. Lots of promises have been made. Money has been promised. Many discussions have been held about why the Toronto waterfront needs to be revitalized.

It seems to be one step forward and another step back because this local port authority controls some of the land rights by the water, but it has not been participating with the various stakeholders about revitalizing the waterfront.

The Toronto Port Authority is breaking the tripartite agreement it signed with the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Planes at the airport are twice the weight and double the passenger count of what was envisioned at the time the tripartite agreement was formulated in the mid-eighties. It is very noisy. Planes are flying in above the level that is supposed to be controlled by the tripartite agreement.

The airport is in close proximity to a large number of condominiums that were built in the eighties down by the waterfront. At the time the port was established there were very few residents living near the waterfront, but now there are at least 50,000 in the neighbourhood. I cannot see why this port authority should really stay.

The Canada Marine Act is supposed to deal with traffic going to different ports. There is absolutely no reason why there should be an airport at the Toronto Port Authority. Of all the ports across Canada, this is the only port that runs an airport and has nothing to do with waterways or shipping.

The Toronto port has very modest port functions, such as rulemaking for boats, buoys and dredging as required, and facilitating the odd, very rare, commercial ship arrival. Cargo handling is a major money loser and eventually needs to be merged with Hamilton or be shut down. The outer harbour marina probably could be operated by the city or Harbourfront Centre because it needs to demonstrate that the public interest would be better served by this port.

In the past, the City of Toronto has said to the federal government that if it is reviewing the Marine Act and making amendments to the Marine Act, it is critically important that the Toronto Port Authority be taken out of the Marine Act, because it really does not belong there. Its traffic is very small. It is still not financially self-sufficient. It is of no strategic significance to Canada's trade. It has no diversified traffic.

How could that be done? It could be done, effectively, by the governor in council pursuant to section 55. It could “liquidate its assets in accordance with the certificate or the regulations made under paragraph 27(1)(a) and...dissolve the port authority, and the letters patent are deemed to be revoked”. The proceeds would then be liquidated and probably should be transferred to the City of Toronto. The governor in council may also “by issuing a certificate of dissolution, dissolve a port authority without requiring the liquidation of its assets”.

So one way or the other, if we are to discuss this Marine Act in a way that is true to what it is supposed to be, the Toronto Port Authority should be returned to the City of Toronto.

Through the years, different mayors, no matter what their political stripe, whether it was Mel Lastman, who, last I saw, was a Conservative, or the present mayor, David Miller, with the entire City of Toronto council, has said over and over again that the Toronto Port Authority really should come back to the hands of Torontonians, because right now the users, the municipalities and any stakeholders in the neighbourhood basically have absolutely no influence over this port authority.

It would give me great concern that if the bill is passed what we would see is that Bill C-23 would allow this port authority to access infrastructure funds from the government. Let me tell members that in Toronto the infrastructure funds should be used to fix the crumbling highways such as the Gardiner Expressway. We have had three or four chunks of concrete falling from the Gardiner Expressway. The subways in the city of Toronto need repair and need to be expanded. There are hundreds of projects that are desperately in need of infrastructure funds. The last thing the City of Toronto needs is for this port authority to have access to the funds so that it could upgrade whatever it is upgrading in competition with Air Canada. The House would be making a terrible mistake.

I cannot see how we can possibly support the bill if the Toronto Port Authority is still part of the Marine Act and running its own business without any input from local municipalities.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today and say a few words about Bill C-23. Canadians are, quite often, self-effacing and never think of themselves as great and yet they are leaders in the world in many ways. I have a vision for Canada where they could be leaders in many more ways. One, of course, would be a vision of modern, efficient, secure ports. We could do that better than anyone else in the world.

I commend the members of Transport Canada who have worked for years on this, the previous Liberal government that brought the essence of this bill forward and the present government for continuing with it. This goes toward that modern, exciting vision of Canada as some of the best in the world. This is so important for our economy. The world has changed in many ways and therefore our ports need to change.

We need just in time delivery. The villains develop new ways of causing problems so we need modern security to keep up. As ports are essential to many industries in Canada, we need to make sure they are operating under all conditions and do not close down. These workers are essential to other industries, such as the grain industry. Canada is an exporting nation and to be competitive with the world we need to get our goods and products out in a timely fashion in order to continue to lead the world in some of the areas that we do at present.

In a modern global village, even diseases are carried much more rapidly around the world and we need to be immune from those. It could be something as simple as a disease that attacks our trees. The forestry industry is huge to Canada and yet if a bug comes in, say, a wooden shipping pallet, we need to protect ourselves against those types of issues.

It is important to invest in our ports and to promote a vision of modern ports as good as anyone.

I appreciate this bill and some of the technical things it would do toward that and I encourage the government to continue to do many other things to achieve that objective. As the parliamentary secretary said, it is good that the government has picked up and continued our Pacific Gateway program and that will continue to contribute toward the efficiency and building of the ports and access to them.

There is no reason Canada cannot be like Singapore, which has huge revenues from its ports. Compared to certain types of factories and other types of emissions, ports can be quite environmentally clean and a good way to create high paying jobs for Canadians. We can then get the benefit of the goods that we are making and the things that we are bringing in so that they do not go to others.

For example, on both the east and west coasts, many U.S. ports are quite able, ready and willing to take shipments and therefore we cannot have delays, we cannot be inefficient or too bureaucratic and we cannot have backlog in our ports. It is important that we modernize and stay ahead because we can do it as well as anyone else.

When I fly into Vancouver twice a week and see the lineup of boats waiting to be unloaded, I sometimes wish that we did not have the delays and that we could do things quicker so we are competitive and shippers do not decide to go elsewhere. Loading and unloading equipment has been modernized and there is no reason we cannot have the best computerized equipment in the world to do that kind of job.

We also should invest in modern scientific equipment for security. We certainly can do it. I will not give the villains any information as to what we are doing wrong but we can invest to ensure we have the best detection equipment in the world so no one is using our ports for nefarious reasons.

My riding of Yukon has a port in Skagway, Alaska that is about an hour west of the riding and it is very important to us. Even though only about 800 people live there, it is one of the biggest cruise ship ports in the world. Sometimes four of the biggest cruise ships in the world are there at any one time. Yukon is probably the only territory or province in Canada where the number one employer, as far as the number of employees goes, is tourism. The tourists get off those boats and come into my riding. If there is an efficient and effective port system, it shows how it can affect the local economy.

I also want to show how an improper investment can also affect a port. About six years ago, one of the docks where these cruise ships dock collapsed into the water. We know these cruise ships carry thousands of people. The dock went hundreds of metres under the water and disappeared.

Fortunately, the accident occurred during the winter when only workers were on the dock but I believe one worker drowned. The tidal wave, which the accident caused, was right in front of the small boat harbour and, as a result, all the small boats sank to the bottom of the ocean. When the wave came back, it hit the other shore and the harbour filled up again and it damaged the ferry dock. It is very important to have proper investments in our ports so we have the best equipment available.

Another example is the gross territorial product. The biggest part of our economy related to production is in mining. We depend on the port at Skagway for shipping ore around the world. It is days shorter to ship from Skagway than it is from Vancouver. It is a very key port for the north and must be efficient.

I have another example of how a lack of investment can affect an economy. I was at a mine opening a few months ago of Sherwood Copper, a wonderful new mine in Yukon that is quite efficient and environmentally friendly. It produces copper ore and it follows environmental regulations.

The port I was talking about had not been used since the closure of Cypress Anvil and had not been used for ore for some time. It had been somewhat decommissioned and needed new equipment. The port was not quite ready for shipping when the mine was ready to ship. When the mine was ready to ship the ore, I saw dozens and dozens of huge canvas bags about the size of a car that contained the ore. This, obviously, was not an efficient way and not the final way to ship the ore but it had to be done for a few months in the interim while the port was getting ready.

Many parts of Canada are quite dependent on the car industry and what industry could be more competitive than the car industry? The car industry uses just in time delivery, which depends on a few hours in order to be competitive and on tens of thousands of Canadian jobs. It is important that all our transport modes, our border crossings and our ports have the type of investments that enable them to move quickly.

For all those reasons, I am supporting the bill. Canada can be and should have the best ports. All efforts necessary should be made, over and above the bill, to fulfill those objectives.

As I think I mentioned in a previous question, I hope the transport committee calls the pilots association when it discusses the contribution funding. I think the parliamentary secretary has said that the department has consulted with groups. I look forward to seeing the results of those consultations with the pilots association, the longshoremen and the stevedores presented to the committee. Those are the people who work at the ports. The best solutions and ideas for making the ports more efficient, secure and useful usually come from the people who are working right on the ground.

The part of the act that deals with borrowing limits also deals with security. It would allow contribution agreements to ensure that the most modern security is available. I believe that modernizing the borrowing limits is good.

The only caveat, as I mentioned yesterday, is we have to make sure that as the commercial borrowing is allowed and the system is modernized, that it is also protected. There have been some instances recently in Canada where governments or crown corporations have potentially put something at jeopardy or lost millions of dollars because of an investment policy and regulations that were a bit too free.

We would want to make sure that these are secure investments. We do not want the port fees to go up because of bad investments. We want it to be efficient but also to be secure.

Of course the legislation to facilitate amalgamation is important as long as it is agreed upon and worked on by the people involved. Certainly that would help. As well, there are the parts of the act that would improve governance related to the needs of Canadian port authorities so that they can have a long term and stable management framework.

Once again, to ease enforcement, to make sure that the message can get out quickly, efficiently and easily is a good objective of the act. It is human nature that if a penalty comes too late or it is too onerous to administer, people will not bother implementing the penalty. If the penalty comes too late, it really does not get the message across. It needs to be quick, fast and efficient so that people follow the rules.

The last item I want to comment on relates to land management. The preceding speaker from the NDP commented on a number of items. I made the point yesterday about land management that this is a good part of the bill which would allow investment in their lands. It is good that they will achieve revenues so that there is less onus on the users or ultimately on the government, the taxpayers, for funding.

My only caveat is that the conditions, and the parliamentary secretary outlined them, make sure that this is not a permanent other use. They cannot be incompatible. I would not want a lot of money invested in things that ultimately have nothing to do with the port unless they are in a holding pattern. It is very good to be forward thinking and plan for the future and to set aside land that will be needed in the future.

It is a very forward thinking government that would set aside land to invest in it and use the land to get revenues from it. People get concerned if such authorities are using their money from the fees in ways other than the primary purpose, such as empire building or some other type of exercise. I have certainly heard complaints from constituents related to certain airport authorities that may have done that in the past, although I think that has been dealt with.

In conclusion, as in any other area of endeavour, there is no reason that Canada cannot be among the best in the world. We are a water nation. We probably have the longest shoreline of any country in the world. We are an exporting country. It is very important that we get the revenues from our exports and imports, that we do it safely in relation to security and disease, and that we do it efficiently so that people come to us to be the locus of those transport movements. In that way, a lot of Canadians can achieve good paying jobs in dealing with our own goods and services.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House to speak today on second reading of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence.

I have to say that when the bill came up in our caucus we had a lot of discussion among our members. It became evident very quickly that there was a lot of interest in the bill because it will have impacts on ports across the country and certainly on ports in our ridings. It became very clear that a number of us, for a long period of time, have been dealing with issues surrounding ports, port development and the interface between port lands and residential lands.

So on the one hand I am very glad that the bill is coming forward, because it does allow us the opportunity to raise I think some very longstanding systemic issues concerning the operation of our ports and the relationship that ports have to local government and local communities.

In my riding of Vancouver East, the whole northern boundary of my riding from Cambie Street all the way to Boundary Road, where we have the boundary with the municipality of Burnaby, borders the waterfront and is structured through the port of Vancouver. The port has a huge impact on the people who live in east Vancouver in terms of employment, economic development and the relationship between what happens in the port and the impact on the surrounding community.

I want to begin my remarks today by saying that overall we recognize the importance of port lands, port activity and the number of jobs that are contained in the port of Vancouver. It is a significant employment generator. There is huge spinoff activity. Certainly the port of Vancouver is the largest port in Canada, with significant container port activities.

These are all things that drive the economy of British Columbia. They drive the economy of Vancouver, being on the Asia Pacific gateway. We recognize that there are significant jobs related to the port. They are generally good jobs. There are issues that arise, but we understand the importance and the value of the port in our local community and the local economy.

However, I also have to point out that over the years we have dealt with many issues relating to port development. The thing that I find most difficult is the relationship with the local community and the fact that there has been a lack of an adequate, proper and sustained planning process. In the bill before us, a number of issues that are dealt with warrant our serious attention. I know that we in the NDP will be very active when the bill goes to committee, because we will be seeking changes and amendments to reflect the concerns that we have had expressed to us by local residents.

There are issues in the bill concerning the amalgamation of ports. There are issues concerning the restructuring of the governance model. In fact, there is a reduction in the number of directors who can be appointed. In the case of the port of Vancouver, it is between 7 and 11 directors, and there is a concern about what kind of representation that will be. There is also a concern about security issues. I am going to go into each of these issues to spell out some of our concerns.

First, in terms of the governance and security, I recently wrote to the Minister of Transport to point out that under the proposed changes there was no recognition that there needed to be labour representation on the port of Vancouver and presumably on other ports across the country.

When I wrote to the minister, I made this very clear. I will quote from my letter, which was sent in October:

Labour's longstanding commitment and positive contributions to the success of our waterfront industry must not be undervalued. Labour performs a wide range of important functions in a modern day working waterfront and is a key element to its success. Moreover, not only do they contribute a labour perspective, but also economic, social and environmental perspectives.

The reply I got from the Minister of Transport was that this was all well and good, but not to worry, labour representation will continue in the form of membership on the Vancouver Port Authority user committee. I feel that is a very inadequate response.

I have no problem with labour or other stakeholders being on a user committee, but we are talking about the governance structure and the board of directors itself. It seems to me there has to be a recognition by the government that there should be a labour perspective on the board of directors. There are business perspectives. There are maritime perspectives.

There needs to be a perspective and an analysis brought to that board of directors that come directly from the people who have incredible experience working on the waterfront and who are very familiar with the issue. I was very dissatisfied with the reply from the minister. This will be one of the issues that we will take up in regard to the bill.

Second, in regard to governance and security, the other issue that has been of huge concern for the Vancouver waterfront and what is happening is the question of new rules that are coming in, the maritime security clearance program, which has caused an enormous amount of disruption, anxiety and concern for the many thousands of people who work on the waterfront in terms of what they are now subject to for new security clearance regulations.

I would refer to a press release that was issued by the International Longshore & Warehouse Union of Canada in July of this year, in which the union points out that the security clearance program requires port employees to submit an extensive questionnaire to government, covering matters ranging from the names and addresses of past spouses, to schools attended, to past travel destinations. Further, the program requires employees to consent to the release of this information to foreign governments.

There is an enormous concern about the infringement of privacy rights. In fact, the ILWU submitted a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner in August of this year regarding these new provisions in the security clearance program.

In the complaint the union put forward to the Privacy Commissioner, it points out that the security clearance form collects personal information, which presumably may lead to profiling of employees based on simplistic assumptions about differing regions of the world and to different treatment of employees based on their national origins or countries they may have visited. This raises the concern that Transport Canada may profile applicants, deny clearances and thus deny employment. This is noted in the letter from the ILWU, which is fighting this tooth and nail.

I am proud to say that in our B.C. caucus of the NDP members of Parliament, we have been supporting the union. I know that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has been very active on this file as well, because we believe that these security measures are completely over the top. They are infringing upon people's rights. There has been very little public information about them. We believe they should be challenged. We support that challenge.

I would say that these new security measures are quite ironic, because we have to remember that it was the previous Liberal government that actually eliminated the Ports Canada Police in 1998. When I first got elected in 1997, this was a very major issue.

In east Vancouver we could not believe that the ports police, who had been a key part of the waterfront in patrolling and dealing with security issues, were going to be eliminated. Indeed, they were eliminated across the country.

It is ironic that a specialized force with experience, knowledge and a background in dealing with security issues in ports across the country was eliminated, while now we are facing these incredibly restrictive and onerous provisions that are impacting individual lives and the lives of family members, even former spouses. This is sort of putting people on a watch list. We have very grave concerns about these provisions. Again, we will be raising these issues as we have more debate on this bill.

My third concern about this bill relates to the large question of, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the interface between legitimate port activity and residential communities. I do want to reiterate that this issue is not a challenge to the value and the importance of the port. It is a concern that comes up over and over again in regard to the role and the relationship of the port with a local community and a local municipality.

There are numerous issues that involve my riding of East Vancouver that not only I have been addressing as the member of Parliament on behalf of my constituents, but that the former member of Parliament, and the member of Parliament for Vancouver East before that, Margaret Mitchell, whom I am sure members remember, also addressed frequently in the House.

There is a whole series of development questions that have arisen about our port and cause residents to have serious concerns about what kinds of developments take place under the guise of port development, as well as concerns about the negative impact those developments can have on a local community. For example, in the Burrardview community, residents have been fighting the Lafarge concrete batch plant on the basis that it is an inappropriate use to have that plant so physically close to a residential neighbourhood.

We were very disappointed with the Supreme Court decision that allowed this concrete batch plant to go ahead, although we do not know at this point whether it will actually proceed. In July I wrote to the Minister of Transport about it. In fact, I have written many times to the minister, but one of my more recent letters was written in July. I pointed out:

Although the court has ruled, the decision does not abrogate the responsibility of Transport Canada to respect the needs of residents in the adjacent Burrardview neighbourhood. Given that this is the only location in Vancouver where residents live next to an industrial port--which happens to be Canada's largest and busiest--I believe that a constructive and compatible co-existence must be achieved between the industrial uses of the Port lands and the quality of life of neighbouring residents.

The minister finally wrote back in September, several months later, and said:

The decision clarifies the authority in the Canada Marine Act under which the Vancouver Port Authority...may lease its Schedule C property (non-federal real property) to Lafarge Canada Inc. Transport Canada and the VPA will conduct their activities with full regard to the decision in this complex case, as well as the needs of the community and the legislative and regulatory framework governing the VPA.

There is an acknowledgement that obviously there will have to be a review if an application comes forward, but this does not leave one with a sense of confidence that Transport Canada or the port authority will, in an open and above board way, recognize and work with local residents to mitigate their concerns and deal with something like a concrete batch plant development, which would have a big impact on local residents. That has been one issue around development.

There have been many others. One example is grain dust. Numerous rail lines go through the port of Vancouver, which is a major terminus for the grain cars coming in from the Prairies. Again, I emphasize that we understand the value and importance of this.

However, the grain terminals are of great concern to people, especially the environmental and physical impacts of dealing with that amount of grain. I usually write several times a year to the port, as well as to the minister. My latest letter was sent in April of this year. I pointed out that a lot of people lived on Wall Street, which is near the port. They have experienced large amounts of dust in the air around the neighbourhood.

I also pointed out that the Port of Seattle had a very comprehensive approach for dealing with grain dust. It utilizes a comprehensive vacuum system as part of its dust management plan. I wanted to know why the Port of Vancouver had not investigated and utilized similar kinds of programs. The grain dust from the terminals is another issue that has been of grave concern in the local community.

Another issue that has impacted the quality of life is the West Coast Reduction plant, a rendering plant that takes waste from many restaurants and businesses. Products are rendered and then sold. When I was on Vancouver city council in the 1980s, the odour and pollution from this plant caused enormous concerns in the local community.

On this issue, the Greater Vancouver Regional District has been quite responsive to resident concerns. It has tried to bring in regulations and ensure that they are met by the West Coast Reduction plant in an attempt to deal with the very serious problems with the odour. Again, I have written letters with regard to this.

The port's reaction has always been that it really does not affect anyone and that the people should live with it. It has not satisfied the concerns of local residents who have to deal with these issues on a day by day basis. It is something that seriously affects the quality of their lives.

Another issue is train noise. When changes took place in the rail yards, the shunting yards were moved further east. This had an enormous impact, particularly in the early hours of the morning when engines were being linked and de-linked. Train noise could go on for hours. We learned that from the rail yard's point of view, it was easier to allow engines idle than to turn them off and restart them.

The impact of the noise on local residents was quite severe. People lost sleep and they could not get to work. We have dealt with this issue on numerous occasions, with many letters back and forth between me, the minister, the port and the rail companies, to try to address this issue.

Finally, the most current question is whether port lands will now be used for a major new soccer stadium development very close to downtown, between what is called CRAB Park and Canada Harbour Place. A significant concern is the proposed development and its impact from the point of view of noise, traffic, congestion and the environment. One proposal had the stadium going over the rail yards, where hazardous materials are transported in containers. There was a lot of concern about what kinds of environmental hazards they could pose.

Right now there are very active groups in the community, such as the Burrardview Community Association, the CRAB-Water for Life Society, the Central Waterfront Coalition, the Gastown Residents Association, the Gastown Neighbourhood Coalition, all of which have a very significant interest in what happens with the proposal for a development for a private soccer stadium on these crucial lands in the central waterfront area in the city of Vancouver.

In November I wrote the minister about this issue. I raised issues about the proposed development, which has not yet been approved, and the impact it will have.

The bill is an opportunity to flag these issues. Our ports are very important, but the way they work and relate to adjacent communities and municipalities is also important. I do not believe the bill really addresses that question and if we do not address it, then we will continue to have these issues come forward. We will continue to have a high level of frustration. We will continue to have an impact on the quality of life.

I feel we can be much more proactive in how we set up planning processes, how we set up accountability and how the governance is structured on a port to reflect these concerns.

There are some good aspects to the bill, but there are also concerns with it. From the point of view of the NDP caucus, we will pursue this at committee to ensure the concerns of local residents are met.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to rise here today to speak to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence. The purpose of the strategic framework for Canadian federal ports, established in 1995, was to eliminate excess capacity and create a new governance structure in order to support a more trade-focused system. International trade changed the context in which the federal ports were operating.

A review committee consulted various stakeholders and prepared a report, which was tabled in the House of Commons in June 2003. The report listed a number of recommendations that were fully endorsed by Canadian port authorities.

The principal concern identified during the review focused on the marine sector's financial flexibility, especially for port authorities, in order to maintain economic viability and respond effectively to changing market demand, as well as access to federal funding for infrastructure investment.

In terms of funding, Canadian port authorities cannot rely only on their operating revenues and private lenders. They do not have access to most federal funding. Industry observers have pointed out that Canadian port authorities, because of their structure, are hindering their own ability to procure the necessary funding for investments, which would allow them to maintain or improve their competitiveness. They can ask to have their borrowing limit raised, but a lack of real property to offer as collateral makes lenders nervous.

The bill before us today aims to strengthen the operating framework for port authorities by modifying the current borrowing regime, providing for access to contribution funding, and clarifying some aspects of governance.

The Bloc Québécois believes that this bill will increase the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence by maintaining and improving the port infrastructure required to develop the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes trade corridor. At the same time, this will also promote intermodal transportation and benefit the environment.

The Bloc's key concern with this bill is the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence River, which has always been a major asset to Quebec's development. It is closely linked to the economic development of all its regions. Eighty percent of Quebec's population lives on the shores of the St. Lawrence and over 75% of its industry is found there. The strategic location of industries in relation to the St. Lawrence River means it can be used for nearly all international trade outside the United States.

When considering the St. Lawrence Seaway in the North American context, the importance of its economic impact becomes even more obvious. Indeed, the St. Lawrence River provides privileged access to the heart of North America. It not only allows access to 90 million inhabitants and the industrial heartland of the United States, Canada and Quebec, but it also provides a shorter route for major European carriers. For example, the distance between Montreal and Rotterdam is 5,813 km while the distance between New York and Rotterdam is 6,154 km.

This strategic asset is the reason the Canadian and American governments have done much work since the start of the industrial age to provide easier access to the Great Lakes for international carriers. In 1959, the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway provided greater access to Lake Ontario and the rest of the Great Lakes.

The St. Lawrence Seaway is underutilized, however. The total amount of goods transported via the St. Lawrence dropped from 130 million tonnes in the early 1980s to approximately 100 million tonnes 10 years later, only to hover around 105 million tonnes since.

However, in the past 30 years, shipping has increased by 600% worldwide. Closer to home, the Mississippi system, which competes directly with the St. Lawrence, has seen its annual traffic go from 450 million to 700 million tonnes. Seaports on the east coast of the U.S. have also seen a steady rise in traffic.

A similar trend is affecting traffic going through the St. Lawrence Seaway. After reaching a high of 70 million tonnes, the quantity of goods being transported via the seaway stabilized around 50 million tonnes per year. This is due to different factors, mainly the fact that the St. Lawrence Seaway is not competitive, because of Ottawa's failure to pay attention to marine infrastructure in Quebec, particularly along the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes trade corridor.

Moreover, at a time when marine transportation is increasingly important to international trade, the federal government has been slow to take steps to make the St. Lawrence more competitive. I should mention that this sector of Quebec's economy faces extremely stiff competition from American ports.

Marine transportation plays a key role in the global economy, with nearly 90% of trade taking place by ship.

The importance of marine transportation is also growing with globalization. Internationally, marine transportation represents nearly 400 million tonnes of goods annually, with a total value of more than $80 billion. It is estimated that marine traffic will triple in volume in the next 20 years because of globalization. There is enormous potential there, and the ports along the St. Lawrence must be equipped to benefit from this growth.

Despite favourable economic conditions, Quebec is faced with strong competition from American ports. For example, container traffic has grown far more in the ports south of Washington than in Montreal. An important reason for this is the way American ports are funded. American ports have access to a number of sources of public and private funding. In addition to their operating revenues, major U.S. ports can issue bonds—some tax-exempt—take out loans, apply for subsidies and receive money from all levels of government. Many can collect property taxes, and few have to pay any money to the government.

By enabling the port authorities in Quebec to amalgamate, receive federal funding and take out commercial loans for infrastructure improvements, Bill C-23 will help ports compete more effectively against the ports on the American east coast.

In the past few years Ottawa has given Canada's west coast a number of financial benefits for developing the Pacific gateway and opening it for trade with Asia. There is also increasing talk about setting up an Atlantic gateway, to be located in Halifax, to ensure trade with the eastern United States.

What about the plan for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor, which is a matter of priority to the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, or SODES? This concept of the trade corridor is based on an obvious fact. The ports along the St. Lawrence must establish a common strategy for facilitating the most efficient transport of goods possible amongst themselves and towards the destination markets. The competition is no longer among Montreal, Quebec City, Sept-Îles or the other St. Lawrence ports, for their share of global marine traffic. They are competing against the American ports, and that is the competition they must face.

It is therefore important for users and stakeholders of the St. Lawrence to join forces to make the most of their assets and improve what is called the “logistics chain” in order to make the river and its estuary a quintessential trade corridor.

Such development must focus on the complementarity and advantages of each port and on the complementarity between the different modes of transportation. The obstacles and bottlenecks that slow down the movement of goods must be identified in order to prioritize the investment needed to correct those slowdowns.

The primary challenge is to get not just the port authorities and the regional ports, but also the carriers, namely the railway companies, to buy in to this concept.

The railway companies and the trucking companies do not have a history of cooperating. However, cooperation is essential to the development of the trade corridor, as we can see from Vancouver's example.

The St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, SODES, through the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes Gateway Council, is giving these matters a great deal of thought, as is the Comité interrégional pour le transport des marchandises for the Montreal area.

The Government of Quebec supports this initiative since it has injected $2.6 million into the marine transportation support program and has released $21 million for the assistance program for modal integration in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of strategic marine and rail infrastructure.

The federal government has to do its part too. Once Bill C-23 is passed, it will make a modest contribution to the development of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor. As such, the government should provide the same level of political and financial support to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor as it does to the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative.

The signing of a memorandum of understanding between Ottawa, Quebec and Ontario in July 2007 was a first step toward implementing an action plan. Over the next two years, partners in the public and private sectors will collect and share data to guide future multi-modal strategies, projects and investments. This is a step in the right direction, but it is still far from the billion dollars invested in the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative.

We are not opposed to federal initiatives to support the Pacific gateway, but the federal government should also be supporting similar efforts to develop the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor.

I would now like to turn to an aspect of maritime transportation that is of special interest to me because it has a major impact on environmental protection. I am talking about intermodal transportation that promotes cabotage on the St. Lawrence. By supporting investment in infrastructure belonging to Quebec's port authorities, Bill C-23 supports intermodal transportation.

How can we make the best use of the unique characteristics of maritime transportation while respecting the private sector's need for fast, low-cost transportation?

Europe came up with an answer because traffic on its road system exceeded capacity. This is also happening in the rest of the world, particularly in the United States.

The solution is intermodal transportation, which is growing at a phenomenal pace thanks to the increased use of standardized containers. Intermodal transportation combines energy efficiency with the rapid transportation of goods.

For the past few years, intermodal transportation has been getting some attention from both private and public sectors. Since 2001, the Government of Quebec has made developing intermodal transportation a priority in its maritime transportation policy. It has invested $1.5 million in an intermodal transportation project at the port of Sept-Îles.

Right now, concrete initiatives designed to develop a real intermodal transportation network are being implemented in several regions of Canada and Quebec.

As you can see, Quebec is well ahead of the Conservative government in this matter. Other intermodal transportation projects are moving forward. For example, there is the Kruger project which transports 300,000 tonnes of wood chips per year by barge from Ragueneau and Forestville to Trois-Rivières. This use of the St. Lawrence will replace 18,000 truck trips per year.

At present, only one quarter of the vessels using the river engage in cabotage or short sea shipping. All stakeholders in this area confirm that this type of transportation has considerable development potential. Therefore, developing intermodal transportation is a very important option for Quebec for the economic development of the St. Lawrence River.

Bill C-23 will allow the use of certain port facilities in the regions and will also maximize the use of the rail network, which has some underutilized lines. This will be the primary means of developing the St. Lawrence Seaway corridor and ensuring that it becomes the true gateway for goods from the Atlantic.

As we can see, this mode of transportation is more environmentally friendly than current modes used. Transportation is responsible for one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions resulting from marine transport of goods represents only 1.25% of this total; road and rail transport combined produce 9% of these emissions.

Studies have shown that marine transportation is safer, uses less fuel and produces fewer emissions per tonne-kilometre than rail or truck transportation.

Marine transportation uses only 10% to 20% of the fuel consumed by road transportation. One tonne of freight can travel 240 kilometres by ship on a single litre of fuel. By train, it will travel less than 100 km and by truck, the distance is even smaller, only 30 km. The future of marine transportation depends on recognizing its environmental advantages.

The Bloc Québécois obviously supports this bill because it will foster the economic development of the St. Lawrence River and will help to protect our environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to have the opportunity to elaborate on certain aspects and provisions of Bill C-23. Specifically, I would like to focus on the impact of the proposed changes to the Canada Marine Act on Canadian port authorities.

We have entered a new era obviously in global trade. The patterns of our trade partnerships and relationships continue to change with the growth of our overseas markets, and that has been illustrated in earlier comments.

Canada must work to position itself strategically with east-west trade routes, routes that by their very nature require the transport of goods by marine mode.

New realities are upon us including the reality that marine based trade is becoming more and more important to our economy in terms of volume and the value of goods.

Our ability to accommodate this trade is integral to tapping the opportunities being generated by the ever-expanding markets. Ensuring that appropriate port infrastructure and the intermodal connections exist are crucial to allow for the increase in the volume of goods to flow unimpeded.

Not only does Canada have the opportunity to directly grow its Asian trade relationships but the prospects of developing Canadian gateways and corridors as the pre-eminent transportation routes into the heart of North America will result in numerous value added initiatives translating into long term high paying jobs.

In short, if Canada does not have the necessary infrastructure in place to accept the North American bound trade, it will go elsewhere and the spin-off opportunities will obviously be lost.

Since their inception, the 19 Canadian port authorities that form the backbone of the national port system have been self-sufficient entities that have effectively used their own revenues and borrowings to finance investments in port infrastructure; in other words, building the port capacity that is necessary for security trade growth with overseas markets.

On the whole our port authorities have been successful in pursuing new investments and have been very creative in the partnerships and financial arrangements that have made a large number of infrastructure projects possible.

Our ports have been able to maintain growth due to good management practices and without access to the federal treasury which aligns with the original objectives of the Canada Marine Act. However, the global economic realities of today are not the same as when the Canada Marine Act came into existence in 1998.

During the period that the Canada Marine Act was being developed national economic priorities reflected deficient deficit reduction. Our principal trade focus was with the United States, global logistics changes were in their infancy, and the federal government had minimal involvement in strategic infrastructure investments.

In the last decade, however, various federal funding programs related to infrastructure have been created. The recently announced building Canada fund includes $2.1 billion for gateways and border crossings as well as $1 billion for the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative. Within all of these strategies and initiatives it is clear that Canadian port authorities have a critical role to play.

Today there is significant pressure, especially on our west coast, to do more to accommodate growing maritime traffic. Canada's bilateral trade with China has increased 500% in the last 10 years. From 2001 to 2006 Canada's exports and imports with China recorded an average annual growth of 12% and 22% respectively.

Some experts are forecasting that container movement at west coast ports will quadruple by 2020. In terms of the time required to ensure that appropriate port related infrastructure is in place to handle this traffic 13 years is an extremely short period of time when we are dealing with port authorities.

Most of this container traffic represents inbound consumer goods, although Canada's booming energy sector and expanding Asian economies are increasing the demand for Canada's energy products and other commodities. Between 1996 and 2006, marine exports to China almost tripled to reach $7 billion.

Canada's west coast ports are planning to invest over $1 billion themselves in the next 10 to 15 years in order to address issues of capacity, including capacity for bulk and liquid bulk exports. However, given the forecast of trade growth within the Asian economies, it is unclear whether these investments by the ports alone will be sufficient to maintain Canada's market share of the anticipated traffic.

While the Canada Marine Act governs several components of our national port system, the proposed changes outlined in Bill C-23 will most profoundly affect Canada Port Authorities. There are several important amendments proposed to the Canada Marine Act; however, the cornerstone of Bill C-23 is a change contemplated in section 25 that would give port authorities the same ability to access federal funding as other transportation infrastructure providers.

The federal government recognizes the need to provide our ports with additional flexibility so that investments in important infrastructure may be made to meet new opportunities. The proposed amendment to section 25 of the Canada Marine Act would remove the existing legislative barrier that prohibits Canada Port Authorities from accessing contribution programs for infrastructure projects.

Access to contribution programs would place Canada Port Authorities on an equal footing with other major infrastructure providers and better reflect the government's current approach to financial investments, an approach which recognizes that from time to time a case may be made for federal investment that is in the public interest and that positions Canada within international trade dynamics, but in such a way that the commercial spirit and independence of the port authorities are not compromised.

The proposed access to contribution programs reflects the priorities of the government and will be focused on capital costs of infrastructure projects, environmental sustainability and security initiatives. Certainly in terms of security funding, these amendments are required to allow a continuation of contributions to ports, which as of the end of this month will no longer be provided under the Marine Transportation Security Act.

Bill C-23 also recognizes the diversity of port operations across the country, including the inherent role of some port authorities within gateway and corridor frameworks and the need to move these ports with significant revenue generating power closer to a self-governing borrowing regime.

In this regard, ports that achieve $25 million in operating revenues for three consecutive years will have the choice of moving to a new tiered structure under which there will be no aggregate borrowing limit. Rather, these ports would be subject to a code of borrowing established in their letters patent and a board-approved borrowing policy to reflect the requirements of the code.

This structure will result in more comprehensive reporting requirements to ensure borrowings are compatible with the policy and the code, but will also allow much greater flexibility to borrow according to the market conditions in order to address time-sensitive opportunities.

For those ports that are not subject to the new borrowing regime, it is important to note that, as a parallel policy initiative, guidelines have been developed that are designed to significantly shorten and clarify the borrowing limit increase approval process. That is important.

Other elements of Bill C-23 relate to strengthening the governance provisions of the Canada Marine Act. In addition to a number of general housekeeping amendments, the introductory provisions of the Canada Marine Act will be changed to recognize the historical, contemporary and future significance of marine transportation and its contribution to the Canadian economy.

The proposed amendments to the Canada Marine Act are integral to the long term objectives of our national gateway and trade corridor strategies. Simply put, the marine system is a major component of our national transportation structure and the Canada Port Authorities truly are the marine gateways for domestic and international markets. Without these important legislative amendments, it would be extremely difficult for our gateways and trade corridors to meet their full potential.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when debate adjourned last night, I understood I had three minutes. This is wonderful news. It is one more minute for a politician to talk.

When I left off debate, I was talking about the opportunities that Canada has in the area of international trade. As we know, Canada is a trading nation. It is one of the most successful trading nations in the world. In fact, it is perhaps the most resource rich country in the world. The nations of the world are beating a path to our doorstep not only for our resources and commodities but they are also looking to us for the technological expertise and much of the information we can deliver to make the world a better place.

When I left off debate, I was raising a number of reasons why we face challenges in Canada in trying to maximize the benefits we get from international trade. The first of these reasons was the awful truth that previous federal governments had essentially abandoned any significant effort to build our national infrastructure and the result was an aging infrastructure that was ill-suited to compete with the demands of the 21st century.

That is why the Conservative government, of course, introduced a $33 billion building Canada fund, which is a plan that is going to rebuild and renew our national infrastructure. It is the largest investment of its kind certainly in the last 50 years, if perhaps not in Canadian history. The building Canada fund is going to be rolled out over the next seven years.

There is a second reason why we have challenges in the area of making sure that we compete internationally for trade. That was the fact that the level of service in transportation, specifically railway transportation, was in a critical state of affairs. For many years virtually everyone in the shipping industry had complained about the fact that the level and quality of service delivered by our large national railways had declined.

To address this concern, our government introduced Bill C-8, which goes a long way to improving the level of service in our national railways. It ensures that the dispute resolution mechanisms available for shippers are efficient, low cost and timely.

The third reason why Canada is beginning to have challenges in the area of its gateways and trade corridors is the fact that our country does not have the legal flexibility given to its ports to be able to adapt to a rapidly changing economic environment. When I talk about ports, I am talking about marine ports, such as the port of Vancouver, the port of Montreal, the port of Halifax.

There are numerous other inland and marine ports across Canada that have challenges. They have transportation pinch points that restrict the ability of those who carry on trade with Canada and within Canada to get the job done. That is why we have introduced Bill C-23. It provides much more flexibility to the ports to be able to adapt to changing environments.

One of the areas where we are providing more flexibility is, for example, in the area of land management. Ports will now have more powers and authority to manage their lands, to lease them, to sell them, and to use them for the purposes they deem necessary for their businesses. We have also expanded the whole area of legal authority and the ability to borrow money, which again had been severely constrained until now.

We believe this flexibility is going to allow our ports to become even more dynamic because if we do not become more dynamic in the area of trade and ensure the infrastructure in Canada is in place to adapt to increasing trade, we are going to lose out.

There are many other ports across North America now that are competing with us and they are very aggressive. We need to make sure that our ports in Canada have the ability to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

I am thankful for the opportunity to address this very important issue for Canadians.

The House resumed from December 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

We think it's important not to delay the infrastructure study, which was already scheduled. If we could maintain this study, then we could start the study of Bill C-23, if necessary.

Do we agree on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I said it would either be one or the other. If Bill C-23 is put forward to this committee, we will deal with it on Thursday, but if it's not available to us, we will deal with the infrastructure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you. It shall be reprinted, but it will be on recycled paper.

I thank you for your good work on this bill.

Just for the information of the committee, on Thursday of this week we will be dealing with railway safety--that's Mr. Bell's motion--and we will have Transport Canada officials in here to answer questions.

On Tuesday, December 11, I'm asking for a subcommittee meeting, so there'll be no transportation meeting that day other than for those who are on the subcommittee. And I'm hoping that on Thursday, December 13, we'll either deal with the infrastructure programs or with the introduction of the bill that's currently before the House, Bill C-23.

Go ahead, Mr. Carrier.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. It certainly impacts my area of the country, the province of British Columbia, which has a very significant port, one of the busiest ports in North America. Today we are debating amendments to the Canada Marine Act.

My comments will focus a little bit on the importance of supply chains and transportation and how those things are so critical to ensuring that Canada remains competitive and has a dynamic and vibrant economy.

I also want to talk a little about global trade in general and how important it is that we as Canadians start to identify the opportunities that we have to build trade with the emerging economies in the world, as well as expanding trade with the major trading partners that we already have.

Global trade and commerce are changing rapidly and transportation is one of the critical, if not the most critical, aspects of successful trading relationships. It may surprise many to know that the cost of transporting goods and commodities around the world has actually gone down, not up, despite the fact that we have much higher costs in terms of fuel. We have more modern technologies and higher commodity prices which translate into higher prices for equipment. In fact, the cost of transportation has gone down dramatically over many decades.

Today businesses around the world organize their production, not only at home but by outsourcing some activities to third parties. They will locate other activities outside of their home country. They will also form strategic alliances and joint ventures around the globe. We call these global supply chains.

Essentially, when a producer is producing a certain product, the research and development may be happening in one country, several components may be being made in one country and several others in another, and the actual assembly of those products may be done in a fourth country. All of those production units need to work together effectively and efficiently, and transportation is critical to ensuring that happens.

What else is critical in Canada is that our Asia-Pacific market is the new centre of gravity of world trade, in light of the fact that the trans-Pacific trade, especially the container market is growing so rapidly that the west coast of North America, particularly the port of Vancouver, is beginning to experience capacity problems.

In short, that means that our ability to handle the trade demands of the Asia-Pacific Rim countries is creating backlogs and deteriorating service levels. This holds true, not only for the west coast of Canada but across our great country. We have numerous significant ports in our nation.

There are a number of reasons for these capacity challenges and I will highlight three of them. First, the awful truth is that previous federal governments put little effort or funding into the expansion of our national transportation system. The result is an aging national infrastructure that is ill-suited to compete in the 21st century. That is why our Conservative government recently made the largest Canadian infrastructure investment in the last 50 years.

We have committed a total of $33 billion to our building Canada fund which will be spent on critical national infrastructure over the next seven years. For me this is exciting because it will improve infrastructure and especially transportation across our country. It will also benefit my province of British Columbia, the Asia-Pacific Gateway. I was so pleased to see that our government invested $1 billion to building infrastructure improvements in British Columbia, specifically to take advantage of gateway opportunities.

The second reason for capacity problems has been the steadily deteriorating level of service in the area of railway and freight transportation. For many years, virtually everyone who depends on shipping freight by our national railways has complained bitterly about the quality and level of service. To address this, we recently introduced Bill C-8 which would impose a new, more efficient way in which shippers could have their disputes about service and about ancillary charges resolved.

A third reason why Canada is beginning to have challenges in its gateways and trade corridors is that our major ports across the country do not have the legal flexibility to adapt to rapidly changing environments, specifically economic and trade environments. That is where Bill C-23 comes into play.

The bill would grant more powers to our gateway ports over the management of their own lands and more leasing powers. The ports would also be given greater authority to borrow money and to allow them to adapt more quickly to the changing needs of their customers. This is so key because we are in a global market and it is an incredibly competitive marketplace.

We do have some strategic advantages in British Columbia and in Canada to meeting those challenges, but we have to take advantage of them and the only way of doing that is to ensure our infrastructure is up to speed.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-23 and I would like to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for his speech. I would also like to thank the hon. member for ensuring that I would be able to speak today. Having travelled from Windsor, I just arrived moments ago in Ottawa and rushed to the House. It has been an interesting process given today's snow day.

I would like to highlight a few things in Bill C-23 that are important: first, the elements of why ports are important for our modern infrastructure; and second, the relationship that they have relative to the communities where they are situated.

We have a number of large ports like Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto and Halifax. They have played national historic roles. But we also have other smaller ports like Windsor, the Windsor Port Authority, which has played an important historical role but can also be part of a greater prosperity for all of us.

BillC-23 has some significant changes. The answers to questions that I have posed to the government have yet to be responded to. Some of the questions relate to how the ports actually operate and relate to the security provisions of the bill. Others relate to the fact that there really has not been that type of structural analysis done on the ports relating to how they operate with municipalities for example and land use agreements.

We are looking at a bill, Bill C-23, that will open up the ports in a very different way. They are going to be able to borrow more funds as they have difficulty with the process that is currently in place. It is very antiquated. The bill will allow ports to borrow up to 20% of a capital project for their actual operations. Second, there is a two-tiered system. One will be enjoyed by the larger ports and then the other system that is currently in place will be refined for the smaller ports.

I am not sure that having a two-tiered system is the most advantageous way to go forward. Therefore, I am hesitant to support that idea on the surface. We look forward to hearing from witnesses at committee about that to see whether or not the small and medium size ports feel they are at a disadvantage. That is critical.

When we look at a government that is run really by one individual, with very much a top down approach, the same philosophy can apply to the ports. We might have the larger ones enjoying a greater advantage over the medium and smaller ones which can actually provide some great economic development opportunities and might want to compete to become great ports in Canada.

We have to be careful as we amend this legislation not to constrict them too much, so that if they are competing among their peers, they do not have a disadvantage that the incumbents would take advantage of from this type of a situation. We want to make sure that this issue is going to be addressed. We will be looking forward to those ports coming forth and assessing the current situation.

One of the things highlighted in the bill, which is important and we have to wonder what the logic is behind it, is a reduction in the boards that we have right now.

For example, the Vancouver port will have a reduction from its current seven to fourteen directors. In wearing my old municipal hat, the municipality appointed the individuals to the board. They were independent and they reported back to the larger body of the board, but they also had some accountability because the persons would have very much the feel of the city and the community. They would have a commitment being part of the board of directors.

What we are seeing, it appears, is a hollowing out of that membership. Once again, and this is what worries me, we could have people hand-picked from Ottawa to sit on these boards. We could have problems with that.

Many people across the country who are appointed to boards of port authorities are very competent and sit there as representatives, basically for the public trust, but what worries me as well is that we have seen in the past certain appointed positions becoming very politicized. The previous government was notorious for this. The current government has also shown the same behaviour.

In our area of Windsor, for example, the government actually sacked a judge who was very competent, who went through the Liberal patronage process. He did a good job and we wanted to keep him. However, the government sacked him anyway because of a political ideology that drives the beast.

Therefore, what we would call for is a review of this. If there is going to be the potential of a clearing out, so to speak, of all these boards of directors across the country, I would be very worried given the fact that we have not seen the ethical breakthrough so necessary by the government when it comes to patronage appointments.

No one has to look any further than the fact that the Conservatives appointed an unelected member to the Senate to be the public works minister to know that there is no measure they will not undertake, especially since it was a big break from their actual election platform. Subsequently, when we look at some of these other appointments, that is what we see.

The directors are very important. They reflect the decisions of the board and they have influence in the community.

With that, I want to move into one of the elements that is going to be loosened up in this bill. It is the availability of used port land for alternative uses. That could actually be other business plans. It could be very good for the port in many respects and also for the community. What I have asked the department, though, and it has not responded yet, is what the procedure would be to deal with the municipality affected by this.

Coming from a land planning background, I can tell members that everything is very much tied to the planning basis for sustainability, for the environment and for fairness when it comes to commercial, retail and also residential usage and so forth.

I noticed when reviewing the parliamentary secretary's speech on this matter that he took a particular interest in making sure that with these third-party agreements they did not allow condos to go on this land. However, that does not take away the fact that there could be other types of uses that could be in conflict or competition with adjacent property, for which private sector or public sector holders, whether the municipalities or the provinces, actually already have land agreements and uses on the sites.

If there is no process put in place that actually allows the municipality to look at its official plan to vet that accordingly, then we would see a circumvention of that. That is bad for the environment and bad for planning. It certainly has already been a situation that I have seen a couple of times. City land or government land has actually skirted the actual municipal processes in Ontario because the municipalities do not have to go through that same process. So what we literally have is almost an agreement by the principals involved to not have to go through the planning advisory steps. They thus avoid the Ontario Municipal Board and so forth.

One of the things we want is to see that element really defined in a crystal clear way so that the local people and the regional people who are sitting on this board have a clear understanding of the vetting process in terms of third party agreements for the use of their land.

The encouragement for this from the government is so that the ports can actually move to another level of development and also at the same time retain, if they have surplus land, some economic activity on it to actually help the port. Also, it is so they have control of those lands, so that should there in the future be the necessary requirement to use those lands, the control would be there.

Coming from Windsor West, I think that is a wise principle. We have the busiest land border crossing in North America and, in fact, for truck traffic it is the busiest in the world. We have 10,000 trucks per day that traverse this crossing.

What we have witnessed is the lack of planning because this was a private bridge. It still is a private bridge that the government of the day did not take advantage of in terms of appropriately planning out the area around it. It is now boxed in, so to speak, and even if significant land is acquired, there is no opportunity to meet the modern challenges for security and trade that are necessary and are being mandated by the United States.

Despite the platitudes of the Prime Minister, and no matter how many times he meets with the Americans and works with them, what is actually happening on the ground is that the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies are imposing new procedures, new services and new barriers for our trade through there.

Therefore, I think this principle of actually having the ports retain this land for future usage is wise, but the terms, conditions and rules are very important.

I have touched upon just a few elements tonight and only have a minute to conclude, but I do want to say the New Democrats are looking for a modern port that is also going to be very efficient in its security. Right now, less than 3% of cargo coming into this country is checked. This is a huge security risk that the government has completely ignored. That has to end.

On that note, we will be looking at this bill at committee to make improvements so it can go forward, but it has to be done with a national concept as well as a local one, because that is how things operate with the best efficiency.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23. In a way, we have been waiting for this bill for a long time, and we hope the wait will have been worthwhile.

This bill is about ports across the country, from Vancouver to Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick. This is of particular interest to me because a port development is under way in northeastern New Brunswick, and this is of critical importance to people in the region.

As everyone knows, my riding, Acadie—Bathurst, in northeastern New Brunswick, may have the highest unemployment rate around. How many times have people in the House said that the member for Acadie—Bathurst should talk about something other than employment insurance? Well, this is one way to invest in a very important port that has been ignored all along compared to all of the other ports in Canada. The Bloc Québécois member said that we must not forget the port of Montreal. But it has no debt and plenty of money, so it is not a problem.

But in our case, it is quite the opposite; we are talking about developing a port. For example, Belledune just outside my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, right at the end of Chaleur Bay. If people bother to look at a map, they will see that Chaleur Bay is in a direct line with Europe. The water there is deep and there is no ice. There is no need for icebreakers to let the ships pass in the winter and no cost involved. Even so, the government bills us for an icebreaker, just as it bills the other ports. Yet we do not need one at the port of Belledune. This really hampers the economic development of the region and this port.

When Canada was a new country, the Atlantic was prosperous. Then prosperity spread west of the Atlantic, to Quebec, Montreal and Toronto. Then it spread to all the Great Lakes, where it is warm, and it went on from there. But Canada was really formed in the Atlantic region. It is important to remember that the Acadians were the first people to come to Canada from Europe. We celebrated our 400th anniversary two years ago. That proves that we were the first.

In our discussions today, It is sad to see that the Atlantic has now been forgotten, especially northeastern New Brunswick. There is a port in Saint John and one in Halifax. The port in Belledune is a new port with incredible potential.

As I said, Europe is in a straight line from Chaleur Bay, and at the end of that bay is Belledune. Looking at the map, it is not difficult to imagine that shipping could continue on to the United States, for example, if there was a good road to get there. Why should ships make a huge detour to get to the United States when the port of Belledune in northeastern New Brunswick is in a direct line with Europe and the United States?

Bill C-23 also permits ports to take out loans. That is welcome news. But I believe that the committee should study the bill to do whatever it can to help them as much as possible.

In the past, the government decided to turn the ports over to the port authorities.

The ports were transferred to the communities and the Liberal government, which was in charge at the time, backed away from them. It did not provide the money needed to keep the ports in good shape. It was not just the port of Vancouver or the big ports where goods are brought in and shipped out. It also involved the ports for the fishery, all the small ports. The government did nothing for years and years.

Last year we were arguing about a job that needed to be done at the Miller Brook port in my riding. It had a drought this year and the boats had to be dragged into port because there was not enough water. The dredging was not even done. It was unbelievable. I am telling the truth when I say that the boats had to be dragged in the sand to bring them inside the port.

It has created a situation where the people are afraid when they see a storm. What would they do if they were outside the port and at any time during the night wanted to come in but could not because the tide would be out?

The port has been forgotten for many years. Today it has become a big cost to the community and to the fishermen. It is like having a house. If the owner does not look after it, in no time it is no good anymore. Repairs need to be done as we go along and we need to keep it in good shape.

Looking at our small fishing ports, one might imagine that the government had not made them a priority. It transferred the ports to the communities, but now the ports are in such a state they can be wiped out by the least storm that blows through.

I will give an example. A few years ago, a storm hit Petit-Rocher. The port had been in need of additional protection. Those responsible argued with governments to add protection from the wind and from November's huge fall tides so as not to lose our wharves. The governments refused. The storm was quite big. A 30-foot wave crashed in and shifted the Petit-Rocher wharf over by one foot. The repairs cost $550,000, or the whole wharf would have been lost. The fishers could not fish. They had to set up rocks to prevent the water from hitting the wharf again and breaking it. That doubled the cost. Repairs need to be done as they come up and not put off until disaster strikes.

The same is true when it comes to appointing people to the port authorities. The government wants to reduce the number of people. The danger is that local people will not be there to make the necessary recommendations. This is not the only concern. It also involves making decisions locally for the general population. These people are, after all, very familiar with the problems. They are the ones who should be making the decisions and making recommendations to the government concerning repairing our ports, such as making extensions, rebuilding or doing a better job in terms of economic development. This was the point I was making earlier about the port of Belledune.

I would like to talk about my riding and how this relates to my own backyard. There are some ports in bad shape in my riding. I can list several off the top of my head. The wharf in Pointe Verte is in such bad condition that boats cannot even enter into the port. The same is true for the wharves in Maisonnette, Anse-Bleue and Saint-Raphaël-sur-mer.

That is also the case for Le Goulet. I was speaking to the mayor of Le Goulet and he told me that the government absolutely had to intervene and help them. These are not large communities. Earlier, the Bloc Québécois member said that the port of Montreal does not have any debts, that it has no such problems and that it would like to be treated fairly.

We have catching up to do. We have to start reinvesting in order to ensure a certain level of economic development at these ports and also to ensure the safety of citizens. At present, ports are not safe. In Grande-Anse, fishermen stay outside the port because when the tide is low they cannot get back in. It is not safe. No one can enter the ports of Miller Brook or L'Anse-Bleue as they are not safe.

The government has responsibilities. It washed its hands of them by transferring them to citizens. When it transferred its responsibilities to the communities, it guaranteed that it would be there to help them maintain the ports in good condition. It wanted the citizens to help but then abandoned them. That is regrettable.

In closing, we will support Bill C-23 if amended. I am certain that we will hear more from the member for Windsor West. He will be presenting some good ideas in committee in order to obtain our support for Bill C-23.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-23 in principle. Obviously, we will have the opportunity to improve it in committee and to call witnesses. We hope—and I am choosing my words carefully here—that this bill will increase the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence by maintaining and improving the port infrastructure required to develop the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes trade corridor, which will also promote intermodal transportation and benefit the environment.

Why do I say that this is what we hope? Because at first glance, we have to be careful. Our Liberal colleague mentioned that when the Liberals were in power, they promoted the Pacific Gateway. The Conservatives, in the person of the parliamentary secretary, said earlier that they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the Pacific Gateway. They are preparing to announce a major investment in the Atlantic Gateway and Halifax. Yet we never heard any mention of the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes trade corridor in the speeches given by the parliamentary secretary and the Liberal member.

That is why I say that the Bloc Québécois hopes that the bill before us will lead to the development of the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes trade corridor, which is as important as the Mississippi is to the United States. This waterway, which flows directly into the heart of the Americas, must be taken into consideration. We hope that this bill will address part of this problem.

The primary goal of Bill C-23 is to amend the current borrowing system. Those who are watching us and are not familiar with this should know that currently port authorities are entities, independent corporations that have charters allowing them to borrow money up to a certain limit. As the parliamentary secretary was saying, the goal is to increase or eliminate the borrowing limit for large ports with a view to allowing them to develop.

I will give the example of the port of Montreal. It has become less important under the Liberals as well as since the Conservatives came to power, but it is nonetheless considered one of Canada's major ports. The port of Montreal does not do any borrowing at all. Introducing a bill to increase the borrowing capacity of the port of Montreal when it already does not borrow anything, is not going to help it develop.

As far as access to funding is concerned, it is true that port authorities currently are not able to receive subsidies. Just like airport authorities, they have to pay their own way and bill their clientele for expenses. Marine companies obviously have to pay fees to use ports. That is how ports generate revenues. They can contract loans in order to finance improvements made to the ports. That is the current situation.

Now, this bill would allow them access to funding. That is well and good, but I want this to be fair for all ports across Canada. When we talk about the Conservative government's investment in the Pacific gateway, we have to realize it was not for infrastructure within the confines of the ports, since this was not permitted by law. It was funding for improvements to railway lines and access points so that they could provide as many services as possible, to ship and receive merchandise outside the port limits.

Personally, I would like them to receive subsidies today. But if all the money always goes directly to the Pacific ports and there is nothing for the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes trade corridor, this bill will just create an even greater imbalance.

To date, the Pacific gateway program implemented by the Liberals and maintained by the Conservatives still has no equivalent in the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor.

The Conservatives announced that the Atlantic gateway would be in Halifax, but once again, there is nothing for the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor, which is, I repeat, the largest and most beautiful gateway in the Americas. That was the goal when it was created, but I will talk about the history later on. If the Bloc Québécois members are not vigilant, if all the money goes to the west and the Maritimes and there is nothing for the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor, this bill will not have achieved its goal.

I will repeat some of the reasons. The port of Montreal does not borrow any money. Obviously, it is not money that it needs. All the investments should be made outside the limits or boundaries to facilitate intermodal and other types of transportation. However, if we do not end up seeing any of that investment and if the goal of this bill is to help the Pacific and Halifax ports, we will have failed.

I would like to clarify certain aspects of governance. Obviously, there is a need to review how port authorities and corporations are administered—and I think this is good for everyone. For the Bloc Québécois, it is also important that these investments be evenly distributed to all regions of Canada and that, among others, the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes trade corridor receive its fair share for once. This was not the case under the Liberals and has not yet been the case under the Conservatives, as we have seen.

We want to make something clear in this House: the St. Lawrence River has always been a major asset to Quebec's development and closely linked to the economic development of all its regions. Eighty percent of Quebec's population lives on the shores of the St. Lawrence and over 75% of its industry is found there. The strategic location of industries in relation to the St. Lawrence River means it can be used for nearly all international trade outside the United States.

I will repeat this, because it is important to understand. When considering the St. Lawrence Seaway in the North American context, the importance of its economic impact becomes even more obvious. Indeed, the St. Lawrence River provides privileged access to the heart of North America. It not only allows access to 90 million inhabitants and the industrial heartland of the United States, Canada and Quebec, but it also provides a shorter route for major European carriers. The distance between Montreal and Rotterdam is 5,813 km while the distance between New York and Rotterdam is 6,154 km.

This corridor allows faster entry into the heartland of the Americas. The St. Lawrence Seaway is underutilized, however. The total amount of goods transported via the St. Lawrence dropped from 130 million tonnes in the early 1980s to approximately 100 million tonnes 10 years later, only to hover around 105 million tonnes since. Thus, since 1980, the ports of the St. Lawrence have received less merchandise than the 150 million tonnes they are currently receiving in 2007. It was 25 million tonnes less than what was being transported on the St. Lawrence in the early 1980s.

Once again, while some ports have seen increased traffic, neither investments nor Canada's management of the ports file have allowed this important development tool to be used to full advantage. We do not want to hear that this tool is the same everywhere or that it underutilizes goods transportation. For example, over the past 30 years, carriage of goods by ship has grown by 600% worldwide. While traffic on the St. Lawrence dropped from 130 million tonnes in the 1980s to 105 million tonnes, maritime shipping increased by 600% internationally. Closer to home, the Mississippi River system, which competes directly with the St. Lawrence, saw traffic increase from 450 million to 700 million tonnes. Seaports on the east coast of the U.S. have also seen steady increases in traffic.

This is why I have just as much trouble understanding my Liberal colleague's point as I do the message we are getting from the parliamentary secretary who talked about economic activity, China and that fact that they are the ones asking for it.

Even so, I would emphasize that the east coast of the U.S. has seen a major increase in shipping, which did not happen on the St. Lawrence. What does that mean? It means that Canada has not paid attention to one of the most important trade corridors, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway, which borders Quebec, Ontario and the United States.

A similar trend is affecting traffic going through the St. Lawrence Seaway. After reaching a high of 70 million tonnes, the quantity of goods being transported via the seaway stabilized around 50 million tonnes per year. Once again, the seaway leads to the Great Lakes. As I said earlier, the shipping trade dropped from 130 million tonnes to 105 million tonnes on the St. Lawrence, and on the seaway that leads to the Great Lakes, it dropped from 70 million tonnes in the early 1980s to 50 million tonnes. Once again, this is due mainly to the fact that the St. Lawrence Seaway is not competitive, and this is because of Ottawa's failure to pay attention to marine infrastructure in Quebec, particularly along the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor. That is the harsh reality of it.

When the Liberals were in power, they decided to put all their eggs in one basket, the basket known as the Pacific Gateway, and neglected the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor. The Conservatives are making the same mistake. They added the extra money needed for the Pacific Gateway and decided to establish an Atlantic gateway in Halifax. The money will go to Halifax and, once again, there will be nothing for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor.

This bill, which allows the ports to borrow more money, will not solve the problem. All of the money invested in the Pacific Gateway is going outside the port areas per se in order to improve the flow of goods by rail and road.

The same should be done for the ports along the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes. The same treatment, the same energy should be given to all these gateways by making the same kind of investment in them. What is being permitted today is investment within the area governed by each port authority. They are told that they can borrow more and that, henceforth, the government may provide direct subsidies.

Given that monies for gateways were given only to the Pacific Gateway—and now to the Atlantic Gateway in Halifax—there is nothing for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor. If that is the purpose of this bill as well, then they have missed the mark.

That is why the only party to raise this in the House is the Bloc Québécois. We are proud to live in Quebec and proud of the St. Lawrence, which has always been the backbone of all Quebec and Canadian industries. We cannot help but notice the major retreat by the Government of Canada from making investments along the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor.

I would like to give a brief overview of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor. The concept of the corridor is based on an obvious fact. The ports along the St. Lawrence must establish a common strategy for facilitating the most efficient transport of goods possible amongst themselves and towards the destination markets. It is also based on a second obvious fact. The competition is no longer among Montreal, Quebec City, Sept-Îles or the other St. Lawrence ports, or even those on the Great Lakes, for their share of global marine traffic. They are competing against the American ports, and that is the competition they must face.

The message I want to send is that we are not in competition with the east coast, the west coast, Halifax or Vancouver. As I was saying earlier about distances, it is shorter to get from Rotterdam to Montreal than from Rotterdam to New York. That means we have an obvious advantage: we are able to serve the heart of North America, the United States among others, Quebec and Ontario too. We are able to do so with this corridor if we work together, just a little, and if all the ports along the St. Lawrence to the Great Lakes work together.

Merchandise should be transported as quickly and efficiently as possible. If there need to be transfers by road or by rail, the same service being provided in the Vancouver area should be provided in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor. These same advantages have to be given to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor so that the world's entire marine transportation market can benefit all the regions of Canada, which still includes Quebec.

We cannot help but notice that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have completely forgotten this large-scale corridor, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor.

I do not want to keep repeating myself, but the bill introduced here in this House would provide the port authorities an advantage by giving them borrowing powers or allowing the government to give them direct subsidies, which was not allowed before. Again, there is the example of the port of Montreal. It does not borrow money and it does not have any debt. So, it is not the port of Montreal that asked for this. However, if there are subsidies, it wants to benefit from that as much as all the other ports in Canada.

It is very important that the government understand that because the stated goal is to give direct subsidies within the perimeter administered by the port corporations, namely the western gateway and the Pacific gateway, in the Vancouver area. The Maritimes gateway in Halifax will probably get subsidies as well. In any case, this money has to be allocated in a balanced way across Canada. I am not convinced that is the government's intention.

The Bloc Québécois will be in favour of this bill because it believes that the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes trade corridor is one of the most under-used marine corridors, considering its proximity and ability to serve Quebec, Ontario and the central United States. We believe that the corridor is under-used, that previous successive governments here in Ottawa were negligent and did not make the required efforts or investments to promote this development. Moreover, this St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor will also enable intermodal transportation, or more specifically cabotage, which is probably the greatest strength of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor right now.

We hope to be able to develop cabotage and intermodal transportation. We would like to be able to cover the short distance between Montreal and the Great Lakes and between Montreal and Sept-Îles. We would like to be able to use this vast corridor, as the Americans use the Mississippi, and ensure that all the required government investments will make it possible for all the infrastructure and ports along the St. Lawrence to the Great Lakes to be able to fully develop intermodal transportation.

If that is not the government's intention, the Bloc Québécois will have the chance to ask questions of the government and the minister. It is all well and good to introduce a bill, but if it was done simply to develop the Pacific gateway, they should say so. They should be honest and say if there is a lack of money, if the ports of Vancouver and the Pacific can no longer borrow money, if they require direct investments and subsidies. They must say so because there will be an imbalance between the Pacific and Atlantic ports. We are creating our own competition, and there is nothing worse than that.

This is not the first time the Liberals and the Conservatives have made a mistake on this file. They adopt policies on the fly and they try to fix problems in the short term by putting one fire out and lighting another two. The Bloc Québécois wants to avoid doing that. We agree that ports should be allowed to change their borrowing regimes, which would enable large ports to borrow money in order to support their own development. We agree that there should be some funding now, which was not allowed before, and subsidies via infrastructure programs to help port authorities if they are in too much debt. All the same, we want to be fair to the west coast, the east coast and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor.

If we do not say that in this House, that is what the Conservative Party will do. That is what the Liberal Party started to do by investing in the Pacific gateway. In the end the Liberals did nothing. The Conservatives are feeling a little uncomfortable and seem to want to invest. They announced funding for the Pacific gateway, but they did not give anything to Atlantic ports or Halifax.

That means zero minus zero plus zero for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor. Absolutely nothing. Obviously, that will be very bad for Quebec's economy, as well as Ontario's, and it will also limit what we can do to develop trade with the United States.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join in this debate, especially since the parliamentary secretary invited us to reflect upon credibility and leadership on the international front. Leadership and credibility is generated by not just some of the actions that are presented to us today for digestion, but by some of the consequences of other things that we do or do not do in life.

I want to refer back to that and take advantage of the fact that he is accompanied today by the Minister of International Trade. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is here as well. Perhaps they will want to listen to what I say a little later on and reflect on it by way of a response.

I would like to continue in the other official language. Today, we have focused on the fact that there are bills and programs that are very important for Canada, for the entire nation. I was pleased and privileged to be a member of the government which introduced these programs and bills.

Perhaps other parties in this House, who today are complaining about the Conservative government, regret that we accomplished something important for Canadians.

I too am disappointed that my party is not in power. However, when we were in power, we accomplished things that are enabling this government to establish a much broader program.

What should the government be doing? I want to indicate from our side that we too feel that transportation issues are basic to the principles of country building, of nation building. I say that because we take this issue seriously. We have taken it seriously. We laid the groundwork to ensure we would have a network of transportation, of infrastructure that would permit this fabulous country to realize its fullest economic potential.

Those are not just words as the parliamentary secretary indicates. They are the basis upon which one builds programs. Ports, marine ports in particular, because that is what is being addressed by the legislation, are fundamental to an outreach that we must establish to the world everywhere if we are to develop trade that will enhance the opportunity of every Canadian man and woman to access the bounty that is resident in our natural resources and then to move that bounty across borders and oceans to markets that can utilize them for value added or indeed for direct consumption. They are basic to the infrastructure of Canada's economy.

What did we do? Members will be surprised. Being a veteran of this House as I am, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in 1995 we began to establish a coordination of all of the assets that we had in marine ports. In 1998 that resulted with the establishment of a Canadian network of marine ports and the legislation to mandate their establishment, to coordinate these sometimes divergent and sometimes even counterproductive divergencies in our marine ports.

That was followed up with a review in 2003 of that legislation to see how it worked. All good things need some time in order to jell. We know what happened. After 2003 there was a series of studies. I thank the parliamentary secretary for recognizing that these studies were done by the department at the behest of the government. It was not his government, but I thank him for acknowledging that nonetheless.

The thrust of those reviews was designed to ensure that we could make all these ports economically competitive and efficient in an environment that would see the global market changing literally on a daily basis. When we undertook the initial study, the concept of gateways, Pacific gateway, Atlantic gateway, central continental gateway in the Great Lakes, were things that were not even part of the language of the day. Also not a part of the language of the day was the absolutely booming business taking place on the west coast.

We had one port that was doing some business and others were not or not that much. Now we are talking about ports resident in British Columbia, whether they be in the North Fraser, Vancouver or Prince Rupert, or Nanaimo, or Port Alberni. All these ports are very much a key to the economies of the Orient, whether it is Southeast Asia or Northeast Asia. We have to ensure those economies ship all their goods into North America through our ports and to generate an economy through the infrastructure that feeds into those ports to make it much more efficient and capable for all those provinces that sit in the middle of our continent to get their goods and commodities out to market.

The same principles apply to the marine ports in Atlantic Canada. The government of the day, through its studies, assumed and deduced that we needed to make a greater investment in the coordination of these ports. The Liberals came up with something called Bill C-61. This is a resurrection of Bill C-61. I am pleased to witness the revival of all good things. The parliamentary secretary may see us supporting a bill that highlights those very important issues.

As I said, we need to reinforce those principles upon which good, sound transportation policy is built; that is, the movement of goods and people efficiently, swiftly and economically around the country and abroad.

We wanted to create, and I imagine that this bill proposes to do the same, a common purpose and to permit the development of a plan or of a vision for growth in this country. I did not hear the parliamentary secretary say that, but I am assuming that was his intention because that would certainly be the reason why we would support this bill.

We need it to establish an infrastructure that is cohesive and coherent. Too often that infrastructure is seen as localized to a particular port. However, we need to think in terms of the avenues of building, whether it be rail, whether it be air, or whether it be roads, that feed into all of these ports that are the final terminus for the movement of many of those goods that need to be advanced outward, and that speak of Canada and the productivity of its citizens. That is what this bill was supposed to do.

And so, we see in it, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated, portions that talk about governance because we want to have continuity. We want to have, on the board of governors of these port authorities, personnel who are experienced and expert in the local economy, but still consistent and at one with the national objectives of a federal government that is dedicated, that should be dedicated, to ensuring that these ports fulfill the needs of Canadians everywhere.

The governing structure is extremely important. However, it is important as well to ensure that those port authorities go beyond simply being able to draw revenues from the movement of goods. They must be an economic entity on their own and they need to have the authority to ensure that the assets which they manage are part and parcel of the governance structure of these port authorities. And that could be in land, it could be the improvements on the land, or it could be any of the other factors, for example, leases, whether they be short term or long term.

If anybody wanted to have some umbrage or some difference with the government on any of these, we would eliminate it right away if that were not included in the bill.

However, more important, it is the issue of having an understanding, that we wanted to bring forward, of giving port authorities the opportunity to access government programs that give those ports the opportunity to have some of the funds that are available either for the development of some security issues that have developed since 9/11 or indeed for any of the infrastructure programs that this current government has continued. They were introduced by the former Liberal government, again as I said, of which I was privileged to be a part, to ensure that these port authorities would be seen as a continuity, a continuum of the infrastructure of our country's economic asset and the network that brings people together and that brings goods to market.

The parliamentary secretary will probably wonder where we go on a question of credibility and leadership. The question of credibility is seen on what we do to enhance these. He talked about trade and international relations. Those things are not all done simply by the work that we do at each one of these ports, but by some of the other things that we do with respect to the way that we deal with people who come within our territories.

This is not a deviation from that principle, and I am glad that the parliamentary secretary introduced it. We have had the misfortune of witnessing various tragedies in this country over the course of the last several months. I think by now most people are familiar with the case of the tasering of the young man at Vancouver airport and how we missed an opportunity to be decisive, and to act swiftly to ensure that any injustices be immediately remedied.

Now we have a situation where the Government of Canada's image worldwide has suffered, so much so that the government of Poland has asked for an inquiry. These are part and parcel of the kind of infrastructure that draws people to our shores and drops people into our midst.

As a matter of fact, as I said, thank heavens for the representatives of the other ministries. Earlier today, the government of Italy called in Canada's ambassador to speak about a similar situation that took place on September 20 when an Italian citizen died in a jail in Quebec City. So far there has been no response from Quebec government nor the Quebec police but, worse, nor response from the Canadian government.

All that people want is an opportunity to be able to access continuity, to understand what happens when people deal with Canadians on a question of strong international leadership, but let our actions speak at least as loudly as our words. Let us at least give people a response.

Until recently, we hid behind the fact, for example, that there was no hard, fiscal infrastructure on ports and then we hid on the soft issues, that is to say, where we were not dealing with bricks and mortar, on the fact that there were competing jurisdictions. How do we deal with countries that want a response from us?

We could always say that it is not our problem, that it is the problem of other provinces, that it falls within others' jurisdiction. If we have the political will to put in place a bill such as the current Bill C-23, we must also have the same political will to do other things.

I would like to say a few words in Italian, if my colleagues are agreeable to it.

[Member spoke in Italian.]

[French]

I will repeat it in English.

It is inconceivable that we would not give an answer to a foreign government that asks us why one of its citizens met with such a fate here on Canadian territory. For example, the young gentleman who died on September 20, Castagnetta, did he or did he not suffer his fate at the hands of police that were using tasers? There was an autopsy done and there are no results yet. Why not?

Let us talk about leadership not only on the international front, not only on the transportation side, but a comprehensive leadership that understands where the government should be taking this country. Where it should be taking it is in the place that says that goods and people are moving efficiently and effectively in a competitive environment, but everyone is accorded the dignity that is accorded all human beings who come here and call this place home. Even visitors would have access to Canadian law and due process. It is inconceivable that a family would have to wait, so far, two and a half months for a response. It is incredible.

The government is not doing anything. Maybe it will act more swiftly on hard infrastructure issues like this one. I can tell the parliamentary secretary as the official spokesman for the party on this side of the House that Liberals are prepared to support these kinds of initiatives in Bill C-23, just as we are prepared to provide the kind of support that the government needs to project a positive image of our country abroad. Without that, all of us are working at cross purposes and that should not be the intention of any member of Parliament.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House today a proposal that will support a more commercial operating environment for Canada Port Authorities.

This proposal is a two-pronged strategy. It includes amendments to the Canada Marine Act, which is of course the legislative framework that governs ports, in combination with several policy measures. It is an approach that is responsive to industry concerns. It recognizes the importance of promoting strategic investment and productivity improvements, yet protects port lands for future transportation needs.

In relation to the Canada Port Authorities, the national marine policy of 1995 emphasized the elimination of overcapacity, promoted cost recovery, mandated self-sufficiency, and instituted a consistent governance structure for all major ports.

I am pleased to report that those objectives of the national marine policy relative to ports have largely been met through the Canada Marine Act, the legislation that introduced a commercial approach to managing the national ports system and marine infrastructure. CPAs have undertaken their management responsibilities in a sound and fiscally responsible manner and ports are well managed today as a result of that.

Budget 2007 positioned modern transportation infrastructure as a core element of our agenda. We have launched a national gateway and corridor approach which recognizes that transportation systems that enable us to move goods and people with world class efficiency are absolutely essential to our future prosperity.

Specific initiatives, such as the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative, the Ontario-Quebec continental gateway and trade corridor, and the Atlantic gateway initiatives are tailored to geographic and transportation opportunities in specific regions.

These initiatives recognize that transportation infrastructure investment requires the cooperation of many parties. That is right: this government works in cooperation with many parties across the country to get what Canadians want: better results.

These include Canada Port Authorities, representatives from all modes, all levels of government, and private investors. Each of these initiatives will provide concrete measures to contribute to a more productive economy and a stronger competitive position for Canada in international trade. Let us face it, we are a trading nation, and trade is very important to our future.

There are 19 Canada Port Authorities in the national port system. These CPAs are located in each of the regions in which gateway and corridor initiatives are being developed.

Efficient marine transportation and modern port infrastructure are key elements in reaching our government's goals. Indeed, Canada's ability to compete on the world stage is highly dependent on the efficiency of our ports and the availability of port infrastructure. This is particularly true for our gateway ports that are of specific strategic importance to this country.

While the national policy and the legislative framework governing ports are sound and have met their intended objectives overall, these instruments need to be modernized to ensure that our ports can respond and take advantage of the significant opportunities in the current global markets. We have all heard the stories of Asia and the emerging markets in that area. Canadians need to take advantage of that in order to continue to have the best quality of life in the world.

We must make sure that the Canada Marine Act is not a barrier either for ports or for the federal government. Instead, we must make sure that the Canada Marine Act supports the government's ability to make funding decisions in the public interest and to position Canada advantageously within changing global supply chains.

We are responsible for determining the role of the federal government and identifying gaps where other levels of government or private investors cannot provide the level of investment required to support these projects, and projects that are in the national interest and so important to Canadians.

The landscape has changed. The new context calls for an updated policy framework, as I said, for national ports through a combination of legislative amendments and targeted policy initiatives. The proposed legislative amendments are wide-ranging. They focus on the following areas.

First is financial flexibility, which is so important even in private business.

Second is port access to infrastructure funding, which is important for the future.

Third is environmental sustainability, which is the cornerstone of this government's policy and is on every Canadian's mind.

Fourth is access to security funding. We want to keep Canadians safe, because without that we will not enjoy any future.

Fifth is a commercially-based borrowing regime for larger ports.

Sixth is supporting amalgamations and governance at ports if required and if in Canadians' best interests.

This means targeted policy initiatives focused on a modernized national marine policy as it relates to ports, a streamlined mechanism for borrowing, and flexibility in the management of port lands for the future.

Today we face unprecedented growth in trade with Asia-Pacific countries, as I mentioned. This is resulting in tremendous pressures on the west coast. These pressures are starting to be felt in other areas of Canada, for instance in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway system and on the east coast, where we recently announced an Atlantic gateway initiative.

Our challenge is to find ways to promote new investment in the marine sector while encouraging it to behave as commercially as possible in the best interests of Canadians. Some of the larger Canada Port Authorities have made extensive infrastructure investments to address capacity constraints but cite barriers such as their current ineligibility for most federal funding as an impediment to further growth.

We are proposing to amend the CMA to provide these Canada Port Authorities with access to federal contributions for, first, capital costs for infrastructure, which is so important for the future; second, environmental sustainability; and third, security projects.

This is great news for Canadians. This approach would put CPAs on an equal footing with other transportation modes that have access to contribution funding. It would make them competitive.

We are not proposing the creation of a new funding program. Instead, we are proposing the establishment of a framework to allow CPAs to apply to contribution programs related to infrastructure, environmental sustainability and security projects.

Do members see a theme here? That is right. These programs that either currently exist or future contribution programs that may be developed in the future are the key.

In all cases, the ports would have to present a strong business case that fits specific criteria and that ultimately is in the public interest to warrant receiving public moneys. We are going to make sure that they remain accountable.

For example, these amendments could facilitate access to funds for the exploration of ways to address environmental concerns through new technologies to improve emission controls. They would also ensure the continued access of CPAs to any available security contribution funding.

Without this amendment, as of the end of November 2007 contribution funding for the implementation of security enhancements will no longer be available to CPAs. That is why this is so important.

We are also proposing that Transport Canada work in close collaboration with the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board Secretariat to implement a two-tier approach to borrowing that would provide for a commercially based borrowing regime, with accountabilities for larger ports with gross annual revenue generation above $25 million-- just for the big guys--at the same time streamlining the process for the smaller ports seeking changes to their borrowing limits. We want to make sure they remain accountable, but we want to make sure as well that they remain competitive.

There are other concerns related to the use of port lands. Some key ports are now facing encroaching residential developments and capacity limitations, an added pressure on the preservation of critical transportation lands in urban areas.

At the moment, there is little incentive for ports to retain lands for future transportation corridors. It is important to find the right mechanism to maintain ports as important economic generators for national, regional and local economies, as it is so important on the ground in these local communities that have these ports.

It is absolutely critical that we find ways to encourage our ports to invest in land holdings for long term port development. We are not talking about next year. We are talking about 100 years or 200 years down the road, but we need to be ready today for that growth that we expect and know is coming.

To promote the preservation of transportation lands, these opportunities would be given to CPAs by way of new policies implemented through supplementary letters patent. This would expand allowable uses for land that CPAs lease or license to third parties and assist CPAs in increasing revenues generated on those lands until such time as that port is ready to develop the property for port purposes.

However, Canada Port Authorities are not proposing to be less vigilant in regard to these lands, and all permitted activities will need to be compatible with port operations. For instance, we would not allow condos to be built on those particular lands. They have to be ready for the future.

Other amendments that will further benefit the Canada Port Authorities are those associated with future amalgamations, similar to the one under way in the lower mainland of British Columbia. We are proposing to incorporate provisions that would put in place a consistent approach, which is so important for certainty, to facilitate potential future amalgamations.

We want to work toward what is in the best interests of Canadians and at the same time make this a good governing instrument to do so. Some key governance amendments are proposed that would be more responsive to Canada Port Authorities' needs and would promote a more sustainable, more stable and more long term management framework.

There is also a complementary set of amendments being proposed that are more technical in nature and which clarify the wording of the act and harmonize certain provisions with other pieces of legislation. This is an important piece of legislation, but it does have to work with other pieces of legislation in the government regime.

Finally, with these changes in place, we propose to modernize the national marine policy as it relates to ports to ensure that the policy context for future decision making takes into account the emerging trade and the global business environment and that we remain competitive with it.

In developing this package we have attempted to strike what we consider to be a very reasonable balance between encouraging fully commercial behaviour on the part of ports and leaving the door open for them to compete for contribution funds under general programs like our new building Canada initiative, which again is great news for Canadians on the realm of infrastructure.

Ports in the United States and overseas are competition. They are focusing more effort on and are receiving more government funding for infrastructure, security and environmental initiatives. Long term access to federal contribution funding to spur growth in the new gateways or to implement security enhancements is consistent with the high priority we are placing on security and trade in this government. Two very important issues for Canadians are their safety and their jobs. What could be more important?

Canadian ports compete with international counterparts that receive security funding essentially for reassuring international trading partners. Associations representing the marine sector have requested that the government provide the same level of access to funding for Canada Port Authorities as exists for other transportation entities.

Other stakeholders we have consulted have strongly supported access to infrastructure funding for ports. That is important to this government as well. We have considered several different options to determine which one would provide the highest return for our stakeholders and for the Canadian economy, because this government is going to get the best return on investment for Canadian taxpayers.

We are proposing these changes in order to provide a balanced approach, as I mentioned, one that combines legislative amendments with targeted policy initiatives that will have the highest positive impact on the marine community and the Canadian economy. Yet at the same time, it will continue to require a small payment of rent to the Crown and puts reasonable safeguards around borrowing practices.

On the question of access to government funding programs, we are proposing to put ports and port authorities on the same level playing field as other players in the transportation sector. However, the government also recognizes that the right checks and balances for accountability to the Canadian taxpayer will need to be implemented to make sure that accountability continues. As such, funds provided through contribution programs with clear accountabilities and program criteria would provide excellent controls and reflect the government's current approach to the provision of funding under certain conditions.

We believe the proposed amendments in Bill C-23 are the right thing to do for our ports. They are an important part of the government's overall policies and framework supporting transportation and trade throughout Canada from coast to coast to coast. It is the right time to make these changes for the Canadian economy. This is the best thing for Canadians.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

moved that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, this week's theme is getting the job done on justice and tax cuts. I am proud to say that our government got the job done on justice yesterday. The tackling violent crime act passed the House at third reading and the bill is now over at the Senate.

The government expects the Liberal dominated Senate to respect the will of this democratically elected House of Commons and quickly pass the bill, certainly before Christmas so Canadians can enter the new year safer and more secure in their neighbourhoods.

Today we will continue to get the job done on tax cuts by debating the budget implementation bill, which grants tax relief to all Canadians, especially by reducing the GST to 5%.

Next week will be economic certainty and prosperity week. Hopefully the budget bill will pass second reading this week so next week will begin with the Standing Committee on Finance considering it. The budget bill is an important part of our plan to provide economic certainty and prosperity for all Canadians.

The government hopes that the committee, once it receives the bill, will quickly review it and report it back to this House so it may proceed through the legislative process and receive royal assent before January 1, 2008. Canadians do not want to lose the reduction in the GST if parliamentarians fail to pass it into law before Christmas.

In this chamber next week we will continue to provide economic certainty and prosperity.

We will debate Bill C-23, to amend the Canada Marine Act, and Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

Both bills will help create jobs and a dynamic Canadian economy.

We will also debate Bill C-30, establishing an independent tribunal to which superior court judges will be appointed, to help resolve specific first nations claims.

This will deliver greater economic certainty for first nations and all Canadians.

We will also debate Bill C-29, which modernizes how loans are made to political parties, candidates and associations and how those loans are treated under the Canada Elections Act. This will create greater certainty by closing a loophole in our current campaign financing rules.

If time permits, we will debate our bill to strengthen the Youth Criminal Justice Act, Bill C-25.

Finally, in response to the question from the opposition House leader, Thursday, December 6 will be an allotted day provided that we have achieved early passage of the budget implementation bill and associated tax reductions.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, at report stage of Bill C-2, to deliver some comments to the omnibus crime bill.

I have had the experience of serving on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and also the legislative committees that were involved with the former Bills C-10, C-22, C-27, C-32, C-35 and C-23, which is not part of the omnibus bill.

I speak with experience at least with respect to the bills and I understand how we came to be here today to speak about what the bill contains. A lot of discussion took place in the debates of the House and in committee with respect to the direction we should take with respect to our criminal justice.

It is important for us, as parliamentarians, to consider what we do when we amend the Criminal Code and its corollary acts. We are dealing with the Criminal Code. It is an organic document. It changes with the times. It is copied and exemplified by one of Canada's justice ministers and prime ministers, Sir John Thompson, from eastern Canada. It has certainly changed with the times as has our society.

In the 1890s the crimes that were top priority might have been things like cattle and horse theft, murder and some common ones. However, with the changing times, we have seen a proliferation of gang related violence, e-crimes, things that would not have existed at the turn of the century.

The point of raising that is as our society changes and the code changes, we owe it to this place, to the committees, to the law enforcement official, which include prosecutors, policemen, probation workers, corrections officers, people in the correction system and judges, quite a fraternity of people involved in the criminal justice system, to say that we looked at these various laws. We looked at how Canada was changing and at the end, we did the very best we could to keep track of what tools would be best to tackle the new problems that exist in society. It is not as if we are inventing new aspects of law. Many of these bills represent an evolution or a progression of laws that already exist.

Just briefly on the guts of the bill, if you like, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10, which is now part of C-2, was of course dealing with the mandatory minimum provisions which were increased by the introduction of this bill, but they were not increased as much as the government had wanted them to be originally.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the opposition Bloc Québécois critic on the committee as well as the Liberal members on the committee who fought very hard to have some sense reign over the debate with respect to the evidence that was adduced at the committee hearings regarding the efficacy of mandatory minimums in general.

A review is in order. Mandatory minimums existed before the Conservative government was elected. Mandatory minimums were in place for serious crimes with the known aspect of repeat offenders and with some hope, which studies will show one way or the other, that there might be a deterrent and a safety to the public aspect of mandatory minimums.

At least on this side we joined with the Conservatives who, I would say, were very sparse in their acknowledgement that mandatory minimums existed before they came into office, but we joined with them and said that these are good tools for the law enforcement agencies and good tools in the realm of criminal justice.

It is a matter always of how far we go. How far do we go in disciplining our children? Do we take away their favourite toy? Do we ban them from seeing their friends for two weeks? Are we less severe or more severe? Many of us are parents and we deal with this every day. It is our form of the justice system that rules in our own house.

With respect to mandatory minimums, it is a question of calibrating to what extent the mandatory minimums are useful, to what extent do they work, and to what extend should they be increased, if at all.

During the debate process we were very successful in getting the government to get off its basic premise, which is if it is good for the six o'clock news and sounds robust, steady and law and orderish, then it has to be good in the Criminal Code. That is where the slip from the cup to the lip occurred, where it was obvious 90% of the witnesses were saying that the severe mandatory minimums that the government side were proposing would be inefficacious.

We can be as tough as we want, but if it does not work, if it does not make society safer, then we have not posited a good solution to the problems that face our community, and that was the case when we looked at mandatory minimums.

The happy medium that exists in Bill C-2 I think will be borne out, but it is very important to remember that this is an organic process and we could be back here some day soon, perhaps, looking at mandatory minimums in general.

How more timely could it be than in today's Ottawa Citizen, a report called “Unlocking America” is reviewed. In this report, it makes it very clear that the mandatory minimums, one of the many tools used by the American government from the 1970s on when it was felt that the rise in criminal activity was abhorrent, was not as effective as the Americans would have hope it would have been. It left the United States with 2.2 million people behind bars, more than China. The nine authors, leading U.S. criminologists, said that they were convinced that they needed a different strategy.

I am happy to report that as a result of the efforts of the NDP, Bloc and the Liberal Party in general at committee, we did not go as far as the Conservative government wanted to, which was close to where the United States had been which now New York State and New York City admits, is ineffective.

The three effects of imprisonment, and emphasis only on imprisonment, at the cost of crime prevention dollars, if you like, Mr. Speaker, is that the heavy, excessive incarceration hits minorities very hard. In the United States, 60% of the prison population is made up of Blacks and Latinos.

We heard evidence at our committee that there is a preponderance, an over-exaggerated percentage, of first nations and aboriginal people in our jail system, according to their population, which is deplorable. It is overwhelming and undisputed that the negative side effects of incarceration outweigh the potential. That is the two bits on Bill C-10,

On the other bill, Bill C-22, the close in age exemption, was never brought up. Despite all the rhetoric from the government, nothing would save Bill C-22. The issue of sexual consent being given by a person of tender years has never been put forward by any member of the opposition while the Liberal Party was in power.

The close in age exemption was never put in there, so for members of the opposite side to say that finally we dealt with the issue of sexual exploitation of 14 year olds is simply not accurate. The close in age exemption, five years between a person of the age specified, will save many relationships that should not be criminalized.

Lastly, I noted that Bill C-23 was not included in Bill C-2. I have to wonder why.

I live in Acadia. And Bill C-23 included many improvements with respect to choosing the first language of prosecutors during a trial. French is the language spoken by most people in my province. That element was very important to us in Acadia, but the government overlooked this fact.

Why did the government turn its back on the francophone people of New Brunswick in this country?

Canada Marine Act

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)