House of Commons Hansard #155 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was following.

Topics

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Zed Liberal Fundy Royal, NB

That is correct.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Mercier Bloc Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC

Mr. Speaker, when we consider the current administrative and financial aspects of running the St. Lawrence Seaway, we can just imagine the president of a private company announcing to his board of directors and shareholders that the capital they invested in the company produces an average yield of 1 per cent.

Canadian taxpayers may react like the shareholders after investing $7 billion in the St. Lawrence Seaway, which brings in $70 million annually, or 1 per cent. I imagine the shareholders would not be very pleased and would be even less so if the president went on to announce that tonnage on the St. Lawrence Seaway has declined by 50 per cent over the past 25 years. I imagine there would be frowns all around and that the president would be accused of poor management and asked to explain the reasons for these disastrous results.

The books would reveal a top heavy bureaucracy which does not make for efficient management but does generate many opportunities for giving jobs to friends. They would also show other signs of poor management, and even if the purpose of this bill is not really to improve the situation, we would hope that the amendments we are proposing would have that effect.

We believe that basically, as in other legislation, this government is trying to scale down its financial commitments and responsibilities in order to offload them onto other levels of government and the private sector.

At any rate, we are not opposed to this bill. We think that the management of the St. Lawrence Seaway could only improve if handled by someone else, since it could not be handled any worse than it has been by the federal government.

But for this bill to produce good results, we in our party would like to make a number of really important changes, one of which deals with the divesting of certain ports. Some of these ports, which have been victims of mismanagement for many years, are in bad shape, and we feel that the government has a duty to put them back into decent shape before they can be sold. That is one of our conditions for supporting this bill, and a number of the amendments we have put forward deal with this.

Also, with the federal government financially withdrawing from the St. Lawrence Seaway and in the absence of any government subsidies, loans and financial contributions, one would expect that the federal government would stop, to a great extent, imposing its will on the boards of directors to be established. But that is not what is happening. We can understand the federal government having one representative on these boards. However, we strongly object to the fact that, except for those members coming from the provinces and municipalities, board members will be appointed by the government, without our knowing whether it will do so arbitrarily or if, as it should, it will listen to the suggestions made by the organizations represented. We will move amendments to make sure the government will listen-not merely consult, but listen-to the organizations involved, when they make recommendations regarding the appointment of members to ports' boards of directors.

I only raised two issues. The hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup mentioned a number of other ones. Other comments will be made but, in conclusion, we agree with the principle of this legislation and we will support it, provided our proposed amendments to improve it are accepted. Otherwise, we would have no choice but to oppose the bill.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-44, the Canada Marine Act.

I rise to speak wearing various hats. I rise as Bloc Quebecois transportation critic in 1993, 1994 and 1995. I also rise as a representative of a people who, on the eve of what I hope is an imminent election, want to demonstrate the role of the Bloc Quebecois in Ottawa.

Quebecers watching us from the comfort of their living rooms will be more than able to understand-and I assure you Quebecers do understand-the importance of the Bloc Quebecois here in the House of Commons in Ottawa. If, in 1993, they had sent back 74

Liberal MPs out of a total of 75, as happened in the Trudeau era, there would not have been a block of MPs to defend Quebec's interests.

Once again, in this bill, we have solid evidence of the victories won by the Bloc Quebecois for Quebecers.

I also want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, for the excellent work he did on this bill, assisted by the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes. I think that what we have before us is almost the final product, but hours and hours of hearings and committee work went into the amendments we see today. I would therefore like to congratulate them.

As the previous two Bloc Quebecois speakers have mentioned, the Bloc Quebecois will not be opposing this bill in principle, but once again, as the member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes has just pointed out, everything depends on the government's receptiveness to our amendments.

But I should begin by addressing the whole issue of the commercialization of ports. I remember that, in 1985, the first goal of the Standing Committee on Transport, made up of a majority of Liberal members, was to replace or abolish Ports Canada. I see that the minister is listening to my speech and I am very pleased to tell him that the decision to terminate Ports Canada was an excellent one.

I remember putting questions to the transport committee about expense accounts. So, at the outset, I wanted to say that we wholeheartedly agree with the dismantling of Ports Canada. However, the Liberal majority sitting on the transport committee supported the establishment of some kind of ports secretariat which would have been based here in Ottawa, another monitoring agency.

Fortunately, the bill before the House provides for the commercialization of these ports. So, no structure will have to be set up. There will be independent entities. The board will be made of a majority of local stakeholders, that is people who are familiar with the needs and the concerns of the region and the local ports. Again, this is an interesting development.

Once again, with regard to the role played by the Bloc Quebecois, members of the Bloc who sat on the transport committee managed to have included in the Canadian port authorities network two ports that were originally forgotten, namely the port of Trois-Rivières, thanks to representations made by my colleague, the Bloc member for Trois-Rivières, and Saguenay port, located in the federal riding of Chicoutimi, thanks to representations made by my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi, and also by another colleague, the late member for Jonquière, André Caron, who had replaced me as transport critic. It is a victory for the Bloc Quebecois.

Another victory is the retention of pilotage on the St. Lawrence River. I had the opportunity to make several speeches in this House in which I asked a simple question: can we afford another Exxon Valdez on the Montmagny archipelago, in the Cap Tourmente wildlife preserve in my riding, along the shore of Île d'Orléans? Can we afford that?

I can tell you that it is thanks to the tenacity of the members of the Bloc Quebecois and also to representations made by the pilots of the Lower St. Lawrence that this bill provides for the retention of pilotage. At least, it will not be reviewed until December 31, 1997, and this is why I wanted to stress this interesting aspect of the bill.

My time is running out and the last point I would like to make is that our party plans to vote against this bill at the third reading stage because, even though we do agree with some elements of the bill, we object to some of its shortcomings. For example, nothing in this bill reflects a determination to maintain or promote shipbuilding.

I made some proposals and submitted some amendments concerning tax laws so that shipbuilding could be encouraged and even developed in Quebec and Canada, but the bill contains nothing to that effect. Once again, I would like to stress that the Quebec region shipyard now called Industries Davie, formerly MIL Davie Inc., is still waiting for the federal government's position on its recovery plan and its future.

Workers at MIL Davie have done their part. They literally butchered whole sections of their collective agreement to allow MIL Davie to compete with shipyards in Korea, China or elsewhere. It is now profitable, the rest is up to the federal government.

It should be remembered that only Quebec has been affected by the downsizing of shipbuilding. We saw the demise of Canadian Vickers, in Montreal, and Marine Industries, in Sorel; MIL Davies is the only shipyard left in Quebec. While shipyards were closing in Quebec, 10 or 11 were being built in the maritimes with the help of the Conservatives.

That is why, in the next election, we will keep telling Quebecers that Tories and Grits are all the same and that the only solution is to support the Bloc Quebecois members, who will go to Ottawa to stand up for their interests, as we did with this bill.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice that I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton-Wentworth.

It gives me great pleasure to speak on this very important bill today. It is such a relevant bill for the city of Toronto. I want to go back to the Prime Minister's very first speech in Toronto after he was elected about four years ago. During that first speech in Toronto the Prime Minister said that Toronto would play a very

important part in the economic renewal of the country. Because the people of the greater Toronto area came on side with the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister during the last election said that instruments would be put in place to ensure that the economic revitalization of the city of Toronto, which is so important to the rest of the country, would happen. Today, thanks to the Minister of Transport, thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Hamilton West, the author of the Keyes report, we now have Toronto named as a Canada port authority in the new Canada marine act.

For those of us who have been working in the Toronto caucus over the last few years on economic revitalization through tourism, recreation and commerce, this bill, by recognizing Toronto as a port authority, will finally give the proper tools to those who understand our city and the importance of the presence of the Government of Canada in the overall economic renewal of the city of Toronto.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the leadership of Charles Parmalae of the Toronto Harbour Commission, the leadership of Harold Pereunboom, Howard Joy, Gary Reid, Bill Jackman and many others. I wish I had more than five minutes to deal with this very important legislation.

It is important to realize the work that was done in setting up the Toronto port authority, which will now have special Government of Canada status. The work which was done to make that happen is unimaginable. It has been a long arduous task, but today in the nation's boardroom we celebrate the fact that we finally have an all-party agreement to proceed with this designation. That, in itself, is a rare achievement in the House.

I know there are a number of people in Toronto who from time to time wonder about the commitment of the Government of Canada to that city. Sometimes they wonder whether the Toronto members of Parliament are giving full force to the economic renewal which is needed in that city.

It is no secret that many young people in Toronto are unemployed. One of the sectors of the economy that is counted on heavily to help support those unemployed Canadians is tourism. In the last four years Parliament has quadrupled the tourism marketing budget to ensure that the conventions, the trade shows, the entertainment industry, the hotel and restaurant industries of Toronto are provided all the necessary tools.

To be able to stand in the House on the eve of an election and say that the Government of Canada's presence through the Toronto port authority has once again been revitalized is a very meaningful opportunity for me. I want to thank the master of the Keyes report, the member for Hamilton West, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, for working with us on this very important instrument of economic renewal for the greater Toronto area. It is very important.

I wish I had more time to go into the various impacts this will have. It will allow the Government of Canada to once again become a full partner with the city of Toronto and with the province of Ontario. Together the three levels of government, including metro, will make sure that we do our part not only for the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario but all other regions of Canada. When we have a healthy, vibrant reinvigorated Toronto, it has a ripple effect throughout the whole country.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the member for Hamilton-Wentworth, however, to ensure that we have the right instruments in place of which the hon. member spoke, if you request it, you will find unanimous consent:

To amend Motions Nos. 125, 112, 114 and 117 by including Toronto Port Authority and withdraw Motion No. 126.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

The House has heard the motion proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. Is there unanimous consent that the parliamentary secretary may be permitted to put his motion to the House at this time?

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Bloc

René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but we did not hear simultaneous interpretation while you were reading the text in one language only. I would like to understand the meaning of the amendments moved by the parliamentary secretary. I think interpretation was not working then.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

I can read the motion another time. With the unanimous consent of the House, the hon. parliamentary secretary moved that clause 125 be amended by the addition of the words Toronto Port Authority , and also in clauses 112, 114 and 117, and that Motion No. 126 be withdrawn.

Is that agreed?

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Hamilton—Wentworth, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this bill. It is a very fine bill. At third reading I hope to speak at greater length than the five minutes I have allotted to me now.

This is a very good bill because it replaces, in my region, an appointed harbour commission with a port authority of seven to eleven directors. In Bill C-44 is built in an elaborate series of systems of accountability and checks and balances where a board of directors is required to file annual reports, make annual statements, disclose salaries, subject themselves to periodic audits and thus forth.

When I examined the bill, however, I found it deficient in one small corner. That was with respect to the appointment of the board of directors should a port authority replace the Hamilton Harbour Commission in my riding. As the bill is now composed, the board of directors would consist of a member appointed from the province, a member appointed by the minister and a member appointed by the municipalities that might be mentioned in the letters patent.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the two specific sections which apply to my Motions Nos. 20 and 31. The one that clearly states the situation is the one which states that the letters patent shall set out the following information for the appointment of directors and it will be one individual appointed by the municipalities mentioned in the letters patent.

My amendment would simply add the word "each" between the words "by" and "the municipalities mentioned in the letters patent". As the wording currently exists it gives the minister the opportunity to name only one director from all the municipalities mentioned in the letters patent. If the word "each" were inserted in this clause it would enable the minister to appoint as many directors representing as many municipalities that are mentioned in the letters patent.

That seems like a very small point and it is. But it is very significant in my riding because Hamilton harbour, as everyone knows, consists on one side of the city of Hamilton and on the north shore the city of Burlington. Historically the two communities have shared the harbour even though in the early days of the 19th century Hamilton grew much faster than Burlington and consequently most of the harbour facilities are on the south shore.

On the north shore there is a lot of residential development and some very fine shoreline wildlife and recreational facilities. Whatever happens to the port of Hamilton ultimately impacts on the city of Burlington. This amendment I proposed simply would guarantee the city of Burlington having representation on the new port authority at such time as the Hamilton harbour commissioners are replaced by a port authority.

It is a matter of fairness but it is also a matter of relevance. I think the city of Burlington has now grown significantly in economic strength to stand on an equal footing with the city of Hamilton.

Therefore this is simply an amendment that will not affect other communities because the minister still retains the right to name which municipalities in the letters patent he thinks should have a membership on the board of directors. It does not impede his freedom of action when it comes to making a decision about port authorities.

Traditionally Hamilton harbour has always been called such by the people of Hamilton. However, on the north shore it has always been called Burlington bay. I think the bill is an opportunity to bring these two communities together on the management of a very important body of water which, indeed important to all residents of the Golden Horseshoe.

The city of Burlington to stress its feelings that it needed representation on any port authority board of directors, should a port authority be named for the Hamilton area, passed a resolution on Monday, February 10. This is Motion No. 24 from the council of the city of Burlington:

"Whereas Burlington and Hamilton each share approximately one half of the shoreline of Hamilton harbour; and whereas the harbour provides many beneficial uses and amenities for residents of Burlington; and whereas harbour governance in decision making is vitally important to the city of Burlington;

"Now therefore the city of Burlington hereby endorses the efforts of Mr. John Bryden, MP to seek amendments to the proposed Bill C-44, the Canada ports authority act, which would promote the creation of a Canada port authority for Hamilton harbour, governed by a board of directors which includes representatives of both the cities of Burlington and Hamilton".

The House has an opportunity to listen to a municipality which is making a request to this Parliament. It is a very fair request. I hope the House will see fit to support the two amendments I brought forward at report stage.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

Pursuant to the order adopted earlier this day, all questions are deemed put and divisions deemed deferred until Tuesday, April 15, 1997, at the conclusion of Government Orders.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Comuzzi Liberal Thunder Bay—Nipigon, ON

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-44, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 2 with the following:

"the port of Montreal and Lake Erie and Lake Ontario"

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-44, in Clause 67, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 41 the following: a ) ensure that all operational costs and short and long term maintenance costs are paid from operating fees or Seaway Investment Funds and not from the Consolidated Revenue Fund;''

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-44, in Clause 67, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 41 the following:

"(a.1) establish an independent Seaway financial agency that encourages users, shippers, the business community and communities adjacent to the Seaway to participate in the long term investments required by the Seaway to become more competitive;"

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-44, in Clause 67, be amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 41 with the following:

"(b.1) equitably and fairly protect the rights and interests of citizens in communities adjacent to the Seaway or directly affected by the Seaway;"

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-44, in Clause 67, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 16 on page 42 with the following: g ) to form a bi-national operating agency to operate the Canadian U.S. Seaway on terms agreeable to both countries.''

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-44 be amended by adding after line 16, on page 42, the following:

"67.1 For the purpose of paragraph 67( f ), ``user'' has the meaning as in section 4.''

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-44, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 43 with the following:

"69. (1) The Governor in Council may direct the Author-"

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-44, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 20 on page 43 with the following:

"(1), the Governor in Council may transfer it to any other"

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-44, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 43 with the following:

"transferred to the Governor in Council under subsection"

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-44, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 20 on page 43 with the following:

"(1), the Governor in Council may transfer it to any other"

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-44, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 43 with the following:

"body other than the Governor in Council or any"

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-44, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 43 with the following:

"(2) The Governor in Council may enter into agreements"

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-44, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 43 with the following:

"with but not exclusive to a not-for-profit corporation that accords"

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-44, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 43 with the following:

"a major role to Seaway users, as defined in section 4, in particular in"

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-44, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 2 on page 44 with the following:

"the Governor in Council considers it appropriate, with any"

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-44, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 44 with the following:

"and conditions that the Governor in Council considers"

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-44, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 44 with the following:

"(4) The Governor in Council may take any measures"

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-44, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 45 with the following:

"(5) The Governor in Council may"

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-44, in Clause 71, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 45 with the following:

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-44, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 46 with the following:

"72. (1) A corporation referred"

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-44, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 8 on page 46 with the following:

"(2) The corporation shall, at "

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-44, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 17 on page 46 with the following:

"(3) The corporation shall"

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-44, in Clause 73, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 46 with the following:

"73. (1) A corporation referred"

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-44, in Clause 74, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 47 with the following:

"74. (1) A corporation referred"

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-44, in Clause 76, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 48 with the following:

"76. (1) A corporation referred"

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-44, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 1 on page 49 with the following:

"(3) A corporation referred to"

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-44, in Clause 79, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 49 with the following:

"Property Act, the Governor in Council has the administra-"

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-44, in Clause 85, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 52 with the following:

"tration of the Governor in Council."

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of Transport

moved:

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-44, in Clause 69, be amended by ( a ) replacing line 9 on page 44 with the following:

"or undertakings referred to in subsection (1) or (1.1);" b ) replacing line 12 on page 44 with the following:

"undertakings referred to in subsection (1) or (1.1);" c ) replacing line 19 on page 44 with the following:

"the Authority;" d ) adding after line 22 on page 44 the following: h ) the imposition of additional obligations of financial management; and i ) where the agreement is with a body referred to in subsection (2), the application of any of the provisions of this Part relating to an agreement with a not-for-profit corporation or other person referred to in that subsection.''

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-44, in Clause 79, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 49 with the following:

"Property Act, the Minister or other member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada to whom federal real property is transferred under subsection 69(1) or (1.1) has the administration of the property."

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-44 be amended by adding after line 39 on page 71 the following:

"127.1 The Governor in Council may, by regulation, provide that any provision of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act and the regulations made under that Act, including provisions imposing punishment, apply to The Jacques-Cartier and Champlain Bridges Inc., with any modifications that the Governor in Council considers appropriate.

127.2 The Governor in Council may, by regulation, provide that any provision of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act and the regulations made under that Act, including provisions imposing punishment, apply to The Seaway International Bridge Corporation, Ltd., with any modifications that the Governor in Council considers appropriate."

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-44 be amended by adding after line 30 on page 84 the following:

"159.2 Schedule III to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

The Jacques-Cartier and Champlain Bridges Inc. Les Ponts Jacques-Cartier et Champlain Inc.

159.3 Schedule III to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

The Seaway International Bridge Corporation, Ltd. La Corporation du Pont international de la voie maritime, Ltée"

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of Transport

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-44 be amended by adding after line 4 on page 3 the following:

"2.1 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the application of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada."

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Comuzzi Liberal Thunder Bay—Nipigon, ON

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-44, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 3 with the following:

"that provides equal treatment for all ports and harbours within Canada that meet the criteria set out in subsection 6(1) and that provides Canada with the marine"

Motion No. 6

That Bill C- 44, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 3 with the following:

"vices are organized to satisfy the needs of users and the needs of the community in which a port or harbour is located and are available at reasonable cost"

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-44, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 3 with the following:

"from users and the community in which a port or harbour is located;"

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-44 be amended by adding after line 37, on page 3, the following:

"3.1 For the purpose of paragraph 3( g ), ``disposition'' means the offering of a port or harbour, first, to the province in which the port or harbour is located, second, to the municipality in which the port or harbour is located and, third, to any other bona fide purchaser who meets the criteria set out by the Minister.''

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-44, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 3 with the following:

"infrastructure that it needs and that offers effective support for the achievement of local, regional and national social and economic objectives and will"

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Comuzzi Liberal Thunder Bay—Nipigon, ON

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-44, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 3 with the following:

"or otherwise, of certain ports and harbours and port and harbour facilities; and"

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-44, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 6 to 8, on page 4 with the following:

""port" or "harbour" means the navigable waters under the jurisdiction of a port or harbour authority and the real property that the port or harbour authority manages,"

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-44, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 4 with the following:

""user", in respect of a port or harbour means a person"

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-44, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 14 to 16, on page 4 with the following:

"5. (1) This part applies to every port or harbour authority set out in the schedule and to every port or harbour authority for which letters patent of"

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-44, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 21 to 23, on page 4 with the following:

"schedule by adding to it the names of port or harbour authorities to which letters patent are issued or by removing from it the names of port or harbour"

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-44, in Clause 5.1, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 4 with the following:

"5.1 (1) A port or harbour authority is an agent of Her"

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-44, in Clause 5.1, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 4 with the following:

"(2) A wholly-owned subsidiary of a port or harbour"

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-44, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 3 to 5, on page 5 with the following:

"stated in them for a port or harbour authority without share capital for the purpose of operating a particular port or harbour in Canada if the minister is"

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-44 be amended by adding after line 23, on page 6, the following:

"7.1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act and subject to subsection (2), a harbour commission established pursuant to the Harbour Commissions Act, The Hamilton Harbour Commissioners' Act or The Toronto Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1911 may continue to be governed by the statute pursuant to which it was established if a ) it submits an application in writing to the Minister to that effect; and b ) the Minister is satisfied that the port operated by the harbour commission meets the conditions set out in subsection 6(1).

(2) For greater certainty, a harbour commission that continues, under subsection (1), to be governed by the statute under which it was established may, at any time, apply for a continuance under subsection 8(1)."

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-44, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 6 with the following:

"8. (1) If the Minister receives a request in writing from a harbour commission and is satisfied that the"

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-44, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 7 with the following:

"1911, as the case may be, ceases to apply only if the harbour commissions, as referred to, make application to the Minister to change their status from a harbour commission to a port authority."

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-44, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 11 with the following:

"Minister in consultation with users, as defined in section 4, selected"

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

moved:

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 172.