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.

Motions in amendment

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand the member wants to debate this entire bill one more time, not just in committee but he wants to debate it here again and again. He wants to debate the same issues that have been supported by all the stakeholders and all the members of this House, except for the NDP members because of course they do not support any initiatives of this government.

I do not make the rules. This debate is supposed to be on the amendment. The amendment is an “a”. It is a language amendment; it is a technical amendment. It does not have anything to do with what the member is speaking about. I would appreciate it if he would keep on topic and relevance.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I do not think there is any need. The hon. member is speaking in general to the bill and also to the absence of other amendments. I do not see anything out of order with what the hon. member is doing.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important. It really does go to the heart of the matter. How could a mistake like this on the “a”, the grammatical aspect, not be addressed? It was because we had moved so quickly with this bill and the process. It is connected. These things do not happen on their own. They happen because things have not been covered off to the fullest extent.

I was trying to illustrate with my one amendment here, and I have others, why it is so important to have that thorough discussion. If we could miss the letter “a” and actually change the language structure requirement necessary for the French translation, then what else could we miss?

I am going to present at least a little bit of discussion with regard to this amendment to illustrate the seriousness of this. What else is missing? What other mistakes are there?

The point I was trying to get across is that the amendment the government is making in this other bill by reducing the board of directors to a smaller component undermines democracy. It also undermines the ability for communities to be represented.

The board of directors is going to one of five to eleven members, down from seven to fourteen. That means that the government appointees have a higher level of support or a higher level of direction which they did not have before. That bias creates all kinds of problems.

The parliamentary secretary in trying to limit this debate, in his own words said he was supported by all other stakeholders. This is not true. That is not accurate. It is not factual.

I have a letter that was submitted and we heard testimony. There was a group whose testimony was limited on that too. It was interesting because the time that was spent on the bill was rather quick not only in terms of the presentations of the government, but also presentations from those who were in favour and those opposed. In fact, we did not hear from a single port authority on its own. An association presented to the committee. What we did have were some objectors.

The parliamentary secretary should know this because he received a letter. He is saying it is supported by all stakeholders. Adam Vaughan, a city councillor from Toronto talked about the problems he had with this bill in his own constituency. The Toronto Port Authority is in his constituency.

There is not only this unilateral exclusive component of people who are in favour of this bill; there are those who are opposed and for legitimate reasons. The NDP opposes the bill for a number of reasons. This is an opportunity lost. The bill, for example, could have addressed other matters and it could have addressed things that related to better public policy.

I know the Liberals and the Conservatives are even debating among themselves and trying to take credit for the bill. We think there could have been a better bill. That is why we had amendments in there that would address some of those things that we lost out on.

When we look at the glaring necessity for this amendment with respect to the letter “a”, what other things are missing in this bill?

The bill is very important. It deals with the financing of the port authorities. The member for Eglinton—Lawrence noted some of the important issues related to our ports. The ports are a historic element, which is recognized in the bill. If the letter “a” could be missed, it shows that there could have been more work done to improve the bill with other amendments. Hence we were very disappointed that we could not get those through.

I am a member of the committee and a member of the House of Commons. I do not think that the Liberal member or the Bloc member and those who want to address this are wasting taxpayers' money in doing so. I hope the other parties appreciate that it should not be blamed on the committee alone for missing this amendment. There is a responsibility for the government to produce legislation that is going to work and that actually has the proper elements to it to test the mettle of the legal system. When there is an error such as this one, the government has to take some responsibility.

It is wrong for the government to blame us for missing this in committee. Once again it highlights why the bill needs other amendments. The New Democrats have proposed amendments in order to make sure that the bill was more accountable, more open to the public and that it was going to be better for some of the smaller ports.

To the NDP this is an incomplete bill. We will be supporting the amendment, but not the bill itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to address some of the issues that have been raised in the intervention from the member for Windsor West. I do that because he made reference to some of the objections that came from my own city of Toronto.

Yes, three individuals came before the committee after it had heard all other interveners and stakeholders. Some of those stakeholders decided they would make a collective presentation as associations. We cannot fault them for having ironed out there difficulties among themselves in order to give a greater show of support. On that score, it is unfair for us to fault them for a strategy that resulted in what they thought would be good for them.

With respect to the city of Toronto, there was no position by the city of Toronto. There was an individual from city council, as the member has rightly noted, who objected because the port was in part in his ward, but other members from council who also share that port did not come to give a negative position and the city itself did not have a council position against it.

The other two individuals who objected used language, and I know the member will appreciate this because he is a lawyer, that came very close to the kind of language that had been found in court to be to their disadvantage, where they had agreed that they would not use actions that verged on the libellous. I pointed that out in committee. If we are going to have a constructive and instructive debate, then let us have one that is measured both in language and in substance. Those three were the only ones of all the people who appeared before the committee who had a negative view and it was limited to one port, not the entire system.

It is unfair for anyone to suggest that the committee did not work to bring all of the appropriate amendments forward. The committee, in its collective wisdom, said the amendments that had been brought forward were not conducive to the approval of this bill and did not add anything to the bill, nor did they remove anything that was negative.

If, in the appropriate translation a letter “a” was left out, we know already what else could have been left out because all of the amendments were already considered in committee, all of them.

We have done our work honestly. I do not want to take credit for things that are not ours but, quite frankly, if colleagues on both sides of the House have done the work and have agreed collectively that this is what it is, then I think the House has an obligation to accept the work of its own creation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where he got the idea that anyone is faulting the fact that the port authorities decided to go through their lobbyist element and their group association. I was simply pointing out that we did not hear from some of the smaller ports or all ports in this country about this particular bill. I think they would have added some valuable testimony and would have been something I would have appreciated.

It is not a question of blame or finding fault. I do not know where the hon. member gets that type of insinuation, because it certainly is not borne out in anything I said. What it identified, though, was the fact that we did not have some of the smaller ports and some of the more important ports in front of the committee. Maybe they would have actually found the amendment problem we have here today. Maybe they would have been the ones to point out our grammatical errors, I do not know.

There at least has to be some acknowledgement that they were not at committee and it was a strategy that the port authority association took. That is fine. It is fair. I am not saying it is a bad one, it is the one they chose, but it certainly did not provide an opportunity to hear from all ports across Canada. That, to me, was a loss for us.

Second, with regard to the situation, it was very obvious that the member had difficulty when Mr. Vaughan came to committee. It was really a bizarre situation because the parliamentary secretary for the Conservatives actually tried to give up his time to the Liberals so he could question him further. I have never seen that in the years that I have been in Parliament. I have never even heard of the Conservative Party trying to give up time to the Liberals.

Nobody has suggested that the city of Toronto had an official position. That has never been presented by me or in this debate. Second to that, he was identified as a city council representative.

To me, today's debate is important because it signifies the fact that this legislation has problems and I will stand by that.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. He does have some time left whenever we get back to this particular item.

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.

Canada Marine Act

[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--

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had some patience, but the reality is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, this debate is supposed to be on the amendment. The amendment is simply an error in the difference between the French and the English and it is on the insertion of the letter “a”.

I do not know that what the member is talking about has anything to do with the amendment. I would ask that she be relevant with respect to the amendment.

We have already debated this. I know the NDP has quite a few more speakers. They want to delay this some more and waste more taxpayer money, but I would like the debate to at least be on point.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I was here yesterday when the parliamentary secretary raised the same point of order after a number of members had already spoken to the bill and had been succinct in their comments and had focused their comments on the bill. In fact the debate did go on in that manner. I think it is disingenuous to raise the same point of order today.

In fact, the member for Victoria is speaking very concretely about this bill at report stage, as she has a right to do.

I take great offence to the member's comments, saying that we are wasting taxpayers' dollars. I would ask the question, what are we here for? We are here to debate legislation, to look at it in a fulsome way, to give it the full weight of opinion. This is not about dragging something out. It is about actually looking at legislation and being allowed to debate it.

I think it is very offensive for members to be told that doing our job is wasting taxpayers' money. We are here to actually represent the public interest and to represent those constituents.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow the debate to continue and the member to make her comments. I think she was doing very well in explaining her concerns that she has at report stage with this bill.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my clear understanding that it is within my right and in fact it is my responsibility to speak to what I think should be in a bill. That is what I was trying to address.

Perhaps my Conservative colleague objects to members presenting where they think the government is not acting in the public interest. That is what I was trying to do in my comments.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will hear the hon. parliamentary secretary and then that should be sufficient.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree. I do not make the rules in this place. All the parties make the rules. The reality is the rules are very clear. The rules are that in this particular debate we are supposed to be focusing on the proposed government amendment.

If the NDP members have an issue with the amendment, and with the letter “a” being inserted to make the French the same as the English, then they should deal with that. If they have an issue with the bill, they have already debated that and I would ask for a ruling on the basis of relevance of this particular line.