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.

Canada Marine Act

[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.

[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.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the parliamentary secretary's comments and I suspect his exhortation to the House for support will be favourably received in most quarters. I have two questions.

Throughout the member's remarks and in previous debate I have heard words like “efficiency, flexibility and facilitation”, all of which probably add up to potential increased productivity for our port authorities and ports, period, whether there is a port authority present or not. Forgive me if I am wrong on this, but I did not hear the word “productivity” mentioned very much. That may or may not have been the case.

Has the ministry done any kind of a workup on productivity and does it plan to do one? This is always an issue for us in Canada as the productivity of our country is compared to other economic competitors.

Second, the member talked about flexibility for our port authorities but, as most of us know around here, from time to time our port authorities, which are federal instruments, can go rogue. They can cease to be good partners with their municipal and provincial counterparts or they can fail to be accountable. I recall the Hamilton Harbour Commission at one point having to do some somewhat serious accounting at one of our committees.

These port authorities can go rogue, can cease to be good partners, and can be empire building little entities in their federal instruments. Can the parliamentary secretary assure the House that within this legislation there are adequate measures to assure accountability by the port authorities and to make sure that they are good partners with our provinces and municipalities?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member, first, that I like the word “productivity” as well. Indeed, if one looks deep into the speech that I just finished delivering, one would see that it allows flexibility in borrowing for more infrastructure to keep up with the times.

If they do not have the infrastructure necessary to meet the capacity, then they do not have the ability to hire more employees and meet the capacity. I would suggest, without doubt, that productivity would be increased as a result of this, which can only help Canada and Canada's economy.

I would also like to say that we never had one city, town, municipality or province speak out against this bill. In fact, there were ongoing consultations with many of the cities across Canada and I would be pleased, when I have an opportunity, to talk about some of those in particular.

However, I can assure the House that not only would there be productivity but some changes in the ability to use land in the consultation process necessary for municipalities and, indeed, there is wide-based support for these changes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities knows very well that one part of the bill will enable port authorities to apply to different infrastructure programs. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the port authorities that they should have more powers, but the problem is that we do not trust the Conservative government.

In this year's budget and in the fall economic statement, the government mentioned that there was $33 billion available in the infrastructure programs. Of this money, $1 billion was for the Pacific gateway, the Asia-Pacific corridor. It is already earmarked in the budgets. For the other port authorities in Quebec, such as Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City, Port Saguenay and Sept-Îles, that means if no money is allocated to the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor, they will now be able, with this bill, to apply to other infrastructure programs. But municipalities and other organizations also apply to the other infrastructure programs.

This means that if money is not set aside, which is what the Conservatives have done, there will be tension between the municipalities and port authorities applying to the same programs. The committee saw the tension between the Toronto Port Authority and the city of Toronto. It is an open war. I hope that the Conservatives do not want to create open wars between municipalities and port authorities. Now, apart from the Asia-Pacific corridor, the $1 billion set aside for Vancouver, there is nothing for the others in the budgets, nothing in the statement. This means nothing for this year. It also means that port authorities will be allowed to apply to the same programs as municipalities. That worries me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that a competitive environment first of all ensures accountability. This is the government that came forward with $33 billion, the largest investment in six years, for infrastructure across this country.

Now we are changing many pieces of legislation to encourage productivity across the country, to make it possible for ports to compete with their American counterparts by being able to borrow money.

I know the member is interested in Quebec specifically and I can assure him that this government is not going to look at any one region more than another. We are going to make sure that we are fair to all Canadians.

That is why we allocated $350 million to Quebec for climate change, so it can make its own investments to have a cleaner and better environment for Canadians. We also have an Ontario-Quebec gateway initiative that is moving forward and we are moving aggressively with that initiative.

We are taking steps to make a fair, transparent and more accountable system that is going to be for the benefit of all Canadians and be fair to all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary which is not unlike the concerns of my Bloc colleague who raised the issue of the changes in the financing arrangements for port authorities that the bill would allow and would also allow them to compete with municipalities for infrastructure funding.

We know that the Canadian Federation of Municipalities has said that there is a $123 billion deficit in infrastructure funding in Canada, far short of what the federal government has provided in infrastructure funding. Now it is opening that pot of money to competition from port authorities who have significant funding needs, it has to be said, all across the country. This is a serious problem with this legislation.

Also, there is the expanded borrowing powers generally of the port authorities. We know that they will now be able to collectively borrow billions of dollars. The NDP members are concerned about that because we were trying ensure that the Auditor General would have oversight over the port authorities given these expanded financial powers that are proposed in this legislation.

I would like to ask the member: What will the Conservative government be doing to ensure that there is appropriate funding in infrastructure to accommodate all of these extra and competing needs for infrastructure funding, and for the appropriate oversight of the Auditor General into the port authorities?

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

Mr. Speaker, the difference in this case between the Bloc and the NDP is that the Bloc heard the broad-based support from the provinces, from the cities, and from all Canadians, especially the port authorities. Indeed, the member's own city of Burnaby was a municipal group that was consulted. The cities of Nanaimo, North Vancouver, Port Alberni, Port Moody and Richmond were some of the cities that were consulted and I have a bigger list here.

The difference is that the Bloc heard the broad-based support and is supporting the bill. The NDP of course is delaying, is not helping this matter go forward, and is working in every way it possibly can to stop the bill.

That is not what we heard. We heard that all parties want the bill to move forward efficiently and effectively. I would ask the NDP to stop delaying this and to move forward to support this great initiative by the government.

[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.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all are impressed with the objectives of the legislation, in terms of rationalizing part of the most competitive infrastructure needed for a healthy economy, be it marine, air, managing, for example in the Montreal and in the Toronto areas, the various forces. For example, in Toronto there is a bit of a competition between the development of the waterfront and the future of the island airport and rationalizing those against transportation investments. I am sure it is similar in Montreal.

Would the bill facilitate the coordination and the cooperation among the various entities at the municipal level to achieve the objectives of the legislation, which is to have a rational and integrated response to transportation realities, in particular, along the St. Lawrence Seaway as it relates to the new gateways to the Pacific and to the Atlantic? Would the bill satisfy that kind of objective?

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

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is the bill does not specifically say that the municipal bodies will have a say. However, like any crown corporation, whether it be at the municipal, provincial or federal level, if it wants to move ahead with a certain project, I think it would want to get the cooperation of the municipal and provincial authorities to ensure everything was in sync and running properly.

The direction the Toronto Port Authority would be to sit down with the municipal levels of government to ensure that whatever expansion or projects it would undertake would be in full agreement with the municipal authorities. Montreal does not seem to have that problem, and it is way ahead.

Looking at some of the numbers, Vancouver and Halifax are way ahead and Toronto is barely in the top 10 in terms of port business. I recommend the member of Parliament from the Toronto area get his municipal counterparts to ensure they qualify for some of the infrastructure money that will be allocated to the port authorities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel that, as he said, this bill comes from a former Liberal bill. Once again, that worries me. The Liberal Party created the Asia-Pacific gateway, while the Conservatives invested the $1 billion. But, the Liberals did not consider another very important maritime development corridor—the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes corridor.

Once again, I see that the Liberals will support this bill, but I hope that they will listen to reason: we must subsequently provide the necessary funding to develop the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes corridor. I hope that they will not be supporting the Conservatives, who created a $1 billion envelope for the Asia-Pacific gateway.

It now seems that if all port authorities are allowed to set up infrastructure programs, other ports such as Montreal, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Sept-Îles and Saguenay would have to apply to programs, to other infrastructure programs that the cities themselves are applying to, because there is no funding set aside for the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes corridor.

I hope that the Liberals will not buy into the philosophy of developing the port of Vancouver but leaving nothing for the others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. This certainly shows once again the difference between the Bloc Québécois and the other parties of this House. The Bloc can do nothing but criticize. We saw last year what happened under the Liberal government and we are now seeing what is happening under the Conservative government.

By simply looking at the revenues of Quebec ports, namely, in Montreal, Quebec City and Trois-Rivières, the Liberals saw that they were the fastest growing ports in Canada from 2003 to 2006. That was thanks to investments made by the Liberal Party in the past. I hope to see this continue.

If there is a change in government, everyone can rest assured that the Liberal Party will take the needs of the province of Quebec into consideration, as it has always done.

As for the investments and this bill, it is important that the Port of Montreal be able to continue to grow in terms of increasing revenues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the whole question of the ability of port authorities to work with the local municipalities wherein they are located.

It is a very serious issue, certainly in the metro Vancouver area, where the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority has a significant number of municipalities and significant holdings. The development of the port is a serious development issue for those communities and the people who live in them. It is also a serious development issue for the neighbourhoods that abut the port authority's property, yet this legislation probably weakens the ability of municipalities to affect the decisions of the port authorities.

The legislation does not ensure significant representation from municipal elected officials or appointees of municipalities on the boards of the port authorities, for one example. It also does not ensure that land use plans developed by port authorities are approved by municipalities. We know it is a very serious problem for municipalities that have particularly large ports. At the same time, all municipalities recognize the economic importance of the port authority and the port to their communities, but they do not have the ability to work and direct influence over the land use plans of ports.

Should that be fixed in the legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why it takes 10 minutes to ask a question that should take 30 seconds.

As I stated, I was not present at the hearings, but I did pull out the witness list. If we look at the list, the cities of Burnaby, Nanaimo, North Vancouver, Port Alberni, Port Moodie, West Vancouver and Vancouver regional district, and I can keep going on, are all unanimously in favour of the legislation.

If there is a problem at the municipal level, I think the provincial and federal authorities can all come together. If we can use the example at present in Montreal, where all three levels of government are working in harmony and together, the legislation addresses some of those issues.

We should adopt the legislation and move forward so we can address the next challenges the economy faces, which is one of productivity.

[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, I said it in my speech. Had we not had the election, this bill would have been passed and gone forward. The Conservatives have to stop blaming the opposition for not passing bills. This is a slam dunk. The government has the consent of our side of the House and with Conservative members, the bill can be passed rather quickly.

The government has to get on with its vision and move on to bigger and better things. The bill should have been adopted ages ago. The Conservatives should be tabling new bills addressing the challenges that we will be facing in 2008 and not 2004.

Let us get going and pass the bill.

[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.

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.

[The Acting Speaker, 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.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad there was a break between the presentation of my colleague's overview of the amendments to the Canada Marine Act and the proposals that were put forward in the Canada Transportation Act because his overview was excellent. It was a comprehensive analysis of the mechanisms to achieve the objectives of the Pacific and Atlantic gateways but he focused on the central gateway. I say that the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence gateway is absolutely pivotal to achieving the objectives in a national transportation strategy that will allow for Canada to take its place within a competitive global economy.

The government passed a new national policy framework for strategic gateways and trade corridors. Does my Bloc colleague believe, according to his analysis, that this act would achieve the objectives in that national policy and, if the instruments are in the act and the policy, would make Canada and its marine capacity more competitive on a global basis?

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

Mr. Speaker, you have understood—and my colleague has clearly understood—that without monetary support, this bill will enable port authorities to increase their debt carrying capacity. They will be able to borrow, but there is a limit. They were already limited by the current legislation, which is why they asked to increase their debt capacity. Going into debt is not always the answer, and that is why the port authorities asked to be able to take advantage of infrastructure programs.

What my colleague should know is that when the Liberals were in power, they established the Pacific gateway. The Conservatives have allocated an additional $1 billion specifically for the Pacific gateway. This means that there is currently no money allocated for the other gateways, including the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor.

The most recent budget, which the Liberals supported implicitly, does not contain any money for this. We will have to wait for next year's budget to see whether there will be any new money for the ports along the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes. If not, they will have to apply for funding from existing infrastructure programs, which are also available to cities. The ports will, therefore, be competing directly with the cities. This was not the idea. The idea is to develop these gateways.

The fact is that since 1980, marine traffic—at least, the number of tonnes shipped—has declined from 130 million tonnes to 105 million tonnes in the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor. The seaway was built and the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor was developed for faster access from Europe directly to the central United States, to serve a potential 90 million people.

The Liberal government, supported now by the Conservatives, did not invest in development. That is why goods traffic in the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor has decreased since 1980, while traffic on the Mississippi has increased and international shipping has gone up by 600%. Once again, when it came to developing the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor, both the Liberal and Conservative governments—pardon the expression—missed the boat.

We hope that the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor will get some funding. If there is no additional funding, this bill will not promote economic development.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say Sat Sri Akal to all my Sikh friends as they celebrate Vaisakhi today. I wish them all the best.

I noticed my friend had some comments in relation to the initiatives of this government. He may have forgotten this, since it was in our first ever budget, but $2.1 billion was in that budget for the gateway and border fund to establish, in this particular case, initiatives in areas across this country, including the Quebec-Ontario continental corridor, which is very important to this country and includes the St. Lawrence.

As most members know, last year this government signed two MOUs, one with Quebec and one with the province of Ontario. We are all moving forward with great initiatives there and the member knows that.

The member also knows that this bill would accomplish great things for the people of Quebec, Ontario, Atlantic Canada, western Canada and British Columbia. Although the Bloc continues to talk about what it will do, the truth is, as we all know, it can never do anything. It is this Conservative government and members of the Conservative Party from Quebec who are doing the job and getting positive results for the people of Quebec.

I would like to know whether the member will be supporting the bill because, as he knows, we consulted with the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Port of Montreal and with many other organizations and never received any negative comments on this particular bill. Will he be supporting it or not?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to tell the parliamentary secretary that the Bloc Québécois is the only party responsible for defending the interests of Quebeckers. That is why, since 1993, we have held the majority of Quebec seats in this House and we continue to be the conscience of Quebeckers.

That is why, as members responsible for Quebec, we will support this bill. However, we would caution the Conservative Party and all Conservative members from Quebec. In the last budget, yet again, they supported the building Canada program, a $33 billion program. This includes $1 billion for the Pacific gateway, and nothing for the other gateways. So the parliamentary secretary can very well do what he wants and tell us that he is in talks with Quebec and with the various governments to develop a strategy. It is true, except that, if he does not add money dedicated to the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor, this would mean that the ports of Montréal, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City, Sept-Îles and Port Saguenay will have to apply to the other infrastructure programs, the other parts of the building Canada program, which are in direct competition with municipalities. That is the reality.

Once again, the Conservative Party favours Canada's west over the east. That is their reality, and that is why I am proud to be a member from Quebec, to rise in this House and to tell these Conservative members to stop thinking only of western Canada and to think about Quebec. This is what a real member from Quebec does.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concerns raised by the member in the debate this afternoon.

The changes in the financial arrangements that are made in the legislation allow port authorities to borrow more money and allow them to compete with municipalities for infrastructure funding as opposed to receiving allocations from the federal government. Given the fact that they will now be able to borrow collectively billions of dollars, does the member believe that the Auditor General of Canada should have oversight? Should there be some accountability mechanism through the Auditor General for the port authorities as has been recommended by the NDP in the ongoing debate on this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling my hon. colleague that I hope he paid attention to the presentation made by his party in committee. Some NDP amendments were out of order, including the amendment concerning the Auditor General. That has been one of the important debates in this House. The Conservative Party introduced this bill. It did so in a rather tightly-controlled way, so it would be impossible to integrate this measure, which could be positive. However, the proposed amendment still had to be deemed lawfully in order before the committee, but it was rejected by the committee's legal advisers.

As for the rest, my position with respect to the NDP is always a little ambivalent. Indeed, they were asking that all investment plans concerning ports be subject to municipal approval. That was their objective. That is what they wanted throughout the debate and the party still maintains its position concerning the municipalities. That is completely unacceptable. The municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction. They do not fall under federal jurisdiction. To submit a federal authority to municipal management goes completely against the Constitution of Canada. It is their Constitution. We are bound by the Constitution and must live with it.

What the NDP proposed, in a number of measures aimed at making port authorities subject to municipalities, was completely unconstitutional. We must be careful. They are the ones who defend the Constitution of Canada. The NDP is probably the most centralist party, and when it goes against the Constitution, we are always a little surprised.

[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, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. Earlier during routine proceedings, the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam presented a petition, but she had given me notice that she had two to present. I cut her off in an untimely way. I wonder if I could have consent from the House so that she could present her second petition.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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.

[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.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

We know the Liberals are in favour of it. We know the Bloc is in favour of it. We know the Conservatives are in favour of it. Ten per cent of the House is objecting to it: the NDP.

[An hon. member]

We are here to do our job and debate it.

[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?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I must advise the hon. parliamentary secretary that even during his presentation I sensed that there was not unanimous consent, so we will focus on the question he asked and ask the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas to reply to the question. He might want to clarify whether in fact there is unanimous consent for the motion to be moved by the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think you have already ruled on whether you heard unanimous consent or not. I would certainly defer to your expertise. That is your job to make that determination, not mine, and you have already done that, so there is no need to go back to that.

I am interested in what the parliamentary secretary had to say. We are going to do our job in this corner of the House and we are going to raise our concerns. We are not going to be put off that track because we do believe that we have raised serious issues and I can continue to do that.

I thought two things were notable about the commentary from his recent intervention. He said that the government put more money into infrastructure than any government in 60 years. That may well be true, but the reality is that it is not nearly enough.

The FCM, as I have pointed out, has said that there is a $123 billion infrastructure deficit and that the Conservatives have not even approached the very basic need in that regard.

There is a huge problem there. We have seen that the Conservatives have chosen to gut the physical capacity of our government, so that we cannot possibly meet those kinds of needs.

The government has chosen to give big tax breaks to large profitable corporations, instead of seeing to the needs of Canadian communities and their infrastructure needs. I do not think this serves us particularly well. I do not think it is anything to be particularly proud of.

There might be some humility in the ability of not being able to meet the infrastructure needs of Canadians and now we are setting up another major demand on that infrastructure funding by allowing the ports to compete with municipalities for that funding. It does not bode well for the needs of our communities.

He also said that the government had taken great pains to ensure cooperation between port authorities and municipalities, and that the port authority and board members were going to be told that they should operate in the best interests of those municipalities.

The reality is that the people elected to act in the best interests of those municipalities are municipal councillors, the members of city council, the local mayors. It is those people who have a direct mandate from the people of their communities to represent those interests. We believe that they should be very directly involved in the governance of port authorities. Because of that electoral mandate that they have from the people of their communities, they should be involved in that process.

We believe it should not be up to the goodwill of those people who are appointed to the boards of port authorities, but that it should be directly related to the mandates given by people in local elections to municipal elected officials.

That is a very important point I think that needs to be made in all of this and it is a deficiency of the legislation that we are debating today.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has taken, and rightly so, quite a bit of his time to talk about the intersecting set of interests between the port authority and the municipality in Toronto. For example, there is a huge difference of opinion about the island airport as a niche part of the infrastructure. There is a difference between the port authority's attitude toward that and that of the municipal council.

I think this House would agree that those kinds of issues have to result in some sort of a compromise, one that serves the needs of the city. One also must recognize that there is a national strategy with respect to air transportation and there are also strategies with respect to marine. We are talking about marine here.

My question is, would perhaps the approach taken for the airport's authority and how it is appointed be somewhat of a model that might be applicable here, where the municipal council has an opportunity to appoint and put forward appointees that may or may not be accepted by the authority?

They are nominees that are considered for their background of experience from municipal matters and so on. In some cases they may be past members of council and so on, but at least they have a perspective.

Would the member wish to comment with respect to that kind of an approach? Would it be possible, when the national policy framework for strategic gateways is debated, to propose an amendment through that window with respect to changing the appointments process for port authorities?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member raised the question of the Toronto Island Airport because that has been a significant irritant for the city of Toronto and the local port authority. It is a specific example of the kinds of issues that arise when port authorities have responsibility for non-marine uses, and airports are a non-marine use, as far as I could determine. There are sea planes, I suppose, but I do not think the Toronto Island Airport deals in sea planes either.

That is a very pertinent example of the kinds of problems that we see arise when port authorities do not have to divest themselves of non-marine uses of their lands or developments. That would be a very important example to resolve because we know that the city of Toronto has had a very different perspective than the port authority.

Also, city councillors in Toronto have had some very serious conflicts with the port authority when it comes to how port authority lands will be developed. I know city councillor Adam Vaughan in Toronto has pointed out on a number of occasions the kinds of run-ins he has had on what would seem to be very simple development issues that he has not been able to resolve in a friendly or cooperative way with the port authority. It sometimes has meant that he has ended up in court because of those kinds of measures.

Those are the kinds of things, when we are looking at legislation about port authorities, that we should be seeking to ensure are resolved. That kind of cooperation is part of the mandate in the legislation. Port authorities need to provide that kind of cooperation and their non-marine uses are governed by municipal authorities, the people who are elected by the residents of those communities.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if could inquire as to how much time is available for debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for York South—Weston has 20 minutes for debate and then 10 minutes for questions and comments, of which I hope there will be several.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After I am finished speaking, you may change your mind.

I welcome the opportunity to talk about this particular piece of legislation, particularly with respect to the most recent commentaries made and concerns raised by the member from the Bloc and the member from the New Democratic Party. It behooves us just for a moment to reflect on what has actually happened with respect to marine issues and so on.

Recently, many members of the House were invited to the Corporation of Mid St. Lawrence Pilots where a tape was presented which outlined some of the very up-to-date and extremely important issues related to safety that the pilots associations are having to contend with. The whole issue with respect to security in today's modern milieu has been alluded to by other speakers.

The pilots also talked about the legislative approach that is now challenging us to match a global competitive economy with the infrastructure we have, both legislatively and with the ability to meet our safety responsibilities, and the whole issue with respect to environmental spillage and all those things.

The pilots were really at the forefront of preparing this tape just to remind us that this ancient marine activity, which is relatively modern in terms of Canada's geography, has to be updated commensurate with the kinds of issues that have evolved. So, we really are looking at legislation that is not that old.

As a matter of fact, the marine act of 1998 had up-to-date legislative tools within it that made it much more relevant. It also indicated that the Minister of Transport should come back with respect to a review process, and that is what we are all about here today.

We are looking at that process of review. We are trying to match the recommendations that came out of that process as a result of, as I said, a very comprehensive activity by the committee. I was not a member of that committee but I certainly have been following this issue. We are looking at the review and we are trying to determine whether that matches the challenges that have been outlined.

There seems to be a very broad consensus from coast to coast to coast that the amendments that have been brought forward in updating the marine act are in keeping with the concerns that have been raised to see our marine infrastructure as an extremely effective tool in meeting our globally competitive objectives.

The review also concentrated on two areas with respect to the recommendations. It talked about making the marine sector, in particular, the port authority, more financially flexible in order to make decisions quickly that are in the interest of the port authority in its setting. My colleague from Burnaby has indicated, and certainly questions have been raised, that perspective may have applicability in Burnaby but it has different applicability in Toronto.

I would like to make it very clear that with respect to the marine sector's economic flexibility there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to port authorities from coast to coast to coast.

The second recommendation alluded to the construction of a new and flexible federal funding approach for infrastructure. This is where some points of contention have come up.

The Bloc member indicated that he was not satisfied that allocations with respect to the central gateway, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence gateway, were quantitively enough to justify the seaway improvements that are necessary. He talked about the ability to change the seaway in terms of Montreal's capacity to accommodate cruise ships.

It has been a long time since cruise ships have been seen in Toronto but the pilots association has indicated that larger tankers, if not cruise ships, are precluded from utilizing the seaway. The capacity is much greater in terms of the size of those tankers and cargo ships than they were in the early nineties.

Huge investments are not only important from a Bloc perspective in Montreal but they have applicability throughout the seaway into the Great Lakes and cities that are interested in seeing the infrastructure improve.

The parliamentary secretary said that there was more money available, such as the $2.1 billion with respect to the Quebec-Ontario continental boundary, and that investments could come from that fund.

The purpose of this discussion is not to get into whether certain ports will benefit under the Marine Act. It is more about whether there is a national strategy that port authorities, regardless of where they are, can lock into, whether it is in Burnaby, in the most westerly part of our Pacific gateway, or in ports within the Atlantic gateway or Pacific gateway.

It is unfortunate that there has not been much discussion on the national strategy report, which is supposed to come after the bill has been approved. It seems that when we talk about municipalities and their relationship with port authorities, whether it is in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or wherever, it is inherent that the process be one of cooperation, of partnership and of being developed around principles. Without those principles we are really talking about an ad hoc gateway approach, an ad hoc strategy with respect to the central St. Lawrence-Great Lakes gateway, and that the parts do not integrate.

Having a national strategy means that we should be backfilling on planning principles, but someone, somewhere, with some jurisdiction needs to bring them forward. It would enable those who are responsible for implementing a national strategy based on those principles to say in Toronto, when it comes to marine improvements and infrastructure, that this is how the national strategy is being applied right across the country and that whatever program is funding that part of that strategy it will be made by the local port authorities and integrated into the national plan.

We do not have that process yet in place but the objectives of this act is for that to happen. We need to take it on a certain degree of faith that during that next part of the process that kind of thinking will prevail. Without it, we again will not have an integrated marine plan and we will not achieve the objectives of any of the gateway strategies, the Atlantic or Pacific gateways, or how it relates to the borders and the marine activity plays.

Those were the issues raised through questioning and the government and the minister should take note of that. We can be more assured that the amendments being put forward would facilitate the achievement of a globally competitive marine activity that would deal with the issues of concern to people, such as marine safety as it relates to spills and marine activity as it relates to terrorist activity, and those have not really been addressed in this discussion.

I want to make a comment from a Toronto perspective because I was involved when the local airports authority was established. If we do not have a total understanding and a corporate memory, we sometimes keep making the same mistakes. When the local airports authority was established in the greater Toronto area, it was always the intent that the island airport would be under the umbrella of the airport authority. I agree with the member when he says that we should not be mixing port activity with air activity. If the Toronto island airport had been subsumed under the umbrella of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, decisions would have been made as it relates to the economic activity that air travel, the niche value of the airport, and that would have been defended by the airports authority.

What is happening is that the airports issue has been politicized. Activity has been brought into it from the local community. It is literally a legislative free-for-all with the city taking one position, the airports authority not taking any position and it is a matter of airports. I stress that it was an airports authority in the early nineties that had been established. No one in Toronto can argue that there has not been a tremendous achievement through the airports authority with the improvements that have been made at Pearson and so on and so forth.

I do not mean to digress but since that issue has come up it is just a case example with respect to the ongoing national interest being bolstered and underpinned by an organization, be it local in nature, because most of the people who will be on the ports authority, whether it is in Toronto, Burnaby or Montreal, will be local people. They will be representatives with expertise and so on. However, there will always be that conflict if there is no national plan with principles that are outlined and with the role of the local planning and economic development regime at least intersecting that national plan. Without that plan, there will be no sense of accountability, either in principle or in the decisions, and the satisfaction and faith in the decisions that are brought forward.

I do not mean to mix my analogies but that is no way to build a railroad. One needs to have a sense of what the destination is, how the various lines of communications are channeled together to develop a consensus and then move ahead on the national plan.

This legislation, though, does take a step in that direction and, from my own personal perspective, it is very worthy of support. However, a lighter-handed approach at some subsequent point needs to be taken with respect to the appointment of members to the ports authorities.

In Toronto, there are a number of organizations, such as the Toronto Economic Development Corporation, which attempted to bring in representation from the ports authority and other organizations, the downtown business group. Representation is coming in from labour that feeds into the Economic Development Corporation's representations and deliberations.

That would be the approach that should be taken with respect to ports, particularly in urban areas. Where people have demonstrated some degree of municipal experience and commitment, who are of equal importance as those who have been involved in other aspects of economic activity, whether they come from the trades, business equally, both large and small, so too should there be a representation of people who have a sense of the planning dynamic, the needs of the local city and how those decisions of the ports authority factor in to achieving that.

Municipalities these days try to be as inclusive as they can and as transparent and public as they possibly can be. That is the whole nature of municipal government. It is very difficult when there are nationally established institutions that have grafted on to what should be a happy host but, because there is some basic lack of understanding, both in the qualifications and backgrounds of the people who are sitting on the boards of the ports authority in this case, do not even mention the legislative mandate that the ports authority has with respect to its national character. One can appreciate that one is sewing the seeds of conflict if there is not some legislation or at least some principles that are established with respect to the backgrounds of the people who sit on the boards of the ports authority.

I would highly recommend that two things happen. First, when we have the discussion on the national strategy, that these kinds of issues get a fulsome debate. The development of a national strategy requires that the principles, be they the planning or the objectives, be fully debated so that the port authorities, no matter where they are, are locking into those principles and building a national marine infrastructure that will serve our country in a globally competitive environment.

Second, where the issues related to cities are concerned, more consideration should be given to the representation on the port authorities to those who have municipal experience and have been involved in municipal planning exercises with respect to an official plan, a harbour plan or whatever it is. That then would facilitate the bumping and nudging of the national strategy into place right across the country.

The government would be well advised, during this next part of the process, to look at those kinds of issues. At the end of it, the objectives of this act will be more likely achieved. That is what both sides of the House are attempting to cause to happen. We not only want a strategic alignment of our corridors and an investment in them but in order to integrate them we need to set out the objectives of a national strategy so we can then see Canada with a new legacy of economic prosperity in a globally competitive world for decades to come.

[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?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that I did not try to extrapolate from the Toronto issue any argument that the bill should not be supported. I used it to illustrate that, in the larger public interest, there were reasons why, both systemically and in developing principles, we should find some way to get around those kinds of issues that exist in Toronto.

The member has answered the question by providing the example with respect to using marine technology and our marine infrastructure for a green approach to this subset of the industry. It is a very good example.

We dwell on the issues related to oil spills and pollution with respect to the industry. We have also talked about the difficulty of containers with respect to the importation of possible terrorist activity. We have to be careful on that.

However, we have a tendency not to talk about the high value added approach that we can use through the industry. Those who have been on cruises have experienced this: ships sit there and the air pollution is unbelievable. Yes, this should be one of the principles of the national strategy. It should be to use the marine sector to get that high value added improvement through the use of new technologies and to use those as, pardon the expression, pilots that would place Canada's marine activity on a best practice basis internationally.

The member has raised a very good example of what the opportunities are in the sector. Yes, it is for those reasons we should move ahead. It is an example of where the port authority has seen a problem. It has responded to that problem and it needs now to enter into a partnership. The program funding at the national level will provide that opportunity.

I hope that answers the question. It gives a sense of moving in the right direction in this sector. We should be moving equally in that kind of a direction with respect to air quality through airlines. There is a huge concern, especially in the vicinity of large airports, with respect to that kind of pollution. It is all moving in the same direction for a legacy of a higher quality of life. The member has given a good example.

[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.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence did not sit on the local council.

More germane to the question is the competition that may start to come about in cities accessing gateway funding. The member put forward a legitimate question. During the development of a national strategy, whether it is rail or road or marine, the Great Lakes gateway is all part of it. There cannot be one without the other.

Funding for the Pacific gateway should be equally available for improvements to the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes portion of the national marine infrastructure funding.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor for 20 minutes of which 8 minutes are today.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, 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.

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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of other people who might wish to comment on the lucid approach that my colleague from Yukon employed when speaking to this particular bill, I will ask him to elaborate a little bit, if he would not mind, on this perception that there is one limited pot and that everything is a zero sum game.

I know this is a position that the NDP has verbalized on many an occasion, but given that municipalities are, shall I say in the main, corporate entities, and as corporate entities, that have a particular jurisdiction and authority that derives from the people's trust, they access infrastructure funds in order to maintain a particular level of service and goods, et cetera, that are important for the maintenance of a good, lively, commercial enterprise. Does he not see that this might be equally valid for another corporation, another corporate entity, an authority whose authority is derived through legislation, and that this authority, in order to maintain its livelihood and its commercial viability, would also have access to some of those public funds that are designed to maintain the infrastructure of commercial viability everywhere around the country?

If he were to agree with me, and I am obviously waiting with bated anticipation that he would, would he not think then that this argument that is proposed often by the NDP actually takes us off the mark and distracts us from what we are trying to accomplish, and that is to ensure that entities like port authorities, which he has so eloquently advanced as being physically and financially viable in order to meet the challenges of the new commerce of tomorrow? I wonder what his thoughts might be.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Just before I answer the question, Mr. Speaker, I was reminded of an item I did not have time to get in, in my 20 minutes, which dealt with another type of investment important for ports and it is the security investment. We need to do much better monitoring. I know we are doing great work on that, but the ports actually need the money to put in sophisticated equipment, for instance, for scanning containers, et cetera.

In regard to the member's point, I am not sure we have a disagreement because I was basically saying that both entities need the funds: the ports and the municipalities. I am not sure which NDP argument he was referring to because I am not aware of that, but in relation to the ports, I definitely think they need funds for infrastructure and security through these types of investments.

However, when we started all these infrastructure funds, our first need was for the municipalities. I do not treat the municipalities as a corporation. Municipalities are an order of government. There are four orders of government in Canada, and hon. members will notice I am not saying levels of government: federal, provincial and territorial, first nations and municipal. These four orders of government are not stakeholders. They are not interest groups. They are governments. Each government has its needs in balancing its responsibility, as it says in the Constitution of Canada, to provide equal services to Canadians across the country, wherever they are.

The needs of the municipality, as a government, are very important. That is why we came up with that amount of money, which has now been basically morphed into the $33 billion building Canada fund.

I am saying that we should not detract from the amount that municipalities were getting, unless the municipality chooses that a port authority is one of its priorities and that is where it would like its particular money to go. In our area, two waterfronts were very important investments. If that is an investment of a municipality, I have no problem with making a port eligible.

Over the years moneys were promised to municipalities through infrastructure programs: strategic infrastructure, rural infrastructure, border infrastructure, the gas tax rebate, and the GST rebate. However, I do not want to see the moneys needed by municipalities for huge infrastructure all of a sudden develop new terms and conditions, and all of a sudden they have a new player in the field that is eligible for the money, without adding to the pot of money.

That is the point I was trying to make. I hope that is not in conflict with the point that our critic was trying to make because he and I, as I think, we both said that in our speeches. We are big supporters of ports. There are needs for the modernization of ports and there are also needs for increased investments in ports.

The borrowing provisions of the bill will help ports actually invest in themselves. Once they are more efficient, they will have more revenues to help them be self-sufficient in order to pay for these investments.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with only one thing my friend has brought before us today and that is everything she said. I sat on the committee. I heard every meeting. I heard every witness. With respect, I saw the member show up for a couple of photo ops for five or ten minutes during one committee meeting. I do not remember her being there at any other opportunity to listen to evidence.

In fact, we actually received unanimous support from the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, the Shipping Federation of Canada and the Chamber of Marine Commerce for these positive changes that we have brought forward to this act.

In response to her comments on infrastructure funding, I should note that during the period of time the Liberals were in office for 13 years they spent approximately $1.3 billion per year on infrastructure in Canada. The Conservative government has spent over $5 billion per year, so there is enough money from this federal government going into provincial coffers to help with what we now have as a deficit in this country.

I have a question for the member. We did have an opportunity to consult with the City of Burnaby, the City of Nanaimo, North Vancouver, Port Alberni, Port Moody, Richmond, the City of Vancouver and the districts of North Vancouver and West Vancouver, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, of which the City of Toronto is a member, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Halifax Regional Municipality, the Metropolitan Halifax Chamber of Commerce, the Toronto Harbourfront Community Association, and the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council. They were all consulted.

We never had one city come forward and speak against this bill, not one, so I am wondering what channel the member is on. Quite frankly, I do not understand it. Without the ports being a great and integral part of this country, we will not have the economic prosperity that we need in this country to continue during this economic global slowdown.

I am wondering what channel she is on and if she could be more specific. If she has some evidence of a city opposing this bill, then I ask her to bring it forward. I would like to see her table that because we have not heard it and we have been talking about this for a long time. I know that member just wants to come forward for the photo ops on committee, but we have not heard this, so if she is going to speak about a bill, then maybe she could be accurate in her representations, because she is not at this stage.

[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--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on a point of order, which I hope is a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, that particular councillor made it very clear he did not represent the city. I would hate to see the member make misrepresentations in the House and it not be dealt with. That is a point of order.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for the point of order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

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

Mr. Speaker, one, I listened courteously to what I can only describe was a diatribe against all members of Parliament who represent the city of Toronto but are not of the member's stripe.

Two, there was a series of misrepresentations about what actually transpired. The invitation was sent out to everyone who appeared before the committee. The parliamentary secretary speaks for the government side and mentioned everybody who attended.

Of the people who were there and sided with the member, one of them was a local councillor who in fact said, “I am coming here as an individual. I don't represent the city of Toronto. I represent my own views”. The other two individuals who came forward were, as the member has described them, friends of hers, who are part of Community Air and who proceeded to issue forth the same type of venom that the member has indicated a capacity to engage in. It was the kind of venom that prompted a court to order them to apologize or submit to a $3 million lawsuit. I do not have to read from this document but I can table it. A news item on CBC pointed out that Community Air was compelled not only to apologize but to promise to cease and desist in the kind of language they were using about the port authority. Representatives of Community Air came before the committee and engaged in exactly the same thing.

I would like to know whether the member thinks that all legislation in this House needs to address singly and exclusively the issues of her former ward, or whether, when we talk about marine and port policy for all of Canada, we are going to engage in policy that applies to all Canadians. Does she think if it does not have something to do with Trinity—Spadina then it is not Canadian, if it does not have to do with her ward then it is not legitimate, and if it does not emanate from the former harbour commission, which was identified as one of the most corrupt agencies ever, then it is not legitimate?

As a former councillor in Toronto, would she cease and desist--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The hon. member, I am sure, would like to hear from the other hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, the waterfront in Toronto includes lands that are much bigger than my riding. I wish I represented all of it. However, there are neighbourhoods all along the waterfront that have said no to this port authority. They have said no together with the mayor, the councillors and city council. No twisting of facts occurred here.

If members of Parliament are convinced that they are right, why would they be afraid of actually going to some local municipalities like the city of Toronto and conducting hearings to see what kind of witnesses would appear? They are too afraid to listen to citizens. They want to do it in a very quick manner, rush the bill through, not listen to citizens all across the waterfront, and not hear from citizens at all. That is why this bill is being fast tracked and it is a disgrace.

[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.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of the member bill. I appreciate the fact that he has a certain point of view and he believes this is the way to go. I sense from his comments, however, that if one does not agree with this, somehow one is not holding the public interest as high as it should be.

I question him on some of the points been put forward, who I agree with in many ways, that this leaves the public open and vulnerable in a way that it should not. The point is specifically on those from the municipal side of the equation.

I know he has worked with colleagues from Toronto and I am sure he has spoken with colleagues from across the country about municipalities holding the bag often. As parliamentarians, it is our role to ensure that this does not happen and that the public interest is protected at all levels of government, but particularly at the municipal level. As he knows, the municipal level right now is certainly feeling the pinch in infrastructure.

Notwithstanding the member has a point of view and supports the bill, does he not see the point that has been raised by critics of the bill, that there needs to be more done to ensure those at the local level are not left holding the bag literally and that it is a fair point of view, which should be given more consideration than it has?

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

Mr. Speaker, I started off by saying I respect everybody's point of view. We are in a political environment. Views can be supported by data or not, but they are points of view and as valid as the next ones.

I wanted to make a distinction between that and a position that emanates from someone who has worked to do something. I can like a house. I can have a view that it might be an ugly building or a good building, but if I am the one who put it together, I can speak about its structural viability and its utility. I can talk mechanically about whether it is something that deserves the appreciation of those who are engaged in the business of that construction.

I do not hold it against anyone to have a different point of view. However, in terms of governance, I did not think there was great merit in cascading a series of criticisms upon a bill that emanated from a perception that municipalities: (a) would not be represented on port authorities; and (b) would be left, if I might quote the member, “holding the bag” because funds would be removed from one area and put into this area. I do not think either one of them are substantive. I took pains to point out that all these port authorities already had representatives from the municipal area. Therefore, that should be taken as a consideration.

In terms of accessing government funds made available for infrastructure and other programs, I do not think they are mutually exclusive. If someone thinks the federal government should put more funds into programs, that the provincial governments ought to put more funds into building infrastructure, nobody is depriving them of an opportunity to make that case down the road. Whether it is in this program or another program, there is nothing exclusive about these types of programs or the government's disposition to expend in those areas.

In fact, it is probably what distinguishes one party from another, whether one thinks that a government should be more hands off, more stand back, more laissez-faire, to use a more classical term, or whether it should be much more strategic and interventionist. That is what distinguishes one group of elected members from another.

From my perspective, we would do wanton damage if we did not continue to build. As someone said, “If you build, they will come”. That might be true. All I know is if we do not build, they will not come. If we do not pass this bill, it will not happen.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I flew in from the island airport. I have started to change my flying patterns from Pearson to the island airport because, frankly, it is worth an hour to me each time. I am not comparing myself to a lot of other colleagues who have literally hours and hours of flying but an hour is not insignificant in terms of comparison. Pearson and the island airport are equal distance for me from my home.

One of the great ports in this country is Vancouver. It is not as if there are not other big ports in the country but Vancouver has a wonderful mix of commercial, residential and industrial and they seem to all get along reasonably well. I am not intimate with the political workings of the port of Vancouver but, as an occasional visitor to Vancouver, it does seem to work.

I cannot say the same is necessarily true of Toronto. Toronto, particularly at the island airport, is undergoing, what I consider to be, a huge case of NIMBYism, particularly in the riding of Trinity—Spadina, which the member for Trinity--Spadina just articulated and presented it as the views of the people of Toronto.

I wonder whether the hon. member would comment on how the bill might impact on that particular situation but, generally, as to this so-called loss of municipal representation on the port authorities.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I live in the city but I live closer to the Pearson airport. Not many people have spoken about the quality of air around where I come from, especially when planes start descending. He knows that any planes approaching the Toronto city airport are actually doing it from over the water.

However, I want to stay true to what I said earlier on, which is that people's views all need to be respected. The city of Toronto, or the GTA that is served by the Toronto city island airport, has about 5.5 million people. The number of people who have complained about the island airport are numbered in the thousands, not even the tens of thousands.

The member is probably right when he says that it is okay to have this airport as long as it is not in his backyard. When I moved to Toronto I knew the airport was there but it was okay. I bought where I did because it was a great location. However, right now I do not think I want to be here. I am hoping the city, the province or the federal government will put up barriers so my property will be evaluated upward. That is what happens around virtually all ports.

However, that takes away from the argument that the member asked me to comment on. He asked whether municipal concerns were represented on these port authorities and, in particular, on the Port Authority of Toronto. The answer is, yes. The city of Toronto gets to put forward names that it wants represented on that port authority so that, like all other port authorities, the local community has its say, there is no steamroller going over issues that are purely local and all development plans are vetted through the cities, through the provinces and through any other conservation authorities that might be in the area and that all the appropriate environmental assessments are done.

In other words, they need to fit into a municipal plan. That happens. It is logical to put in a good governance structure that takes that into consideration. We do it by having people who are associated with municipalities, with the provinces, with the federal government and, I dare say, even with the conservation authorities. That has been done already and it is seen in this legislation.

Just to close, the Toronto Port Authority is listed, as I indicated, on its revenues as a port, exclusive of all other revenues associated with the Toronto city centre airport. It is functioning as a marine port and all other considerations are extraneous to this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Resuming debate. There being no further members rising to participate in debate, is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

There has been a request that the vote on this motion be deferred until the end of government orders tomorrow.

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.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-23.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #96

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)