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

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House today a proposal that will support a more commercial operating environment for Canada Port Authorities.

This proposal is a two-pronged strategy. It includes amendments to the Canada Marine Act, which is of course the legislative framework that governs ports, in combination with several policy measures. It is an approach that is responsive to industry concerns. It recognizes the importance of promoting strategic investment and productivity improvements, yet protects port lands for future transportation needs.

In relation to the Canada Port Authorities, the national marine policy of 1995 emphasized the elimination of overcapacity, promoted cost recovery, mandated self-sufficiency, and instituted a consistent governance structure for all major ports.

I am pleased to report that those objectives of the national marine policy relative to ports have largely been met through the Canada Marine Act, the legislation that introduced a commercial approach to managing the national ports system and marine infrastructure. CPAs have undertaken their management responsibilities in a sound and fiscally responsible manner and ports are well managed today as a result of that.

Budget 2007 positioned modern transportation infrastructure as a core element of our agenda. We have launched a national gateway and corridor approach which recognizes that transportation systems that enable us to move goods and people with world class efficiency are absolutely essential to our future prosperity.

Specific initiatives, such as the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative, the Ontario-Quebec continental gateway and trade corridor, and the Atlantic gateway initiatives are tailored to geographic and transportation opportunities in specific regions.

These initiatives recognize that transportation infrastructure investment requires the cooperation of many parties. That is right: this government works in cooperation with many parties across the country to get what Canadians want: better results.

These include Canada Port Authorities, representatives from all modes, all levels of government, and private investors. Each of these initiatives will provide concrete measures to contribute to a more productive economy and a stronger competitive position for Canada in international trade. Let us face it, we are a trading nation, and trade is very important to our future.

There are 19 Canada Port Authorities in the national port system. These CPAs are located in each of the regions in which gateway and corridor initiatives are being developed.

Efficient marine transportation and modern port infrastructure are key elements in reaching our government's goals. Indeed, Canada's ability to compete on the world stage is highly dependent on the efficiency of our ports and the availability of port infrastructure. This is particularly true for our gateway ports that are of specific strategic importance to this country.

While the national policy and the legislative framework governing ports are sound and have met their intended objectives overall, these instruments need to be modernized to ensure that our ports can respond and take advantage of the significant opportunities in the current global markets. We have all heard the stories of Asia and the emerging markets in that area. Canadians need to take advantage of that in order to continue to have the best quality of life in the world.

We must make sure that the Canada Marine Act is not a barrier either for ports or for the federal government. Instead, we must make sure that the Canada Marine Act supports the government's ability to make funding decisions in the public interest and to position Canada advantageously within changing global supply chains.

We are responsible for determining the role of the federal government and identifying gaps where other levels of government or private investors cannot provide the level of investment required to support these projects, and projects that are in the national interest and so important to Canadians.

The landscape has changed. The new context calls for an updated policy framework, as I said, for national ports through a combination of legislative amendments and targeted policy initiatives. The proposed legislative amendments are wide-ranging. They focus on the following areas.

First is financial flexibility, which is so important even in private business.

Second is port access to infrastructure funding, which is important for the future.

Third is environmental sustainability, which is the cornerstone of this government's policy and is on every Canadian's mind.

Fourth is access to security funding. We want to keep Canadians safe, because without that we will not enjoy any future.

Fifth is a commercially-based borrowing regime for larger ports.

Sixth is supporting amalgamations and governance at ports if required and if in Canadians' best interests.

This means targeted policy initiatives focused on a modernized national marine policy as it relates to ports, a streamlined mechanism for borrowing, and flexibility in the management of port lands for the future.

Today we face unprecedented growth in trade with Asia-Pacific countries, as I mentioned. This is resulting in tremendous pressures on the west coast. These pressures are starting to be felt in other areas of Canada, for instance in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway system and on the east coast, where we recently announced an Atlantic gateway initiative.

Our challenge is to find ways to promote new investment in the marine sector while encouraging it to behave as commercially as possible in the best interests of Canadians. Some of the larger Canada Port Authorities have made extensive infrastructure investments to address capacity constraints but cite barriers such as their current ineligibility for most federal funding as an impediment to further growth.

We are proposing to amend the CMA to provide these Canada Port Authorities with access to federal contributions for, first, capital costs for infrastructure, which is so important for the future; second, environmental sustainability; and third, security projects.

This is great news for Canadians. This approach would put CPAs on an equal footing with other transportation modes that have access to contribution funding. It would make them competitive.

We are not proposing the creation of a new funding program. Instead, we are proposing the establishment of a framework to allow CPAs to apply to contribution programs related to infrastructure, environmental sustainability and security projects.

Do members see a theme here? That is right. These programs that either currently exist or future contribution programs that may be developed in the future are the key.

In all cases, the ports would have to present a strong business case that fits specific criteria and that ultimately is in the public interest to warrant receiving public moneys. We are going to make sure that they remain accountable.

For example, these amendments could facilitate access to funds for the exploration of ways to address environmental concerns through new technologies to improve emission controls. They would also ensure the continued access of CPAs to any available security contribution funding.

Without this amendment, as of the end of November 2007 contribution funding for the implementation of security enhancements will no longer be available to CPAs. That is why this is so important.

We are also proposing that Transport Canada work in close collaboration with the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board Secretariat to implement a two-tier approach to borrowing that would provide for a commercially based borrowing regime, with accountabilities for larger ports with gross annual revenue generation above $25 million-- just for the big guys--at the same time streamlining the process for the smaller ports seeking changes to their borrowing limits. We want to make sure they remain accountable, but we want to make sure as well that they remain competitive.

There are other concerns related to the use of port lands. Some key ports are now facing encroaching residential developments and capacity limitations, an added pressure on the preservation of critical transportation lands in urban areas.

At the moment, there is little incentive for ports to retain lands for future transportation corridors. It is important to find the right mechanism to maintain ports as important economic generators for national, regional and local economies, as it is so important on the ground in these local communities that have these ports.

It is absolutely critical that we find ways to encourage our ports to invest in land holdings for long term port development. We are not talking about next year. We are talking about 100 years or 200 years down the road, but we need to be ready today for that growth that we expect and know is coming.

To promote the preservation of transportation lands, these opportunities would be given to CPAs by way of new policies implemented through supplementary letters patent. This would expand allowable uses for land that CPAs lease or license to third parties and assist CPAs in increasing revenues generated on those lands until such time as that port is ready to develop the property for port purposes.

However, Canada Port Authorities are not proposing to be less vigilant in regard to these lands, and all permitted activities will need to be compatible with port operations. For instance, we would not allow condos to be built on those particular lands. They have to be ready for the future.

Other amendments that will further benefit the Canada Port Authorities are those associated with future amalgamations, similar to the one under way in the lower mainland of British Columbia. We are proposing to incorporate provisions that would put in place a consistent approach, which is so important for certainty, to facilitate potential future amalgamations.

We want to work toward what is in the best interests of Canadians and at the same time make this a good governing instrument to do so. Some key governance amendments are proposed that would be more responsive to Canada Port Authorities' needs and would promote a more sustainable, more stable and more long term management framework.

There is also a complementary set of amendments being proposed that are more technical in nature and which clarify the wording of the act and harmonize certain provisions with other pieces of legislation. This is an important piece of legislation, but it does have to work with other pieces of legislation in the government regime.

Finally, with these changes in place, we propose to modernize the national marine policy as it relates to ports to ensure that the policy context for future decision making takes into account the emerging trade and the global business environment and that we remain competitive with it.

In developing this package we have attempted to strike what we consider to be a very reasonable balance between encouraging fully commercial behaviour on the part of ports and leaving the door open for them to compete for contribution funds under general programs like our new building Canada initiative, which again is great news for Canadians on the realm of infrastructure.

Ports in the United States and overseas are competition. They are focusing more effort on and are receiving more government funding for infrastructure, security and environmental initiatives. Long term access to federal contribution funding to spur growth in the new gateways or to implement security enhancements is consistent with the high priority we are placing on security and trade in this government. Two very important issues for Canadians are their safety and their jobs. What could be more important?

Canadian ports compete with international counterparts that receive security funding essentially for reassuring international trading partners. Associations representing the marine sector have requested that the government provide the same level of access to funding for Canada Port Authorities as exists for other transportation entities.

Other stakeholders we have consulted have strongly supported access to infrastructure funding for ports. That is important to this government as well. We have considered several different options to determine which one would provide the highest return for our stakeholders and for the Canadian economy, because this government is going to get the best return on investment for Canadian taxpayers.

We are proposing these changes in order to provide a balanced approach, as I mentioned, one that combines legislative amendments with targeted policy initiatives that will have the highest positive impact on the marine community and the Canadian economy. Yet at the same time, it will continue to require a small payment of rent to the Crown and puts reasonable safeguards around borrowing practices.

On the question of access to government funding programs, we are proposing to put ports and port authorities on the same level playing field as other players in the transportation sector. However, the government also recognizes that the right checks and balances for accountability to the Canadian taxpayer will need to be implemented to make sure that accountability continues. As such, funds provided through contribution programs with clear accountabilities and program criteria would provide excellent controls and reflect the government's current approach to the provision of funding under certain conditions.

We believe the proposed amendments in Bill C-23 are the right thing to do for our ports. They are an important part of the government's overall policies and framework supporting transportation and trade throughout Canada from coast to coast to coast. It is the right time to make these changes for the Canadian economy. This is the best thing for Canadians.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment, which is not related to my questions. I quite enjoyed the member's speech. It was very good.

The member said that Canada was a trading nation and we should facilitate that. I suggest then that his government stop closing very important consulates around the world. The building Canada fund is a very important fund, but we are waiting for the conditions. The municipalities across the country are waiting for the terms to go with that fund.

My first question is related to consultation. It was a very thoughtful outline, so I am sure member can consider this carefully. Has either the department or the member's office staff had any feedback on the bill or parts of the bill or policy from stevedores, longshoreman or the pilots association?

My second question is on the borrowing. We have recent examples of governments or crown corporations potentially losing a lot of money by not having a secure investment policy. Is that taken care of?

Finally, will this enhance security at our ports, especially with the new modern threats that we have in security?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is as concerned as we are with $123 billion deficit in infrastructure, which the Liberals left us with after 13 years of their governance. I can assure the member this. With the $33 billion we have allocated for the building Canada fund and for the other great initiatives we have on infrastructure, we hope to catch up from that deficit.

One thing we will not do is take $25 billion in social transfer payments from the provinces, as the Liberals did, and we will not take away the universal child care benefit, which the Liberals have said they will if they get back into power.

I will quote for the member, though a press release by the Association of Canadian Port Authorities from the executive director, Mr. LeRoux. It states:

We have long argued that, while the Canada Marine Act has been good for Canada's major ports, changes such as those proposed by the Association of Canadian Port Authorities (ACPA), and now accepted by the government, were needed to ensure that ports were ready for the tremendous growth expected in trade over the next 15 years.

Therefore, we have the Port Authorities vote of thanks on this. The Conservative government has moved forward with some great initiatives, not just on the $33 billion on the deficit that Liberals left us with but also on just about everything we have taken over from the files the Liberals left us.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed. It was a terrible answer. I know the member can do better.

We started all those infrastructure programs. The Conservatives were fighting them at one time. Thank goodness they are finally supporting and continuing them.

However, he did not answer any of my questions. Therefore, I will repeat them.

Did his office or the department get any feedback from stevedores, longshoremen or the pilot's association? I appreciated the feedback from the Port Authorities, but what about the other groups?

The bill would improve borrowing capacity. What types of safeguards are there to ensure that some of the types of losses experienced recently by other organizations will not occur?

Finally, will the provisions of the bill help security in the ports in these increasingly difficult times?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened closely to my speech, I talked about security, enhancing security and making government funds and public funds available for security enhancement throughout. My speech did deal with that.

If the member has specific questions about specific port authorities or longshoremen in specific areas of the country, my office is open. I would be happy to answer those specific concerns. There are many stakeholders across the country and I can assure the member that we did talk to most of the them. I am not particularly sure of any one particular group, but I can assure him that we did have consultations, and we are getting it done.

I know it is a lousy answer. However, talk is cheap but we are getting the job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join in this debate, especially since the parliamentary secretary invited us to reflect upon credibility and leadership on the international front. Leadership and credibility is generated by not just some of the actions that are presented to us today for digestion, but by some of the consequences of other things that we do or do not do in life.

I want to refer back to that and take advantage of the fact that he is accompanied today by the Minister of International Trade. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is here as well. Perhaps they will want to listen to what I say a little later on and reflect on it by way of a response.

I would like to continue in the other official language. Today, we have focused on the fact that there are bills and programs that are very important for Canada, for the entire nation. I was pleased and privileged to be a member of the government which introduced these programs and bills.

Perhaps other parties in this House, who today are complaining about the Conservative government, regret that we accomplished something important for Canadians.

I too am disappointed that my party is not in power. However, when we were in power, we accomplished things that are enabling this government to establish a much broader program.

What should the government be doing? I want to indicate from our side that we too feel that transportation issues are basic to the principles of country building, of nation building. I say that because we take this issue seriously. We have taken it seriously. We laid the groundwork to ensure we would have a network of transportation, of infrastructure that would permit this fabulous country to realize its fullest economic potential.

Those are not just words as the parliamentary secretary indicates. They are the basis upon which one builds programs. Ports, marine ports in particular, because that is what is being addressed by the legislation, are fundamental to an outreach that we must establish to the world everywhere if we are to develop trade that will enhance the opportunity of every Canadian man and woman to access the bounty that is resident in our natural resources and then to move that bounty across borders and oceans to markets that can utilize them for value added or indeed for direct consumption. They are basic to the infrastructure of Canada's economy.

What did we do? Members will be surprised. Being a veteran of this House as I am, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in 1995 we began to establish a coordination of all of the assets that we had in marine ports. In 1998 that resulted with the establishment of a Canadian network of marine ports and the legislation to mandate their establishment, to coordinate these sometimes divergent and sometimes even counterproductive divergencies in our marine ports.

That was followed up with a review in 2003 of that legislation to see how it worked. All good things need some time in order to jell. We know what happened. After 2003 there was a series of studies. I thank the parliamentary secretary for recognizing that these studies were done by the department at the behest of the government. It was not his government, but I thank him for acknowledging that nonetheless.

The thrust of those reviews was designed to ensure that we could make all these ports economically competitive and efficient in an environment that would see the global market changing literally on a daily basis. When we undertook the initial study, the concept of gateways, Pacific gateway, Atlantic gateway, central continental gateway in the Great Lakes, were things that were not even part of the language of the day. Also not a part of the language of the day was the absolutely booming business taking place on the west coast.

We had one port that was doing some business and others were not or not that much. Now we are talking about ports resident in British Columbia, whether they be in the North Fraser, Vancouver or Prince Rupert, or Nanaimo, or Port Alberni. All these ports are very much a key to the economies of the Orient, whether it is Southeast Asia or Northeast Asia. We have to ensure those economies ship all their goods into North America through our ports and to generate an economy through the infrastructure that feeds into those ports to make it much more efficient and capable for all those provinces that sit in the middle of our continent to get their goods and commodities out to market.

The same principles apply to the marine ports in Atlantic Canada. The government of the day, through its studies, assumed and deduced that we needed to make a greater investment in the coordination of these ports. The Liberals came up with something called Bill C-61. This is a resurrection of Bill C-61. I am pleased to witness the revival of all good things. The parliamentary secretary may see us supporting a bill that highlights those very important issues.

As I said, we need to reinforce those principles upon which good, sound transportation policy is built; that is, the movement of goods and people efficiently, swiftly and economically around the country and abroad.

We wanted to create, and I imagine that this bill proposes to do the same, a common purpose and to permit the development of a plan or of a vision for growth in this country. I did not hear the parliamentary secretary say that, but I am assuming that was his intention because that would certainly be the reason why we would support this bill.

We need it to establish an infrastructure that is cohesive and coherent. Too often that infrastructure is seen as localized to a particular port. However, we need to think in terms of the avenues of building, whether it be rail, whether it be air, or whether it be roads, that feed into all of these ports that are the final terminus for the movement of many of those goods that need to be advanced outward, and that speak of Canada and the productivity of its citizens. That is what this bill was supposed to do.

And so, we see in it, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated, portions that talk about governance because we want to have continuity. We want to have, on the board of governors of these port authorities, personnel who are experienced and expert in the local economy, but still consistent and at one with the national objectives of a federal government that is dedicated, that should be dedicated, to ensuring that these ports fulfill the needs of Canadians everywhere.

The governing structure is extremely important. However, it is important as well to ensure that those port authorities go beyond simply being able to draw revenues from the movement of goods. They must be an economic entity on their own and they need to have the authority to ensure that the assets which they manage are part and parcel of the governance structure of these port authorities. And that could be in land, it could be the improvements on the land, or it could be any of the other factors, for example, leases, whether they be short term or long term.

If anybody wanted to have some umbrage or some difference with the government on any of these, we would eliminate it right away if that were not included in the bill.

However, more important, it is the issue of having an understanding, that we wanted to bring forward, of giving port authorities the opportunity to access government programs that give those ports the opportunity to have some of the funds that are available either for the development of some security issues that have developed since 9/11 or indeed for any of the infrastructure programs that this current government has continued. They were introduced by the former Liberal government, again as I said, of which I was privileged to be a part, to ensure that these port authorities would be seen as a continuity, a continuum of the infrastructure of our country's economic asset and the network that brings people together and that brings goods to market.

The parliamentary secretary will probably wonder where we go on a question of credibility and leadership. The question of credibility is seen on what we do to enhance these. He talked about trade and international relations. Those things are not all done simply by the work that we do at each one of these ports, but by some of the other things that we do with respect to the way that we deal with people who come within our territories.

This is not a deviation from that principle, and I am glad that the parliamentary secretary introduced it. We have had the misfortune of witnessing various tragedies in this country over the course of the last several months. I think by now most people are familiar with the case of the tasering of the young man at Vancouver airport and how we missed an opportunity to be decisive, and to act swiftly to ensure that any injustices be immediately remedied.

Now we have a situation where the Government of Canada's image worldwide has suffered, so much so that the government of Poland has asked for an inquiry. These are part and parcel of the kind of infrastructure that draws people to our shores and drops people into our midst.

As a matter of fact, as I said, thank heavens for the representatives of the other ministries. Earlier today, the government of Italy called in Canada's ambassador to speak about a similar situation that took place on September 20 when an Italian citizen died in a jail in Quebec City. So far there has been no response from Quebec government nor the Quebec police but, worse, nor response from the Canadian government.

All that people want is an opportunity to be able to access continuity, to understand what happens when people deal with Canadians on a question of strong international leadership, but let our actions speak at least as loudly as our words. Let us at least give people a response.

Until recently, we hid behind the fact, for example, that there was no hard, fiscal infrastructure on ports and then we hid on the soft issues, that is to say, where we were not dealing with bricks and mortar, on the fact that there were competing jurisdictions. How do we deal with countries that want a response from us?

We could always say that it is not our problem, that it is the problem of other provinces, that it falls within others' jurisdiction. If we have the political will to put in place a bill such as the current Bill C-23, we must also have the same political will to do other things.

I would like to say a few words in Italian, if my colleagues are agreeable to it.

[Member spoke in Italian.]

[French]

I will repeat it in English.

It is inconceivable that we would not give an answer to a foreign government that asks us why one of its citizens met with such a fate here on Canadian territory. For example, the young gentleman who died on September 20, Castagnetta, did he or did he not suffer his fate at the hands of police that were using tasers? There was an autopsy done and there are no results yet. Why not?

Let us talk about leadership not only on the international front, not only on the transportation side, but a comprehensive leadership that understands where the government should be taking this country. Where it should be taking it is in the place that says that goods and people are moving efficiently and effectively in a competitive environment, but everyone is accorded the dignity that is accorded all human beings who come here and call this place home. Even visitors would have access to Canadian law and due process. It is inconceivable that a family would have to wait, so far, two and a half months for a response. It is incredible.

The government is not doing anything. Maybe it will act more swiftly on hard infrastructure issues like this one. I can tell the parliamentary secretary as the official spokesman for the party on this side of the House that Liberals are prepared to support these kinds of initiatives in Bill C-23, just as we are prepared to provide the kind of support that the government needs to project a positive image of our country abroad. Without that, all of us are working at cross purposes and that should not be the intention of any member of Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm something first. I noticed the member for Yukon had some questions in relation to stevedore CPAs and the pilotage authority. I want to confirm with him before I ask my question that we consulted with both of them. Indeed, we have considerable safeguards in relation to the accountability provisions of this particular act and the proposal includes enhanced accountability, more checks and balances and a certification requirement.

I do that primarily because the member for Yukon lives in a climate very similar to my own in northern Alberta and I have respect for anybody who can stand those temperatures, especially on a day like today in northern Alberta.

I appreciate the member for Eglinton—Lawrence's support for the bill because it is a good initiative with some great Conservative government policies and initiatives, but the review was done in June 2003. As he is aware, the Liberal government was in power at that time and for several years after that. I am wondering, since it was done in June 2003, why nothing was done until this government took power some four years later.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is quite right to underscore the fact that it was initiated in 2003. If I have to go through the chronology for him, I am sure he will be delighted with that as well. However, I think what he was looking for was a compliment from me to him. I will give him that in a minute.

From 2003 to 2004, he will recall that we had an election at the beginning of the year and that his party, even immediately after the 2004 election, threatened to bring the government down again in the fall of 2004. They dilly-dallied and then finally pulled the string, as they say, in 2005, where we had other reports in the interim.

That did not prevent the government from putting forward legislation, as I indicated to him, Bill C-61, in order to implement this, but he will probably relish the fact that the government will enjoy the support of the official opposition on these fine initiatives. As I said, they are a renaissance compared to the ones that were there before in a way that the previous government could not rely on the official opposition. I think that would be the answer he is looking for.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as the critic said, this was one of our bills, so of course we have to support it. It has good elements like access to contribution funding, better borrowing limits, facilitating amalgamation of the Canadian port authorities if necessary, along with improved enforcement and land management, as long as there are controls on that. We are supporting those concepts because they are positive.

I want to ask two questions of the member. One is specifically related to the bill. Has he had any negative feedback on it, so the public watching knows that?

Second, we are supporting these generalized administrative improvements and both the parliamentary secretary and the critic talked about the importance of having efficient and very good ports that can work in this modern, competitive world.

Are there other things the hon. member thinks the government might be able to do to improve the ports system in Canada, so that we are competitive, not only with the United States where we have competitions going on near the border for port business but with other ports around the world like Singapore, which receives a huge amount of business from ports?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for reinforcing what the official opposition will do. We will support this bill for exactly the reasons that he stated. This bill brings forward some very valuable initiatives in terms of establishing ports that are going to meet the international competition and gain the businesses that we all want to see come to Canada.

It was not that long ago, when my colleague from Thunder Bay and I were brand new members here, that Thunder Bay was one of the most important inland ports in all of North America. I think it was actually number two in all of Canada. I now see it way down at number 16 in a list of 19. I do not say that to reflect negatively on Thunder Bay, but to give the House and all of our viewers an opportunity to understand what has happened to the dynamics of transportation in this country.

A port like Thunder Bay, which was absolutely crucial to the movement of grains and minerals not only through the Great Lakes but out to the Atlantic and out to the Pacific, has lost its premier place to the various ports out west, and there are five of them. I am sure the people of Thunder Bay would want to ensure that their port would have access to the funds and new dynamics to revitalize a place that used to be booming even in slow times.

My colleague from the Yukon knows that it is not only important to build a port structure that is capable of handling renewed traffic, but we need to be able to get goods, whether by rail or by road, to the port in order to use the port for access to international markets.

One of the reasons we developed the concept of a Pacific gateway is that the Chinese, to use just one example, used to ask us why we bothered selling them our wheat or our minerals if we cannot get them out of the port of Vancouver, and we can, we cannot even get them to the port. We had to build an infrastructure network that would bring all of our commodities out of the centre of the continent, whether that be Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, or northern Ontario, to one of the two gateways, the gateway out in the Pacific through an amalgamated port system in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia or Prince Rupert, or to revitalize the port structure in the Maritimes.

We missed a golden opportunity a few years ago to re-enhance the capacity of Halifax harbour to handle the giant ships that are coming on to the marketplace. We cannot miss too many of those opportunities. These kinds of initiatives would compel us to utilize some of our infrastructure moneys as well to feed a rail network and a road network to these places to stimulate growth and to develop an economy that goes beyond the minute minuscule economy and expand it to a regional and national one.

[Joe Comuzzi, Conservative, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words to my colleague who just reiterated one of the problems that we have experienced in the maritime business over the last several years. Ten years ago the port at Thunder Bay was number three in Canada and it is now number 16. The bill we are putting forward today would hopefully embellish the resources that we have there and make it a port of northern Ontario that would embrace Sault-Ste-Marie, Wawa, Marathon, Nipigon, Red Rock and Thunder Bay, and utilize a great marine transportation mode in order to enhance our ability to compete globally, not only in the market in the United States.

I thank my colleague from Eglinton--Lawrence and the parliamentary secretary because this instance shows the compatibility of members of Parliament to work together for the betterment of all Canadians.

While we are throwing around laurels, I would hope that my friend from Eglinton--Lawrence would acknowledge that one time during our history, I used to have to take him to transportation committee, as you did, Mr. Speaker, kicking and screaming because he was not very interested in transportation. I am certainly pleased to see that he has now taken a very keen interest in transportation matters in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it appears that even the Conservatives have started to be affected by the NDP habit of whining about the fact that we can recall history with accuracy, but even though I went to those committee hearings kicking and screaming, clearly I learned something about the importance of members of Parliament to serve their country through the House, the committees and debates such as these. Hopefully our words will be turned into action.

As I said to the parliamentary secretary not a moment ago, the difference between the previous government and the current one is that the previous government did not have an official opposition that appeared to have the interest of the Canadian public at heart, whereas the current government can rely on this official opposition to do all the things that are required to enhance the lives of all Canadians no matter where they live.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The Chair would not want to comment, obviously, on who remembers what the best, but the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence did refer to a time when we were both new MPs together, and the fact is that I had been here for nine years when he arrived.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

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

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

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-23 in principle. Obviously, we will have the opportunity to improve it in committee and to call witnesses. We hope—and I am choosing my words carefully here—that this bill will increase the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence by maintaining and improving the port infrastructure required to develop the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes trade corridor, which will also promote intermodal transportation and benefit the environment.

Why do I say that this is what we hope? Because at first glance, we have to be careful. Our Liberal colleague mentioned that when the Liberals were in power, they promoted the Pacific Gateway. The Conservatives, in the person of the parliamentary secretary, said earlier that they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the Pacific Gateway. They are preparing to announce a major investment in the Atlantic Gateway and Halifax. Yet we never heard any mention of the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes trade corridor in the speeches given by the parliamentary secretary and the Liberal member.

That is why I say that the Bloc Québécois hopes that the bill before us will lead to the development of the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes trade corridor, which is as important as the Mississippi is to the United States. This waterway, which flows directly into the heart of the Americas, must be taken into consideration. We hope that this bill will address part of this problem.

The primary goal of Bill C-23 is to amend the current borrowing system. Those who are watching us and are not familiar with this should know that currently port authorities are entities, independent corporations that have charters allowing them to borrow money up to a certain limit. As the parliamentary secretary was saying, the goal is to increase or eliminate the borrowing limit for large ports with a view to allowing them to develop.

I will give the example of the port of Montreal. It has become less important under the Liberals as well as since the Conservatives came to power, but it is nonetheless considered one of Canada's major ports. The port of Montreal does not do any borrowing at all. Introducing a bill to increase the borrowing capacity of the port of Montreal when it already does not borrow anything, is not going to help it develop.

As far as access to funding is concerned, it is true that port authorities currently are not able to receive subsidies. Just like airport authorities, they have to pay their own way and bill their clientele for expenses. Marine companies obviously have to pay fees to use ports. That is how ports generate revenues. They can contract loans in order to finance improvements made to the ports. That is the current situation.

Now, this bill would allow them access to funding. That is well and good, but I want this to be fair for all ports across Canada. When we talk about the Conservative government's investment in the Pacific gateway, we have to realize it was not for infrastructure within the confines of the ports, since this was not permitted by law. It was funding for improvements to railway lines and access points so that they could provide as many services as possible, to ship and receive merchandise outside the port limits.

Personally, I would like them to receive subsidies today. But if all the money always goes directly to the Pacific ports and there is nothing for the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes trade corridor, this bill will just create an even greater imbalance.

To date, the Pacific gateway program implemented by the Liberals and maintained by the Conservatives still has no equivalent in the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor.

The Conservatives announced that the Atlantic gateway would be in Halifax, but once again, there is nothing for the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor, which is, I repeat, the largest and most beautiful gateway in the Americas. That was the goal when it was created, but I will talk about the history later on. If the Bloc Québécois members are not vigilant, if all the money goes to the west and the Maritimes and there is nothing for the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor, this bill will not have achieved its goal.

I will repeat some of the reasons. The port of Montreal does not borrow any money. Obviously, it is not money that it needs. All the investments should be made outside the limits or boundaries to facilitate intermodal and other types of transportation. However, if we do not end up seeing any of that investment and if the goal of this bill is to help the Pacific and Halifax ports, we will have failed.

I would like to clarify certain aspects of governance. Obviously, there is a need to review how port authorities and corporations are administered—and I think this is good for everyone. For the Bloc Québécois, it is also important that these investments be evenly distributed to all regions of Canada and that, among others, the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes trade corridor receive its fair share for once. This was not the case under the Liberals and has not yet been the case under the Conservatives, as we have seen.

We want to make something clear in this House: the St. Lawrence River has always been a major asset to Quebec's development and closely linked to the economic development of all its regions. Eighty percent of Quebec's population lives on the shores of the St. Lawrence and over 75% of its industry is found there. The strategic location of industries in relation to the St. Lawrence River means it can be used for nearly all international trade outside the United States.

I will repeat this, because it is important to understand. When considering the St. Lawrence Seaway in the North American context, the importance of its economic impact becomes even more obvious. Indeed, the St. Lawrence River provides privileged access to the heart of North America. It not only allows access to 90 million inhabitants and the industrial heartland of the United States, Canada and Quebec, but it also provides a shorter route for major European carriers. The distance between Montreal and Rotterdam is 5,813 km while the distance between New York and Rotterdam is 6,154 km.

This corridor allows faster entry into the heartland of the Americas. The St. Lawrence Seaway is underutilized, however. The total amount of goods transported via the St. Lawrence dropped from 130 million tonnes in the early 1980s to approximately 100 million tonnes 10 years later, only to hover around 105 million tonnes since. Thus, since 1980, the ports of the St. Lawrence have received less merchandise than the 150 million tonnes they are currently receiving in 2007. It was 25 million tonnes less than what was being transported on the St. Lawrence in the early 1980s.

Once again, while some ports have seen increased traffic, neither investments nor Canada's management of the ports file have allowed this important development tool to be used to full advantage. We do not want to hear that this tool is the same everywhere or that it underutilizes goods transportation. For example, over the past 30 years, carriage of goods by ship has grown by 600% worldwide. While traffic on the St. Lawrence dropped from 130 million tonnes in the 1980s to 105 million tonnes, maritime shipping increased by 600% internationally. Closer to home, the Mississippi River system, which competes directly with the St. Lawrence, saw traffic increase from 450 million to 700 million tonnes. Seaports on the east coast of the U.S. have also seen steady increases in traffic.

This is why I have just as much trouble understanding my Liberal colleague's point as I do the message we are getting from the parliamentary secretary who talked about economic activity, China and that fact that they are the ones asking for it.

Even so, I would emphasize that the east coast of the U.S. has seen a major increase in shipping, which did not happen on the St. Lawrence. What does that mean? It means that Canada has not paid attention to one of the most important trade corridors, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway, which borders Quebec, Ontario and the United States.

A similar trend is affecting traffic going through the St. Lawrence Seaway. After reaching a high of 70 million tonnes, the quantity of goods being transported via the seaway stabilized around 50 million tonnes per year. Once again, the seaway leads to the Great Lakes. As I said earlier, the shipping trade dropped from 130 million tonnes to 105 million tonnes on the St. Lawrence, and on the seaway that leads to the Great Lakes, it dropped from 70 million tonnes in the early 1980s to 50 million tonnes. Once again, this is due mainly to the fact that the St. Lawrence Seaway is not competitive, and this is because of Ottawa's failure to pay attention to marine infrastructure in Quebec, particularly along the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor. That is the harsh reality of it.

When the Liberals were in power, they decided to put all their eggs in one basket, the basket known as the Pacific Gateway, and neglected the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor. The Conservatives are making the same mistake. They added the extra money needed for the Pacific Gateway and decided to establish an Atlantic gateway in Halifax. The money will go to Halifax and, once again, there will be nothing for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor.

This bill, which allows the ports to borrow more money, will not solve the problem. All of the money invested in the Pacific Gateway is going outside the port areas per se in order to improve the flow of goods by rail and road.

The same should be done for the ports along the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes. The same treatment, the same energy should be given to all these gateways by making the same kind of investment in them. What is being permitted today is investment within the area governed by each port authority. They are told that they can borrow more and that, henceforth, the government may provide direct subsidies.

Given that monies for gateways were given only to the Pacific Gateway—and now to the Atlantic Gateway in Halifax—there is nothing for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor. If that is the purpose of this bill as well, then they have missed the mark.

That is why the only party to raise this in the House is the Bloc Québécois. We are proud to live in Quebec and proud of the St. Lawrence, which has always been the backbone of all Quebec and Canadian industries. We cannot help but notice the major retreat by the Government of Canada from making investments along the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor.

I would like to give a brief overview of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor. The concept of the corridor is based on an obvious fact. The ports along the St. Lawrence must establish a common strategy for facilitating the most efficient transport of goods possible amongst themselves and towards the destination markets. It is also based on a second obvious fact. The competition is no longer among Montreal, Quebec City, Sept-Îles or the other St. Lawrence ports, or even those on the Great Lakes, for their share of global marine traffic. They are competing against the American ports, and that is the competition they must face.

The message I want to send is that we are not in competition with the east coast, the west coast, Halifax or Vancouver. As I was saying earlier about distances, it is shorter to get from Rotterdam to Montreal than from Rotterdam to New York. That means we have an obvious advantage: we are able to serve the heart of North America, the United States among others, Quebec and Ontario too. We are able to do so with this corridor if we work together, just a little, and if all the ports along the St. Lawrence to the Great Lakes work together.

Merchandise should be transported as quickly and efficiently as possible. If there need to be transfers by road or by rail, the same service being provided in the Vancouver area should be provided in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor. These same advantages have to be given to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor so that the world's entire marine transportation market can benefit all the regions of Canada, which still includes Quebec.

We cannot help but notice that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have completely forgotten this large-scale corridor, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor.

I do not want to keep repeating myself, but the bill introduced here in this House would provide the port authorities an advantage by giving them borrowing powers or allowing the government to give them direct subsidies, which was not allowed before. Again, there is the example of the port of Montreal. It does not borrow money and it does not have any debt. So, it is not the port of Montreal that asked for this. However, if there are subsidies, it wants to benefit from that as much as all the other ports in Canada.

It is very important that the government understand that because the stated goal is to give direct subsidies within the perimeter administered by the port corporations, namely the western gateway and the Pacific gateway, in the Vancouver area. The Maritimes gateway in Halifax will probably get subsidies as well. In any case, this money has to be allocated in a balanced way across Canada. I am not convinced that is the government's intention.

The Bloc Québécois will be in favour of this bill because it believes that the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes trade corridor is one of the most under-used marine corridors, considering its proximity and ability to serve Quebec, Ontario and the central United States. We believe that the corridor is under-used, that previous successive governments here in Ottawa were negligent and did not make the required efforts or investments to promote this development. Moreover, this St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor will also enable intermodal transportation, or more specifically cabotage, which is probably the greatest strength of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor right now.

We hope to be able to develop cabotage and intermodal transportation. We would like to be able to cover the short distance between Montreal and the Great Lakes and between Montreal and Sept-Îles. We would like to be able to use this vast corridor, as the Americans use the Mississippi, and ensure that all the required government investments will make it possible for all the infrastructure and ports along the St. Lawrence to the Great Lakes to be able to fully develop intermodal transportation.

If that is not the government's intention, the Bloc Québécois will have the chance to ask questions of the government and the minister. It is all well and good to introduce a bill, but if it was done simply to develop the Pacific gateway, they should say so. They should be honest and say if there is a lack of money, if the ports of Vancouver and the Pacific can no longer borrow money, if they require direct investments and subsidies. They must say so because there will be an imbalance between the Pacific and Atlantic ports. We are creating our own competition, and there is nothing worse than that.

This is not the first time the Liberals and the Conservatives have made a mistake on this file. They adopt policies on the fly and they try to fix problems in the short term by putting one fire out and lighting another two. The Bloc Québécois wants to avoid doing that. We agree that ports should be allowed to change their borrowing regimes, which would enable large ports to borrow money in order to support their own development. We agree that there should be some funding now, which was not allowed before, and subsidies via infrastructure programs to help port authorities if they are in too much debt. All the same, we want to be fair to the west coast, the east coast and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor.

If we do not say that in this House, that is what the Conservative Party will do. That is what the Liberal Party started to do by investing in the Pacific gateway. In the end the Liberals did nothing. The Conservatives are feeling a little uncomfortable and seem to want to invest. They announced funding for the Pacific gateway, but they did not give anything to Atlantic ports or Halifax.

That means zero minus zero plus zero for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor. Absolutely nothing. Obviously, that will be very bad for Quebec's economy, as well as Ontario's, and it will also limit what we can do to develop trade with the United States.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite raised the issue of a Quebec-Ontario continental gateway and trade corridor. I am pleased to advise members of the House that the memorandum of understanding for this initiative was signed last July by the Minister of Transport and the Governments of Quebec and Ontario.

I am also pleased to share with members of the House that the Prime Minister announced recently that short sea shipping will be an eligible category under “building Canada”. Therefore, we know that the government is definitely moving in support of that industry.

I listened intently to the member's speech and it is clear that he believes in short sea shipping. Could he provide some additional comments on how we can increase the volume of short sea shipping and prop up that industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to tell my Conservative colleague that, in spite of all the discussion and whatever his government might say, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor has not seen any money: zero, zip, nada; absolutely nothing. This must be understood. He must know this.

The hon. member himself partially answered the question he asked me. He said there would be an infrastructure program. Yes, that is true. Yes, this bill would allow for equal investments in all ports across Canada. We must never forget, however, that his government invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the Pacific gateway and it is about to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the Atlantic gateway in Halifax. However, once again, there is nothing for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor, not a single cent.

As I said, the solution is cabotage. Intermodal transport is the solution for the entire length of the mighty St. Lawrence River, in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor. The same is true for the Mississippi in the United States. This situation is well known. However, just like the Liberals, his government refuses to take any action. I repeat, his government does nothing except talk and talk some more. We are quite happy to talk with them, but once again, there is absolutely no action.

Here is an example. As I said at the very beginning, it is all well and good to say that the regulations are being changed to allow ports to borrow more. Yet the port of Montreal has no debt; it has not borrowed anything. Thus, this will not help that port's operations in any way. There must be a way to develop all transportation outside the port's territory.

At this time, what this bill does is help the port of Vancouver. That is what it does and if things continue in this direction, all the money will go there and nothing but talk will remain for the other ports.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the member for Windsor West.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Is there unanimous consent for the member for Acadie—Bathurst to share his time with the hon. member for Windsor West?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23. In a way, we have been waiting for this bill for a long time, and we hope the wait will have been worthwhile.

This bill is about ports across the country, from Vancouver to Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick. This is of particular interest to me because a port development is under way in northeastern New Brunswick, and this is of critical importance to people in the region.

As everyone knows, my riding, Acadie—Bathurst, in northeastern New Brunswick, may have the highest unemployment rate around. How many times have people in the House said that the member for Acadie—Bathurst should talk about something other than employment insurance? Well, this is one way to invest in a very important port that has been ignored all along compared to all of the other ports in Canada. The Bloc Québécois member said that we must not forget the port of Montreal. But it has no debt and plenty of money, so it is not a problem.

But in our case, it is quite the opposite; we are talking about developing a port. For example, Belledune just outside my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, right at the end of Chaleur Bay. If people bother to look at a map, they will see that Chaleur Bay is in a direct line with Europe. The water there is deep and there is no ice. There is no need for icebreakers to let the ships pass in the winter and no cost involved. Even so, the government bills us for an icebreaker, just as it bills the other ports. Yet we do not need one at the port of Belledune. This really hampers the economic development of the region and this port.

When Canada was a new country, the Atlantic was prosperous. Then prosperity spread west of the Atlantic, to Quebec, Montreal and Toronto. Then it spread to all the Great Lakes, where it is warm, and it went on from there. But Canada was really formed in the Atlantic region. It is important to remember that the Acadians were the first people to come to Canada from Europe. We celebrated our 400th anniversary two years ago. That proves that we were the first.

In our discussions today, It is sad to see that the Atlantic has now been forgotten, especially northeastern New Brunswick. There is a port in Saint John and one in Halifax. The port in Belledune is a new port with incredible potential.

As I said, Europe is in a straight line from Chaleur Bay, and at the end of that bay is Belledune. Looking at the map, it is not difficult to imagine that shipping could continue on to the United States, for example, if there was a good road to get there. Why should ships make a huge detour to get to the United States when the port of Belledune in northeastern New Brunswick is in a direct line with Europe and the United States?

Bill C-23 also permits ports to take out loans. That is welcome news. But I believe that the committee should study the bill to do whatever it can to help them as much as possible.

In the past, the government decided to turn the ports over to the port authorities.

The ports were transferred to the communities and the Liberal government, which was in charge at the time, backed away from them. It did not provide the money needed to keep the ports in good shape. It was not just the port of Vancouver or the big ports where goods are brought in and shipped out. It also involved the ports for the fishery, all the small ports. The government did nothing for years and years.

Last year we were arguing about a job that needed to be done at the Miller Brook port in my riding. It had a drought this year and the boats had to be dragged into port because there was not enough water. The dredging was not even done. It was unbelievable. I am telling the truth when I say that the boats had to be dragged in the sand to bring them inside the port.

It has created a situation where the people are afraid when they see a storm. What would they do if they were outside the port and at any time during the night wanted to come in but could not because the tide would be out?

The port has been forgotten for many years. Today it has become a big cost to the community and to the fishermen. It is like having a house. If the owner does not look after it, in no time it is no good anymore. Repairs need to be done as we go along and we need to keep it in good shape.

Looking at our small fishing ports, one might imagine that the government had not made them a priority. It transferred the ports to the communities, but now the ports are in such a state they can be wiped out by the least storm that blows through.

I will give an example. A few years ago, a storm hit Petit-Rocher. The port had been in need of additional protection. Those responsible argued with governments to add protection from the wind and from November's huge fall tides so as not to lose our wharves. The governments refused. The storm was quite big. A 30-foot wave crashed in and shifted the Petit-Rocher wharf over by one foot. The repairs cost $550,000, or the whole wharf would have been lost. The fishers could not fish. They had to set up rocks to prevent the water from hitting the wharf again and breaking it. That doubled the cost. Repairs need to be done as they come up and not put off until disaster strikes.

The same is true when it comes to appointing people to the port authorities. The government wants to reduce the number of people. The danger is that local people will not be there to make the necessary recommendations. This is not the only concern. It also involves making decisions locally for the general population. These people are, after all, very familiar with the problems. They are the ones who should be making the decisions and making recommendations to the government concerning repairing our ports, such as making extensions, rebuilding or doing a better job in terms of economic development. This was the point I was making earlier about the port of Belledune.

I would like to talk about my riding and how this relates to my own backyard. There are some ports in bad shape in my riding. I can list several off the top of my head. The wharf in Pointe Verte is in such bad condition that boats cannot even enter into the port. The same is true for the wharves in Maisonnette, Anse-Bleue and Saint-Raphaël-sur-mer.

That is also the case for Le Goulet. I was speaking to the mayor of Le Goulet and he told me that the government absolutely had to intervene and help them. These are not large communities. Earlier, the Bloc Québécois member said that the port of Montreal does not have any debts, that it has no such problems and that it would like to be treated fairly.

We have catching up to do. We have to start reinvesting in order to ensure a certain level of economic development at these ports and also to ensure the safety of citizens. At present, ports are not safe. In Grande-Anse, fishermen stay outside the port because when the tide is low they cannot get back in. It is not safe. No one can enter the ports of Miller Brook or L'Anse-Bleue as they are not safe.

The government has responsibilities. It washed its hands of them by transferring them to citizens. When it transferred its responsibilities to the communities, it guaranteed that it would be there to help them maintain the ports in good condition. It wanted the citizens to help but then abandoned them. That is regrettable.

In closing, we will support Bill C-23 if amended. I am certain that we will hear more from the member for Windsor West. He will be presenting some good ideas in committee in order to obtain our support for Bill C-23.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my NDP colleague. I would like to know if he agrees with his colleague from Outremont, who opposed the Rabaska project in my province, in Quebec City. That was an $850 million project on the St. Lawrence River. He opposed the Rabaska project.

Does the member agree with that position?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to ask the member for Outremont what he did at that time. If I recall, it had something to do with the environment. We can not trust the Conservative Party with the environment of our country. It is refusing what the UN and the world is proposing on the environment.

The member should ask his Prime Minister what he thinks about the environment and what the government is opposing on the environment. Even Australia today went ahead and signed the Kyoto protocol. Last week, and even yesterday on the news, the Minister of the Environment said that he wanted to go the same way as Australia by not supporting Kyoto and that would be doing the right thing.

I do not know what he did when he woke up this morning and saw that Australia was supporting Kyoto. He must have thought he had a nightmare when he woke up this morning and said, “Where am I, where am I? Did I have a dream?” Well, he woke up and found out that it was not a dream, and that we should do the right thing for the environment.

That is what the member for Outremont did when he was fighting against what Quebec wanted to do. New Brunswick wants to do the same thing, go through the Bay of Fundy to the states, which would endanger our seas, rivers, and the good water that we need. He took a responsible measure at that time to do the right thing for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech given by the member for Acadie—Bathurst on the changes to the Canada Marine Act very closely. I noticed he talked about some of the changes that the New Democrats wanted to see in this legislation. I know one of them has to do with accountability measures for Canada's port authorities.

We in the NDP wanted to make sure that the Auditor General had the ability to review the operations of the port authorities to ensure their financial practices were appropriate. This legislation changes many of the funding arrangements for port authorities. It changes their borrowing arrangement and allows them to participate more effectively perhaps in infrastructure programs, all of which involve large sums of money and are significant developments no matter which community they take place in.

I want to ask the member if he thinks ensuring that the Auditor General has authority to look into the practices of port authorities is something that needs to be added to this legislation to make it a better bill?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a must. The Auditor General has to be involved to check the books and accountability.

Canadians are sick and tired of scandals. That is all they get from this place. There was a scandal with the Liberals and there is a scandal now with the Conservatives. There is scandal after scandal after scandal. Verifying the books is what needs to be done to assure Canadians that if the port authorities are to be trusted, and we put people in charge of looking after the affairs of the nation and those ports, then they should be able to answer to Canadians.

If port authorities are looking after the money that taxpayers are putting in, the auditor general should be there. This is the right thing to do. It is a must and we must have it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-23 and I would like to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for his speech. I would also like to thank the hon. member for ensuring that I would be able to speak today. Having travelled from Windsor, I just arrived moments ago in Ottawa and rushed to the House. It has been an interesting process given today's snow day.

I would like to highlight a few things in Bill C-23 that are important: first, the elements of why ports are important for our modern infrastructure; and second, the relationship that they have relative to the communities where they are situated.

We have a number of large ports like Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto and Halifax. They have played national historic roles. But we also have other smaller ports like Windsor, the Windsor Port Authority, which has played an important historical role but can also be part of a greater prosperity for all of us.

BillC-23 has some significant changes. The answers to questions that I have posed to the government have yet to be responded to. Some of the questions relate to how the ports actually operate and relate to the security provisions of the bill. Others relate to the fact that there really has not been that type of structural analysis done on the ports relating to how they operate with municipalities for example and land use agreements.

We are looking at a bill, Bill C-23, that will open up the ports in a very different way. They are going to be able to borrow more funds as they have difficulty with the process that is currently in place. It is very antiquated. The bill will allow ports to borrow up to 20% of a capital project for their actual operations. Second, there is a two-tiered system. One will be enjoyed by the larger ports and then the other system that is currently in place will be refined for the smaller ports.

I am not sure that having a two-tiered system is the most advantageous way to go forward. Therefore, I am hesitant to support that idea on the surface. We look forward to hearing from witnesses at committee about that to see whether or not the small and medium size ports feel they are at a disadvantage. That is critical.

When we look at a government that is run really by one individual, with very much a top down approach, the same philosophy can apply to the ports. We might have the larger ones enjoying a greater advantage over the medium and smaller ones which can actually provide some great economic development opportunities and might want to compete to become great ports in Canada.

We have to be careful as we amend this legislation not to constrict them too much, so that if they are competing among their peers, they do not have a disadvantage that the incumbents would take advantage of from this type of a situation. We want to make sure that this issue is going to be addressed. We will be looking forward to those ports coming forth and assessing the current situation.

One of the things highlighted in the bill, which is important and we have to wonder what the logic is behind it, is a reduction in the boards that we have right now.

For example, the Vancouver port will have a reduction from its current seven to fourteen directors. In wearing my old municipal hat, the municipality appointed the individuals to the board. They were independent and they reported back to the larger body of the board, but they also had some accountability because the persons would have very much the feel of the city and the community. They would have a commitment being part of the board of directors.

What we are seeing, it appears, is a hollowing out of that membership. Once again, and this is what worries me, we could have people hand-picked from Ottawa to sit on these boards. We could have problems with that.

Many people across the country who are appointed to boards of port authorities are very competent and sit there as representatives, basically for the public trust, but what worries me as well is that we have seen in the past certain appointed positions becoming very politicized. The previous government was notorious for this. The current government has also shown the same behaviour.

In our area of Windsor, for example, the government actually sacked a judge who was very competent, who went through the Liberal patronage process. He did a good job and we wanted to keep him. However, the government sacked him anyway because of a political ideology that drives the beast.

Therefore, what we would call for is a review of this. If there is going to be the potential of a clearing out, so to speak, of all these boards of directors across the country, I would be very worried given the fact that we have not seen the ethical breakthrough so necessary by the government when it comes to patronage appointments.

No one has to look any further than the fact that the Conservatives appointed an unelected member to the Senate to be the public works minister to know that there is no measure they will not undertake, especially since it was a big break from their actual election platform. Subsequently, when we look at some of these other appointments, that is what we see.

The directors are very important. They reflect the decisions of the board and they have influence in the community.

With that, I want to move into one of the elements that is going to be loosened up in this bill. It is the availability of used port land for alternative uses. That could actually be other business plans. It could be very good for the port in many respects and also for the community. What I have asked the department, though, and it has not responded yet, is what the procedure would be to deal with the municipality affected by this.

Coming from a land planning background, I can tell members that everything is very much tied to the planning basis for sustainability, for the environment and for fairness when it comes to commercial, retail and also residential usage and so forth.

I noticed when reviewing the parliamentary secretary's speech on this matter that he took a particular interest in making sure that with these third-party agreements they did not allow condos to go on this land. However, that does not take away the fact that there could be other types of uses that could be in conflict or competition with adjacent property, for which private sector or public sector holders, whether the municipalities or the provinces, actually already have land agreements and uses on the sites.

If there is no process put in place that actually allows the municipality to look at its official plan to vet that accordingly, then we would see a circumvention of that. That is bad for the environment and bad for planning. It certainly has already been a situation that I have seen a couple of times. City land or government land has actually skirted the actual municipal processes in Ontario because the municipalities do not have to go through that same process. So what we literally have is almost an agreement by the principals involved to not have to go through the planning advisory steps. They thus avoid the Ontario Municipal Board and so forth.

One of the things we want is to see that element really defined in a crystal clear way so that the local people and the regional people who are sitting on this board have a clear understanding of the vetting process in terms of third party agreements for the use of their land.

The encouragement for this from the government is so that the ports can actually move to another level of development and also at the same time retain, if they have surplus land, some economic activity on it to actually help the port. Also, it is so they have control of those lands, so that should there in the future be the necessary requirement to use those lands, the control would be there.

Coming from Windsor West, I think that is a wise principle. We have the busiest land border crossing in North America and, in fact, for truck traffic it is the busiest in the world. We have 10,000 trucks per day that traverse this crossing.

What we have witnessed is the lack of planning because this was a private bridge. It still is a private bridge that the government of the day did not take advantage of in terms of appropriately planning out the area around it. It is now boxed in, so to speak, and even if significant land is acquired, there is no opportunity to meet the modern challenges for security and trade that are necessary and are being mandated by the United States.

Despite the platitudes of the Prime Minister, and no matter how many times he meets with the Americans and works with them, what is actually happening on the ground is that the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies are imposing new procedures, new services and new barriers for our trade through there.

Therefore, I think this principle of actually having the ports retain this land for future usage is wise, but the terms, conditions and rules are very important.

I have touched upon just a few elements tonight and only have a minute to conclude, but I do want to say the New Democrats are looking for a modern port that is also going to be very efficient in its security. Right now, less than 3% of cargo coming into this country is checked. This is a huge security risk that the government has completely ignored. That has to end.

On that note, we will be looking at this bill at committee to make improvements so it can go forward, but it has to be done with a national concept as well as a local one, because that is how things operate with the best efficiency.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. One is with regard to the point the member almost finished. It was related to the land. When he talked about how the conditions are important, I am assuming that he would not want the user fees to go to some huge expensive development on that land as a sort of little empire. I have had feedback related to airport authorities in a couple of instances in regard to investments they made.

Second, I know the member would know as well as anyone in this House the importance of just in time delivery because of the economy in his riding. Maybe he could just outline why that is important in a port and how hopefully this bill will improve that to keep us competitive.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those are two very good questions from my colleague.

With regard to user fees, what is happening in my region is critical with the private Ambassador Bridge, and the government is actually insistent on a move to a public-private partnership for our new crossing in the Windsor-Detroit region. We are adding another border tax on top of our structure, which is an unnecessary profit. Second, it affects competition, production and investment in our own area. Adding this cost structure and the extra tax regime very much impedes decisions for economic development in Canada.

I agree with the member that we have to keep those fees low. To do so, we should actually have a return that goes back into the investment. We should not create an empire for the sake of creating one, but for the sake of efficiency, and procure the development on that land, which will lower fees and make it competitive.

I worry about the ideological stance of the government to make everything a business, a micro-business in itself. In fact, it has been creating miniature bureaucracies. On top of that, it has been introducing new taxes, and that is not acceptable.

The second point the member made is in terms of just in time delivery. I will be very quick. One of the exciting things we could actually get into is short sea shipping. That is one of the things this country has not taken full advantage of. I would hope that it would be done with a national shipbuilding policy, because we certainly would have a great manufacturing base to which to return this element to Canada's historic platform, as it was before.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for mentioning the issue of the appointments to boards of directors in his speech, because it is something that concerns me, coming as I do from Vancouver. Currently we have three port authorities that are being amalgamated into one, the Port of Vancouver, the Fraser River Port and the Deltaport.

I am very concerned about the municipal representation that is going to be available to that new board given that there is a lot of experience in those three port authorities now being amalgamated into one. Also, many communities are affected by the new port: Delta, Vancouver, North Vancouver, Burnaby, Port Moody, and New Westminster. These are some of the communities that are directly affected by that.

I am concerned about changes in board membership and also the size of boards, which will affect the ability of the boards to reflect the interests of those communities. I wonder if he might comment a little more about that particular issue with regard to the bill.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear from the member for Burnaby—Douglas, who has been a good advocate for Vancouver and that area. He is right in expressing concern about this.

One of the important things a local board can do with some type of representation is reduce conflict before it happens. It is able to identify those issues that might be problematic to the adjacent property owners, the adjacent users and, on top of that, the regional people they are serving. Those elements come to the surface a lot more quickly then than they do by having somebody appointed from Ottawa from some dark chamber somewhere. We are talking about having people on the ground floor who are able to deal with the issues on a regular basis and are able to unplug some of the difficult problems before they manifest themselves.

When we look at the reduction of boards, it sounds great. We want to reduce these elements, but at the same time, if we do not do it with the concept of being proactive, wanting to reduce conflict and having the foresight to think about what the community will be in 25, 50 and 75 years because we and our families are being raised there, we will lose an element that is very important for the strategic connection between a port and its community.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, may I seek unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The House has heard the request of the hon. member. Is there agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. It certainly impacts my area of the country, the province of British Columbia, which has a very significant port, one of the busiest ports in North America. Today we are debating amendments to the Canada Marine Act.

My comments will focus a little bit on the importance of supply chains and transportation and how those things are so critical to ensuring that Canada remains competitive and has a dynamic and vibrant economy.

I also want to talk a little about global trade in general and how important it is that we as Canadians start to identify the opportunities that we have to build trade with the emerging economies in the world, as well as expanding trade with the major trading partners that we already have.

Global trade and commerce are changing rapidly and transportation is one of the critical, if not the most critical, aspects of successful trading relationships. It may surprise many to know that the cost of transporting goods and commodities around the world has actually gone down, not up, despite the fact that we have much higher costs in terms of fuel. We have more modern technologies and higher commodity prices which translate into higher prices for equipment. In fact, the cost of transportation has gone down dramatically over many decades.

Today businesses around the world organize their production, not only at home but by outsourcing some activities to third parties. They will locate other activities outside of their home country. They will also form strategic alliances and joint ventures around the globe. We call these global supply chains.

Essentially, when a producer is producing a certain product, the research and development may be happening in one country, several components may be being made in one country and several others in another, and the actual assembly of those products may be done in a fourth country. All of those production units need to work together effectively and efficiently, and transportation is critical to ensuring that happens.

What else is critical in Canada is that our Asia-Pacific market is the new centre of gravity of world trade, in light of the fact that the trans-Pacific trade, especially the container market is growing so rapidly that the west coast of North America, particularly the port of Vancouver, is beginning to experience capacity problems.

In short, that means that our ability to handle the trade demands of the Asia-Pacific Rim countries is creating backlogs and deteriorating service levels. This holds true, not only for the west coast of Canada but across our great country. We have numerous significant ports in our nation.

There are a number of reasons for these capacity challenges and I will highlight three of them. First, the awful truth is that previous federal governments put little effort or funding into the expansion of our national transportation system. The result is an aging national infrastructure that is ill-suited to compete in the 21st century. That is why our Conservative government recently made the largest Canadian infrastructure investment in the last 50 years.

We have committed a total of $33 billion to our building Canada fund which will be spent on critical national infrastructure over the next seven years. For me this is exciting because it will improve infrastructure and especially transportation across our country. It will also benefit my province of British Columbia, the Asia-Pacific Gateway. I was so pleased to see that our government invested $1 billion to building infrastructure improvements in British Columbia, specifically to take advantage of gateway opportunities.

The second reason for capacity problems has been the steadily deteriorating level of service in the area of railway and freight transportation. For many years, virtually everyone who depends on shipping freight by our national railways has complained bitterly about the quality and level of service. To address this, we recently introduced Bill C-8 which would impose a new, more efficient way in which shippers could have their disputes about service and about ancillary charges resolved.

A third reason why Canada is beginning to have challenges in its gateways and trade corridors is that our major ports across the country do not have the legal flexibility to adapt to rapidly changing environments, specifically economic and trade environments. That is where Bill C-23 comes into play.

The bill would grant more powers to our gateway ports over the management of their own lands and more leasing powers. The ports would also be given greater authority to borrow money and to allow them to adapt more quickly to the changing needs of their customers. This is so key because we are in a global market and it is an incredibly competitive marketplace.

We do have some strategic advantages in British Columbia and in Canada to meeting those challenges, but we have to take advantage of them and the only way of doing that is to ensure our infrastructure is up to speed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has three minutes and 59 seconds left in his time.

The House resumed from December 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Abbotsford had the floor. He has four minutes left in the time allotted for his remarks. I therefore call upon the hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when debate adjourned last night, I understood I had three minutes. This is wonderful news. It is one more minute for a politician to talk.

When I left off debate, I was talking about the opportunities that Canada has in the area of international trade. As we know, Canada is a trading nation. It is one of the most successful trading nations in the world. In fact, it is perhaps the most resource rich country in the world. The nations of the world are beating a path to our doorstep not only for our resources and commodities but they are also looking to us for the technological expertise and much of the information we can deliver to make the world a better place.

When I left off debate, I was raising a number of reasons why we face challenges in Canada in trying to maximize the benefits we get from international trade. The first of these reasons was the awful truth that previous federal governments had essentially abandoned any significant effort to build our national infrastructure and the result was an aging infrastructure that was ill-suited to compete with the demands of the 21st century.

That is why the Conservative government, of course, introduced a $33 billion building Canada fund, which is a plan that is going to rebuild and renew our national infrastructure. It is the largest investment of its kind certainly in the last 50 years, if perhaps not in Canadian history. The building Canada fund is going to be rolled out over the next seven years.

There is a second reason why we have challenges in the area of making sure that we compete internationally for trade. That was the fact that the level of service in transportation, specifically railway transportation, was in a critical state of affairs. For many years virtually everyone in the shipping industry had complained about the fact that the level and quality of service delivered by our large national railways had declined.

To address this concern, our government introduced Bill C-8, which goes a long way to improving the level of service in our national railways. It ensures that the dispute resolution mechanisms available for shippers are efficient, low cost and timely.

The third reason why Canada is beginning to have challenges in the area of its gateways and trade corridors is the fact that our country does not have the legal flexibility given to its ports to be able to adapt to a rapidly changing economic environment. When I talk about ports, I am talking about marine ports, such as the port of Vancouver, the port of Montreal, the port of Halifax.

There are numerous other inland and marine ports across Canada that have challenges. They have transportation pinch points that restrict the ability of those who carry on trade with Canada and within Canada to get the job done. That is why we have introduced Bill C-23. It provides much more flexibility to the ports to be able to adapt to changing environments.

One of the areas where we are providing more flexibility is, for example, in the area of land management. Ports will now have more powers and authority to manage their lands, to lease them, to sell them, and to use them for the purposes they deem necessary for their businesses. We have also expanded the whole area of legal authority and the ability to borrow money, which again had been severely constrained until now.

We believe this flexibility is going to allow our ports to become even more dynamic because if we do not become more dynamic in the area of trade and ensure the infrastructure in Canada is in place to adapt to increasing trade, we are going to lose out.

There are many other ports across North America now that are competing with us and they are very aggressive. We need to make sure that our ports in Canada have the ability to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

I am thankful for the opportunity to address this very important issue for Canadians.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to have the opportunity to elaborate on certain aspects and provisions of Bill C-23. Specifically, I would like to focus on the impact of the proposed changes to the Canada Marine Act on Canadian port authorities.

We have entered a new era obviously in global trade. The patterns of our trade partnerships and relationships continue to change with the growth of our overseas markets, and that has been illustrated in earlier comments.

Canada must work to position itself strategically with east-west trade routes, routes that by their very nature require the transport of goods by marine mode.

New realities are upon us including the reality that marine based trade is becoming more and more important to our economy in terms of volume and the value of goods.

Our ability to accommodate this trade is integral to tapping the opportunities being generated by the ever-expanding markets. Ensuring that appropriate port infrastructure and the intermodal connections exist are crucial to allow for the increase in the volume of goods to flow unimpeded.

Not only does Canada have the opportunity to directly grow its Asian trade relationships but the prospects of developing Canadian gateways and corridors as the pre-eminent transportation routes into the heart of North America will result in numerous value added initiatives translating into long term high paying jobs.

In short, if Canada does not have the necessary infrastructure in place to accept the North American bound trade, it will go elsewhere and the spin-off opportunities will obviously be lost.

Since their inception, the 19 Canadian port authorities that form the backbone of the national port system have been self-sufficient entities that have effectively used their own revenues and borrowings to finance investments in port infrastructure; in other words, building the port capacity that is necessary for security trade growth with overseas markets.

On the whole our port authorities have been successful in pursuing new investments and have been very creative in the partnerships and financial arrangements that have made a large number of infrastructure projects possible.

Our ports have been able to maintain growth due to good management practices and without access to the federal treasury which aligns with the original objectives of the Canada Marine Act. However, the global economic realities of today are not the same as when the Canada Marine Act came into existence in 1998.

During the period that the Canada Marine Act was being developed national economic priorities reflected deficient deficit reduction. Our principal trade focus was with the United States, global logistics changes were in their infancy, and the federal government had minimal involvement in strategic infrastructure investments.

In the last decade, however, various federal funding programs related to infrastructure have been created. The recently announced building Canada fund includes $2.1 billion for gateways and border crossings as well as $1 billion for the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative. Within all of these strategies and initiatives it is clear that Canadian port authorities have a critical role to play.

Today there is significant pressure, especially on our west coast, to do more to accommodate growing maritime traffic. Canada's bilateral trade with China has increased 500% in the last 10 years. From 2001 to 2006 Canada's exports and imports with China recorded an average annual growth of 12% and 22% respectively.

Some experts are forecasting that container movement at west coast ports will quadruple by 2020. In terms of the time required to ensure that appropriate port related infrastructure is in place to handle this traffic 13 years is an extremely short period of time when we are dealing with port authorities.

Most of this container traffic represents inbound consumer goods, although Canada's booming energy sector and expanding Asian economies are increasing the demand for Canada's energy products and other commodities. Between 1996 and 2006, marine exports to China almost tripled to reach $7 billion.

Canada's west coast ports are planning to invest over $1 billion themselves in the next 10 to 15 years in order to address issues of capacity, including capacity for bulk and liquid bulk exports. However, given the forecast of trade growth within the Asian economies, it is unclear whether these investments by the ports alone will be sufficient to maintain Canada's market share of the anticipated traffic.

While the Canada Marine Act governs several components of our national port system, the proposed changes outlined in Bill C-23 will most profoundly affect Canada Port Authorities. There are several important amendments proposed to the Canada Marine Act; however, the cornerstone of Bill C-23 is a change contemplated in section 25 that would give port authorities the same ability to access federal funding as other transportation infrastructure providers.

The federal government recognizes the need to provide our ports with additional flexibility so that investments in important infrastructure may be made to meet new opportunities. The proposed amendment to section 25 of the Canada Marine Act would remove the existing legislative barrier that prohibits Canada Port Authorities from accessing contribution programs for infrastructure projects.

Access to contribution programs would place Canada Port Authorities on an equal footing with other major infrastructure providers and better reflect the government's current approach to financial investments, an approach which recognizes that from time to time a case may be made for federal investment that is in the public interest and that positions Canada within international trade dynamics, but in such a way that the commercial spirit and independence of the port authorities are not compromised.

The proposed access to contribution programs reflects the priorities of the government and will be focused on capital costs of infrastructure projects, environmental sustainability and security initiatives. Certainly in terms of security funding, these amendments are required to allow a continuation of contributions to ports, which as of the end of this month will no longer be provided under the Marine Transportation Security Act.

Bill C-23 also recognizes the diversity of port operations across the country, including the inherent role of some port authorities within gateway and corridor frameworks and the need to move these ports with significant revenue generating power closer to a self-governing borrowing regime.

In this regard, ports that achieve $25 million in operating revenues for three consecutive years will have the choice of moving to a new tiered structure under which there will be no aggregate borrowing limit. Rather, these ports would be subject to a code of borrowing established in their letters patent and a board-approved borrowing policy to reflect the requirements of the code.

This structure will result in more comprehensive reporting requirements to ensure borrowings are compatible with the policy and the code, but will also allow much greater flexibility to borrow according to the market conditions in order to address time-sensitive opportunities.

For those ports that are not subject to the new borrowing regime, it is important to note that, as a parallel policy initiative, guidelines have been developed that are designed to significantly shorten and clarify the borrowing limit increase approval process. That is important.

Other elements of Bill C-23 relate to strengthening the governance provisions of the Canada Marine Act. In addition to a number of general housekeeping amendments, the introductory provisions of the Canada Marine Act will be changed to recognize the historical, contemporary and future significance of marine transportation and its contribution to the Canadian economy.

The proposed amendments to the Canada Marine Act are integral to the long term objectives of our national gateway and trade corridor strategies. Simply put, the marine system is a major component of our national transportation structure and the Canada Port Authorities truly are the marine gateways for domestic and international markets. Without these important legislative amendments, it would be extremely difficult for our gateways and trade corridors to meet their full potential.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to rise here today to speak to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence. The purpose of the strategic framework for Canadian federal ports, established in 1995, was to eliminate excess capacity and create a new governance structure in order to support a more trade-focused system. International trade changed the context in which the federal ports were operating.

A review committee consulted various stakeholders and prepared a report, which was tabled in the House of Commons in June 2003. The report listed a number of recommendations that were fully endorsed by Canadian port authorities.

The principal concern identified during the review focused on the marine sector's financial flexibility, especially for port authorities, in order to maintain economic viability and respond effectively to changing market demand, as well as access to federal funding for infrastructure investment.

In terms of funding, Canadian port authorities cannot rely only on their operating revenues and private lenders. They do not have access to most federal funding. Industry observers have pointed out that Canadian port authorities, because of their structure, are hindering their own ability to procure the necessary funding for investments, which would allow them to maintain or improve their competitiveness. They can ask to have their borrowing limit raised, but a lack of real property to offer as collateral makes lenders nervous.

The bill before us today aims to strengthen the operating framework for port authorities by modifying the current borrowing regime, providing for access to contribution funding, and clarifying some aspects of governance.

The Bloc Québécois believes that this bill will increase the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence by maintaining and improving the port infrastructure required to develop the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes trade corridor. At the same time, this will also promote intermodal transportation and benefit the environment.

The Bloc's key concern with this bill is the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence River, which has always been a major asset to Quebec's development. It is closely linked to the economic development of all its regions. Eighty percent of Quebec's population lives on the shores of the St. Lawrence and over 75% of its industry is found there. The strategic location of industries in relation to the St. Lawrence River means it can be used for nearly all international trade outside the United States.

When considering the St. Lawrence Seaway in the North American context, the importance of its economic impact becomes even more obvious. Indeed, the St. Lawrence River provides privileged access to the heart of North America. It not only allows access to 90 million inhabitants and the industrial heartland of the United States, Canada and Quebec, but it also provides a shorter route for major European carriers. For example, the distance between Montreal and Rotterdam is 5,813 km while the distance between New York and Rotterdam is 6,154 km.

This strategic asset is the reason the Canadian and American governments have done much work since the start of the industrial age to provide easier access to the Great Lakes for international carriers. In 1959, the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway provided greater access to Lake Ontario and the rest of the Great Lakes.

The St. Lawrence Seaway is underutilized, however. The total amount of goods transported via the St. Lawrence dropped from 130 million tonnes in the early 1980s to approximately 100 million tonnes 10 years later, only to hover around 105 million tonnes since.

However, in the past 30 years, shipping has increased by 600% worldwide. Closer to home, the Mississippi system, which competes directly with the St. Lawrence, has seen its annual traffic go from 450 million to 700 million tonnes. Seaports on the east coast of the U.S. have also seen a steady rise in traffic.

A similar trend is affecting traffic going through the St. Lawrence Seaway. After reaching a high of 70 million tonnes, the quantity of goods being transported via the seaway stabilized around 50 million tonnes per year. This is due to different factors, mainly the fact that the St. Lawrence Seaway is not competitive, because of Ottawa's failure to pay attention to marine infrastructure in Quebec, particularly along the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes trade corridor.

Moreover, at a time when marine transportation is increasingly important to international trade, the federal government has been slow to take steps to make the St. Lawrence more competitive. I should mention that this sector of Quebec's economy faces extremely stiff competition from American ports.

Marine transportation plays a key role in the global economy, with nearly 90% of trade taking place by ship.

The importance of marine transportation is also growing with globalization. Internationally, marine transportation represents nearly 400 million tonnes of goods annually, with a total value of more than $80 billion. It is estimated that marine traffic will triple in volume in the next 20 years because of globalization. There is enormous potential there, and the ports along the St. Lawrence must be equipped to benefit from this growth.

Despite favourable economic conditions, Quebec is faced with strong competition from American ports. For example, container traffic has grown far more in the ports south of Washington than in Montreal. An important reason for this is the way American ports are funded. American ports have access to a number of sources of public and private funding. In addition to their operating revenues, major U.S. ports can issue bonds—some tax-exempt—take out loans, apply for subsidies and receive money from all levels of government. Many can collect property taxes, and few have to pay any money to the government.

By enabling the port authorities in Quebec to amalgamate, receive federal funding and take out commercial loans for infrastructure improvements, Bill C-23 will help ports compete more effectively against the ports on the American east coast.

In the past few years Ottawa has given Canada's west coast a number of financial benefits for developing the Pacific gateway and opening it for trade with Asia. There is also increasing talk about setting up an Atlantic gateway, to be located in Halifax, to ensure trade with the eastern United States.

What about the plan for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor, which is a matter of priority to the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, or SODES? This concept of the trade corridor is based on an obvious fact. The ports along the St. Lawrence must establish a common strategy for facilitating the most efficient transport of goods possible amongst themselves and towards the destination markets. The competition is no longer among Montreal, Quebec City, Sept-Îles or the other St. Lawrence ports, for their share of global marine traffic. They are competing against the American ports, and that is the competition they must face.

It is therefore important for users and stakeholders of the St. Lawrence to join forces to make the most of their assets and improve what is called the “logistics chain” in order to make the river and its estuary a quintessential trade corridor.

Such development must focus on the complementarity and advantages of each port and on the complementarity between the different modes of transportation. The obstacles and bottlenecks that slow down the movement of goods must be identified in order to prioritize the investment needed to correct those slowdowns.

The primary challenge is to get not just the port authorities and the regional ports, but also the carriers, namely the railway companies, to buy in to this concept.

The railway companies and the trucking companies do not have a history of cooperating. However, cooperation is essential to the development of the trade corridor, as we can see from Vancouver's example.

The St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, SODES, through the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes Gateway Council, is giving these matters a great deal of thought, as is the Comité interrégional pour le transport des marchandises for the Montreal area.

The Government of Quebec supports this initiative since it has injected $2.6 million into the marine transportation support program and has released $21 million for the assistance program for modal integration in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of strategic marine and rail infrastructure.

The federal government has to do its part too. Once Bill C-23 is passed, it will make a modest contribution to the development of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor. As such, the government should provide the same level of political and financial support to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor as it does to the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative.

The signing of a memorandum of understanding between Ottawa, Quebec and Ontario in July 2007 was a first step toward implementing an action plan. Over the next two years, partners in the public and private sectors will collect and share data to guide future multi-modal strategies, projects and investments. This is a step in the right direction, but it is still far from the billion dollars invested in the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative.

We are not opposed to federal initiatives to support the Pacific gateway, but the federal government should also be supporting similar efforts to develop the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor.

I would now like to turn to an aspect of maritime transportation that is of special interest to me because it has a major impact on environmental protection. I am talking about intermodal transportation that promotes cabotage on the St. Lawrence. By supporting investment in infrastructure belonging to Quebec's port authorities, Bill C-23 supports intermodal transportation.

How can we make the best use of the unique characteristics of maritime transportation while respecting the private sector's need for fast, low-cost transportation?

Europe came up with an answer because traffic on its road system exceeded capacity. This is also happening in the rest of the world, particularly in the United States.

The solution is intermodal transportation, which is growing at a phenomenal pace thanks to the increased use of standardized containers. Intermodal transportation combines energy efficiency with the rapid transportation of goods.

For the past few years, intermodal transportation has been getting some attention from both private and public sectors. Since 2001, the Government of Quebec has made developing intermodal transportation a priority in its maritime transportation policy. It has invested $1.5 million in an intermodal transportation project at the port of Sept-Îles.

Right now, concrete initiatives designed to develop a real intermodal transportation network are being implemented in several regions of Canada and Quebec.

As you can see, Quebec is well ahead of the Conservative government in this matter. Other intermodal transportation projects are moving forward. For example, there is the Kruger project which transports 300,000 tonnes of wood chips per year by barge from Ragueneau and Forestville to Trois-Rivières. This use of the St. Lawrence will replace 18,000 truck trips per year.

At present, only one quarter of the vessels using the river engage in cabotage or short sea shipping. All stakeholders in this area confirm that this type of transportation has considerable development potential. Therefore, developing intermodal transportation is a very important option for Quebec for the economic development of the St. Lawrence River.

Bill C-23 will allow the use of certain port facilities in the regions and will also maximize the use of the rail network, which has some underutilized lines. This will be the primary means of developing the St. Lawrence Seaway corridor and ensuring that it becomes the true gateway for goods from the Atlantic.

As we can see, this mode of transportation is more environmentally friendly than current modes used. Transportation is responsible for one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions resulting from marine transport of goods represents only 1.25% of this total; road and rail transport combined produce 9% of these emissions.

Studies have shown that marine transportation is safer, uses less fuel and produces fewer emissions per tonne-kilometre than rail or truck transportation.

Marine transportation uses only 10% to 20% of the fuel consumed by road transportation. One tonne of freight can travel 240 kilometres by ship on a single litre of fuel. By train, it will travel less than 100 km and by truck, the distance is even smaller, only 30 km. The future of marine transportation depends on recognizing its environmental advantages.

The Bloc Québécois obviously supports this bill because it will foster the economic development of the St. Lawrence River and will help to protect our environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Alfred-Pellan talked about one of the goals of this bill, which is to improve the navigability of the St. Lawrence and everything related to it.

I would like to ask him what this means for what I would call the St. Lawrence-eastern Quebec corridor. I am sure he will understand why: my riding and my region are in that area.

I would like to know if Bill C-23 will have a direct or indirect impact on port infrastructure belonging to the federal government, be it Fisheries and Oceans Canada or Transport Canada. I am talking about the entire east coast, both the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence. Given that the government still owns much of this infrastructure, it is responsible for it. Fishing is not the only kind of business that goes on there. The federal government is carelessly neglecting its duty.

I would like to know how Bill C-23 addresses this issue: superficially or in depth?

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

In any event, the ports she mentioned as still belonging to municipalities are part of a federal port divestiture program, which has been under way for several years but has not yet been completed. These ports are therefore not necessarily covered by the current bill, because this program is already under way.

The Bloc Québécois is pressuring the government to step up the divestiture program and give grants to municipalities or local agencies that take over ports.

On the other hand, the bill provides that several ports with a smaller capacity than Montreal, Quebec City or Sept-Îles can amalgamate to obtain the funding they need to expand and to pool their resources. This is the main advantage of the bill. At the same time, the bill would enable ports to access existing federal infrastructure programs to which the port authorities do not currently have access.

That is why we have heard favourable testimony from a number of representatives of small ports. I recently heard the testimony of representatives of the port of Saguenay, who are very much in favour of the bill, as it would give them greater flexibility in their financial administration.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, we also have a terrific waterway that is not being maximized in terms of some of the transportation possibilities that exist.

When we look at the map, Sault Ste. Marie is hard to miss because it is right in the middle of three of the biggest Great Lakes: Lake Superior to the north, Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. A lot of goods come in from the west through Thunder Bay and then down through Sault Ste. Marie. We also see ourselves as a gateway into the midwest United States. We are also connected to the St. Lawrence Seaway via all the connecting waterways: Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and other paths that come up and go into Lake Huron and then down into Michigan.

We also are asking to be included in the government's plans to ensure all our ports are up to standard and up to scale and we are able to meet the demand and actually take advantage of the potential that is there. My community is talking very aggressively these days, including the government, the private sector and others, about multi-modal.

Does the member think that places, like Sault Ste. Marie, which are obviously so very strategically placed to take advantage of new transportation and distribution systems that are evolving, should also be included in any plan that the government undertakes to expand and make our port system better?

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from the NDP for his question.

This allows me to specify that when I talk about the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor, it includes the Great Lakes in their entirety. We are talking about a navigation system and the government has recognized the importance of this seaway.

The bill will allow greater flexibility and more borrowing and governance opportunities for the port authorities.

That said, despite the fact that we are in favour of this improvement, the federal government must get involved, as it did for the Pacific gateway. The federal government must recognize the importance of this corridor, which leads to the very heart of North America. The St. Lawrence is more than just the stretch located in Quebec, which serves as an entrance way; it connects with all the Great Lakes.

Through a federal government investment program, the port authorities could become involved and respond to a development program promoted by the federal government. The port authorities could respond effectively if they were given the power to borrow money and to amalgamate ports, thereby eliminating competition among them.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House to speak today on second reading of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence.

I have to say that when the bill came up in our caucus we had a lot of discussion among our members. It became evident very quickly that there was a lot of interest in the bill because it will have impacts on ports across the country and certainly on ports in our ridings. It became very clear that a number of us, for a long period of time, have been dealing with issues surrounding ports, port development and the interface between port lands and residential lands.

So on the one hand I am very glad that the bill is coming forward, because it does allow us the opportunity to raise I think some very longstanding systemic issues concerning the operation of our ports and the relationship that ports have to local government and local communities.

In my riding of Vancouver East, the whole northern boundary of my riding from Cambie Street all the way to Boundary Road, where we have the boundary with the municipality of Burnaby, borders the waterfront and is structured through the port of Vancouver. The port has a huge impact on the people who live in east Vancouver in terms of employment, economic development and the relationship between what happens in the port and the impact on the surrounding community.

I want to begin my remarks today by saying that overall we recognize the importance of port lands, port activity and the number of jobs that are contained in the port of Vancouver. It is a significant employment generator. There is huge spinoff activity. Certainly the port of Vancouver is the largest port in Canada, with significant container port activities.

These are all things that drive the economy of British Columbia. They drive the economy of Vancouver, being on the Asia Pacific gateway. We recognize that there are significant jobs related to the port. They are generally good jobs. There are issues that arise, but we understand the importance and the value of the port in our local community and the local economy.

However, I also have to point out that over the years we have dealt with many issues relating to port development. The thing that I find most difficult is the relationship with the local community and the fact that there has been a lack of an adequate, proper and sustained planning process. In the bill before us, a number of issues that are dealt with warrant our serious attention. I know that we in the NDP will be very active when the bill goes to committee, because we will be seeking changes and amendments to reflect the concerns that we have had expressed to us by local residents.

There are issues in the bill concerning the amalgamation of ports. There are issues concerning the restructuring of the governance model. In fact, there is a reduction in the number of directors who can be appointed. In the case of the port of Vancouver, it is between 7 and 11 directors, and there is a concern about what kind of representation that will be. There is also a concern about security issues. I am going to go into each of these issues to spell out some of our concerns.

First, in terms of the governance and security, I recently wrote to the Minister of Transport to point out that under the proposed changes there was no recognition that there needed to be labour representation on the port of Vancouver and presumably on other ports across the country.

When I wrote to the minister, I made this very clear. I will quote from my letter, which was sent in October:

Labour's longstanding commitment and positive contributions to the success of our waterfront industry must not be undervalued. Labour performs a wide range of important functions in a modern day working waterfront and is a key element to its success. Moreover, not only do they contribute a labour perspective, but also economic, social and environmental perspectives.

The reply I got from the Minister of Transport was that this was all well and good, but not to worry, labour representation will continue in the form of membership on the Vancouver Port Authority user committee. I feel that is a very inadequate response.

I have no problem with labour or other stakeholders being on a user committee, but we are talking about the governance structure and the board of directors itself. It seems to me there has to be a recognition by the government that there should be a labour perspective on the board of directors. There are business perspectives. There are maritime perspectives.

There needs to be a perspective and an analysis brought to that board of directors that come directly from the people who have incredible experience working on the waterfront and who are very familiar with the issue. I was very dissatisfied with the reply from the minister. This will be one of the issues that we will take up in regard to the bill.

Second, in regard to governance and security, the other issue that has been of huge concern for the Vancouver waterfront and what is happening is the question of new rules that are coming in, the maritime security clearance program, which has caused an enormous amount of disruption, anxiety and concern for the many thousands of people who work on the waterfront in terms of what they are now subject to for new security clearance regulations.

I would refer to a press release that was issued by the International Longshore & Warehouse Union of Canada in July of this year, in which the union points out that the security clearance program requires port employees to submit an extensive questionnaire to government, covering matters ranging from the names and addresses of past spouses, to schools attended, to past travel destinations. Further, the program requires employees to consent to the release of this information to foreign governments.

There is an enormous concern about the infringement of privacy rights. In fact, the ILWU submitted a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner in August of this year regarding these new provisions in the security clearance program.

In the complaint the union put forward to the Privacy Commissioner, it points out that the security clearance form collects personal information, which presumably may lead to profiling of employees based on simplistic assumptions about differing regions of the world and to different treatment of employees based on their national origins or countries they may have visited. This raises the concern that Transport Canada may profile applicants, deny clearances and thus deny employment. This is noted in the letter from the ILWU, which is fighting this tooth and nail.

I am proud to say that in our B.C. caucus of the NDP members of Parliament, we have been supporting the union. I know that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has been very active on this file as well, because we believe that these security measures are completely over the top. They are infringing upon people's rights. There has been very little public information about them. We believe they should be challenged. We support that challenge.

I would say that these new security measures are quite ironic, because we have to remember that it was the previous Liberal government that actually eliminated the Ports Canada Police in 1998. When I first got elected in 1997, this was a very major issue.

In east Vancouver we could not believe that the ports police, who had been a key part of the waterfront in patrolling and dealing with security issues, were going to be eliminated. Indeed, they were eliminated across the country.

It is ironic that a specialized force with experience, knowledge and a background in dealing with security issues in ports across the country was eliminated, while now we are facing these incredibly restrictive and onerous provisions that are impacting individual lives and the lives of family members, even former spouses. This is sort of putting people on a watch list. We have very grave concerns about these provisions. Again, we will be raising these issues as we have more debate on this bill.

My third concern about this bill relates to the large question of, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the interface between legitimate port activity and residential communities. I do want to reiterate that this issue is not a challenge to the value and the importance of the port. It is a concern that comes up over and over again in regard to the role and the relationship of the port with a local community and a local municipality.

There are numerous issues that involve my riding of East Vancouver that not only I have been addressing as the member of Parliament on behalf of my constituents, but that the former member of Parliament, and the member of Parliament for Vancouver East before that, Margaret Mitchell, whom I am sure members remember, also addressed frequently in the House.

There is a whole series of development questions that have arisen about our port and cause residents to have serious concerns about what kinds of developments take place under the guise of port development, as well as concerns about the negative impact those developments can have on a local community. For example, in the Burrardview community, residents have been fighting the Lafarge concrete batch plant on the basis that it is an inappropriate use to have that plant so physically close to a residential neighbourhood.

We were very disappointed with the Supreme Court decision that allowed this concrete batch plant to go ahead, although we do not know at this point whether it will actually proceed. In July I wrote to the Minister of Transport about it. In fact, I have written many times to the minister, but one of my more recent letters was written in July. I pointed out:

Although the court has ruled, the decision does not abrogate the responsibility of Transport Canada to respect the needs of residents in the adjacent Burrardview neighbourhood. Given that this is the only location in Vancouver where residents live next to an industrial port--which happens to be Canada's largest and busiest--I believe that a constructive and compatible co-existence must be achieved between the industrial uses of the Port lands and the quality of life of neighbouring residents.

The minister finally wrote back in September, several months later, and said:

The decision clarifies the authority in the Canada Marine Act under which the Vancouver Port Authority...may lease its Schedule C property (non-federal real property) to Lafarge Canada Inc. Transport Canada and the VPA will conduct their activities with full regard to the decision in this complex case, as well as the needs of the community and the legislative and regulatory framework governing the VPA.

There is an acknowledgement that obviously there will have to be a review if an application comes forward, but this does not leave one with a sense of confidence that Transport Canada or the port authority will, in an open and above board way, recognize and work with local residents to mitigate their concerns and deal with something like a concrete batch plant development, which would have a big impact on local residents. That has been one issue around development.

There have been many others. One example is grain dust. Numerous rail lines go through the port of Vancouver, which is a major terminus for the grain cars coming in from the Prairies. Again, I emphasize that we understand the value and importance of this.

However, the grain terminals are of great concern to people, especially the environmental and physical impacts of dealing with that amount of grain. I usually write several times a year to the port, as well as to the minister. My latest letter was sent in April of this year. I pointed out that a lot of people lived on Wall Street, which is near the port. They have experienced large amounts of dust in the air around the neighbourhood.

I also pointed out that the Port of Seattle had a very comprehensive approach for dealing with grain dust. It utilizes a comprehensive vacuum system as part of its dust management plan. I wanted to know why the Port of Vancouver had not investigated and utilized similar kinds of programs. The grain dust from the terminals is another issue that has been of grave concern in the local community.

Another issue that has impacted the quality of life is the West Coast Reduction plant, a rendering plant that takes waste from many restaurants and businesses. Products are rendered and then sold. When I was on Vancouver city council in the 1980s, the odour and pollution from this plant caused enormous concerns in the local community.

On this issue, the Greater Vancouver Regional District has been quite responsive to resident concerns. It has tried to bring in regulations and ensure that they are met by the West Coast Reduction plant in an attempt to deal with the very serious problems with the odour. Again, I have written letters with regard to this.

The port's reaction has always been that it really does not affect anyone and that the people should live with it. It has not satisfied the concerns of local residents who have to deal with these issues on a day by day basis. It is something that seriously affects the quality of their lives.

Another issue is train noise. When changes took place in the rail yards, the shunting yards were moved further east. This had an enormous impact, particularly in the early hours of the morning when engines were being linked and de-linked. Train noise could go on for hours. We learned that from the rail yard's point of view, it was easier to allow engines idle than to turn them off and restart them.

The impact of the noise on local residents was quite severe. People lost sleep and they could not get to work. We have dealt with this issue on numerous occasions, with many letters back and forth between me, the minister, the port and the rail companies, to try to address this issue.

Finally, the most current question is whether port lands will now be used for a major new soccer stadium development very close to downtown, between what is called CRAB Park and Canada Harbour Place. A significant concern is the proposed development and its impact from the point of view of noise, traffic, congestion and the environment. One proposal had the stadium going over the rail yards, where hazardous materials are transported in containers. There was a lot of concern about what kinds of environmental hazards they could pose.

Right now there are very active groups in the community, such as the Burrardview Community Association, the CRAB-Water for Life Society, the Central Waterfront Coalition, the Gastown Residents Association, the Gastown Neighbourhood Coalition, all of which have a very significant interest in what happens with the proposal for a development for a private soccer stadium on these crucial lands in the central waterfront area in the city of Vancouver.

In November I wrote the minister about this issue. I raised issues about the proposed development, which has not yet been approved, and the impact it will have.

The bill is an opportunity to flag these issues. Our ports are very important, but the way they work and relate to adjacent communities and municipalities is also important. I do not believe the bill really addresses that question and if we do not address it, then we will continue to have these issues come forward. We will continue to have a high level of frustration. We will continue to have an impact on the quality of life.

I feel we can be much more proactive in how we set up planning processes, how we set up accountability and how the governance is structured on a port to reflect these concerns.

There are some good aspects to the bill, but there are also concerns with it. From the point of view of the NDP caucus, we will pursue this at committee to ensure the concerns of local residents are met.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East. I am always interested in what she has to say.

The hon. member talked about security from the perspective of protecting individuals and their personal information and also the impact on neighbourhoods. I would like her to say a few words on this.

She may not run into exactly this problem in her riding, on the shores of Vancouver. Nonetheless, I am very interested in matters of the environment, the erosion of the shores and coastlines, and the safety of the mode of transportation and what is being transported—we are talking about substances that are often very harmful, even extremely toxic.

I was rereading a comment made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Yesterday, when he introduced this bill by saying it had two parts, he added:

It [the strategy of the bill] recognizes the importance of promoting strategic investment and productivity improvements, yet protects port lands for future transportation needs.

In my opinion, the port lands, the surrounding areas and the shoreline are not there for future transportation needs, but for current protection, to protect our environmental heritage.

I was wondering if the hon. member could comment on that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the Bloc. She raises additional concerns that our community has about the bill and the way developments are handled.

We face the prospect that potentially port lands will be used for very expensive condominium development. The question of hazardous goods moving through port lands and the impact on the environment and the fish habitat is of concern. I have written some letters to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to find out whether there will be environmental impact assessments on the fishery habitat because it is so crucial to the community as well.

While there is some acknowledgement of these issues, I feel there has been a lack of real oversight by the government to address the impacts of what some of these changes will be. I can only reiterate the member's concerns and say that we have a fair amount of anxiety and frustration about what changes will take place and whether there will be any kind of adequate process to ensure that people's concerns are heard. These concerns include dangerous goods, transportation, the impact on the environment and if we will see a massive sale of so-called surplus lands in port lands that will then be used for things like very high priced condominium development. I think residents can see this will have a major impact on their local communities.

All these issues have drawn our attention to the bill, but I see that as one good thing. At least we are getting a chance to talk about it. I hope, when we get the bill to committee, we can bring forward witnesses, including people from local communities who live next door to a port, who see these issues on a daily basis, to explain the difficulties they experience in getting information and understanding the process to deal with these concerns.

I appreciate the member raising these issues and I certainly share them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member being on somewhat of a fishing expedition in relation to some of the issues that are not dealt with in the bill. However, I will answer some of her questions.

First, as a government and as a department, we consulted heavily with stakeholders. Many of the initiatives brought forward in the bill are as a result of those consultations. In relation to land, I will quote from the policy change, dated November 2007, which speaks in respect of this. It states:

—with respect to land held or managed by CPAs for future port expansion, [the purpose is] to enable the CPAs to lease or license such land, on a temporary basis, provided that the following critical criteria are met:

(a) the use is classified as commercial, non-residential;

(b) each individual use is compatible with the land use plan of the port and has taken into account the land use plan of any adjacent local government;

(c) each individual use does not compromise the ability of the authority to operate port facilities and support transportation over the long term, or the land will be returned at the cost of the lessee or licensee to a state compatible with future port operations...

The policy initiative does not alter the status of federal real property with respect to provincial or municipal planning and by-laws. As well, all CPAs are required to develop a land use plan—

This goes to the specific thrust of the member's question.

—for properties under the management of the CPA. Land use plans must account for the relevant social, economic and environmental matters and zoning by-laws that apply to neighbouring lands.

That answers my friend's question from across the way.

We are acting in the best interest of Canadians. Could my friend comment on that because the purpose of the bill is to prepare for the future and not be caught with our pants down, as was the case with the previous Liberal government.

We want to be prepared and keep the economy flowing. At the same time, we want to manage what is best for Canadians, and that includes social and environmental concerns.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that direction in the bill. The question is, what kind of process will it be?

We know that ports are exempt from municipal zoning because they are under federal jurisdiction. There has been this long-standing struggle in terms of changes in port lands and development and how that takes place.

While it has been recognized over the years that port authorities should consider adjacent municipal zoning, there is nothing that legally requires them to be under municipal zoning, to hold a public hearing. We are all familiar with a municipal public hearing, which is a quasi-judicial process that can then have appeals. Those are some of our concerns.

I understand the direction that the bill lays out, but we want to examine it in great detail. We want to hear from local residents who have some concerns with these very serious issues. We want to look at the bill and see if the changes in the bill deal with the very real questions that they have raised. Let us look at the process. Let us look at how it would unfold. That is what we want to do.

I appreciate the member raising that and we are ready to get into that level of work at the committee.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the member for Vancouver East, particularly as they relate to the punitive actions taken against the member's port workers, members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

The member mentioned the fact that very restrictive measures have been brought in with regard to the working arrangements and approval for working arrangements at the port. At the same time, she has also mentioned the fact that the government has taken virtually no action with regard to inspection for container traffic that comes through ports like Vancouver, the Fraser port on the Fraser River and elsewhere in the country.

Could the member comment on this contradiction? We have very punitive actions being taken against the workers, long-time workers on the docks, information that I imagine through the SPP, the Security Prosperity Partnership, will be shared with the United States.

However, on the actions that would increase port security, which is inspections of container traffic so we have a better sense of what kind of containers are moving through our ports, the government has taken absolutely no action.

Is it the case of the government trying to pretend that it is improving security and doing nothing to improve security at our ports? Is that the issue?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the government thinks that people who work on the waterfront are easy targets and so it comes out with these incredibly onerous regulations that require a person-by-person for these elaborate measures to come. However, the reaction to it has been significant. Legal challenges are now under way.

What the member points out is entirely correct. Why is it that we, on the one hand, have substantive security clearance measures being put in place levied against individuals but, on the other hand, the federal government is not actually providing the resources, either in terms of ports police or other security measures, to check the containers that are coming in?

We know that ports of entry are one of the places where the most amount of goods are coming into our country, in fact, probably the most significant, and yet there is virtually nothing in place to deal with that.

It seems like a completely contradictory policy that puts this heavy-handed approach on individual rights and placing the onus on individuals to prove that they do not pose any security risk and opens the door for all kinds of profiling while, on the other hand, the government is not providing the resources to do the inspections that I think would deal with a lot of the concerns in terms of security.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today and say a few words about Bill C-23. Canadians are, quite often, self-effacing and never think of themselves as great and yet they are leaders in the world in many ways. I have a vision for Canada where they could be leaders in many more ways. One, of course, would be a vision of modern, efficient, secure ports. We could do that better than anyone else in the world.

I commend the members of Transport Canada who have worked for years on this, the previous Liberal government that brought the essence of this bill forward and the present government for continuing with it. This goes toward that modern, exciting vision of Canada as some of the best in the world. This is so important for our economy. The world has changed in many ways and therefore our ports need to change.

We need just in time delivery. The villains develop new ways of causing problems so we need modern security to keep up. As ports are essential to many industries in Canada, we need to make sure they are operating under all conditions and do not close down. These workers are essential to other industries, such as the grain industry. Canada is an exporting nation and to be competitive with the world we need to get our goods and products out in a timely fashion in order to continue to lead the world in some of the areas that we do at present.

In a modern global village, even diseases are carried much more rapidly around the world and we need to be immune from those. It could be something as simple as a disease that attacks our trees. The forestry industry is huge to Canada and yet if a bug comes in, say, a wooden shipping pallet, we need to protect ourselves against those types of issues.

It is important to invest in our ports and to promote a vision of modern ports as good as anyone.

I appreciate this bill and some of the technical things it would do toward that and I encourage the government to continue to do many other things to achieve that objective. As the parliamentary secretary said, it is good that the government has picked up and continued our Pacific Gateway program and that will continue to contribute toward the efficiency and building of the ports and access to them.

There is no reason Canada cannot be like Singapore, which has huge revenues from its ports. Compared to certain types of factories and other types of emissions, ports can be quite environmentally clean and a good way to create high paying jobs for Canadians. We can then get the benefit of the goods that we are making and the things that we are bringing in so that they do not go to others.

For example, on both the east and west coasts, many U.S. ports are quite able, ready and willing to take shipments and therefore we cannot have delays, we cannot be inefficient or too bureaucratic and we cannot have backlog in our ports. It is important that we modernize and stay ahead because we can do it as well as anyone else.

When I fly into Vancouver twice a week and see the lineup of boats waiting to be unloaded, I sometimes wish that we did not have the delays and that we could do things quicker so we are competitive and shippers do not decide to go elsewhere. Loading and unloading equipment has been modernized and there is no reason we cannot have the best computerized equipment in the world to do that kind of job.

We also should invest in modern scientific equipment for security. We certainly can do it. I will not give the villains any information as to what we are doing wrong but we can invest to ensure we have the best detection equipment in the world so no one is using our ports for nefarious reasons.

My riding of Yukon has a port in Skagway, Alaska that is about an hour west of the riding and it is very important to us. Even though only about 800 people live there, it is one of the biggest cruise ship ports in the world. Sometimes four of the biggest cruise ships in the world are there at any one time. Yukon is probably the only territory or province in Canada where the number one employer, as far as the number of employees goes, is tourism. The tourists get off those boats and come into my riding. If there is an efficient and effective port system, it shows how it can affect the local economy.

I also want to show how an improper investment can also affect a port. About six years ago, one of the docks where these cruise ships dock collapsed into the water. We know these cruise ships carry thousands of people. The dock went hundreds of metres under the water and disappeared.

Fortunately, the accident occurred during the winter when only workers were on the dock but I believe one worker drowned. The tidal wave, which the accident caused, was right in front of the small boat harbour and, as a result, all the small boats sank to the bottom of the ocean. When the wave came back, it hit the other shore and the harbour filled up again and it damaged the ferry dock. It is very important to have proper investments in our ports so we have the best equipment available.

Another example is the gross territorial product. The biggest part of our economy related to production is in mining. We depend on the port at Skagway for shipping ore around the world. It is days shorter to ship from Skagway than it is from Vancouver. It is a very key port for the north and must be efficient.

I have another example of how a lack of investment can affect an economy. I was at a mine opening a few months ago of Sherwood Copper, a wonderful new mine in Yukon that is quite efficient and environmentally friendly. It produces copper ore and it follows environmental regulations.

The port I was talking about had not been used since the closure of Cypress Anvil and had not been used for ore for some time. It had been somewhat decommissioned and needed new equipment. The port was not quite ready for shipping when the mine was ready to ship. When the mine was ready to ship the ore, I saw dozens and dozens of huge canvas bags about the size of a car that contained the ore. This, obviously, was not an efficient way and not the final way to ship the ore but it had to be done for a few months in the interim while the port was getting ready.

Many parts of Canada are quite dependent on the car industry and what industry could be more competitive than the car industry? The car industry uses just in time delivery, which depends on a few hours in order to be competitive and on tens of thousands of Canadian jobs. It is important that all our transport modes, our border crossings and our ports have the type of investments that enable them to move quickly.

For all those reasons, I am supporting the bill. Canada can be and should have the best ports. All efforts necessary should be made, over and above the bill, to fulfill those objectives.

As I think I mentioned in a previous question, I hope the transport committee calls the pilots association when it discusses the contribution funding. I think the parliamentary secretary has said that the department has consulted with groups. I look forward to seeing the results of those consultations with the pilots association, the longshoremen and the stevedores presented to the committee. Those are the people who work at the ports. The best solutions and ideas for making the ports more efficient, secure and useful usually come from the people who are working right on the ground.

The part of the act that deals with borrowing limits also deals with security. It would allow contribution agreements to ensure that the most modern security is available. I believe that modernizing the borrowing limits is good.

The only caveat, as I mentioned yesterday, is we have to make sure that as the commercial borrowing is allowed and the system is modernized, that it is also protected. There have been some instances recently in Canada where governments or crown corporations have potentially put something at jeopardy or lost millions of dollars because of an investment policy and regulations that were a bit too free.

We would want to make sure that these are secure investments. We do not want the port fees to go up because of bad investments. We want it to be efficient but also to be secure.

Of course the legislation to facilitate amalgamation is important as long as it is agreed upon and worked on by the people involved. Certainly that would help. As well, there are the parts of the act that would improve governance related to the needs of Canadian port authorities so that they can have a long term and stable management framework.

Once again, to ease enforcement, to make sure that the message can get out quickly, efficiently and easily is a good objective of the act. It is human nature that if a penalty comes too late or it is too onerous to administer, people will not bother implementing the penalty. If the penalty comes too late, it really does not get the message across. It needs to be quick, fast and efficient so that people follow the rules.

The last item I want to comment on relates to land management. The preceding speaker from the NDP commented on a number of items. I made the point yesterday about land management that this is a good part of the bill which would allow investment in their lands. It is good that they will achieve revenues so that there is less onus on the users or ultimately on the government, the taxpayers, for funding.

My only caveat is that the conditions, and the parliamentary secretary outlined them, make sure that this is not a permanent other use. They cannot be incompatible. I would not want a lot of money invested in things that ultimately have nothing to do with the port unless they are in a holding pattern. It is very good to be forward thinking and plan for the future and to set aside land that will be needed in the future.

It is a very forward thinking government that would set aside land to invest in it and use the land to get revenues from it. People get concerned if such authorities are using their money from the fees in ways other than the primary purpose, such as empire building or some other type of exercise. I have certainly heard complaints from constituents related to certain airport authorities that may have done that in the past, although I think that has been dealt with.

In conclusion, as in any other area of endeavour, there is no reason that Canada cannot be among the best in the world. We are a water nation. We probably have the longest shoreline of any country in the world. We are an exporting country. It is very important that we get the revenues from our exports and imports, that we do it safely in relation to security and disease, and that we do it efficiently so that people come to us to be the locus of those transport movements. In that way, a lot of Canadians can achieve good paying jobs in dealing with our own goods and services.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of members raise some of the concerns, challenges and opportunities on how to organize and manage this country's ports.

Sault Ste. Marie is located right smack dab in the middle of three of the most important Great Lakes, on a major seaway, in the centre of our country.

As Canada's economy and distribution systems evolve, just on time delivery and the railway, road and water become ever more important in terms of how we get our goods to market. In how we manage goods that go through our territory and into markets, we need to consider the real challenges that are being faced.

Earlier, the NDP member from Vancouver mentioned that we need to make sure that all of the players are involved in decisions that are made where these properties are concerned.

In Sault Ste. Marie we are looking very aggressively these days at a multimodal possibility. With CN passing by not that far from the Sault and our access to the extension of the St. Lawrence Seaway through the Great Lakes and into the U.S. midwest, we see tremendous potential for multimodal and the development of our port area. We want to do it right. We want to learn from the experiences and, perhaps, mistakes of others.

Even though we are a big country, in many important ways we are connected. Has the member considered the potential of and some of the challenges facing a community such as Sault Ste. Marie?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question partly because it gives me a chance to say something that I had wanted to say but forgot to put in my notes.

The member is correct. Ports have a major effect on communities, because they happen to be downtown. It is very important to have consultations with the local communities. I had meant to say in my speech that consultation with governments and certainly the downtown business associations and definitely municipal governments would have a big impact.

Also, as governments have learned somewhat painfully when they abrogate their responsibilities, there are also responsibilities to consult with first nations. It is mandatory in a number of areas that they be consulted regarding development. There certainly will be ports in Canada where that is not only a legally required role, but obviously a way to ensure that there is buy-in by all four orders of government in Canada, first nation, municipal, provincial-territorial, and federal, in a proposal, in a development, in a modernization.

The member asked me to consider this. I am not on the transport committee, but I would encourage the transport committee to hear from, for instance, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities because of the dramatic effect this would have on a place like the member's community of Sault Ste. Marie or other communities that have ports in their downtown cores. It would help to include them as an integral part of land use planning, at least in a cooperative way, even though, as was said, it is not legally binding in some areas, so that everyone's interests would be taken into account.

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

Mr. Speaker, recently the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said that there is a huge backlog of $123 billion in infrastructure deficits. A lot of municipalities are desperately looking to access some funds, to fix the highways, the potholes, the water treatment plants, et cetera.

Is the member concerned that this bill would allow the port authorities in a big city such as Toronto to access the infrastructure funds? For example, as he may know, the Toronto Port Authority operates an airport in downtown Toronto. An airport would need all types of infrastructure funds. It is now operated by one company, which is in direct competition with Air Canada. If this bill passed in its present form, the Toronto Port Authority could access infrastructure funds. This would make the pot which is already far too small in the Conservative budget even smaller.

In a lot of remote communities in Yukon, up north, in Ontario, or out west would have some access to this fund, but the fund could be drawn down by big ports. Even though the port is small, it runs an airport and has lots of demands.

Is the hon. member worried about allowing port authorities access to infrastructure funds? Would it not make the pot that much smaller and create unfair competition for a lot of municipalities that desperately need the funds to fix their highways, roads and sewage treatment plants?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and it is related to a point I have made a number of times in the House. I definitely think the ports need access to infrastructure. It affects not only the ports but all the inland Canadian businesses, such as grain, that need the ports. They certainly need investments, but the member has made a very good point about infrastructure.

It was humorous yesterday when the Conservative parliamentary secretary was saying that they just started some infrastructure programs, that no one had done anything about it before. As members know, the Liberals started at least four infrastructure programs that were very popular with municipalities. There was the municipal rural infrastructure fund, the original cities infrastructure fund, the strategic infrastructure fund for big projects, and the border infrastructure fund. These are all very important. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities was delighted when these came in. As the member said, they want even more money.

The concern I have raised is exactly the one that the member raised. The municipalities have not heard from the Conservatives, who have amalgamated all those into one big pot, what the conditions are going to be and who is going to get them. I have said twice in the House at least, and I will say it for a third time that it is absolutely essential that municipalities get at least as much of the pot as they did before.

If the Conservatives want to fund other items such as the port authorities that need money, if they want to give money to provincial governments, if they want to give money to other programs out of this pot, that is fine, top the pot up, but the municipalities have to have at least as much as they have had in the past. They have all those needs for it, as the member said, such as recreation, potholes, sewers and clean water. They cannot get less money out of the new infrastructure funds. New initiatives like this should be added to the pot in order not to jeopardize the basic services that Canadians need, including clean water, properly treated sewage, recreation and other types of facilities that are in such a deficit, as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has so carefully analyzed and presented to parliamentarians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the Canada Marine Act. It had an unfortunate amendment a few years ago, debated at length during 1997. At that time the minister of transport, Mr. Collenette, said that it was important to have a new Canada Marine Act than have an act that would include some of the ports. He said it would then download some of these ports to their own board of directors.

The minister added that he needed to be satisfied that the port was likely to remain financially self-sufficient and that it was of strategic significance to Canada's trade and diversified traffic.

The city of Toronto has a port that does not meet any of the criteria set out in clause 8 of the Canada Marine Act. It is not self-sufficient. It is not significant to Canada's trade and it does not have highly diversified traffic. One would think that the Toronto port would not be taken away from the hands of the city of Toronto.

Unfortunately, that did not happen. At that time there was a great deal of political interference. It appeared that a former Liberal member of Parliament, in April 1997, decided to take the matters into his own hands and wanted to develop the airport, in this case, without the interference of the city of Toronto. The Canada Marine Act was amended at that time to include the city of Toronto's port authority even though it did not meet any of the criteria.

It seems from all the media reports and all of the discussion at that time, that the inclusion of the Toronto Port Authority was done purely for political reasons. At that time there was a serious number of lobbyists. When we look at the lobbyist registry, there was a large group of lobbyists at that time lobbying the federal government to make sure that happened.

The federal government said that it was not a good plan. The government had an adviser from Nesbitt Burns. It did not recommend that the Toronto port be included, based on the financial reasons alone. At that time there was also a royal commission on the future of the Toronto waterfront. It recommended a restrictive role for the Toronto Port Authority so that the city of Toronto could get on with developing its waterfront.

Against both of these two recommendations, the Toronto Port Authority still got included in the Canada Marine Act at that time. To make matters worse, the federal government then appointed people who certainly did not meet the criteria. It seems to me there was controversy over the appointments of members to the board of directors. This was June 8, 1998 and the transport minister at that time, Mr. Collenette, was accused of manipulating the appointment process.

Indeed, the Toronto case was not isolated. Vancouver and Halifax were also quick to cry foul, so it does not surprise me today that members of Parliament from both Vancouver and Halifax will want to speak later on about this issue. The National Post headline of August 18, 1999, said: “Collenette skirts rules to appoint Liberal allies: New port authorities: Shipping groups outraged by political 'manipulation'”.

In fact, there was a series of subsequent headlines. One said that the bill, when it was going through third reading, would give communities more control over the ports and that it would establish “a fair, collaborative framework for the management of commercial ports”. It sounds good. More community control and a fair collaborative framework were supposed to be brought forward.

What happened? At that time the minister appointed directors that were not nominated by the user groups and used their power. Clause 14.1 of the Canada Marine Act gives the minister the flexibility and discretion to nominate as user directors persons other than those persons recommended by the classes of users to ensure an appropriate mix of board members, et cetera.

What happened was that the Liberals at that time decided to put in some of their own appointees and did not follow the guidelines. It seems to me that the Conservatives are also following that tradition.

We now have a port authority that has very little local control. Under this bill it would have access to the infrastructure fund. That is a problem. Why? Because when the infrastructure fund was first created, the idea came from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. All the projects were supposed to come from the municipalities, a third being matched by the provincial government and a third being matched by the federal government. The plan, as originally envisioned, would allow the local municipalities to have control over this infrastructure fund.

Through the years the former Liberal government then made it its own fund and many of the municipalities then had very little control over it. It got worse and worse, and it is not clear with the Conservative government how the criteria is going to be established for the infrastructure fund.

If the port authority, like the Toronto Port Authority, has access to this infrastructure fund and because it has very little control by the local communities and government, it could have access to a lot of funds that were supposed to be destined for municipalities to fix highways, potholes, build community centres and all of those things. This part of the bill is very worrisome.

What happened in Toronto was that soon after the Toronto Port Authority was included in the Canada Marine Act, it decided to initiate lawsuits against the city of Toronto. It threatened lawsuits with the federal government and sued the local community group Community Air.

Not only do local communities have no influence over the appointments into the local port authority but the first thing the port authority did after the Canada Marine Act was passed with amendments and political interference was to sue every level of government other than the province of Ontario in order to gain funds for itself because it was never financially self-sufficient.

There were land use changes and planning. There was very little public input. In the last few years the city of Toronto was not even notified of major changes at this port authority when it decided to make changes in the local area.

The port authority has also recently threatened to take one third of Little Norway Park, a popular park in the local neighbourhood, because it is running a substantial airport there so it is needs to find room for parking spaces, queueing lanes, and all kinds of space for taxis to park, et cetera. That is certainly not an appropriate use of land for that little area. On top of that, this port authority, because of its various lawsuits, has obtained somewhere between $35 million from different parties.

The entire operation was run by one board member because the rest of the board either resigned or were not reappointed. During the period the port authority was trying to go after the federal government, it had only one member sitting on its board.

The port authority also used $300,000 of taxpayers' money to run advertising campaigns to justify its existence. If this bill were to pass, I cannot see for the life of me why we would contribute infrastructure funds to an organization that is in fact into suing everyone. It has no local control and has used at least $300,000 for advertising campaigns to justify its existence.

As a result of this port authority not having any local input or control, the revitalization of Toronto's waterfront has slowed down. Lots of speeches have been made. Lots of promises have been made. Money has been promised. Many discussions have been held about why the Toronto waterfront needs to be revitalized.

It seems to be one step forward and another step back because this local port authority controls some of the land rights by the water, but it has not been participating with the various stakeholders about revitalizing the waterfront.

The Toronto Port Authority is breaking the tripartite agreement it signed with the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Planes at the airport are twice the weight and double the passenger count of what was envisioned at the time the tripartite agreement was formulated in the mid-eighties. It is very noisy. Planes are flying in above the level that is supposed to be controlled by the tripartite agreement.

The airport is in close proximity to a large number of condominiums that were built in the eighties down by the waterfront. At the time the port was established there were very few residents living near the waterfront, but now there are at least 50,000 in the neighbourhood. I cannot see why this port authority should really stay.

The Canada Marine Act is supposed to deal with traffic going to different ports. There is absolutely no reason why there should be an airport at the Toronto Port Authority. Of all the ports across Canada, this is the only port that runs an airport and has nothing to do with waterways or shipping.

The Toronto port has very modest port functions, such as rulemaking for boats, buoys and dredging as required, and facilitating the odd, very rare, commercial ship arrival. Cargo handling is a major money loser and eventually needs to be merged with Hamilton or be shut down. The outer harbour marina probably could be operated by the city or Harbourfront Centre because it needs to demonstrate that the public interest would be better served by this port.

In the past, the City of Toronto has said to the federal government that if it is reviewing the Marine Act and making amendments to the Marine Act, it is critically important that the Toronto Port Authority be taken out of the Marine Act, because it really does not belong there. Its traffic is very small. It is still not financially self-sufficient. It is of no strategic significance to Canada's trade. It has no diversified traffic.

How could that be done? It could be done, effectively, by the governor in council pursuant to section 55. It could “liquidate its assets in accordance with the certificate or the regulations made under paragraph 27(1)(a) and...dissolve the port authority, and the letters patent are deemed to be revoked”. The proceeds would then be liquidated and probably should be transferred to the City of Toronto. The governor in council may also “by issuing a certificate of dissolution, dissolve a port authority without requiring the liquidation of its assets”.

So one way or the other, if we are to discuss this Marine Act in a way that is true to what it is supposed to be, the Toronto Port Authority should be returned to the City of Toronto.

Through the years, different mayors, no matter what their political stripe, whether it was Mel Lastman, who, last I saw, was a Conservative, or the present mayor, David Miller, with the entire City of Toronto council, has said over and over again that the Toronto Port Authority really should come back to the hands of Torontonians, because right now the users, the municipalities and any stakeholders in the neighbourhood basically have absolutely no influence over this port authority.

It would give me great concern that if the bill is passed what we would see is that Bill C-23 would allow this port authority to access infrastructure funds from the government. Let me tell members that in Toronto the infrastructure funds should be used to fix the crumbling highways such as the Gardiner Expressway. We have had three or four chunks of concrete falling from the Gardiner Expressway. The subways in the city of Toronto need repair and need to be expanded. There are hundreds of projects that are desperately in need of infrastructure funds. The last thing the City of Toronto needs is for this port authority to have access to the funds so that it could upgrade whatever it is upgrading in competition with Air Canada. The House would be making a terrible mistake.

I cannot see how we can possibly support the bill if the Toronto Port Authority is still part of the Marine Act and running its own business without any input from local municipalities.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trinity--Spadina both for her speech and for her ongoing work to have waterfront justice in Toronto. This has been an issue that has been simmering for many years. The former Liberal government basically set up this boondoggle, the Toronto Port Authority, and as the member has mentioned, it is completely unresponsive to the public and not responsible to the government. It is not responsible to anyone but itself. It has been set up as an independent empire on the Toronto harbourfront.

I know that the member for Trinity--Spadina has been one of the foremost advocates for waterfront justice in Toronto, so that the people of Toronto can actually determine through democratically elected governments what the waterfront should be, how the waterfront should be structured and what is the best economic and social interest for the people of Toronto.

I would like to ask the member a simple question. Why did the Liberals do this? Is this part of the corruption we saw when the Liberal government was in power and simply refused to provide for democratic or accountable management? We saw a lot of brown envelopes being exchanged. It was a deplorable situation.

Unfortunately, things are no better under the current Conservative government. It is the same old same old.

Why would the Liberals set this up? Liberals essentially dominated Toronto for many years. That is changing now with a lot of new members from Toronto, including the member for Toronto--Danforth, the member for Parkdale--High Park and the member for Trinity--Spadina. Why would the Liberals do something that was clearly not in the interests of the people of Toronto?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. At that time, the former Liberal government was eager to find ways to reward friends. If we look at who was appointed as the first chair, it is very interesting. It was a Liberal Party fundraiser. The Marine Act, section 15(1), says that the qualifications of the directors are that they:

--shall have generally acknowledged and accepted stature within the transportation industry or the business community and relevant knowledge and extensive experience related to the management of a business, to the operation of a port or to maritime trade.

Therefore, it is very clear that the minister's nominee or those who are on the board of directors of the port authority are supposed to have experience in operating a port or in maritime trade. If we look at who was appointed, we will notice that the first chair, other than the fact that he was a Liberal Party fundraiser, had nothing in his background to indicate that he had any experience in ports or in marine business knowledge.

Then we have another lawyer, at that time from Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington, and there seems to be no mention in his background that indicates port or marine business knowledge. Quite a few media reports at that time tied him to the Liberal Party. As for the third one, the vice-president of strategic services, she was and is a senior policy adviser to the premier of Ontario, again a Liberal.

That is what we have seen. The chair at that time, another one, did not have any port or marine business knowledge. He was, however, a Liberal Party fundraiser and a former law partner of our former prime minister, Jean Chrétien. If we look at the four appointees who came in, what we notice is that they have extensive Liberal Party connections.

Things have not changed that much. Rather than Liberals, it is now Conservatives. They are still appointees and still are not accountable to the citizens of Toronto, which is why the mayor, Toronto's city council and in fact Torontonians have said generally to please make this port authority accountable to the citizens of Toronto and return it to the hands of the City of Toronto. If not, it is going to be a place where party fundraisers, whether Liberal or Conservative, will end up taking their places at the Toronto Port Authority.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, I have a real question for the defender of the waterfront. Was that the title my colleague from Burnaby gave her? Or was it the warrior for the waterfront?

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

I like warrior.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

There we go, Mr. Speaker.

I want to make a statement and invite a comment from my colleague from Trinity—Spadina with regard to the issue of our government's initiatives to amalgamate specifically the ports in the city of Vancouver. Her colleague from Vancouver East made a speech earlier. I did not get an opportunity to ask questions or make comments with regard to her speech, but I want to make a declarative statement.

I understand and appreciate the concerns that are raised by any member of the House, New Democrat or not, with regard to our efforts on port mergers, particularly in the city of Vancouver. We are conscious of the fact that people are concerned when the federal government eliminates the borrowing cap, for example, in the port of Vancouver and allows that port to expand. We are conscious of the fact that there are some concerns from local residents about the kind of growth that may appear.

We are conscious of that. For example, I have been to the great city of Baltimore, which is a fantastic city, but we do not want downtown Vancouver to end up looking like Baltimore, with massive cranes on the waterfront spoiling the beauty that we have in British Columbia. There is a reason why we put “Beautiful British Columbia” on our licence plates.

I would ask my colleague from Toronto to recognize and make sure that she knows, along with people from the city of Vancouver, that our government understands. We want to have balanced growth. We want to have effective growth. We want to recognize that we value our waterfront and its beauty, but we also want to seize the opportunity that exists, particularly in the Asia Pacific gateway. We have the opportunity to take advantage of our cultural history and a lineage that spreads not only to Europe but also to all the Asia Pacific countries. We can take real advantage of these opportunities, but also, we can do so while keeping in mind that we want to have growth on our waterfront that not only is economically viable but recognizes the importance of cities.

That is why we have put forward a process. We have put forward a dynamic on the new board of directors that will exist in Vancouver, one that we think takes into account all the stakeholder groups and concerns that exist, whether it is the folks working the Fraser River or in the port of Vancouver, community groups, the provincial government and business associations as well.

The member for Vancouver East raised the idea of having labour on the board, which is certainly something that should be considered and taken into account. We want to have the port of Vancouver become a leader in the world, not just in Canada, and take advantage of the real opportunities that exist, because we believe in creating Canadian jobs through world sales and doing so in a way that also recognizes the importance of keeping our waterfronts as beautiful as they are.

I invite my colleague to comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, subsection 14(1) of the Canada Marine Act and section 4.6 of the letters patent reflect the promise of more community control and a fair collaborative framework, but what happens when a port authority is created is that the port authority has its own letters patent. What it says in its letters patent in regard to the board of directors in the case of Toronto, although I am not sure about Vancouver, is that it gives the minister the flexibility to nominate whatever people the minister wants.

Therefore, we have a law that says, yes, let us be collaborative and have more community control, but in actual practice that has not been the case whatsoever. There have been no consultations, no reporting to the community, no public meetings, no discussions and no newsletters. So what is happening is that there is a huge divide between the local community and council, especially in Toronto, and the Toronto Port Authority. It seems to me to have been designed in such a way that while it talks about the principles on the one hand, the actual implementation of it is completely contrary to local control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Port of Nanaimo produces jobs!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As well, many people have talked about the process around board appointments. A couple of years back, the port authority in Nanaimo was down some board members. The process of appointing board members was long, slow and painful. If these boards have spending authority to oversee the healthy operation of a port, yet there is foot dragging in appointing board members, how boards can continue to function when they do not have the required number of board members?

In addition, in the current act before us there is no mechanism to ensure a local presence on these boards. More than anything, if we are talking about local accountability and integrating those port authorities into the communities, ensuring that land use decisions are made respecting the processes in communities, it would seem important to have either elected representatives from municipal councils present on these port authorities, or some other mechanism to ensure the local voice is at the table.

Again I come back to the whole piece around land use decisions. Because these ports have such a critical role in our neighbourhoods, it is very important that those local representatives have some sort of say in what happens in that land use for the local area.

In our community of Nanaimo, the port authority has done a really great job of ensuring that walkways have been developed in our communities. However, sometimes the other decisions have not always been done in conjunction with the local council.

Although there are some positive aspects of the bill, there are many gaps in what we feel a revision of this kind should have included, certainly in terms of the context of the fact that this marine review happened a number of years ago. The fact that the marine review, which had extensive consultation, did not come forward with a number of recommendations that would have made this act a much better act is a little disappointing.

Therefore, at this point in time we would look toward some amendments to make this a better bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan and her terrific presentation on the bill.

She raised the issue of civil rights. She has raised concerns, which have also been raised by the members for Vancouver East and Burnaby—Douglas, about how the government has acted with ports workers in a heavy-handed way. These people have lived all their lives working on the docks, contributing to our economy, yet they are being pushed aside, essentially, unless they can fill out onerous documentation, with every minute detail of their lives, which is then subject to some sort of approval process.

The International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union is pushing back on this and is taking the government to court because these rules are so patently unfair.

She also raised the issue about Montebello and the use of undercover officers who carried rocks in what was clearly a peaceful demonstration.

Could she contrast the alacrity of the government with which it attacks civil rights, while at the same time, it has not dealt with the substantive issue, which is the fact that thousands of containers that come into Canada's ports from coast to coast to coast? We have the resources currently to only investigate 2% or 3% of them. Therefore, 97%, 98% of the container traffic coming in through Canada's ports is not inspected, which means we do not know what they contain. They may contain human beings for human trafficking. They may contain drugs. They may contain explosives. Who knows?

However, instead of dealing with that security issue, which is a substantive one and requires some investment of resources, the government chose to give billions of dollars away in corporate tax cuts. Now it is now attacking civil rights in a most egregious way, particularly for ports workers who have worked all their lives ensuring that Canada's cargo is unloaded and that Canada's trade is facilitated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the great work he has done on the protection of rights for ports workers and on the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement.

There is a challenge with this legislation. On the one hand, we have insufficient attention to the security measures that are required to keep our ports and the workers there safe. We know many of the port authorities simply do not have the kind of money that would be required to put in the oversight essential to ensure our ports operate safely. This has been one of the concerns that some of our international trading partners have raised.

One the other hand, we are subjecting port workers to a kind of scrutiny that most of us simply would not tolerate. We are attacking workers and putting all kinds of security measures in place, but we are disregarding the very necessary security measures to keep those very workers safe.

The bill needs a tremendous amount of work on appropriate security measures to ensure we can speak in confidence about the safety and security of our ports.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again I am pleased to ask some questions on this important bill. I expressed earlier that in Sault Ste. Marie, dead in the middle of three of the most important Great Lakes, Lake Superior to the north, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, we see ourselves as part of the great Canadian waterway, the St. Lawrence Seaway. We connect in a very important way. Goods from the west go east. We see ourselves as an entry point for goods that would go into the Midwest U.S., then go to literally millions of people and communities along Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.

We are preparing ourselves to take advantage of what we know will be greater and greater focus on the distribution of goods, the transportation of goods and systems that make that happen. CN comes from western Canada north of the Sault. We have the Great Lakes, as I have said. We have highways, I-75 into the U.S. and the Trans-Canada highway. Therefore, we are strategically located in a very good position to take advantage of some of this, but we need to ensure that the public institutions we put in place to manage this, like our ports, are well managed and that we deal with all the issue.

However, one issue we are trying to deal with in the Sault, because we have responsibility for such a vast amount of water and land and trees, is the question of invasive species. Is there anything in the bill that speaks, from an environmental perspective, to the protection of our natural resources from species that might be brought in through the St. Lawrence Seaway and up into the Great Lakes. These might invade our natural habitat and create some of the problems we have seen already or make them worse?

We would like an invasive species centre placed in Sault Ste. Marie, which would research and come up with responses to some of that. However, is there anything in the bill that speaks to a this concern and then some action that could be taken to minimize or stop altogether the possibility that we might get invasive species into our waterways in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in that question. I want to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for his concern.

One of the issues was around the transportation hub, which he so aptly described. In many of our communities there simply is insufficient investment in public transportation infrastructure, whether it is rail, or the ports or public transit. I have had the pleasure of visiting the member's community, which is a central transportation hub. The kind of investment required to ensure it stays vibrant and viable is simply not there.

With regard to invasive species, the member raises a broader question around whether legislation that comes before the House has an environmental lens. Many of us in the New Democrats feel that legislation coming before us needs a couple of lenses. They all need gender lenses, but they also need an environmental lens, which talks about the impact of the legislation. Has there been appropriate oversight in things like invasive species? We need that longer view. When a question is posed about environmental impact, we should not be thinking only to the next quarter, or the end of next year, or the next election cycle. We truly should be thinking out generations.

When we talk about this overhaul of the Canada Marine Act, it would be an appropriate time to take a look at some of the environmental measures that need to be in place. I talked about the environmental impacts that ports can have on our local communities. Therefore, that environmental lens is a critical part of developing any legislation.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the member for Halifax for her speech, knowledge and understanding of some of the opportunities and challenges that exist in our ports, particularly our own. There is not a port city or facility in Canada that is more renowned and thought of whenever we think of marine activity than Halifax, in our own backyard.

The member spoke very knowledgeably about what needs to be done. She recognizes that the bill is not perfect, but it does get us into the conversation in a way that hopefully will get us to a place where we do something that will be meaningful. She spoke very eloquently about how often governments use announcements and bills such as this to gain political favour while at the same time really not having any substance or providing any substance to deal with some of the real difficulties that exist.

I was saying earlier that we need to not only recognize the most obvious ports of entry into our country, where marine is concerned, when we talk about these kinds of bills, but also need to look at the other places along the route into Canada where ships arrive and there is interaction which contributes to a local economy.

That is no more so obvious than in my own community of Sault Ste. Marie which is smack dead in the centre of three of the most important and largest of the Great Lakes. There is Lake Superior to the north, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.

We in the Sault are looking to take advantage of that strategic location which gets us into big chunks of the mid-west U.S. where trade is concerned. We know that the transportation and distribution of goods is now, and will become even more, an important facet of industry and the economy in Canada.

Certainly, passing our back door or front door is the CN Rail, the Trans-Canada Highway and route I-75 that runs right down to the tip of Florida, and of course this wonderful resource of water of which we have stewardship.

The member spoke very thoughtfully about the issue of security at our ports and how the Liberals in fact used that as a way to curry some favour going into an election, but there is a very real concern regarding security that the member for Halifax just spoke about. There is also an environmental concern that we in Sault Ste. Marie have identified.

As boats are brought in off the oceans through the St. Lawrence Seaway and up into the Great Lakes, we often end up with species in our systems that get into the water and from the water into some of our other natural resources that become then very difficult to deal with and become a menace to our own natural resources. We need to be doing something to protect ourselves from that.

In Sault Ste. Marie we have been working for a few years now to develop an invasive species centre which would do research and put forward proposals, be a partnership between all of those wonderful institutions in our community: the Great Lakes Forestry Centre, our university, Science Enterprise Algoma, along with other agencies and the private sector to actually come up with responses that will be effective in stopping the onslaught of these species when they happen in the first place.

Is there anything in the bill that the member has looked at that speaks in any way at all to this other concern regarding security where our environment is affected and the possibility that some of these ships coming in might bring with them species that we do not want?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I must say honestly that I do not have the in-depth knowledge I should have about what kinds of strengthened provisions there might be to address the very real problem that the member talks about, which represents an environmental threat. I wish I had the expertise to say for sure.

What I do know is that there are amazing innovations and improvements in technology that can both address some of these kinds of environmental challenges and security issues about which I and the member for Sault Ste. Marie spoke of earlier. There is improved technology, for example, that could do more effective tracking and screening of containers.

The same is probably true in addressing the question that was raised by the member for Sault Ste. Marie. There likely is increased technology for the effective tracking of species because of increased mobility and the fact that we end up transporting through fish farming, for example, fish that have a hostile and very destructive impact in different milieux.

It allows me to make a point, which is an important one, speaking to the need for another major amendment. There is not now nearly sufficient responsibility being taken by the Government of Canada to address these kinds of security measures.

In terms of what has actually been committed in the way of dollars and cents up to this point has been very piecemeal and, by and large, operating on the basis that it is the problem, responsibility and onus of the individual ports to provide for these kinds of protections, whether it is environmental or security.

It needs to be understood that there are national implications and federal government responsibility needs to be taken when dealing with such overarching issues as environmental and security matters. I hope the outcome will be an amended bill that comes back to the House for final approval.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see NDP members staying on topic while debating this particular bill. They stand, give speeches and ask questions of their own members to, of course, take up time. I am not sure why, but it is always good to see them stay on topic.

Speaking of which, I am sure we could talk about green cheese being on topic or the moon being made of green cheese. I have seen the NDP bounce from security to other issues and it is not appropriate.

My question is--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Halifax on a point of order.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

If the Speaker had a concern about the relevancy of comments and if the Speaker had a concern that I was out of order in raising the very issues that I raised, I assume he would have said so. I ask the member to withdraw the comments that were completely unfounded, completely unfair, and completely off topic.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That is not a point of order.

There are only a few minutes left for this period of questions and comments, so I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to also stay relevant to the merits of the bill and the hon. member for Halifax to stay relevant to the bill in her response.

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

Exactly, Mr. Speaker and, indeed, the point was made.

I am wondering if the member could comment on security. This government obviously took some real steps forward in security. It dedicated $930 million for marine security. There were other things done, such as arming border guards and providing $101 million over two years, implementing a border strategy and providing $303 million over two years, providing rail and urban transit security with $95 million, and providing air cargo security with $26 million.

With all these great initiatives in our very first budget, why does the member and her party continue to obstruct and delay this government's agenda?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose we can waste all the time in arguing about how relevant it is for the parliamentary secretary to stand up and go through a whole litany of measures that have been introduced by his government and have absolutely nothing to do with the marine policy issues before us now, but let me say in a general way, because this question apparently has been allowed although it does not seem to be very relevant, that there are a number of positive initiatives which the government has taken and which we have absolutely no difficulty in recognizing and being prepared to applaud.

We also feel that there are a number of counterproductive measures and that there in fact are some flawed solutions being proposed by the government. Sometimes it is a matter of policy and sometimes it is a matter of there being a huge shortfall between the rhetoric, such as what we have just heard from the parliamentary secretary, and the actual allocation of resources that are needed to get the job done.

If I start identifying what those many reasons are for our inability to support this very flawed budget that is making its way through the House, then I am sure I will be ruled out of order by the Speaker. Since I do not want to do that, I think I will just leave it for the parliamentary secretary to figure out which of the items he has talked about that have nothing to do with the bill are the ones we feel are flawed and misguided and therefore are reasons why we are not prepared to support the government's budget.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)