Bill C-23 (Historical)

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

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

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

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

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

Motions in amendment

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-23, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 7 with the following:

“subparagraph 25(a)(iv).”

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

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

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

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

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

Having said that, I am done with the debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be engaged in this debate. My hon. colleague opposite gave me an indication that he wanted to be brief and he was looking for me to, how shall I put it, be like the leopard that could change it spots and perhaps follow his example in brevity.

On a bill of such great import, he wanted me to be brief and not illustrate the import of this bill. I am going to try to follow his example. Even my hon. colleague from Montreal says it is absolutely important for us to stake out a position on this and make sure that we elucidate it with the clarity that we would have on this bill.

I am going to try to do it. With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, this bill, as I said, is extremely important, for a couple of reasons. One of them, of course, is that it falls into the great tradition of Liberal bills that have taken on another coat in this Parliament. It is one of the bills that our government, in its previous Parliament, put forward for consideration. I was pleased that the current government saw fit to emulate the example.

It came before the committee. In the committee, it received thorough discussion, and for the second reason. That second reason is that this is an important economic measure brought forth to ensure that the infrastructure of the ports system in Canada functions according to all of those means and all of those standards that we have come to label as purely Canadian, which are the following: first, transparent; second, efficient; third, building on all of the partnerships involved in ensuring that the ports system will be reflective of the infrastructure needs of this country; fourth, that it involve the people who are expert in the maintenance and in the running of these operations, according to the business models that we expect would pass the scrutiny of our own system, including the Auditor General; and fifth, it would ensure that the inefficiencies that might exist by virtue of the fact that smaller entities operating often in competition with each other are amalgamated into an environment and into an authority that can provide the services required not only by shippers, i.e. their main clients, but also by the macro needs of the country, and that is an efficient transportation system to get our goods and our services, but primarily our goods, to the foreign markets.

Members will recall that in the last Parliament we initiated a couple of gateways to the economic dynamics of Canada, an Atlantic gateway, a Pacific gateway and, as well, an internal Great Lakes gateway, a central Canada gateway. All of these required the appropriate measures to ensure that the port authorities could function as units, as economic business units capable of delivering an economic service and capable of surviving the operational challenges that come to operating a business that has to meet others' needs.

It was important for us, especially in the committee, to understand that the ebb and flow of business patterns does change, but that these ports would be prepared to ensure that those changes in the economic cycles and in the special economic needs would be reflected in their capacities.

The parliamentary secretary and I tried to find common ground on this, as we found with the critic for the Bloc. I always forget what the name of the riding is, but he will forgive me, I am sure. I cannot mention that it is Monsieur Laframboise, so I will try not to, but we tried to find a common ground and make positive recommendations on how to improve legislation, and we did do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is always very good at speaking and is a great orator, and I know he wants to take credit for another Conservative bill that we got passed because the Liberals simply did not get it done for so many years, but notwithstanding that, this is debate is on the amendment. It is on the letter “a”.

I am wondering if the member could actually deal with the letter “a”, because that is what the amendment is all about. It is about bringing the French and the English into consistency. It is not about the bill itself. We have already dealt with that. Could the member deal with the amendment itself?

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. parliamentary secretary does bring up a good point about relevance to the actual amendment we are debating. I will also take this opportunity to remind the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence that he cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. Perhaps he was trying to think of the riding name of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel when he was referring to the member from the Bloc and will not use the member's proper name again.

If he could stay relevant to the amendment and refrain from using proper names, it would be appreciated.

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

Mr. Speaker, you will not find a more humble member than myself, and I am appreciative of the fact that you were able to assist me, while we were in the middle of debate, in remembering the hon. member's riding, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, so I want to give him due credit. Now I am going to be forced to give everybody else due credit as well.

I wanted as well to thank the parliamentary secretary, who has just illustrated how we operate cooperatively on the committee, because he has pointed that it is important to understand both the form as well as the substance of the letter “a”. If he is suggesting that perhaps by focusing on the letter “a”, which has ramifications for some of the economic and financial structures that are part and parcel of the bill in flowing to this particular amendment, I am only hoping that he will be at least as patient when I go through the other 25 letters of the alphabet associated with the bill.

However, he is absolutely right. We are talking right now about an amendment to all of that fine work that we put together as members of the committee. I want to say hats off to the new NDP member on the committee, who is struggling very hard to find something difficult with this bill, and I imagine he is going to have difficulty with the letter “a”. Otherwise, he is going to be absolutely happy with everything else.

As I said, the other things that one would be happy with, the other 25 letters of the alphabet or the style associated with the “a”, have to do with giving these ports the opportunity to function as true financial entities capable of meeting the challenges of the economic cycles and the opportunity to access all of those benefits available to growing businesses under the infrastructure program. I know the parliamentary secretary would have wanted to say that too. I see him nodding his head, indicating yes, this is right, but I want to thank him as well for reminding me that people can colour a particular letter not only in style, but in a particular kaleidoscope of colours.

However, any way we colour this letter “a”, the bill was getting it done, as they say. It has become part of the lexicon of the House now, “getting it done”, and it gets done because people in the House are men and women of goodwill and they develop that goodwill from an emotive and religious disposition, an ideological disposition, and convert it into political will.

I think what has happened is that there has been an expression of political will to ensure that the bill does receive the support of the House and that when we bring it here, as we are doing now, to discuss nothing more than one small fragment of this great plan, the letter “a” in all of its style and all of its kaleidoscopic colours, really what we mean is the members of the committee, and there are many. I mentioned, of course, the member whom indirectly I could not mention but directly was able to with respect to his riding, and as well the parliamentary secretary. I do not want to lose sight of the fact that the chairmanship of the committee was such that it allowed us to work properly.

That is a lesson that some of the other chairs might learn. They could look at this and see that the positive legislation that has actually come forward in the House. Whether it has been under the letter “a” or the letter “b”, or whether it has come in red vestiges or blue coats, it has really been from that committee of transport.

My hat goes off to my colleagues who worked on that committee together to ensure that we could present the bill. The only fly in the ointment was the letter “a” and I am glad that we are dealing with it today, so the letter “a” should be accepted as well and we would go on with this great bill.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just cannot resist this. I do not know whether you are aware of the fact that there is an award in my name on the Internet. It is in honour of members of Parliament who have said the most inane thing.

Apparently at some time back I was found guilty of saying something that was totally meaningless, so an individual created the award in my name, and I believe that the speech just given on the letter “a” qualifies. I hope the hon. member gets the award for this week.

Usually when we give a speech, the reason is to try to persuade other members to our way of thinking on an issue. In this particular case, the amendment is to insert the single alphabetic letter “a”. The member did not propose an alternate letter and he did not propose that it should not be inserted, so it is indeed the most inane speech we have had in the House for weeks.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we are wont to say in this place, there was probably a question in there somewhere, but I guess my glasses did not give me the appropriate vision to discover it. It must fall under the category of comment.

I think the award the member was thinking of was really one that said “someone who is capable of talking about a very small issue at great length in order to elucidate and clarify the issues for even those who are short of wit and very narrow of sight”. I welcome the flattery associated with that kind of distinction, although I must say, being consistent with what I said earlier about self-characterization of humility, that I cannot accept the compliment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member, because I think that for all the people who have been listening to the last 10 minutes of the member's speech, that speech really has proven to Canadians that two years and three months ago they actually made the right choice and elected a government that is getting things done for Canadians, that listens to stakeholders, as it is in this case, that quits wasting time, and that really gets the best things done for Canadians. That is what we are doing.

I thank the member for that and I hope all Canadians were watching, because sooner or later they are going to have the opportunity again. I wonder if the member thinks that this is what is going to happen again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I can resist the temptation associated with that reflection. I think what my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, wanted to illustrate is that governments can get things done when opposition members are convinced that an idea is well worth supporting. That is how things get done. If one wants to be an obstructionist, then of course one can prevent anything from taking place.

However, here I cannot be humble, I think, because I must accept the compliment for all members of the official opposition party. I am sure the other opposition parties can reflect on their own. As for characterizing us as those who have the gravitas and statesmanship of wanting to see good in legislation and then ferreting out those aspects of goodness that must be supported, then I must accept the compliment for all of my colleagues. Yes, we work hard and we try to get the job done. We are glad that the government supports our perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I highly respect the member. I listened to him intently and he is right. This was an error made at the committee level. It was an omission between French and English, an inconsistency which would not be acceptable to this Conservative government because we look at the French and English languages as being equally important. We are going to respect that and make sure that they are brought in with consistency and that nothing goes through the House without respecting both the French and English language.

The member from the Bloc is right. On this side of the House, the Conservative members of Parliament from Quebec are the only members in the House who can get anything done for Quebeckers and we are going to continue to do so.

I am wondering if the member himself saw the error. Of course, he was at the committee with me and I, quite frankly, let it go by because I did not see it at that time. I am wondering if he had the opportunity to see it before the error went to the Senate and came back to us.

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

Mr. Speaker, that analysis was prepared by officials and legal experts at Transport Canada. The Bloc Québécois does not draft the bills. I would just like to tell the parliamentary secretary that it is his government's responsibility. The government has to accept the mistakes in the bill.

With all due respect, the government is not standing up for the interests of Quebeckers; the Bloc Québécois is the party that represents the interests of the majority in Quebec. That is why we will support this Conservative bill, just as we did when the Liberals were in power. Since we first came here, we have taken an interest in the development of the marine sector. At the time, the Conservatives had no interest and could not have cared less. That is a fact. We have to keep that in mind.

Once again, we are proud to support the Conservative Party on behalf of Quebeckers even when it fixes the mistakes it has made.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

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

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

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

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

Canada Marine Act

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

To all hon. members, I know that Marleau and Montpetit has some guidelines on relevance at each stage of a particular bill and we are debating a report stage motion. I will allow the hon. member for Victoria to continue. She has only about a minute left in her remarks.

The Deputy Speaker, the chair occupant yesterday, did make a ruling on this. For the sake of consistency, I will be guided by those guidelines today. She has about a minute left. If she could stay as relevant to the motion as possible, I think all members would appreciate that.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that was not my time that was being used up by these parliamentary diversion tactics.

I felt it was very important to speak about a triple bottom line because it would ensure that public values are protected as opposed to only the interests of a specific group. The absence of this kind of accountability measure in this bill in dealing with public property makes it unsupportable. That is not surprising, as this bill is the twin of Bill C-61 tabled by the then Liberal government and we know how well the Liberals did at integrating environmental and social interests with economic ones, with a 35% increase in greenhouse gas emissions, increase in poverty, and so on.

In the long run, integrating is just good public policy. When these components are integrated, in the long run it yields energy cost savings, better quality jobs, reduced infrastructure costs, and better environment and health.

Such a provision should cover management of port and harbour properties. It would be felt in my riding where an unaccountable body will be given control of more public property. That is just unacceptable.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing from the member for Victoria. As a former municipal councillor in Vancouver, it is interesting to hear from other former municipal councillors and we will probably hear from more, because we all have experiences with dealing with local ports and the interface between the port in our community and the municipality. I know that the member for Victoria had experiences similar to what I had in the city of Vancouver.

I would just like to ask her what kinds of concerns she had to deal with in terms of representing local residents. In Vancouver East, for example, we have people who live immediately adjacent to the port. There are all kinds of issues about the interface between the port activity and a residential community. One of the problems with this bill is that those issues are not really addressed. In fact, it gives the ports greater authority to undertake unrelated port activities on port land. That is one of the concerns we have.

I wonder if the member could give us some further information on that in terms of her experience as a municipal councillor in Victoria.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed my criticisms of this bill stem from my experience at that time when there were conflicts that were beginning to emerge, and precisely on the issue of land use where requests for land use changes would have had impacts. The amendment my colleague was proposing would have helped to better integrate the interests of both the port authority and the community. There also was the noise pollution issue that was being passed on to the local council about activities in the port. The amendments that my colleague had proposed could have helped with this.

That is the issue I was trying to raise by asking the ports to adopt a more comprehensive reporting process to be accountable to the community in which it is situated. We all want our port authorities and our ports to succeed, but it has to be in the context of environmental and social good for the whole community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling in relation to the relevance of this. As such, my question will certainly be on point. I am wondering if the member could comment on the issue of democracy and stakeholders' interests.

In this particular case, I sat on the committee and I know she did not. I heard all of the witnesses and I know she did not. We did not have one port, one municipality, one city or one town say one negative word about this legislation. I am wondering how the member can stand here today and criticize something about which not one stakeholder said anything negative. How can she come forward with that?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised the question, because in reading the committee report, everyone can see for themselves that there were only two representations by an association.

The question I wanted to raise, if he had not interrupted me while I was speaking, was that the port authorities, themselves agencies, were represented, but how were the community interests represented during those hearings? I think the answer is that they were not.

My colleague had asked for a study allowing the committee to go from city to city, which would have allowed the communities to speak out and express their concerns, not with the idea of stopping this, but simply to hear from them, and this did not happen during the review of the bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that my friend who just spoke did not have an opportunity to review the bill or else she would have seen, of course, that there has been some consultation and that there is a requirement for consultations with communities. In fact, it goes beyond what the current bill has in place. That is indeed included within the bill, which actually goes on for some time about community involvement and how that has to be considered.

I never received an answer to my last question, which I posed to the member's colleague. We heard from those ports. Not one spoke against this bill. Not one city council, not one town, not one city, not one municipality and not one province came forward to speak against this bill. I am wondering why today the member stands in the House with the New Democratic Party opposed to this bill when not one stakeholder came forward to speak against it at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member said, I did have an opportunity to review the bill and of course, when we are talking about community input and consultation, it is not in line with municipal authorities. So, they can consult, but they still do not have to abide by things like official community plans.

When we talk about consultation, my understanding is that there were representative groups that came before the committee, but often we need to dig much deeper than that to make sure that we have actually covered the issues that are represented in this bill. My understanding is that there are places like the city of Toronto which simply end up in court in terms of resolving issues that are before them. I would argue that the consultation at committee was not sufficient.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague for her speech. We are talking about the amendment on the letter “a” and the critical thing is what else has been missed in this bill. What is interesting is that one of the amendments the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan mentioned was the Auditor General amendment that we had put forth. One has to wonder what the government has about accountability and why it is against it.

The bill reduces accountability by eliminating local advocates and people who are representatives on these boards. We are talking about public land. We are changing the bill to allow unfettered access to a series of different funds that municipalities will now be actually competing against, including the border gateway fund right away, and at the same time, we are removing more oversight.

What could be the motivation for the government to reduce oversight and public accountability when an amendment like this regarding the Auditor General would be a simple thing to make sure it is not intrusive to the point where there are confidentiality problems, and at the same time there is accountability from a third party for both the House and also the port authorities, and also clears up some of the controversy that appointments can sometimes create?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me to actually try to ascribe motives to Conservatives when they talk about accountability on one hand and yet their actions fly in the face of true accountability. This would be an example again of where if they truly were interested in being accountable to the Canadian public, they would allow the Auditor General to have oversight on the port authorities.

There is a tremendous amount of money that goes into these port authorities. Canada has the longest coastline in the world and we have a number of port authorities. One would think with that kind of money involved, that Conservatives would be willing to encourage Auditor General oversight.

We know that the Auditor General's reports are well respected. They are seen as independent and certainly removed from any monkeying around by any government, so this would be welcomed, I am sure, from the Canadian public's perspective in terms of transparency and accountability.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to this bill and particularly to speak as someone who comes from the city of Surrey which is on the wonderful Fraser River with all of the complexities and challenges it brings, including having a port authority.

When I look at the amendments that we are debating, I am very concerned about what I have seen historically and what is coming through the bill, which would be corrected by the amendment and I hope that it will be.

The people who sit on a port authority need to be representative of the community in which they serve. That is often not the case. They are often, at least in my experience, appointments from wherever. They have been people who are known but they have not always been people who are representative of the needs, in our case Surrey. There is a much better way I think to comprise a board that will understand the unique and niche needs of a particular port and the responsibilities of a particular port authority.

They may be municipal councillors, other elected people, other people in the community who come from different kinds of backgrounds, but there needs to be some kind of balance so that the cities or towns know that there is a public oversight going on. There are very few ports up and down the Pacific coast that are not under considerable construction, have considerable work going on and in our case, and considerable expansion going on. People are very interested and concerned about the direction the expansion will take.

Those decisions should be made by people who are trusted and in a process that is accountable. I wish we could find another word for transparency, perhaps ways that can be seen and understood by the public. For instance, could we explain to the next door neighbourhood the rationale by which certain land is being acquired and certain construction is underway? The city of Surrey is probably one of the most exciting cities and one of the cities that is the most lacking in infrastructure dollars from both the federal and provincial governments.

The infrastructure dollars did go in part to transportation, but the infrastructure dollars that are necessary for the work that will go on to the ports will be a competition now among port authorities and whoever else is applying for those infrastructure dollars. It will make it more difficult, I think, for cities with growing infrastructure needs to access those dollars.

There is a great deal of discussion and consideration in Surrey, in Nanaimo, and in growing communities about municipal consultation for land use. We have seen land that is used very badly where there was no consultation, no thought about what it will look like in five years, what it will mean to industry, and what it will mean to residents.

There must be that opportunity for municipal consultation. It does not mean only consulting the people on the board or saying no witnesses came to committee to put forward a statement. Many people would not have known this was going on. They had no opportunity to have input into this or to make some comments about how the land is going to be used around our ports, and in our case I am talking about Deltaport.

I want to speak now to the compliance within port authorities and municipal planning processes.

We worked so hard, and every growing city would say that, to have a municipal planning process that worked in partnership with other planning processes that were going on that affected that city, whether it was transportation, regional planning, or whatever that might be.

There must be a way to have real consultation between port authorities, that is, the federal government, and the municipalities. That is critical because municipalities will find themselves on the same path with their port authorities as they have with other authorities which they work with, both federally and provincially.

I see your signal, Mr. Speaker. So, on behalf of the amendment, and also on behalf of Surrey and Deltaport, and our need for infrastructure and not to compete with everybody else for all the dollars that are there, I would very much encourage people to look at this amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have four minutes after question period to conclude her remarks, but as it is now 2 o'clock, we will move on to statements by members.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

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

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Before I call for resuming debate, I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by nine minutes.

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 1 agreed to)

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried on division.

(Motion agreed to)