Debates of Oct. 10th, 1997

Petitions

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from approximately 300 Canadians who would like to see the income tax law changed so benefits can be applied not only to a surviving spouse but also to any designated individual, whether a common law partner, a son, a daughter, a friend or any other designated individual.

The petitioners believe the current law is unfair.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from citizens in the city and county of Peterborough concerned about freedom of choice in health care. In this case there are approximately 150 signatures.

Among other things they ask that the only foods the Government of Canada may restrict from the market are those that are proven unsafe or fraudulently promoted and that section 3 and schedule A of the present Food and Drugs Act be deleted so that true claims for any product that prevents, treats or cures any of the 46 specific conditions can be allowed.

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from British Columbians asking that the Senate be reduced in size. They feel there are too many senators and that the Senate is too costly. They would also like to see an elected Senate.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Canada Marine Act

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate to refer Bill C-9 to committee before second reading, all questions to dispose of the said stage of the said bill be deemed put, deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 21, 1997 at the end of Government Orders.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize but I was not informed by my leadership. Will the whip give me assurance that consent has been reached?

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm to the member for Elk Island that the discussions have included leaders of all the opposition parties. We have come to an agreement that the vote on today's matter be deferred until Tuesday on returning after the Thanksgiving break.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

That consultation did take place and we do have an agreement.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, picking up where I left off, the centrepiece of the national marine policy of 1995 is the Canada marine act.

The bill was originally tabled in the House in June 1996. There followed discussions with stakeholders and a review by the Standing Committee on Transport which held hearings across this country.

SCOT, as it is commonly referred to, proposed a number of amendments to the bill after hearing a wide range of comments from interested parties, and further amendments were made at report stage here in the House of Commons before the bill was sent on to the Senate. Parliament was dissolved and we did not get to the completion of the bill.

I would like to discuss briefly how Bill C-9 will help modernize the three key components of Canada's marine transportation system, ports, the St. Lawrence seaway and marine pilotage.

First, the federal government will focus on those ports that are vital to domestic and international trade and on preserving access to remote regions. The remaining ports are being transferred to local interests who are in a better position to manage them efficiently and in response to local needs.

The legislation will create Canada port authorities, CPAs, with a majority of their boards of directors appointed in consultation with port users.

Bill C-9 repeals the Canada Port Corporation Act and the Public Harbours and Port Facilities Act. The Canada Ports Corporation will be dissolved.

To become a Canada port authority, a port must have financial self-sufficiency, diversified traffic, strategic significance to Canada's trade and have a link to a major rail line or highway.

Port authorities will be incorporated by letters patent for the purpose of operating a particular port. They will have powers to engage in activities related to shipping, navigation, transportation of passengers and goods and handling of storage of goods as well as other activities deemed necessary to support port operations.

Each board of directors will be composed of between seven to eleven members. The majority of each board will be appointed by the federal government only after consultation with the users who will then put the names on a list of candidates that will be considered by the Minister of Transport.

The remaining directors will be appointed by the municipality or the municipalities adjacent to the facility, involve provinces and the Government of Canada.

Perhaps the most important accountability mechanism in the bill is the provision that ports will have to go to the private sector for financing. As a result, all port related development plans requiring investment will be subject to commercial risk assessment.

During the last Parliament the biggest change introduced by the standing committee was to give the new port authorities crown agent status. Crown agent status gives port authorities a clear exemption from full property taxation and would enable them to be covered by the municipal grants act.

Then they will pay grants in lieu of taxes to the municipalities at the same levels as other federal facilities and installations. For most of the ports that will become CPAs this represents mostly a continuation of the status quo.

Any new obligations arising from agent status would come mainly to the federal government and not the agent. For example, crown agent status applies only to core activities of the ports and not to other more peripheral or non-core activities that they may undertake.

To make sure third parties know when they are dealing with a crown agent, the legislation obliges the port authorities to make this clear in their non-agent dealings.

The bill requires ports to borrow in their own name and not in the name of the crown. This emphasizes to lenders that the crown does not stand behind these obligations.

Another initiative I will address is the part of the legislation that will permit us to commercialize the operation of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence seaway system.

This system is a crucial waterway but it is also a business. The seaway faces formidable challenges, including high asset renewal costs.

Bill C-9 enables the minister to enter into agreements with a not for profit corporation or any other private sector interests to operate and maintain all or part of the seaway. The federal government would retain regulatory control over the navigation in the seaway and the existing seaway authority would be dissolved at an appropriate date.

The new not for profit seaway corporation would be responsible for operating the system for asset renewal costs up to a specific limit. There would be incentives to achieve operating efficiencies and lower costs.

Transport Canada is negotiating the transfer of the seaway operation to a group representing the major shippers and carriers on the seaway. We believe that this so-called users group is best suited to take over the system because users want to minimize their seaway tolls and ensure the long term integrity of the system. The industries represented, in particular the steel industry and the marine carriers, require the seaway for their long term survival.

On marine pilotage Bill C-9 allows the Minister of Transport to improve the way pilotage authorities operate in Canada. The authorities will have legislative support to ensure that they recover their costs from those who use their services as well as a streamlined appeals process for new pilotage rates.

Of course as always, safety and environmental protection will continue to be the government's top priority and any changes will help to ensure that our high standards of safety continue to be maintained.

In conclusion, Bill C-9 meets the goals of the national marine policy and it strikes a balance in how we manage our marine institutions and facilities. The bill complements the government's other transportation initiatives and is an important element in the overall effort to prepare our transportation system for the coming century. But no matter what changes are made or how many services are commercialized, Transport Canada will continue to make the safety and security of Canada's transportation system its first priority.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-9. I am glad to hear that the member opposite is positive about making all these changes to the marine act. I am afraid it is some 50 or 60 years too late.

I am here to talk about history. I want to give members of the House a history lesson. As we know, this bill will have a huge impact on the port of Churchill in Manitoba, which has been grossly neglected by this government and former governments.

It is ironic that in 1930 members of this House had a vision for the future of this country and built this huge shipping facility and in 1929 a railroad was built to reach that port. Unfortunately from 1930 to 1997 not a lot has been done with that port. It has been neglected, misused or underutilized.

I am glad to hear that the Liberal government has finally realized that privatization is not a dirty word. I am glad to hear that the government believes the private sector can perhaps carry on the business of transportation of commodities, including airports, much better than the government sector.

In the short time I have I would like to talk about the port of Manitoba, our direct access to the world. Its main purpose for construction as outlined in the Ports Canada document is that about 25% of western Canada's grain growing area is located closer to Churchill than to any other port. This covers the area of central and northern Saskatchewan, northeastern Alberta and northwestern Manitoba. In other words, Churchill is up to 1,600 kilometres closer to European markets than the port of Thunder Bay. Those are facts.

Even though those are the facts and that was the original intent for the construction of the port of Churchill the Liberal government and previous federal governments over the past 50 years have totally neglected this fact and have put the cost of transporting agriculture commodities on the backs of farmers. That is the reason we have an east-west focus rather than a north-south focus.

Like the hon. member for Churchill, I visited Churchill this summer and had a chance to meet with Mayor Spence and his council. I was amazed at the facility there. What really amazed me was the shape it was in and how long it had been there.

I differ from the member for Churchill. I understand from speaking with the stakeholders at Churchill that the changes in the marine act will have an immense impact economically on the community of Churchill.

We also fail to understand that not only is grain exported through the port of Churchill but also consumer goods. It is a gateway to the big north of Canada. There is over $300 million in consumer products transported through the port of Churchill by barge and there is no doubt this will increase as further development takes place in northern Canada.

I would like to put on record the myth that the port of Churchill is really not the place to export grain and agriculture products to the world, therefore forcing the farmers over the last 50 years to pay all these ridiculous transportation costs at the ports on the east coast as well as on the west coast. Today we are still doing that; 60% of agricultural products shipped go west and 40% go to the east.

The break even point at the port of Churchill, I believe, is between 500,000 and 600,000 tonnes. Having spoken to the port manager yesterday, so far this year 11 ships have come in and two more are scheduled to arrive. He stated to me that 400,000 tonnes will be shipped through the port of Churchill this year, about a 30% increase from 1996. The projection is that management of the port would like to see 3% to 5% of the prairie crop shipped through the port of Churchill.

The three western provinces produce about 30 million tonnes of grain; approximately 1.5 million tonnes are shipped through the port of Churchill, which is very little in terms of the total export and transportation of grain in this country.

It is good news with the passing of this bill that the port of Churchill will be out of government hands and into private hands.

I have a concern that there will be a lack of a voice on the port board by the producers and a lack of a voice in the transportation company which has taken over the rail line between The Pas and Churchill.

It is my hope that farmers will be consulted by both the new owners and stakeholders of the port and the rail line. Otherwise we will end up with another monopoly as we had in the past when CN was run by government and the ports were run by government and the farmers will get the short end of the stick.

Another concern I have is that the Canadian Wheat Board must increase the amount of grain moved through Churchill. It is long overdue that farmers get their grain to market without being hosed by the transportation system in this country.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased as the member for Lévis to rise in this debate, because everything marine is of great interest to me. My constituents are also particularly interested, because the chantier maritime de Lévis is in my riding. It was Canada's main shipyard before the Liberals arrived. It still has the potential to be the greatest one.

It also concerns me because, as the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans pointed out, all the Great Lakes traffic passes by us. Unfortunately, it often just passes by. We do not always reap the benefit, because there is not enough legislation favouring Quebec.

Bill C-9 is not new, as it replaces Bill C-44, which died on the Order Paper last spring, when the Prime Minister decided to call an early election. Bill C-44 had gone through all the stages in the House and had been referred to the Senate, which is not known for acting expeditiously. So, the old Bill C-44 was not passed by the Senate and is now being reintroduced as Bill C-9.

At this stage, we cannot be opposed to it, since second reading deals with the principle of the bill. The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to the objectives of the bill, even though we feel they are too modest. We, of course, strongly support the purpose of the bill, which is to transfer responsibilities to local communities.

But there are major uncertainties. The bill is flawed in terms of what it does not cover. For example, the $125 million fund for port authorities seems woefully inadequate. It would not even cover Quebec's needs, let alone those of the whole country.

It is insufficient. If that amount remains unchanged, we will probably oppose the legislation at third reading. But let us give the government a chance.

Then there is the appointment of the members of port authorities, which are supposed to be privatized. The government is keeping way too many powers, given that these authorities should manage their own affairs. Changes will have to be made in that regard, otherwise we in the Bloc Quebecois will oppose the bill.

We have other concerns. The hon. member for Kamouraska.—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques will discuss these, including the issue of pilots on the St. Lawrence River, which is a concern, particularly to those of us who are from the Quebec City region. The bill provides that St. Lawrence pilots will continue to ensure marine transportation on the St. Lawrence River.

Since I represent the riding of Lévis, I will of course primarily discuss the flaws of this bill, pompously called the Canada Marine Act. There is absolutely nothing in this bill about shipbuilding. In Lévis, which, as I was reminding you earlier, was, and potentially still is, the largest shipyard in Canada, the federal government has done nothing in its first term of office.

But during the 1993 election campaign, these folks made a number of promises. The first was to hold a Canadian summit on the future of shipbuilding in Canada. Not a whiff of a summit have we had, nor have we heard anything about the future of shipyards in Canada.

I am telling you this because the Conservatives did not manage to finalize anything before the 1993 election, but the Liberals had said they would do something about the project to replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery , the ferry running between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island.

The Liberal government dragged its heels and took forever to bring forth what looks like a mouse to me, because instead of allowing the Lévis shipyard to build a new boat for $60 million, it preferred to pay $30 million to refit an Irish ferry for service to the Magdalen Islands. This is no way to promote economic and maritime development in Canada.

In addition, we called for action; at the time, we formed the official opposition. We pointed out that the Liberal Party in its red book had promised money for the conversion of defence industries such as the Lévis shipyard to peacetime purposes. Yet, nothing, not a single penny, was provided in this area to help not only our shipyard in Lévis but also shipyards across Canada. Not one penny.

That was a fine promise, another broken promise. Each time the question of the shipyard in Lévis was raised, the then transport minister—and there have been quite a few—and the industry minister would reply: “The shipyard in Lévis should have a business plan. They should submit a business plan.” They did. The management of the shipyard submitted a plan but, in the end, they never saw a penny. This time, they were given a different set of reasons: new terms and conditions had to be negotiated into the collective agreement, and the workers had to make concessions. And they did. But even then, they never saw a penny.

There was, in the background, another condition the government did not dare state publicly. The shipyard was the property of the Société de développement industriel, a Quebec crown corporation. They said: “As long as the Quebec government is a shareholder, the federal government will not put money into this corporation.” Dominion Bridge, a private company, took over the shipyard a year and a half ago. Still, not a penny was provided for infrastructure, for military or civilian conversion. Nothing. And no contracts either.

Then, the shipyard in Lévis underwent a slight change in orientation. It secured the oil rig contract and has three contracts lined up and ready to go, including one from a Brazilian Crown corporation called Petrobras to build the Spirit of Columbus . But financial securities are required from both levels of government: the Quebec government, which has done its part, and the Canadian government, through the Export Development Corporation. Nothing has moved in a little over a year. All the while, there is a rig moored in my colleague's riding, at least in part, as the port of Quebec is right at the limit of the riding of Québec. It is the second largest rig in the world and we get to see it every day, but the federal government will not lift a finger.

I see that the hon. member for Beauce, who is supposed to represent the interests of the Quebec region, is listening. That is good, because I hope he will convey the message. Time is running out. This contract could create 400 jobs. So it is important.

Even workers from his riding are involved because his riding is next to mine. The same applies to the member for Bellechasse, the minister of state responsible for agriculture and agri-food and for fisheries and oceans. He was loudly defending the federal government in his riding instead of defending his riding on the federal scene. I woke him up at one point and told him: “Be careful. When there were 2,000 employees at MIL Davie, 500 of them came from the Bellechasse riding. You should look after their interests.” I urge the member for Beauce to do the same.

Furthermore, they let two bills die on the Order Paper when they called an early election. Now we know why: the Liberals were afraid of allegations and investigations. The Prime Minister said to himself: “Given the usual sluggishness of the federal government, the investigations will take so long that there is enough time for an election”. He called the election and he did the right thing. I congratulate him. I think he now has a majority of four members. It could have been different.

The Liberal government is not to be congratulated as far as maritime issues are concerned. I am not the only one to say so. All ridings with major shipyards are represented by opposition members, not by Liberal members; the Liberals were all defeated because of their inertia. And Canadian shipowners agree with us.

It is high time that the government did something in this area.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Dartmouth and the representative of thousands of people who are employed and affected by the activities of one of Canada's most vital ports, I would like to discuss the impact on Atlantic Canada of Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act.

First I will discuss the issue of divesting certain harbours and ports on the communities of Nova Scotia. Then I will look at some of the aspects of Bill C-9 that will have negative impacts on the port of Halifax.

The federal government announced in its national marine policy in 1995 that it planned to divest itself of all of its port facilities across the country which were under the control of Transport Canada.

Ottawa said it was spending $50 million each year to operate the country's 572 ports. The marine policy later became Bill C-44 which died in the House when the last Parliament was dissolved. Transport Canada is continuing with the divestiture scheme using other mechanisms.

The list of Nova Scotia port facilities reaches over 150. There are Amherst, Baddeck, Mulgrave, Port Hawkesbury, Canso, Liscomb, Mahone Bay, Tor Bay, over 150 communities which depend on their ports as an important pillar of their communities are in jeopardy.

Like their churches, their schools and their post offices, for those who still have the luxury of having a post office, the ports are an important part of their existence. So far Transport Canada has managed to unload three ports. The Weymouth port was sold to Irving for about $250,000. The Shelburne port was taken over by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Daysprings port was purchased for $30,000 by a shipyard company.

In the near future the Country Harbour facility will go up for public auction and the Sheet Harbour and Iona ports will be available for public tender. How many other buyers are there for these little ports? I would say precious few.

Transport Canada is holding public hearings in the affected communities. An executive assistant to Transport Canada's Atlantic region divestiture team has said that the affected communities are very hostile during these meetings. I can imagine why.

So many of these communities are angry because they do not think they have the resources to maintain or take over these facilities and they do not. These communities will go to ruin. These ports will go to ruin without the infrastructure that the government provides.

How can a port with revenues of $2,000 and expenses of $20,000 be profitable? But is profitability the only criterion by which we judge things now? Over 100 small ports which are central to the maritime fabric of life will flounder and go to ruin. For what? To save a few dollars.

This is the same mentality that wiped out the Yarmouth-Bar Harbour ferry in the winter time. It is the same mentality that will force people to pay a toll on the trans Canada highway. This is the same mentality that led the government to privatize the air traffic control system for a billion dollars less than it was worth. This is privatization ideology run rampant.

It is ironic that the Prime Minister is presently meeting with the four Atlantic premiers to talk about Atlantic Canada's need to get ahead at the same time as the government is pushing through legislation which undermines the essential transportation infrastructure in Atlantic Canada. At the same time it tightens the grip of big corporations such as Irving on our communities.

The port of Halifax-Dartmouth is another community which has major concerns about Bill C-44. The bill will prevent access for the port authority to the traditional primary source of funding for major capital projects and that is the federal government.

This is the primary negative feature of the bill. Many port facilities such as Halifax are capital intensive and have to be built well in advance of user commitments. Users often do not come until the facilities are in place. In the case of Halifax, because little of its traffic is captive, when users of the facility arrive there is no guarantee they will stay.

Ships float and boats are floating assets. They will not stay if they find another port which provides cheaper access to the markets in the North American interior that they seek to serve.

No private sector lender or investor can advance the bulk of such funding against user commitment which may or may not materialize when the facilities are completed. Funding can only come from governments which have the necessary financial resources and can justify, in the interest of promoting the economy of their constituents, the assumptions of the attendant commercial risks. This is true of all Canadian ports but also ports the world over which do not have enough captive or near captive traffic for their major borrowings to be bankable.

Had the bill been in effect in the late 1960s Halifax would not have been able to build and equip even one container berth and the harbour would long ago have fallen into disuse.

The bill should be changed to delete the provisions intended to prevent the federal government from providing capital funding to the new port authorities.

Another concern that we have in Atlantic Canada is the concern of labour with regard to this legislation. Labour needs a place at the new port authorities. From labour's standpoint the Canada Marine Act does not legislatively ensure that port labour will have a place at the new port authority boards. Port labour in Halifax is asking that it be grandfathered into the new board of the port authority so as to ensure that labour has a continued voice in the direction and running of the Halifax port.

The Halifax Port Development Commission also has serious objections to the bill on the one hand denying any access whatsoever for ports to parliamentary appropriation of federal funds, while on the other hand continuing to offer access to the consolidated revenue fund for the seaway.

As clause 67(c) states, the objective is to protect the long term operation and viability of the seaway as an integral part of Canada's national transportation infrastructure. The port of Halifax and the CN gateway are at least as critical a component of Canada's national transportation infrastructure as the seaway, and given industry trends, hold considerably greater potential to expand their role in international trade for the benefit of all Canadians.

It should also be noted that in many instances the seaway competes with Halifax for traffic, making the discrepancy of treatment that much more objectionable. We therefore strongly recommend that Bill C-9 be amended to ensure that the major ports and the seaway are treated in a consistent and equitable manner with respect to access to federal funds for capital investment.

Bill C-9 in its present form will have many detrimental effects on the communities of Atlantic Canada ports both big and little. Atlantic Canada and the port of Halifax deserve to have their needs met. Bill C-9 is not acceptable in its present form and we will be examining it carefully and constructively in committee.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your appointment to the Chair.

I am certainly pleased to talk on Bill C-9 today. It will have a big impact on my community and in many communities of the province of Nova Scotia and the entire maritime provinces because it deals with ports and harbours. It also deals with the St. Lawrence seaway which does not directly affect us but it certainly does indirectly. There will be a major impact on the federal ferry system, the pilotage programs and harbour police. Many aspects of the way of life in coastal communities either on the west coast or on the east coast will be affected.

The bill talks about the impact it will have on the ports and harbours and the pilotage people. It does not talk about the impact it will have on municipalities. It does not talk about the tremendous impact it will have on the provinces and the people. It will have an incredible impact on the people who are affected by the downsizing programs.

The thought crossed my mind as I was reading the bill that it is very much along the line of the present government policy of downsizing which seems to be pervasive throughout government programs. In some cases it seems to be innocuous and maybe even sensible, but the fact of the matter is that whenever national standards are taken away and the responsibility is given to the provinces and then down to the municipalities, we lose consistency and control over how the ports are managed. There will be inconsistencies from port to port from province to province and all over the country when this bill passes. I know it will cause a lot of grief.

Right now we have national policies which are inconsistent. Provincial policies change very rapidly. Provincial policies can change in an instant, whereas national policies only change over a period of time. They are much slower to change. The people involved who are affected by these quick decisions by the provinces will be hurt a great deal more than if the control of the port stayed with the federal government.

The pervasive downsizing approach by the government was eloquently repeated yesterday by the premier of the province of Nova Scotia, a former member of this House, who said, “We have suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts in recent years. Just give us a chance to get our bearings. It seems that the cutbacks are promoting cutbacks. Let us lay off for a little while until we get on our feet before you come back at us again”. That is what this is doing. This is coming back at the smaller communities and the smaller ports. Even though the premier of the province of Nova Scotia was a former member, he recognizes that.

A really good example of the negative impact of downloading and losing the consistency of national policies is the port police policy that the hon. member for Saint John so eloquently talked about a little while ago. The port police in Canada are highly specialized and highly trained police. They are specialized in the fields of drugs, immigration, firearms and contraband, all things that are really important to Canadians. If we lose an effective police force on the ports, the whole country will pay a huge price for it.

Under Bill C-9 all the ports police are being disbanded and municipal police or whatever are going to take over this responsibility. It is not even clear who is going to take this over. The government is disbanding the ports police and there is no plan.

Again we run into the inconsistency problem that I mentioned before where one port is doing one thing, another is doing something else and other ports have no plan at all. Basically if we do go to inconsistent port police we will have training that is inconsistent, quality that is inconsistent and the application of the rules and the law that is inconsistent.

We feel that the ports that have poor policing systems will be identified by the criminal elements in our country. They will become the ports of choice for criminal operations. We think that is going to happen because we are losing our national standards for our ports police. We are going to have every port with its own police application and approach. That is another big impact from downloading.

I am again going to quote Nova Scotia Premier MacLellan. He said yesterday, “Nova Scotians have been devastated by what Ottawa did. We have to get our financial house in order, there is no question about that, but excessive financial brutality is something else again. We just cannot do that. It is not the way to treat people”. That is what is happening.

Let us move on to a few other aspects of C-9. Probably the most important issue is the classification of ports. The government is dividing all ports into three classes: major commercial ports that are financially viable; regional ports that are to be divested over six years—I almost used devastated and that could be interchanged with divested because I believe they will be—; and the other class of ports is remote ports.

These again are separate from the fisheries and oceans small craft harbours where the same thing is happening. Those wharves are all being divested or becoming port authorities. It is going to have a tremendous impact on the communities.

Somebody in the closet in Ottawa who is writing this legislation does not have any idea of the impact this will have on communities like Wallace, Pugwash, Barachois and Parrsboro that I am sure Madam Speaker is very familiar with. Communities like Advocate and Shelburne in Nova Scotia where a military base just closed. Now they are having their port taken away from them or they are disowning the port I should say because the port is not viable by itself and they are going to lose.

The first classification of ports is major ports. They will become Canadian port authorities. They will probably be all right because they have already been designated as viable. The regional ports have a very uncertain future and this is where we are going to focus our attention. The third is the remote ports which will continue to be supported by the federal government.

Our focus will be on the regional ports such as the ports I listed a minute ago. These ports have not had the opportunity to be heard. They do not even have any idea what is going to happen to them. They do not even have any idea that this is happening. We want to make sure that the regional ports do know what is happening. We will make sure, to the best of our ability, that they are informed and given the opportunity to speak and tell us what the impact will be on their communities.

Often the port, the wharf, is the lifeblood of the community. If you take away the port and let it collapse, and this legislation will eventually force many ports to collapse, the whole community will collapse. I do not think we can stand by and let that happen.

One option that has been put up for the regional ports is to privatize the port facility or sell it. Sell it to whom? What about the community? What about the community that uses it for recreational boating and fisheries and as a centre of its commercial activity? What happens if it is sold to a company that has no interest in the community?

There was a proposal in Bayside, New Brunswick to sell the wharf and the whole port to a U.S. company. It wanted to take control over the entire port. It wanted to open a gravel pit or a quarry. It said that the only way it could do that would be if it totally controlled the whole port of Bayside. What happened to the people in Bayside? What about their concerns?

Had it not been for the MP for Charlotte, that deal probably would have gone ahead and an American sand and gravel company would now own a port in New Brunswick. It would own the whole port that tax dollars paid for, a port that is the centre of activity in the whole area of Bayside.

Again I hearken back to Premier MacLellan's comments about downloading, devastation, brutality. Let us go slow on this regional ports facility deal. We will be monitoring the regional ports facility issue very very closely.

There has not been enough consultation with the regional ports. They do not even know what is happening to them. We may propose that we split the bill. We should do the national ports and remote ports now and the regional ports later as we get other alternatives that will offer opportunities for these communities.

We just cannot wipe out hundreds of communities. There are hundreds of communities on the list that have been presented. Regional and local ports from all parts of the country in every province will be affected. These communities do not realize that they are about to lose the hub of their whole community. They have to know and must have a chance to speak and be heard. We will be bringing that to their attention.

The privatization aspect of this bill is really frightening. An American company can buy a port since there are no restrictions on who can buy and own ports. The bill just states that the ports are going to be divested, that they will be sold to the highest bidder. There are now planned auctions for ports in Nova Scotia. This is an incredible way to treat the people and the citizens of these ports that will be sold.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Whelan)]

Debate. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, your father must be very proud of you in your elevation to the Chair. I congratulate you and wish you well.

I will take a different slant on this issue. I will try to point out why some of these ports are probably not profitable and why we need more cost effective transportation or handling of these ports.

My hon. colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain gave me some stats from the Canadian Grain Commission. They really tell the story of what has happened to many of the ports. The dates for all of these ports range from 1987 to 1996.

The Atlantic coast ports decreased from 552,000 tonnes in 1987 to 73,000 tonnes today. That is quite a decrease. The ports along the St. Lawrence have had an even bigger decrease. In 1987 they handled 11.8 million tonnes of grain. Today they are only handling about 4.4 million tonnes. We can see that the flow of traffic as far as grain is concerned has been diverted to some other transportation systems.

Thunder Bay has done a little better. It has actually increased from 1.1 million tonnes to 1.4 million tonnes, possibly because of the grain going to the U.S. being loaded in Thunder Bay and then unloaded at Duluth. Churchill, which my hon. colleague from Dauphin—Swan River talked about, used to handle about half a million tonnes or better of grain in 1987. In 1996 they were down to 227,000 tonnes. As we heard today that has increased to about 400,000 tonnes, which is a good trend for Churchill.

The Pacific coast has actually stayed very stable at from 60 million tonnes in 1987 down to 40 million tonnes in 1996. Because of market trends in shipping products to Asia, west coast ports have done better than east coast ports.

Why is that? One of the big reasons is that the costs at some of these ports have become almost unbearable for the shippers, especially grain farmers.

In 1990 the St. Lawrence Pilotage Authority negotiated a new wage contract that gave a 32% increase in wages over three years, which was unheard of in those days for other industries. Why these people were able to leverage this kind of a contract I have no idea.

In a nine month period pilots earn from $115,000 to $156,000. We were told during the hearings in Thunder Bay that they did not want to prove or disprove after nine months of operation that they still qualified for unemployment insurance. Their yearly earnings were fairly well looked after.

This brought to light other things. I am looking at some of my notes. Mr. Kennedy, one of the town fathers of Thunder Bay, pointed out that the cost of a tonne of grain going down the St. Lawrence Seaway on a 20,000 tonne freighter would be $2.50 per tonne just for the pilotage. That is more money to be paid by farmers than all the fuel taxes on a tonne of grain being shipped across the country. We can see the additional costs.

For a laker coming up stream with another type of freight it would be about $1.25 a tonne or about half. It is still very high and adds to the cost of operating the port.

He also pointed out that a 10 day trip from Montreal up through the Great Lakes to Thunder Bay and back would cost shippers $53,000 just for the pilot. That is as much as the total wage bill for the crew of the ship. We can see that something is wrong in the pilotage authority that should be addressed in the bill.

In 1995 we were led to believe that this was one of the most important issues and that it would be dealt with when the marine bill was brought forward. However it has been deleted and that really bothers me.

People will have to begin realizing that if grain transportation costs are not brought down there will not be much grain going through some of the ports. The sooner we recognize that, the better off we will be.

When I looked at some of the figures that the grain companies gave us, it was astounding what property taxes were doing to some of these ports and terminals.

Cargill has a terminal in Duluth which is a third bigger than its terminal at Thunder Bay. It was paying $27,000 property taxes at Duluth and $1.25 million at Thunder Bay. It is about the same for west coast ports. They are somewhat lower but the property taxes on some grain facilities are unbelievable. That will have to be addressed, or we will begin to see things happen such as what is taking place in rail transportation now.

Going back to figures the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain gave me, direct shipping to the U.S. by rail in 1987 was 60,000 tonnes. In 1996 it was 1.889 million tonnes. We see that these ports are interfering with the shipment of grain, in which direction it should go, because of the costs.

The Canadian Wheat Board, one of my favourite friends, tried a number of projects to ship grain down the Mississippi. It was quite successful. It would take grain up to Minneapolis, barge it down the Mississippi and export it.

Those things are happening. The government will have to realize it better do something to address the costs of ports or they will totally lose the business. Once the business is gone it is pretty hard to bring it back, except it can be attracted with lower costs that are feasible and reasonable.

I was astounded by what the pilotage did to shipping on the Great Lakes. A Canadian ship owner who testified before the hearings had five vessels in the seaway system. In 1994 he estimates he could have saved $475,000 on pilotage costs if they were in a competitive environment and operated on commercial rates. That was half a million dollars for four ships. When 10 or 12 million tonnes of grain are taken through the system, we can be seen how it affects shippers.

Why is the Government of Canada allowing these things to happen? As the whole transportation system was developing there was so much government interference in the system that they do not know how to rectify it. It is so far out of whack compared to the U.S. system.

While freight costs are a little higher as far as rail is concerned in the U.S, if I ship a load of grain through the handling system from my farm in Snowflake, Manitoba, to Seattle, I can save $16 a tonne just by elevation and handling charges in the grain handling system. These are items that we have to address.

I have a little story to finish up the whole debate. In the 1930s during the Bennett buggy days car tops were taken off, shafts were put on the wheels and cars were pulled by horse. In those days one of my neighbours who was shipping a carload of barley to Thunder Bay got a bill for a number of dollars and the price of the barley did not cover the freight.

The station master sent him a bill. He went to the station master and said “Sir, I haven't got any money. I can't pay this freight bill. The barley didn't cover the cost of it, so you are just out of it”. Things being very tough in those days, the station master said “Bring me a rooster and we will call it even-steven”.

About a week later the farmer came back to town and brought two roosters with him. The station agent said “Sir, I only asked for one rooster. Why would you bring me two?” He said “Well, sir, you have forgotten I have another carload of barley to ship”.

That is about the way we are running our transportation system today. It is becoming so costly that shippers cannot survive with it. Sooner or later it will die. If we have to pay it in roosters, the chicken industry in Ontario will also fold.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes, of course, the bill to be sent to committee as soon as possible. Let us remember that this is the old Bill C-44, to which we made a very constructive contribution to get meaningful results.

The government had not agreed to make some amendments that we considered essential, which is why we had voted against the bill at third reading. These amendments are still not to be found in the new bill.

Yet it has to be recognized that this is an important bill. It will create the port authorities and finally allow the regions to take over control of their port infrastructures, which is what the people of Quebec, among others, have been calling for over the past 20, 25 or 30 years, while the federal government has long been a distant observer of the vitality of our regions and of the use of port facilities in our regions.

This bill will introduce some interesting elements, but only if the federal government decides to put more than $150 million into the compensation fund it plans to put into place for when a regional port is handed over to regional authorities. Let me give you an example.

There are several port facilities in my riding that are affected by this situation. Since the community of Cacouna found out two years ago that a new ports policy was coming, it undertook some projects. A port development corporation has been created. It has already twinned with the French port of La Rochelle. It is getting a commercial development plan drawn up under the leadership of the director general of a pulp and paper mill in Rivière-du-Loup, a very dynamic business man.

The community has taken its fate into its own hands. It is prepared to take over, to assume administration of the facility, but only under acceptable conditions, and the federal government must turn over the facility under conditions which will maximize the port's future business opportunities.

For example, they expect that if the port entrance needs widening, or if the port needs dredging, that must be done. In other words, like any property, that it not be sold in a rundown condition. It must be sold in an acceptable condition and at a price that will enable the community to take it over.

The commercial ports are not the only ones affected by this bill. There are also ferry ports. Three are affected this way in my riding: the Rivière-du-Loup—Saint-Siméon ferry, the Trois-Pistoles—Les Escoumins ferry and the ferry between Saint-Juste-du-Lac and Notre-Dame-du-Lac on Témiscouata Lake.

Each case necessitates divestment, and the community has to take over the facility with the assurance that there will be a future for ferry services. In Rivière-du-Loup, an impact study by the Corporation de développement économique confirms that the ferry brings in $25 million and provides each government with some $2 million in tax dollars.

The talk of giving money to the regions out of kindness and a concern for equality is over. Governments have to consider ferry ports in Rivière-du-Loup an investment that stimulates the economy and provides revenues much higher than the cost of maintaining the facilities and especially divestment in the interest of the people of the community.

There is also the Trois-Pistoles ferry, which is a private operation, and which the Government of Quebec did not consider an essential service, but which in practice provides an essential service. It provides transportation to the North Shore alleviating traffic problems on the Saguenay ferry.

The federal government must be open and permit this port to operate at full capacity. It must also acknowledge the recreational and touristic aspects of the port developed in recent years. It is a haven where tourists, who have made Trois-Pistoles the cultural capital of the Lower St. Lawrence, can use the port infrastructure as a gateway to the river and enjoy all the benefits of the various tourist developments in our region.

All of these things are dealt with in the bill, which is why we want it sent to committee as soon as possible, so that the government can listen to our arguments and agree to a number of amendments, including one to increase the compensation fund to make it efficient and operational and ensure that the local authorities will be able, 10 or 15 years from now, to take charge of their own future and to control their port infrastructure.

There are other reasons why we want to send the bill to committee as soon as possible. There is the whole issue of the maritime pilots on the St. Lawrence. The last time the bill was before the committee, the Liberal majority came up with a last-minute amendment. We do not know where it came from but it did smack of influence peddling. This amendment took away from the pilots the role they were playing in terms of security. The amendment was designed to replace these people with machines, to remove some of the security measures they used to have and to threaten the independence they enjoyed as pilots on the St. Lawrence.

I had a quick look at this amendment, and I was surprised at the attitude of the government. I had discussions with pilots, who clearly demonstrated to me the essential nature of their functions, as good human judgment is essential to navigation on the St. Lawrence, where security is paramount.

There is also the question of the language of work for pilots on the St. Lawrence. Over the years, they have developed a tradition of working in French, and this tradition should continue.

In committee, we fought real hard and convinced the government to withdraw this amendment. Today, this aspect of the bill is acceptable to us, and pilots want to see the bill passed as soon as possible.

To conclude, let me add that we would like to vote in favour of the bill as a whole at third reading. That is why we would like to get a few additional amendments from the government.

When Bill C-44 was in committee, we managed to have the port of Trois-Rivières designated as a Canadian port authority, thanks in part to the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, who made very significant representations. Among other things, he provided information that helped the Prime Minister better understand what was best for Trois-Rivières, after originally saying that the status of regional port might not be a bad thing for that city.

In any case, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières was able to demonstrate that Trois-Rivières deserved to have a port authority, and he managed to convince the committee. This resulted in an improved piece of legislation.

There are still a few things that need to be corrected in the bill. If the government is prepared to do so, the end result will be even better. I am thinking in particular of a clause that seems quite obsolete. I am referring to the fact that port masters in Canada are appointed by the government, in a blatant display of patronage.

After the 1993 election, we had a port master who had been similarly appointed by the Conservatives, but who had developed an expertise. He had been there seven, eight or ten years and had become an expert in the field. Still, the Liberals got rid of him and appointed someone else. I have no doubt about the new appointee's competence, but he had to learn everything from scratch. I believe an amendment would be in order regarding this issue.

All this to say we are prepared to go to committee. We hope the review takes place as soon as possible, and we also hope the government will give favourable consideration to our amendments, so that, in the end, the bill is a true reform of Canada's marine policy and a tool to promote our economy.

Committees Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 119.1(1), this House authorizes the televising of meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance held pursuant to Standing Order 83(1).

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Canada Marine Act

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who comes from the Lower St. Lawrence and lives in a riding on the banks of that river, it seems only natural that I should take part in the debate today.

Without waxing nostalgic, I would like to tell you, and members of the House, that, in my youth—this goes back a bit—transportation was generally by boat. Boats took the place of trucks and trains. Things have changed over time, but I still remember those days when any child living along the river knew that its moods changed, just as moods change here in the House.

We in the Bloc Quebecois support the policy to divest and commercialize ports. However, as those who spoke before me have said, certain questions arise.

In Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act, one of the first questions that comes up concerns the fate of ports. We know that, historically, ports were not necessarily located where they might be today. We know that the facilities in certain ports are completely obsolete, and that others have been transformed over the years from ordinary harbours to deep sea ports. But on the whole these ports continue to serve the public and certain businesses.

Even though a reserve of $125 million has been set aside to help with the restructuring or sale of certain ports, serious questions come to mind. Will the free trade rules mean that people will buy only ports that are ready for use and financially viable? Will other ports, which often contribute to their region's economic development, be completely divested?

I am really concerned and I wish other members would share my concerns about who will buy these ports. Will local disparities be taken into account? Will these ports, as in our case, still be owned by Quebeckers? Since it was mentioned that Americans or people from outside Quebec will be able to buy ports, we do not know how the ports will be managed and what impact this will have on local and regional markets.

Consequently, we would like to have more information on this whole aspect of the port transfer before giving our consent to the bill.

My colleague from Lévis also spoke about shipbuilding. He is concerned about the issue of shipbuilding in the greater Quebec City area. In other areas in Quebec, we are also very concerned about this issue. He mentioned the rig. I will not come back to that, but it is nevertheless a monument which could become a monument to shame if the people opposite do not make funds available to allow the required work to be performed as soon as possible. This would bring—I will not say grist to the mill, that would be too easy—more rig overhaul contracts our way.

Shipyards are also involved in ship refit. There were years when over 2,000 people, or 2,000 families, lived off the contracts awarded by the federal government to repair or overhaul ships. The mood of the people in our region depends largely on the employment situation. Now that only 500 to 700 people work in our shipyards, this is becoming a problem. And what about construction starts? But this is a thing of the past, and I do not want to sound overly nostalgic. There is nothing in bill C-9 on this.

There is another major point, which I will call the interference issue. Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act, is a fine model of interference. We are familiar with this in my riding, where, following the 1993 election, the defeated Liberal candidate, Margo Brousseau, was appointed to the port of Quebec's board of directors. We would not want these things to go on. We would like people to be appointed to these positions because of their abilities, not because of their contacts.

Under Bill C-9, the government will appoint directors who will have decision making powers within port authorities, but it is withdrawing from any financial involvement. What a nice model of centralization that does not reflect the realities of the industry.

In concluding my remarks, I want to say a few words on the Pilotage Act. My colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques already spoke on this issue, but I would like to add a few words. We know the habits of our pilots on the St. Lawrence and we would like things to stay the same.

Therefore, we are totally opposed to the possible repeal of the Pilotage Act in favour of the creation of a central body such as the port secretariat, for which the government is already trying to find a role. The Bloc Quebecois will keep a close eye on this issue because it is of great interest to us, and we will not let it go.

In conclusion, we will not vote in favour of this bill unless certain amendments are made to our satisfaction.