Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1997

Canada Marine Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. For clarification purposes, could you tell this House the number of this motion and the group it will be presented in?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair will do so as soon as possible. We have to look at the amendment now that it has been presented, and I will tell the House soon which group it belongs to and it will be available at the Table for all to see.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point, I do not want to be overly procedural, but am I to understand that it will certainly not be included in discussing Group No. 1, which will be discussed immediately?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The answer is no. We can now begin with Group No. 1.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as a point of clarification, I was of the impression that in spite of this agreement we would first speak briefly to the legislation and then speak to the amendments. You are asking us to speak to the amendments first.

[The Deputy Speaker]

This is the report stage of the bill. It is for the purpose of discussing amendments to the legislation. If the hon. member wishes to debate the bill he can do so on third reading, but at report stage we do proceed with speeches of 10 minutes duration on groups of amendments. We are now on Group No. 1. I understand the amendment proposed by the parliamentary secretary will not be included in Group No. 1 so we are safe to start on that if the House is ready. We will be debating Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 12.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-9, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 6 with the following:

“(ii) one individual appointed by each of the”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-9, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 11 the following:

“(3.1) For the purposes of subsection (3) the Minister may fix the limits of a port that is to be managed by a port authority.”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-9, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 9 on page 13 with the following:

“users.”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-9, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 29 with the following:

“matters and zoning by-laws that apply to neighbouring lands.”

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at report stage on this bill which has been so long in the making. Transport Canada has implemented a comprehensive strategy of change over the last few years, commercializing many activities, streamlining regulations, reducing or eliminating subsidies and cutting departmental overhead and expenditures.

I believe the government has demonstrated leadership in attaining national goals and in nurturing national programs and institutions within the framework of the Canada marine act. The first group of amendments before us will go a long way to achieving a number of objectives.

First, marine infrastructure and services will respond to user needs. Second, excess marine infrastructure and services will be rationalized or transferred to more efficient local management in an orderly way. Third, the operation of marine infrastructure and services will be managed on commercial principles wherever possible by commercial entities with a minimum of overhead costs and red tape and the maximum user say.

Fourth, the federal framework of legislation, regulation and administration will be simplified and streamlined while maintaining our high standards of safety. Fifth, marine infrastructure and services will continue to be provided for remote communities in a manner that will preserve a national presence in such communities. Sixth, overall levels of subsidization, direct and indirect, will be significantly reduced or eliminated.

These amendments will go a long way to ensuring that local autonomy will be increased in order to reduce costs and allow ports to better serve their customers.

The federal role in ports as a result of this bill will be more clearly focused on the ports of greatest importance to Canada's domestic and international trade and to those that provide marine service to meet the basic needs of the various remote communities.

We are providing representation on the board of directors to allow increased involvement in port management by business and local interests. The bill has provided for a majority of the new port boards to be nominated after consultation with users. We believe this acknowledges that it is the users who must pay for marine facilities and services.

At transport committee hearings, we were told that boards of directors could be strengthened by making provision for members with a more diverse combination of qualifications.

We agreed with this point and amended the bill accordingly so that the three levels of government have this latitude when appointing board members.

Changes made in committee will allow provinces and municipalities to appoint to boards of directors members with the necessary qualifications to represent a broad range of local interests, not just business interests.

This increased flexibility, along with the advice that will be supplied by port users, will make it possible to ensure that boards of directors include members with a diverse combination of knowledge and qualifications.

This new port authority will have powers relating to shipping, navigation, transportation of passengers and goods, the handling and storage of goods as well as other activities that are deemed in the letters patent to be necessary to support the port operations.

In the letters patent there will be a full description of the lands that will make up the port limits. I think that is extremely important in the whole context of land management.

The bill does require port authorities to develop a land use plan within 12 months of receiving its letters patent, and at least 60 days before the plan is to come into effect the port must advertise in the local media and obtain public input before it finalizes its plan.

Unlike the past practice at many ports, Bill C-9 makes it very clear that Canada port authorities must develop their land use plans in consultation with the local community. That is extremely important right across the country. I want to take an aside here and underscore to my friends in Toronto this is indeed the aim of this bill. It is now in the bill if it passes. I think that would go a long way to ensuring local interests in Toronto that local planning concerns will be taken into account by the new port authority.

We have also heard a concern from members of the Standing Committee on Transport that a direct provision was needed to ensure that port plans are co-ordinated with other land use regimes.

I am pleased to note that my hon. colleague, the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, moved an acceptable amendment in this regard, an amendment that members on this side of the House will be happy to support.

Accordingly, when a port's board of directors develops its land use plan, it is supposed to harmonize its decisions, in so far as possible, with users and with the restrictions applying to property adjacent to port boundaries.

The vital interests of the public at large, the users of the port, the local businesses and communities and the various interest governments are addressed at two levels in the bill. The procedure for the nomination and appointment of port authority directors offers the conventional assurance that the decisions of a port authority start with people who have professional qualifications and who enjoy the basic confidence of the many constituencies.

The second level of institutional control is of prime importance. We believe that feedback will come from the strict new disclosure requirements for a port authority. The director's actions will be reviewable in a practical way and they will be held accountable through various mechanisms such as annual reports, periodic reviews and annual public meetings.

This is the kind of reform our port authorities want, and we are very pleased to be going ahead in this direction. I strongly urge members to support this bill.

The Canada marine act will help to prepare Canada for the global competitiveness of the 21st century, to ensure a strong continued federal presence in our ports and will serve as a valuable tool in the continued strengthening of our economy and the creation of jobs and growth.

I thank the hon. members who have taken part in the debate thus far, especially the members of the standing committee who have worked in a collegial way to deal with the concerns of this bill. It is the second time round for the House within this calendar year. As people know, the earlier Bill C-44 did not pass the Senate before the election was called. We brought back in the same bill that was passed in the House last year. This was an important feature that my colleagues, especially in the opposition, insisted on.

We have made some modifications. We have made some real progress in certain areas. I mentioned Toronto a few minutes ago. We have also been able to resolve some of the matters pertaining to the Hamilton Harbour Commission and Hamilton, of course, is included in the schedule as a CPA. I think this shows how all of us working together can overcome various difficulties.

In that particular case, we had to wait until certain matters resolved themselves between the counsel in Hamilton and the Harbour Commission. They look like they are on their way to resolution. It seems only appropriate to include Hamilton in the bill.

I exhort my hon. colleagues to allow this bill to go forward. It is a good day for Canada, the Canadian marine industry and, hopefully, in the other place, we will address their concerns which they did not have an opportunity to address earlier this year.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before debate resumes, I am reluctant to interrupt at this moment but I should advise the House that the motion proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and admitted on unanimous consent a few moments ago will be in Group No. 2 and will be voted on separately. Resuming debate.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak only very briefly on Bill C-9 as it was reported from committee.

This is a flawed bill. It had a lot of promise. The foundation and the framework are excellent, reflecting a lot of diligent effort in the last Parliament.

Unfortunately, the builders lacked finishing skills. The final construction has a leaky roof and rather ill-fitting doors. There are no real excuses for the deficiencies in this bill.

Every member of the standing committee was fully aware of the shortcomings which had been identified by the stakeholders. The standing committee, rather than addressing the problems in the legislation, simply rolled over and played dead.

Dozens of innocuous government housekeeping and drafting amendments were passed but let us for a moment consider what could have been.

The most common complaint against the bill is its provision for a federal levy on the gross revenues of each port authority at a rate to be arbitrarily fixed by the minister.

Can members imagine entering into a royalty agreement with a property owner and telling him to set his own price, based on what he felt he could afford to pay? Imagine, moreover, that the same owner would also be leasing property to your competitors and would be free to set different rates for them, again at his discretion. That is precisely the situation in which the various port authorities will find themselves under this legislation.

Changes requested by shipping companies, stevedoring firms, unions and producers were never seriously considered. In the end, at the crack of the parliamentary secretary's whip, the advice of departmental bureaucrats prevailed over the wishes of the people who have to live with the legislation.

Not only did the government members fail to respond to stakeholders, but they lined up solidly to vote down every single amendment presented by opposition members on behalf of the stakeholders.

A motion to levy a charge based on clearly defined net revenues at an equal percentage rate for all port authorities was rejected by all Liberals present.

Second, an amendment requested not only by unions but by shipping associations to guarantee a union representative on each board of directors was rejected by the Liberals and, rather curiously I thought, by the sole NDP member of the committee.

The presence of a union member at the executive level could have had far-reaching effects on the maintenance of labour peace on the waterfront.

Nowadays, labour relations do not just involve wage disputes, especially at the waterfront. A lot of disputes revolve around policy decisions and an atmosphere of mutually beneficial co-operation would go a long way to maintaining future labour peace.

Third and finally, one of the most galling Liberal responses was the rejection of amendments that would have weakened pilotage monopolies, especially on the St. Lawrence. Our proposals would have made it easier for the captains of Canadian vessels routinely plying the same waters to be certified to pilot their own vessels.

Under the terms of the motion, applicants for pilotage certificates would have had only to prove their competence and knowledge of the waters in order to be certified.

St. Lawrence pilotage is widely acknowledged to be one of the worst examples of pork-barrel politics and union featherbedding in the world. A few hundred people with incomes from $80,000 to $180,000 for nine months of work are holding the entire inland shipping industry hostage. The estimated cost of excess pilotage to grain shippers alone is about $4 million annually.

In refusing to accept the proposed amendments, the Liberals demonstrated that they care more about a small legislated monopoly in central Canada than they care about the interest of 50,000 prairie farmers.

I will be introducing proposed amendments to this bill. At that time I would like to speak not about what we did not get in committee, but things we hope to get here, things that could be done to make this a better bill.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first off like to thank the Minister of Transport for having indicated his support for an amendment submitted by the Bloc Quebecois and I would also like to thank the government for having kept pilotage mandatory in Canada.

In this vein, I will not repeat the remarks made by my Reform colleague. I invite him to come in the next referendum campaign and brag about Canada's beauty as I do the rounds on the Île d'Orléans, and then we will see about his credibility.

Clause 4 sets out as one of the objectives of Bill C-9 to provide a high level of autonomy for local port management. This method of operation will permit more manoeuvring room in the use of property managed by these new administrations. For most ports, the manoeuvring room provided in the legislation is justifiable.

However, there are certain special situations in which integration of port functions into the community is more complex. The legislation as written could prevent certain necessary adjustments.

In the port of Quebec City, for example, there might be some concern over the use made of the manoeuvring room in a port located at the heart of a metropolitan region, whose main city, Quebec City, has been designated a world heritage site. In this case, a conflict in usage has already arisen in certain areas currently managed by the port of Quebec City.

Is it unthinkable for a special interest group, which the federal Minister of Transport will continue to appoint, and which are often friends of the government, to have more power than elected municipal officials, who, however, are accountable to the public for maintaining the area.

We contend, therefore, that the bill must be amended so that special situations, like that of the Quebec City region, are given special solutions. The increased flexibility we are seeking in our amendments is necessary for the following reasons.

First, we must discuss the limits of the areas managed by local port authorities. This is the thrust of one of our amendments.

Second, we should provide for the possibility of submitting authorized usage to municipal zoning when letters patent are drawn up. This is our Motion No. 12, and the government, through its minister, has indicated that it will support our amendment.

Third, there should be greater flexibility in the make up of the board of directors. We will come back to that.

Let us talk first off about the geographic limits of port administrations. I said it was important the geographic limits of a port administration be approved by the community the port operates in. In this regard, the legislation must provide that the municipal zoning bylaws are to be respected by the port authorities. This is the intent of our Motion No. 12, which the government will support.

Next, I would like to discuss our Motion No. 2. It states, and I quote:

“(3.1) For the purposes of subsection (3) the Minister may fix the limits of a port that is to be managed by a port authority.”

The rationale behind this motion focuses on the possibility of excluding from the limits of a port a part of the area which is used for other than marine trade and transport. Let me explain.

There is one part of the port of Quebec which is called the baie de Beauport. There is a boating association called l'Association nautique de la baie de Beauport, which is recreational and touristic in nature. The bay is a regional recreation and tourism facility used by people from all over the Greater Quebec region. This zone ought, therefore, not to be included in the limits of the port, since its use is not solely for shipping. It is used for recreation and tourism.

The government still has until 5.30 p.m. tomorrow to think about it before the vote, but we respectfully submit that the government will need to give some thought to approving not only our Motion No. 12 but also our Motion No. 2.

Continuing now along the same lines, I would like to look at the composition of the port authority. There is a problem in the current wording of this bill because it is set out that a single municipality will represent the others on the local port authority. What is to be done, then, when several municipalities are affected by port operations? We know this often leads to more complex problems for community integration.

We submit that community representation ought to be stronger in order to offset the purely commercial aspects of port activities. A conflict of interest might, moreover, arise between the various municipalities where certain aspects of port activities are concerned. In that case, given that a number of municipal interests may be affected, we submit in our Motion No. 1 that each municipality adjacent to the port should be able to have its point of view heard, so that each of the municipal administrations involved has a say.

The purpose of Motion No. 1 is therefore to make provision for a representative from each of the municipalities concerned and not just from one municipality speaking on behalf of the others.

In conclusion, I would like to take a few minutes to explain Motion No. 3. First I will read clause 14(1)(d):

The Governor in Council appoints the remaining individuals nominated by the Minister in consultation with users selected by the Minister or the classes of users mentioned in the letters patent.

We humbly submit that the bill should be amended to reflect our Motion No. 3 so that it is the users themselves who choose the people who will represent them on the local port authority's board of directors, and so that it is not left to the minister, as it is now, to make partisan appointments. In the case of airports, users were asked to say whom they would like to see on their local airport authority's board of directors. Why was the same scenario not used for the privatization of ports?

To a certain extent, this is what we are criticizing, what we often see in Canada. On the one hand, the government is privatizing. On the other hand, the government is pulling out, sometimes leaving facilities in poor shape, but not providing an adequate budget to make the required technical improvements. The government is privatizing but still retaining authority for appointing directors.

Unfortunately I am running short of time, but I could name many friends of the government in office who are appointed all the time. This has been just as true under the present Liberal government as it was in the time of the Conservatives. That is why we said in the last two election campaigns that Conservatives and Liberals were one and the same.

Once again, I ask the parliamentary secretary, who is a responsible member and who handled this issue well on the transport committee, to examine our amendments. As can be seen, our shopping list is not terribly long. We wanted to focus on the key points.

In closing, I would ask the House to give positive consideration to this first group of amendments moved by the members of the Bloc Quebecois, which I proudly represent.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to speak on this bill today.

I have but one little problem with it and that is that I was not here in the last Parliament. My constituents decided to give me a little vacation and while I was home for three and a half years, the transport committee of the House of Commons researched this particular bill for approximately a year and a half.

In our case, it was really thrown at us and we did not have a lot of chance to review it. We were denied the opportunity to hear witnesses other than the minister and his officials. Therefore, I feel that the committee and Parliament were let down quite a bit. However, we are going to address these motions in Group No. 1 today.

As much as we understand the thought and the purpose behind this motion, we are going to vote against Motion No. 1. In some ways we feel that it makes sense, but on the other hand it would allow an unlimited number of directors to be appointed to the CPA boards. We think that would be a mistake. It already has a large number of members and many of the ports have asked for smaller boards, not bigger boards. With this amendment to the bill, it would allow for a much larger board.

We are also going to vote against Motion No. 2 because we feel that it will prevent port authorities from expanding, using their own resources. It will deny them the ability to grow if a port authority is successful and is able to grow. There have been some very exciting examples of this lately. However, this motion would deny them the right to continue to grow. It reduces flexibility and creates an impedance against growth for successful port authorities.

It basically says: “The minister may fix the limits of a port that is to be managed by the port authority”. That really would restrict imaginative, successful, viable port authorities.

It was interesting to hear that the airport authority in Vancouver recently get a contract to build and manage an airport in another country on another continent.

Motion No. 3, from the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, I am pleased to say we are going to vote yes on this one. We feel that this is a much better idea than the original one. It creates flexibility and removes politics from the board. The way it is established now there is opportunity for patronization and politics to be involved. This removes some of that and we support it. It is much more efficient and certainly is in line with the streamlining objective of the whole bill, to make it efficient and put control in the hands of the users and the people in the ports. This amendment goes a long way toward that.

Motion No. 12. I am going to vote against this motion. Again it changes the situation quite a bit concerning the property and the limits “matters and zoning by-laws that apply to neighbouring lands”.

We feel this is far too vague in that local and neighbouring municipalities could change bylaws and therefore affect what goes on in the port authorities. The port authority may establish a certain fashion of operation based on the bylaws that are in place now in the neighbouring municipality or jurisdiction and then all of a sudden, if that jurisdiction were to change its bylaws, it could cause the port authority to have to make substantial and profound changes in the way it operates.

We feel that this amendment is too vague. It gives too much control to the neighbouring jurisdictions. We do not support this motion.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question with regard to Bill C-9 that new members of the transport committee were not given the opportunity to interview new witnesses. We did, however, have access to an extensive amount of considerations that were done in the previous Parliament.

We also had time to have discussions with the stakeholders, including people within the marine industry and union members. Therefore, I can quite confidently say that contrary to the hon. member's belief that the unions were not given the opportunity to be represented on the board and shocked that that position would not be supported by myself, it is interesting to note that the unions did not ask for representation on those boards. I also accepted the explanation of the member across that they were not restricted. If their local municipalities or the authorities in question wanted to have someone on the board, they certainly had the opportunity to do that.

I do not make any bones about my background. I come from a very strong labour background and I do not make any bones about that. I am comfortable with my position within the labour unions. They know I am there acting on their best behalf and that I am not going to show up tomorrow suggesting back to work legislation.

In putting that point straight, I would like to comment on the motions. I will be recommending support of Motion No. 1. All the municipalities that have a stake in the ports should have the opportunity for representation. We will have far greater viability of the ports and a lot better working relationship within those communities if they have that opportunity. I will therefore certainly be supporting and recommending the support of Motion No. 1.

I will be recommending support to all of the motions in this group. It is important that the limits of the ports be clearly set out so that a year down the road we are not questioning what should be happening to this port or that port or whether one is having more opportunity than the other. Therefore, I would also recommend that one.

There is no question that Motion No. 3 will lead, I hope, to less patronage. It seems to be a common problem with appointments through the governing body. If we could have representation, if the appointments were suggested by the users, then there would be less chance of that. I would strongly urge the government to move on that motion as well.

Motion No. 12 in regard to the zoning bylaws, the clause already calls for taking into account the relevant social, economic and environmental matters. I was quite surprised that the member from the Conservative caucus would suggest that the concerns of the municipalities in the area should not be an overall guiding factor and their wishes with regard to zoning should not be considered. To suggest that just because a port is there it should have the municipalities to ransom for years to come and not allow municipalities to readjust their zoning is just not acceptable to me.

I will be recommending support for all these motions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that the bill we are debating is an improved version of the former Bill C-44, improved in several points I believe. This is a bill which requires our uninterrupted attention.

No one can be opposed to the fact that it was important to decentralize port administration in order to make it more efficient, closer to the communities.

At the same time, we must be sure that decisions on this bill and each clause in this bill respect this. There have been some improvements to date, not sufficient in my opinion for a vote in favour of it. There are some interesting things in it nevertheless.

A balance must be struck in the amendments. In Bill C-44 there was already the acceptance of port development according to regional socio-economic characteristics. I think that was a move in the right direction.

I would like to draw attention of the House to the question of the port limits determined by the minister taking recreational and tourist considerations into account. To give an example, adjacent to the port of Cacouna there is a Canada Wildlife Service bird conservation reserve. When the ports are handed over, the group that takes over the port must ensure that the status of the adjacent lands is clearly established so as not to buy something and then have problems with the neighbours afterward. The amendment and the bill must therefore be clear. That is the reason behind the proposed amendment.

It is also important for zoning bylaws. With the handover of local port facilities, it will be increasing important for zoning regulations to be respected by those who inherit those facilities. Municipal authorities, the grassroots, will have more say in the matter. Care must therefore be taken that nothing is omitted from the bill and that the legislation is clear.

I will also take this opportunity to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary and the minister to the fact that these principles must be respected in the daily business of privatizing ports. I have an example that unfortunately is giving us pause right now.

In the port of Rivière-du-Loup, which is a port for ferries crossing between Rivière-du-Loup and Saint-Siméon, steps were taken to privatize the port, but unfortunately, at the same time, a letter was received from a regional director telling us that, effective the summer of 1998, dredging will be discontinued in the port of Rivière-du-Loup, meaning that in the short term the ferry service can no longer be maintained.

I think that the government, which I believe is acting in good faith in Bill C-9 and which really wants to see ports handed over, should in a case like that put a hold on the operations of its regional director and ensure that privatization can proceed under favourable conditions, which would encourage those wishing to acquire facilities to do so.

It should not be forgotten that the investments in the port of Rivière-du-Loup are not a gift to the region. An economic impact study revealed that this crossing generated $25 million. Over $3 million in taxes are paid to the two levels of government.

So when $300,000 or $400,000 is spent dredging the port of Rivière-du-Loup, this is only a partial return on the money that goes to the federal government through the increased economic impact generated by crossing users. I think it would be a good idea for the department to be sure that its actions are in keeping with the principles of the legislation in this regard.

I would like to point out that situations vary considerably from one site to another. In my riding alone, there are three different ferries. There is one covering a kilometre and a half between Saint-Juste-du-Lac and Notre-Dame-du-Lac. Another runs between Rivière-du-Loup and Saint-Siméon. There is a third between Trois-Pistoles and Les Escoumins. Each case is different, and the federal government must consider local realities when it meets with communities in the process of divesting.

Management of the ferry in Rivière-du-Loup is by contract, but the ferry belongs to the Société des traversiers du Québec. In Trois-Pistoles, the ferry is privately owned. The ferry at Saint-Juste-du-Lac operates within the lake, as the name indicates. So the sorts of management differ considerably, and the sites do not all have the same financial and economic capacity.

I hope the directors and the people implementing the bill will be openminded enough to permit the divesting of ports and for them to become the tools of economic development for all these areas of activity.

In conclusion, I think the Bloc has done its part in analyzing this bill in a highly professional manner. It has presented some very constructive amendments in order to make this the best legislation possible.

If the government had been still more precise in indicating how much money it can put into the handover, perhaps we might at the end of the day have been able to vote in favour of the bill. The Bloc Quebecois amendments on the table, however, in this group and the others, are pertinent. They will improve the bill and I trust that the government will, as my predecessor said in his speech, take the time to look at them thoroughly and do as they did for the one they have already accepted, which is to reconsider their position so that when the amendments are voted on they can be integrated into the bill. That will result in a more worthwhile piece of legislation.

We are now in the final stages of examining this bill, which is today at the report stage. We will probably get to the third reading on Friday. That is when the question will have to be asked. This bill will govern the federal government's divesting operations for the next 10, 15 or 20 years. If Quebec becomes sovereign, the transfers will take place in accordance with the contents of this bill.

What is needed, therefore, is for there to be the most solid legislation possible in place, legislation which will make it possible to fulfil the initial objectives and will also add efficiency to one sector, maritime transport, which Quebec for a long time could not get under its jurisdiction. Now, in its exchanges with Quebec, the federal government must ensure that the wishes of Quebec are respected, so that if, for example, a network of ports is created, the economic objectives of Quebec can be respected in the process.

We have before us, nevertheless, a bill aimed at ensuring decentralization. Let us look at how it can be done under the best possible conditions.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act which is long overdue as we turn the pages into a new century. We are not quarrelling with that. I want to commend the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for the tremendous amount of effort he has put into this bill.

I want to make a few comments about the modernization of the ports. Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific realize this is a modernization of the way in which we will operate in the new century.

I have some quarrels with one area however. I particularly do not like the number of appointments that are going to be made available. It seems that this is a possible flaw in the bill in that it could be offset by the number in the harbour authority in having other people come on to the authority.

I would like to mention to the hon. member for Churchill that when we put forth the idea of the union people being included on the port authority, the argument was that they were never themselves asked to become a part of the port authority. If we look at Motion No. 1, we will also see that the hon. member was in favour of supporting that motion, so the same thing goes for the municipal authorities. They were not named either but they can be asked to make their presence on the board.

If we look at Motion No. 1, this clause seems like it unjustifiably inflates the boards of some port authorities and therefore could possibly have an imbalance on the people who serve on a given board. For that reason I think this is a bad motion. We will be opposing this motion because it would render them unbalanced in favour of municipal governments. This bill is not designed to favour municipal governments. It is designed to favour the operation of the harbour boards in co-operation with the municipal governments where the harbour is located. As a result of that I cannot support Motion No. 1.

Regarding Motion No. 2, it seems that this is redundant since the granting of letters patent will deal with the existing port authorities. Those things will vary even within the same province. It may vary between Port Alberni and so on. It seems to me that this somehow limits the growth. I do not think Bill C-9 is designed to limit the growth of the port authorities, or curtail the economic advantages they may have. Rather, the bill I believe is designed, and it certainly has been a long time in the making, to strengthen the economic viability of each port.

Motion No. 3 in actually talking of users, the term “users” as such is not adequately defined anywhere in the bill. I just thought users were people in the business world availing themselves of the use of the port. Whether that needs further definition I do not know but I do not think it is necessary.

Regarding Motion No. 12, I really feel that the motion put forth by my hon. colleague would unduly restrain, shackle or hamper the activities of port authorities. Again I want to make sure that the port authorities would have the opportunity to take advantage of the talented people who sit on the boards, the inputs from the various people, and that the port authority grows.

For the first four amendments under Group No. 1, while I do not doubt that they were put forward with very good intentions, I do not think we can support them. I think they are hampering the general welfare and somehow dampening the purpose of Bill C-9.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to actually speak on Motion No. 1 regarding the make-up of the port authority boards. There is a port back home I want to mention. I hope the parliamentary secretary will have some patience here because I will come back to the motion.

This has to do with Bayside port, which is a small port on the St. Croix River, an international body of tidal waters. It is one of the few profitable ports in Canada. In fact last year that little port made a profit for the Government of Canada of about half a million dollars. It is blessed with deep water, close access to U.S. markets and so on and so forth. It is ideally situated, if you wish, and blessed with a good geography.

The reason I am concerned about this port in terms of privatization is simply that there is a group out of New York and New Jersey that wants to take over this port. All members on both sides of the House have to be concerned about this because the group that wants to take over this port is a large conglomerate from the United States. They are actually in the sand and gravel or aggregate business. They are big, extremely big.

The reason we are concerned in New Brunswick is that the aggregate business in the United States is controlled by a group of families. In fact, the shipping of aggregate is controlled by a group of families who are notorious, and many people refer to them as organized crime. It is an industry that is practically impossible for a Canadian company to break into. The only way to get into the aggregate business if you want to ship into New York or New Jersey is to be owned by the Americans. The Americans have set their sights on taking over this port.

I know the parliamentary secretary will find this very interesting. On May 20, 1997—and as the minister just said a few minutes ago, the legislation died on the Order Paper and obviously was not passed before the last election—these people from New Jersey had a plan to take over the port.

Now this is interesting. Please hon. parliamentary secretary listen very intently to this. They hired two former members of Parliament as consultants to expedite the transfer of that port into the hands of these Americans. The two former members of Parliament, one of them being Paul Zed, the other Doug Young, a former minister of transport, were hired to lobby the federal government to allow the transfer of that port into their hands. Not only did they attempt to get the port into their hands, in doing so they presented a 40 page document to the province of New Brunswick to assist them in expediting the transfer of the port into their hands.

We know that they hired two former members of Parliament to assist them, but they did not stop there. They hired a former member of the New Brunswick legislature and a former cabinet minister from the province of New Brunswick to assist them on the provincial side.

[An hon. member]

What party was he from?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

It was obviously the Liberal Party. He is a former minister in Mr. McKenna's government. The name of that individual is Mr. Al Lacey.

They vehemently denied that they had a secret plan to take over the port. In discussions with the premier of the province of New Brunswick in early August this year, he denied flatly to me as a member of Parliament that this group out of New Jersey and New York had any design on taking over the Bayside port. He had to eat his words two days later when this document was secretly released to me. The Atlantic television network actually aired this nationwide, when one of the consultants was lying through his teeth in regard to the intent of these individuals out of New York and New Jersey.

On speaking to the department of economic development yesterday, the owner of this particular group, an individual by the name of Randy Waterman, has all doors of government open to him. Why? Because they are hiring the best consultants they know how. That is done with the aid of a lot of money, to get through the doors of the ministers here and the ministers back in New Brunswick.

That is why this bill is flawed. It does not allow the citizens of the province of New Brunswick or any other province in this country protection from unwanted residents of the United States, United States businessmen coming here and taking over our ports.

The group is no slouch when it comes to doing business. This group is a multilayered group of companies. Here are some of the companies which Mr. Randy Waterman is involved with: New York Sand and Gravel, Amboy Aggregates, McCormick Aggregates, McCormick Materials. They have also set up a dummy corporation in New Brunswick called Charlotte County Ports. Does this not sound much better, Charlotte County Ports? Everyone would believe it is a home grown company, only to find out that it is 100% owned by these characters out of New York and New Jersey.

It does not end there. Bayside Materials Handling Inc. is another company they set up as a front for their New York-New Jersey operation. It does not end there. When they pay their bills they do not pay them through any of these companies. They pay them through a company called Trapp Hill Holdings.

The interesting thing is you never speak to anyone on the telephone that represents these companies in New York and New Jersey. They will not correspond with a member of Parliament. They will not correspond with anyone. They are silent. Who speaks on their behalf? Mr. Doug Young and Mr. Paul Zed, former members of Parliament who sat on that side of the House. That tells us how far they have infiltrated the levels of government in this country when they can hire former members of Parliament and transport ministers to carry their case forward to the federal government.

The present transport minister is being petitioned or lobbied at this very moment to reduce all shipping fees. Not only to reduce all shipping fees but to eliminate them completely so this company out of New York and New Jersey can compete with its nearest competitors in the marketplace in the United States of America. It is absolutely ludicrous to think the government would entertain doing that.

I spoke yesterday with the regional manager in Nova Scotia. He told me that they approached the government to eliminate the fees so they could compete with their closest competitor, a company named Martin Marietta from the United States, that was working out of Canso, Nova Scotia. Again it is an American company, and a Canadian company cannot export into the United States unless and until it controls either the shipping lines or the companies on the New York-New Jersey harbourfront.

These companies have been under investigation for 15 years by the FBI, and these characters over there are entertaining doing business with them? The province of New Brunswick goes haywire when we try to talk sense about these companies.

Who is being paid off? Who would have access to the premier of New Brunswick tomorrow on a moment's notice? I do not think I would. Who else in the House would? If we were to hire the best lobbyist in New Brunswick, a lobbyist who is intimately connected with the province, we would have access to its premier and to the minister of economic development who wants to be the premier of New Brunswick.

it is critically important if the legislation goes through that the make-up of these boards has the clout to keep such people out of Canada. We still have to exercise a degree of independence in terms of our economy and how we build it. We do not need these types of people in Canada. We do not want these people taking over our ports. That is why we have to beef up the legislation. We must ensure that individuals with the big dollars cannot come up from the south to take us over.

I hope to speak later to the same issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax West, health care; the hon. member for Dartmouth, human resources development; the hon. member for Waterloo-Wellington, trade; the hon. member for Charlotte, health.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we do in fact support the principle of the legislation to privatize the administration of ports in Canada. We support it because, up to now, these ports were managed by a federal agency. We are sure, given the management of these ports in recent years, that they will be better off not managed by a federal agency, and I congratulate the government warmly for having the humility to understand this in introducing this legislation.

We therefore support the principle of the legislation, but we have amendments, because we feel it needs improving in certain important areas. I am thinking specifically of clause 8. It provides that certain ports may be managed by local authorities. The principle is obviously an excellent one, and the conditions the government is setting for transferring management of the port to a local authority are reasonable.

They include the port's having a certain financial autonomy, a link to major roads and rail lines, and so forth. That all makes good sense.

The problem is that the vendor or transferor, before transferring the property, should return it to good condition, especially when requiring that it be financially autonomous.

As a result of the, shall we say, less than favourable management of these ports in recent years, some of them are in need of major repairs. There are 324 ports in Canada and the paltry sum of $125 million is all that has been set aside for this operation. We will try, through our amendments, to have this amount increased.

Still on the topic of ports, we were not in the least surprised to learn in this bill that the federal government wants to divest itself of all financial responsibility. It will no longer pay anything towards port administration. I said that this did not surprise us in the least and, without wanting to jump to any conclusions, we even think that unloading this financial burden may have been one of the reasons for introducing this bill.

When one intends to stop paying, it is not normal to want to keep calling the shots. A look at clause 14 concerning the composition of boards of directors makes it clear that Ottawa intends to retain control of these ports through third parties.

What does clause 14 say?

14.(1) The directors of a port authority shall be appointed as follows:

(a) the Governor in Council appoints one individual nominated by the Minister;

(b) the municipalities—

(c) the province or provinces—

(d) the Governor in Council appoints the remaining individuals nominated by the Minister in consultation with users—

When you consider that between seven and eleven directors will be appointed, three of them not by Ottawa, the fact remains that the majority of seats will still be subject to government appointment, even if the government says it is going to consult, yes, consult local authorities. We propose that, instead of consultation, appointments be direct and unconditional.

To date, the St. Lawrence Seaway has cost the public $7 billion and brings in $70 million annually. I do not think there are many private corporations that would be happy with a return as low as 1% on their investment, and yet that is the return generated by the seaway.

The concern regarding the profitability of the seaway, which we should be looking at, is the reduced traffic on the seaway. We think things will only get worse given that Saskatchewan grain en route to Germany goes through Vancouver and the Panama canal rather than via Thunder Bay and the seaway, which would seem to be the more logical route geographically. Similarly, grain going to Russia is sent to Vladivostok, which is a bit odd, because it is in Siberia.

So there is some inconsistency, which may come from a conflict in rates between the railway and the seaway, and which will be of concern to the new administrators, if the seaway is to recover its life and vigour.

That summarizes our positions on this first series of amendments being debated today. We support the principle of the bill, on the condition that the major amendments we are proposing are approved by this House, which I encourage it to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to rise on this grouping but something was said this afternoon that I think needs some clarification.

To begin with, I dare say that Bill C-9 has been refined with consultation and consensus from all stakeholders. It has been refined like no bill I have ever seen in my nine years in this place. As some will recall, it was Bill C-44 in the last parliament.

I will deal with the last item first, the very strong words of the hon. member for Charlotte who discussed the great port of Bayside. It is a great port. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member. He understands his constituency well. That wharf is in excellent shape and is capable of handling all the shipping interests in that port.

The hon. member spoke of individuals like the hon. Doug Young, once a minister of the crown in this place, and Mr. Paul Zed, a distinguished member who served his time here as a parliamentary secretary. These gentlemen are involved in a lobby organization and are doing their thing in the private sector. I say good for them.

However the hon. member for Charlotte must understand that if they are doing work for individuals it has nothing to do with whatever the government is proposing to do with Bayside and what will eventually develop for Bayside as a divested port.

It must be made clear that the port of Bayside is having discussions with the Government of Canada through what is called the Bayside Port Steering Committee Inc., which is made up of local users of the port of Bayside. They are currently, with all due diligence, putting together negotiations with Transport Canada to transfer the port at the discretion of the government at the end of the day.

If the hon. member has any names of any individuals or any municipalities that want to come forward to offer their representations to the government, the minister or the Ministry of Transport, they will be given equal opportunity to be heard on the matter of having Bayside divested to them under a negotiated deal. Let them come forward. We welcome everyone's participation in the process.

Just to clarify as well for the hon. member for Charlotte, the Bayside port steering committee again is made up of local users in the area and is chaired by Mr. Fred Nicholson. He is a gentleman who clearly has nothing to do with the allegations the hon. member put forward today, along with the very strong descriptions of the individuals he put forward.

The hon. member referred to Mr. Waterman. He is an American, as I understand it. He wants to develop the lands adjacent to the port for aggregate. I stand to be corrected, but Mr. Waterman has no interest in running a port. He wants the stone next door to the port.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a document which disproves that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member has to listen to the debate. He may disagree with what the parliamentary secretary is saying, but it appears the parliamentary secretary may have disagreed with what he said.

With all respect to the hon. member, we are not on points of order during his speech. This is a debate and people do have different opinions, and I think we might hear them out.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has some information he would like to give me to clarify the issue, I would be more than willing to receive it because it would be useful in the overall agenda.

I stress to the hon. member that it is not the intention of the government, the minister or the Ministry of Transport to take one offer from one group or one individual and say there is your port.

There are many aspects to the dual track of port divestiture the government proceeded with many months ago that allow for representation not just from one but from many and all who want to come forward to take the opportunity to buy a port.

Beyond that I want to quickly address amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I believe the minister has already addressed amendment No. 12 in this group, so I will not touch on that again. He was very thorough in his examination of No. 12.

Motion No. 1, from the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, proposes that the number of directors of a port authority could be increased by additional municipal appointments.

Right back to 1995 the national marine policy clearly stated that we are trying to put these ports on a commercial footing. That means that we want to put the user representatives on the board with the majority. We do not need government representatives on a committee that is running a port. That is not the idea of either the national marine policy of 1995 or Bill C-9. We want it commercialized. In order to do that, we need to have the majority of users on a board from the user representatives list that is supplied by the minister.

It is important that if we get into a constituency in British Columbia, I believe it is North Fraser, there are eight or nine municipalities bordering the waterway of the defined port. Members can imagine if we are going to construct a board of seven members because we do not want one too much bigger than seven. We have a choice of seven, nine or eleven. On what was supposed to be a board of seven there will be eight municipal representatives and four users. Boy, that is a lot of government representation. I do not think anybody in this place wants to see all that government representation on a board with the fiduciary responsibility of running a corporation to make a port successful. We do not want to see that, so unfortunately we will not be support Motion No. 1.

We will also not be supporting Motion No. 2 because, quite frankly, it is redundant. The minister already has the authority to specify the extent of property to be included within a port. That can be found under subclauses 8.2(c), (d) and (e).

Finally, on Motion No. 3, we cannot support it because the minister is going to have to exercise some responsibility on who is going to put forward the names for a board. Imagine if it was left just to the user to present the list and then it automatically became the representation on the board. What if the users got together and decided, jokingly, heaven forbid, they would all be lawyers. Do we want all lawyers running a port? Probably not.