Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1997

Canada Marine Act

[An hon. member]

You have a couple over there.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

I am not a lawyer, but I have a lot of respect for most lawyers. Mr. Speaker is a lawyer and I respect the Speaker.

However, we cannot support this particular motion. We need an acceptable mix of knowledge and expertise on a board. That can happen if there is a preview of the list of names. That list of names should not be sheltered to just four. The names will come forward from the users and then the minister will make the selection from those names presented on the list in order to make the mix work well for a particular port.

I look forward to debating the next three groups of motions, if we ever get to them.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to the order made earlier, the divisions on the proposed motions are deemed to have been demanded and deferred.

(Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)

[The Deputy Speaker]

The next group is Group No, 2, Motions Nos. 4, 10, 11 and 20, and 21, being the one introduced earlier today. Debate.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-9, in Clause 31, be amended

(a) by replacing line 14 on page 22 with the following:

“(3) Subject to subsection (4), a port authority may not mortgage,”

(b) by replacing lines 18 to 26 on page 22 with the following:

“revenues of that property.

(4) A port authority may, if authorized in the letters patent, create a security interest in fixtures on federal real property to the same extent as Her Majesty could create such an interest and may, instead of Her Majesty, execute and deliver the documents required for that purpose.

(5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), “security interest” means an interest in or charge on property or fixtures mentioned in those subsections to secure the discharge of an obligation or liability of the port authority.

(6) A grant under subsection (4) may be effected by any instrument by which an interest in real property may be granted by a private person under the laws in force in the province in which the federal real property or fixtures are situated.”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-9, in Clause 45, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 28 the following:

“(3.1) The port authority may exercise the powers under subsection (3) to the same extent as Her Majesty could exercise those powers and may, instead of Her Majesty, execute and deliver the documents required for that purpose.”

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-9, in Clause 46, be amended

a) by replacing lines 3 to 7 on page 29 with the following:

“property that it manages but it may

(a) without the issuance of supplementary letters patent, grant road allowances or easements, rights of way or licences for utilities, services or access; and

(b) to the extent authorized in the letters patent,

(i) exchange federal real property for other real property of comparable market value subject to the issuance of supplementary letters patent that describe the other real property as federal real property, and

(ii) dispose of fixtures on federal real property.

(1.1) The port authority may exercise the powers under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) to the same extent as Her Majesty could exercise those powers and may, instead of Her Majesty, execute and deliver the documents required for that purpose.”

(b) by replacing, in the French version, lines 21 to 25 on page 29 with the following:

“(3) Les concessions peuvent être faites par un acte qui, en vertu des lois de la province de situation de l'immeuble fédéral, peut servir à faire des concessions entre sujets de droit privé.”

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 98 the following:

“195.1 Section 589 of the Act is replaced by the following:

1. All fines recovered under this Part shall be paid over to the Receiver General and shall form part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.”

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

Mr. Speaker, who was it that coined the phrase, it is like déja vu all over again. In the last Parliament it was called Bill C-44 and today we know it as Bill C-9. It is with a great deal of privilege that I speak to the report stage amendments of the Canada Marine Act.

This bill fills the 1995 national marine policy to commercialize and strengthen Canada's marine sector.

What I would like to do is provide my colleagues opposite and on this side of the House with an overview of the subjects covered in the bill. The proposed act makes it easier for ports to operate according to business principles. It enables the Minister of Transport to commercialize the operations of the seaway. It improves the way pilotage authorities operate.

I want to take a moment and thank the members opposite, in particular the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, for his praise and congratulations on the work we have done in regard to pilotage authorities. However, not all the work has been completed there as is evident in the bill.

Part I of the bill establishes a new form of port corporation and it is going to be called a Canada port authority. The basic principles for the port authority operations are that they will not have to have recourse to the federal treasury other than for emergency relief. They will be incorporated or continued by letters patent. They will be non-share capital corporations, must recover costs from fees charged and must comply with corporate governing provisions that we have brought into the bill, some of which come from the Canada Business Corporations Act.

In line with these principles, the powers of the port authority include commercial freedom to price its services, the powers of a natural person for the purpose of operating a port, authority to borrow on open markets but, with regard to federal real property, the port authority may only secure loans by pledging revenue streams and movable fixtures and not federal land.

Within this group of motions the government seeks to clarify and simplify some of the procedures for transactions that involve crown lands. We are also clearing up any defective section reference relating to the Canada Shipping Act.

Generally, port authorities will also be agents of the crown allowing them to pay grants in lieu of taxes. In some cases, municipalities never received this before. Agent status reinforces the port community from provincial taxation and regulation. This is necessary to allow our major ports to remain competitive in a global environment. Ports will not be able to borrow as agents and will have to convince commercial lenders of the merits of their proposed investments. The crown will not back up port loans.

Bill C-9 strikes a balance also by limiting the crown's exposure to actions taken where the port is an agent. This gives the ports the autonomy they need to operate on a commercial basis without unduly exposing the crown to future liabilities.

Part II of the act requires the repeal of the Public Harbours and Ports Facilities Act. It then provides the minister with various options for the administration of ports remaining in the federal system. This ties into the 1995 national marine policy decision regarding the transfer of port facilities that do not play a national role.

It set up a new streamlined regulatory regime for any remaining public ports similar to that for the new port authorities.

Part II also requires that the minister report to Parliament each year on the divestitures that took place during that year.

Part III of the act sets out a new framework for management of the Canadian portions of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The minister may use agreements to assign the management of part or all of the seaway to a not for profit corporation or to any other person. An agreement may include management of the operation of the seaway, transfer of assets, et cetera.

The existing seaway authority may be dissolved by governor in council at an appropriate date to allow such agreements to proceed. The government will retain ownership of the seaway property and regulatory control over navigation in the seaway.

Part VII of the bill provides a more commercial environment for the operation of our pilotage authorities. It allows pilotage tariffs to take effect after expiry of a 30-day notice. If there are objections, any reviews of tariff increases by the Canadian Transportation Agency generally must be done within 120 days or less. The borrowing limits for pilotage authorities are to be set by the governor in council.

The bill states that no appropriations can be made from the government to pilotage authorities except in respect of emergencies. The chairman of the pilotage authority will be part time or full time and appointed by governor in council in consultation with the users and the authority.

The bill also requires that there will be a ministerial review of various functions of the pilotage authorities in consultation with both the authorities and the users. The review will be completed in a one year period after the provision for the review comes into force.

The remainder of the bill provides a review of the whole act in the fifth year and it receives royal assent.

No matter how finely tuned we have managed to construct this bill over the last close to three years, it is clear that it is not the end of the day and a review is there built in to ensure that if there are any further refinements, they will be made. It provides for a regime for enforcement of regulations established pursuant to the bill.

It has been almost three years in the works with, as I say again, much consensus building on the part of all of the stakeholders involved.

I urge all hon. members in this House to support Bill C-9.

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

Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 4, 10, 11 and 20 are essentially housekeeping amendments. That being the case and in view of the agreement which we made to limit debate here, I would seek unanimous consent of the House to put Group 2 immediately and proceed to the following motions which are of much more substance. We only have half an hour left.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed as suggested by the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Charlotte is not confined to speaking to this grouping. If he wants to make his remarks, he can make it in the next grouping. I am sure the House will be permissible for that.

If the hon. member for Charlotte wants to agree to the proposal put forward by the member for the Reform, he can speak at the third grouping.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is: Is their consent to proceed now with Group 3?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Then the questions on Motions Nos. 4, 10, 11, 20 and 21 are deemed to have been put, a division demanded and deferred.

(Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)

[The Deputy Speaker]

The debate now will proceed on Group 3, Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. The motions are deemed to have been moved, seconded and read.

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

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-9, in Clause 38, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 25 the following:

“(1.1) A port authority shall establish a code of conduct and system of practices respecting avoidance of conflict of interest by its directors and officers.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-9, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 26 with the following:

“referred to in subsections 38(1) and (1.1) were, in the”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-9, in Clause 41, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 26 the following:

“(2.1) An examiner shall be a person appointed by the Minister from suitable persons in the office of the Auditor General of Canada or the Department of Justice.”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-9, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 25 on page 26 with the following:

“about the plan, the matter shall be referred to the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Agency shall make a final determination with respect to it and shall report its determination to the Standing Committee of the House of Commons appointed to deal with matters relating to Transportation.”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting clause 43.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-9, in Clause 85, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 54 the following:

“(1.1) A not-for-profit corporation shall, in respect of its operation of the Seaway establish a code of conduct and system of practices respecting avoidance of conflict of interest by its directors and officers.”

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-9, in Clause 87, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 30 on page 54 with the following:

“tems and practices referred to in subsections 85(1) and (1.1) were, in the period under examination”

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-9, in Clause 87, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 54 the following:

“(2.1) An examiner shall be a person appointed by the Minister from suitable persons in the office of the Auditor General of Canada or the Department of Justice.”

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-9, in Clause 87, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 55 with the following:

“shall be referred to the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Agency shall make a final determination with respect to it and shall report its determination to the Standing Committee of the House of Commons appointed to deal with matters relating to Transportation.”

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 89.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its courtesy in speeding things up here.

When I spoke earlier today I was looking at things which have already happened, things which I thought might have been improved in the bill. Now I would like to speak specifically to the 10 related motions which Reform has on the order paper and which call for greater transparency and accountability in the commercialization of the ports and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Unlike the amendments which we introduced in committee, these amendments are not stakeholder driven. Instead, they reflect the dedication of our party to the principle of public accountability of public institutions.

This new bill will do away with Ports Canada which is known fondly by its friends and admirers as “Pork Canada”. While we have the opportunity, let's build some safeguards into the new regime.

These amendments I am going to pair as I speak because they are mirror amendments relating to port authorities and to the seaway. For example, Motions Nos. 5 and 13 say basically the same thing, but because of the nature of the bill we had to write amendments to apply to the two situations.

These address the problem of conflict of interest. Hopefully, they will avoid situations such as the one that developed when NavCan was created. I recall that the government's financial adviser on privatization slid laterally into work for NavCan before the financial adviser's contract had even expired. Incredibly, Transport Canada made no objection to this clear conflict. This is the type of thing we would like to avoid.

Motions Nos. 7 and 15 would tighten up section 87 which provides for an outside audit every five years. Notwithstanding that five years is an inordinately long time between examinations, we will accept that. The amendment proposes that the outside examiner be totally independent of the Minister of Transport and that the person or persons come from the office of the auditor general or from the Department of Justice. These departments have the experience and the background to enable them to spot problems and avoid repetition of mistakes.

Motions Nos. 8 and 16 would remove the power of the minister to adjudicate between the special examiner and a port authority's audit committee.

One of the objectives of commercialization is to remove the minister from the decision making process. This is what the bill is about. If there is a problem with an audit, an arm's length organization, and we are suggesting the Canadian Transportation Agency, should be the adjudicator. Its determination would then be reported to the transport committee. Ideally it should be the transport committee itself that would act as adjudicator but since our parliamentary committees as constituted are quite toothless, the CTA has proposed to be the referee.

Finally, Motions Nos. 9 and 17 are merely consequential to the other eight motions. They simply remove the power of the minister to interfere in the selection of auditors with respect to port authorities or the seaway.

Because everyone was courteous and allowed me to get this on the record, I will relinquish the remainder of my time.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things to the parliamentary secretary in terms of accountability and that would be referring to Motion No. 5.

It is interesting to note and can members believe that the company of which I was speaking, the American company out of the New York-New Jersey area, has representation on the steering committee that is charged with overseeing the orderly transition from a public facility to a private facility. Would this not be comparable to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop in a sense? Think about it. This Randy Waterman from New York-New Jersey who owns a series of layered companies involved in the aggregate business has his own paid representative on that board.

This is not just an ordinary employee who sits on that board representing Randy Waterman, McCormick Aggregates, McCormick Materials, Bayside Materials Handling, Charlotte County Ports, New York Sand and Gravel, Amboy Aggregates. This is not just an ordinary employee. He is a fellow by the name of Al Lacey.

Who is Al Lacey? Al Lacey owns Lacey and Associates. Al Lacey is a former minister of economic development in the province of New Brunswick. The consummate insider.

[An hon. member]

What party?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

What party? That was the Liberal Party spelled with a large L . He is in daily consultation with Mr. Paul Zed, former Liberal member of Parliament who was defeated in the last election. Mr. Paul Zed is in business with Mr. Doug Young, the former minister of transport.

Think about this. Would there be a possible conflict of interest? Doug Young, the former minister of transport charged with the overseeing of this bill. He was the minister who introduced the very bill that we were talking about in the last Parliament. He was the minister. Now he is being paid by these interests out of New Jersey to represent them in overseeing the orderly transition—they call it orderly transition—from a public facility to a private facility. Here we have this group of insiders all being paid by Mr. Randy Waterman to ensure that they gain control of that port.

The parliamentary secretary was given the wrong information and that is why I interjected quite vigorously on a point of order. I know I was ruled correctly by you, Mr. Speaker, that it was not a legitimate point of order but this is legitimate. This is the very document in my hands, 40 pages in length, that details page by page with the numbers there to present their case to the province of New Brunswick and the federal government why this port should be given to them. The name of the document is “Bayside Port Acquisition and Development Proposal”.

Acquisition. If we look in any dictionary, acquisition means assuming ownership, taking ownership. They want to take ownership of that port. I have a document here which the government denied existed for a number of weeks until finally the document was leaked to yours truly. That is why the make-up and integrity of that board is so important.

The parliamentary secretary did mention an individual by the name of Fred Nicholson. Fred Nicholson is an honourable man. He is a lawyer. He is a very bright individual. I want to point this out—

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is a rule of this House that props should not be used during a speech.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member is absolutely correct. I had cautioned the hon. member for Charlotte. I wagged my finger at him when he started waving the document, but since he was simply turning pages I thought he was looking for something in it he might quote from and I did not get up and chastise him. I would not want to chastise the hon. member and he would not want that either. So I know he will not want to use props. I invite him to continue his remarks without any aids.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for putting that document forward in the sense of a prop but I was leafing through it.

I wanted to make a point with regard to Mr. Nicholson. He is an honourable man. He is representing the community well. He does a fine job, as do a number of the individuals that make up that body. There is no question about that.

The point I am making is that the very people who have designs on taking over that port have representation on the board, the steering committee, which is absolutely bizarre. Hence the chicken coop and the fox scenario. That is exactly what it is.

It does not end there. In this document when I did make it public when it was leaked to me—I am not going to use it as a prop, Mr. Speaker, but only to pick some of the numbers out of it because it is important to note. In this document which is 42 pages in length the proponents of this project, in other words the people from New York and New Jersey who want to take over the port, no less than 14 times in this document do they mention that unless and until they are given absolute control of the port and the waiving of all fees, they could not possibly proceed with their project.

The parliamentary secretary is partially right in the sense that the aggregate project does not involve his department as much as it would the province of New Brunswick or the department of economic development. But the point we make is that some of the properties in which they want to do this piece of business are actually owned by the Government of Canada. I think there is an obligation to ensure that there is an orderly transition with regard to who takes over those properties and what they are going to be used for.

As I mentioned before, that particular company because its nearest competitor is Martin Marietta, an American owned company out of Canso, Nova Scotia, is saying that it has to have all federal wharfage fees waived. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker? The company says that all fees have to be waived in order to make the project a success in order for it to be able to compete with its nearest competitor which again is an American company.

It is absolutely bizarre that the federal government would even entertain the waiving of any fees associated with setting up an American company in Canada. It is absolutely ludicrous that it would entertain doing that.

Going back to the motion in question, the integrity of that board and the responsibility of the board and the steering committee is very critical to the success of this bill. Unless we have top quality people with no interest in assuming ownership of a port that is to be transferred from the public sector to the private sector, unless we have that orderly transition, we will all be in trouble. What it does is it opens up the door for individuals like the New York and New Jersey individuals to come up here with bags full of money and find that they get their way. This is terribly wrong.

I support the strengthening of anything in the bill that will tighten the loopholes on the membership of that steering committee which will eventually determine who will own the port.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the hon. member for Charlotte that there are several other parties, including Charlotte County Ports Inc., that have expressed interest in the possibility of assuming ownership of the port of Bayside.

I suppose the true test of the allegations the member for Charlotte made here today under the protection of the House of Commons would be if he would leave this place through those doors and repeat his story outside. Given what he said and some of the pretty tough language in his descriptions of some of the individuals involved, I am not a lawyer but I would probably caution him on leaving this place and saying outside of this place some of the things he said.

Let us get on with some of the concerns the hon. member for Charlotte and the hon. member from the Reform Party have in regard to governance and accountability of the port authorities under Bill C-9.

As the Minister of Transport has said, the federal government will give leadership in attaining national goals and in nurturing national programs and institutions.

Canada port authorities are specifically identified as strategic links in both national and international transportation and logistic chains. Crown agency status emphasizes that we are not seeking to privatize ports but to constitute port authorities as important instruments of federal public policy while at the same time providing for their increased commercialization.

We have made sure that port boards will be responsive to user concerns. We do this without losing sight of their accountability to the wider communities at the municipal, provincial or federal levels.

To foster good management, the bill gives a framework that guides port boards without frustrating day to day decision making, including such features as a code of conduct and provision for a periodic special examination. CPAs are to have a public code of conduct for directors, officers and employees designed to prevent real and perceived conflicts of interest. I trust that would make the hon. member for the Reform Party more satisfied that what is included in this bill does protect and is designed to prevent real and perceived conflicts of interest.

The code is expected to stipulate that prior to accepting an appointment to the board of directors, every director to be shall notify the CPA board of directors in writing of any business activity which would pose an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. Another point that the member for Charlotte might want to recognize.

Where the particulars of a given transaction or changing circumstances create a future conflict of interest, the code will place a director under a similar obligation to make full, immediate and written disclosure to the other directors and to refrain from participating in any related discussions or decisions of the board.

Some of the other controls that apply to the ports include the letters patent and any changes to them must be approved by the government.

Ports cannot dispose of federal land. Agent status will be limited to core port activities. Non-core activities will not receive agent status. The government will have to approve which non-core activities a port may undertake.

Ports will not be able to borrow as agents. They will have to convince commercial lenders of the merits of their proposed investments. The crown will not back up port loans. Borrowing limits will be established for each port. Ports will be directly responsible for any breach of duty or a contractual obligation to a third party.

The crown will specify through regulations the extent of insurance a port must carry. The Minister of Transport will specify the maximum terms of leases. We have put measures into the bill to protect the crown from liabilities of the ports and to ensure they are accountable.

Perhaps the most important accountability mechanism stems from the fact that ports will have to raise their financing in the private sector. Port development aspirations will be subjected to ordinary measures of commercial risk. The law ensures that with few exceptions appropriations cannot be made for port deficits. This means they have to be more efficient than they are today and that the government will not cover their liabilities.

Canada port authorities will have a high degree of transparency through rigorous disclosure to the public. Bill C-9 requires each port authority to provide for the following: a public annual and financial report, a public annual audit, a public land use plan, an annual general meeting open to the public at which directors and senior officers are available to answer questions from the public, disclosure of remuneration and expenses of board members, and details of port operating expenses.

The Reform's idea of a special examination quite often gets confused with the need for an annual financial audit while each procedure makes a report on the total operations. The financial audit answers these questions. Did the port follow the rules? Do the records provide a full and fair disclosure of how the port was run?

In a special examination, as suggested by a member of the Reform Party, different questions are asked. Does the port have the right set of rules? Do its procedures and reporting systems help the port in meeting its true obligations, or should they be changed?

In Bill C-9 the minister plays a key role in fine tuning port objectives through the letters patent and other procedures. This means that a special examination will be important to the minister in considering periodic changes to the letters patent in response to evolving conditions.

Port authorities are also covered under the Access to Information Act which further strengthens their accountability to all stakeholders. In addition we have taken measures to ensure that ports must borrow in their own name and not in the name of the crown to emphasize to lenders that the crown does not stand behind these obligations.

These are appropriate arrangements to support the commercialization of our ports. I thank members opposite for their participation in this stage of the bill and in this block of amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on Group No. 3.

I add my support to the hon. member for Charlotte. I am not as familiar with the issue as he is but I have to ask myself a question. If a company has a good and viable project that makes sense to the community and everybody involved, why does it have to hire a former provincial minister of economic development to support it? Why does it have to hire a former member of Parliament to support it? Even more so, is it right to hire a former minister of transport who actually drafted and developed the legislation? Why does it have to hire that team? As a fellow said to me the other day, it does not pass the smell test right off the bat.

Motion No. 5 seems to be a reasonable request. In part it reads:

—A port authority shall establish a code of conduct and system of practices—

This only makes sense. It is in line with all organizations that establish standards. Even the ISO 9000 sets up a system of practices and standards and a code of conduct, which is only appropriate. We agree. It is more accountable and we support it.

Motion No. 6 updates clause 41 to include subsections 38(1) and (1.1). It only makes sense. It goes along with clause 41 and we support it.

Motion No. 7 states in part:

—An examiner shall be a person appointed by the Minister from suitable persons in the office of the Auditor General—

This again makes sense to us. It assures credibility. It ensures the examination will be done properly. It removes the potential of political influence from the position. We agree the examiner should be appointed by the minister from suitable persons in the office of the Auditor General of Canada or the Department of Justice.

We are against Motion No. 8. It seems to make the system far more cumbersome and difficult to handle. It makes it less efficient and contradicts the whole purpose of streamlining the act.

We are against Motion No. 9. It eliminates the auditor as far as we can tell. It does not make sense to us to eliminate the auditor function. We think it is appropriate to leave the auditor in place.

Basically that is our position on those motions. Now I will move to Motion No. 13 and onward.

Motion No. 13 states in part:

—A not-for-profit corporation shall, in respect of its operation of the Seaway establish a code of conduct and system of practices—

That is exactly the same theory and purpose as the former amendment with regard to a code of conduct and a system of practices. We agree with Motion No. 13. It is very reasonable and we support it.

Motion No. 14 is linked to Motion No. 13. If we support Motion No. 13 we pretty much have to support Motion No. 14.

Motion No. 15 states in part:

—An examiner shall be a person appointed by the Minister from suitable persons—

That is much the same. It is a good position. It is appropriate. We will be supporting it.

Motion No. 16 states in part:

“shall be referred to the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Agency shall make a final determination with respect to it and shall report its determination to the Standing Committee—

We say no to this motion. It is very cumbersome. It is far less efficient. Again it contradicts the purpose of the bill, which is to commercialize the exercise, make it more efficient and put the decisions into the hands of the users. We are against Motion No. 16.

Motion No. 17 would delete clause 89. We are against this motion. Clause 89 allows the minister to change the auditors if he feels it appropriate, and we support that. We think that clause should remain so we will be voting no to this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it will soon be 5.30 p.m. I would ask you to seek unanimous consent for each party to have five minutes to speak to the motions in Group No. 4.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.