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.