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.