Debates of Dec. 5th, 1997

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, an act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, providing for the establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports, for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway and ferry services and other matters related to maritime trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and amending and repealing other acts as a consequence, be read the third time and passed.

Canada Marine Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans has 40 minutes.

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

Forty minutes?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pardon me, 30 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had miraculously regained 10 minutes, since it seemed to me that I had already taken 10 of my allotted 40 minutes. I will continue my explanations for the next 30 minutes.

Just before we stopped for Oral Question Period, I had said that I had chosen, in a non-partisan spirit, to list in my speech the points of Bill C-9 with which our party is in agreement.

I had time to mention, but shall quickly do so again, that this bill will provide a high level of autonomy for local port authorities. Why did I say that? I would like to be clear, without referring to the directors appointment process, however. I must point out, though, that if the decision-making power is brought back to the regions, to the port communities, it will be far easier to make decisions that will take local and regional needs into consideration.

This is why our party also supports the abolition of the crown corporation known as Ports Canada. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, and I will repeat it because you were perhaps not in the Chair at the time, but during a speech at second reading I mentioned that the word Ports Canada should be spelled P-o-r-k-s Canada, because it was an institution that needed—and since we are into the bacon here—to be trimmed of some of its fat.

I remember having Arnold Masters, the president of Ports Canada, appear before the committee. I raked him over the coals on the subject of his expense account. I recall questioning him on his activities in Edmonton, where he had rented a room—and you represent Edmonton yourself, Mr. Speaker—at the Fantasy Hotel in the West Edmonton Mall. Apparently the hotel is something else. This same Arnold Masters—

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

A theme room.

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

My colleague for Berthier—Montcalm is proposing a theme room. Yes indeed, Mr. Masters rented a room called the Truck Room. Do you know what the Truck Room in the Fantasy Hotel in the West Edmonton Mall is? You literally sleep in the back of a pickup truck. They have a king-sized bed in the back of a pickup truck. The room also just happens to have a Jacuzzi that will accommodate six. The rate for this room rented by Mr. Masters, the president of Ports Canada, is $280 a night. I am sure this incident is funny when you look at it from a bit of a distance.

Apparently, there are people in this House who find this funny. Personally, I felt like crying and pulling my hair out when I saw this expense account. How could Mr. Masters, the president of Ports Canada, justify renting a room like that at public expense? Ordinary people, the taxpayers, were paying for these luxuries. To say nothing of what the six-person jacuzzi was used for, but these things are generally not used for taking a quiet bath while reading the paper. Whatever the case may be, to ask the question is to answer it.

I could also bring up a certain all-expenses-paid golf tournament held by Mr. Masters for users of the port of Montreal and other ports at his secondary home in Vermont. The president of Ports Canada did not reside in Canada, he had a home in Vermont.

Indeed, this bill provides for the dismantling of Ports Canada. Our party fully supports this wise decision.

The bill also states that local port authorities will be required to present comprehensive land use plans. I submit that this is also an excellent idea, which truly reflects this government's commitment to bringing ports closer to the community.

I might add that there is one more thing that we agree with in this bill. The bill provides for the establishment of a non-profit corporation to manage the St. Lawrence Seaway. Again, it is a good decision and I congratulate the minister and the parliamentary secretary—the hon. member for Hamilton West—for including this provision.

However, I do have one reservation. Since we are talking about a facility and about equipment that we share with the United States, we will have to make sure the Americans do their fair share in terms of maintaining the St. Lawrence seaway, since they are a primary user of this facility. Again, while the legislation provides that the equipment and the maintenance work should be shared, we will have to see how this is achieved.

Canada is sometimes totally controlled by the United States, even though the prime minister may be golfing with the U.S. president, even though they may discuss certain issues during the game, while in the kart or at the 19th hole, over a stiff scotch. So, we will have to be careful. I do not want to sound anti-American, but we will have to ensure that the U.S. pays its fair share of the maintenance costs for the St. Lawrence seaway.

I am convinced that the government whip, who has a particular interest in the St. Lawrence seaway since he represents the city of Cornwall, agrees that the Americans must do their fair share.

There is another point on which we agree. Again, I will humbly say that I am very pleased that the government accepted to maintain pilotage activities in Canada, in spite of the lobbying by shipowners.

Our subcommittee, which looked at the future of the St. Lawrence seaway and Great Lakes network, was chaired by the Liberal member for Thunder Bay. Our subcommittee met American officials, as the parliamentary secretary surely remembers, since he accompanied us on that trip. When the subcommittee submitted its report, I was stunned to see a provision allowing foreign shipmasters to navigate on our waters without a competent pilot on board. This did not make any sense whatsoever.

A shipmaster from Bahrain, who speaks neither French nor English, could navigate on the St. Lawrence, around the northern side of l'île d'Orléans, in my riding, without being accompanied by a pilot. You may remember that, about two years ago, the Alexita , a ship flying the Swedish flag arrived on the St. Lawrence with one and a half million barrels of oil on board.

If we had followed the recommendations of the Liberal majority on this subcommittee, this vessel would have been allowed in without a qualified pilot on board. I am not an extremist when it comes to the environment but I think I always kept asking if we could afford an Exxon Valdez in the Montmagny archipelago, on the shores of Cap-Tourmente in my riding or of île d'Orléans, or across from Quebec City. Can we afford an Exxon Valdez ?

I argued in favour of keeping mandatory pilotage by our experienced francophone pilots in the case of Quebec and the Lower St. Lawrence. Once again, partisanship aside, I thank the government for listening to the Bloc Quebecois' arguments and keeping pilotage mandatory in this bill.

In the second part of my speech, I would like to talk about the parts of this bill with which we are not in agreement. First, we know that this bill provides for the divestiture of ports by the federal government. In other words, the federal government is getting out of daily administration and giving local port authorities more autonomy. I said that, as far as the increase in autonomy was concerned, there is no problem. But while the federal government is handing ports over, it still controls the appointment of directors. Of course, we cannot agree with the fact that the minister will continue to appoint a large number of directors to port authorities.

The government should have used exactly the same process as it did with the privatization of airports. It can certainly appoint one or two representatives, but not a large number, and continue to maintain control. Appointments to the boards of directors of local port authorities represent a wonderful patronage opportunity. I could mention that, in the port of Quebec City, right after the October 25, 1993 election, we saw people who had been appointed by the Conservatives literally kicked out and replaced by René Paquette, for one, who is the president of the board of directors for the port of Quebec City, and a known Liberal organizer. There was the Liberal candidate in the 1993 election, Margo Brousseau, who was defeated by my former colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, Philippe Paré. No sooner was the election over than there was a little political appointment to the port of Quebec City board of directors. So I think that the government could have been much more transparent and let the ports appoint their own representatives.

I would like to mention another matter that we do not agree with. Since I dealt with this issue at the committee stage, I did not raise it at third reading nor at the report stage, but we should have required better qualifications for these directors, other than simply require that they be card-carrying members of the party in power. We should have required board members to have recognized skills in certain areas. It was in that context that I stated that since one of the objectives of this act is to provide for a high level of environmental protection, it would be appropriate to have people with qualifications in that area as directors.

In addition, representatives from chambers of commerce or the tourist industry could be very helpful, for example in developing the market for cruises in Quebec City, and the requirement to have extensive experience in port operations could limit access to such resources. In addition, experience in land use management should be an acceptable qualification when the integration of a port to its community involves critical elements, as is the case in the Quebec City area. Therefore, we should have provided for a wider range of professional qualifications required to sit on the board of a local port authority.

Another thing we disagree with is the fact that the $125 million port improvement fund for all of Canada announced by the minister and confirmed by the committee is, in my humble opinion and that of my party, clearly insufficient. We know that many ports need extensive renovation work, and I do not think we will go very far with $125 million. In fact, this amount could be spent on the port of Quebec alone.

We will recall that when Jean Pelletier, the Prime Minister's current chief of staff, was running in the 1993 election as the Liberal candidate in the riding of Quebec, he met the board of administration of the port of Quebec with his team of candidates. He said “If we Liberals are elected in 1993, we will give you at least $125 million to rebuild your facilities which, in some places, are literally falling apart”.

The Liberals won the election, but Mr. Pelletier was not elected and we never heard anything more about the improvement fund for the port of Quebec.

At any rate, we submit that $125 million for all of Canada is clearly insufficient.

Furthermore, this bill contains no provisions preventing the government from dipping into any accumulated surplus. Under the Conservatives, we saw the example of the port of Quebec, and this happened also in Trois-Rivières and in Montreal. The port of Quebec had $33 million in its coffers as a result of good management. So the Conservative government then in power, led by the President of the Treasury Board, Gilles Loiselle, dipped into that fund twice: they took $23 million the first time, and $10 million the second time.

So here we have an example of a crown corporation that was penalized because of its good management. This $33 million alone, invested at 10% interest, was sufficient for the normal operation of the port of Quebec, a $3.3 million expenditure. It was not necessary to ask the government for new money. They came and took it away; it went up in smoke.

This bill contains no provision to ensure that money will not be taken away like that when there are economic downturns in the future. We hope this does not happen, but we should be ready if it does.

There is another matter, and this is the issue we raise in Motion No. 2 we tabled at the report stage. The limits of the port remain a contentious issue. We would have liked to see it made possible when the bill was passed to exclude certain parts of ports from port operations. You know very well that I was referring to the perimeter of Beauport Bay, which is a recreational and tourism site for the Quebec City region and, unfortunately, within the limits of the port of Quebec.

One never knows when the Beauport people could get a message from the Quebec Port Corporation telling them “Move your stuff. We are bringing in the bulldozers and making a pier longer, because we have got a contract with a container company”. That is worrisome and I would have liked to have seen the government accept our amendment to Motion No. 2. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

The last safeguard left to me is the drafting of the letters patent. I trust that the government will be able to lend an ear to a region such as the Quebec City region and ensure that Beauport Bay can receive long-term assurance that it will be able to continue recreational and tourist activities for the benefit of the entire greater Quebec City region. The only hope I have for this is when they draw up the letters patent.

Another point of disagreement, we would have liked to see each municipality bordering on the port able to designate a representative. My colleague from the Reform Party said during second reading yesterday “Yes, but then if there are 12 municipalities there will be 12 representatives, and the boards of directors will end up with 20 or 25 members on them”. In that connection, I would have been prepared, if the government had shown any openness about it, to support a maximum number for municipal representatives. We know how that will work. A representative of the biggest municipality will sit on the board, and so its interests will be heard. The other municipalities with less port area within their limits will have no voice. They will have to appeal to the bigger municipality in order to be heard.

So, we are not talking about fairness. They should have planned to have more than one municipality act as a director for local port authorities.

The last point is really important. I think the government made a serious mistake in rejecting our amendment yesterday at second reading, report stage. It would have enabled the employees of the new local port authorities and of the St. Lawrence seaway—the government neglected to do this—to participate in the pension plan of the Canadian public service known as superannuation. I consider this to be an arm-twisting contest between the Treasury Board and the Department of Transport. As you might suspect, we are hearing from public servants.

Listening to me, the thought may cross your mind that I am on a witch hunt and making things up because I am a member of the Bloc Quebecois. Let me just tell you that I am not making anything up. I know for a fact that there was a power struggle between Treasury Board and Transport Canada officials. While Transport Canada wanted its employees in the new corporations to continue to participate in the pension plan, the order came—I cannot say whether it came directly from the President of the Treasury Board or from Treasury Board secretary Peter Harder—to object to their continue participation, that these employees will have to leave the public service pension plan et buy into another one.

As I said yesterday, I do not need to be an actuary to know full well that it costs more to maintain a pension plan for a small group of 575 employees—and I encourage St. Lawrence seaway employees to go to their MP, the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas and government whip, and tell him this—than to be covered under the large public service of Canada plan. The actuarial cost is different. It does not take a degree in actuarial science to understand that.

My point is that, in the long run, the bargaining power of these small groups of employees will be affected. I know that when the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport rises to speak in a little while and replies, as it were, to my speech, he is going to say that the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans is an alarmist, that he is on a witch hunt, that Motion No. 21 represents an undertaking that each of the port authorities may have a comparable pension plan. What is he afraid of? Comparable, yes, but at what cost? I would like the government to prove to us that it will cost exactly the same.

Perhaps the committee should invite some actuaries in to explain to the government that the benefits of a small group pension plan are not comparable. The issue is not the benefits, but buying a pension plan for a small group does not cost the same as buying one for a group of 200,000 to 300,000 employees, as provided under the Public Service Superannuation Act. That is why I say that, in the long term, the bargaining power of port employees and St. Lawrence seaway workers will be affected by this decision and I humbly submit that, even though the amendment passed yesterday by the government because of its majority addressed comparability, it does not pass the test.

In conclusion, I think I have had an opportunity to express my views. I thank all members for their attention. I thank the government whip for maintaining discipline on his side. I do not want to start another debate, but it is obvious that the government has a good whip who has and who deserves respect. I do not know if it helps him to be praised by a member of the Bloc Quebecois but I just want to show that I am not an extreme partisan. I think I am able to admit certain things, as you have seen from my speech.

You will read this in the airplane, Mr. Speaker, on your way back to Edmonton. You will see how I approached my speech. I looked at points of agreement and points of disagreement, but for all these reasons, I must unfortunately tell you that our party will have to vote against this bill at third reading.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus.

In the time available I will focus on five areas of concern that we have with respect to Bill C-9. The number one issue is the loss of a nationally integrated and coherent port and transportation system. We are also concerned about the policing of the new ports, the privatization of them, the funding and capital expenditures required, and the superannuation plan.

Before I deal with those areas, however, I was interested in the earlier comments of the Minister of Transport today when he addressed the Chamber on Bill C-9. He acknowledged the help members of the standing committee had been in this area. Then I heard the member for Cypress Hills—Grassland lamenting that none of the opposition amendments had been accepted.

Prior to that statement I was going to encourage the minister responsible for transportation to have a word with his colleague, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, because we certainly had that kind of treatment when that bill was before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

As a new member of the House I agree with the member for Cypress Hills—Grassland that committees to date have been a joke. I encourage members on the government side to see if we could not make them more meaningful in the near future.

The New Democratic Party is opposed to Bill C-9 for different reasons. I take the opportunity today to raise some of the concerns we have with the marine act. As I indicated, I want to turn first to the nationally integrated and coherent port and transportation system.

Our concern is that Bill C-9 will create a patchwork of privately run ports. With new mandates oriented to financial self-sufficiency, it is unlikely these ports will form an integral part of a coherent national strategy for meeting our transportation and regional development needs. Instead we will have a set of local activities unlinked to a national vision or plan.

I remind members of the House of what the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre was saying on this subject earlier this week. Canada is the only country in the OECD that seems not to have a national transportation vision for the near future. Ultimately the proposed privatization will have negative implications for many people presently working in the port system and the maritime industry generally.

Despite assurances from the government about job security it seems likely that as a new strictly commercial oriented management approach is brought in, jobs will be lost within the longshore and among the administrative workers who presently work within the Canada Ports Corporation. We see similar examples with the alternate service delivery in the military, this rush to privatization the government is exhibiting time after time.

There is evidence from numerous other sectors that short term financial considerations will inevitably prevail over the preservation of jobs and the maintenance of fair working conditions.

As productivity and throughput considerations become more dominant the question is who will look out for the welfare of the staff remaining in the service of the ports organization. Cuts to any workforce inevitably place additional pressures on the remaining staff. The added stress this creates is often reflected in increasing numbers of industrial accidents. There is nothing in the legislation to address this potential problem and concern.

On the item of policing of the new ports, the proposal to remove the port police from the newly created entity seems to us to be a most unwise step. Private security firms are not peace officers and traditionally do not enjoy the same range of powers enjoyed by the police.

It is likely that drug smuggling, which is already a significant problem and growing, will not be curtailed in any way and could well increase as a result of this legislation.

In fact, I want to remind the House of what the president of the Canadian Police Association was quoted as saying earlier this year. Neal Jessop said that abolishing Canada's port police will open the floodgates to the smuggling of drugs, guns and other contraband by organized crime. What passes through the ports, Mr. Jessop said, will end up on the streets of our towns and cities coast to coast to coast. What he did not add but which needs to be added is that will incur additional policing costs and personal tragedies as a result of that.

This government's privatization of our national ports and disbanding Canada Ports police will be a serious blow to the fight against organized crime in this country. This government's actions have resulted, we think, in a serious setback in the efforts to control and stop organized crime activities.

It is a well known fact in the law enforcement community that organized crime and gang activity are thriving in our ports. The result of the federal government's disbanding of the ports police and privatization will open the doors for an increase in the destructive activities, as I noted, drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, auto theft and liquor and tobacco smuggling.

The Canada Ports police was created almost 30 years ago in 1968 and represented a highly specialized and dedicated police force with skills and powers specifically designed to combat organized crime, smuggling and gang activities.

Other jurisdictions, the United States being one example but there are many others, have experimented with similar privatization schemes for their ports and have had to re-evaluate their actions in the face of increases in criminal activities in those other countries and to reinstate specialized port police and take back control of the ports.

We note that with this bill Canada is going in a very different and, we would submit, wrong headed direction in this regard. It is noteworthy that numerous case files and ongoing investigations into organized crime and gang activities were either halted or compromised with the removal of the Canada Ports police from the Vancouver port.

On the opposite coast, the Atlantic coast, in a few weeks the Halifax port police will be disbanded and we are sure that organized crime is waiting and marking the days on its calendar until that disbandment occurs.

In other words, with the privatization of our national ports, this government is putting out the welcome sign for gangs and organized crime and putting our communities and citizens at risk.

With regard to the privatization of ports consistent with the withdrawal of federal presence from other matters of concern to coastal residents, the privatization fits into an ongoing pattern where we are seeing this government withdraw from a host of activities and functions vital to the well-being of communities and here we are concerned about coastal communities.

Cutbacks to the coast guard, search and rescue capacity, the automation of lighthouses were the forerunner and backdrop to the port privatization. There are estimated to be approximately 500 public ports and harbours in Canada and it is safe to assume that communities with ports smaller than those of Vancouver, Halifax and Montreal will feel the brunt of this legislation.

The question that needs to be asked is why is the Liberal government turning its back on the legitimate needs of our smaller coastal communities.

In dealing with funding and capital expenditures, the bill fails to provide for the capital financing required to construct new port facilities at some future date. The submission of the Halifax Port Development Commission is highly instructive on this point and worth quoting:

The funding needed for construction of major port facilities can only be arranged in part, if at all, in the private sector. No private sector lender or investor can advance the bulk of such funding against user commitments which may or may not materialize when the facilities are completed, and if they do not materialize, may or may not continue until the funding has been repaid. Under such a scenario, funding can only come from governments which have the necessary financial resources and can justify, in the interests of promoting the economy of their constituents, the assumption of the attendant commercial risk.

Had Bill C-9 been in effect in the late 1960s, Halifax would never have been able to build and equip even one container berth and the harbour would long ago have fallen into disuse.

Should these ports be privatized, will they be required to disclose their capital expenditure plans for local community input and review? The kind of secrecy that normally shrouds the investment activities of private companies must not be allowed to prevail within the ports where a range of public groups has a vital stake in the financial posture of them. Why has the government not chosen to make mandated public disclosure of financial plans a precondition for the transfer of the ports into the private sector?

I want to turn now to superannuation because the first version of this bill did not include the continuance of the pension plan for ports employees once the port is transferred.

Our caucus brought forward an amendment at committee stage which called for the continuance of the superannuation. The ports employees have belonged to that system for decades now and they have been devoted to achieving the success which the ports have had over the years. It would be most unfair for these employees to lose their pension benefits.

Those employees who planned their retirement based on that plan should have had the opportunity to continue with the plan. However, unfortunately our motion was defeated. A member of the Bloc introduced a similar motion at report stage, one which we were pleased to support, but again it was defeated. Then the Liberals introduced a motion for comparable employee benefits. Naturally it passed. It is certainly better than nothing, but we wanted it to go further, as did the Bloc, to protect employee benefits.

These are the major concerns we have with the bill, the failure of the nationally integrated and coherent port, the policing aspect of the new ports, the privatization of them, the concern about funding and capital expenditure, and the superannuation plan for long service employees at the ports.

As a result of the deficiencies which we find in the bill, we will be voting against it. We believe that Canada needs a nationally integrated transportation system and it will not be possible with privatized ports.

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

Mr. Speaker, the process of going through the Canada marine act and the changes which will come about as a result of Bill C-9 has been very interesting. I have really enjoyed it. It was a little short for me because in the last Parliament the same bill was studied for three years. Our deliberations lasted only a few weeks. I am sorry it was only a few weeks because we did not have the chance to hear all the people we would have liked to hear. Nevertheless it was an interesting process. It was very refreshing for me.

We are going to support the bill in principle although, like all bills, it is not perfect.

There are four major parts of the bill. First, it designates all ports into one of three categories. Second, it addresses new management for the St. Lawrence Seaway, which will have a huge impact. Third, it will change piloting. There are minimal changes to piloting, but not nearly enough. Fourth, it will eliminate port police.

With respect to port designations, all ports in Canada will have one of three designations. One of the designations will be for viable ports. These are the ports which make a profit. They can stand on their own two feet and are able to survive. They are put into one category.

Then there are regional ports. They are not viable, by definition. They are to be divested by the federal government and turned over to user groups, the province, municipalities or whomever. It is a very interesting approach because there is no formula for this category. They will all be negotiated separately.

The third designation is for remote ports, for which the federal government maintains responsibility.

Our biggest concern with the bill is the designation of regional ports. They will face an awful lot of problems. Examples of these ports are Pugwash, Parrsboro, and Shelburne in Nova Scotia.

Shelburne, for instance, suffered through the collapse of the fishery. Its people are making extremely effective efforts to replace the fishery to make their port viable. When I called the mayor of Shelburne, Mayor Comeau, he was in Massachusetts trying to arrange for a ferry between Massachusetts and Shelburne.

They have also arranged to bring cruise lines to Shelburne. They have come up with a lot of different commercial uses for the port. However, it is not enough to make the port viable.

They are going to need some help through this change from the present structure where they are owned by the federal government to being a regional port.

When I went to see the mayor of Parrsboro to see how the changes were going to affect his port, he did not know anything about the changes. He did not even know that there was a process. He had never even heard of the Canada marine act. They are going to be faced with a lot of decisions and I am going to help them through those decision as much as I can.

Pugwash is another port in my riding. It is going through the process right now.

As helpful as Department of Transport people are, the ports, the communities and the people involved do not understand the process. I hope that the government will take the time as this process unfolds and impacts on communities, that it will take the time to help people and help the communities establish the proper set-up. A wrong decision now could cause huge grief in the future. There are funds—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Excuse me. Before the Chair recognizes the hon. chief government whip, I would like to acknowledge that the Chair neglected to ask for questions and comments after the speech made by the hon. member of Palliser. If the member for Palliser is listening, we had agreed earlier to forego the ten minutes of questions and comments. Could he please confirm?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I apologize to the member for Palliser.

On a point of order, the chief government whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties and there has been a tremendous amount of co-operation to facilitate the end of this debate at third reading of Bill C-9.

I would ask the consent of the House not to see the clock and I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on third reading of Bill C-9, but no later than 2 p.m., all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill will be deemed put, a recorded division requested and deferred until Tuesday, December 9, 1997 at the expiry of Government Orders.

I believe that would allow the member for Cumberland—Colchester to conclude his remarks.

The Bloc Quebecois member for Terrebonne—Blainville will speak for a few minutes. The parliamentary secretary will then say a few words, and this will conclude debate at third reading.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Is there anyone else who wants to interrupt me? I do not want to miss anybody.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue on and I will be brief. Our main concern with this whole bill is the fact that regional ports were not allowed to make presentations at committee. They are going to be the ones that are most impacted by these decisions and most of them have no idea of what is going to happen. I hope that we, as members, will help them through this process.

It is going to have a profound effect on many of these ports. I mentioned Shelburne. The hon. parliamentary secretary has agreed to meet with me and officials from Shelburne and also the member for South Shore to discuss Shelburne and to make sure they can take advantage of any programs available through that transition. I make that offer to any port, any community that will be impacted by this legislation to contact us and we will help them with it.

Several problems we see with the bill have been mentioned by previous speakers. One is that ports police have been eliminated. It is not so much that they have been eliminated but there has been no strategic plan to replace them and no strategic plan to look after the people who are involved. Again, these are people.

My colleague from Saint John who spoke very eloquently on this issue on behalf of the ports police and defended their position is not here today. I would like to recognize her efforts on that because she is an untiring spokesperson for people who have a problem no matter what it is. The ports police were going through a tough time and she did everything she could to help.

On the piloting regulations, it is, as I heard other speaker say earlier, a closed shop. There is not competition. It is very tightly controlled. It completely contradicts the rest of the bill which is to make the process more efficient, more commercialized, free it up, local decisions, but still the pilotage problem exists. It is a very closed shop and there is no competition.

Another issue is superannuation for the employees who are affected. Under these legislation we put an amendment forth, as other members did, asking for superannuation to be extended to employees who lost their jobs and who had always had superannuation benefits.

The government made a commitment to provide that extension in some kind of bridge process. However, when the amendment was presented, it was only for the viable ports people who were going to Canada ports authorities. Again, the regional ports people have no superannuation benefits. We will still be pushing for that and hope the hon. members, the hon. minister and parliamentary secretary will help us with that.

Another amendment we had put in was to put the port of Hamilton back on the same playing field with every other port in Canada. Although our amendment was retracted, another amendment came right back in again from the government side and addressed the issue.

For the third time I say that our biggest concern is the impact on regional ports which by definition are not viable. The government has said, “These ports are not viable any more, therefore we do not want to have anything to do with them any more. We will turn them over to the user groups. We will turn them over to the municipalities or to the provinces”. It will have a big impact on small ports.

In closing, we are going to support the Canada Marine Act. I am pleased to do so.

I would like to compliment the staff of Transport Canada who have done a fantastic job in negotiating the agreements that have already been negotiated with the ports. I am truly awed by their ability. They have made profound changes in communities. They have been able to work with communities, work with the governments and the local people and have done a great job at having transferred these over.

Our part as a Conservative caucus will be to help those regional ports change. Of those ports that I contacted, some knew nothing about this legislation. They knew nothing about what was happening to them. Some misunderstood the process completely. Some had it in reverse. Some were resigned to the change, but did not know they could access assistance programs from the government to help them over.

On behalf of the Conservative Party members I would like to extend an invitation to any port that has a problem, that does not understand the process, that does not understand the details or how to access programs, to contact us. We will be glad to help them through the system.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government recently privatized three facilities in the transportation sector.

First, it was the Montreal airports, which are now managed by ADM, Administration des aéroports de Montréal, with the federal government keeping ownership of the facilities. Then, it was the ground facilities for air navigation, the management of which was transferred to Nav Canada, a corporation established for this purpose. This time, ownership of the facilities was also transferred. Now, the purpose of Bill C-9 is to transfer the management of marine ports to private organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I would really appreciate it if members opposite would listen. I guess my request is not being accepted. I will carry on nevertheless.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member has requested that we have the courtesy to pay attention to his remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with ADMr. In ADM's case, the board of directors' seven members are appointed by regional organizations, and the government is not represented at all. These seven members make up the board of directors and they hold all the powers. ADM is a totally independent organization.

As for Nav Canada, it is an organization which, unlike ADM, also has ownership of the facilities, but I will not discuss this aspect here.

However, the ports affected by Bill C-9 will have a board of directors made up of seven to eleven members, including one appointed by the province and one appointed by the municipalities. The other members, anywhere from five to nine of them, will be appointed by the government, in consultation—but in consultation only—with users.

It is interesting to compare the structure given ADM and the structure given to seaports. The similarity of airports and seaports, over which Ottawa retains ownership, is obvious and one must wonder why there is such a difference in the level of autonomy given ADM, which is total, and that given ports, which is very limited.

Why was ADM given so much power? Why was ADM given complete autonomy when seaports are not getting any? I think I know why. Montreal airports were a hot potato. Mirabel was created by a Liberal government; so now we had two airports and no road or rail link between Mirabel and Montreal; having two airports was bad for competitiveness and one had to be shut down. Air Canada was lobbying to have Mirabel closed down. However, this was a hot potato the government did not want to handle. I suggest that this is the reason why ADM was given so much power.

Ottawa wanted to wash its hands of the surgery that had to be performed to move international flights from an airport developed to the tune of billions of dollars to accommodate international flights. This is exactly what it did. Every single question I have asked in this House regarding Mirabel have been met by the same answer from the transport minister of the day “ADM is in charge”. In other words, the Minister of Transports, just like Pontius Pilate, is washing his hands of the whole Mirabel mess. This is the easy way out.

To conclude, I say once again that when it comes to this government there is a world of difference between political logic and plain logic.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Resuming debate by previous agreement, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was in the fall of 1994 that Transport Canada embarked on this voyage to change Canadian marine policy. Now today, just over three years later, it is my hope that the House of Commons will pass Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act.

There are the ministers of transport both present and past, members of the Standing Committee on Transport both present and past, and literally hundreds of people in industry, labour and ports to acknowledge and thank for their continued support and contribution to the development of this policy. However, I would like to recognize the personal efforts of the current Minister of Transport, the Deputy Minister of Transport, Margaret Bloodworth, and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Transport, Policy, Louis Ranger.

Thinking back a couple of years, I would like to single out the former Deputy Minister of Transport, Mr. Nick Mulder who had the courage to embark on these changes to marine legislation and then cleverly move on to life's challenges beyond government bureaucracy and leave all the tough sledding to others. It was Nick Mulder who hired Mr. Neil MacNeil who stuck with the marine policy development from the outset.

Neil MacNeil, now President of Canada Ports Corporation, and David Cuthbertson, now the Executive Vice-President of Canada Ports Corporation have been instrumental in developing the consensus with industry and communities to see these changes through. They are now responsible for closing down Canada Ports Corporation and establishing the new Canada port authorities. I know I speak for the ports and the users when I congratulate Neil and David for their achievements and thank them for their contribution.

I will speak for a couple of minutes because I realize we have to see the clock at two o'clock for the end of debate on Bill C-9 and I want to give a couple of minutes to my colleague from Wentworth—Burlington who has been waiting patiently to say a few words as well.

The opposition members may think we were short on our deliberations in committee. I want to remind them that it was the decision of the committee, and some of the opposition members voted with the government to not hear the witnesses again.

It was the witnesses themselves, the communities, the corporations, the port operators, the users, the shareholders, the stakeholders who came forward and said, “Look, you guys have been to our communities twice now. The committee has been here on the marine policy development. The officials were here on the heels of that policy development and then the transport committee was here again. We gave three speeches to you. You know what we need and you know what we want”.

As a result of all that consultation, a year and a half of consultations, we came up with Bill C-44, and the exact same bill has been brought forward to the House as Bill C-9. So the consultation did take place. It was thorough and quite frankly, everything that was achieved in consultations on Bill C-44 was the result of compromise and hard work by all of the players involved in this bill.

After all the years of extensive consultations with the shippers, the carriers and other levels of government we did find widespread support in the marine community. That is why we have reintroduced the bill, because we know that the community supports it and wants to see the bill enacted as soon as possible.

As a result of the passage of this legislation we will see a stronger, more efficient marine sector that will improve Canada's international trade performance. That means more economic growth and jobs for Canadians.

In conclusion, to leave a couple of minutes for my colleague, I want to thank everyone who was involved with the bill. We have done it again. It is my hope after our vote on Tuesday when the bill is in the hands of the Senate that the Senate will also see fit to recognize the request of the marine users and give speedy passage to Bill C-9.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a few minutes to speak on Bill C-9. I would like to draw the attention of the House and the Canadian public to two major innovations in Bill C-9.

First, it is a giant step forward in developing accountability in arm's length institutions of government. The mechanisms of accountability in these new port authorities far exceed anything that existed with the harbour commissions and indeed with respect to many other types of organizations.

Second, I feel that the bill represents a reform in attitude of governments of the past and this government toward political patronage. Instead of harbour commissioners who were appointed indirectly by a regional minister, there is now a system of directors appointed to port authorities will all kinds of checks and balances to make sure that these appointees of the crown conduct themselves in a responsible manner.

With the old way of appointing harbour commissioners in my region there was one city appointee and two federal appointees. Under the new system the port authority in the city of Hamilton will have a federal appointee, a provincial appointee, a city or municipality appointee, and four appointees recommended by users in the area. The minister will listen to the users in the area who will name certain individuals who have competence in the field.

The bill explains at great length what type of competence is required of the people who are to become directors of the port authority. This is a huge step forward. It separates the directors of the port authority from political influence. This is hugely important.

I regret to say that in the history of harbour commissions across the country there have been too many instances where harbour commissioners have felt vulnerable or have come under the influence of area politicians. This bill changes that. It is an enormous step forward. It has a code of conduct. It requires annual meetings, financial reports, public accountability in large scale. I think all sides of the House, including the Bloc Quebecois should support this bill. I think the Canadian public will as well.

Committees Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for me to move:

That the members of the House of Commons on the special joint committee to examine and analyze issues relating to child custody, parental access and the education of children after the separation or divorce of their parents be the following: Eleni Bakopanos, Carolyn Bennett, Robert Bertrand, Sheila Finestone, Paul Forseth, Roger Gallaway, John Harvard, Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Judi Longfield, Eric Lowhter, Gary Lunn, Caroline St-Hilaire, Diane St-Jacques, Peter Mancini, Richard Marceau and Denis Paradis.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the Chief Government Whip have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, an act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, providing for the establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports, for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway and ferry services and other matters related to maritime trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and amending and repealing other acts as a consequence, be read the third time and passed.