Stan Keyes

[Canada Shipping Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.

This bill will bring about much needed change to the principal legislation governing the shipping industry. It is the beginning of a two track overhaul that promises an up to date modern statute to benefit the marine sector in this country.

The transportation industry is a vital component of our economy. As we know, the marine industry operates in the context of an international and domestic environment which provides considerable challenges and opportunities for Canadians. The industry and related services employ more than 400,000 Canadians and contributes more than $20 billion to our gross domestic product.

Every work day 2.3 million tonnes of freight are on the move in Canada. A substantial amount of work has been done in an effort to modernize the national transportation system to meet the demands of a global marketplace and prepare this sector for the coming century.

In order to achieve these objectives the government has pursued a number of initiatives in all modes particularly in the area of streamlining regulations and legislation. It will become increasingly difficult for Canada to compete in the international market unless we pursue transportation policies that are consistent with other nations with whom we trade and compete. This is a significant reality for the shipping industry.

The Canada Shipping Act is the foremost piece of safety legislation governing the marine sector. It is also one of the oldest pieces of Canadian legislation. It has not been renewed since it was enacted in 1936 and is beginning to show its age.

When enacted in 1936 this legislation was based on 1896 British merchant shipping law. Still today it contains outdated provisions for such things, if you can imagine, as a $10 fine for being drunk, or providing a ship's master with the authority to auction off a dead sailor's belongings. That is in that legislation. The Canada shipping community of course deserves better.

The complete reform of the Canada Shipping Act is being undertaken with the following three goals in mind.

One, to simplify the legislation by replacing outdated terminology using everyday language, harmonizing with other regimes and taking out excessively prescriptive details.

Two, to make the act consistent with federal regulatory policies. These policies reduce reliance on regulations and permit alternative approaches such as compliance agreements, performance standards and voluntary industry codes which are much more consistent with today's regulatory practices.

Three, to contribute to the economic performance of the marine industry. By reducing prescriptive elements and the administrative burden imposed by current legislation, industry will have increased flexibility in maintaining the travelling public's safety.

This government is committed to action. Our determination to reform the Canada Shipping Act is heavily influenced by industry's continued support for modern shipping legislation. Previous attempts to revitalize this legislation during the seventies were protracted and did not accomplish the necessary changes. With industry support this time the government cannot help but succeed in making these essential changes.

At this juncture I would like to take this opportunity to thank those in the marine industry for their ongoing input and support of this initiative. Their feedback during consultations not only helped direct this project but also will go a long way to ensuring the future success of this bill.

As I mentioned earlier our approach to reform is in fact a two track process. The first track has evolved into Bill C-15 and enables us to achieve desired changes by adding a new introduction to the act and updating part I, which primarily deals with ship registration and ownership.

A new introduction to the Canada Shipping Act will modernize the statute and provide direction and focus for the remainder of the legislation. In addition, this introductory section will provide a general framework for the rest of the act.

The proposed introduction clarifies basic ministerial responsibilities reflecting the reorganization of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada and provides umbrella authorities for consulting with stakeholders, issuing directives and responding to emergency marine situations.

A new preamble will make the Canada Shipping Act simpler and clearer to understand. The minister and I have had the opportunity to meet with many stakeholders. We have learned that it is the marine community itself which requested that the Canada Shipping Act contain a preamble which states up front the overall objectives of the act, as is often done with other pieces of modern legislation.

The changes in Bill C-15 begin the modernization and streamlining of a statute that is in much need of an overhaul to eliminate the confusion and complexity it currently perpetuates.

The proposed amendments in the bill will modernize the Canadian ship registration system by allowing for the introduction of an electronic ship registry system which can be more easily maintained. This is a futuristic departure from the current paper log system.

Since we have outstanding marine legislation on the agenda from the last session of Parliament, we have included several important provisions of former Bill C-73. Other provisions will be incorporated into the second track of the reforms.

One of the urgent items from former Bill C-73 includes amendments to the Quebec harbour pilots pension plan. In recent years there has been an extensive overhaul of the administration of pension plans. One plan not affected by this overhaul was the pension fund administered by the Corporation of Pilots for and below the harbour of Quebec. This initiative will bring some recognition to this plan and improve the protection of rights for members belonging to this plan.

These changes will make affected pensioners subject to recent legislative initiatives rather than rules which predate Confederation. It will also improve the corporation's ability to manage the pension fund.

This two track approach is a beneficial way to proceed since it shows immediate progress on reforms in the first track while allowing departmental officials to continue the momentum in completing the second track of the reform. This approach has been taken to demonstrate the government's interest and competence to make quick, genuine and responsive progress.

I would like to stress that the government is sensitive to concerns raised by stakeholders and quite frankly, members of Parliament on this side and that side of the House, pertaining to small craft or pleasure craft licensing.

The Minister of Transport gives his assurance that he is open to suggestions on improving the legislation at committee stage. In fact, he has even gone so far as to say we are going to be removing certain clauses in the bill at committee stage, particularly those dealing with the pleasure craft or small craft licensing.

The minister and I, having looked at the bill and these particular clauses, feel that improvements can be made and should be made. That comes to us from the stakeholders and members of Parliament.

Transport Canada's legislative initiatives remain consistent with the overall federal transportation framework which emphasizes a national vision of safety, security, efficiency and environmental responsibility. These are the changes that the minister and I would like members' support in order to realize.

It is my belief that Bill C-15 will help ensure that Canada's shipping industry has the necessary tools to operate effectively in the 21st century.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the debate since it began at 10 o'clock this morning and especially in the last hour and a half, in my almost decade of service for my constituents in this House of Commons, quite frankly I have never heard so much bombast and so many half truths.

Earlier today the hon. member for Edmonton North made reference to the appearance on the floor of the House of Commons in 1996 of the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic athletes. She seemed to imply that the Speaker cast a blind eye at the rules to permit what proved to be a very exciting experience.

With one glance at the official record any member of this place would see that the rules were not ignored at all. In fact the Journals of the House of Commons for October 1, 1996 read: “By unanimous consent of the House, the House resolved itself into committee of the whole to recognize Canada's 1996 Summer Olympic Games and Paraplegic Games medalists”.

This clearly shows that the reception of the athletes in 1996 was done with the unanimous consent of the House. There was no breaking of any rules by Mr. Speaker. The Speaker permitted the athletes on the floor only with the unanimous consent and agreement of the House to waive the normal rules.

I have one quick, simple question for the member opposite. My question for the hon. member of the official opposition is would he think any less of me and my patriotism toward the country I love if I do not put a Canadian flag on the corner of my desk?

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Yes, I say to the hon. member opposite.

We did consult with my constituents. After that radio show we received another 40 or 50 calls in the constituency office within about an hour and a half. Again 70% told me to get on with the job which I was elected to do in the House and not to carry on with the nonsense in the motion which the Reform Party has put before the House today.

I am forced to speak to it because that is the only business we can do today. The only business we are allowed to do in the House today is the ridiculous motion which has been put forward by the official opposition.

There is one last thing I want to address with the whip. I heard him on television this morning and I heard him in the House of Commons today. He talked about freedom of expression and its importance. Freedom of expression is a necessity for the democracy of this country and the House of Commons.

Would the hon. member opposite not admit that freedom of expression has borders? It has to have borders. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression mean that we can do such things as stand up in a crowded movie theatre and yell fire but that is against the law. Freedom of expression means that we have to do it in a responsible fashion.

The hon. member opposite must understand that when we are talking about flags, and when we are talking about a decision made by the Speaker yesterday in the House, there are borders. Order has to be maintained and not the disorder which brought about this motion.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this motion is so full of holes that I will probably comment on every speech if you will recognize me.

The whip of the opposition party is suggesting that we on this side of the House have not consulted with our constituents on this matter. In my hometown of Hamilton, radio station CHML's Talk Line with Roy Green had an open line show for two or three days on this issue. He asked three questions: Do you want them to have a flag on their desks? Should they sing O Canada in the House of Commons? If they do not, should they be thrown out of the House of Commons? After a couple of days and about 36 calls he said the response was unanimous for all three.

He asked me if I had received any calls. My constituency office in Hamilton received 62 calls before the radio show ended. My constituents told me to just get on with the job I was elected to do. That job is to put legislation through the House. It is not to get in line behind this opposition party which needs to bring forward these arguments about the flag because its members are not being heard much by the press. They are the opposition. Their kissing cousins in the Tory party are getting all the press because its leader is thinking of becoming a Liberal. They need all this attention. That is why they have to create all this malarkey.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

They are very selective in the circumstances that have led up to this particular debate. I remind my constituents in Hamilton West that it is the party opposite that decided not to go to Montreal and fight with the rest of Canadians when the country was in danger of separation. The country pulled together. Canadians came from my riding, from the riding of everyone on this side of the House, but not from the Reform Party members' ridings. They talk about the flag, the importance of the flag and the need for it on this table.

It is by the same party opposite for which the critic for finance took the flag out of its spot on his desk and threw it in the direction of the Speaker's chair. The member for Medicine Hat took this flag and threw it in the direction of the Speaker. He was asked afterward, “Why did you do such a thing?” He said “Oh, it's no big deal”.

It is questions and comments. I have made my comments. I am quite disgusted by the hon. member's motion today.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

The member for Calgary Southwest said that the government opposite does not stand up for Canada on the little things.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

The Reform Party can laugh all they want but it does not intimidate me. I have been around a while.

Take any issue brought forward by a member of Parliament, put it to a committee for reasonable discussion and debate by all members who want to attend, because a committee is not restricted to membership so any member of Parliament can attend any committee of this place, include public debate, and only the Reform Party draws a parallel between that kind of important debate and burial.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's remarks. The hon. member for Calgary Southwest labelled the Liberal Party of Canada a party in decline.

I ask the hon. member to have a look at the most recent polls carried out in his end of the country, in Ontario, in Quebec, on the east coast, in northern Canada. Pick any poll he wants to and he will soon see that the only party in decline is the party of Reform.

“Buried in a committee,” said the member for Calgary Southwest. Only a member of the Reform Party would draw a parallel between taking any kind of an issue brought forward by any member of this place to put it into a committee, a place where Canadians are represented by their member of Parliament at committee, a committee that is the master of its own destiny—

[Competition Act, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that highways, including those segments which make up the Trans-Canada Highway, fall under provincial jurisdiction. Both the existing and proposed Fredericton to Moncton highways are the responsibility of the province of New Brunswick. This means that the Government of New Brunswick decides on their alignment, design, construction standards, tendering process, financing, as well as subsequent operations and maintenance.

The decision to establish tolls on these highways is exclusively a provincial decision.

The federal government had co-funded some of the completed work under existing federal-provincial cost-shared agreements. The total federal contribution toward the completed work was $32 million. Of this, $16 million was spent on the 23 kilometre section between Riverglade and Moncton, which will become part of the toll highway.

New Brunswick has not included the federal contribution in the cost base that was used for establishing tolls and the annual provincial payment for the remaining capital cost. In effect, the federal funds have reduced the capital cost of the total project.

The federal government entered into cost shared federal-provincial highway agreements because it wished to accelerate the construction of safer and more efficient highways, and this objective was met.

Once project construction is completed to the satisfaction of both parties, the federal role ceases.

Past and current agreements contain no provisions preventing the establishment of tolls or requiring the agreement of the federal government. The government has no legal basis to prevent provinces from imposing tolls on provincial highways, including those which have received federal contributions.

[Broadcasting Act, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, permit me to respond to the hon. member for Halifax West on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

In 1995 the federal government demonstrated considerable leadership with the announcement of its policy on aboriginal self-government.

The government is acting on the premise that the inherent right of self-government is an existing aboriginal right within our constitution. Our approach sets aside the legal and constitutional debates that have stymied process toward aboriginal self-government. Instead we are working to negotiate practical arrangements that give aboriginal communities the tools they need to exercise greater control over their lives and to make tangible improvements in their communities.

Aboriginal self-government will be exercised within the existing Canadian constitutional framework. This emphasizes that the goal of self-government is to enhance the participation of aboriginal people within Canadian society, not place them outside it.

For example, the federal government is committed to the principle that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to aboriginal governments just as it does to all other governments in Canada. It must also be emphasized that the responsibility of governments to be politically and financially accountable to their members applies to aboriginal governments no less than to others.

The issues surrounding self-government are multifaceted and complex. This was confirmed in the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The Government of Canada agreed and responded with “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”. One of the objectives of this plan is to strengthen aboriginal governance.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has agreed to convene as soon as possible a federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers responsible for aboriginal affairs and national aboriginal leaders that will focus partners on concrete results.

Progress is being made. Self-government initiatives are under way in almost every province and territory in Canada, whether in the context of treaty discussions in British Columbia, through education negotiations in Ontario and Nova Scotia, in province-wide initiatives in Saskatchewan or other venues. As we attempt to complete this great unfinished business in our history, understanding and generosity will be required of all sides.