Stan Keyes

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, if you would like to start the clock with two minutes for a response from the government, I can respond right now to the hon. member's question as he has put it.

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am in a bit of a quandary because the order paper indicated that we would be dealing with the question put by the hon. member on December 3 when he asked about NavCan.

I am asking for a ruling. The response the government has prepared is to the request by the hon. member for a late show question arising from a question in the House regarding NavCan.

I am not sure if this situation puts the member out of order with his late show question this evening. I can answer the question put by the hon. member at this time or if you find, Madam Speaker, that the question is out of order the member could try to put the question again by reintroducing at another date his late show question of this evening.

I will leave it to you, Madam Speaker, to make the judgment.

[Ice Storm, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a time like this when I am especially proud of being a Canadian from Hamilton, Ontario. In the aftermath of the worst ice storm in history, Hamiltonians did not hesitate to offer speedy assistance to those in need.

Today I recognize the important contribution of Hamilton radio station CHML and manager Don Luzzi, hometown radio at its best. I salute CHML Talkline host Roy Green for leading the offensive in sensitizing Hamiltonians to the severity of the disaster and for requesting and co-ordinating donations toward the relief effort.

With the help and generosity of Fluke Transport president Ron Foxcroft, these necessities were loaded into five tractor trailers and dispatched to the hard hit areas of eastern Ontario.

The people of eastern Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes will not soon forget the caring and generosity of the federal government, the Canadian Armed Forces and in particular the young men and women from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders from Hamilton, Hamilton hydro workers and Hamiltonians who helped their fellow Canadians get their lives back together after the ice storm of 1998.

[Canada Marine Act, December 5th, 1997]

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.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly contain my enthusiasm to go after the hon. leader of the Conservative Party.

There is no confusion on the part of this hon. member because I sat on that side of the House from 1988 to 1993 in opposition when this hon. member of the Conservative Party sat on this side of the House, first as secretary of state for fitness and amateur sport and then he moved on—I will not say how. I do not want to get into that today—to become the minister of the environment. That was six months later.

That member sat at a cabinet table, a Conservative cabinet table with his good friend, Brian, at the helm. That hon. member watched as EI premiums went up to $3.20 on their way to $3.30. This hon. member has the unmitigated gall to stand in his place and start accusing this government when that member was in in the best of times, from 1984 to 1993. He sat in this House when the economy was booming, when people were working.

He had the opportunity to do something about the deficit, about the debt, about EI, about CPP and he did nothing, not a damn thing.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

They are nodding off.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the unanimous consent that was arrived at 10 minutes ago allowed for each party to have five minutes to speak. I also understand that the hon. member for the Reform Party spoke for just three minutes and we would not object to another two minutes being allowed for another member in that party. We have no objection.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

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.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

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.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

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.