Stan Keyes

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

I am not a lawyer, but I have a lot of respect for most lawyers. Mr. Speaker is a lawyer and I respect the Speaker.

However, we cannot support this particular motion. We need an acceptable mix of knowledge and expertise on a board. That can happen if there is a preview of the list of names. That list of names should not be sheltered to just four. The names will come forward from the users and then the minister will make the selection from those names presented on the list in order to make the mix work well for a particular port.

I look forward to debating the next three groups of motions, if we ever get to them.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has some information he would like to give me to clarify the issue, I would be more than willing to receive it because it would be useful in the overall agenda.

I stress to the hon. member that it is not the intention of the government, the minister or the Ministry of Transport to take one offer from one group or one individual and say there is your port.

There are many aspects to the dual track of port divestiture the government proceeded with many months ago that allow for representation not just from one but from many and all who want to come forward to take the opportunity to buy a port.

Beyond that I want to quickly address amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I believe the minister has already addressed amendment No. 12 in this group, so I will not touch on that again. He was very thorough in his examination of No. 12.

Motion No. 1, from the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, proposes that the number of directors of a port authority could be increased by additional municipal appointments.

Right back to 1995 the national marine policy clearly stated that we are trying to put these ports on a commercial footing. That means that we want to put the user representatives on the board with the majority. We do not need government representatives on a committee that is running a port. That is not the idea of either the national marine policy of 1995 or Bill C-9. We want it commercialized. In order to do that, we need to have the majority of users on a board from the user representatives list that is supplied by the minister.

It is important that if we get into a constituency in British Columbia, I believe it is North Fraser, there are eight or nine municipalities bordering the waterway of the defined port. Members can imagine if we are going to construct a board of seven members because we do not want one too much bigger than seven. We have a choice of seven, nine or eleven. On what was supposed to be a board of seven there will be eight municipal representatives and four users. Boy, that is a lot of government representation. I do not think anybody in this place wants to see all that government representation on a board with the fiduciary responsibility of running a corporation to make a port successful. We do not want to see that, so unfortunately we will not be support Motion No. 1.

We will also not be supporting Motion No. 2 because, quite frankly, it is redundant. The minister already has the authority to specify the extent of property to be included within a port. That can be found under subclauses 8.2(c), (d) and (e).

Finally, on Motion No. 3, we cannot support it because the minister is going to have to exercise some responsibility on who is going to put forward the names for a board. Imagine if it was left just to the user to present the list and then it automatically became the representation on the board. What if the users got together and decided, jokingly, heaven forbid, they would all be lawyers. Do we want all lawyers running a port? Probably not.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to rise on this grouping but something was said this afternoon that I think needs some clarification.

To begin with, I dare say that Bill C-9 has been refined with consultation and consensus from all stakeholders. It has been refined like no bill I have ever seen in my nine years in this place. As some will recall, it was Bill C-44 in the last parliament.

I will deal with the last item first, the very strong words of the hon. member for Charlotte who discussed the great port of Bayside. It is a great port. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member. He understands his constituency well. That wharf is in excellent shape and is capable of handling all the shipping interests in that port.

The hon. member spoke of individuals like the hon. Doug Young, once a minister of the crown in this place, and Mr. Paul Zed, a distinguished member who served his time here as a parliamentary secretary. These gentlemen are involved in a lobby organization and are doing their thing in the private sector. I say good for them.

However the hon. member for Charlotte must understand that if they are doing work for individuals it has nothing to do with whatever the government is proposing to do with Bayside and what will eventually develop for Bayside as a divested port.

It must be made clear that the port of Bayside is having discussions with the Government of Canada through what is called the Bayside Port Steering Committee Inc., which is made up of local users of the port of Bayside. They are currently, with all due diligence, putting together negotiations with Transport Canada to transfer the port at the discretion of the government at the end of the day.

If the hon. member has any names of any individuals or any municipalities that want to come forward to offer their representations to the government, the minister or the Ministry of Transport, they will be given equal opportunity to be heard on the matter of having Bayside divested to them under a negotiated deal. Let them come forward. We welcome everyone's participation in the process.

Just to clarify as well for the hon. member for Charlotte, the Bayside port steering committee again is made up of local users in the area and is chaired by Mr. Fred Nicholson. He is a gentleman who clearly has nothing to do with the allegations the hon. member put forward today, along with the very strong descriptions of the individuals he put forward.

The hon. member referred to Mr. Waterman. He is an American, as I understand it. He wants to develop the lands adjacent to the port for aggregate. I stand to be corrected, but Mr. Waterman has no interest in running a port. He wants the stone next door to the port.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had discussions with my colleagues in all parties opposite and I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to waive notice and introduce a technical amendment as follows:

That Bill C-9 be amended by replacing line 34 on page 16 with the following: “tions made under paragraph 27(1)(e)”.

I will be making copies of this technical amendment available at the table immediately. I thank in advance members opposite for their co-operation.

[Marine Atlantic, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member can appreciate that no one is going to be directing anyone to do anything until all the discussion takes place, all the input is made from the various stakeholders and all the concerned entities who are affected by the Marine Atlantic organization are consulted so that a decision will be made in the best interests of east coast Canada, in the best interests of Marine Atlantic and the people it serves.

[Marine Atlantic, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Marine Atlantic is an important vestiture within the Atlantic community and Marine Atlantic serves our country well on the east coast.

I want to inform the hon. member that the file on Marine Atlantic is presently being examined by the Minister of Transport to look at all the permutations and possibilities for Marine Atlantic's location in Atlantic Canada.

[Railways, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, 57,000 knowledgeable, skilled Canadians work for the railway industry. Today their representatives from coast to coast are here in the House of Commons to remind parliamentarians of the importance of this industry for Canada.

Canada's freight railways do not exist just to run trains but to move customer freight traffic in a timely manner. Exports such as grain, coal, fertilizers, forest products and motor vehicles are dependent on rail transportation.

Rail is not only a safe means of transportation, it is also an environmentally friendly one. With its millions of carloads of freight and more than one million containers and trailers a year, the rail industry helps reduce highway congestion.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, I am proud to welcome rail industry representatives to Ottawa and to invite all members of Parliament to take the opportunity to meet with them and learn more about this essential industry.

[Criminal Code, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me assure the hon. member for Lévis that the minister is very aware of the situation involving the Lévis station and he is intent on resolving the matter soon.

As the hon. member knows full well, the problem of the Lévis station has been around for a number of years and there are many divergent opinions on what to do about it. Consultations with stakeholders and local community leaders have been ongoing since 1990. Because of the very divergent views on the subject of the Lévis station and the Montmagny line, a number of extensions have already been obtained in order to keep this station open.

First and foremost, the government's primary consideration is to ensure that any solution is safe and that it minimizes the inconvenience for the roughly 17,000 rail travellers who use the Lévis station every year.

I know the hon. member for Lévis is anxious about the situation in his riding, but I am sure that, at the same time, he would not want the minister to make any decision without first considering all the possible options.

The minister is extremely concerned about looking at all the options in order to make the right decision. For this reason, the minister wrote some time ago to Mr. Ivany, the president of VIA Rail and asked for opinions with respect to the Lévis station.

Let me assure my hon. friend that his concerns have not gone unnoticed. On behalf of the Minister of Transport, I would like to assure him that a decision on this matter will be made shortly. In the meantime if the member learns of any opinions from his constituents at his hearings next week, please, I would ask him to forward them to the minister because I know that he is open to suggestions.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my short answer to the hon. member for Mississauga West would be yes. The constituents in his riding, in Mississauga and the greater Toronto area, can rest comfortably. There will be no unilateral changes to the night flight hours.

May I give some detail to the hon. member. The government has been taking positive steps to bring Canada's transportation system in line with our nation's needs as we move into the 21st century. These actions have been designed to promote safety, efficiency, affordability, service integration, innovation and commercialization.

The national airports policy is a major initiative that has shifted the federal government's role in airports from owner and operator to landlord and regulator. Among the responsibilities transferred to the new airport authorities is the responsibility for the management of noise in the vicinity of the airport and to provide a forum for consultation with the local community on matters of aircraft noise within the community.

The federal government maintains an oversight role in noise issues by keeping the final approval authority for the mandatory noise operating restrictions and noise abatement procedures published in the Canada Air Pilot .

These regulations and procedures are not guidelines but are mandatory and have the force of law. Airport authorities including the Greater Toronto Airport Authority cannot unilaterally change the published night flight restrictions, but they do have the authority to grant exemptions and extensions on the same basis as was practised by the department prior to the transfer of responsibility to the GTAA. The department does not intend to change these restrictions at this time.

With respect to exemptions and exceptions, as owner and operator of the airport Transport Canada previously managed a regulatory regime which permitted exemptions to normal hours of operations. This was to allow for the unforeseen circumstances such as weather delays, air traffic control delays, some delays as a result of mechanical problems and emergencies, and for some operational or other reasons when quieter aircraft were used.

[Marine Atlantic, October 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We ask for unanimous consent to suspend the sitting until 12 noon, at which time we will bring forward government orders.