Stan Keyes

[Marine Atlantic, October 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I consider it a privilege to address the motion put before the House by the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. It asks the government to take into account the safety concerns and local economic spinoffs before proceeding with any further privatization of Marine Atlantic services.

Before I go any further, however, allow me to assure the hon. member and all other members of the House that safety is the government's top priority when it comes to transportation.

Economic growth and job creation are important objectives and solid reasons behind why the government is pursuing the commercialization of marine services and facilities. Marine Atlantic Inc., a crown corporation established back in 1986, has operated six ferry and coastal services since its inception.

These have included the constitutionally guaranteed ferry links between North Sydney, Nova Scotia and Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland, and between Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick, and Borden, P.E.I. In addition, a convenient alternative to the highway was provided year round between Saint John, New Brunswick, and Digby, Nova Scotia. Seasonal services were also operated between Labrador and Newfoundland; between North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Argentia, Newfoundland; and between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and Bar Harbor, Maine.

In 1996 Marine Atlantic carried 2.8 million passengers, 965,000 passenger vehicles and 290,000 commercial vehicles. The company has also done an excellent job for many years. Marine Atlantic employees are to be commended for their efforts. Like most organizations, however, Marine Atlantic has been affected by our fiscal concerns and by the need for increased efficiencies.

The national marine policy announced in December 1995 called for Marine Atlantic to substantially reduce its costs and increase efficiency ensuring that the most effective and efficient use is made of tax dollars in the delivery of government services.

As part of the government's efforts to reduce the deficit numerous commercialization initiatives have been concluded with both the private sector and the province of Newfoundland. These have had a significant impact on the operations of Marine Atlantic.

I would like to provide the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria with the following update. In July 1995 Newfoundland accepted a one time cash payment of $55 million in exchange for assuming responsibility for the provision of ferry services on the south coast of Newfoundland, previously provided by Marine Atlantic, and services between Jackson's Arm and Harbour Deep provided by a private operator.

In March 1997 Newfoundland also took over the remaining ferry services in Labrador provided by Marine Atlantic as well as assignment of the St. Barbe, Newfoundland, and Blanc Sablon, Quebec, ferry services in exchange for a lump sum payment of $340 million. This service was provided by Marine Atlantic in 1997 under contract with the province. Future provision of the coastal service is under study by the province.

In the spirit of the national marine policy a request for proposals was issued by Transport Canada in July 1996 seeking commercial interests in assuming Marine Atlantic's Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, Bar Harbor, Maine, Saint John, New Brunswick and Digby, Nova Scotia, ferry services.

This resulted in the selection of Bay Ferries Limited of Charlottetown, P.E.I., to assume operation of these two services effective April 1, 1997. Under this agreement the federal subsidy will be eliminated in three years.

The opening of the Confederation Bridge on June 1 of this year replaced the federal constitutional obligation for ferry service between Borden, P.E.I., and Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick.

As a result of these different initiatives the subsidy paid to Marine Atlantic has been reduced. It will drop from $122 million in 1993 to a forecasted $25 million in 1999. That is a significant savings to the taxpayer. Equally important, and I know it is of great concern to the hon. member, it is a savings that has not come at the expense of service. Those who relied on Marine Atlantic two years ago continue to receive ferry service today either from the company or a private operator.

Marine Atlantic remains an important partner in Newfoundland's economy providing the constitutionally guaranteed service between North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Port aux Basques and the alternative ferry service between North Sydney and Argentia.

The federal government has not received or requested any proposals to take over these remaining Marine Atlantic ferry services.

The member for Sydney—Victoria will be happy to learn that the federal government will continue to support all constitutionally mandated ferry services as well as those to remote communities. Such services need not always be provided by Marine Atlantic but they must be provided and they must be there in a reliable sense.

Transport Canada will continue to explore options to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of subsidized ferry services. It is expected that Marine Atlantic will continue to operate the Newfoundland services with the aim of reducing costs and increasing efficiency.

The government will continue to regulate ferries for safety. Any operator of ferry services, whether it be Marine Atlantic or someone else, must meet the stringent safety requirements set out by Transport Canada's marine safety branch. Furthermore in most commercialization initiatives it is likely that the same vessel would be used to provide the ferry service under a charter agreement.

Marine Atlantic has been able to achieve significant savings for the taxpayer. Subsidies have been reduced even as service has been maintained. Safety remains a top priority and all ferry operators must continue to meet the highest standards.

The federal government believes it has done an excellent job assisting in the transition to a more flexible and efficient arrangement for ferry services. We are therefore happy to support the private member's motion:

That—the government should consider the advisability of taking into account safety concerns and local economic spin-offs before proceeding with any further privatization of Marine Atlantic services—

Such concerns have received top priority since the day the national marine policy was announced almost two years ago. Hon. members can be assured that they will continue to weigh very heavily in all the government's policy decisions.

[Canada Marine Act, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification for the Chair. Through you to the hon. member for York South—Weston, we are following what we did with the previous bill, Bill C-44. We are moving it from first reading right to committee stage. The exact same bill, Bill C-9, is undergoing the same procedure as did the original bill. The opportunity will be for members of the House to do their work in committee as quickly as possible.

[Canada Marine Act, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, picking up where I left off, the centrepiece of the national marine policy of 1995 is the Canada marine act.

The bill was originally tabled in the House in June 1996. There followed discussions with stakeholders and a review by the Standing Committee on Transport which held hearings across this country.

SCOT, as it is commonly referred to, proposed a number of amendments to the bill after hearing a wide range of comments from interested parties, and further amendments were made at report stage here in the House of Commons before the bill was sent on to the Senate. Parliament was dissolved and we did not get to the completion of the bill.

I would like to discuss briefly how Bill C-9 will help modernize the three key components of Canada's marine transportation system, ports, the St. Lawrence seaway and marine pilotage.

First, the federal government will focus on those ports that are vital to domestic and international trade and on preserving access to remote regions. The remaining ports are being transferred to local interests who are in a better position to manage them efficiently and in response to local needs.

The legislation will create Canada port authorities, CPAs, with a majority of their boards of directors appointed in consultation with port users.

Bill C-9 repeals the Canada Port Corporation Act and the Public Harbours and Port Facilities Act. The Canada Ports Corporation will be dissolved.

To become a Canada port authority, a port must have financial self-sufficiency, diversified traffic, strategic significance to Canada's trade and have a link to a major rail line or highway.

Port authorities will be incorporated by letters patent for the purpose of operating a particular port. They will have powers to engage in activities related to shipping, navigation, transportation of passengers and goods and handling of storage of goods as well as other activities deemed necessary to support port operations.

Each board of directors will be composed of between seven to eleven members. The majority of each board will be appointed by the federal government only after consultation with the users who will then put the names on a list of candidates that will be considered by the Minister of Transport.

The remaining directors will be appointed by the municipality or the municipalities adjacent to the facility, involve provinces and the Government of Canada.

Perhaps the most important accountability mechanism in the bill is the provision that ports will have to go to the private sector for financing. As a result, all port related development plans requiring investment will be subject to commercial risk assessment.

During the last Parliament the biggest change introduced by the standing committee was to give the new port authorities crown agent status. Crown agent status gives port authorities a clear exemption from full property taxation and would enable them to be covered by the municipal grants act.

Then they will pay grants in lieu of taxes to the municipalities at the same levels as other federal facilities and installations. For most of the ports that will become CPAs this represents mostly a continuation of the status quo.

Any new obligations arising from agent status would come mainly to the federal government and not the agent. For example, crown agent status applies only to core activities of the ports and not to other more peripheral or non-core activities that they may undertake.

To make sure third parties know when they are dealing with a crown agent, the legislation obliges the port authorities to make this clear in their non-agent dealings.

The bill requires ports to borrow in their own name and not in the name of the crown. This emphasizes to lenders that the crown does not stand behind these obligations.

Another initiative I will address is the part of the legislation that will permit us to commercialize the operation of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence seaway system.

This system is a crucial waterway but it is also a business. The seaway faces formidable challenges, including high asset renewal costs.

Bill C-9 enables the minister to enter into agreements with a not for profit corporation or any other private sector interests to operate and maintain all or part of the seaway. The federal government would retain regulatory control over the navigation in the seaway and the existing seaway authority would be dissolved at an appropriate date.

The new not for profit seaway corporation would be responsible for operating the system for asset renewal costs up to a specific limit. There would be incentives to achieve operating efficiencies and lower costs.

Transport Canada is negotiating the transfer of the seaway operation to a group representing the major shippers and carriers on the seaway. We believe that this so-called users group is best suited to take over the system because users want to minimize their seaway tolls and ensure the long term integrity of the system. The industries represented, in particular the steel industry and the marine carriers, require the seaway for their long term survival.

On marine pilotage Bill C-9 allows the Minister of Transport to improve the way pilotage authorities operate in Canada. The authorities will have legislative support to ensure that they recover their costs from those who use their services as well as a streamlined appeals process for new pilotage rates.

Of course as always, safety and environmental protection will continue to be the government's top priority and any changes will help to ensure that our high standards of safety continue to be maintained.

In conclusion, Bill C-9 meets the goals of the national marine policy and it strikes a balance in how we manage our marine institutions and facilities. The bill complements the government's other transportation initiatives and is an important element in the overall effort to prepare our transportation system for the coming century. But no matter what changes are made or how many services are commercialized, Transport Canada will continue to make the safety and security of Canada's transportation system its first priority.

[Canada Marine Act, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on a question of information, I suppose the clock will run out prior to the conclusion of my remarks. I would like to continue and conclude after question period.

In the one minute I was given on the first day of the 36th Parliament I called on the provincial government of Ontario to call an independent inquiry into the so-called Plastimet fire in the north end of my constituency. It has still to respond.

Today I have a little more time so I will first take the opportunity to thank the constituents of my home town, Hamilton West, for their overwhelming support, re-electing me to a third consecutive mandate with 50% of the vote. I promise to continue to be a strong voice for my home town and to remind myself it is a privilege to serve in the highest court in the land, the House of Commons.

On to the business of today, quite frankly I have lost count of the number of times I have had the privilege on many occasions both here in the House of Commons and across the country to speak to a bill that will prepare Canada's marine transportation system to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Formerly it was Bill C-44 and now it is Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act. Regrettably it was not approved prior to the dissolution of parliament last April. The government has reintroduced the legislation in exactly the same form. It is vitally important to Canada's transportation system. We heard from industry that it wants to see the bill adopted.

During the summer months the minister and I met all key stakeholders, including shippers, ship owners, port managers and pilotage interests. We have consistently heard the marine sector industry. It wants to see the bill adopted immediately, as soon as possible.

The government's overall goal is to strengthen Canada's economy and create a climate that supports job creation and investment. To support that goal the government took steps to modernize Canada's transportation system, commercializing transportation operations, cutting wasteful subsidies and overhauling legislation.

In all modes of transportation, air, surface and marine, we have made great progress in moving toward greater efficiency, greater say for those who use the system, and more local and regional autonomy. Much has been accomplished at Transport Canada by the government and by three successive ministers of transport, but more remains to be done.

Bill C-9 will make it easier for ports to operate according to business principles and will ensure those most affected by port related decisions are involved in making them. It will consolidate and streamline marine regulations, cut red tape, allow for faster business decisions and help our marine sector become more competitive.

Let us have a look at the history. For the benefit of those members who were not with us in the last parliament and to refresh the memories of those who were, I would like to take a few minutes in the short time I have left before question period to review the history of the bill and the development of the government marine policy.

In 1995 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, called SCOT for short, undertook a study of the marine sector and made a number of recommendations to improve the marine system, many of which were later incorporated into Bill C-44.

Following the SCOT report, Transport Canada held regional meetings with shippers and industry to discuss the recommendations. Based on the consultations the government adopted the national marine policy in December 1995.

I remind members opposite how much work has gone into the bill in close to three years. We had the SCOT report. We did a study across the country. We developed a marine policy. We went across the country. We developed the Canada Marine Act. We went across the country. We spent many months in committee with literally hundreds of witnesses and we developed a consensus.

There was give and take across the land by ports, harbour commissions, pilotage authorities, ferry services, and a consensus was reached. Because there was give and take, because there was an air of co-operation among all stakeholders, users and industry in the system, we were able to come up with the Canada Marine Act.

They came to us as early as this summer and told us not to come back to their communities with more bright ideas about how to modernize the marine sector. They have heard it all. They want us to get on with the job.

[Canada Marine Act, October 10th, 1997]

A lone voice.

[Division No. 5, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Transport stated to the hon. member in question period on September 26, under the Constitution of Canada responsibility for highways, including highway 104 in Nova Scotia, falls under provincial jurisdiction.

For the clarification of the member opposite, I would like to explain it a little further.

Transport Canada's only involvement in highway 104 is to match dollar for dollar $55 million with the province. That amounts to $27.5 million each.

The highway 104 western alignment project is one of a few projects funded through the Transport Canada/Nova Scotia strategic highway improvement program agreement signed in 1993. This agreement makes provisions for both the federal government and the province to each set aside about $70 million, for a total of $140 million, for highway improvements in Nova Scotia.

It is important for the hon. member to note that Transport Canada's involvement in the highway 104 project ends right there. The province of Nova Scotia is the responsible authority for the project. It is the province that decides on the alignment, design, construction standards, tendering process and how to finance the construction costs of the provincial highway system.

The province of Nova Scotia chose to use a public-private partnership concept as a means to construct and finance highway 104. Nova Scotia decided the developer would be allowed to charge tolls as a means of recuperating costs directly from the users of the new highway.

The federal government is neither party to nor responsible for Nova Scotia's public-private agreement with the developer. As the minister has stated to the member, the government's only involvement is to match the funding provided by the province.

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester also expressed an interest in the tendering process for the highway. According to the officials in Transport Canada, the province of Nova Scotia went through an extensive selection and tendering process for highway 104.

[Plastimet, September 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise, on this first full sitting day of the 36th Parliament, to reiterate my call to the Ontario government for an independent public inquiry into the July Plastimet fire in Hamilton.

Conservative Premier Mike Harris and his environment and health ministers have backtracked, flip-flopped on their pledges for an inquiry, citing the pathetic excuse of the need for evidence of wrongdoing.

Is it right that the local MPP had to awaken the provincial environment minister at 3 a.m. before the premier would dispatch air monitoring equipment to the toxic fire site? Why did the province first refuse and then later accept federal government assistance?

There are questions of compliance with the Ontario fire code, inventory lists, security, and locating a recycling plant near a hospital, schools and a high density residential area.

Frustrated with the Harris government smokescreen, my constituents demand an independent public inquiry to clear the smoke and to produce recommendations which might prevent an environmental tragedy like the Plastimet fire from ever happening again.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. We will move all those to the end of today when the Speaker will call for the bells to ring and then at that point we will defer the vote until Monday.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just for clarification for the House and the Bloc members opposite, what we are trying to do here is precisely what we have done in the past, with Bill C-44 for example. We can speed up debate on this particular issue, but at the same time group these amendments so that these amendments can be dealt with at the end, rather than individually throughout the whole period. We are speeding up debate so that everyone will have a chance to speak and then we are grouping these at the end of the day so that we can deal with them at once at the end.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have unanimous consent to suspend the proceedings of the House for about five minutes to straighten this matter out so that we can proceed quickly thereafter.