Stan Keyes

[Canada Marine Act, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I consider it a great privilege to rise in the House. Today I am speaking in support of the proposed Canada marine act which was introduced on June 10, 1996.

The new Canada marine act will enable ports to respond more effectively to the needs of their customers and will eliminate needless bureaucratic interference in the marine sector. Modernization of the marine sector has a direct link to jobs and growth. A stronger and more efficient marine transportation system will improve Canada's international trade performance. That means jobs right here in Canada.

The legislation will make it easier for ports to operate according to business principles. It will enable the Government of Canada to commercialize the operations of the seaway and to improve the way pilotage authorities and ferry services operate in Canada. It will serve to enhance the competitiveness of our marine sector, preparing it for the 21st century.

At this point I wish to acknowledge the contribution already made to this bill by the Standing Committee on Transport, which undertook a comprehensive study of the national marine sector early in May of 1995. The SCOT report contained a number of recommendations to improve the marine system, many of which have been addressed in the legislation.

I would like to address the main elements of Bill C-44. I want to begin with ports. The major ports in Canada will be managed by Canada port authorities. These CPAs will operate under the following guiding principles. Any port can apply to become a CPA, and there is a process in place to evaluate criteria proposed in this legislation. I expect anywhere from 10 to 15 ports will meet the criteria and be eligible for CPA status in the very near future.

Port authorities will be established by letters patent as non-share capital corporations and will pay an annual amount to the crown based on gross revenues.

The board of directors will consist of a federal, provincial and municipal appointment and then a majority of directors nominated by the port users. Boards of directors will have a defined code of conduct and conflict of interest provisions as set out in their letters patent and regulations.

For the port users, local communities and financial community there is a new public accountability regime with new disclosure requirements that will ensure access to more detailed information. This accountability is achieved by an unprecedented transparency of operations and through rigorous disclosure requirements.

The following documents and procedures will be made public on a mandatory basis. There will be an annual report. There will be an annual audit, a public land use plan requiring public input in the development process and amendment process. There will be annual meetings throughout, open to the pubic. Directors' and officers' compensation and benefits will be reported in the annual report.

There are further aspects of the accountability regime which will be put in place by the proposed Canada marine act.

The port authority will be required by law to have financial audits conducted annually in accordance with generally accepted auditing practices. Furthermore, a special examination of the management, operations and financial performance will be conducted no less than every five years and the results reported to the Minister of Transport.

Perhaps the most important accountability mechanism stems from the fact that ports will have to raise their financing in the private sector.

Financing will depend on what the market sees as the realistic future cash flows of the ports. Their development aspirations will be subjected to ordinary measures of commercial risk. The government will no longer be responsible for their debt. In fact, this means they have to be more efficient than they are today. The government will not be on the hook for their liabilities.

The end result is a system where port authorities will be accountable to their customers, their local communities, their financial community, federal, provincial and municipal governments.

We are moving the decision making and accountability out of Ottawa and into the boards of directors of the new port authorities. We are ensuring financial responsibility by having the financial community decide on new port investment.

We are keeping title to the federal lands that are entrusted to the new boards and we remain accountable for important framework issues such as safety. We think these are reforms that will energize our ports and contribute to Canada's growth of jobs and prosperity.

For regional and local ports, the changes to the port system offer an opportunity for local interests in all provinces to manage ports in a manner more responsive to local needs with lower costs and better service.

This act enables these ports to be transferred as operating ports to local interests and, in some cases, other federal departments.

I am pleased to report that since January Transport Canada has already 47 port sites in the Arctic that were transferred to the coast guard April 1, 1996. Twelve fishing recreational port sites were transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans April 1, 1996.

Order in council approval for 199 harbours was proclaimed in June 1996. Fifty-four letters of intent have been already signed as of this month. Five port sites will be transferred to local interests by the end of this month.

I move on to the challenges facing the seaway. Quite frankly, they are formidable. We have a $7 billion asset supported by a declining traffic base and $70 million in revenue.

If we do not take steps now to put the seaway on a stronger footing, we will have a big problem on our hands in a few years. The key to the future viability of the seaway lies in achieving efficiencies, reducing costs and making the system more competitive. Part III of the Canada Marine Act enables the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements with a non-profit corporation or any other private sector interests to operate and maintain all or part of the seaway.

We now have an agreement in principle for a new operator to be put in place, perhaps as early as January and the existing seaway authority would be dissolved at an appropriate date.

Another section of the bill deals with marine pilotage. Maintaining an effective pilotage regime to ensure safety and environmental protection is the primary concern of the government, users, the pilotage authorities and pilots alike.

The Canada Marine Act includes amendments to the Pilotage Act which will allow for faster setting of tariffs to prohibit appropriations from the government and to provide for a ministerial review in consultation with the authorities and users in 1998.

These changes will serve the users better and ensure that the authorities operate in a more cost efficient and cost effective manner. Safety and environmental protection will continue to be the government's highest priority when making decisions with respect to marine pilotage. The changes in the delivery of pilotage services will ensure that the safety of marine transportation is maintained.

Finally, with respect to ferry services, the Canada Marine Act will permit the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements with the private sector or other levels of government to provide the constitutional or other services that are currently provided by Marine Atlantic. These provisions are included in the act to facilitate the increased commercialization of ferry operations as outlined in the national marine policy.

Again, the government will maintain its regulatory role for safety and it will continue to support constitutionally required services.

This has just been a quick overview of the proposed Canada Marine Act. The goals of the marine policy are reflected in this legislation. We want our marine sector to be more competitive, more commercially driven, free from Ottawa bureaucracy and more responsive to the users.

We believe this legislation will help us to achieve these goals and prepare the marine sector and transportation system for the competitive demands of the 21st century.

[Transport, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refuses to accept the fact that there are procedures in place where the paperwork entails that the maintenance individuals in charge of that aircraft are the ones responsible to ensure the safety of that aircraft.

In the case of WestJet of which he is speaking, it is a responsible airline. WestJet is working diligently to meet all of the requirements that are being put down by the Minister of Transport. Unfortunately yes, the travelling public were a bit inconvenienced in their flight plans, but the majority of WestJet passengers I am sure would agree that it is better to deal with any deficiencies in the aircraft on the ground and not at 40,000 feet.

[Transport, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the safety audit that identified the two deficiencies is part of established procedures that are going on and are well understood within the entire airline industry.

We expect that all airlines will meet the highest safety standards and it is our job to ensure that they do. Until such time as that happens and the concerns of the minister are met, the minister is not prepared to risk the safety of the travelling public.

[Nipissing And James Bay Railway Company Act, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, I consider it a privilege to respond to the question of the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup regarding the Aéroports de Montréal.

Procedures have been put in place by Transport Canada to ensure that ADM respects the terms and conditions of all the agreements which it has entered into with the department.

With respect to what the hon. member views as a lack of co-operation on behalf of the ADM concerning its project for changing the role of Dorval and Mirabel international airports, to the best of our knowledge ADM has made available to the general public all of the studies on which it based its decision to reorganize operations at Mirabel and Dorval airports.

Aéroports de Montréal has also held many information sessions with the different municipalities surrounding these airports, the ones named by the hon. member. The general public was invited to attend these sessions and voice their concerns.

Transport Canada has responded to each and every complaint or question received and where required has provided the name, address and telephone number of a suitable ADM contact who could provide information. Any information which has been requested to date has already been made public and generally available by ADM.

At this point in time, to the best of our knowledge and based on the information that ADM has made available, there does not appear to be any violation of the terms and conditions of our agreements with them.

If the hon. member has evidence of any non-compliance on the part of ADM we would be happy to receive it and examine in immediately.

With respect to the environmental impact of ADM's decision, the Minister of Transport does not hold under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act the authority to undertake or require an environmental assessment of Aéroports de Montréal's plans for Dorval and Mirabel.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not apply to all projects regarding airports operated by local airport authorities. It applies when there is a project, as defined by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, involving a federal authority and a trigger under section 5.0 of the act. Triggers would include things like federal funding, federal licence or a permit or a decision under a lease.

The transfer of international flights from Mirabel to Dorval does not involve any of these.

[Nipissing And James Bay Railway Company Act, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I consider it a privilege to respond to the question from the hon. member for Bourassa.

I find it somewhat puzzling that the hon. member has asked this question be addressed as part of the adjournment debate. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was very forthright in her initial response to his inquiries. Her position and the position of her department is clear.

The actions taken are in accordance with the law and regulations laid out in the Canadian Immigration Act. It is just that simple. There is nothing draconian or mean-spirited about the government's actions in this case. It is simply carrying out its duties by the rules. We have a good immigration system. It has served this country well over the years and it continues to do so.

We have a duty to defend the integrity of this system. This means respecting the laws and regulations that govern it. I do not see why in this specific case we would ignore the acts and regulations relating to immigration. It is not up to the government to pick and choose which laws it enforces and which it disregards.

I know that the hon. member for Bourassa would like me to get into more details of this case but I cannot do that. The Privacy Act simply does not permit me to do it.

As the hon. member is aware from his own meetings with Mr. Regalado and from reading the newspapers, I can say that Mr. Regalado complied with the legal requirement to leave Canada and has now re-entered Canada on the basis of a minister's permit to allow him time to apply for permanent residence. Like anyone else

who applies for permanent residence in Canada, Mr. Regalado will have to meet all immigration requirements if he wants to be landed.

The government has acted with compassion, understanding and fairness in this instance. It has fully respected both the spirit and the letter of the Canada-Quebec accord.

[Transport, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. He has been a hard working member of the transport committee. He pops in now and then and asks the right questions of government.

To be frank, the government took on a policy to do the right thing. CN now is a private company. CN is to make the tough business decisions that will need to be taken for the economic disciplines necessary in order to carry that company into a successful economic solid base in order to compete worldwide. If those decisions are going to be made, they are going to be made by a private company.

The government and this minister will always ensure that safety is the number one priority. Safety will be the utmost concern of the government and nothing will be done without the careful eye of the Minister of Transport, making sure safety is the number one issue for that company and any other railway company in the country.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is a technical amendment that does not affect any of the provisions in the bill. It is only a matter of timing.

Prior to the amendment all sections of the bill were to become effective upon royal assent. The intent of the amendment is to make three sections, sections 11, 13 and 100, come into force on the transfer date, which is expected to be 60 days after royal assent.

Section 11 pertains to the designation to the international civil aviation organization of Nav Canada as the Canadian authority for air traffic control services and aeronautical information services.

Section 13 provides Nav Canada with the right to plan and manage the airspace subject to the governor in council's right to make regulations respecting the classification and use of that airspace.

Section 100 is a consequential amendment to the Aeronautics Act which removes the authority of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence to impose charges for air navigation services.

If this authority were to be removed prior to the transfer date, it would have implications for the revenue stream of Nav Canada in its first few days of operation. This would be the case because of section 33 of the bill, which states: "The charges imposed by the corporation on or after the transfer date for air navigation services shall be the charges that were imposed by the minister immediately before the transfer date".

If the minister did not have the authority to impose the charges on the day before the transfer, Nav Canada would have no charges in place as it began operations. Nav Canada would be able to impose its own charges within two weeks, but the gap and the degree of uncertainty associated with the process would complicate its initial financing.

The commercialization of the air navigation system will provide significant benefits to Canadians. I urge my colleagues in this place to support this amendment as a way of ensuring this initiative takes off to the best possible start.

[Railway Safety Act, June 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I am trying my hardest, but the hon. member has given a five to ten minute speech and he has said nothing, not a word, about what we are debating here, the Railway Safety Act and the amendments to that bill.

[Railway Safety Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for debate on this bill which incorporates amendments to the Railway Safety Act. We on this side of the House believe this will be a very useful piece of legislation and we propose that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport before second reading.

The Railway Safety Act is a relatively new piece of legislation which came into effect in January 1988. As is often the case with new legislation, the act required that a statutory review of its provisions be undertaken five years after coming into force. Such a review was carried out in 1994. The report of the committee that reviewed the Railway Safety Act was tabled in this House on February 15, 1995 and the government moved very quickly with a response which was tabled on June 8, 1995.

I am happy to say that the review found Canadian railways to have a good safety record when compared with other modes of transportation and when compared with other countries. On page 16 of its final report, the committee concluded that "railways in Canada operate safely. On the basis of numerous evaluative measurements and comparisons with other nations and modes of transportation, the railway mode is an extremely safe means of moving freight and people in this country". The committee also indicated in its report that the "work related safety of railways and the manner in which their operations are carried out have clearly shown improvement".

The committee looked at the statutory structure and emphasized that the underlying principles of the Railway Safety Act remain valid and these key principles can be summarized as: one, the government sets the standards; two, railway companies decide how to meet these standards; and three, government monitors for compliance and enforces where necessary.

The changes made with the passage of the Railway Safety Act in 1988 were significant in that they marked a deviation from the old command and control approach to railway regulation that had been the norm until that time. I am pleased that the review committee confirmed that this enlightened approach to regulation is very appropriate.

The committee made a number of recommendations for improving the railway safety regime in Canada. The amendments before the House represent the legislative changes that are required to implement many of those recommendations.

Let us address the consultative process. Last summer Transport Canada carried out extensive consultations on the form of the legislative amendments. An industry group was established with representation from the railways, railway labour, the Canada Safety Council and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to review the various proposals.

I am pleased to say that the parties worked diligently and achieved consensus. There was a high degree of unanimity on safety matters and the various views expressed are reflected in these particular amendments. Of course there was not complete unanimity, but this was an excellent opportunity for all points of view to be aired and to resolve many, many of the differences.

Our government has also discussed these amendments with provincial representatives who made a number of suggestions. These suggestions have been incorporated into the amendments.

The amendments to the Railway Safety Act that are being proposed cover the majority of the recommendations put forward by the review committee. One of the key amendments relates to the problem of train whistling in communities. The whistle is an important safety feature but it can be very disruptive for people who live close to a railway line. We are probably all familiar with some of our constituents who have approached us on this issue.

The government's proposal, which was endorsed by municipal representatives from across the country, is as follows: Where a municipality has passed a motion and where the location meets Transport Canada conditions for whistling cessation, the trains would be required to cease whistling. I believe this is a workable solution to what has been a very difficult problem.

Railway highway crossings contribute to the greatest number of rail related accidents, deaths and injuries. The review recommended that Transport Canada prepare a plan aimed at reducing the number of crossing accidents by 50 per cent within 10 years.

There are a number of items that will require additional legislative powers and these are included in the proposed amendments. They include measures to promote crossing closures as well as to control the way in which key crossings are used.

A number of the more technical amendments will streamline the regulatory process and reduce bureaucratic burden. They will reduce government involvement in unproductive areas but will allow government to continue to cover the essential items.

It should be noted that some of the recommendations, such as those relating to branch line abandonment, have already been covered through the Canada Transportation Act, Bill C-14.

A number of the recommendations, particularly those relating to co-ordination with provinces, grade crossing improvements and studying the effects of train whistle cessation at crossings do not require legislation and Transport Canada is already working to find a solution to these.

The Railway Safety Act has fostered consultation between all parties that have an interest in safety. A number of other legislative changes will streamline the regulatory process and provide even greater involvement of railway labour in the development of new rules.

The review committee recommended that the statutory framework be changed so that the railways could propose performance standards and a comprehensive safety plan, both of which would be approved by Transport Canada. Once again these proposals will permit this to take place.

We are also taking this opportunity to revise and update railway security provisions. Problems can arise from terrorist acts and occurrences such as bomb threats. We do not see these as significant threats to the railway system at present. This therefore is the time when we should take care to ensure that we have the right statutory underpinning should such powers be necessary in the future.

The security provisions in the legislation have been recast using our model, the Marine Transportation Security Act, a most recent piece of security legislation. We hope these provisions will not be necessary, but we are happy we will have them in place as a good basic foundation should such measures become necessary in the future.

Finally let us examine the broader aspects of the legislation. The review of railway safety concluded that our railways have a good safety record and that we have reason for confidence in the regulatory regime. When dealing with a topic such as safety, however, we must be diligent. We must continually be seeking better ways to do things. We should always strive to improve our record.

The government has taken a number of steps to revitalize Canada's rail sector, such as the privatization of the Canadian National last year. These initiatives will go a long way toward strengthening Canada's transportation infrastructure and establishing a sound base to carry our railways well into the next century.

However and in spite of these changes the government will continue to place emphasis on the most important aspect of all: safety. We will continue to be diligent where safety is concerned. The proposed changes before the House today will streamline and improve the legislative base for railway safety in the years to come.

I therefore urge all my hon. colleagues in this place to support the legislation and agree to refer the bill to committee.

[Federal Court Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am confused by the arguments being presented by the Bloc members opposite.

The reason I am confused about the hon. member's amendment is that the request that is being made is for the appointment of a judge to a tax court. Where we have to draw from the pool and the pool has to be drawn from the pool of lawyers, constitutionally it says that judges of the courts of Quebec shall be selected from the bar of that province. It behoves me to understand where the Bloc would not be siding on a rule of law that is stated in the Constitution and a rule of law that is stated in the province of Quebec where it says the judges of the courts of Quebec shall be selected from the bar of that province. Notaries are not members of the bar.

The Bloc opposition is trying to mix apples and oranges. We are not talking about a constitutional correction. We are talking about where the pool is being drawn from. The pool is being drawn from the bar of the province and notaries are not members of that bar.

Why hold us to something that is law in Quebec?