Mr. Speaker, the general thrust of Bill C-9 is compatible with Reform Party policy. Several of us voted in favour of its previous incarnation as Bill C-44. However that is not to say there is no room for improvement.
I had been looking forward to working with the minister and his department to address some of the concerns that have been expressed with respect to this legislation. I found them to be very forthcoming and helpful. It is regrettable that the co-operative atmosphere here has been so poisoned by the contemptuous, I might even say contemptible actions of his ministerial colleagues in the House a couple of days ago that it is going to be difficult.
During the summer I had the opportunity to discuss the legislation with many interested parties. Others have come to the Hill to express their views since Parliament reopened. During the Thanksgiving break I plan to go to Vancouver to consult with stakeholders there.
Up to now I have found remarkable consensus among shipping companies, stevedoring firms, unions, even shippers, both in general support for the legislation and in the identification of shortcomings. In the limited time available for me today I can only touch briefly on a few areas where we would like to see further work.
The clauses of the bill which define the capacity and power of port authorities are inconsistent with the stated objective of allowing them to operate according to business principles. They are neither fish nor fowl.
The port authorities will have the responsibility to operate with commercial discipline but they will be denied the tools to do so. They may not, for example, diversify by establishing new subsidiaries on port property. Their borrowing and investment powers will be rigorously constrained and they will be subject to the vagaries of ministerial discretion in the setting of the annual fee that they must pay to the federal government out of gross, not net, revenues.
Port authorities will have to be self-sufficient but the minister will be empowered to continue federal contributions to the seaway for capital works. This constitutes unfair competition for railways and deep water ports, courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. Again, the legislation is inconsistent with the expressed objective of commercialization. It is the partial pregnancy syndrome that afflicts the government in so many of its endeavours.
The bill does not address the problem of excessive costs and featherbedding arising from pilotage monopolies. There is no incentive to cut pilotage costs by certifying the masters of Canadian vessels that ply the same inland waters back and forth on a routine basis or by the employment of available new technology.
The proposed boards of directors for port authorities are potential patronage havens as well as being a mechanism for continued political control. Government participation in entities which will be managing crown assets is normal and acceptable but if the government is serious about commercialization, indirect government control is not. Again, we are looking at partial pregnancy.
The size of the proposed boards, seven to eleven members, is far too large for most ports and the majority will be appointed by the minister, ostensibly in consultation with port users. Ah, patronage joy.
The Liberals should remember that governments come and governments go. They will not be forever in power. Do they really want to set up such a juicy system, not just for themselves now but for whomever comes behind them? Their mandatory provision for individual directors to be appointed by host municipalities and provinces is defensible and sensible. Each jurisdiction gets one.
It is unfortunate that there is no provision for labour representation on each board. This could readily be done by specifying that there be one on each board. It could be done without increasing the size of the board simply by reducing the number of ministerial appointments from these famous lists.
The elimination of ports police is problematical. I do not believe that was well thought out and it should be reconsidered. There is a lot more to port policing than guarding the security of cargo.
Sea ports, especially the larger ones like Vancouver, are wonderful funnels for contraband, for illegal entrance and they are targets for organized crime. When mobsters get the upper hand in a port they are extremely hard to dislodge.
Few municipalities have the resources to properly police a port. If the government is determined to do away with ports police it should seriously consider establishing a specialized branch within the RCMP.
Finally, there is no mechanism for the resolution of disputes with shippers. If the Canada Transportation Act can contain provisions with respect to railways, why can we not have something equivalent in Bill C-9 with respect to ports? Why should they be treated differently?
I cannot read the minister's mind. I do not know the intent of fast tracking this bill to committee. In theory, getting into committee early seems like a great idea, a chance for MPs to sit down and reason together away from the hurly-burly of the House and work together for the common good. It is a great theory but in practice in the last Parliament we Reformers learned the hard way that this is generally a policy for stifling any meaningful debate and ramming a bill through to the report stage according to ministerial specifications.
Therefore we do not support the procedure. We will vote against it. If subsequent events prove that our suspicions were unjustified I will personally apologize to the minister and nobody will be happier than I.
