TRAN Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 18, 1997

• 1535

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Order, please.

It has been ordered that Bill C-9, An Act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, providing for the establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports, for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway and ferry services and other matters related to maritime trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and amending and repealing other Acts as a consequence be referred forthwith to the standing committee. We are dealing with this today.

We agreed as a committee the other day on the procedure for this meeting. On the clause-by-clause consideration, unless committee members object, I will take the first two rounds for myself. The purpose is to try to eliminate as many clauses as we can, if we agree there's no need to debate it for half an hour.

So I will run through all the clauses. I will ask “shall clause 14 carry?” If I hear one person say “carried” and there's no one yelling out “pull it” or “retirez-la”, I will consider that it has been carried. That's why I've been provided with magic markers; I will colour them yellow when they're done. The purpose of this exercise is to colour everything and go home some day.

After doing that I will take a second round, the purpose of which will be to resolve amendments that are of a technical nature, amendments that we can resolve without any debate—that means none. So if there's a change of word or a comma or an “i”, if we can agree that we will resolve it, move that it be amended, pass it as amended, and colour it....

After that we will be left with the work to be done. If I go too fast, let me know. My intention is to allow as much time as possible. If I let the debate carry on too long when we are in amendments, it's very simple; somebody will move that we call the question. Then without debate I will ask for a vote and 50% plus one will bring the issue to a vote.

The important thing at this point is for you to be astute so that you can direct me to pull a clause if that's what you want.

Therefore, the consideration of clause 1 is postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1).

Shall clause 2 carry?

I see that there's an amendment on clause 2. I should be hearing somebody say “pull it”.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Carried.

The Chairman: I want to be fair with everybody. If you look at your minutes today you will see that there's a government-1 amendment. If you don't yell “pull it”, you're passing it. Okay?

Mr. Stan Keyes: I move to carry it.

The Chairman: I want to be fair with everybody.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I don't see a problem, Mr. Chairman. You want to revisit the ones that have amendments in the second round.

The Chairman: Yes. On the first round, if you have any question on any clause, if you don't yell “pull it”, you'll need 50% plus one to bring it back. It's time to concentrate.

I will start again.

(Clause 2 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)

(Clauses 5 and 6 allowed to stand)

(Clause 7 agreed to)

(Clause 8 allowed to stand)

(Clause 9 agreed to)

(Clause 10 allowed to stand)

(Clause 11 agreed to)

(Clause 12 allowed to stand)

(Clause 13 agreed to)

• 1540

(Clauses 14 and 15 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 16 to 24 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 25 allowed to stand)

(Clause 26 agreed to)

(Clauses 27 to 29 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 30 agreed to)

(Clause 31 allowed to stand)

(Clause 32 to 36 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 37 and 38 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 39 to 44 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 45 and 46 allowed to stand)

(Clause 47 agreed to)

(Clause 48 allowed to stand)

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, can I interrupt for a second. If you run into a block of clauses, such as 49 to 53, for example, maybe we can....

The Chairman: I will do that. If you have a problem, interrupt and I'll allow more time.

(Clause 49 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 50 to 53 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 54 allowed to stand)

(Clause 55 agreed to)

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Would you repeat what happens to 54 and 55?

The Chairman: Clause 54 is allowed to stand and clause 55 is agreed to.

Mr. Michel Guimond: It's agreed to?

The Chairman: It's agreed to.

[English]

(Clause 56 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 57 to 61 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 62 and 63 allowed to stand)

• 1545

(Clause 64 agreed to)

(Clause 65 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 66 to 71 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 72 to 74 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 75 and 76 agreed to)

(Clause 77 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 78 and 79 agreed to)

(Clause 80 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 81 and 82 agreed to)

(Clauses 83 to 85 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 86 agreed to)

(Clauses 87 to 89 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 90 to 95 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 96 to 98 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 99 and 100 agreed to)

(Clause 101 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 102 and 103 agreed to)

(Clauses 104 and 105 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 106 and 107 agreed to)

(Clause 108 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 109 to 126 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 127 allowed to stand)

(Clause 128 agreed to)

(Clause 129 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 130 and 131 agreed to)

(Clauses 132 to 134 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 135 agreed to)

(Clause 136 allowed to stand)

(Clause 137 agreed to)

(Clauses 138 and 139 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 140 to 143 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 144 allowed to stand)

(Clause 145 agreed to)

(Clause 146 allowed to stand)

(Clause 147 agreed to)

(Clause 148 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 149 to 155 inclusive agreed to)

• 1550

(Clauses 156 and 157 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 158 to 161 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 162 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 163 to 181 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 182 to 184 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 185 to 193 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 194 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 195 to 203 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 204 and 205 allowed to stand)

(Schedule allowed to stand)

The Chairman: If you will allow me, I will attempt to resolve amendments we all agree on in order to prevent us from debating something for an hour.

For this run I will need the participation of departments, research, the clerk, and of course every member. If there's a need for any debate at all, we're not going to deal with it. Fair enough?

We'll move to clause 2.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: We have three motions on clause 8. Can we expect some debate on this? Yes. We will come back to it.

Do we expect debate on clause 10?

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Yes.

The Chairman: We will come back.

Do we expect debate on clause 12? Is it technical?

Mr. Stan Keyes: There's going to be some discussion on clause 12, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Will there be discussion on clause 14?

• 1555

Mr. Stan Keyes: I just might alert you, and the committee too, that there will also be a withdrawal of an earlier motion put forward by the government on clause 12.

The Chairman: Is it something on which we can have a consensus without debate?

Mr. Stan Keyes: We might be able to. It's clause 12, line 5, page 10. It's the new numbering.

The Chairman: On clause 5 you have amendments renumbered 5 and 6, the two amendments, G-5 and G-6.

Are you withdrawing?

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): We're withdrawing G-6.

The Chairman: So G-6 has been withdrawn.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, wait.

The Chairman: We will come back to clause 12.

Let's move on. We're on clause 14.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Can we resolve clause 14 without delay, without debate?

An hon. member: I doubt it.

(On clause 25—No appropriation)

The Chairman: Can we resolve clause 25 without debate?

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): So moved.

The Chairman: It is so moved by Mr. Cullen that we deal with G-9 without debate. Everybody agrees we can do that, so what are your wishes on clause 25 as amended?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 25 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 27—Canada Business Corporations Act)

The Chairman: Can we resolve this?

Mr. Stan Keyes: It's mostly technical.

The Chairman: It is moved by Mr. Cullen.

If I'm going too fast....

Mr. Lee Morrison: What's the number of the amendment?

The Chairman: It's G-10 on page 25.

Mr. Stan Keyes: It's all about corporate governance and financial regs.

Mr. Lee Morrison: It looks like a pretty imposing amendment. Maybe we should look at it later.

The Chairman: We'll come back to it.

(Clause 27 allowed to stand)

The Chairman: Can we deal with the Reform amendment to clause 28?

We're moving on to clause 29.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 29 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: What about clause 31?

Mr. Stan Keyes: There is no use getting into any kind of a discussion now.

The Chairman: We'll move on to clause 37.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 37 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 38 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 45 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: What about clause 46?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Without debate, I doubt it.

The Chairman: We'll move on to clause 48.

(On clause 48—Navigable Waters Protection Act)

Mr. Stan Keyes: This is technical, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Roy Cullen: So moved.

The Chairman: Are members prepared to vote without debate on the amendment?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Hang on. I think we should look at that one.

The Chairman: We will come back to clause 48.

(Clause 48 allowed to stand)

• 1600

The Chairman: We will come back to clause 49 because we need to debate it. We'll move to clause 54.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 54 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 56 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Clause 62 is a new clause from the Reform Party. We will move on to clause 63.

(On clause 63—Regulations)

The Chairman: This is a new clause.

Mr. Stan Keyes: These are government motions 19 and 20, Mr. Chairman, and both are very technical in nature, not substantive.

The Chairman: I would like to allow enough time for the opposition to look at clause 63 to see if you agree that we can vote on this without debate. No objection?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 63 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 65 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 72 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Is clause 73 technical, Mr. Keyes? Yes. Do members agree to vote on this without debate?

Mr. Lee Morrison: No.

The Chairman: We'll move on to clause 74.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 74 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 77 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 80 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 83 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 84 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 85 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 87 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 88 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 89 as amended agreed to)

• 1605

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 96 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 97 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 98 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 101 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 104 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 105 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Are members prepared to vote on clause 108 without debate? No. We'll come back to clause 108 and move to clause 127.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 127 as amended agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 129 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: I didn't hear anyone ask me to pull clause 132.

An hon. member: Yes, we did.

The Chairman: We're going to have some debate on it. We'll come back to it.

Will there be debate on clause 133? Yes.

Will there be debate on clause 134? Is that for the Bloc? Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: You requested debate on clause 134.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, on clauses 132, 133 and 134.

The Chairman: They require debate?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, please.

[English]

The Chairman: We will move to clause 136.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 136 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Clause 138 is moved by Mr. Fontana. We have two amendments here. Can we combine them? Do they fit together?

I need coaching from the clerk, the researchers, and the department. Don't get the impression I don't trust politicians.

Are members of this committee prepared to vote on clause 138 without debate? No. We will come back to clause 138.

We will move to clause 139.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 139 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Can we deal with clause 144 without debate? No.

We'll go to clause 146.

• 1610

(On clause 146)

The Chairman: The amendment has been moved by Mr. Fontana. Are members of this committee prepared to vote on the amendment to clause 146 without debate?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: On the main motion as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Chairman, new clause 146.1, which is what G-44 moves to add to the bill, is a separate clause from 146. Clause 146 is without amendment and would need to be carried separately.

The Chairman: So we insert new clause 146.1 between clauses 146 and 147. It should have been numbered 146.1.

We will go back to what we called 146 and we will ask if new clause 146.1 carries.

It's not in our book; it's on our agenda. When I asked for a vote on 146, we did it, but it was wrong. I asked you the wrong question. I should have asked you to vote on new clause 146.1.

Is that correct?

The Clerk: You also have to carry clause 146, which hasn't been carried. It has no amendment to it.

The Chairman: That's correct. I will do both right now.

(Clause 146 agreed to)

The Chairman: What we have in front of us is new clause 146.1. Do members agree to vote on 146.1 without debate?

Mr. Lee Morrison: No.

The Chairman: We are coming back to new clause 146.1. I'm sorry for misleading you.

Shall 148 carry?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chairman: We'll come back.

Are we prepared to deal with clause 156 without debate?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chairman: We'll move to 157.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 157 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Is there a reason for requiring debate on clause 162? You don't have to tell us what the debate would be. If you tell us there's a need for debate, we'll move on.

Mr. Bruce Bowie (Director Marine Policy, Department of Transport): I just wanted to ask for clarification. My understanding is that there may be an intention to introduce a second amendment to clause 162, in which case you would have to leave it open for debate later on. Is that correct?

The Chairman: If there is someone who plans to put another amendment on that article that we don't have here, we should pull it.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Let's put it off, Mr. Chairman, for a little later.

• 1615

The Chairman: We won't deal with 162. It's completely normal that we should get that guidance from the department. That's why we invited them here.

Clause 182 is a new clause. Should it be numbered 182.1? Okay. On your agenda, ladies and gentlemen, what you have after clause 181 is 182.1. Therefore I'm asking you at this point, shall 182 carry?

(Clause 182 agreed to)

The Chairman: Now we are dealing with 182.1, which is a new clause, G-48. Is this committee prepared to vote on 182.1 without debate?

Mr. Lee Morrison: I'd appreciate clarification as to what the implications are.

The Chairman: We will come back to 182.1.

Are members of this committee prepared to vote on the amendment to clause 183 without debate?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 183 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Next is clause 184.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Move it off, Mr. Chairman. We won't deal with it now.

The Chairman: We'll deal with it later.

Next is clause 194.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Move it off, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We'll deal with it later.

The Chairman: Clause 204—the new clause. Should that be 204.1? What you have on your agenda after 203 should be 204.1. I'm asking you if clause 204 will carry.

(Clause 204 agreed to)

The Chairman: What we have in front of us now is new clause 204.1.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I move new clause 204.1.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Next is clause 205.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We'll deal with it later, Mr. Chairman. It's the schedule.

The Chairman: We'll come back to the schedule.

Now we can go back to the front. The first clause we need to deal with is clause 8.

(On clause 8—Letters patent)

The Chairman: We have three amendments presented by Reform. Would you like to open the debate on clause 8?

Mr. Lee Morrison: On the first amendment—the proposal to reduce the minimum number of directors to five—this is in keeping with the feed that I was getting from the harbour commissions. Most of them operate now with three to five commissioners. Their feeling is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. They don't need the extra problems and the extra overhead of having all those people to contend with.

I thought that five was a good Canadian compromise between the three that they suggested and the seven suggested by the government.

The Chairman: Unless the committee objects, I will be asking the parliamentary secretary to respond to most of these amendments. Is that acceptable? Okay. Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Objection noted, Mr. Fontana.

Thanks Mr. Chairman. Just as a point of clarification, I, too, have been in discussions with the harbour commissions, and they understood the reasoning behind the national marine policy that was the forerunner of this particular bill. The purpose of moving to seven, nine, or eleven was that the user representatives on the board would outnumber the government appointments. If you had a case where you had five members on a board, you would have a federal, a provincial, a municipal, and two user reps. In other words, your government people would outnumber your user reps. The intention of the legislation and the policy that preceded it was to ensure that the user reps on the board had majority over government appointments.

• 1620

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. Stan Keyes: And they were amenable to that explanation.

The Chairman: Is there any other debate on clause 8?

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I have said at previous meetings that, when a large municipality encompasses a large portion of the perimeter of the port, the present wording enables it to make its voice heard on the board of directors, whereas the other municipalities will not be heard.

Mr. Chairman, I will be introducing an amendment, not necessarily today, but perhaps one day soon, the purpose of which will be to ensure that each of the municipalities where there is a port perimeter can be represented on the board of directors. It's a matter of fairness. They must all be able to make their voices heard. Personally, I can't subscribe to the wording of clause 8 as it has been presented to us today.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there other debate on clause 8?

Mr. Stan Keyes: There are two more.

The Chairman: Okay. Is that R-1?

Mr. Stan Keyes: We never voted on the first amendment.

The Chairman: We're dealing with R-1.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Call the vote.

The Chairman: What is your wish on clause 8, amendment R-1?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote on this clause.

[English]

The Chairman: A recorded vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Are we voting on R-1?

An hon. member: Yes.

[English]

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 7) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We will now deal with clause 8, amendment R-2.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I'm afraid the arguments of the parliamentary secretary don't hold on this one. They probably won't hold.

You're trying to impose a great army of directors onto these authorities. It's a well-known principle, managerially, militarily, or however you want, that the fewer chiefs you have making decisions, the better it is and the easier it is. For that reason I suggested nine, again as a compromise.

The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the member for his intervention, but what we have to remember here is that while at one point the member argues the logic of having a seven-man board at certain port locations, the same logic can be applied in some port locations where you want to have the flexibility. You want to have the flexibility in some port locations so if it's decided by that port that it might be necessary to put an environmental expert on the board—

• 1625

Mr. Joe Fontana: You shouldn't have said that.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'm just giving examples here about other representation on the board that's acceptable by the board, that they deem to be needed by the board, and that's acceptable to the government. Then you'll have a board of up to eleven as a max. It's the flexibility. It might not be used at all at the current time, but you want to leave that door open for the future.

Mr. Lee Morrison: But your definitions in the bill of who can be on the board are pretty specific. You have your limitation as to who can sit; therefore what you're saying is a bit specious. I don't think you could have, for example, an environmental expert on the board unless you changed the articles of the port authority.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, but the honourable member has to remember, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will be appointing from lists provided by the user reps. If the user reps provide a list of names of people who the users of the local port interest deem to be important and worth while to be on that board, then who are we or the government to say no, you shouldn't have that person?

So you're allowing for the flexibility of the concerns of the local port, but you're also allowing the opportunity for the port to put forward a name. It's not restrictive, because it is the users who will be putting forward those names on a list. While you call them user reps, they're also individuals whose names go on a list who have to be scrutinized and have to meet the criteria of conflict of interest and all the rest of it. All those considerations have to be made by the minister, but at the same time, it allows them the flexibility to adapt to the local port interest.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): I have a question to raise.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Suppose the port authority, as you mentioned, from the users, wanted to suggest you put on someone, say, in environment. Would they not, rather than increase the number, simply place somebody under it, with a motion of the authority to have somebody as a consultant rather than a full member of the board? Wouldn't that be more applicable to the use of the board?

Mr. Stan Keyes: That would be a determination of the local port interest. If they feel they would have a better use of a person at a consultant level—

Mr. Roy Bailey: I too have some concerns about numbers. I just gave some advice in the past week to cut the board down. It was a different situation.

I recognize that sometimes a five-man board, or indeed a seven-man board, is probably more effective in dealing with something than eleven. I agree with my colleague that once you get the boards larger, you run into the little cliques developing on the board and so on, and you run with more animosity with eleven than you do with seven. But I can understand what you're saying.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We just don't want to be dictating to the local port.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Right.

The Chairman: For the record, Mr. Morrison moves these amendments.

I'll call the question on clause 8, amendment R-2.

(Motion negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Next is amendment R-3, clause 8.

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Among the three amendments to the clause, of course, is the substantive one.

Everyone I have talked to who has any interest whatsoever in this legislation is opposed to the idea of a charge based on gross revenue. It's not good business practice. It's very unusual in any endeavour to have it based on gross.

This amendment would allow all port authorities to pay an equal rate on their net income, which would be duly calculated, as laid out in the amendment. If you were to entertain this amendment, you would have an awful lot of happy campers out there in the harbours business who unanimously, as far as I can tell, want to see this done.

• 1630

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I would like to defer to the accountant on our committee, Roy Cullen.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When we initially looked at this particular clause...and I still have some sympathy for some of the authorities who would like to see it based on that. To my mind, anyway, you first of all need to differentiate between those who would argue, for example, for a dividend....

I don't have much sympathy for that. The reality is that if it's a matter of reinvesting in the local port or sending a dividend back to Ottawa, I don't think the local board will be much inclined to pay a dividend back to Ottawa.

So there is an expectation, and I think a realistic expectation, that there should be some revenue stream back to the federal government.

Now, if you cut away that option for the moment, then you're looking at a basis of net. At the last Parliament we played around with some of the numbers. If you base it on net, the problem is, there are some ports that are generating profits—and good profits, like Vancouver and perhaps Montreal—and others that aren't. So you end up putting a disproportionate burden on some of the ports that are generating profits.

If you then say, well, for those ports that are making losses or that cannot support this kind of stipend there should be a minimum, some of the witnesses from the ports who came to this committee would say, well, if it's not there, it's not there, so why should we pay a minimum?

You could look then at graduated scales, but the problem is—and I think it's a reasonable expectation of the federal government to maintain a revenue stream—if you start using net you start putting a disproportionate burden on the ports making money.

As well, when you base it on net you're essentially hiding some economic inefficiencies, which I know the Reform Party would have a little bit of difficulty with; you don't differentiate a port with the same revenues...two different ports, same revenues. One earns $1 million profit and one is a loss.

Other things being equal, why should you penalize the port that's being operated efficiently? That's with other things being equal; I know in many cases there will be other explanations.

That's why I think neither is a perfect solution, but at this point, I believe the basis of gross is preferable to move with.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Revenue Canada, which is hardly a philanthropic organization, would not agree with your premise as to on what basis fees should be charged. If you're a bad businessman and you don't make money, you don't pay income tax, either. I think the same thing applies here.

The second point is one you yourself had actually touched on—namely, that these ports do not enter into the port authority circumstances with a level playing field. There are some facing huge capital outlays, which will have to be made after the bill becomes law. Others have already had their capital needs taken care of under the old order.

They certainly are going to be at a considerable advantage over the people who are going to have to go out and dig and scratch and borrow money now and will not even be allowed to deduct the interest from the cost of doing business before they start to pay off the federal government. This isn't fair.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I'm not sure the analogy with income tax is a particularly good one, because this is really not a tax on income. It's a type of royalty or a type of rent, if you like, or stipend, as it's referred to in the act. In British Columbia, for example, and in other provinces there's the concept of stumpage, or royalties paid to the Crown for cutting timber. It's based on more of a gross basis of wood prices. So I don't think the analogy with income tax is entirely appropriate.

Whatever way you do it, whether you base it on net or gross, you're going to create some potential inequities. If you base it on net, the performing ports, the ones that are generating profits, are going to be hit disproportionately harder that are the ones not making any profits. So I don't think there's a perfect solution.

• 1635

On the percentage of stipend, many of the harbour people told us they wanted something they could plan for in the future. That was half the battle, something that was known so they could project the revenues and they could determine what the stipend would be and plan accordingly. I think even the investment community were comfortable with that, at least some of them, when they came to meet with the committee.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For clarity, in the area of transportation as to the airports, currently with the large airports that are still retaining their ownership but are leased out, what formula or system does the federal government use to assess those airports?

Mr. Stan Keyes: But that's a whole different ball game, the set-up with the airports as opposed to the set-up for the future Canadian port authorities. Whereas the federal government has leased to, or in many cases, sold to the municipalities—

Mr. Inky Mark: But the large airports are still owned by the federal government.

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's right.

Mr. Inky Mark: I realize they're leased out, but what type of formula for compensation did the federal government...?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Lease arrangements.

Mr. Inky Mark: What type of lease? Is it based on traffic, or on net numbers or gross numbers, or...?

Mr. Bruce Bowie: It's negotiated differently for each airport and it depends on the financial situation of the airport, but my understanding is that it's based on the traffic numbers. That's the basic determinant of the payment to the Crown. If traffic goes up, then the Crown would participate in that growth.

Mr. Inky Mark: If that's the case in that field, then why don't we take a more flexible approach with the harbours?

Mr. Bruce Bowie: To address the issue of a normal private sector board, where you have a board of directors that is making decisions on the basis of the interests of the shareholder and, in fact, the board member and the shareholder are the same, they will maximize net revenues for the benefit of the board, which is representing the shareholder.

In the port situation, the board member is not the shareholder in the sense that the board will operate in such a way and make decisions that in fact will minimize payments to the Crown. That's one of the difficulties with a net revenue approach. The natural incentive would be that the board would want to operate in such a way that would minimize payments to the Crown.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I can understand, and my question is directed there, too. I agree that there's an argument on both sides. I don't think it's entirely fair either way. I think you must come up with a formula here.

As my colleague mentioned, we're not starting out the same. Each port is not on the same playing field. As a matter of fact, they're going to have to operate under some internal rules they make themselves as to how they handle this thing. But if a port is designed basically not to pay the government anything, it's like people I know in big agricultural operations who do some strange things that are not in the best interests sometimes, and that may happen with the port authorities. If your only goal is to be able not to pay the government anything—

Mr. Joe Fontana: Well, that's what your amendment is.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I recognize that, but to find a balance between the two...is it just one or the other? Is there no other way of looking at this?

The Chairman: Not at this point, because we're dealing with clause 10 and the amendment.

Mr. Stan Keyes: To be fair to the honourable member, Mr. Chairman, he raises a good point. The last time around, it was discussed until the cows came home. There were options put on the table that got to be so complicated that we became the accountants for the port to receive a stipend. The argument that the honourable member makes, almost in juxtaposition to his own amendment, makes sense because there have been instances where, when it came to net versus gross and net was preferred over gross, there just wasn't any net, because the moneys that were gathered and may have been accumulated by the particular facility went to the purchase of maybe non-shipping, non-navigational activities on ports, which frustrated the heck out of the municipalities who were in direct competition with whatever they were spending their money on. And at the end of the day, it didn't produce the cashflow back to the municipality that was supposed to be there.

Thus, at the end of the day, it was decided that gross would be the wisest, simplest and, as a result, consensus-building option.

• 1640

The Chairman: I have a message for all members, even those who haven't spoken yet. Your messages are way too long. It would be appreciated if you would be more concise and address the clause at hand. Do you have another comment, Mr. Morrison?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes, I do. I'll accept that maybe income tax isn't a good analogy. But with respect, neither are royalties. I've negotiated a lot of royalty agreements. You don't negotiate royalty agreements inside a deal where the royalty payer is not totally free to run his or her own business.

Here we've gone into this sort of a semi-privatization, if you will. These people cannot manage freely, as you are well aware. They are at the mercy of the federal government.

Now in your own draft, in the text, you are talking about the charge on gross revenues. My understanding is that this will be negotiated separately with each port as part of their articles. Is this not correct? Is that not what is meant by paragraph (h)?

The Chairman: Are you asking the department or Mr. Cullen?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Either one.

Mr. Bruce Bowie: Yes, there will be a standard formula, but it will be a different payment for each port, a different percentage for each port depending on the level of traffic.

Mr. Lee Morrison: You talk about a level playing field, there's nothing more level than a percentage of net revenue. There's no greater levelling mechanism on earth than that.

With that, I'll cease my intervention. If we're going to vote on this, I certainly want to have a recorded vote on this one.

The Chairman: Is the point of the amendment that has been made clear to everyone? Are we prepared for the vote? It's a recorded vote on clause 8, amendment R-3.

(Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 4) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

We are now with the main motion, unamended, clause 8.

(Clause 8 agreed to)

(On clause 10—Applications)

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, in part with the indulgence of the committee—but I will demonstrate that it's also procedurally correct—I have for the committee clause 10, which deals with the Hamilton Harbour Commission. The circumstances surrounding the delay of Hamilton being listed as a port authority on the schedule, those initial occurrences and situations, have been cleared up as of today.

We're introducing a motion to first of all rescind the notion that the Hamilton harbour commissioners must make a decision to make the application, etc. We will be introducing the motion that puts Hamilton as a port authority on the schedule to create what the government sees as a level playing field for all harbour commissions in ports across this country.

So with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I can distribute copies of the amendment.

The Chairman: They have been distributed.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Some of them have been, Mr. Chairman. I don't believe they've all been distributed because we have to do this once.

The Chairman: We're now dealing with clause 10. It has been distributed.

• 1645

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's right, subclause 10(1). As I said, we'd have to take this procedurally, Mr. Chairman, with respect to you and the committee.

The Chairman: Therefore, so that we don't make any errors, am I correct in saying if we deal with subclause 10(1) first, then we go back to clause 10 and most of the problems could be resolved by then?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes. What will happen, Mr. Chairman, and I'll ask the indulgence again of the committee, if we're going to put Hamilton on the schedule to become a port authority, there's a lot of subsequent amendments that have to be made in order to either rescind something that's been there in the past or make sure that it's elsewhere in the bill.

The Chairman: To make that possible.

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's right, Mr. Chairman. I have eight motions. Two of them are withdrawals of what was there in the bill and six have to do with putting it—that is, Hamilton—in the appropriate spot in the bill and making the proper references so that it is a port authority.

The Chairman: Am I correct in assuming that the announcement just made and the new amendment to clause 10 indicates a possible satisfaction to amendments C-1, R-4 and G-4?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Not to R-4, because it goes in the diametrically opposite direction to what R-4 proposes. R-4 proposes to give all harbour commissions the same options that the Hamilton Harbour Commission had in the original bill.

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's right, but if that is no longer in the bill, it doesn't make sense that you'd be asking for something that's no longer going to be in the bill.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I'm not asking that you take it away from Hamilton, as you're proposing; I'm suggesting that all harbour commissions should have this right. In others, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. These harbour commissions, most of them, are pretty happy with the way they are.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I understand where the member's coming from.

The Chairman: Committee members, do you accept that suggestion that we deal with R-4 at this time?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Sure.

The Chairman: And you can exercise your vote and deal with it. Are we prepared to deal with R-4 now?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes.

The Chairman: Who will move R-4?

Mr. Lee Morrison: I so move.

The Chairman: Debate on R-4. Is it Mr. Morrison or Mr. Bailey who will debate this?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Can I direct a question to Mr. Keyes?

The Chairman: On the amendment R-4.

Mr. Roy Bailey: You were saying that this amendment is redundant?

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, having looked at your amendment, what your colleague is proposing to do is, even though we are withdrawing what Hamilton has in the bill now—we're withdrawing all that—he's making the argument, to be fair, that what was there is something that should apply...in other words, let all the harbour commissions stay as they are. In other words, what we end up with in this country is Canadian port authorities, harbour commissions, local port corporations, the mess we've been trying to straighten up for the last three years.

The Chairman: Members, the amendment R-4 suggests that we treat all ports like Hamilton, is that correct?

Mr. Lee Morrison: That's correct, yes.

The Chairman: We should be prepared for the vote on that, or do we need to debate this? I don't want to rush you, but—

Mr. Lee Morrison: It's fairly straightforward. Again, it's what the harbour commissions want. We are supposed to be the servants of the people here.

Mr. Stan Keyes: May I also add, Mr. Chairman, for the hon. member opposite, that many of the harbour commissions were looking to remain harbour commissions because of what Hamilton had. But since it has been learned that Hamilton no longer has something the other harbour commissioners desire, I think the harbour commissioners understand that there are many advantages to them under a new CPA system. And since they will all be on the same level playing field, I think if you make a call back to them saying, look, Hamilton's on the CPA list, you may find that many of those harbour commissioners say, fine, we'll be a CPA.

Mr. Lee Morrison: But let it be their choice.

The Chairman: Mr. Casey, on R-4.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Chairman, this whole announcement today, and the amendment proposed, really is a fundamental change, a huge change in this whole thing.

The Chairman: We're not dealing with the new amendment today, we're dealing with R-4.

Mr. Bill Casey: But it does relate to the amendment that the government's proposing to propose.

• 1650

The Chairman: Dealing with R-4 will determine the fate of the next one. It was presented first and it should be dealt with first because it has first priority. R-2 won't be able to carry.

Mr. Bill Casey: The problem here, for me anyway, is that these are two fundamentally different approaches and we haven't heard a witness on either one of them.

The Chairman: And you're not going to hear any.

Mr. Bill Casey: And we're not going to, so we're flying in the dark.

The Chairman: No. You're going to vote on this.

On R-4, Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Casey just recently joined this committee. This committee has dealt with this issue over the past two and a half years, and we had ad nauseam discussions with regard to harbour commissions and whether or not they should be CPAs, so this committee is very familiar with this particular issue.

I want to talk about R-4 in the sense that if Mr. Morrison is arguing that the harbour commissions model is the one that's being proposed by the Reform Party...I find it interesting that the Reform Party would be supporting the status quo.

The fact is that when we talked to a lot of these harbour commissions and they looked at the alternatives and the benefits of a CPA model versus their harbour commission model, I believe, as the parliamentary secretary has said, that they would have all opted for the CPA model. Only when Hamilton essentially wanted to remain as a harbour commission did they say, if you're going to let Hamilton stay then we all want to stay.

I don't know whether or not the Reform Party is arguing for the status quo, that harbour commissions across this country remain as harbour commissions, or whether their amendment R-4 is suggesting that if Hamilton is staying in as a harbour commission, then everybody else should stay in.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter. The fact is that under the government's proposal all harbour commissions are now going to be treated the same way. I think it's beneficial for the country and beneficial for all harbour commissions, and there's no special status for anyone.

Mr. Lee Morrison: We'll never know because—

Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes, we will.

The Chairman: Order.

A final and last comment from Mr. Morrison, the mover.

Mr. Lee Morrison: We will never know that, because this has come out of the blue today.

Certainly, as members of this committee, we're still getting correspondence from harbour commissions requesting that there be some provision for a little more flexibility in order to let them come in at their own time, if and when they're ready. This is not a question of ideology or Reform Party policy. This is a question of trying to represent the people who have the prime interest in this. End of argument.

The Chairman: Final comment. That's it, thank you. All members will have the opportunity to present amendments in the House in the last debate.

I'm prepared for the question on clause 10, R-4.

You asked for a recorded vote.

Mr. Lee Morrison: No, that's all right.

The Chairman: Not necessary?

(Motion negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: I need guidance as to how C-1 and G-4 are affected by the new motion. Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I think what you may find is that procedurally 10(1) as proposed by the government will precede your other two amendments, and you may find, just for the benefit of the members opposite, that their amendments would be redundant if Hamilton in fact is put on the the schedule for Canadian port authority. They may even go so far as to withdraw them, because they would be probably out of order.

The Chairman: Can we deal with G-4?

I suspect the government will withdraw its amendment on clause 10. Am I correct?

Mr. Joe Fontana: I think we need that one anyway.

The Chairman: You need that one anyway.

Then we'll move to amendment C-1. Are we prepared to move it?

Will the presenter of C-1 tell me if I'm wrong? Is C-1 prepared to allow us to deal with subclause 10(1) first, making it redundant, or do you wish to insist on a vote on C-1 before we deal with subclause 10.1?

Mr. Bill Casey: I'd like to go ahead with the vote.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Bill Casey: Can I give my reasons?

The Chairman: Okay. I think by consensus we can agree with this.

• 1655

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'm going to have to interrupt procedurally here. Mr. Chairman, you're going to have to procedurally deal with the amendment that is before you first, and that's going to be—

The Chairman: No, because we are dealing with two different clauses.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'm sorry?

The Chairman: We're on clause 10 now.

Mr. Stan Keyes: First, I want to read what C-1 is before I—

The Chairman: We're dealing with clause 10. The government has presented clause 10.1. Correct?

I'm advised that we should not refer to the government amendment presented now as clause 10.1. We are talking about clause 10 on all issues. Correct?

Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, can I make a procedural suggestion. When we dealt with clause 10, there were three amendments.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Joe Fontana: The first one was C-1, then there was R-4, and then G-4. Then the parliamentary secretary introduced another set of possibilities. Why don't we just take them? We've dealt with R-4. Let's put C-1 or have it withdrawn, and then we can move to the government stuff.

The Chairman: I would prefer to do it that way.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Thank you.

The Chairman: We're in a process of elimination. We are dealing with C-1, clause 10.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I would like an explanation from Casey. I would just like to have that comment. I thought I should make that clear.

Mr. Bill Casey: Clause 10, in our opinion, contradicts the whole focus and direction of the bill, which is an act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive and efficient. The objective of this act is to implement a national marine policy that provides Canada with a marine infrastructure. Every port in the country had to abide by those rules, except one. Therefore, it wasn't the national marine policy that ruined the whole impact and direction of the bill. It's an anomaly in the bill, and we would like to have it removed. This is the whole aspect of Hamilton remaining as a harbour commission.

The Chairman: Is there any more debate on clause 10, amendment C-1?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, it's not.... He has a second part in his amendment that mimics some of the stuff you were talking about. That's why we don't want that.

The Chairman: That has been dealt with. Now I ask Mr. Keyes: can G-4 be dealt with before your new amendment, or do you wish to deal with this first?.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, G-4 can be dealt with first, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Clause 10, amendment G-4.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We have a new amendment on clause 10. Do we call that G-5 or G-4.1?

A voice: You already have a G-5.

The Chairman: Okay, G-4.1. Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Excuse me, do you all have a copy?

Mr. Lee Morrison: G-4 is all I have.

The Chairman: This is Bill C-9, clause 10, pages 7 and 8.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Bruce, we`re going to have to renumber these for the purposes of G-1 and G-2.

The Chairman: Do all of the members have it? We'll call that G-4.1. Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill C-9 in clause 10 be amended (a) by replacing line 31 on page 7 with the following:

Continuance of Harbour Commissions

10.(1) If the

and (b) by striking out lines 1 to 6 on page 8.

The Chairman: Could you explain the effect of that amendment, please, or should I ask the department?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, all of the amendments that I will be bringing forward to you today have the power in legislation to accommodate Hamilton as a port authority.

Mr. Bruce Bowie: The direct effect of that amendment is to remove subclause 10(2), but it also makes adjustments to subclause 10(1). So it only refers to two clauses instead of one. It's technical, as well as removing that clause.

• 1700

The Chairman: I'm asking the question especially for the benefit of the opposition, so you're aware what is happening here.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Keyes, would it not be easier, rather than interrupting as we go, to list all of these in advance so we know where we're coming from with your amendments?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Did they get distributed by the clerk?

Mr. Roy Bailey: If we had them in advance it would speed things up.

The Chairman: I'm told there are quite a few documents. Their intention was to distribute them as we get to the clause. If you want them all now, they can distribute them all now.

Mr. Roy Bailey: We just need the document that relates to the inclusion of Hamilton.

The Chairman: Let's put some order in here, because we just got a package of paper and it has to be sorted out.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chair, maybe I can assist the committee.

The Chairman: Please.

Mr. Stan Keyes: The amending line is G-4.1 and G-4.2 would be adding the line “Hamilton Port Authority”.

The Chairman: I don't have the same document as you.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I know. I'm walking you through it. Unless you want to wait for 10 pounds of paper to come your way...which is only 6 pages.

The Chairman: I think in all fairness everyone should have the same information.

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's what I'm trying to do here. I'm just saving distribution. If you want it in front of you, we'll have to wait until it's handed out.

I thought the clerk would have these all stapled together.

The Chairman: That's why we asked to have them last Friday. Let's be fair here.

Mr. Keyes, I need to know whether all the amendments are coming on clause 10.

Mr. Stan Keyes: All the pertinent amendments are on clause 10. They're all coming your way now.

The Chairman: Can we move on to other clauses and come back to that?

Mr. Bruce Bowie: Could I just clarify for a second? All of the clauses that are coming refer to Hamilton, but not clause 10. There are subsequent amendments that have to be changed.

The Chairman: So we'll have to follow the order. I got my answer.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, they're all through the bill.

Mr. Bill Casey: I have a point of order. If I had wanted to make an amendment and pass it around at this time, could I have done that, or is this special for Mr. Keyes?

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Bill Casey: Didn't we have to have them in by last Friday?

The Chairman: We are dealing with clause 10 and the amendments refer to clause 10. If someone wanted to present an amendment on clause 17, which has been carried, you couldn't do it. But once you're dealing with a clause, you can bring in as many amendments as you want that relate to that clause. When you're debating a motion you can bring in amendments.

Mr. Bill Casey: But before they were even debated, polled or passed, we were given a deadline for amendments.

The Chairman: We were given a deadline of Friday to have them in the package. But when we went through the first run, if you had wanted to do anything with that clause you could have just told me to pull it. If you had told me that, it would have been because you wanted to throw in an amendment. There's no problem with that. That's very basic.

Mr. Stan Keyes: The answer to your question is yes. If you want to sit down right now and write out an amendment to clause 205, you could do that right now. If it was in both official languages and passed around the committee, it would be considered.

Mr. Bill Casey: We were given a deadline for our amendments, though. We had to have our amendments in by Friday, period.

The Chairman: There's no point of order. We're dealing with clause 10 and I'm prepared to accept any amendments on clause 10. If you had brought an amendment on any of the clauses we've dealt with, you could have just asked this committee to reconsider with 50% plus one.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, we already have amendment G-4.1, which is the clause 10 I've already read to the committee.

The Chairman: Is everyone talking about the same document? Is everybody okay? Do we need to debate this?

Mr. Stan Keyes: I don't think so.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: You have other amendments to clause 6.

Mr. Keyes, are those all of the amendments to clause 10?

• 1705

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, Mr. Chairman, they are not.

A voice: Did we do G-4.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, we did vote on amendment G-4, and it was accepted.

The Chairman: Both G-4 and G-4.1 carried.

That's it for clause 10? Those in favour of the main motion as amended...? Nobody. Colleagues, I should caution you, because I asked for those in favour and nobody responded. If I ask for those who are against and one votes against, we've lost the motion. We can do our homework at the meeting but....

Mr. Stan Keyes: Can you please ask the question again?

The Chairman: Yes, but can you pay attention this time? I understand that it's difficult and that we're trying to do our best, but we want to be fair to everybody, too. The question is on the main motion, as amended, clause 10.

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Clause 10 is dealt with as amended.

(On clause 12—Continued or deemed incorporated)

The Chairman: Are we prepared to vote on clause 12 without debate? Are there any objections? Those in favour of amendments G-5 and G-6...? Can we put them together?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, we're withdrawing G-6.

The Chairman: We're voting on G-5 only.

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Those in favour of withdrawing amendment G-6?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Clause 12 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 14—Appointment of directors)

The Chairman: We move to clause 14, and amendment R-5.

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: This was brought to my attention primarily by the people in the Vancouver Port Corporation. They felt the definitions for the list were too restrictive. Also, it was felt by the shipping association that there should be specific mention of labour unions. Now, I know labour unions could be construed to be users, but the wisdom that I attained there was that it would be better to write this right into the legislation.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I think what we have to remember is that the minister has to be able to be flexible enough to exercise his responsibility in ensuring that the board nominations satisfy all the qualifications for board membership. That might include an acceptable mixture of knowledge and expertise. I'm sure the honourable member, my colleague opposite, just couldn't imagine the list coming forward from the users. Could you imagine if all those names were all lawyers, or if all those names were all former members of Parliament? What it does—

Mr. Lee Morrison: If they're foolish enough to put in a list like that, that's their problem.

Mr. Stan Keyes: But for the benefit of the ports, which is what we're all interested in, you want to have that ability for the minister to exercise discretion to ensure that there is a mix of expertise and knowledge on the board.

Mr. Lee Morrison: There's nothing like making these organizations independent, Stan, and independent forever.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Independence has to have its responsibilities.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes.

The Chairman: Is there any debate on amendment R-5?

• 1710

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Our party anticipates problems in the appointments that the Governor in Council would make based on a consultation of users. Ultimately, it would be making the appointments.

I would have liked to see different wording in subclause (b). I would like the users to appoint the representatives rather than the Governor in Council.

The comment I made earlier, which was not relevant to the municipalities, will be reflected in 14(1)(b), which reads:

(b) the municipalities mentioned in the letters patent appoint an individual;

Instead that should read:

(b) each municipality named in the letters patent appoints an individual;

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond, do your concerns involve R-5? We are discussing R-5.

Mr. Michel Guimond: R-5 doesn't address my concerns. So I'll vote against it. That's why I'm taking part in the debate on R-5, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll have a debate on R-5, please.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why we would single out labour unions. Why wouldn't we identify economists, lawyers, accountants, medical doctors...?

Mr. Lee Morrison: You don't find too many of them working at the ports.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Sure you do: public relations people—

Mr. Lee Morrison: You're being troublesome here.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Why would we single out labour unions?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Because they're a major user. I'm not just quoting—

Mr. Stan Keyes: Users aren't allowed to be on the board.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Well, they can have people representing them.

Certainly it was not labour unions that suggested this to me; it was the bloody shipping association, who should have some knowledge of what they're doing.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, if I can give the member some assurance, if it's the users that have come forward and made that suggestion, and the shippers, don't forget that it's the users and the shippers who will putting forward the names on the list for the minister to consider. So if they, as functionaries on the port, decide that they want Jim Black, who happens to be a labour guy, on the board, and they all agree to that and the name goes on, it's going to be there for the consideration of the minister.

Mr. Lee Morrison: What's the legal term for “greater certainty”? Let's have it in there.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I call the question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lee Morrison: All right. Remember, they're the only ones who can close down the port.

The Chairman: I have a call for the question. Is there any objection to that?

Mr. Lee Morrison: I'd like a recorded vote, please.

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison would like a recorded vote on R-5, an amendment to clause 14.

(Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 3) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We are now on G-7, another amendment to clause 14.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I so move.

The Chairman: If there's no debate, members, we'll vote.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 15—Knowledge or experience)

The Chairman: We are on amendment R-6.

I should mention to you that the order in which they are here is the order in which they were received by the clerk. If R-6 is there before G-8, it's because it was received before G-8.

Mr. Morrison.

• 1715

Mr. Lee Morrison: It's an attempt to put a little more flexibility and variety into the board of directors. Again, it was recommended to me by the Vancouver people, and primarily by the shipping association.

I think it's common practice in business for non-experts, if you will, to be directors of companies. You have people from soap companies taking over broadcasting stations and running them quite effectively. On that basis, I think we should be less restrictive on the terms.

The Chairman: Do we need to respond? Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, it's almost a flip to what I just argued with the Reform when they came forward with this proposal. In effect, it would allow just about anybody to be a board member. The government has proposed a comparable motion, which would retain essential qualifications for the user board members but broaden the acceptable qualifications for government members.

The Chairman: And that will be dealt with in G-8. Is that right?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Can we have a look at G-8 before we get carried away?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Sure.

The Chairman: Do you want a few seconds to look at G-8?

Mr. Lee Morrison: I don't see my motion in your motion. It takes some imagination.

The Chairman: Are we prepared to vote on R-6?

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I agree with Mr. Morrison that the government's proposal G-8 does not reflect his amendment R-6. I'll vote in favour of that amendment. I particularly appreciate the notion of "representatives of national, regional or local interests". On the boards of directors of port authorities, there could be people with recognized expertise in the environment, urban planning and land use.

As I said during the meeting with the officials, I feel this amendment is very good since there could be people who would have knowledge of fields other than transport.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Can we move on to the vote? On clause 15, amendment R-6.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Clause 15, amendment G-8, moved by Mr. Fontana.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 15 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 27—Canada Business Corporations Act)

The Chairman: We now go to clause 27, amendment G-10, moved by Mr. Cullen. Are committee members prepared to vote without debate?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Can we ask the experts to tell us what this all means, rather than trying to go through it paragraph by paragraph?

The Chairman: We ask the department's experts to enlighten us.

Mr. Barry Lepitre (General Counsel, Department of Transport): I would just indicate that clause 27 involves a compilation of a number of regulatory authorities that appeared elsewhere in the bill. We've tried to group them for some functionality in one clause relating to financial matters, corporate management types of issues. It's really an attempt to bring from other parts of the bill a number of provisions that relate to the financial management and corporate governance of the Canada port authorities.

• 1720

Mr. Lee Morrison: There are no traps.

Mr. Stan Keyes: There are no traps; I can personally guarantee it.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Boy, now I am—

Mr. Stan Keyes: Do you feel better now?

The Chairman: Thank you. We'll be here all night.

Mr. Lee Morrison: You'd do well to keep a low profile.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 27 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 28—Capacity and powers)

The Chairman: Clause 28, amendment R-7, moved by Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Again, it gives more flexibility to the local port authority. The way the bill reads, if they have a subsidiary use and they shut it down they can't reopen it. With this amendment they could, with the approval of the minister.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, in response, we feel that the letters patent will be flexible enough in order for that determination to be made and that the minister doesn't have to be involved.

Mr. Lee Morrison: This is a switch for the Liberal Party.

The Chairman: The Liberal Party has just switched.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 28 agreed to)

(On clause 31—Borrowing powers)

The Chairman: Clause 31, amendment R-8, moved by Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Again, it's a question of giving the port authority some flexibility to manage their affairs.

I know that the question of pledging of federal assets has been debated interminably. What I am suggesting here is that there be some flexibility so that with ministerial approval they could indeed pledge the assets. It doesn't leave it wide open. They're not going to go out and mortgage Halifax in order to build a beer hall on the pier, but with ministerial approval they would have the possibility of doing that.

Mr. Stan Keyes: The beer hall might not be the best example to use.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I thought it would appeal to you, Mr. Secretary.

The Chairman: Is there need for more debate on this?

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have just an explanation for the member.

To be fair, the CPAs will be able to pledge their own land. They'll be able to pledge their port revenues. They'll be able to pledge their fixtures on federal land. And that, even according to the experts we had before us in the past, like Nesbitt Burns, is more than sufficient to allow them to borrow.

Mr. Lee Morrison: We all know what they can or can't pledge. All I'm asking here is that there be some flexibility, some possibility to cover the unforeseen so that the minister would have the power without actually going to Parliament to approve this.

Mr. Stan Keyes: On division, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: If we vote on a beer hall and users can't sit on the board, you won't find anybody to sit on the board.

Are we ready for the question on the amendment?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Could I have a comment in regard to my colleague's motion from one of the witnesses we have here in this respect?

Mr. Louis Ranger (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Transport): Well, perhaps to confirm what Mr. Keyes said, indeed Nesbitt Burns did advise us. We had asked them specifically to advise us on that particular aspect. They felt that given all the other things that can be pledged—future revenues, fixed assets—the fact that ports would not be able to pledge land would not be a major concern, that the ports would continue to be able to find appropriate financing.

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison, on R-8, do you have new information?

• 1525

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes. If we're going to be quoting Nesbitt Burns, if their authority on this is as good as what they did on the valuation of NAV CANADA, I'm not too sure I feel very comfortable with it.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 31 agreed to)

The Chairman: Clause 46, amendment R-9. I have an R-9 and an R-10. Can we combine them? Mr. Morrison, did you have a comment on this?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Just hang on a minute. No, we've got two amendments here.

The Chairman: I sense there are other amendments coming, maybe.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes, I believe the government does have an amendment that is somewhat analogous to R-9. Is that correct, Mr. Keyes?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Actually, Mr. Chairman, if I can ask the indulgence of the committee, I guess I'm going to need fifty plus one to revisit clause 31, the clause we just passed, because the government did have an amendment there but it wasn't on your list.

The Chairman: I have a motion to reconsider clause 31. As we agreed, with 50% plus one we reconsider without debate.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We are reconsidering clause 31. Are there any amendments to clause 31?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We're moving G-12, which wasn't on your list.

The Chairman: Moved by Mr. Fontana?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes. It's just a clarification that the government supports the idea of providing greater certainty of the interpretation on the clause, in particular the charge on property or fixtures mentioned in the subclause. We just want to add “fixtures” as well on the real property.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 31 as amended agreed to)

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you.

(On clause 46—Powers and obligations)

The Chairman: We're now on clause 46, amendment R-9. Can R-9 and R-10 be combined?

Mr. Lee Morrison: What I was asking was did the government propose an amendment that is somewhat analogous to R-9? I thought they did.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, we do have it.

Actually, our motion is even better than yours, because it's going to—

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison, do you agree that we hear that?

Mr. Lee Morrison: I'd like to hear it, yes.

An hon. member: We didn't pass that, did we?

Mr. Lee Morrison: No, we didn't pass it. It's in here somewhere, but I don't remember the number of it. It's under a different clause, for some reason.

The Chairman: The number of the amendment is G-48. Could we hear G-48, please?

Mr. Stan Keyes: What do you want to hear? We're moving the amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison would like to know what it says.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Okay, I've got it.

Mr. Stan Keyes: It's on page 121 in his profile.

The Chairman: Okay. So everyone has it. Now I accept Mr. Cullen's motion to move it. Now, Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I have a technical question. R-9 deals with this on clause 46. That's right? The government's amendment, G-48, deals with it under a new clause, 182.1. I just need to know the difference. If Mr. Morrison is satisfied, we could get rid of it in clause 46 and deal with it in clause 182.1. I'm just wondering why we would have put it under clause 182.1.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I'm curious about that too.

The Chairman: Could we have an explanation, please?

Mr. Bruce Bowie: It's just because it requires a consequential amendment to the Municipal Grants Act, and the section in the bill that deals with consequential amendments is in the 180 range.

The Chairman: So should we deal with clause 182 before we deal with clause 46, then?

• 1730

Mr. Joe Fontana: Or is it out of order in clause 46 because it would be ultra vires?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Let's see what Mr. Morrison wants.

Mr. Lee Morrison: As long as I have the assurance, and I guess I do, that G-48 is going to pass, I will simply withdraw R-9.

Mr. Stan Keyes: You can bet G-48 is going to pass.

The Chairman: We'll deal with it right now.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Now you have to go all the way to new clause 182.1.

The Chairman: We should be able to vote on clause 182.1.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes.

The Chairman: Correct me if I'm wrong. If it carries, then Mr. Morrison is not concerned about....

Mr. Stan Keyes: Sure.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Lee Morrison: There is one question I would like to ask the experts first, though. There is a second paragraph to my proposed amendment in R-9, which of course is not addressed in G-48. This was again a matter that we felt was for greater certainty that nobody was going to get a free ride, basically, in the port corporations. In your opinion, should I try to move that paragraph over into the government's amendment, or leave it out?

Mr. Bruce Bowie: Since none of the harbour commissions currently pay grants in lieu of taxes, any addition would not be less than what they're paying right now. So there's no need for the amendment.

Mr. Lee Morrison: It's redundant, in your opinion.

Mr. Bruce Bowie: It's redundant.

However, there are harbour commissions that are paying fees for services to municipalities right now, and those fees for services agreements would have to be renegotiated as a result of the fact that in this legislation they will begin to pay grants in lieu of taxes. But that is a commercial agreement, which could be renegotiated without a need for amendment to the legislation.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Okay. I'll withdraw my amendment if we go to clause 182.1.

The Chairman: No, not yet. First of all, I call the question on clause 182. We had not dealt with clause 182, remember?

(Clause 182 agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall amendment G-48 carry?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We go back to clause 46. Do you wish to remove R-9 and R-10?

Mr. Lee Morrison: No. R-10 is a totally different amendment.

In R-10 I'm again trying for greater flexibility that renewals could be for a longer term than specified, with ministerial approval.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 46 agreed to)

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chair, I recommend that we embark for the vote, and return to clause 49.

The Chairman: Yes. And please return immediately after.

Mr. Stan Keyes: The longer we wait to get to the vote, the longer we'll be here—

The Chairman: We'll order some pizza so that it's here when we come back.

A voice: Great.

The Chairman: Immediately after the vote, as soon as I have a quorum we'll get going.

• 1733

• 1852

The Chairman: It's agreed that we can vote with a show of hands, because our mouths are full.

(Clause 49 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: We are dealing now with clause 62, and after we will deal with new clause 62.1, amendment R-11.

(Clause 62 agreed to)

The Chairman: This is new clause 62.1, amendment R-11. Are members ready to vote without debate?

Mr. Lee Morrison: What the hell, we'll go through the motions. I know we're not going to win any tonight, but....

The Chairman: So the answer is no? Would you like another bite of pizza?

Mr. Lee Morrison: No, I'll just make my case.

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I'm sure that the last time around you folks must have debated this same question; I'd be very surprised if you hadn't. That is, the way this is set out, it does put an unreasonable burden on the municipal and regional police forces. Therefore, since we're getting rid of the port police, the port should have some responsibility for the addition work that's required by the municipality.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, Mr. Chairman, six ports are already in the process of negotiating with their municipalities. We expect that the local police in question will have already been negotiated between the ports and their local municipalities. It has been demonstrated, and there are examples of how that co-operation is taking place, and the extra costs are being paid. Probably long before this bill even finishes the House of Commons, those agreements between municipalities and police forces and ports—

• 1855

Mr. Lee Morrison: But again, for greater certainty, why not have provision for the CTA to act as a referee if necessary?

Mr. Stan Keyes: There's been no demonstrated need, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Well, there won't be until somebody starts throwing rocks.

Mr. Stan Keyes: But nobody has, and it's almost—

Mr. Lee Morrison: The bill hasn't been passed yet, or hadn't you noticed?

The Chairman: Are we ready for the question? Is there any other debate on the amendment? Shall amendment R-11 carry?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: So clause 62.1 doesn't exist.

(On clause 73—Navigable Waters Protection Act)

The Chairman: On clause 73, amendment G-23 is moved by Mr. Fontana. Are members of this committee prepared to vote without debate?

Some hon. members: Hang on, hang on.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I'd like to have some information from the department.

The Chairman: We will debate clause 73. It's moved by government, first to address.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Have we dealt with G-20?

The Chairman: G-20 is passed.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Okay. Sorry, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: On clause 73, Mr. Morrison needs information from the department.

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I would like to know exactly what this will mean to the people who are trying to operate a port. I'm thinking specifically of Port Alberni, which is concerned about this. What is going to happen with the amendment and without the amendment?

Mr. Barry Lepitre: I'd just indicate that with the amendment, the extent to which the Navigable Waters Protection Act would apply to a work, in this case in a public port, would be determined by the regulations made pursuant to the Canada Marine Act when it's passed.

So we would be able to apply some flexibility through those regulations as to the extent to which the regulations under the Canada Marine Act would control the construction of works in a navigable water or leave to the Navigable Waters Protection Act regime the control of that sort of situation.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Does that mean an artificial hazard might not necessarily be contrary to the Navigable Waters Protection Act the way it is written? Or contrary to regulations, I should say.

Mr. Barry Lepitre: The question of whether or not it would be contrary to the Navigable Waters Protection Act would be determined under that piece of legislation. The only question here is the extent to which we would have a separate regime for the public ports that would be applied in a parallel way with that regime. We would have application provisions in the regulations under this bill to determine the extent to which we would have a parallel regime for the ports.

But one or the other regime, generally speaking, would apply to the construction in a navigable water of a work that might impede navigation.

Mr. Lee Morrison: So I guess the bottom line, then, is that with this clause, the Navigable Waters Protection Act can be overridden.

Mr. Barry Lepitre: This would allow us to apply by regulation a different regime for the public ports under our regulatory process in the Canada Marine Act.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Spoken like a politician.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Why is there a need to do that?

Mr. Barry Lepitre: It's felt that it would be useful for the ports to be able to have a regime that meets their own particular requirements, as opposed to necessarily falling within one single regime that's applicable under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

• 1900

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Wasn't some of the intent of the bill to make things more concise and more understandable, easier to follow? Why would we bring in another clause as such to have it operated in two different ways, rather than allowing it to fall under the act it was falling under before?

Mr. Bruce Bowie: The intent of both the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the regulations here is to ensure protection of navigation in a particular area. It was felt that through these regulations, they would apply only to the harbour that the port is managing. And the port, because it needs good navigation in the harbour to have commerce in the harbour, would be in the best position, knowing the harbour and establishing the procedures for movement of traffic in that harbour, to ensure that whatever is done won't impede navigation in that harbour.

So as long as they have an appropriate procedure to evaluate various works and proposals to ensure they will not impede navigation, the regulation will give them the authority to review them with respect to the port operation to ensure they are acceptable works.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? You're making an amendment so the Navigable Waters Protection Act can be superseded by the Canada Marine Act.

Mr. Bruce Bowie: What it allows the port authority and the seaway.... The seaway, for example, already has exemption from the Navigable Waters Protection Act, because they have regulations and procedures in place to ensure that if anything happens in the seaway, they're aware of it and are able to evaluate whether it's going to impede the movement of ships through the seaway.

The same types of procedures are in place at ports, and in fact they do perform that role right now. This would give them the regulatory authority to monitor any kind of construction activity or deposit of materials in the harbour to make sure it's not going to impede the movement of ships in the harbour.

Mr. Inky Mark: So you're saying it's consistent with what's happening currently and it doesn't reduce the mandate of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Mr. Bruce Bowie: No, it's consistent with what's happening at most of the ports. The reason it's a regulation is we want to make sure that all of the ports that would be covered by CPAs have appropriate procedures in place before they get the authority to manage the navigation within their harbour.

The Chairman: Before we go to Mr. Bailey, I want committee members to realize we are debating the amendment and the main motion, the way the discussion is going.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Under this amendment, does this give the ports more clout, shall we say, than they presently have?

Mr. Barry Lepitre: The extent to which the ports are going to be authorized to deal with what might be obstructions to navigation will depend on the regulations that are produced.

One of the things we wanted to avoid by ousting the applicability of the Navigable Waters Protection Act just generally, as the previous provision might have done, was situations where there are existing approvals under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, some of which may have conditions attached to them. We didn't want to void those approvals, so we wanted to be able to build in some flexibility as to the new regime we're proposing for the ports themselves.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Do I hear you saying then that this particular amendment will make it much easier for the new harbour authority to operate, rather than running into all kinds of different authorities, former by-laws, and all of this? Is that what I hear you saying? Okay, that's all I wanted to know.

The Chairman: Are you prepared for the vote on clause 73, amendment G-23?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 73 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 108—Enforcement officers)

The Chairman: On amendment G-38 to clause 108, are members prepared to vote without debate?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 108 as amended agreed to)

• 1905

(On clause 132—Successor rights)

The Chairman: For clause 132, what is in your document becomes 132.1.

(Clause 132 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: We will now go to clause 132.1, the new clause in amendment C-2.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: Am I on?

The Chairman: You're on. You'll soon be off if you don't start.

An hon. member: Agreed.

An hon. member: Carried.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bill Casey: I know Mr. Keyes will bring in his own amendment to duplicate this amendment right afterwards anyway, so there's probably no point in my doing it. This amendment just allows the employees that are already part of the superannuation system to stay in the system when the local port turns over into a regional port. That's all it is. It's nice and simple.

The Chairman: Are members prepared for the question?

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I find Mr. Casey's amendment interesting. However, I'm going to vote against it, not because I'm opposed to the principle, but because I would have added, in addition to local port corporations, the employees of the St. Lawrence Seaway and port commissions.

As for the principle, when we met the officials, I mentioned, with regard to this abandoning of the ports, that we could not draw a parallel with what was done to the airports and NAV CANADA. In the airports and NAV CANADA, we were not dealing with Crown corporations, but rather completely independent non-profit organizations to which the federal government was selling assets. In this case, we have a Crown corporation.

I'm telling committee members to try to imagine what the impact of this will be on the employees of local port corporations. I agree that clauses 132 to 134 of the bill provide for the maintenance of benefits provided for in the Canada Labour Code where there is a change of employer. I completely agree on that.

However, imagine the cost of a pension plan when there are 50 employees, seven or eight office employees and roughly 10 executives. The cost would not be the same as if they continued to be part of the Public Service pension plan, which they would be entitled to do if they continued to belong to a Crown corporation. So the cost is not the same.

The local port corporation will tell its employees that it will maintain their benefits, but if it decided it had a package of $500,000 for employee benefits and salaries, the pie principle would apply. If the first person takes eight pieces out of a 10- piece pie, the other members of the family will have to share the remaining two pieces.

If most of the money allocated to improvements in the collective agreement goes to maintaining pension plan benefits, since the ports are required to do so under the act and since I'm sure the ports will do so, there will be nothing left to improve other clauses in the agreement.

The port commission may say: We have $500,000 to give you; what do you want it to be used for? Or it may say: If I maintain your pension plan benefits, I won't have any money to give you a pay increase under the next collective agreement.

• 1910

This is a provision that committee members should consider carefully. We should not allow Treasury Board employees to dictate a guideline to us.

At the right time and place, in the House, at the report stage, I will bring this point up again if I can mobilize people. The Liberal majority on the committee should think about it seriously before punishing the workers of the newly abandoned ports for the long term.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais, you have the floor.

[English]

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I can give you an example of what Mr. Guimond was saying. What took place in the sale of the Churchill port, although it certainly was a case of a private sale, was that employees with 24 or 25 years' worth of seniority had their pensions literally grabbed away from them at a time when they were ready to retire within a few years. In this situation that took place, there was no discussion with them ahead of time, and they were only given a portion of money for the difference within those pensions. Because they received that money, they had no access to unemployment insurance right away, so they couldn't even reinvest that money into another form of pension safeguard.

Since the ports we're talking about now are still going to be under the government as such—the land will still be owned by the government—I would suggest that we look strongly at not seeing hundreds and hundreds of people left out on the street for the most part at a point in their life when they would be close to retirement.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Is there anymore debate on new clause 132.1, amendment C-2?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, the example Bev has given is very moving, but I wonder if we could ask the officials to indicate to Bev and Michel that their pensions are not going to be literally torn away from them.

The Chairman: Department, could we have a response please?

Mr. Louis Ranger: Maybe I should clarify it, although I'm not an expert in superannuation. As I understand it, an employee who has been with the Port of Montreal for 25 years, for example, and who then stays for another 5 years when we move on to this new regime, would be entitled to the full benefits accumulated over the 25 years. Those superannuation benefits remain and are money in the bank for him. When he moves on to the new regime for the next five years and then retires, he will get two cheques upon retirement. One is out of the superannuation, and one is out of the new regime. In my understanding of this, those superannuation benefits remain with the employee.

The Chairman: But he or she would get it only at 65 years of age.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Ranger, we don't have a time machine. With all due respect, it is well understood that the benefits acquired at the time of the sale remain acquired.

Does a small business that manufactures doors and windows and has 10 employees and buys an annuity on the market have the same purchasing power as Canadian National? Answer my question. Do 10 employees have the same power to purchase an annuity as 5,000 employees? Come on!

The Chairman: I won't ask you to answer the question because you are here to provide information, not to be questioned. If someone wishes to answer, he will answer. We take note of your comment.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: What you're saying, Mr. Ranger, is that the question brought up by Bev about the pension to which you are referring is in fact not really a portable pension. You leave 20 years, right? But you see, if you put the 20 with the 5, the end result with the portable pension is a great deal more money at the end of 25 years than it would be if you split it. I would like an explanation of that, because I have some experience in pensions.

Mr. Louis Ranger: My understanding is that it would be portable. The employee would have the option of either taking—

Mr. Roy Bailey: Oh, they have the option. Then why...? Maybe you can't answer that question. Is it definitely a portable pension?

Mr. Bruce Bowie: Yes, the accrued benefits that they have with the public service pension plan can all be transferred into the new plan.

Mr. Roy Bailey: And the years too?

Mr. Bruce Bowie: And the years as well, so they will get one cheque when they do retire.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Then it is portable?

Mr. Bruce Bowie: Yes.

• 1915

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Ranger, if what you say is correct, I don't quite understand how these employees who were mentioned would have been ineligible for their EI. They're not getting any pension money in their hands under the circumstances that you describe.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, I'll just follow up with a question for the officials on this.

For a plan to be portable, the new pension arrangements that the CPAs will enter into—those are the private plans—would have to accept portability. In other words, they would have to say we accept that these benefits will roll over sort of seamlessly, if you like, into this new pension plan. So any losses are mitigated. I'm not sure how one can prejudge that. We need to know which plans are going to be in place for the new CPAs.

The Chairman: I think we can agree that it would have to be negotiated. It's not automatic that it's portable. I can't imagine anything else.

Mr. Bruce Bowie: No, but there are two aspects to the portability. They will have the choice to transfer, if they wish to transfer.

The Chairman: If they're accepted at the other end.

Mr. Bruce Bowie: Yes. Before they make that decision, they will want to know whether there will be portability as well.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais, Mr. Fontana, and Mr. Casey.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Just to clarify, what happened in that case was that there was such a difference in the pension you were receiving that when you reached that time in your life.... Say you are ready to retire within five years and your pension drops by 25% or 30%. I don't know how many of you would be exactly ready for retirement at that point. So at a time when people were going to be retiring within a few years, there was a major change to their pensions to the point that they might not have been able to retire or afford to live at that point. As well, it's not easy to get a job at 55 or 60 years old.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I have some knowledge about the pension business, because I'm in the pension business. I'm not sure we should argue this issue. We should argue about whether or not they should be able to stay in or have the option, but not on the basis of the information that's provided, because I'm not sure that's factual at all. I think you need to have pension experts tell you whether or not another company is going to accept the portability of such pension contributions, because there are bigger questions with regard to the portability.

I don't think we should discuss this on the basis of whether or not there are options. If so, I would like to argue the option that if portability wasn't possible and the equivalent pension system wasn't in place for those employees, then they should be able to stay in the present superannuation.

I think that's where we're going to get into a complicated situation. I'd rather deal on the issue of whether or not one should allow people to stay in or stay out, but not on the basis that there is automatic portability to another pension system, because I'm not sure that's in all the facts.

On the main issue, if I could, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the officials, I know that we have an amendment proposed that is transitional in nature. I think it goes part of the way to essentially looking after, appeasing, or giving some sort of comfort level to those employees who have, in a lot of cases, put in an awful lot of time, either at ports or on the St. Lawrence Seaway. I wonder whether or not that might be the way of dealing with this particular issue.

I don't know if there's anyone here who can answer this question. Under our superannuation law, because that pension board is there, I'm just wondering whether or not there's a legal right for those employees to be able to stay in regardless of what legislation we propose.

I know that we've done it in the past with regard to airports and NAV CANADA, but those were entirely different situations. There's a really big difference between the regime we're proposing here and the regime we had with NAV CANADA and the airports to a certain extent.

I want to know the legal thing, because we are talking about people's lives. I want to make sure that when I vote, I'm voting on the basis of some fairness and equity in this regardless of the issue of whether or not we can.

• 1920

Mr. Barry Lepitre: With respect to the question of the continued availability of the Public Service Superannuation Act, right at the moment local port corporations are included within that scheme by virtue of a deeming provision in the Canada Ports Corporation Act itself.

Local port corporations under the Canada Ports Corporation Act are deemed to be included in the schedule to the Public Service Superannuation Act. So those employers are included in the scheme as a result of that.

The Canada Ports Corporation itself is within the schedule to the Public Service Superannuation Act. Employees at so-called non-corporate ports within the Canada ports regime are also included, because the employer is included as a result of that.

If we wind up the Canada Ports Corporation, if we repeal the Canada Ports Corporation Act, the deeming provision in respect of the local port corporations would disappear. If the Canada Ports Corporation is dissolved, as contemplated by this bill, then it would no longer be on the schedule to the Public Service Superannuation Act. There would not be an employer listed in the schedule in those circumstances. You would need to have a scheduling of the new employers under the Public Service Superannuation Act in order for there to be a long-term continuing coverage.

The motion that you were referring to earlier would allow for transitional coverage through a provision that's being proposed for this piece of legislation.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate that the Department of Transport officials here are not pension experts, nor are any of us. I don't know if there are any Treasury Board staff here.

I guess not. I just wanted to explore this.

Mr. Stan Keyes: They wouldn't admit to it if they were.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Roy Cullen: If we added a clause in this particular piece of legislation that said the new CPAs would be required to deal with private plans that recognize the portability of the pension benefits out of the superannuation.... The problem is if you go with what you call a private pension purchase plan, you take a lump sum and you translate that into a certain stream of benefits downstream. What happens is those employees will lose some of their vesting in the plan.

I'm not a pension expert either. Is it possible to include in this bill that the CPAs would be required to bring in pension schemes that would recognize the portability of the benefits under the plan that currently exists? Is that feasible?

The Chairman: There is a danger that we will engage in the negotiation of a new plan for these employees. I don't think that's going to be resolved here.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You will just have to accept the amendment proposed by Mr. Casey and we'll have no problem.

The Chairman: Do you have an answer for Mr. Cullen?

Mr. Louis Ranger: I think it is feasible, but then it becomes a question of whether this is government policy or consistent with government policy. We certainly do not have the authority of Transport Canada to even give an indication of whether that's possible or not. We would have to follow up with our Treasury Board colleagues and see whether that's possible at all.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In support of the amendment, I would like to echo a concern expressed in a letter to Mr. Bonin, the chairman of this committee, from the Prince Rupert Port Corporation. I'm sure many of you have read the letter. I just wanted to read one short paragraph that says:

One of the major difficulties arising from Bill C-9 is the uncertainty arising over employee superannuation. To prevent unwarranted financial hardships the Bill should expressively provide for either the continuation of PSSA contributions and benefits for all current employees so covered, or for some other comparable form of pension administration.

I would just like to echo the concern.

The Chairman: Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: I don't remember the details, but I'm sure that most of the members here and certainly the officials will remember that when CN sold off their trucking company they gave up a very good pension plan. They went into the new company with a pension. The pension payments were kept; they weren't even turned in. They weren't invested or anything else, and they lost all of their pensions.

• 1925

It's probably one of the saddest stories in government devolution ever, and that was years ago.

I don't know whether the same thing could happen here or not, but I suppose if a small port authority made a deal with a pension fund and the company was mismanaged, the port authority was mismanaged, the same thing could happen. It's really a sad case.

The Chairman: Mr. Casey, as a mover you spoke first and last. Are we prepared for the vote?

We're not prepared for the vote.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I just want to add one thing, Mr. Chairman. I've been listening to the entire debate.

Mr. Guimond, I can see an opportunity here all right. If this amendment is lost, the government has an amendment coming forward that provides for a transitional period for employees to move toward while the CPAs are moving toward finding the pension plan to meet the employees' needs. That is going to be a fairly expansive amount of time.

Before the CPAs are deemed CPAs after the bill is finished, never mind royal assent, there's going to be a time period of at least a few months before that happens. The transitional period will be there to look after the employees who move into a new plan if the new plan is going to be there.

Also, as I understand it, the employees are still with the plan and the CPAs are still doing their thing and maybe negotiating for another plan. If, during that transitional period it would be decided upon, through an amendment to the Public Service Superannuation Act, which is the responsibility of Treasury Board, what we're discussing here can still happen. It can happen not through the vehicle of Bill C-9 but through the Public Service Superannuation Act and an amendment through Treasury Board. Isn't that correct?

I'm not trying to shift the blame here, but as I understand it from the officials, it's Treasury Board that's responsible for deciding whether or not the Public Service Superannuation Act is going to continue. We are going to provide those employees with the transition fund. During that period it can be decided to make an amendment through the superannuation act to Treasury Board to make a different scenario possible.

Mr. Bruce Bowie: If I could just add to that in terms of the transition provision, a major reason for the transition provision is to ensure that before the employees have to make that choice whether or not they stay within the public plan or they want to move to the new plan being established for them, they do stay in the public plan.

It allows time for the new plan to be established so the employees know what the benefits of that plan are. They can make an informed choice about whether to stay within the plan or move to the new one.

Mr. Stan Keyes: They also have the opportunity for whomever to make an amendment to the Public Service Superannuation Act through Treasury Board to continue what's happening here now. Is that also a possibility?

Mr. Bruce Bowie: Yes, it's always a possibility through the superannuation act.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We're not closing a door here. I don't think it's fair to make a decision based on the lack of information coming forward about pensions and whether they're portable or not and whether you can make the new carrier take the pension or not.

Let's face it. Yes, I'm going to be against it for different reasons because of what I see with the seaway and privatization and what we've done in the past with that kind of thing. I can understand the reasoning being brought forward by Bev and Michel. I still think the door is open for that opportunity during the transitional period.

The Chairman: Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): The Route Canada case that Mr. Casey brought up is a prime example, but I think there are fundamental differences here between Route Canada and this insofar as it was completely purchased out. The users of Route Canada literally abused the company. I'm sure you're familiar with this. I think the pension system was eventually cleared out about a year ago.

There are two different scenarios here with respect to the port users or the CPAs insofar as the lease concept is concerned. I don't think you can compare the two, inasmuch as I can empathize with where Bev and everybody is coming from.

• 1930

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: With all due respect for Mr. Keyes, we're talking about the creation of a new entity, a new Crown corporation with human beings who work there. We don't have to allow the Treasury Board to dictate anything to us. Provision is made in the act for what will happen to human resources, to human beings. As for that, let's just attend to the docks.

For the human beings who are currently being sold to the new Crown corporation, it has been provided that their benefits will continue to apply. Provision is made for this in sections 44 to 46 of the Canada Labour Code. Clause 130 of the bill provides for it as well. In law, this is called an employer succession. The employer that purchases the collective agreement and the building also buys the human beings. It purchases the employment contracts of human beings.

We don't need actuaries to explain this to us until tomorrow morning. The only subtle point is that, under the act, they will have to decide whether they want to wait until they are 65 to draw a small pension for their 22 years of service at Ports Canada. This will be much more costly because a plan for 50 employees costs much more than a plan for 5,000 employees.

The employee will be asked whether he wants to take the $27,682 in the pot and reinvest it in the new pension plan. He will be told: You have another 15 years to work for the new company; with $27,000 in the pot and what you accumulate from here on, you'll receive a pension at age 65. You don't have to be an actuary to figure that out. Now is the time to provided for that. We're passing Bill C-9. Now is the time to make provisions and give these people assurances that they can still belong to the Canadian Public Service pension plan since this is a Crown corporation.

I was here for the NAV CANADA study, when the airport corporations were created, and I never raised this question. They were sold and the contract was sold; that's not the same thing. That's why, Mr. Keyes, I do not agree on your transitional measures or on your proposal to involve Treasury Board in this. That's just going to muddle the issue. We don't have enough long-term guarantees. I believe now is the time to make provision for this. The Treasury Board officials will adjust to what we legislators provide for, which is to keep them in the Public Service pension plan.

The Chairman: The question is whether the committee accepts clause 32.1 or not. From what Mr. Guimond has just said, that's not really the case. So do you want to continue the debate or not?

[English]

Do you wish to continue debate?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes. I have just one clarification for Mr. Guimond.

The Chairman: Every time we have a clarification, we reopen the debate, so I will reopen.

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'd make a clarification. The foundation of Mr. Guimond's remarks just there were the fact that we're dealing with a new crown corporation. In fact, it's not going to be a crown corporation. The new CPAs aren't crown corporations. They're new legal entities, no longer crown corporations.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Controlled by who?

Mr. Stan Keyes: By the board of directors, the majority of whom are user representatives. We have the crown land.... I just want to make sure we have the argument correctly. I may be corrected by the officials but CPAs are going to be new legal entities. They are not crown corporations.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Why would the minister continue to make some appointments and—

Mr. Stan Keyes: It is because we still own the land. It's all our infrastructure.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We have a hand in the appointment process, but we aren't telling them how to run their port. They are now.

We are not the crown deciding. We are limiting ourselves to all the GIC work that has to be done. There are no longer any approvals that have to be coming from government and all the rest of it. They're quasi-autonomous.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Who will deliver the letters patent?

Mr. Stan Keyes: A negotiation between the new interim board and the government.

• 1935

Mr. Michel Guimond: In subclause 6(2):

6.(2) The Minister may, by order, amend the schedule by adding to it the names of port authorities to which letters patent are issued....

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's right.

Mr. Michel Guimond: The relationship with the Crown will continue by those letters, as far as I'm concerned.

It's not the same approach. With NAV CANADA, is there...?

[Translation]

Now I'm speaking English.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: You were doing so well.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: In the case of NAV CANADA, were letters patent issued, or did the Crown maintain a legal subordination? The assets were sold, the control towers, the men were sold, the lunch boxes were sold. That's not the same thing. The federal government is going to keep control over the ports by issuing letters patent.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: NAV CANADA is a completely private, not-for-profit corporation.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, but it's not the case here, because with NAV CANADA there were no letters patent. We sold—

Mr. Stan Keyes: I understand the member's points.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Anyway,

[Translation]

I'm telling you that by agreeing to sell off the employees in this way, you're making a mistake and giving me what I need to make political hay. Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: We have repeated the same arguments a number of times.

[Translation]

Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): If they contributed to the plan for 25 years, they can leave it there and start contributing to the other plan. They will receive two cheques. That has already been done, I believe. Do you understand?

Mr. Michel Guimond: I understand perfectly, but the purchase cost... I'll return to my example of the door and window plant. A pension fund for 10 employees at a door and window plant does not cost the same as a pension fund for CN's 5,000 employees. The cost is not the same. As for the package to improve the collective agreement, the employer will say: I have an envelope of $500,000 to hand over to you to improve your collective agreement, but I can only give you $100,000 in leave and pay increases because I have to give you $400,000 to comply with the pension plan provisions of your collective agreement.

Mr. Claude Drouin: If we give them the administration, saying they have to take everything that goes with it, we're the ones deciding how to do it. I'm not certain we're giving them the administration.

Mr. Michel Guimond: We're just giving them the opportunity to stay in the pension plan.

[English]

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: What you have in your document as clause 133 should be clause 133.1. We talking clauses; we're not talking amendments. I'm asking you if clause 133 will carry.

Mr. Michel Guimond: What happened with clause 132?

The Chairman: It carried.

Mr. Michel Guimond: No, we voted on amendment C-2.

The Chairman: No, we voted on clause 132 first, and then we dealt with new clause 132.1.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: We started with C-2, Raymond. I took the trouble to ask the question.

[English]

The Chairman: Clause 132 carried. Do you wish to reopen—

Mr. Michel Guimond: On division.

The Chairman: That's right; it was on division.

I think it's getting late.

Shall clause 133 carry?

Some hon. members: Carried.

The Chairman: Clause 133 is carried.

Mr. Michel Guimond: On division.

The Chairman: On division.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: One moment, please. I don't know whether it's fatigue, but it seems to me you just changed your approach.

First, we were talking about amendments. Once the amendments were settled, you asked us whether the clause was agreed to or not. Now you're asking us whether clause 133 is agreed to and we're not talking about amendments. We have amendments B-1 and D-1.

• 1940

The Chairman: Do you see any problem in clause 132 being agreed to on division? It was you who said...

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, on division, but you use the same procedure on 133. Why are you asking us whether clause 133 is agreed to?

The Chairman: Because, after that, I'm going to move on to 133.1. Do you want to do 133.1 first? I don't see any objection.

Mr. Michel Guimond: All right. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Is that all right?

[English]

(Clause 133 agreed to on division)

We will deal now with new clause 133.1. I have two. I have Bloc 1, and New Democrats 1. We'll start with the Bloc.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, it's not the unanimous consent rule, but rather the 50 percent plus one rule, if we want B-1 to be withdrawn from the book.

The Chairman: Do you agree that amendment B-1 should be withdrawn?

[English]

Do you agree with withdrawing amendment B-1? I need 50% plus 1.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: It's my amendment. He doesn't want to withdraw my amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Those in favour of withdrawing amendment B-1? There was a motion made, and the mover wishes to withdraw it. We agreed that we needed a vote of 50% plus 1 to withdraw a motion. It no longer belongs to the—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: When we sent our amendments to the clerk, I believed it was to get an overall picture. I reserved the right... In any case, you realized I didn't submit many amendments. I told Mr. Ranger that I was going to present them in another chamber.

When I sent my amendments, it was for the sake of transparency, but I didn't intend B-1 to be discussed. Why would B-1 not be withdrawn? The next time, I'm going to introduce them as we go along, as we're doing here. I don't need the 50 percent plus one rule. I sent them to the clerk for information purposes, as you asked us to do.

I'm going to learn. If the Parliamentary Secretary doesn't want me to withdraw it, he would do well to think about it because he's going to find that time drags on with me.

The Chairman: We are causing problems.

[English]

We're creating problems. Do you wish to withdraw your motion?

[Translation]

Do you want to withdraw your amendment B-1?

Mr. Michel Guimond: I wonder why it's there.

The Chairman: It's there. Are we going to drag our heels all night? It's going to stay there.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, but I don't want to rely on the permission of 50 percent of the people here. I don't want it debated today and I'm saying the clerk should not have put it in the book.

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond, you didn't move B-1?

Mr. Michel Guimond: No.

The Chairman: It doesn't exist?

[English]

B-1 doesn't exist. It wasn't moved by him.

We are now going to deal with D-1. If anybody wants to move it, they can move it.

Mr. Stan Keyes: How did it end up on this book?

The Chairman: Because this is a document to assist us. We asked everyone to present their amendments by Friday. It was put in the book; it was never moved, so it's not on the table.

Mr. Stan Keyes: So we should have moved all these amendments at the beginning of the meeting before we started.

The Chairman: We did, every time I named Mr. Cullen or Mr. Fontana. There's no problem. If anybody wants to find that page and move it, just move it when we deal with that clause. You know that you can move anything, any amendments, when we're dealing with a clause.

We're dealing with D-1. Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Do I have to move this so we can talk about it?

The Chairman: Yes—D-1 moved by Ms. Desjarlais. Carry on.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Rather than rehash the whole discussion...it basically said what we were doing when we were talking about Mr. Casey's, except I've included all the groups affected rather than just the local ports, just to ensure that nobody was left out on the street corner. I won't carry on any longer than that.

The Chairman: Okay. We've held the debate? Mr. Bailey.

• 1945

Mr. Roy Bailey: Of all of the items in this bill that members on this side and that side need to do before we can rest easy tonight—at least myself—I am not sure about this one. I'm not doubting Mr. Keyes in one way, but I am not content to let this bill go, to turn it off here, and to let the Treasury Board handle it. In my mind, it isn't enough to let hundreds of people go to these new employers without more concrete measures than these people will have as they move into their new positions. Until I get get some guarantee, or we can get something more than what I've heard tonight, ladies and gentlemen, I just can't let this go. Of all the letters that I got and that you got, this was the number one concern from the employees, and I'm sorry, but it hasn't been answered here tonight.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Well, Mr. Guimond pulled his amendment. Fortunately for you, with the way this thing works, what he doesn't introduce here he will probably introduce at second reading in the House of Commons, so you can rip through the whole goddamned thing all over again.

The Chairman: Order.

If anyone on the government side wishes to move Mr. Guimond's amendment, you can claim it. Those are basic procedures.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, in fairness, Mr. Chair, I don't think that would be right. We'll see it in the House.

The Chairman: Well, that's up to you, but the procedures are there.

Is there any more debate on the new clause, amendment D-1? No? Are you ready for the vote?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: 7 nays; 5 yeas) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[English]

The Chairman: Shall clause 134 carry?

Order please.

If we're going to start these debates, I'll have to start counting hands on every vote, and it'll slow down the whole process.

An hon. member: Carried.

The Chairman: Is it on division, Monsieur Guimond?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. One moment, please.

[English]

Agreed.

(Clause 134 agreed to)

(On clause 138—Public Service Staff Relations Act)

The Chairman: Moving to clause 138, what you have in your book as 138 now becomes 138.1. Shall 138 carry?

Does that cause a problem? Are they related?

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, they're separate.

(Clause 138 agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall 138.1, a new clause amendment, carry? Can we deal with G-42 and G-43 together?

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's a good question. Can we deal with them together? No?

They have to be separate, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We will deal with G-42.

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, G-42 is an amendment replacing line 31 on page 76. It's a wording amendment.

The Chairman: Are committee members prepared to vote on G-42 without debate?

An hon. member: Yes.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Is G-43 technical, or do we need debate?

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I'd like to know the significance of it. We've been debating this same general area all night but, not being a lawyer, I don't understand this.

The Chairman: Okay, who will explain it, Mr. Keyes or the department?

• 1950

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, this is the transitional clause in the bill. We spoke about it earlier. Instead of just the end of superannuation from the day of this bill passing, this provides the employees with the opportunity to stay in the fund until such time as transition is made up, until the new entity finds its new pension plan, so that the transition can be made from the current pension plan they are in to the new pension plan, or elect to do whatever it is they're going to do with that particular plan.

Mr. Lee Morrison: This assumes, then, that it will be possible to transfer? You're making that assumption.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No. It will be up to the employee and their plan to do whatever it is that takes place at the other end. I can't say whether it's going to be a new plan. I can't say whether it's going to be portable into a new plan. I can't say any of that myself with any certainty. All I can say is they will be in the superannuation plan until such time as the new plan kicks in at the end of the day at the new entity, the new port authority.

The Chairman: It will allow time to negotiate a possible transfer.

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's right.

The Chairman: Is there other discussion on G-43? Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: The superannuation plan that people can move into or not is totally drawn up by the port authority—right? Therefore for all the port authorities you can have that many different plans. This provides for the interim when they take authority—

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's right.

Mr. Roy Bailey: —but it doesn't necessarily mean portability, then.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Okay.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I can't say that with any certainty.

Mr. Roy Bailey: No, neither can they.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: You can't necessarily say that it's a plan worth anybody wanting either. I've seen a situation where it wasn't a plan of any desirability whatsoever, and left people at a time in their life....

Mr. Stan Keyes: As I've said, this clause deals with transition. I don't know what's at the other end, and frankly I'm not discussing that right now, I'm just—

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I guess what we know is that at the end people—

Mr. Stan Keyes: But we've done this, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: —at the time of their life when they should be retiring—

Mr. Stan Keyes: This is the debate we've already had at the end of the day. I'm trying just to make sure that the employees have a transition from what they have now to whatever the hell happens at the end of the day. This is what this clause is about. We've already had the debate on the end of the day.

The Chairman: That's right. Shall new clause 138.1, amendment G-43, carry?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(On clause 144—Review of Act)

The Chairman: We have an amendment, C-3. He's not here? It's not being moved? Is anyone moving C-3? Deleted.

We did carry clause 146—correct, clerk?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chairman: Now we are dealing with clause 146.1.

The Clerk: He's just not dealing with his amendment in clause 144.

The Chairman: Clause 144 is not moved, so it's—

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, the amendment's not moved, but we still want the clause.

The Chairman: That's right. Shall clause 144 carry?

(Clause 144 agreed to)

The Chairman: Now we're at new clause 146.1, which is amendment G-44. Is there a need for a debate?

An hon. member: Technical change.

The Chairman: Technical change.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(On clause 148)

The Chairman: We have two amendments. We'll deal with R-12. Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Thank you. The object of this amendment is to give the masters of Canadian ships plying regularly in the same waters the opportunity to obtain pilotage certificates more easily than is now possible, and to be able to use in the determination of their skills simulator testing programs or other mutually agreeable practical testing methods. Fifty thousand Saskatchewan farmers will bless you if you let this one go through.

The Chairman: Any debate?

• 1955

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, other than just to point out to the honourable member that a great deal of discussion has taken place in this particular area, Mr. Chairman. We are confident that the review of not just this issue but all the key issues of pilotage will take place after one year, and I would hope and see that there would be many changes in future.

Mr. Lee Morrison: As always, I like certainty. I like to see a contract with the contract, or a bill with the bill. I certainly put a great deal of thought and a great deal of effort into this particular amendment and I think it's very pertinent. It means about a dollar a tonne, so I am told. Pardon?

Mr. Stan Keyes: So have the shippers put a lot of thought and effort into it.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes.

No, it's an extremely important amendment. There are winners and losers. I guess if you're going to have a show of hands, you've got all those thousands of farmers on the one side and a couple of hundred pilots on the other side. I leave it to your wisdom, but I feel very strongly about this particular amendment, and I would like a recorded vote.

The Chairman: Shall amendment R-12 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 3) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Lee Morrison: Let the record show, please, what the Liberals think of prairie farmers.

The Chairman: That will not be recorded.

Now, is there a need for debate on amendment G-45 to clause 148?

Some hon. members: No, Mr. Chairman.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 148 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Amendment R-13, clause 156—is there a need for debate?

Mr. Lee Morrison: This without the other amendment doesn't have very much utility, but it can stand alone.

The Chairman: Is that your way of answering my question? There is no need for debate?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Correct—no need to debate.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 156 agreed to)

The Chairman: Clause 162 has two amendments, G-47 and G-47.1, correct? Is there a need for debate?

Mr. Stan Keyes: I would hope not.

What happened to G-46?

The Chairman: You are asking what happened to G-46. Can we find it?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Oh, we did that.

The Chairman: We did that.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'm just checking, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Well, that's important too.

We are voting on clause 162, amendments G-47 and G-47.1.

(Amendments agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 162 as amended agreed to)

• 2000

The Chairman: We passed clause 182. We are now dealing with clause 182.1. In your book it's clause 182. Is that correct? Does it create a problem for clause 182 if we deal with clause 182.1? No.

We have a new clause, G-48. Is there a need for debate? There is no need for debate.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Next is clause 184. We have amendments, a G-50 amendment and a G-50.1 amendment.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Clause 184 is just a continuation of the insertion of “Hamilton Port Authority” into the different parts of the bill, all sequential.

(Amendments agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 184 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Next is clause 194, amendments G-51 and G-51.1.

(Amendments agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 194 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: We are now at clause 205. We have three amendments: G-53, G-53.1, and G-54. Is this still a continuation?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's more Hamilton.

(Amendments agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 205 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall the schedule carry? We have amendments G-55 and G-55.1.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, as a point of order we have to withdraw the original schedule and insert the new schedule.

The Chairman: You are not moving G-55, so G-55.1 becomes G-55. Are you moving that, Mr. Keyes?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Keyes moves G-55.

Mr. Stan Keyes: There's an old schedule that doesn't have Hamilton on it.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Schedule as amended agreed to)

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall the title pass?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended pass?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Chairman: Shall the bill be reprinted for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned.