EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 5, 1996

.0909

[English]

The Chairman: Let us begin. Welcome to meeting number 32 on this particular topic, although that's not actually representative of the number of meetings that were held, given that the Keyes committee did all of this work starting some three years ago, wasn't it?

Mr. Keyes (Hamilton West): Two and a half years ago.

The Chairman: Hopefully we will bring all of that work to a conclusion today and create a truly superb piece of ports legislation.

The staff's work on this thing has been terrific and the committee support has been terrific. I particularly appreciate the cooperation of the two opposition critics, who have worked as hard as everybody else to try to ensure that we get a really first-class piece of legislation.

Mr. Gouk (Kootenay West - Revelstoke): Take the surprise out of your voice when you say that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

.0910

The Chairman: In keeping with that, Mr. Gouk, you're prepared to move that we just throw all this in the can -

Mr. Gouk: I don't think you want it thrown in the can after all the work that's been done.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.

Before I move to the agenda that I have here, let me ask Mr. McNeill if he would like to bring us up to date.

Mr. Neil McNeill (Executive Director, Harbours and Ports, Department of Transport): Yes, sir. Our team of officials from the transport department followed your hearings quite closely. We've read every one of the submissions given to you, and under instructions from the parliamentary secretary we helped prepare some of the motions from the government.

This morning we looked at the opposition motions. The 41 from Mr. Crête and the 30 from Mr. Gouk are quite similar to what's been proposed on the other side, so I'd like to think that we will move quickly through a lot of these motions. They're very similar.

We have a total of 150 or so proposed motions for amendments, but they are very similar and they cover the same territory. We've prepared our material and we're ready to go clause by clause, sir.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, I just had one comment. If legislative counsel dropped the ball in the drafting of these amendments I'd be the first to criticize them, so in this particular case, I'd like to be the first to compliment them for the speedy work they did on the amendments I put in, including some late amendments. They've been really good. They got through them very quickly. I just want to acknowledge that they have done a great job.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Crête, do you have any comments before we begin?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): I think it would be helpful if the government could provide us, either itself or through its officials, with an overview of all its amendments. The proposed amendments have been submitted to us, and I would like to know what is the logic behind them. Do they generally reflect all the amendments suggested to us by all the port facilities in Canada, or at least the main ones?

Through such an overview, I would like to be able to see whether the amendments are consistent with those proposed by us, by the Reform Party and by the party in office.

The government is proposing 97 amendments. It would be helpful to have a short presentation explaining the logic behind certain positions such as possible decentralization and the status of federal agency, which are major points. In short, I would like to know what was the spirit behind these amendments so that we can keep those points in mind in our clause-by-clause consideration. We would then have an overview of the situation and better know where we were going.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête. Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Keyes: I agree with Mr. Crête wholeheartedly, Mr. Chairman. The substantive amendments that have been brought forward by the government side are amendments that I think we have all pretty well - on both sides of this table - come to a consensus on, like federal agency status, etc. These were points brought forward by the ports communities and by those who were concerned by the lack of substance in the original bill. I don't think we'll have a problem with them.

There are going to be a few amendments that I am quite prepared to hear from Mr. Crête or Mr. Gouk on. Any reasoning will be provided by Mr. McNeill. And we're talking about 150, because of course there are a lot of consequential amendments. If you're changing something in one area of the bill, it has to be changed in about five other areas of the bill. Those amendments will come as a result of the substantive change that might come once this committee deals with the main clauses up front.

We're prepared to stop at any time and get a full explanation from department officials, Mr. Crête, whenever you feel the need.

The Chairman: Mr. McNeill.

.0915

Mr. McNeill: I would just add that for a majority of the proposed amendments from the government side, the instructions were really issues of technical amendments, the language of definitions and cleaning up some of the original drafting.

The substantive amendments, the instructions we received, were only about four or five areas or issues. The rest are pretty much technical amendments: agent, powers and capacity, property, stipend, and board governance. Those are the five areas that all parties have opined on.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I will determine that as we go along, because that does not tell me whether... I feel that there is a contradiction between what was stated earlier, namely that the amendments all had a consistent purpose, and what I'm being told now, that the amendments introduced by the government are primarily technical. It seems to me that some of the amendments deal with fundamental issues. There are five or six places which could be the subject of meaningful debate. Therefore, let's proceed and look at them.

[English]

The Chairman: How about if we proceed like this? We have survived these 32 meetings on this topic by working as carefully together as we can, so I will move through it as in as orderly a fashion as I can. When we hit areas like that, if members would just flag it for me, we'll stop to take the time to look in some detail at the amendments we're making.

As I understand it, having gone through these, a lot of the amendments, Mr. McNeill, are consequential to those five big areas.

Mr. McNeill: Yes.

The Chairman: We have a lot of individual amendments, but they really are just bringing the rest of the act in line with changes we've made.

Mr. McNeill: Correct.

The Chairman: So let us begin, failing any reason not to.

I should flag for members of the committee that I have had an amendment sent to me from the Mohawk Nation, which I will want to speak about a little later in the proceedings today, but it won't come up for a little while.

The consideration of clause 1 is postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1). We shall go through this clause by clause, starting with clause 2.

On clause 2 - Definitions

Mr. Gouk: Everyone has a copy of our amendment. Do you want it just referred to as Reform amendment number one, or do you want the whole thing read?

The Chairman: It's all listed in the agenda.

Mr. Gouk: Okay. On clause 2, I propose Reform amendment number one.

Mr. Fontana (London East): Brief explanation, please.

The Chairman: Do you want to actually read the text of the amendment?

Mr. Gouk: Okay, that might be the simplest.

I move that clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 -

The Chairman: I'm sorry, Jim, just speak to it.

Mr. Keyes: Why do you want to change it?

Mr. Gouk: I haven't got all my notes here with me, Stan, so I'm going to have to take a moment and read it myself. I've been scurrying through these things.

Basically, it's an expansion of the various fees that you're allowed to charge. It expands on the idea. The way it is written in the bill at this time is maybe a little too limiting. This provides for fees and revenues from other areas as well.

I think it's in keeping with what we heard throughout our hearings. I'd like to think that every one of them is in keeping with what we've heard throughout, but certainly this one is.

The Chairman: Any comments?

Mr. Keyes: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the way I read this particular clause was that, in effect, it attempts to separate out rents from fees. We don't feel there's a need to do that. There's no need to exclude rentals from the definition of fees because the requirement for notice applies only to harbour dues, berthing and wharfage.

Mr. McNeill: Also confidential contracts.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

.0920

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: This amendment is very similar to one which will be proposed later by the Bloc Québécois. It refers to rentals. At present, rental agreements are generally confidential and, under this amendment and the one we are proposing, they will remain so, whereas with the definition before us, we are not sure of that.

Therefore, we believe that it would improve the bill to specify this point so that future transactions on rental agreements might be protected in this regard. This would also take into account our wish that it be easy for harbours to conduct their activities on an economic basis and in accordance with market forces.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. McNeill.

Mr. McNeill: If I could give a quick summary, most of the port administrations were concerned that we would include terminal rental agreements and leases, etc., in this notice provision. This notice provision only applies to berthage, wharfage and harbour dues. It does not apply to rentals, nor to confidential contracts, and that's covered off in clause 43 of the act. So we recommend to you that there really is no concern. The rentals and confidential contracts are issues that will still stay commercially confidential between the port and the lessee.

Mr. Gouk: This almost comes back to a confliction between what was written and what was stated by the minister when he talked in regard to nomination of users. In the field, we heard that people want it to reflect what was said as opposed to what was written - and you will find amendments dealing with this later on. On that particular issue, the parliamentary secretary stated that ``the intent was'' - My concern is that intent doesn't mean a thing if it isn't written that way. Maybe the current government, the current minister or the current bureaucracy would interpret it one way, but if it isn't written and clarified, a future minister or bureaucracy department could in fact choose to interpret it in a different way. So if you don't put in here, it isn't necessarily going to happen. If you agree there should be the ability to have confidential contracts, then the exclusion has to be spelled out in here.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. McNeill is arguing that clause 43 would include amendments which would make the changes to the definition redundant. In what sense? Would the list of amendments include some which would correct the situation we are talking about? The way it is worded at present, there are no such amendments which would make them redundant. If we were to keep clause 43 as worded in the bill, it would not guarantee the protection we wish to ensure. In any event, that is our interpretation, one which is shared by the port authorities, particularly those of the Port of Montreal and the Port of Quebec.

[English]

Mr. McNeill: There are proposed amendments for clauses 43 and 44. In clause 43, the government's amendment says ``fix a new fee or revise an existing fee for wharfage, berthage and harbour dues'', so it singles those out at that point. Clause 44 provides for the confidential contracting, so it answers the questions that were asked of you at committee and in submissions from the ports to protect their commercial confidentiality in leases and rental agreements. We think we have hopefully covered that off for you.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: We have to know exactly what is the number of the amendment to clause 43 which will correct the situation.

[English]

Mr. McNeill: You get to it in clause 43.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Is it possible to have the number of the amendment in order to see if the correction is in fact made and may have the desired effect?

[English]

Mr. McNeill: It's 43-024.04r, under clause 43.

Mr. Gouk: Sorry, what was that amendment number?

Mr. McNeill: 043-024.04r.

Mr. Gouk: It's not in my book yet.

.0925

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Would it be possible to give us rather...

[English]

Mr. Gouk: Was it G-42, G-21, or what?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: ...just the page number in the main document?

[English]

Mr. McNeill: Page 24.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I see, excuse me.

[English]

The Chairman: Page 53.

Mr. McNeill: What number would you like?

A voice: Just be quiet for a minute, Neil.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I see. It's on page 167.

[English]

Mr. McNeill: It's page 164 in your booklet.

The Chairman: Refer to the page number at the bottom. Is it 164?

Mr. NcNeill: Yes, 164. You should read pages 164 and 167 together to cover this off.

Mr. Keyes: That makes it clear, and there's no need for exclusion.

Mr. Gouk: Page 167 is the one that you would rationalize as the explanation for why there's not a need.

Mr. Keyes: Well, pages 164, 166 and 167.

Mr. Gouk: Yes, 167 is the one that says -

Mr. Fontana: [Inaudible - Editor].

Mr. Keyes: Don't interrupt, Joe.

Mr. Gouk: I don't know about 166. It just says that you don't have give that 60-days notice.

Mr. Keyes: No, page 164 is something different again.

Mr. Gouk: But that all relates to notice. All your amendments do is confirm that when you're giving notice, you don't have to do it for a confidential contract. If it's otherwise, Stan, by all means tell me. In the way I read this, though, all you're saying in this section is that on a confidential contract, you are waived from the requirements of the thirty-day or, as the amendment proposes, sixty-day notice. I think your intention is right, but I don't think it says what you're suggesting in here.

Mr. Keyes: You can direct them to Mr. McNeill on this, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay, we'll go over to you then, Neil.

Mr. McNeill: We think we've covered both of those off for you.

Mr. Barry LePitre (General Counsel, Legal Services, Transport Canada): Just for the information of the committee, I'd mention that the amendment proposed with respect to subclause 43(1) - the one on page 164 - would limit the notice requirement to fees in respect of wharfage, berthage or harbour dues. The amendment that's proposed in respect of subclause 43(4) would also go on to indicate, for greater certainty, that the notice that's required in any event under subclause 43(1) is not required in respect of confidential contract fees, which would include rentals under confidential contracts.

The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Gouk: It only covers notice. It doesn't cover -

Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Gouk is completely right. I know you've covered it off in clause 43, but clause 43 deals with notice. The Reform amendment and Bloc amendments deal with the definition of what ``fees'' will or will not include. So while you may talk about notice - and I understand the support of the fact of not removing rentals from the so-called definition of fees, because that's what we're talking about - clause 2, which is where the amendments are proposed, is on the definition side. Clause 43 and the government's amendments, G-53 and G-54, deal with the notice period or notice of any new fees.

So I understand where you've covered it off, but I think you either agree or disagree with what's being proposed. I think both the Bloc and Reform essentially would like to remove the rentals from the fees as prescribed, and therefore make the case on the basis of why you would want that. So I think our explanation is relevant, but not relevant to clause 2.

I think you're right. I don't agree with your position, but I think we're dealing with the definition of what fees at least should or shouldn't include.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

.0930

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: In the explanation given by Mr. McNeill, I do not see any direct link between the situation we are referring to and amendment G-54. This amendment states that:

(4) The notice required by this section does not apply to any fees accepted in a confidential contract under section 44.

But it does not have the same effect as amending the definition itself.

So we have to decide whether we will amend the definition itself, because it may have an impact on several aspects of the Act. It could also have an impact on the regulations adopted pursuant to the Act. Therefore, I consider the impact of the definition to be broader than that of the proposed amendment G-54. We must understand that the definition enables the port authorities to conduct acceptable commercial transactions, which was one of their demands. That is the basic question which Mr. Gouk is raising and which we raise a little later in another proposed amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Keyes: I suppose, then, Mr. Chairman, what it boils down to is, are we prepared to separate rents from fees? Can the officials give us a reason why separating rents from fees would not be an acceptable amendment to the bill? Is there any repercussion that would happen?

Mr. McNeill: We would ask you, what is the real need to separate them when we handle it or deal with it in the application later on and giving public notice of the fee? So there is no need to separate out the difference between rentals and harbour dues, wharfage, and berthage in this law. It's your call, of course, but there's no need, in our point.

Mr. Fontana: I know there's no need.

I wonder if I could have Mr. Gouk or Mr. Crête tell me, why do you want to separate rents from fees? I know that has come up in certain testimony, but just for my own satisfaction, why is it that you want to separate it out?

Mr. Gouk: Well, first of all, to approach it from the other end, Joe, I don't see where there is a harm, from your perspective, in having this in.

What it does do is make it absolutely clear that rentals are a thing to be negotiated between the ports and the individual renters. In this case, all you're saying is that there is no requirement to give 60 days notice in the event of a confidential contract. But it doesn't say anywhere in the bill that they are not covered in other sections as to the definition of ``fees,'' which means that it could quite possibly be a public document. If there's no harm and there's some rationale as to having it, Joe, then, to take the other side of your argument, why not put it in?

Mr. Fontana: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's why I asked. Now you've done exactly what the department did, and that was to put clause 43 as a consequential to your clause 2 amendment in the sense that you just talked about notice, 60 days notice, in clause 2, which deals with the definitions.

To be clear, if your intention is to ensure on rental contracts that proper notice is given, 60 days is given, and certain confidentiality is respected, then I think clause 43 and the amendments of the government will do what you want it to do on the notice period.

If in fact you're arguing the case of expanding the definition of what fees, which will be the total revenues, if I'm not mistaken, of the port, if all of a sudden you start separating rents off the fees chart, then, I'll tell you, we have all kinds of problems as it relates to dividends, or whatever that new term is.

I would like fees to be all-inclusive. Therefore, as clause 2 now reads, if I'm not mistaken, ```fees' includes duties, tolls, rates and other charges.'' Within ``other charges,'' it would seem to me that would include rents and could include all kinds of things, contracts or lease agreements, confidential or otherwise. So I think ``other charges'' is more inclusive than - What your amendment tries to do, I think, is try to restrict the definition of ``fees'' and also complicates it in the sense that you want to talk about notice, which is better handled under clause 43, not clause 2.

.0935

Mr. Gouk: One of my concerns is that we end up with a breakdown of fees in the thing. If rental incomes, including confidential contracts, are defined in the act as fees, which you are going to break down, then there is a potential loss of confidentiality.

If you exclude that, they still have to account for all revenues. Total revenues have to be accounted for, but it would not be part of the breakdown of fees.

Mr. Fontana: I just don't think the amendment does exactly what you say. If you don't want to preclude those confidential contracts and rental agreements from the fees chart, we'd better handle it under clause 43 and have that discussion there.

We're all on the same side. We all want to have inclusive fees. But I don't think your amendment and that of the Bloc does that. In fact it tends to not do it.

I don't think we have consensus here, so maybe we should stand clause 2, on the issue of fees, until another point.

Mr. Keyes: Well, I think you made your case, Joe.

I'm really glad we have a property manager in our midst, because Mr. Fontana can give us some clear light on this. For the purposes of this particular amendment brought forward by the Bloc and the Reform, we dealt with it in the first half of Joe's explanation. We don't want it removed from the collective of other fees. We don't want to start getting specific.

But on the issue of confidentiality and that kind of thing, we can move that discussion. We can vote on this one now and we can move that discussion down to clause 43, when we reach that clause.

Mr. Gouk: Let me just clarify one thing. Clause 43 deals with the amount of notice that is required, purely and simply.

Mr. Keyes: Exactly.

Mr. Gouk: The fact that you don't give sixty days' notice doesn't confirm or deny the potential of confidentiality or breach of confidentiality. It deals strictly with the amount of notice you have to give.

Mr. Keyes: Well, we can go around this horn 50 times, Mr. Chairman, but we're prepared to vote on this one now and then discuss the confidentiality issue down in clause 43.

Mr. Gouk: I've said my piece.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Let us move to Bloc motion 1.5 on page 5 of the large package of amendments. Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: We are faced with the same definition as in the previous proposal. The difference concerns the definition as a whole. Earlier it read:

"fees" includes duties, tolls, rates and other charges.

We would like the definition to read as follows:

"Fees" includes charges such as harbour dues, berthing and wharfage, as well as duties, tolls, rates and other charges for services rendered, but does not include rentals for the use of assets owned or administered by a port authority.

In order to be consistent, we would probably have to consider that the last part of my definition has just been rejected, from "but does not include rentals", but the first part, which deals more with charges and where the reference to duties is eliminated, remains valid.

[English]

Mr. Keyes: But again, Mr. Chairman, it falls under the definition in the bill of ``other charges'', so for the same reasons, we'd reject this amendment.

Mr. Gouk: Then why have in there ``duties, tolls and rates''? Why not just have ``charges''?

Mr. Keyes: Why not start defining everything you can consider to be a charge? Then we'd have a list from me to you. It says ``other fees'' in the bill, which probably covers it.

Mr. Gouk: Why not just have ``fees'' include whatever? That's your rationale.

The Chairman: Mr. McNeill.

Mr. McNeill: We worked on this language to make it consistent with marine industry convention, history and tradition, and with other pieces of legislation, such as the Canada Shipping Act. This is the language the marine industry is familiar with, and that's why we chose ``duties, tolls, rates and other charges''. That covers it. It's all-inclusive; it covers all of the possible charges.

.0940

Mr. Gouk: Did we get a proposal from a port authority on the expansion of this definition? Didn't we get anything from any port authority through users?

Mr. McNeill: Most of your submissions were to try to separate out rentals. The concern from port administrations was that they didn't want to give notice on rentals. We covered that in clause 43.

Mr. Gouk: Were berthage and wharfage included?

Mr. McNeill: In other fees?

Mr. Gouk: No, in submissions from the various witnesses who came before this committee.

The Chairman: Perhaps you could get back to Mr. Gouk on that question.

Mr. McNeill: Yes, sir.

Mr. Gouk: It's answering a rhetorical question because the answer is that many port authorities came before us and asked to have that definition, aside from the rental thing, which we've discussed, expanded and put in. No one I've heard has said we don't need that. We went and asked them what they think of this bill, and they said they think it is necessary to have this expansion.

So in direct response to Mr. McNeill saying this is the language the industry understands, we went and consulted with the industry and they said they want this expansion.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk. Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I would like to follow up on the argument presented by Mr. Gouk. This amendment is not something I came up with myself. It came from a presentation made by the Port of Montreal and the Port of Quebec. Therefore, I would be a little surprised if these were not the terms used by the marine sector since they are taken word for word from what was proposed.

However, I am prepared to recognize that we have already debated the last three lines, from "but does include rentals for the use of assets", when considering the first motion, and I don't want to bring up again something which has already been rejected. However, I think that the rest of the definition helps to slightly amend the notion we looked at earlier and wanted to correct.

This proposal comes directly from the marine sector itself. I found it in the presentation made by the Port of Montreal, but I think something similar could have been found in every presentation made by the major Canadian ports.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Fontana: Just let me ask one simple question. In the opinion of the administration, are harbour dues, berthage, and wharfage covered off in clause 2, which says ``includes duties, tolls, rates and other charges''? Would there be a problem in saying that for greater certainty, that would include harbour dues and berthage and wharfage fees?

Mr. McNeill: Sure. Also, in subclause 43(1) we mention ``existing fees'', which are berthage, wharfage, etc. So if you wish, yes.

Mr. Fontana: That wouldn't cause us any problems, would it?

Mr. McNeill: Right.

Mr. Fontana: I would ask the Bloc if they would consider that as a friendly amendment. I would second your motion that for greater certainty it would include harbour dues, berthage, and wharfage fees.

Mr. Keyes: I can make it even more clear than that, if I may, Mr. Chairman. On page 5 of the big book you have:

``Fees'' includes charges such as harbour dues, berthing and wharfage, as well as duties, tolls, rates and other charges for services rendered.

So that would be the friendly amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would add that the amendment we are proposing came to us from, among others, the Fraser Harbour Commission, one of the first places we visited. It concerns the whole issue of harbour commissions as such. The witnesses told us that the present structure, which is consistent with the present legislation gives them a flexibility not provided under the initial draft of Bill C-44.

They want to ensure that the new bill will provide them with adequate flexibility. The Fraser Harbour Commission, which is administered by this legislation, stated that since the minister reserves the right to repeal the Harbour Commission Act, they would want to ensure they receive the protection guaranteed to them by the definition of "fees".

.0945

[English]

The Chairman: Well, we are blazing along.

Mr. Gouk: Given that Parliament is probably going to be dissolved at the Easter break, do you think we're going to get this through by then?

Mr. Fontana: How do you know that? Did you check in your crystal ball?

The Chairman: We see no reason to dissolve this Parliament.

Mr. Gouk: I see a lot of reasons every day.

Mr. Keyes: We could save a whole bunch of money just by rolling along for another five years.

Mr. Gouk: I know. You can save a lot by not even having Parliament and just having decrees, because that's what it works out to.

An hon. member: That sounds like a good idea.

Mr. Gouk: I know you guys would think that.

Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, the Bloc is just running through the French translation of that particular amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Following the suggestion made to me by Mr. Keyes, we could compromise by adopting the following wording:

"fees" includes harbour dues, berthing and wharfage, as well as duties, tolls, rates and other charges for services rendered.

[English]

Mr. Keyes: It would be ``other charges'', period.

Mr. Gouk: In other words, you require an amendment minus the last phrase.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, do you accept that?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I would like to thank Mr. Keyes for his proposal. I think it is a helpful compromise. I would propose that version of the amendment, the amendment as corrected.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Is everybody aware of the amendment? All in favour of amendment B-1.5 as amended?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Let us now move to amendment B-1, which is on page 2. Mr. Crête, do you wish to speak to this?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: At the definition of "ports facility" we would just like to add the words "facilities" and "works" which do not appear in the original version of the bill. In our view, these terms represent facilities which should be explicitly mentioned in the definition.

I think that the amendment is consistent with that proposed by the Liberal Party. Their amendment adds the term "terminals" so as to make the definition of "port facility" sufficiently precise to avoid legal problems. Such problems could occur with transactions concerning a facility which would not necessarily be a warehouse.

We believe that the definition becomes more complete through the addition of the words "facilities" and "works". The purpose is to complete the list which includes the words " wharf, pier, breakwater". These are specific examples of what port facilities may be which do not appear in the definition.

[English]

Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, we're prepared to accept this solid amendment if the Bloc would just add the word ``terminal'' after the word ``breakwater'' in their amendment. So it would be:

``port facility'' means a wharf, pier, breakwater, terminal, warehouse or other building.

That way it would also address our proposed government amendments, which we would withdraw if they made that change.

The Chairman: Do you accept that, Mr. Crête?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: If I understand correctly, you would like your amendment on pages 3 and 4 to be considered immediately.

.0950

[English]

Mr. Keyes: No, no. We would drop our amendment if you put the word ``terminal'' after the word ``breakwater'' in your amendment.

Mr. Crête: Okay, at the same place you had it before.

The Chairman: At this speed we'll all be terminal.

Mr. Gouk: This goes to the other side of what Joe was saying. Where there's another facility or other whatever, you've included everything. Now we're expanding definitions.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Gauthier (Department of Justice): If we were to add it after "works"?

Mr. Crête: From my understanding, the Liberals would be ready to propose a subamendment or would ask me to agree that the word "terminal" be included in my amendment. In either case we would agree with the proposal. I don't want to take any credit away from the Liberals.

[English]

An hon. member: Could you just read the whole line now, in French?

[Translation]

Mr. Gauthier: Agreed.

"port facility" means that a warehouse or other building or a wharf, pier, breakwater, terminal...

Mr. Crête: No.

Mr. Gauthier: "...terminals...".

[English]

Mr. Keyes: ``Port facility'' means a wharf, pier, breakwater, ``terminal'' would be the additional word, warehouse or other building, etc.

Amendment agreed to

The Chairman: This negates government amendment 1.

Mr. Keyes: We have to vote on the actual clause.

The Chairman: Yes, I know that, but G-1 is no longer. You're withdrawing that, Mr. Keyes?

Mr. Keyes: That's right. We withdraw G-1.

The Chairman: Okay, so let me return to my original question.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to

The Chairman: I note this is clause 2 of 177.

On clause 3 - National Marine Policy

The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Not so quickly.

[English]

The Chairman: Our great leap forward was constrained.

Mr. Keyes, I note that the first amendment on my list is G-2, which can be found on page 6 in English, page 7 in French.

Mr. Keyes, we're fostering harmonization?

Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, we're adding harmonization of standards. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify a component of the 1995 national marine policy - you'll notice I called it the 1995 national marine policy of the SCOT report, Mr. Chair - regarding harmonization of standards.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments? Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I would like the government or senior officials to explain more precisely the meaning of this amendment. From my understanding, it should read as follows:

b) the marine infrastructure and services on international practices and approaches that are consistent with those of Canada's major trading partners in order to foster harmonization of standards among jurisdictions;

Could someone explain to me what is meant exactly by "among jurisdictions"? Does this refer to international jurisdictions or domestic jurisdictions, such as provincial or even municipal authorities? This gives rise to questions concerning land management and other similar issues.

If the purpose of the legislation includes basing the marine infrastructure on various jurisdictions in order to foster harmonization of standards among those jurisdictions, I would like to know since we are considering here the clause defining policy whether the application of the legislation could have some impact on relations with the provinces or municipalities? Or are we talking rather about international jurisdictions? I don't fully understand what exactly has been referred to here.

.0955

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bowie.

Mr. Bruce Bowie (Director, Marine Policy, Department of Transport): Essentially the intention here is to deal with international standards, to recognize that Canada is in the forefront of dealing with other nations on marine standards, through the IMO and other organizations. We want to ensure this policy reflects Canada's willingness to get international safety standards in marine areas.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I recall, at least one or two witnesses were confused with the terminology here. They wondered if it meant we were saying that infrastructure in our ports should be the same as infrastructure in ports internationally. That wasn't the intent, and this clarifies that.

Mr. Bowie: Yes, absolutely. It implied the policy would be international. The policy is a Canadian policy, but it will be pursued in accordance with international standards.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: You mean that the legislator has not added anything deliberately. I will propose a subamendment to add the word "international" at the end of the government's proposal, which would then read as follows:

...harmonization of standards among international jurisdictions;

This would therefore rule out the possibility of interpreting this clause to apply to domestic issues. This clause should not be used as an argument for ignoring the wishes of the provinces or even imposing on municipalities decisions which might go against their rules in the area of land management, for example.

[English]

Mr. Keyes: The objective of any of us is to write a bill that is clear as it possibly can be, and I take the suggestion from the honourable member, but the first line of that amendment says ``Canada's major trading partners''. To put the word ``international'' near the end of the sentence only duplicates, or makes redundant, what you're already saying. Canada's major trading partners would have to be international, of course.

Mr. Gouk: It's a question of language. In support of what Stan has said, earlier in that sentence we've already used the reference to ``international''.

Mr. Keyes: There's ``international practices'' earlier in the paragraph and then the addition of ``Canada's major trading partners'' You're just adding a word that's redundant to the line.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I would like to conclude my statement by reminding you that this amendment comes under the chapter entitled "National Marine Policy". This heading appears just before clause 3. That is why when we read "base the marine infrastructure and services on international practices and approaches that are consistent with those of Canada's major trading partners", and we see added "in order to foster harmonization of standards among jurisdictions", I do not think it is redundant to specify that such jurisdictions are "international".

That's why I am making this proposal. If members decide to vote against, they only have to do so, but I think this point should be specified.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Cullen : It seems to me there's a parallel in we're looking at pursuing free trade initiatives federally when we have internal barriers to trade. It seems to me if we're going to promote harmonization of standards amongst international trading partners, we should also strive to ensure that within Canada we have some kind of harmony.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I would like to confirm to you that the objective of the clause is not only international. You are confirming to me the very point I am seeking to make.

[English]

Mr. Fontana: No, Roy doesn't know what he's talking about.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Cullen: I'm a new member of this committee; sorry.

Mr. Fontana: But I like what he had to say about harmony in Canada.

Mr. Keyes: Mr. Crête, in paragraph 3(a) of the bill, it already says:

a National Marine Policy that provides Canada with the marine infrastructure that it needs and that will promote and safeguard Canada's competitiveness and trade objectives.

So I think we're covered. It's a question of language that's already put forward in the beginning of the sentence and made redundant by the word ``international''.

.1000

The Chairman: Question?

Mr. Keyes: Question.

The Chairman: Okay. All in favour of government motion 2?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, excuse me but we must first vote on the sub-amendment which I proposed, that is to add the word "international".

[English]

The Chairman: Oh, I see, okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Crête, I didn't realize it was a formal motion. You are moving that the word ``international'' be added before the word ``jurisdictions'' in the government amendment.

Amendment negatived

The Chairman: We will move to the government's amendment G-2.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Let us move to Reform motion 2, which is found on page 8. Mr. Gouk, would you care to introduce this amendment?

Mr. Gouk: Do you want it read for the record?

The Chairman: I'd like you just to speak to it.

I note that we have passed an hour in this group exercise, as we're all enjoying talking about this bill. I'm going to try to tighten it up a little bit and move us along a little more quickly.

Mr. Gouk: Just accept my motions, and that will really speed things up.

The Chairman: Perhaps you could facilitate its acceptance if you could tell us in 25 words or less why you moved it.

Mr. Gouk: I moved it because I think financial self-sufficiency is an important factor in the ports. If they don't maintain financial self-sufficiency we have defeated the whole purpose of the bill and we're also defeating the ports themselves.

The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, what the Reform is suggesting is exactly the entire policy objective of Bill C-44 in its entirety. This paragraph covers all marine transport services; it's not limited to ports. The requirement for self-sufficiency in ports is, quite frankly, already covered in paragraph 6(1)(a). It's a question of policy, Mr. Chairman, that's already covered.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, you wish to make a comment on this?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I come back again to the harbour commissions. I would like a clarification which would help my understanding of this question. Has the government proposed an amendment somewhere else which would prevent any repeal of the Harbour Commissions Act, or are we still dealing with the status quo? Could I obtain an answer to that question before I conclude my statement?

Has the clause been maintained which would enable the minister to repeal the Harbour Commissions Act?

[English]

Mr. McNeill: Are you referring to the regional local ports in part II of the act, clause 58? Are you asking does the government intend to continue to operate the regional local ports after year six? Is that your issue?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: No. In Bill C-44, there is a clause allowing the minister to repeal the Harbour Commissions Act basically when he wants to, once Bill C-44 is adopted. Is the wording still the same or have the Liberals proposed an amendment on this point? If so, what is the thrust of the amendment?

[English]

Mr. Keyes: There's no amendment in the bill to repeal the repeal section.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I see. Therefore, the minister will retain the right to repeal the Harbour Commissions Act?

[English]

Mr. Keyes: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Therefore, my point is that as the minister retains...

[English]

Mr. Keyes: Just to stand corrected: not the minister, but the Order in Council and cabinet, all together, by proclamation.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Very well. But as the Governor in Council retains the right to repeal the Harbour Commissions Act, you must understand the wish of the harbour commissions to ensure that the bill gives them the same financial autonomy they already have.

.1005

The members of the harbour commissions, both in British Columbia and in Ontario, repeated to us ad nauseam that the current legislation gave them more flexibility than Bill C-44. For Bill C-44 to be acceptable to them, they would have to maintain the same benefits.

I find that the amendment proposed by the Reform Party is pretty close to ours, that is B-2. It is almost identical. I think these two clauses are important, so as to avoid any feeling of insecurity on the part of the current harbour commissions and ensure that they do not have the impression that the new situation is not as good.

Even though they expressed their position very courteously in their briefs, the witnesses did very clearly indicate to us that the harbour facilities had a very positive economic impact on the communities where they were located. I think it is important to propose an amendment which, in terms of the principles involved in national marine policy, provides the necessary leeway needed by the new Canadian port authorities, which will include the harbour commissions.

[English]

Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, we agree with what Mr. Crête and what Mr. Gouk have just said, but again, it's in the wrong section. Clause 3 deals with a national marine policy. If you look at it, it talks about the policy objectives regarding the total transportation services encompassed in Bill C-44. It has absolutely nothing to do with the ports' self-sufficiency, which I think is better addressed in clause 6 when it deals with Canada port authorities, because the government agrees with you - self-sufficiency is in fact the real test.

So I agree with what Jim and Paul have just said, but it's in the wrong section. Clause 3 is all-encompassing. It talks about transportation services, not only ports. So if you want to get into the discussion of self-sufficiency, let's discuss it in clause 6, but not in clause 3.

I would therefore suggest that both of your amendments - R-2 and B-2 - are in fact out of line, because they don't have any relevance to self-sufficiency in ports, which is dealt with in clause 6.

The Chairman: First you, Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Gouk: First, I'd just like to pass a minor rebuke to you. You did tell me to keep it to 25 words, which I did, and you didn't tell that to the Bloc, which they didn't. The error is on your part, not ours.

The only thing I wanted to counter is what Mr. Keyes said. Subclause 6.(1), first of all, deals with incorporation, which has really little to do - Other than that it's a test being placed on there. Secondly, it says ``likely to remain''. What this amendment is about is ensuring that the port authorities remain financially self-sufficient - a goal set up at the time of incorporation. We're saying fine, at the time of incorporation you have to prove you're financially self-sufficient; this amendment says we will do everything we can to ensure that you stay that way.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Bloc amendment number B-2, page 9. Is it the same issue?

Mr. Gouk: On a point of order, just so we can keep things appropriate, there were only actually two people who voted against that motion.

The Chairman: Oh, no; I did see four hands. I actually was careful to count four hands. I agree there was one abstention.

Mr. Gouk: They must have moved at a lower level than where I'm sitting.

The Chairman: Peripheral vision is a necessity in this job, Mr. Gouk. Okay? But Mr. Gouk, any time you wish to ask for a recorded vote, please do.

Mr. Gouk: Not at this point.

The Chairman: Can I call the question on the Bloc amendment number B-2? We have moved the Bloc amendment number B-2, which is in essence the same as your motion.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

.1010

The Chairman: Government amendment number three is on page 10 in the English and page 11 in the French.

Mr. Keyes, would you like to introduce government amendment number three?

Mr. Keyes: With great pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, could I just get a clarification on a comment that was made while I was trying to correct something else? When you say two Bloc members and one Reform member are allowed to vote, is that because there isn't an authorization slip, or are you saying this is all that is allowed in the first place?

The Chairman: Reform is entitled to two votes at this table. At the current time, Mr. Breitkreuz is not officially at the table. He will be as soon as we receive notification of such. We will allow him to vote as long as it's not in the majority.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Keyes: And as long as it doesn't count, right?

Mr. Chairman, government amendment three adds the goal of intermodal coordination to section 3 of the act. It clarifies, again, the component of our national marine policy regarding intermodal cooperation. It's a good idea, right?

The Chairman: It sounds like a very clear amendment.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 3 as amended agreed to on division

The Chairman: Okay, we will move to Reform amendment 2.5, found on page 12 of the package.

Mr. Gouk: I consider that just a simple housekeeping amendment. It's simply adding part V.

Mr. Keyes: The government, Mr. Chairman, would say that the House is spic and span, so there's no need for the housekeeping.

Amendment negatived

The Chairman: Let us move to government amendment number four while taking advantage of this momentary lapse. Government amendment number four is found on page 13 in English and page 14 in French.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We'll move to Bloc amendment number three, which is found on page 15 of the large package.

Mr. Crête, do you wish to say anything in support of this?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: The amendment sought to withdraw the reference to letters patent. The port authorities made many representations to us and stated that limiting the definition to ensure consistency with letters patent could be restrictive. Under the present wording, some activities could be prohibited or slowed down, and produce fewer benefits. That is why we are proposing this amendment.

.1015

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I understand it, then, the Bloc amendment tries to eliminate reference to real property being described in letters patent. But if I bring it home to my own constituency of Hamilton and Hamilton Harbour, the letters patent are required to define exactly what constitutes a port or, for example, Hamilton Harbour and what those boundaries would be, including what would be federal real property. This is how the control of federal government land is established. So we have to have this there to define the property at any port across the country.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: The definition reads as follows

...the real property that the port authority manages, holds or occupies as set out in the letters patent.

This means that if there is real property that the port authority manages, holds or occupies, which is not necessarily related to the letters patent, there can be economic activity in the port not directly related to the letters patent. That might create a very confused legal situation.

There may be situations where the link with the letters patent is obvious, but there may be facilities or ports, or properties and buildings unrelated to the letters patent but used as part of the port's regular activities, which could subsequently give rise to legal disputes.

We will want to determine whether in fact a particular activity in the port or in some other area was relevant. As such activities take place in buildings not referred to in the letters patent, they should not be considered as port activities. This is the kind of confusion we want to avoid through our amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête. Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Fontana: I'm not a lawyer, but if the letters patent are the authorization and the tool by which a corporation deals with certain matters, the letters patent become very critical for the government to ensure it has control over the federal lands it is asking others to administer and manage on its behalf.

If you look at clause 4, it says ``holds or occupies as set out in the letters patent''. That is the mechanism to ensure the federal government has ultimate authority over the lands it holds. Eliminating that, as your amendment B-3 would do, I think would be very problematic and could cause all kinds of legal problems. I know what you're trying to get at, but I don't believe you want to cause that kind of difficulty.

Mr. Cullen: You could have the Province of Quebec asserting interest.

Mr. Fontana: Which is not what you would want to do, of course.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman?

[English]

Mr. Gouk: Did you hear what he just said?

Mr. Cullen: Sorry; I'll shut up.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Crête?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: You have to realize that this amendment deals with the definition of the word "port". If you leave the definition as is, that means that all real property that the port authority manages, holds or occupies, that it does not manage in accordance with the letters patent, would not be under its control.

That means that as the definition of the term "port" is applied, it will not be able to diversify or expand its activities. A very narrow definition is being provided by stating that the real property that the port authority manages, holds or occupies, must be as set out in the letters patent.

For example, it would not be possible to purchase a building which is not related to the port. The authorities might decide to invest for 5, 10, 15, or 20 years in a building because they expect to need it in 10, 15 or 20 years. They would not have that leeway since the real property would have to be managed, held or occupied as set out in the letters patent. Many activities in the life of a port cannot be considered in relation to the letters patent.

.1020

[English]

Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, subclause 6(2) deals with letters patent. Again you're dealing with definitions when in fact you ought to be dealing with the clauses that talk about the letters patent in the -

The Chairman: We've had discussion of this; let's bring it to a vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Excuse me, but I am not ready to vote. I want to give further explanations on the clause because the question asked by Mr. Fontana... He says that in subclause 6(2), we will find the definition of "letters patent". But our amendment seeks precisely to ensure that, despite everything contained in the definition of "letters patent" stipulating what they must be, the definition of "port" would make it possible to manage buildings which are not necessarily occupied as set out in the letters patent.

There are a number of locations in Canada where this type of situation may arise, where there are in the port physical facilities which are not necessarily managed by the letters patent but have medium or long-term development potential. That is why we consider it important not to bureaucratize port management, because the whole spirit of the bill is opposed to that.

It is in that context that we are proposing this amendment, which is not something created by the Bloc Québécois but is the result of recommendations made to us during our travels.

[English]

The Chairman: I'd like Mr. McNeill to make a comment.

Mr. McNeill: We understand what you're proposing, but we think you can handle it through the letters patent section of the bill, and clause 24 on capacity and powers, and all of the other provisions. But in this part, in this definition, letters patent is the instrument that establishes and directs this new port authority and gives some method of control and accountability.

So we really believe you should keep the reference to letters patent. It will define the corporation.

The Chairman: Okay.

May we have the question?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I would propose that we shelve this clause and vote on it when we have considered the clauses on letters patent. We will then be able to see whether my argument is still relevant or not.

[English]

The Chairman: My sense from looking around the room, Mr. Crête, is there's no willingness to stand this. It is the wish of the committee to deal with this issue now.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: With regard to rules under which the committee operates, it is up to the committee to apply them. Nevertheless, as a member of the committee, I do have the right to make proposals. As regards to rules of the committee, I would like to know whether this approach requires the approval of the committee or whether it should simply not be considered.

[English]

Mr. Keyes: It's the discretion of the chair whether we stand down -

The Chairman: Let me critique more formally, then. Perhaps I should in some of these situations.

Is it the wish of the committee to hold this clause over until a point later in the bill?

An hon. member: No.

The Chairman: All in favour of holding it over? Opposed, if any? Thank you.

We will move to the vote on Bloc amendment 3.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Bloc amendment 4 is found on page 16 in the large package.

Mr. Crête, do you wish to say anything in support of it?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Yes. It is the same context. The definition of "user" reads as follows:

"user", in respect of a port, means a person that makes commercial use of, or provides services at, the port.

.1025

We would like to add:

who makes commercial or other use of the port, in accordance with the letters patent of incorporation of the port authority.

This has the same purpose as the other amendment. We can withdraw the other one.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Gouk: Could I perhaps ask the Bloc member to give us an example of a non-commercial use whereby we should consider that person a user? This is what I gather to be the essence of his amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I can give you an example, but I said that I was withdrawing the amendment. Under the circumstances, there's therefore no point in debating it.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, M. Crête. So clause 4 has been amended by amendment G-4. Shall clause 4 as amended carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: On division.

[English]

Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division

On clause 5 - Application of Part

The Chairman: We now move to clause 5. There are no amendments standing against clause 5. Shall clause 5 carry?

Mr. Gouk: I think you have a clause in your package. Are you withdrawing it?

The Chairman: I'm sorry.

The Clerk of the Committee: We have a new clause, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: I think it's clause 5.1.

Clause 5 agreed to

The Chairman: Now we're going to deal with new clause 5.1. This is amendment G-5, which can be found on page 17 in the English and page 18 in the French.

Mr. Keyes, would you like to introduce new clause 5.1?

Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I've been waiting two and a half years to do this. Frankly, it comes out of the work that took place when this committee went across the country two and a half years ago and achieved a consensus across this land on the need for federal agent status to be applied when moving to a new port system. When it was presented to us, the bill was void of that particular status.

The major port communities across this country, as well as the harbour commissions - who understand that they too may eventually be part of a national marine structure in this country - expressed a necessity in unanimity, I think, back in 1995. Unanimity across the land was again expressed to us during our travels and our last 35 visits. We were told that federal agency status was a necessity in terms of providing their authorities with greater certainty in relation to taxation issues, and in giving the ports authorities a different status in relation to the application of provincial and municipal legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the ports want to remain competitive. The ports need to express that federal presence when doing business globally. Mr. Chairman, this government - we on this side of the table - would support the provision of crown agency status for the ports, and I'm sure my colleagues across the way would as well.

The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Gouk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because I agree with the concept, I think there is one of mine in here somewhere that does essentially the same thing. I haven't had a chance to read the government motion or the ramifications according to the way it's worded so, for the record, can the parliamentary secretary give me assurance that this gives federal agency status to the ports without making them federal agents.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Keyes: I'll defer to our learned colleagues at the head of the table on that one.

Mr. McNeill: It provides for agency status pursuant to whatever you give as powers in clause 24. It does limit the port to federal agent status for port-related activity.

Mr. Gouk: The discussions that took place as we went around were that they need certain protections that federal agency status gives them, but the committee - The intent of this bill, as I understand it, is that they should not be federal agents per se, which would then make Parliament or the Government of Canada responsible for all their financial actions. So that's what I would like to have clarified.

.1030

I see some nodding.

Because I just received it, I don't have time to go through all this and read clause 24 unless you want to take a recess. I'm prepared to accept the undertaking of the government that this means that status, but not federal agent status.

Mr. Keyes: I can respond to the concern that I think is being brought forward by Jim Gouk. I can tell him that the federal government will absolutely not be paying the bill if the port can't cut it.

Mr. Gouk: I know they're not going to, but I just want to ensure that in giving them agency status, we're not placing an obligation on the government.

Mr. Keyes: That's exactly right, and you have that assurance.

Mr. Gouk: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I would like to say that although we represent a sovereignist party, we agree with the principle. We understand that a national government must have such control as is being proposed. In any event, if Quebec does become sovereign, Canadian legislation will continue to apply in Quebec. In such circumstances, we would like such a piece of legislation to continue to exist. In saying this, we are not giving our blessing to the federal system but recognizing the importance of placing the implementation of a port policy within a national context, and I think that is useful.

However, I think Mr. Gouk's remark was very relevant and I want to be sure that in accepting it, the principle will be recognized within every section of the legislation where it is concerned. We have to be sure of this, because a principle can be recognized but in fact become unrecognizable.

I will give you two examples of this. During our travels, witnesses often told us that they wanted to be sure they could borrow, and that this would be protected, assured and guaranteed by the government. This statute will probably make that possible.

Secondly, there was another stage, which concerned the use of the word "Canada", on letterheads or other forms of representation. There was also the whole question of charges related to this.

I just want to give those two examples but before I can vote on the new clause 5.1... If this is adopted after agreement on the principle, we might still have the impression afterwards, not for reasons of ill-will, that we're giving it a different interpretation. Even though it is solidly supported, there might not be the logical results we would expect from this in the rest of the bill. We could then be told that we voted for the principle and accepted the consequences at every other stage.

I would like to be sure that we have a statement clarifying where this major change included in the legislation - in comparison with the original version of Bill C-44 - will lead to amendments. In my view, we should have a list of the clauses which would be amended as a result of the inclusion of clause 5.1, so that we might know before hand which provisions will be affected.

I fully agree with Mr. Gouk on the need to obtain such a list, to be able to study it in detail, determine the impact of the clause and check whether all the recommendations made to us have really been taken into account.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. McNeill, do you want to respond to that?

Mr. McNeill: Yes, we can prepare that for you. We don't have it for you today but, quickly, we could tell you that the key clauses that will be amended as a result of this addition are clause 20 to 22, which cover the obligations of the federal government: there would be no guarantees; the government will not back their loans. The other consequential change is to clause 24, capacity and powers. And the other references throughout the bill are with regard to pledging assets to cover off borrowing costs. Other changes would be such things as those to the Municipal Grants Act and the Access to Information Act. There is a whole range of amendments flowing from this addition. We can prepare them for you, but we do not have them for you today because we just got the amendments.

.1035

Mr. Fontana: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, G-5 creates new clause 5.1, which establishes ports as federal and gives them federal agency status. It also gives them certain advantages in being federal agents. That's what we understand because that's what we were told. But if you in fact go to clauses 20 to 24, which deal with obligations of the port authority, the no-guarantee provisions, and the Canada Business Corporations Act, and if you look at the capacity and powers as outlined in all those clauses, including clause 24, for which you all have amendments, that in fact is the limitation of what those things and that federal agency status are all about. Clause 5.1, or amendment G-5, therefore creates federal agency status, and clauses 20 to 24 all deal with how we will in fact ensure that the government does not provide a blank cheque, a guarantee for any advantages that federal agency status provides.

So we have to create the entity first, and that's what this bill does. All those other clauses ensure that the government - as the parliamentary secretary and the staff have said - doesn't give any blank cheque to a port authority to go out and borrow all kinds of money while expecting the Canadian taxpayer to have to pay for it.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Fontana. Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Gouk: I'm not denying anything the Liberal side is saying. I'm just pointing out, as I did at the beginning, that I'm seeing this for the first time right now. Neither I nor the committee has the time to stop while I read clauses 20 to 24.

I would just point out for future clarification, where possible, that the bulk of my amendments were in and available to the government last week, but I'm seeing the government's for the first time as I walk in to start clause-by-clause. If we had some advance notice and information on these, then we would have been able to see the ramifications and the impact on the rest of the bill. I think I'm being fair in asking - as I have done - that the parliamentary secretary go on the record and give his commitment that this is what it means. I am prepared to accept what he says at face value, but it is important that we have the information as much in advance as possible.

The Chairman: Good point, Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Fontana: You have it, Jim.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Clause 5.1 is very short, but it contains two important points. It reads as follows:

5.1 (1) A port authority is an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada for the purposes mentioned in section 24.

Therefore, to ensure that everything is consistent, the vote on clause 5.1 should come after the adoption of clause 24. My request is more justifiable than the previous one that I made concerning another clause.

As it is stated that the port authorities will be agents of Her Majesty for the application of clause 24, it is clause 24 which will specifically define how the status of agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada will apply. Clause 24 is a major part of the legislation because it defines capacities and powers. Before deciding how to vote on clause 5.1, we have to know how clause 24 will be applied.

We might agree that port authorities would be representatives of Her Majesty, but if several important aspects of section 24 invalidate that status, it would not be logical to adopt it with inadequate content. As far as I am concerned, this would be a practical and feasible approach; an approach that would not be tantamount to questioning the foundation of section 24, but which would nonetheless make it possible for us to arrive at well-informed decisions.

[English]

The Chairman: As was stated at the beginning when we got into this process, there are five or six major amendments, followed by a number of consequential or much smaller issues. This is one of the major ones. It has been discussed at great length, first in the Keyes report, and then around this table as we've gone through. I have therefore allowed a little more debate on this, but I'd like to start to move fairly expeditiously if we can.

Mr. Crête has proposed that we stand this until we've had a chance to look at clause 24, so let me ask the question.

Mr. Keyes: Can I say something before you do, Mr. Chairman? We want to pass this because it's the principle that will lay out the rest of the bill. We also feel it is important that unanimity on this particular clause be achieved. It would look good, the rest of the country wants this thing, and I'm sure the Bloc wants to participate in its passing.

.1040

We've been at this for an hour and half, an hour and forty minutes, Mr. Chairman, and some people may have to go to the washroom. If we gave the opposition five or ten minutes to go through clause 24 and find a comfort level with the understanding behind this, and talk to Neil McNeill if he has to - Can we come back after a five-minute break, so that we can achieve the unanimity we're looking for from the Bloc?

Would a five-minute break make a difference so you can look at 24 and be comfortable with voting for this amendment?

Mr. Comuzzi (Thunder Bay - Nipigon): I second the break, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I think we might come to an agreement if we decide to study section 24 now and to vote on section 5.1 after that.

[English]

Mr. Keyes: Yes, we are.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I understand that everyone is concerned with ensuring that this section is indeed adopted. However, if the committee decided to study section 24 now, we could finish dealing with it, and then vote on section 5.1.

Mr. Keyes: Sure.

Mr. Crête: So we could look at all the amendments put forward for section 24, and then come back to section 5.1.

[English]

Mr. Keyes: I don't have a problem with that, Mr. Chairman. If you want to stand down this clause until we look at clause 24, then come back to this clause and proceed in order, that's fine with me.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: We could look at section 24 right now. We don't have to wait.

[English]

Mr. Keyes: The proposal is to stand this down on a provision that we'll go right to clause 24, look at 24, and then come back to this clause.

The Chairman: Okay. There's agreement on that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Clause 5.1 allowed to stand

Mr. Gouk: I think we've lost our five-minute break.

Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I don't mind if you have a five-minute break.

The Chairman: Let us move from clause 5.1 to clause 24.

Mr. Keyes: Page 88, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Why don't we just pass everything in between? Perhaps it would make sense.

Mr. McNeill, do you want to offer a few comments on this clause?

Mr. McNeill: On the first amendment on clause 24?

The Chairman: On clause 24. You've heard some of the discussion here.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I have one question. Are most of these government amendments? Oh, I see. There are amendments put forward by all the parties.

[English]

Mr. Fontana: It's from every party.

The Chairman: On clause 24, I have thirteen amendments.

Mr. McNeill: There are six government amendments and seven opposition amendments.

The Chairman: There are six government amendments and seven opposition ones.

On clause 24, government amendment G-26 found on page 88 in English and 89 in the French. Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Keyes: It's a response to a specific port request that the word ``only'' be removed because of concerns regarding limitation on the scope of port authority activities. So we're taking out the word ``only'', Mr. Chairman, at the request of the port authorities. That's all G-26 does.

The Chairman: All those in favour of G-26?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Just a second, I missed a bit. O.K., I've got it.

[English]

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: On the Bloc amendment B-24 found on page 90.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: You should have kept ours. It was the better of the two.

[English]

The Chairman: It's the same thing, so it's withdrawn.

.1045

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: When we talk about partnership, then we can agree.

[English]

The Chairman: On G-27, page 91 in the English, page 92 in the French. Mr. Keyes, any comment?

Mr. Keyes: Just that we're responding again to the ports and their concerns that the wording that's presently there was far too restrictive, so we're opening it up.

The Chairman: All in favour?

Mr. Gouk: Could I just have a moment on this?

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Gouk: I'd like to at least read it before we vote on it.

The Chairman: That's a fair interpretation of legislative responsibility.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, could I just point out that several of the amendments that follow deal with the limitations to be imposed on the activities of port authorities. Some of these have been put forward by the Reform Party. Could we just set aside one or two minutes to look at them, so that we can see what they contain?

[English]

Mr. Keyes: Let's take the five-minute break now and give him five to look at it while we're taking a five-minute break. We can come back at ten to, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: This committee has never been capable of taking a five-minute break, but we'll try it. We will recess until 10:50.

.1046

.1053

The Chairman: Okay, let's get back at it. I've been chastised most thoroughly by the researchers, who say it's unprecedented for a committee to take a bathroom break.

Mr. Keyes: Too bad.

The Chairman: Let us return to this discussion. Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Gouk: I essentially think I can go along with this, but I have a question.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Gouk: The question is that it starts out saying ``Unless the letters patent provide otherwise'', and then it goes on to say that you can do all the usual marine port activity types of things as well as ancillary activities necessary to support port operations. Under that definition, could you give me an example of something you could not do? Given that you can do the usual marine things and then you can do anything else you think is necessary for your port operation, what then is something you could not do?

.1055

Mr. Keyes: For example, in my port in Hamilton, if you're giving them permission for ancilliary operations at the port and they decide that what they'll do is create this beautiful large marina in front of the harbour commission building, if it's determined that the marina would be in direct conflict with a recommendation from the community at large, which says we have three private marinas that are trying to cut it on the harbour and we would like to make sure that the port of Hamilton doesn't create a large marina base, therefore what we can do is allow them to have their ancilliary activity, but put in letters patent with the restriction that they can't have a marina.

So what we're saying is they can proceed with their ancilliary activities, but if the greater community at large, when during the process of negotiation for a CPA -

Mr. Gouk: Just for clarification, then, is the way this is worded intended to mean that you can run anything except what is specifically excluded in letters patent?

Mr. Keyes: That's right.

Mr. Gouk: Okay.

Mr. Keyes: Letters patent is the tool we can use to prevent -

Mr. Gouk: To stop specific things.

Mr. Keyes: - something specific from the greater community.

The Chairman: Good. Are we ready for the question?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: We are talking about amendment G-27, aren't we?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I wanted to know why the second last line of the amendment reads as follows:

... as well as ancillary activities necessary to support port operations.

Wouldn't we do better to delete the word "ancillary" and simply say: "as well as other activities necessary to support port operations"? The word "ancillary" is going to lead to differences in interpretation and legal battles between the department and others. If we just say "as well as other activities necessary to support port operations", we leave port authorities a greater margin of manoeuvre. The word "ancillary" can create problems, since it is subject to a variety of legal interpretations. For example, interpretation on what "ancillary" means, and to what extent an activity is ancillary, may differ. For example, if somebody should sell ice cream at a port, would that be an ancillary activity?

[English]

Mr. Keyes: I would welcome Mr. Crête to make, Mr. Chairman, an amendment to this clause, a friendly amendment to drop the word ``ancillary''.

Mr. Crête: Okay.

Mr. Keyes: Then we can vote on that and proceed with the clause.

The Chairman: That's acceptable, Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: My other question is on amendment G-26.

[English]

Mr. Keyes: One at a time.

The Chairman: Amendment G-26 has been passed.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Before that?

[English]

The Chairman: Just before the break, we passed amendment G-26.

Mr. Keyes: We're on amendment G-27.

The Chairman: Amendment B-24 was withdrawn.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I was told we would be studying section 24 after the break, and G-26 is the first...

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me. If you recall, there was a discussion to defer consideration of the crown authority until we discussed clause 24. We got into clause 24. We passed amendment G-26, which was the first amendment to clause 24. Then amendment B-24, you will recall, was withdrawn because it was similar to amendment G-24. We're now on amendment G-27. I'm simply following the order.

So you are right that you are on amendment G-27, and hence this reference to the ancillary activities, but amendment G-26 has already been passed.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: So it's been adopted?

[English]

The Chairman: It is accepted.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: After the break?

[English]

The Chairman: It was accepted before. If you recall, we had the discussion and we accepted amendment G-26.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I believe I had a different understanding of how we would proceed. We said we were going to study section 24 in its entirety, if I remember correctly. Have I got it wrong?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes. I did misunderstand. Let me just rephrase it. There was an agreement to defer to clause 24. In going through clause 24, we started with whether clause 24 shall carry. We have a series of amendments. We started to work through the amendments. We dealt with amendments G-26 and B-24.

.1100

It was then noted by Mr. Gouk, I think, that G-27 is quite a lengthy amendment, and he then asked for the break to consider it - and, I assume, the subsequent amendments. We agreed to take the break.

Mr. Gouk: For clarification, I didn't specifically ask for the break at that point. I asked for sufficient time to be able to read it before I was asked to vote on it. It was then suggested by others that we take the break.

The Chairman: Okay.

Yes, Mr. Cullen?

Mr. Cullen: On G-27, I would like to argue -

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen, let me just make sure of something first.

You're okay, Mr. Crête?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Fine. I apologize for having come late.

[English]

The Chairman: On G-27, you are proposing an amendment to remove the word ``ancillary''.

Mr. Cullen, are you speaking to that particular issue?

Mr. Cullen: I am, Mr. Chairman.

I will be voting against dropping the word ``ancillary'', because we've had a lot of testimony from the business community, the municipalities and others before this committee who were concerned that the activities could be broadened unnecessarily and create some competition with local businesses and also some conflict with local municipalities and grants in lieu, etc.

So I would support the leaving of the word ``ancillary''. I believe other issues can be dealt with through letters patent, but I am concerned about dropping the word ``ancillary''. I will vote against dropping that word.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I took it out because we already have: "as well as other activities necessary to support port operations." The phrase "other activities" already has a qualifier. They have to be "necessary" to support port operations.

By taking out the word "ancillary,"we are just reducing the number of legal battles that might ensue over varying interpretations. If the amendment had just said: "activities ancillary to port operations," the scope would have been even broader, leaving room for all sorts of possible interpretations. By adding both the words "ancillary" and "necessary," we might still end up needlessly wrangling.

This gives us a little more leeway. Anyone can, of course, interpret the hearings differently, but I believe that my views are in line with those of organizations who testified before us and wanted to take out the word "ancillary".

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Cullen: I won't dwell on this a long time, but we heard from the business community, from the chambers of commerce and from municipalities that this could create some conflict. We've reached a reasonable compromise with the wording now and through the letters patent. Leaving ``ancillary'' in creates a burden of proof on the authority to demonstrate that this activity is related to a port operation. Without that, ``activities necessary to port operations'' could be absolutely anything, in my view. I'll vote against it.

The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Gouk: In keeping with what was just said, we've seen a number of ports that right now operate items that would not come under the hard definition just given. These include community parks, which have nothing to do with the port operation; a restaurant, because it's the highest, best and only use of particular land in the port of Vancouver; and other activities that have to do with value-added and revenue for the port, in the case of Fraser port.

Under the strict definition and intent of what you've just said, Mr. Cullen, that would not be allowed, and I think, or I hope, that's the very thing this amendment is trying to overcome: this concern raised by the various port authorities.

So I would hope that you might reconsider your argument and that it is not the intent of the Liberal motion.

The Chairman: The point has been made and is fairly clear on both sides here.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I just want to add one thing to make sure we all understand this properly. Let's read the paragraph together. You'll see that, if we leave the word "ancillary", we are referring to the first part of the sentence, where it says: "limited to...the port activities directly related to shipping, navigation, transportation of passengers and goods and handling and storage of goods, as well as..." That is what the word "ancillary" refers to.

.1105

So if we leave the word "ancillary," we might end up with non-ancillary activities necessary to support port operations. These might include marketing and other kinds of operations. This might cause difficulties in cases where measures are necessary but cannot be taken under the Act. If we just leave it as "necessary to support port operations," we still leave a very broad scope, but we are no longer limited by the first part of the sentence which specifies navigation, transportation of passengers and goods and handling and storage of goods.

[English]

The Chairman: Good question. The Bloc has moved that government amendment 27 be further amended by removing the word ``ancillary''.

Submendment agreed to

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Now we move to Reform motion number 13, on page 93.

Mr. Gouk: As I understand it, it's now out of order.

The Chairman: So it's withdrawn.

Mr. Gouk: If it's out of order and we don't have it yet, we'll withdraw it.

The Chairman: Okay. Move to government motion number 28 on page 94 in English and French. It's government amendment number 28, which is in clause 24.

Mr. Keyes: It's technical, Mr. Chairman, in nature. It's a technical amendment in the English version. It's only just to make the adjustment.

The Clerk: The word ``activity'' replaces ``business''.

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: We are discussing amendment G-28, I believe.

[English]

The Chairman: We're on G-28, page 94. The technical amendment brings the English text in line with the French text.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: That's fine.

[English]

Mr. Keyes: It replaces the word ``business'' with ``activity'', Mr. Chairman, in the English version to match the French version.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Reform amendment R-14 is on page 95. Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Gouk: I'm still catching up here.

The Chairman: As we all are.

Mr. Gouk: I don't want to say I need a bit of time, but because there's been an amendment by the government, I have duly reflected on whether or not what I have amended here is now necessary or not. If you could just give me one moment -

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a comment, and I'm sure you know what it will be, from the parliamentary secretary. I'm inclined to think that this amendment is no longer necessary because of government motion G-27.

Mr. Keyes: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gouk: So I'll withdraw it.

The Chairman: So R-14 is withdrawn. We are moving to G-29. It may be found in the large package on page 96 in English and page 97 in French. Mr. Keyes, would you care to make a comment on this?

Mr. Keyes: The effect of the change, Mr. Chairman, is to prevent the port authority from contracting in the name of Her Majesty. As we said, there will be consequential amendments to the federal agency status, and this is an example of one of them. This makes adjustments for the wider scope given under subclause 24(2), and given the addition of agent status.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Crête.

.1110

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: The amendment states:

(3.1) A port authority may contract only in its own name.

How does that tie in with section 5.1? Is there a link between these two provisions?

[English]

Mr. Keyes: Absolutely.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: The fact that we will be recognizing that status...

[English]

Mr. Keyes: That's why we elected to take your suggestion and hold that in abeyance until we come to these amendments.

Mr. Crête: Okay.

Mr. Keyes: These amendments do what you were concerned about. We want to sort out exactly what federal agent status is, and all of the consequential amendments that are linked to what you're concerned about. So the answer to your question is that they are linked, and this is just another protection for the federal government against federal agent status and some of the definitions involved with federal agent status.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Let's see if I understand this correctly. Do you want to say that, in spite of its status as a federal agency, the port authority can enter into the contract only in its own name? This means that it can never refer to such a contract as a federal government contract, since it will be a port authority contract, with guarantees allowing only the best conditions.

[English]

The Chairman: That's correct.

Mr. Crête: Okay.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We now move to Reform amendment R-15, which is found on page 98 of the large package.

Mr. Gouk, do you want to comment on this?

Mr. Gouk: I'm reading.

The Chairman: Mr. McNeill, do you want to comment on this?

Mr. McNeill: I'm just looking for it.

The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.

A voice: Somebody comment.

The Chairman: I think it's a perfectly normal amendment.

Mr. Keyes: I'd like an explanation from Mr. Gouk, if he has one.

Mr. Gouk: It is trying to get around some of the problems expressed by all of the ports and a lot of the users, in that ports would be restricted to doing only port business. This particular subclause basically says that if you are already doing it, you can continue to do it, but if you stop doing it, you can't start again. In other words, some of the ancillary businesses that we are going to allow them to use are now just other businesses. It says that notwithstanding what else we've said - for example, if the convention centre, which is not a marine use, ceases for some reason to be used as a convention centre by Vancouver and then restarts again, it wouldn't be allowed to under the provisions of this clause. Likewise, the aftermarket assembly of auto parts in Fraser port, and the restaurant used by the Port of Vancouver - if the tenant leaves and someone else comes in and wants to start it up as a restaurant, if this remains in there, they would not be allowed to do that.

Mr. McNeill: If they came and made a case that they would like to restart that activity, they could do it through their supplementary letters patent.

Mr. Gouk: I would have to see where it says you can go for supplementary letters patent in order to do that. That notwithstanding, if you're going to let them do it and you say it's reasonable that they do things in support of the port, which we have already passed a government motion in support of, why not remove that for greater certainty?

Mr. Keyes: Because then you create a void. We're trying to ensure that the grandfathering of this in place. Your example can be covered off by supplementary letters patent, but in order to assure the main theme of the port and its ability to continue the use of the real property that it manages - The grandfathering of that is extremely important to the ports and harbour commissions in order that it maintain the flow of what has happened in the past, and anything in the future, like your example with the restaurant, can be covered off by supplementary letters patent.

Mr. Gouk: The only reason you have grandfathering is if you intend to exclude the right to do something, but protect them, given that they've done it before. You've already passed government motion G-27, which basically says you don't require grandfathering because we're going to allow you to do these things.

.1115

Mr. Keyes: No.

Mr. Gouk: Now you have a clause that's in conflict with an earlier one.

Mr. Keyes: No, 27 doesn't do that, Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Gouk: You certainly implied and undertook that it does - that they can run businesses other than those directly related to marine activities -

Mr. Keyes: That's correct.

Mr. Gouk: - in support of port operations. That's what these things are for. We passed that, saying yes you can, and now we have a clause in here that says if you were doing it before and you cease doing it now, you can't do it. There's a conflict.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk. Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Cullen: Mr. Chairman, my understanding was that the activities allowed would be those allowed under the letters patent. Whether or not there's any reference later in the act to the supplementary letters patent, it's standard knowledge that if you want changes to the letters patent you'd have to come forward to seek supplementary letters patent. So I'm not sure it would be required. It may well be in the act. I haven't looked for it, but it's standing procedure.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I would tend to support the Reform Party amendment. It seems to me that section 24(2), which is in question here, already includes this provision. This paragraph therefore seems somewhat redundant, repeating to some extent the provisions of section 24(2), which sets out the power of a port authority and its limitations.

So, coming back to the term "navigation" in the section we have just studied, the subsection the Reform Party wants to delete seems to be redundant in any case. I think we should delete it, since by doing so we eliminate an unnecessary interpretative provision. The principle is already stipulated in the bill, and this is just an additional interpretative provision that will complicate things for port authorities.

[English]

Mr. McNeill: In our view, the purpose of this clause is to clean up in-port operations, or non-conforming uses pursuant to this new act. It gives the port an opportunity to continue without severing contracts and certain activities. But should they cease, then the port is prohibited from engaging in that unless it gets supplementary letters patent. It's a way of cleaning up old projects and old non-conforming uses of the port, and trying to meet the argument put forward in many of your submissions, which was that these port administrations should stick to the port operations rather than get off into a whole field of condo development or other ancillary activities.

The Chairman: Shall we call the question?

Mr. Gouk: No, I'm not satisfied that we're all straight on what we're talking about here.

The Chairman: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Gouk: I am speaking for myself, thank you. On G-27, I was told by the parliamentary secretary that the letters patent don't point out what you can do, they point out what you cannot do. So if you want to have something like this subclause (4) -

Mr. Keyes: I didn't say that.

Mr. Gouk: Stand it. Let's go back to -

Mr. Keyes: I said that can be -

Mr. Gouk: I asked you that specifically.

Mr. Keyes: - part of the letters patent. It demonstrates what you can't do, but it does many other things, including definition of a landing.

Mr. Gouk: If in fact we're going to, as was stated, put in the letters patent what you cannot do, so that you have ways of stopping specific operations, and if this subclause (4) is dealing with those activities you do not wish the port to engage in in the future, then it has to be clarified that it is referring to those things covered in the letters patent that are not a permitted use, but where they are done before June 1996.

Right now it basically says that anything you are doing that is not part of regular port activities before June 1, if you stop doing it you can't do it again unless you get an amendment to your letters patent, and that conflicts with the amendment put in by amendment G-27.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Let me come back to what I was just saying. It seems I wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about the section that was just carried, the one stipulating that the power of the port authority to operate a port is limited to the power to engage in activities within the port related directly to shipping, etc. The section is very clear as it stands.

.1120

However, if we leave it there, we will be imposing a major limitation on port authorities, who will find themselves obliged to justify activities they engage in already - activities that may be on the line, that have been tolerated so far and that are among its traditional activities. Mr. McNeill was very clear on this point: the section gives the department a policing role.

The spirit of the bill is to provide for broader commercialization, but this section will have the opposite effect, by imposing a handicap at the outset. Since the port authorities' areas of activity have already been limited in the preceding section, I don't think we need say anymore. If certain activities were not fully in compliance with the legislation, the port authority should not be able to resume them. I have the impression this section goes against the spirit of the bill, by taking away the port authorities' leeway.

Of the port authorities in existence at the time the legislation comes into force, there will be some that already had a very broad margin of manoeuvre, and these will find themselves more limited. We should therefore not impose additional limitations on them. Those limitations might generate unacceptable levels of frustration. As it is, we are asking them to change their status, something that is not really to their advantage. We shouldn't really oblige them to demonstrate... It's as if we were finding them guilty at the outset. This part of the section should be deleted.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Cullen: The way I read the act now is that this part we're looking at, subclause 24(4), with its reference back to section 10, allows those activities that are there now to be grandfathered into the new port authority through letters patent. That's the kind of thing you're talking about, Jim.

For example, there may be an intention to switch the restaurant in Vancouver or the value-added facility at Fraser to some other uses. If it is to be a casino instead of a restaurant or if you change a value-added facility to a marina or a marine museum or something, you should be required to come back with supplementary letters patent to get that concurrence. That is not really dealt with by this legislation and would be dealt with by regulation. As I read this legislation now, it allows for the grandfathering in of the kinds of things you're concerned about. That's my reading.

Mr. Gouk: It does in fact allow for grandfathering. The point is that subclause 24(2) as amended by the government states that basically if it is necessary to support port operations, you can do it without amendment to letters patent.

Again, using the specific example of the restaurant in the Port of Vancouver, subclause 24(4) says that if at any time the tenant leaves and it ceases to operate as a restaurant, you cannot then start running it as a restaurant again unless you go and have your letters patent amended. You cannot keep a tenant on the hook for that long period of time while you negotiate with the government on an amendment to letters patent. An operator either wants to run the thing or he doesn't.

Here it says you have to get an amendment to letters patent, which is in conflict with subclause 24(2), which says you don't unless it's specifically prohibited in the letters patent as a prohibitive operation as described by the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. McNeill: You're absolutely correct. It does prevent a port authority from reinstituting an activity that is not port-related.

To respond to what the committee had asked quite some time ago, the department has set up a ports desk under the programs branch. Supplementary letters patent are dealt with by ministers. It is not a three- or four-month delay; it will be a very fast turnaround arrangement for a supplementary letters patent.

.1125

This clause really is designed to meet the commitment to the industry, which says try to keep the ports close their knitting. Don't have them branching off into condo development, restaurants, casinos and other things. Try to stick to the knitting. What this clause is doing is trying to clean it up over the next few years.

The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Fontana: I know what Jim is trying to get at, but I also know the Reform Party doesn't believe in retroactivity or using the stick by changing the rules midstream.

If you look at subclause 24(2), it points out port activities, and subclause 24(3) talks about restricted port powers, but you have to deal with existing uses. You have to grandfather those things that are in place now and have been as of June 1, 1996. You can't take away what's already there. That would be very punitive.

Albeit that the rules now, on the basis of the amendments we put forward, will be that you shall restrict your activities to port activities, the fact is you have to recognize what was already in place as of and before June 1, 1996. If some changes occur after June 1, 1996, they have to fall within that definition we've just amended, which is fairly restrictive.

Surely you're not suggesting that if those uses exist now, you're going to say they're out of business and they can't have them. That would be overly punitive. We all talked about self-sufficiency, so let's take that into account too.

Your amendment removes the whole part of subclause 24(4) that deals with existing uses. You have to deal with what's already there.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fontana.

Actually, Mr. Gouk, I think I'll go to Mr. Crête first.

Mr. Gouk: I'd like to quickly respond to what Mr. Fontana said.

The Chairman: Oh, okay. You go ahead.

Mr. Gouk: He would be absolutely correct if the government had not amended subclause 24(2).

Under subclause 24(2) as originally written, it says they can't do anything except directly port-related activities. You amended that to say they can do other things, so now you have something that's in conflict with that, because subclause 24(4) now says you're restricted if you stop doing something that subclause 24(2) allows you to do, given that you were already doing it before -

Mr. Keyes: [Inaudible - Editor].

Mr. Gouk: Stan, will you let me finish, for Christ's sake?

If you were already doing something that you're allowed to do under subclause 24(2), but because you were doing it prior to June 1, now we're not going to let you do it any more, unless you amend your letters patent - It's in conflict.

You would be correct had you not amended subclause 24(2). Then I would have had a separate amendment prior to this one.

A voice: I don't read it that way.

Mr. McNeill: The one comment I'd make there is that the non-conforming use a port may want may not be an ancillary activity to the port.

Mr. Gouk: We don't have the word ``ancillary'' in there any more.

Mr. McNeill: We dropped it? Okay.

Mr. Bowie: But we do have ``activities necessary to support port operations''.

Mr. Gouk: And it may be that where it gets money from supports the port, unless it's prohibited in the letters patent, as you've stated.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: We find the last sentence particularly onerous:

if the port authority ceases to use it for that purpose at any time, the port authority may not reinstitute the use.

We could perhaps find a compromise, and get rid of this bit altogether. In some cases, properties may cease to be used, independently of the port authority.

For example, take a restaurant run by a contractor, a caterer. If the caterer does not fulfil his obligations, the restaurant will be closed - perhaps for two, three or six months, or even a year. If we leave this section as it is, the port authority, which operated the restaurant in good faith, may be obliged to stop operating the restaurant because of a contractual problem. This would create a real problem. The port authority would want to resume that activity - the restaurant - and would then be told that it's no longer complied with its mandate. This could have a significant economic impact.

How about a compromise, then. Let's just take this bit out. I'm proposing this to both Reform MPs and the government side.

.1130

If we remove the offending phrase "the port authority may not reinstitute the use" from subsection (4), we wouldn't be cutting out anything drastic. Like the example I gave, there are situations that are outside the control of the port authority, situations in which properties may cease to be used without the port authority wanting to cease using them. The rest of the paragraph does not contradict - in any significant way - the amendment put forward for section 24(2) earlier.

I could live with section 24(2), and the first part of section 24(4). The port authority would not be obliged to prove it is acting in compliance with the legislation. This will greatly mitigate the negative impact on port authorities involved.

The example of the restaurant is a very good one. There could be a restaurant operating in the port, which is in no way related to the port authority. There could be many examples of this kind. There could be a skidoo operation which has no direct link to the port. We could perhaps come to some consensus and delete lines 15 and 16 of the French version, rather than lines 7 to 16 of the French version.

[English]

The Chairman: We have had a rather fulsome discussion of this. Are we ready for the question?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Would the Reform party or the Liberal Party be prepared to consider -

[English]

Mr. Keyes: Thank you, but no thank you. No.

Mr. Chairman, I heard the explanation. It was a long and thorough explanation. We're not interested in the amendment, thanks.

[Translation]

M. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would move a subamendment to the Reform Party amendment. Instead of reading: "That Bill C-44, in clause 24, be amended by deleting lines 7 to 16 on page 14," the amendment should read "... by deleting lines 14 to 16, on page 14," after the word "case".

[English]

Mr. Keyes: It's up to the Reform member whether he wants his thing amended or not.

The Chairman: Do you want the amendment proposed by Mr. Crête to Reform amendment 15?

Mr. Gouk: On a point of order, for clarification I would point out if that is the committee's wish, you would have to delete a little further up, starting at the word ``but'' on line 14.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Now we move to Reform amendment 15.

Mr. Gouk: I would like a recorded vote on this, because I think the committee is about to defeat a very important amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.

A recorded vote has been requested on Reform amendment 15.

An hon. member: They're all important.

Mr. Gouk: Do you want me to have them all, then? Stan, is that your wish?

The Chairman: Whoa, settle down. We will proceed with a recorded vote.

There seems to be a tie.

Mr. Keyes: Comuzzi voted in favour of it.

The Chairman: Mr. Comuzzi, could you confirm your vote?

Mr. Comuzzi: I vote in favour of that.

Mr. Keyes: So we have a tied vote.

Mr. Gouk: Now the chair has to decide whether things like the Cannery Restaurant in Vancouver can continue if it has a break in operations.

Mr. Keyes: Oh, shut up.

Mr. Gouk: Well, it's a fact.

The Chairman: Are you looking for a vote from the chair, Mr. Clerk?

Wait until the voting is finished, please.

The Clerk: Yes, it's a tied vote.

The Chairman: Never having eaten at the Cannery Restaurant, I will vote nay.

Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings]

.1135

Mr. Fontana: So the restaurant can continue.

Mr. Gouk: Unless it has a break in the tenancy, in which case it cannot become one again unless there's -

Mr. keyes: It would have to quit business first.

The Chairman: Excuse me. Reform amendment 15 is defeated. Now we move to government amendment 30.

Mr. Keyes: It's a technical amendment, Mr. Chairman, in the English version only.

The Chairman: It's found on page 99 of the English version and page 99 of the French. It's a technical amendment.

Mr. Keyes: It's in only the English version.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Let's go to government amendment 31 to clause 24, found on page 100 in the English version and page 101 in the French. Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Keyes: It just gives wider scope of the activities, again, Mr. Chairman, to the ports.

The Chairman: And it refers them to the letters patent?

Mr. Keyes: That's right.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion on this?

Mr. Gouk: I'm trying to read it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I will wait.

Mr. Gouk: I would like some clarification. I understood when I asked a question of the parliamentary secretary with reference to subclause 24(2) as to whether it was the intent under the government amendment G-27 that the letters patent would place in those things that were restricted. They use the example - This one says that they're restricted from doing something unless the activity or power is authorized in the letters patent.

Mr. Keyes: This is why I disagreed, because you said it gave only the restricted. It doesn't give only that. It gives about five different criteria under which letters patent are drawn, everything from establishing what the real property of a particular port is and defining federal from their holdings, to exercising the authority of their not being able to do something, to their being able to do something they were not able to do in the past.

Mr. Gouk: Going back to subclause 24(4), if this passes, Vancouver, as the example, would be able to recommence its business. Actually, it may be possible for Vancouver to recommence its business by getting an amendment to its letters patent, providing that authorization to operate a restaurant was there in the first place.

This says we'll allow you to amend the letters patent to allow something, provided it was already in there. What it's saying is that unless that activity is already allowed in the letters patent, we won't allow you to amend the letters patent to do it. That's what it says. It's a pretty convoluted phrase, but that's what it says.

Mr. Keyes: Neil will give you the -

Mr. McNeill: It provides the discretion on whether or not to allow it to proceed again. That's the purpose here. What you're trying to do here is clean up some of the anomalies that exist already in the port system, where we were trying to get the ports to focus on port and transport-related businesses.

We knew you wanted to expand their powers and capacity to allow them to take on certain activities that complement port activities, but also to gather other revenue streams to cover port operations. The mechanism to exercise that is through the letters patent. This provides it.

If you read the current Bill C-44, you will see this amendment also deals with subclause 24(7). It deletes subclause 24(7), which is an important part for the ports. The bill initially proposed that a port not be able to incorporate a wholly owned subsidiary. Okay?

Mr. Gouk: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, did you make a comment?

Mr. Fontana: I think Jim made the same case with regard to uses as he did with regard to activities. He wants to safeguard and grandfather existing uses, and subclause 24(6) deals with existing activities. So do we -

Mr. Gouk: I'm satisfied, Joe.

.1140

The Chairman: Quickly, let's have a vote.

Mr. Fontana: It's the same argument on subclause 24(4).

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I'd like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that we are no longer talking about the port authority itself, but about a wholly-owned subsidiary of a port authority.

We're talking about a second company - the wholly-owned subsidiary of the port authority - which could be engaged in activities that are completely different from port activities, because the company is already involved in some particular sector.

For example, this could be a company that maintained machinery at port facilities. However, the section stipulates that the subsidiary would be restricted from engaging in activities not authorized by the port authority letters patent. This could have a considerable impact on the subsidiary's profitability.

This provision represents a serious impediment to subsidiaries' economic health. This isn't partisanship - we're dealing with a substantive issue. Though a subsidiary may be at arms length from a port authority, legally speaking, it is nonetheless prohibited in engaging in activities not expressly authorized in the port authority's letters patent. In fact, this restriction is being imposed on a third party - the subsidiary. This provision is limiting the subsidiary's area of activity and the market in which it wants to be represented.

In my mind, neither the amendment nor the initial wording of this provision will do anything to promote commercialization. A little earlier in the section, we read:

...they continue to carry on any business...that it carried on...before December 1, 1995;

But now the bit about carrying on a business is gone. I am wondering if there is any sense in this, or if it's simply to correct the French version.

[English]

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: I'm told the passage of that amendment negates Reform amendment 16 and Bloc amendment 25, which would take us forward to Reform amendment 16.5, on page 104.

Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, before anybody starts arguing about whether it should be here or not, this was a decision by legislative counsel. I simply wanted the amendment, and this is where it was placed.

The Chairman: I see.

Mr. Gouk: The intent of this deals with a concern brought forward by many municipalities and local police authorities. The concern of the councils that I talked to, in addition to those that came before the committee while we travelled, was in essence that they are prepared to take on the policing duties provided any extraordinary cost the municipality incurs in doing this is borne by the port.

The example used was if a new industrial user comes in and says they are going to put up a new complex and need a certain piece of special firefighting equipment, we say fine, you pay for the equipment and we will then operate it. This is in keeping with what was asked for by the municipalities. They are not paying for all policing costs, just what is extraordinary to that normally provided by a particular municipality.

.1145

Mr. Cullen: Could I just ask a question of Mr. Gouk? On the second to last line you say it's sent before the agency. What agency is that?

Mr. Gouk: In the event that there cannot be a concurrence between the port authority and the municipality as to what is the appropriate additional cost, it should be settled in accordance with a dispute settlement mechanism.

Mr. Cullen: You use the words ``be sent before the Agency for final offer arbitration''. What is that agency?

Mr. Gouk: The Canadian Transportation Agency.

Mr. Cullen: That's defined in the act?

Mr. Gouk: I certainly hope so.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Keyes: I have two points. They are valid concerns and they are being recognized in this bill, but because of where this is placed it doesn't work as cleanly. Mr. Gouk has made it clear that he wasn't the one who put it in this particular spot.

He's dealing with two matters here. One is the assurance that police authority is at the port and that safety and security are realized, and government amendment 51.1 will deal with that specifically. The second is a matter of the negotiation that might take place; if an agreement can't be reached between two parties, it will be moved down in the legislation through an appeal mechanism to the Canada Transportation Act.

So we agree with you, Jim, except we're breaking it down into two spots and moving those into more appropriate sections of the bill.

Mr. Fontana: Why don't we stand this amendment down until we get to those relevant sections?

Mr. Gouk: That would be the simplest way. The alternative is to have enough time to find your amendments.

Mr. Fontana: Let's stand it down until we get to those relevant sections.

Mr. Keyes: If that's the request of the committee, we can justify that by explaining as we go.

The Chairman: Wait a second. The more often we do this, the more we're going all over the damn bill.

Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, as the parliamentary secretary has already agreed, Mr. Gouk didn't know where to put this thing. I don't see why the heck this policing and the payment thereof and the responsibility thereof are in clause 24 in the first place. The parliamentary secretary has just agreed that perhaps the best thing is to have that covered off in some future government amendment or a new clause. I don't even know what that is.

Let's just stand this amendment down until we get to that clause. I don't think that's a problem.

Mr. Keyes: Perhaps Mr. Gouk would look at proposed clause 51.1 on page 186 for two minutes.

Mr. Gouk: Is there a supplementary one to that?

Mr. Keyes: No, this is the amendment.

Mr. Gouk: With all due respect, that doesn't -

Mr. Keyes: That's not enough for you?

Mr. Gouk: That just says they're going to have police. It doesn't say who's going to pay for them or how it's going to be determined. I don't disagree with what you're saying; I just don't think it goes far enough.

The Chairman: Can we call the question on Reform motion 16.5?

Mr. Gouk: I would like that recorded too, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if there's a simpler way to record this, but I think there are going to be a lot of upset municipalities on this one, and I would just like it to be shown.

Mr. Keyes: If you're concerned about it, we can say the government members were all opposed to this and Reform members were in favour and I'll put it on the record.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I'm stepping on your toes. Go right ahead.

The Chairman: The vote is taken on Reform motion 16.5, and the Reform member voted for it. Mr. Gouk and the remainder of the committee voted in opposition to it.

I'm sorry; I have to correct that.

Mr. Gouk: I think you're simply going to have to have a recorded vote.

.1150

Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3

Clause 24 as amended agreed to on division

The Chairman: Having passed clause 24, we return to new clause 5.1 That's page 17 in English and page 18 in French.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête.

Mr. Crête: I would like a brief explanation of section 5.1(2), which stipulates that:

(2) A wholly-owned subsidiary of a port authority is not an agent for Her Majesty in right of Canada unless it is an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada on the day on which this section comes into force.

But there is a list of wholly-owned subsidiaries that are already agents of Her Majesty. What would their status be?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. McNeill.

Mr. McNeill: Currently, under the Canada Ports Corporation Act of 1983, have two wholly owned subsidiaries: Canada Harbour Place Corporation in Vancouver and Ridley Terminals Inc. What we're proposing here is that they would be maintained as agents, and in the future any wholly owned subsidiaries created by port authorities would not have agent status. That's what this clause provides.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: So, according to this provision, no wholly-owned subsidiaries could be added to the list as agents of Her Majesty if they came into being between today and the day on which this section comes into force.

We should perhaps set an actual date - any wholly-owned subsidiary which is not an agent of Her Majesty on that date can no longer become one. Some wholly-owned subsidiaries may start putting pressure to become agents in the period between today and the day on which the Senate begins to study the bill - in a couple of weeks or a couple of months. Is this a realistic concern?

[English]

Mr. McNeill: No, sir. There are only two at the moment. This provides for the status quo, or the spirit of continuance, when this bill comes into force. We have no intent to create any other subsidiaries until this bill is dealt with.

Mr. Crête: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Cullen: Coming back to what we're going to be voting on here, which is government amendment number 5, I'm quite prepared to vote on clause 5.1. But we looked at clause 24, which deals with the range of activities. Some of the more crucial issues, in my mind, are the earlier clauses, 20, 21 and 22, which limit the financial involvement of the federal government.

I'm quite prepared to go on the word of the parliamentary secretary, but I haven't seen those either. To me, they're as important as the ones we just jumped ahead to look at in terms of the scope of activities.

Mr. McNeill: Our proposed amendments there, Mr. Cullen, are just to strengthen the previous wording as published on June 10, which is that the Crown is not liable for the financial undertakings of the port. That's really the point of clauses 20, 21 and 22.

Mr. Fontana: A point of clarification here. As for this section coming into force, obviously no one knows when this will become law.

Mr. McNeill: We proposed an amendment on that.

Mr. Fontana: Yes, but you said that there are only two wholly owned subsidiaries.

Mr. McNeill: Correct.

Mr. Fontana: Are you talking about Canada Ports Corporation?

Mr. McNeill: Correct.

Mr. Fontana: But within the whole ports regime, there are only two.

Mr. McNeill: Correct.

Mr. Fontana: You mean to tell me that there are no other wholly owned subsidiaries of any port?

Mr. McNeill: In the proposed list of Canadian port authorities, there are two wholly owned subsidiaries.

Mr. Fontana: I know those. So no other port in this country has a wholly owned subsidiary someplace. It affects them.

Mr. McNeill: No, not that we have -

Mr. Fontana: You have no knowledge of that, or whatever.

Mr. McNeill: Correct.

Mr. Fontana: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

.1155

Mr. Cullen: ``Wholly owned'' is one definition. Are there any instances of perhaps 80% holdings?

Mr. McNeill: We don't have partnerships at this point.

Mr. Comuzzi: On the question of Ridley, if it's a wholly owned subsidiary, are we still responsible for the operating expenses of that terminal?

Mr. McNeill: Correct.

Mr. Comuzzi: What do they amount to every year?

Mr. McNeill: I'll give you that tomorrow. We'll have that developed for you. I don't have that number now.

Mr. Comuzzi: In the scheme of the act we're trying to reduce our cost of operation.

Mr. McNeill: In this proposal, Ridley Terminals is wholly owned by Canada Ports Corporation. If you repeal the Canada Ports Corporation we still have to handle or hold RTI somehow. It has not yet been determined how - probably by the department. And we would like to hold it as an agent of the Crown. That's what this gives us.

Mr. Comuzzi: Who are the users of the Ridley Terminals?

Mr. McNeill: There is a consortium of coal companies, mostly based in Alberta, that ship through the port of Prince Rupert to export markets, normally Japan and others.

Mr. Comuzzi: Is the Ridley Terminals operation exclusively coal?

Mr. McNeill: Correct.

Mr. Comuzzi: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I'd like to move a subamendment to section 5.1(2). Instead of reading:

unless it is an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada on the day on which the section comes into force

it would read:

unless it was an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada before November 5, 1996.

This would ensure that no changes can be made after November 5. We don't know what might happen - it wouldn't be the first time that the Senate sat on a bill for months. If the bill sat in the Senate for six months, some subsidiaries or port authorities could be strongly tempted to change their status. This would prevent any such change.

[English]

Mr. Keyes: So we can ask Neil how we can prevent -

Mr. McNeill: Those temptations have been restricted or turned down for the past two years while this bill has been working through the system.

There is no intent to create any further subsidiaries. And with regard to setting a specific date, we've approached it from the other side and we're recommending the amendment that would give you a date of proclamation in this bill, instead of leaving it open-ended.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I know what Mr. McNeill is trying to say. He says that my amendment is not necessary to prevent other subsidiaries being added to the list. That's the kind of reassurance I wanted.

[English]

What's the reason we can't put November 5 there?

Mr. McNeill: There's no date.

Mr. Keyes: Paul, look. The reality is that if you're afraid the government is suddenly going to start creating federal crown corporations between now and the date of this implementation, I can tell you right now, Mr. Martin isn't about to start spending money out of the federal treasury to support or to subsidize federal crown agents and all the rest of it. I think we'd all agree on this side we're trying to shake as many of them as we can. So in terms of the government turning around and creating crown corporations, sneaking them in under in this bill, it's just unrealistic to think we'd do that.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Your arguments are the same as mine. I'm not hearing anything to counter them. If there is no argument against putting in November 5, why don't we just draw the line there? I think there could well be wholly-owned subsidiaries that would find a way of getting agent status before the bill comes into force. This amendment is the only way we can prevent that.

.1200

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.

Mr. Gouk has been waiting patiently to make a comment.

Mr. Gouk: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman.

I don't particularly have a problem with the government amendment. However, I would point out that for whatever reason it is inconsistent with the general trend of the bill, which has specific dates. When we talk in terms of grandfathering, we have a specific date. When we talk in terms of some other sections, we have a specific date. So I don't know why they're opposed to being consistent by picking a date now, or slightly past, or whatever.

Mr. McNeill has said that for two years nothing has been incorporated. We could go back two years and it shouldn't affect it. I know why they're changing the method by which they list this, and I think the Bloc motion would be in order.

Mr. Fontana: June 1, 1996. Let's go with it.

Mr. McNeill: Pick June 10, 1996. That's what you used before; it's when the bill was tabled.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, is that acceptable to you?

Mr. Crête: June 10?

The Chairman: June 10, 1996.

Mr. McNeill: The day the bill was tabled.

The Chairman: The Bloc is proposing an amendment to clause 5.1, which would say ``unless it is an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada on June 10, 1996''. That is the amendment being proposed, is it not, Mr. Crête?

Mr. Cullen, on this proposed amendment.

Mr. Cullen: Not to put a fly in the ointment, but when we use the term in the bill ``a wholly owned subsidiary'' - If you set up a company with 100 shares, 99 of which are owned by the port authority and one by a nominee director, that technically is not a wholly owned subsidiary. It is a controlled company. When we deal with wholly owned subsidiaries, that's a very defined thing; it's 100% share ownership.

Mr. McNeill: We have two of them.

Mr. Cullen: Yes, but I'm thinking about the future. They are wholly owned now, but if someone tries to get cute and says they can beat the system by setting up a company, owning 99 shares, and giving one to a nominee director, it's controlled but not wholly owned.

Mr. McNeill: I see where you're taking this. We've removed the clause that prohibited future subsidiaries. In the future these port authorities may seek, through their letters patent, approval to have subsidiaries or partnerships. Later in the bill there are also certain controls listed for the investments, about what the port may invest in. So I think it covers it through the letters patent process.

Mr. Cullen: This clause deals just with the existing -

Mr. McNeill: That's correct.

Mr. Cullen: Clearly it's okay. Maybe as we go through them -

The Chairman: Mr. Crête has proposed a subamendment to new clause 5.1, which I've already stated.

Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: That was unanimous. Thank you very much, everyone.

I note that it is 12 noon. Before you all rush off - I have not banged my little gavel yet - we are meeting here at 3:30. There is a vote at 5:30. We're scheduled to meet from 3:30 until six. We'll go right up to the time of the vote, and then we'll adjourn and vote.

Given the blinding speed at which we are moving, I have asked the clerk to clear the way for us to meet at 3:30. We have a meeting scheduled for 3:30 tomorrow, so we'll reconvene, although the meeting at 3:30 tomorrow was to be on triple-T. We're now going to use that time for this, to finish this clause-by-clause, and we'll make it an open-ended meeting. That is, we will attempt to deal -

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Three-thirty p.m., you said?

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, I oppose that, because there was a specific schedule. I don't oppose changing it from triple-T to clause-by-clause, but these amendments are mine and I feel it's essential I be here for that. Based on the schedule presented by the committee, I have made other commitments. I cannot be here for an extended sitting tomorrow night.

.1205

The Chairman: We will take that into consideration and discuss it between now and 3:30, when we reconvene today.

There's just one other item. We are adjourning now until 3:30. This room will be secured, so you can leave your working papers and such here at the desk.

Before we adjourn, Mr. Crête, do you have a comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: We'll be voting at 5:30, you said?

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Crête: So the committee will adjourn at 5 p.m. for the vote?

[English]

The Chairman: I'm informed by the whip that the bells will ring at 5:30. It's a 15-minute bell, and there are 18 votes, so there is no purpose in trying to come back. We will adjourn at 5:30.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: You do know there is a very important motion up for debate this afternoon - it's on the abolition of the Senate. There will be a vote on abolishing the Senate.

[English]

The Chairman: Oh yes, absolutely. You may receive surprising support for that motion.

May I just quickly ask whether it would be possible to meet or whether there would be an interest in meeting later tonight on this item?

Our problem is this room is occupied at six o'clock. If we could find other space, would the members of the committee be prepared to continue this meeting on Bill C-44 this evening? We could reconvene at 7:30 or 8 o'clock.

Mr. Gouk: I can't go past - I'd be cutting it really fine to say 9 p.m. I have commitments.

The solution that was suggested in passing may be acceptable, if it works. I'll do everything I can to cooperate. If you want to deal with my amendments, if I miss that little window -

The Chairman: I've got you.

Mr. Gouk, you and I will meet in the intervening time, but this committee will reconvene at 3:30 in this room.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page