[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 6, 1996
.1535 
[English]
The Chairman: Let us begin. This is meeting 33 on Bill C-44. We're into clause-by-clause review of the bill.
On clause 6 - Letters patent
The Chairman: We were debating Bloc amendment B-5.
Mr. Keyes (Hamilton West): I believe, Mr. Chairman, we were through the debating and we were about to vote.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes makes the point that we were about to vote on Bloc motion B-5, but -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): Mr. Chairman, I don't see things at all the same way he does. Moreover, I had the floor when we stopped the debate. We had agreed to adjourn because the officials were to send us additional information, information that we have now received and which is very good. I would like to thank and congratulate them for responding so quickly.
.1540
[English]
The Chairman: I did hear you say, Mr. Crête, that the information had been received, and it was excellent. So I just assumed we could go directly to the vote, now that you were satisfied.
However, before we begin the debate, Mr. Gouk did indicate a desire to make a statement or ask a question or praise the committee for the work it's done so far.
Mr. Gouk (Kootenay West - Revelstoke): I would like to praise it in certain left-handed ways, but I won't get into that at this time.
I offered three amendments yesterday that were defeated. It was indicated in a vague way that there was an alternative to this, but in looking through the bill, I cannot find it. I would like to ask specifically about municipal taxation and policing.
On the third amendment, which was a dispute settlement mechanism, the answer I had was that we're just not going to have one.
So on the matter of policing and on the matter of municipal taxes, I understand there's supposed to be a Liberal alternative. I could not find it in here. Given that was part of the response to my amendments, I would like to know if they can in fact tell me what their alternative policy or amendment is.
The Chairman: Did you want to respond, Mr. Keyes?
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to work together with Mr. McNeill on the matter of municipal taxation.
Mr. Gouk: I had proposed that there be a structured five-year blend-in for those not already paying grants in lieu. It was defeated. I was told that there was an alternative to this and that the government would take care of this. I would like to know what it is.
I assumed it was in here, but I couldn't find it.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, Mr. Keyes has undertaken to have a look for it. Perhaps he can talk to you about that and we can take a look at it. We aren't at those sections just yet, although we're fast approaching one of them.
Perhaps Mr. Keyes could talk to you and sort out whether or not there are such amendments, but in the meantime we'll proceed with amendment B-5.
Mr. Gouk: The only reason I ask now, Mr. Chairman, is that it was part of the record that there was a government alternative to my amendment. Because I can't find it, I would like to be told, on the record, where I might find this alternative that is supposed to allay my fears about my amendments being shot down.
Mr. Keyes: While you wrap up with B-5, Mr. Chair, I can ask Mr. Gouk to perhaps look at the government amendments book, at new proposed section 51.1. I'll find the other one on municipal law.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.
Shall I call the question on Bloc amendment 5?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, you cannot vote on it right away. I have a few things that I want to say about this issue.
In the light of the documents submitted to us, clause 6 indicates the four conditions that must be fulfilled in order to become a Canadian Port Authority. Our amendment seeks to have paragraphs (c) and (d) struck from this list. The document submitted by the department, entitled, in English, Becoming a CPA or, in French, Devenir une APC, lists the four conditions already contained in the bill as well as a list and a description of the application for CPA status process.
Sept-Îles is included in the list of ports that have been recommended to the minister. I certainly would not like to see this port struck from the recommended port schedule, however, technically speaking, I do not think that Sept-Îles necessarily meets the criteria contained in the provisions of paragraph (c), which states:
(c) is linked to major rail lines or a major highway infrastructure;
Sept-Îles is located in Northern Quebec and its railway line goes from Fermont to the Port of Sept-Îles. Deciding whether or not a railway constitutes a major line or whether a highway is a major highway infrastructure is quite an arbitrary thing. In addition, Port-Saguenay and the ports of Trois-Rivières and Belledune are currently being evaluated.
.1545
As a legislator, and given the amount of time that we have spent looking at this bill, I feel it is essential that we establish the schedule of current ports before passing the bill. There is no reason why we cannot find out, today, whether or not Port-Saguenay and the ports of Trois-Rivières and Belledune will be able to obtain CPA status. Our argument is based on the fact that paragraphs (a) and (b) define a CPA. They stipulate:
(a) is, and is likely to remain, financially self-sufficient;
(b) is of strategic significance to Canada's trade;
These are criteria that can be valid throughout Canada.
There may be a port in the Far North that is financially self-sufficient or may become so and which is of strategic significance to Canada's trade but which is not linked to any major railways or a major highway infrastructure and does not have diversified traffic.
And such a port may not have diversified traffic but it may have the characteristics of a CPA. First of all, I would like the experts to tell me whether or not the clause could be changed to take into account our two amendments, namely the deletion of the conditions listed in paragraphs (c) and (d). According to what type of answer I get, I will perhaps have something further to say.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête. Perhaps we'll give Mr. McNeill an opportunity to respond to your question.
Mr. Neil McNeill (Executive Director, Harbours and Ports, Department of Transport): First, on the question of the list of candidates, and who's going to be a CPA and who isn't, we prepared this note for you at your request.
As you can see in column 2, there are quite a few ports that have not even applied. So we can't determine who's going to be a CPA if they haven't already applied.
Secondly, the bill provides that any port at any time can apply. If they meet the criteria, they can be added to the schedule. So if Matane or Rimouski wants to apply, the criteria will be applied at any time.
I would suggest to you that holding up the legislation until every port applies is not practical. They can apply at any time.
We have completed evaluations on 10 or 12, and we have 3 that we're still reviewing: the Saguenay, the Trois-Rivières and the Belledune. Belledune is the closest to finishing its evaluation. It will be our recommendation not to proceed on that case. I haven't finished the other two.
So those are the ports that have applied. The second column is the list of those who have indicated they may apply, but we have not yet received any application.
Sept-Îles moves over 20 million tonnes. It does have major rail and road...that's how the traffic gets there. So in our evaluation we thought the infrastructure was significant enough to meet that test. It certainly has a diversified traffic base.
The Chairman: Mr. Comuzzi, do you have a question on B-5?
Mr. Comuzzi (Thunder Bay - Nipigon): Yes, I have a question resulting from what we've just heard.
Did you say that the Port of Belledune was not going to meet the criteria?
Mr McNeill: In our first go round it will not meet the criteria.
Mr. Comuzzi: But didn't we just give that port a substantial loan?
Mr. McNeill: Correct, through the Ports Canada Interport Loan Fund. We don't think it passes the test of financial self-sufficiency. We will be recommending that it be designated a regional local port and a candidate for divestiture in the next six years.
Whether the minister accepts this, that's his call.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I really appreciate the reply given by Mr. McNeill. It was very precise and very clear. I am fully cognizant of the fact that the departmental officials will be responsible for the administration. It is true that there may be new ports that develop in the future. It is also true that we could receive applications that we have not yet foreseen. It is a responsibility of the legislator to ensure that the conditions that exist will allow us to administer the law adequately.
.1550
In keeping the four current conditions, the last two criteria will have to be met, and we should not require compliance from the port facilities.
It is my responsibility, as a legislator, to ensure that in two, three or five years time... Let us hope that the act will not be reviewed too quickly so that we will have enough time to live with it first. Then, there will be new ports.
Do we not have certain problem areas and should we not resolve these issues as quickly as possible, before the legislation comes into effect?
In this respect, I feel that the future is very, very important.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: We've discussed these four criteria. Actually we started with six criteria and discussed them with the industry for two years, and we came to a consensus on these four criteria following the SCOT report. We had them out for consultation all last year, so the industry is certainly comfortable with the four criteria and so are the port communities. They know them and we've been applying them to our evaluations. So we have considerable consensus throughout the industry on these four criteria, especially the last two, diversified traffic and links to other infrastructure.
Mr. Keyes: In the final analysis the minister also has flexibility and discretion.
Mr. Chairman, we've been around this thorny debate for about 20 minutes prior to today and we're just going over the same old ground we went -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have not finished. I have other arguments that I wish to raise.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Well, how long do you propose to talk about it?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: As long as is needed in order to come up with an adequate clause in the bill.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I'll leave it to your discretion.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We have been discussing this bill for several years now and the bill we pass must be in the best possible form as far as adequacy and correctness are concerned.
Since we began debating this bill, we have cooperated fully and properly, particularly when we allowed the Reform Party to table all of its amendments. We even presented our own amendments. I have another one which has not yet been tabled and which deals with acts of God. This amendment will enable us to make a significant correction which will probably be useful in the future if, unfortunately, an unforeseeable incident should ever occur.
Spending 20 minutes on something which will determine the future of an important economic infrastructure for Canada, is nothing. We could spend three hours on it, if that's what it takes. That doesn't bother me. I am prepared to defend it until such time as we have an adequate definition.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree with the member and what he's trying to achieve here. I think we're all trying to do the same thing. All I'm asking is that we go to some new ground because we went through this debate on these two...your request of replacing these two for 20 minutes at the last meeting. If you have something new to question I won't call for the question, but...
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have something new to add, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Just hang on.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I may, for example...
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, one moment, please.
[English]
Mr. Comuzzi, do you wish to speak to this?
Mr. Comuzzi: I was wondering who's the chairman. I'm having trouble finding out.
The Chairman: I am the chairman, Mr. Comuzzi. I put a sign here. I'm sorry; I put the sign the wrong way around.
Mr. Comuzzi: I can read, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering who is conducting the meeting, though.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I apologize for losing my temper. I think that our discussions have been chaired very well.
I would like to introduce a new aspect to the discussion. In the four criteria, it is said, among other things, that the port is, and is likely to remain, financially self-sufficient.
Of those ports that have been recommended to the minister, according to my figures, at least Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Frazer River and Sept-Îles have sizable previous debts. I do not want to say that we would be unwise to recommend them, but each criterion is subject to interpretation which, in the case of the first two criteria, supposes a qualitative assessment, a choice made by the government. We heard about the notion that we had to have a network of Canadian ports, that we needed an intervention strategy linking each of these ports and that Canada needed an adequate strategy to avoid being swallowed up by the American market. We accepted the American agency status with respect to that.
.1555
There are a lot more objective things in the last two criteria. If four or five of the ports that have been recommended to the minister are not financially self-sufficient, how many will there be, in the applications that we have yet to receive, that do not necessarily comply with criteria c) and d)?
Before voting on this clause as it is currently drafted, I will need some specific information. I want to know whether or not Thunder Bay and Port Alberni will be able to meet the criteria, because these are important considerations. This is, to some extent, the thrust of the bill before us. This is when we decide, for several years to come, what's going to happen with respect to that. These are questions that are...
[English]
Mr. McNeill: I'm in no position to give you a guarantee of who's in and who's out. Some of the ports listed on this sheet today... For instance, I spoke with Nanaimo on Monday. They're still deliberating whether they'll even apply. Port Alberni has indicated that they're having a board meeting to decide whether they're going to apply this week. Oshawa expressed an interest, then decided it's not going to apply.
We have no idea who is going to apply. I can't give you a complete list.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This is why it is very important. The eligibility criteria must be clear and specific. In evaluating the situation as legislators, we must have an overall vision.
If we keep criteria c) and d) as they are drafted, we are going to have problems. This is the position of the Bloc Québécois: Canadian Port Authority status will be very important in the future. We have just strengthened this status by giving it federal agency status. It will become more and more attractive for many facilities.
The people in Trois-Rivières have conflicting opinions about the pertinence of that. Now that they have federal agency status, this will become very attractive for them and it may also become attractive for other sites. We will convey this information to all of the people and to the various port authorities: we may wind up with a few more applications. We must ensure that we don't find ourselves in a legal mess. The four criteria are well defined and precise, but, in my opinion, the last two are unnecessary.
In paragraph (a), it is stated:
(a) is, and is likely to remain, financially self-sufficient;
This paragraph was drafted this way for a reason. We want to give an opportunity to self-sufficient ports and perhaps also to ports that do not necessarily have a future although we are hoping that this will change; we are giving everybody a chance with this rule. In the second paragraph, it is stated:
(b) is of strategic significance to Canada's trade;
This is an important aspect acknowledged by all.
As for (c) and (d) there may be specific situations where a port does not have diversified traffic that may be deserving of CPA status. By leaving this sentence in the bill, we are creating a major problem, because this will lead to frustration and dissatisfaction.
Take the example of an aluminium refinery, an industry in the mineral sector. If this refinery were told that there was an opportunity to develop an attractive mine in this sector, but that the government would never give the facility CPA status because the port was only going to be used for one activity, this could very well prevent industries that create lots of jobs and develop remote regions from going ahead with their plans. In addition, these regions will not get adequate facilities and therefore important development opportunities will slip away.
.1600
As for diversified trade, the word ``diversified'' is certainly inadequate, and we have found no other term which would enable us to correct this provision.
With respect to paragraph (c), which specifies that the port must be ``linked to major rail lines'', we have already given the example of potential mines. It is also specified that the port must be linked to a ``major highway infrastructure''.
The way that development is heading today, intervention in this area is not necessarily required. Consequently, this is subject to interpretation. Everything that is subject to interpretation must be deleted from such a bill.
We could take a look at all of the applications one by one and talk about Thunder Bay, Port Alberni, Nanaimo, North Frazer, Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa. The situation in these ports is very different. In addition, the four criteria do not give these ports an equal chance of becoming a CPA.
These arguments are given in the context of the study of a clause for which I have moved an amendment.
[English]
Mr. Fontana (London East): But you can help convince us whether or not to accept your amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: According to section 116 of the Standing Orders, I'm entitled to talk about this for as long as I deem it necessary in order to convince you of the relevance of...
[English]
Mr. Keyes: I'm starting to get a clearer picture of what you're trying to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We are dealing with an important clause. I will have to explain to Quebeckers and to Canadians, throughout the country, that we decided to classify Canadian Port Authorities without knowing, in the case of the 10 most important port facilities that currently exist in Canada, whether or not we will be able to grant them status.
In my opinion, it is important to reassure these facilities by giving them a clear message, so that the seven or eight ports which have applied can find out tomorrow whether or not they have some chance of winning. It is therefore important that we take all the time necessary to examine this so that, in the final analysis, we have something interesting and acceptable. That is the point of the amendment we tabled.
[English]
Mr. Fontana: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman - and perhaps Mr. Crête is prepared to cooperate - I thought two or three days ago we had indicated, and tried to facilitate by dealing with our Reform colleague, that we're trying to deal with those items where in fact there is no disagreement.
I would agree with Mr. Crête that on this one, it's a substantial issue to him. I'm prepared to say, let's leave this one aside until the end of the discussion, and let's deal with some of the things we can agree on so that we can get the majority of the bill done. Then let's talk about this one.
I'm not calling for the question on this particular issue because it's important to Mr. Crête, but surely, in the spirit of being efficient for the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian public, we can deal with those other items and set this one aside for another time, towards the end of the discussion. Let's deal with the things we can agree on.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, would you like to speak on the same point of order?
Mr. Gouk: Not on that particular point of order.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, would you like to respond to Mr. Fontana's point of order?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, I would like us to exhaust this argument regarding the clause before deciding whether we will stand it or not. It seems possible to me that we will arrive at that conclusion. We certainly need some indications from the government, regarding whether it is interested in amending it or in giving us some sort of signal to tell us that there will be something that will enable us to arrive at a reasonable and realistic conclusion. I would also like some assurance that the debate will not be closed... Is there someone on the government side listening to me?
.1605
[English]
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, in response to what Mr. Crête just said, the object of having a committee is for you to convince the majority members on this committee not to look to the government bureaucrats to see whether it's acceptable to them, but whether you find majority favour on your argument. You want to know from the government whether there may be some validity to what you're suggesting. We're prepared to listen to you, but are you prepared to help deal with the other clauses that may not be contentious whatsoever? We're prepared to listen your case and at the end of the day we shall vote democratically, as we have on all of the clauses.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I repeat what I've already said. Our amendment on this proposal is aimed at clarifying the situation of Canadian port administrations. Earlier, we were asked whether the clause could be stood until later. I will answer that it is possible if the government clearly indicates that it is prepared to amend it. Otherwise, that will mean I have not convinced you and since I remain convinced of what I've said, I will continue to argue about that to try to persuade you.
If the government can indicate that it will propose a sub-amendment that will allow us to clarify the situation... I'm not trying to convince the officials, but rather the government members and the Reform Party members. My colleague here is already convinced that my argument is relevant.
So, is an amendment possible? Is there some possible sub-amendment to what I'm proposing? I'm ready to discuss it provided that you present a sub-amendment aimed at correcting subsection (c) and (d) of the original version without necessarily deleting them.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm informed that government amendment 6, which comes immediately after this, amends the section you're talking about, at least as far as the government is prepared to go.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This amendment does not sufficiently modify the substance, in my opinion.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, your question was the extent to which the government was prepared to amend that section. I have been informed that's the extent to which they are prepared to go.
If I understand your position, you wish to debate this until you have convinced the other members of the committee of the wisdom of your position. Would you like to have some interventions from other members along the way, or do you wish to continue your line of argument?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like to hear what other members of the committee have to say, because they may manage to convince me. If that's the case, so much the better, but I fully agree with you.
[English]
The Chairman: It will be necessary for you to take a breath every now and again in order for me to get into these things.
Are you saying you do not wish to defer it? Mr. Fontana has requested that we set B-5 aside, deal with those issues that are less contentious, and then come back to B-5. Are you prepared to do that?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm not prepared to do it right now because I have not received any signal from the government. I would like to hear the arguments of other members of the committee and then I can judge if I will maintain my position or whether we can stand the clause or even vote on it. It will all depend on the arguments I will hear or whether or not others will manage to convince me or I will manage to convince them.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Cullen, you have a question.
Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): I don't know if it's a question or a discussion in line with what the member opposite is talking about. If we look at the four criteria, I think the government side is saying it is prepared to make this major concession and say not more than one to a major rail line.
.1610
If we look at diversified traffic, if a port is linked to just one customer or one major type of commodity, in my view this would pose a serious financial and business risk. If we were CAs looking at a set of financial statements and we asked the clients whether they had one product and one customer as opposed to a myriad of products and a myriad of customers, you'd have some serious doubts if they had the former. You'd have to go to that customer and make sure they had some guarantees to do business with that client in perpetuity almost. So I think the diversification issue is totally logical, and I think we'd be remiss if we didn't support that as a criterion.
There are four criteria. If we start cherry-picking the criteria to suit our own parochial interests... I think we have a very good case in Toronto, for example. The only two ports, based on the Nesbitt Burns report, that are considered at this point in time not to be financially self-sufficient are in the Toronto area - namely, Oshawa and Toronto.
If we were to take a parochial stance on this, I would be here on behalf of Toronto MPs saying we have a lot of concern with this. In fact I've talked to the MPs in whose ridings these ports fall, and they're not very happy with this conclusion.
So I think we need to look at the bigger picture. I know the member is saying that he's concerned with criteria that will be here for a long time, and that we need to use that as the benchmark and not deal exclusively with just the ports under consideration here. I know is what the member is saying, and I think that's valid, but I think the member is also saying there are a couple of ports in Quebec that he's concerned about. I'm concerned about a couple of ports in the Toronto area, so do we say one criterion is good and one is not? If it suits my needs I'll go with it, and if it doesn't then I'll abandon it.
I think we need to stand back, Mr. Chairman, and ask whether these criteria are realistic and the most appropriate.
The financial viability, I think, goes without saying.
On the strategic significance, we've made a concession. Instead of saying ``a number of major rail lines'', we're saying ``a major rail line''. If a port is not linked to the outside world, why should we give it that kind of distinction - a CPA authority?
On diversified traffic, as I've already said, if you have one customer, the bottom line is that you're not really financially viable. That's the extent of it.
I'd ask the member opposite to try to look at this from the point of view of the national interest, as we on the other side have done. We would like to argue the point on financial viability because we have ports that would be negatively affected, but look at the big picture and deal with it in that way.
That would be my contribution to the debate, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Gouk, do you wish to add comments?
Mr. Gouk: Yes, I do. Yesterday my inclination was to support the Bloc amendment. I asked Mr. McNeill a very specific question - that is, what's the problem if it is only one product as long as it's a sufficiently significant amount? The response was that the risk of being unviable is so high, we ruled it out.
I would ask for two considerations, which might remove this impasse. First of all, the fact that the minister, with that amendment in place, still has the purview of making a decision... It says in here that ``the minister is satisfied'' as to the financial viability now and in the future. Even without paragraph 6(1)(d), the minister can still make a decision on the current and future viability of the port, and he can take into consideration the number of shippers and users in coming to that consideration.
Second, let's say that it becomes a port authority and at some point in the future it becomes unviable. The government has absolutely no liability. the government has absolutely no liability. If that port had operated on its own, not as a Canadian port authority but as a local regional port, and it became unviable, where would be the difference?
.1615
My point is that if you drop paragraphs 6(1)(c) and (d), the minister still has discretion by the authority given to him. He has to be satisfied as to its financial self-sufficiency. So he has discretionary consideration already.
Second, even if he decides to go along with it, where it doesn't have a diversion of traffic and it later becomes unviable, he can withdraw. He has also within this bill the power to withdraw the port authority, the regulation. So really, I don't see where the risk factor...
There potentially are going to be some cases where Canada's interest may be best served by the minister granting port status to some port under certain circumstances that would be otherwise eliminated by paragraphs 6(1)(c) or (d). The minister will still have the discretion with paragraphs 6(1)(a) and (b) alone, so why not let it go through? That way, if a unique situation comes up, the minister, or a future minister, has the ability to approve it and he still has also the discretion to reject it on the basis of lack of different shippers, i.e., single shipper only, because in his opinion - and his is the only one that counts in this thing - it is not likely to maintain financial self-sufficiency.
If you consider that, then we may be at an end to our concern. The amendment can in fact pass, and everything you have brought forward, your concerns, which have a measure of legitimacy, can be satisfied.
The Chairman: Shall I put the question on B-5?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Gouk's arguments merit an answer, and I will probably have comments to make after Mr. Cullen and Mr. Gouk have spoken. My Bloc colleague may also have something to add about this.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. McNeill.
Mr. McNeill: Mr. Chairman, to put this in some kind of context, there are 500 public ports in Transport Canada and 2,200 ports in Fisheries and Oceans. All 2,700 ports can apply at any time. In our evaluation the last couple of years, we thought about 19 would want to apply. We studied those 19 through the Nesbitt Burns study. At the moment, we have 13 applications in, all based on this criteria. We've been floating this since it was tabled on June 10.
The industry certainly is aware of the criteria and has accepted it. The port communities have accepted it. Not all 2,700 ports in Canada want to be a Canadian port authority. In fact, most don't. We have only 13 applications. Even one port that has applied is wondering whether it has applied, because it's going to be a costly operation until they knock down some of their costs of operation.
Mr. Gouk: Yes - given that the government has knocked down amendments that would help them get to that point.
Mr. McNeill: We have a mixed package, which Mr. Pearce knows all about, to solve his problems in the Fraser.
Mr. Gouk: I love all these solutions that go out to everybody except certain committee members.
Mr. McNeill: We haven't finished them.
The point is, we have all kinds of ports that can apply. Everyone accepted this criteria until we ran into this today. This is the first discussion we've had on the criteria in over a year. The 13 ports that have applied did so on the basis of Bill C-44.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. From the words of Mr. McNeill, I see once again there is an indication that there are government documents that go out to selected people and that certain members of this committee are not privy to. I'm getting a little fed up with this kind of operation.
The Chairman: I don't know if there are documents, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. McNeill: There are no documents.
Mr. Gouk: Some package, you said, had gone out to a port -
Mr. McNeill: There is a mix of solutions, is what I said. We're negotiating with Fraser and all of the other stakeholders on whether or not we can... We don't have any documents. We don't have any final agreements. We are in the midst of negotiations on a mix of solutions to help the Fraser River. Do you want to be party to those?
Mr. Gouk: Can I try to get some understanding of how departmental officials can go out and negotiate terms of application of a bill that has not yet passed? It is still sitting in this House, subject to 280 pages of amendments sitting before us. Yet we have government officials out negotiating with ports saying, well, don't worry about it, because we'll make this deal with you and that deal with them, and this is the solution to your problem and that's the solution to their problem.
.1620
An hon. member: It's called consultation, which is something you like in your party.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: If I could go one further, Mr. Chairman, just in clarification, there were documents identified yesterday. I'm supposed to take comfort in certain things happening because there are documents that explain it all - documents I don't have. It's very difficult to sit here as a member of this committee and accept details of documents I've never seen.
Mr. McNeill: It was the Nesbitt Burns study and the charge on gross revenues document. Those were tabled with the clerk of the committee.
The Chairman: Do you have those documents, Mr. Gouk?
Mr. Gouk: Do I have those documents? When did I receive those? Is this the same way in which I had the documents I didn't have when we came back from the summer recess, and then it turned out that in fact we didn't have them?
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, those documents were tabled with the committee. You're a member of the committee. All documents tabled with the committee are circulated to all members of the committee. Last Thursday the Nesbitt Burns study was tabled with the committee.
Mr. Gouk: I'll have to go through my backlog of paperwork, then. Perhaps it's in there.
That leaves still the comment that maybe we need to define exactly what it is when Mr. McNeill says some ports can take comfort in how things are going to work for them by specific packages or ``packaging'', that have gone out to them.
Mr. McNeill: It's a mix of solutions. We have negotiated with Fraser for almost a year on how to solve all the problems with regard to dredging, gross revenues, net revenues - all the proposals that are in this act.
Mr. Gouk: Are there records of this or is this just ad hoc talking?
Mr. McNeill: It's mostly telephone conversations with Mr. Pearse.
Mr. Gouk: I hope you can understand that when I offer, for example, an amendment dealing with municipal taxes and phasing in, that this is based on need perceived from the bill. If in fact I have departmental officials out making tentative deals or otherwise, it completely subverts the need to do amendments I have got up in the first place. Perhaps if I'm privy to these conversations, I might feel there isn't a pressing need for some of the amendments I've put in.
Mr. McNeill: I can guarantee that we have done nothing to subvert this bill or the amendment process. Everything we've dealt with at Ports was always pursuant to the passage of Bill C-44 as amended, whatever they may be. All our consultations since the bill has been tabled are based on that fact.
Mr. Gouk: Can you tell me, then, if the government officials such as yourself have undertaken to suggest or to otherwise give some ideas to specific ports that they are going to do something or cause to have something happen that would interfere with or modify the municipal taxing authority with regards to grants in lieu?
Mr. McNeill: We have given no undertakings to deal with the provincial assessment or the municipal application of the Municipal Grants Act. We have given no undertakings. It is out of our purview.
Mr. Gouk: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Point of Order.
I want to say that I fully understand the work that the officials have had to do; we cannot ask them to wait until the last minute. However, I'm also fully aware of my prerogative as a legislator. Even though people have the right to prepare things in advance and get the job done, that does not prevent the legislator from deciding one day to present amendments according to whatever seems relevant to him, taking into account the consultations that have taken place. Today we have proof that there has been consultation. The policy was tabled last December, I think.
We could receive a number of applications, and evaluations are on-going. Depending on what the bill contains, there may be different positions and decisions taken by the stakeholders regarding whether or not to apply for Canadian Port Authority status.
.1625
All the preliminary work that has been done is relevant, but that doesn't mean that we can't change anything. As legislators, we have every right to make changes. That's why we were elected. I think that the debate is well under way to help us find good solutions. That's what I wanted to say.
I will have other things to say about all the interventions once we've gone around the table. My colleague may have something to add on this.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Fontana): On a point of order, I have Mr. Keyes and then Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Crête, I just want to set down the background to exactly where we've come to in this particular stage.
Two and a half years ago this process began its work. A committee of Parliament went across the country and they pulled together something called the national marine policy. That was only achieved because of all the work done by the members of this committee in consultation with the people, the stakeholders, the ports, the municipalities, and over 100 witnesses, as the researcher reminds me. Everyone worked hard to pull together a report, and that report achieved consensus. That was the basis for this legislation. Now before us we have the legislation and granted by evidence of even all the government amendments to this bill, we're attempting to do the best we can with this bill.
I consider Paul Crête to be a reasonable man. He's been with this committee, heard the arguments and been across the country. But I ask you, as a reasonable person, at what point does Paul Crête, or for that matter the Bloc, just as Jim Gouk and the Reform did yesterday, understand that there is a limit to the amount of debate that can occur? There comes a time when you say you made your points, and you feel they're the right points, but someone else feels differently about these points and the debate has to end. Whether we speak for half an hour on one amendment, which is probably more than reasonable, or we speak for five hours, I'm not sure that the position is going to change because the information starts to repeat itself.
So I'm appealing to you as a reasonable person to understand that we understand your argument. We've heard the same argument from different port communities we were in, from Trois-Rivières to the Saguenay. But in order to get a bill that will encompass the entire country and make sure that everything's being done in the proper way, we have to apply in this particular case certain criteria.
I suppose the bottom line is, I hope you understand that we understand the point you're trying to make, that balance has to be struck. Then the question has to be called.
The Chairman: I have two other interveners, but I think I'll let Mr. Crête respond specifically to that point. Then I'll come to Mr. Cullen and Mr. Gouk.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I agree with Mr. Keyes that there has been very serious consultation about this bill. There has even been a committee report called the Keyes report which got a lot of praise during the tour.
Many of the people who made representations said that we have to look over several elements of this report. We accepted one yesterday concerning federal status.
As members of the Quebec sovereignist party, we could have argued and whined, we could have said that this doesn't make sense and that we didn't want the Canadian flag floating throughout Canada and make a big scene. We didn't do that, because we feel it is important to have a national port network. Regardless of what nation we belong to, there have to be links in a national port network.
Within the framework of this very serious consultation, all kinds of points were put forward, and we're now at the final stage. As legislators, we each have a role to play.
.1630
We've seen amendments on things concerning pilots, appointments and other points that do not appear concerning regional ports and that may seem highly relevant to us, including the way the $125 million will be distributed.
I give you those three points as examples. They may be important points for us and for other people. These amendments appear and we could say that because they've appeared at the last minute, we are not fully convinced of their relevance and we need a debate to clarify things.
I'm not saying that I cannot be convinced by your arguments on point 6, just as you may be convinced later by the examples I've given on the pilots, appointments and regional ports. It is highly possible that we will be convinced about that, just as it is possible that you will convince me of the appropriateness of your position on clause 6.
For the moment, the arguments I've heard on the criteria and the list of ports that will be affected by this do not really convince me, except for Mr. Cullen who had arguments to which I will speak later. I said that criteria a) and b), that is the financial autonomy of the port and its strategic importance for trade in Canada could be sufficient to determine which ports will be entitled to Canadian Port Authority status.
Mr. Cullen said that in Ontario, there are people who aren't happy with these criteria. I would like him to understand the same thing I do. I'm not just defending my own backyard. I'm trying to have a Canadian vision here, because I think that all of Canada will benefit from the best legislation possible.
In that sense, I'm prepared to examine these things. Are there any sub-amendments to clause 6? Do you have any arguments that could convince me that in the final analysis, we are satisfied?
I don't know whether I'm a reasonable person or not - it's difficult to judge for oneself - but I do know that right now, I have not heard arguments that convinced me that it is now time to vote on the issue. There are still items to be discussed regarding the criteria, and the ports involved. There are still things that we should look at.
Could we get some indication from the officials? In your opinion, which of the applications to be received have a chance of winning? Which ones will lose? Why will those things happen? Those are important issues.
Yes, we worked for three years, yes, we're now at a crucial stage and yes, we have to make sure we will not make any mistakes at this crucial stage because next year, in two years, five years, 10 years, the Port of Quebec, the Port of Montreal, but also Port-Saguenay, the port of Trois-Rivières... We were told earlier that the Belledune assessment was ongoing but that this port will probably not obtain Canadian Port Authority status. Maybe people learned that today. For those involved, this is highly significant.
In my opinion, the situation has not been clarified. Many ports are going to be worried about the four criteria, I understand Mr. Cullen's argument. I'm not trying to plug my ports. I'm looking at the ports on the list especially those that may be added in terms of development, and I want to make sure that we don't end up with the situation where someone comes to us with an excellent project for which we cannot grant Canadian Port Authority status because it's not provided in the legislation and then an awful debate would ensue and political intervention would be needed. We know what that kind of intervention has lead to in the past.
We have a bill here designed at least to commercialize or even privatize certain ports. Profitability has to be among the criteria.
When you decide to open a business in the private sector, you check whether the environment is adequate. The bank tries to make sure that the conditions are acceptable and that there is some chance the business will be profitable. Those two things are contained in criteria a) and b). That's satisfactory. All the necessary elements are there.
I don't find...
.1635
[English]
Mr. Keyes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, can I respectfully request that this committee take a 15-minute break so there can be some discussions.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I agree provided that I get some assurance that after the adjournment, I will be allowed to resume the discussion on the amendment if it is deemed pertinent.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: By rules we have to return to where we were, so I'm just asking for a 15-minute break.
The Chairman: Would you like to vote and then adjourn?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I beg your pardon? I'm not insisting on voting on adjournment. I agree that we should have a break sufficiently long to allow us to have some exchanges that will allow us to solve this problem. All legal means are acceptable to me.
[English]
The Chairman: I think a break as recommended by the parliamentary secretary is in order.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Can I ask a question?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Crête: What's happening with the votes this afternoon? There's supposed to be a vote at 5:30 p.m.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: There is a possible vote at 5:30 p.m.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Possible. If the vote takes place are we going to go?
[English]
The Chairman: Yes. As was pointed out, if we're called to vote, we'll adjourn, vote, and return.
Mr. Crête: Okay.
The Chairman: I think it makes sense to take that break. We will take the break to the call of the chair.
.1637
.1815
The Chairman: Let's reconvene and get on with the show.
Mr. Crête, now that you've had time to consider the wisdom of the government's position on this bill, shall we call the question on B-5?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, I think we could go ahead with the vote, given that we've had a very helpful exchange of information during the break. The various points we've discussed should ensure that we'll have the best legislation possible.
.1820
The discussion allowed us to see more clearly the scope of the department's examination of the subject. I'm very pleased that we can vote on clause 6.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: I think you meant the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary. I also think the term ``enriching'' was appropriate.
We are voting on Bloc amendment B-5 to clause 6.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We are now moving to G-6, the government amendment to clause 6. I think we can dispense with this amendment very quickly. It simply modifies ``rail lines'' to ``rail line''.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That takes us to Bloc amendment B-6.
Mr. Crête, would you care to comment on this.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have no argument. We can go on with the question.
[English]
The Chairman: Let's call the question on Bloc amendment B-6.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Let's move to Bloc amendment B-7.
Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We're moving to government amendment G-7 on the regulation of the members of directors.
Mr. Keyes: I'll just state the reason for the amendment first, Mr. Chairman. The government amendment responds to the concerns we heard from the ports that this be expressly indicated in the legislation.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I'd like to propose a sub-amendment: that it be ``between five and eleven'' rather than ``between seven and eleven''.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: We went through a debate yesterday, I believe, on the reasons behind why there should be seven to eleven members on the board rather than five to eleven. Without having to repeat the reasons for seven instead of five, the government would stick to the amendment as proposed.
The Chairman: Do you wish to move the subamendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête is proposing a subamendment to government amendment G-7 that would change ``seven'' to ``five''.
Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: On Bloc amendment B-8, which is found on page 27 of your large package-
Mr. Keyes: We just defeated it. I would like to check with the clerk that even though it was defeated as an amendment by the Bloc, do we still have to defeat amendment B-8 in its own right?
The Chairman: No, he has withdrawn B-8.
Mr. Keyes, on to G-8.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker -
The Chairman: Thank you for the elevation. Do I get a cheque?
Mr. Keyes: Monsieur le président, this is in response, again, to port concerns that existing crown liabilities and obligations would be those of the port.
.1825
The Chairman: I would raise a point for Mr. McNeill.
In G-8, both of the actual amending phrases are in French. I take it this is an error.
Mr. McNeill: No, this amends solely the French version.
The Chairman: Okay.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We now move to G-9.
Mr. Keyes, would you care to comment on this.
Mr. Keyes: It removes the CEO from the board, Mr. Chairman. As we heard from many of our witnesses, it ensures the separation of the professional management from the board and provides, of course, more flexibility in a nomination process.
Mr. Jordan (Leeds - Grenville): Mr. Chairman, I have G-9 on page 29.
Mr. McNeill: If you look at the bill, sir, on page 5, and if you read subparagraph 6(2)(f)(iv), it would delete the chief executive officer from the board. Do you follow?
Mr. Jordan: Yes.
The Chairman: Any comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On amendment G-9, I would point out that we ourselves intend to move an amendment later to have the appointment proposed by the users. The government is improving the situation. We will simply vote against the government's proposal, while recognizing that it does improve the bill. However, it does not correspond exactly to the amendment we're going to propose.
[English]
The Chairman: Upon the passage of G-9, are you withdrawing B-9?
Mr. Crête: Yes.
[Translation]
Forget amendment B-9.
[English]
The Chairman: I just noted the reference to the province of Manitoba, Mr. Crête. This will be a unanimous passage, I trust.
Let me call the question on amendment G-9.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Amendment B-9 is then withdrawn.
Thank you, Mr. Crête.
We move to amendment B-10 on page 34 in both languages.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I think we disposed of that yesterday. It refers to the question of net revenues. The issue was debated with the Reform Party.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, we did. Thank you very much.
Clause 6 as amended agreed to on division
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I must say, that is the longest clause I've ever dealt with in my history.
The Chairman: Oh, just wait.
On clause 7 - Supplementary letters patent
The Chairman: There is only one amendment listed here, because the Reform amendment has been dealt with.
Government amendment G-10, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, you'll notice that it ensures that the ports may initiate a request for supplementary letters patent. The board of directors must be consulted for the minister to do so. It responds again to the four concerns we discussed yesterday that this be expressly indicated right in the legislation.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: From my understanding of the amendment, theoretically the Minister could decide to consult the board of directors even if he has not received a request from the said board, which means that he could take the initiative to send a draft of letters patent, or consultations leading to a negative result, and still go ahead with the project. This gives the Minister considerable leeway. We will therefore vote against this amendment.
.1830
[English]
The Chairman: We're calling the question on government amendment G-10.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 7 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 8 - Continuance of harbour commissions
The Chairman: We have Bloc amendment 11, on page 39 of your large package. Stay with me, folks.
Mr. Keyes: It's the same debate on real property brought forward by the Bloc that was withdrawn in an earlier consequential.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We had the same...
[English]
Mr. Keyes: No, you did well.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Not always. We proposed the same amendment as the Reform Party. It was rejected on division.
[English]
Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We're now moving to B-12, which is essentially similar.
Mr. Keyes: Same debate.
Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We now have government amendment G-11, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: It ensures, Mr. Chairman, that the former harbour commissions are not liable for crown obligations on becoming port authorities.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, do you have any questions or concerns about it?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, I don't have any questions, but we will record our disagreement.
[English]
Mr. Jordan: Can you repeat that, please?
Mr. Keyes: It ensures, Jimmy, that the harbour commissions, if they move to CPA status on repeal of their act, are not liable for the crown obligations on becoming a CPA.
The Chairman: All in favour of government amendment 11?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 8 as amended agreed to on division
The Chairman: I have been asked by the clerk to pause for a moment. I don't think we'll stop. Once you get moving you don't want to stop again. But because we agreed that we would be working through the night, some food has been delivered in the back if people wish to avail themselves of it.
Having said that, we will move on to clause 9.
Clause 9 agreed to on division
On clause 10 - Continued or deemed incorporated
The Chairman: The first amendment to clause 10 is Bloc amendment 13.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The amendment was to ensure that the property would remain the right of Her Majesty but that the management of the property would be conferred on the port authority so as to avoid any confusion if the federal government were to declare that it was its responsibility. It is a way of protecting the port authority and avoiding legal confusion.
.1835
In short, I believe this would improve the bill.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: The problem created by this, Mr. Chairman, is that what in effect it would do is confer the management of that federal real property on the port corporations. The Canadian port authorities would manage crown lands on behalf of the federal government and should not be able to dispose of those crown lands without permission. We don't want to do something through the front door that they could do through the back door if this amendment were to be constituted.
The excess federal lands, for example, should revert back to the federal government. We have our proposed amendment to clause 38 that does give CPAs more flexibility in disposing of property.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Unless they want a recorded vote.
[English]
The Chairman: I noticed you never even had to get to that.
Mr. Crête and members, the next amendment is B-13.5.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Then we have government amendment 12 to clause 10.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, what it does is ensure that the former local port corporations, the LPC's in their past life, are not liable for crown obligations on becoming port authorities, much in the same pattern as what we did with the harbour commissions going to CPA status.
The Chairman: So this is the same as the earlier one we passed, only...
Mr. Keyes: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: It's alright.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Now we have Bloc amendment 14 on page 47.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That takes us to Bloc amendment 15 on page 48.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Same thing.
[English]
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That takes us to government amendment 13.
Mr. Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Thank you for the explanation, Mr. Keyes. It was very thorough.
Clause 10 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 11 agreed to on division
The Chairman: We'll now take a short break.
.1840
.1845
The Chairman: We're back in business here.
On clause 12-Appointment of directors
The Chairman: You may recall from last night that we dealt with five Reform amendments, but the first amendment we encounter in order is government amendment 14 on page 52 of the large package.
Mr. Keyes, would you care to speak on this.
Mr. Keyes: It's technical in nature, Mr. Chairman, meant to clarify.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That takes us to G-15.
Mr. Keyes: It's just clarifying the French-language version, Mr. Chairman. It removes the words ``chief executive officer'' in keeping with the amendment to remove the CEO from the board. It's technical in nature. It allows former directors to be eligible for reappointment after what we like to refer to as a ``cooling off'' period. Use of the word ``shall'' provides certainty that the board fixes the remuneration.
All these were concerns of the ports.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: We support the amendment.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Next is G-16.
Mr. Crête, you're in favour of this?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Having passed it, do you want to explain it, Mr. Keyes, or shall we move on?
Mr. Keyes: There's no need, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: It's technical in nature.
Next is Bloc amendment 17, on page 61.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Briefly, it is to provide for a vice-chairperson to the board of directors. It seemed to us that, in cases when the chairperson was unable to act, situations could arise which would be unpleasant and inefficient for the organization. That is why we have added subclauses (5) and (6) specifying the responsibilities of the vice-chairperson in the absence of the chairperson.
Subclause (6) provides for the replacement of a chairperson as soon as possible when there is no chairperson. I think that would be a helpful addition to the legislation.
We could perhaps request the opinion of our legal counsel on this point, but I do not see any problems and I think it is a positive step.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: I have one comment. Most ports would prefer to deal with whether or not they want a vice-chair, or if they elect one and the term of office...through their own corporate by-laws and not through the legislation.
The law also provides that if a chairman steps down, the board must elect its own chair anyway.
.1850
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I just want to repeat that this amendment makes it possible to continue to operate in situations where the board would not be able to operate because of the absence of the chairperson, if the latter fell sick or in any other similar situation which arise. In such cases, steps can be taken to ensure that port authorities operate efficiently.
This amendment could even be adopted subject to the liberal majority determining whether it is relevant in their view.
[English]
Mr. Jordan: Mr. Chair, there's nothing to prevent the remaining members from appointing one of themselves as chairman.
The Chairman: The dilemma, though, with the current proposal is that it'll always be dealt with in letters patent so that it's more flexible for the board. This would fix all the boards into one structure.
Shall we call the question, Mr. Crête?
Mr. Crête: Oui.
The Chairman: We'll now vote on the Bloc amendment.
Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That concludes all of the amendments to clause 12. Shall clause 12 carry as amended?
Clause 12 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 13 - Knowledge or experience
The Chairman: Clause 13 has no amendments against it. Does clause 13 carry on division?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Excuse me! We agree on clause 13. There is no point in opposing something for its own sake. It is a good clause.
[English]
Clause 13 agreed to
On clause 14 - Persons excluded
The Chairman: We're dealing with Bloc amendment 18 on page 62 of the large package.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This amendment seems to me to be useful. In some communities, municipal councils wanted to become members particularly of small port authorities. It would be appropriate for one of the municipal councillors to be designated as a member of the board of directors. In some municipalities, there is relevant expertise such as specialists in land use planning.
I think it would be helpful if these specialists had the right to sit on the board of directors. This was requested in a number of places, particularly by the municipal authorities. There are places where everything is working very well without the municipal authority sitting on the board of directors, but such a step would be necessary in other locations.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: In at least two of the ports we visited during our travels, it was made clear to us that while there might be some municipal interest in participating on a board, the policy objective of the bill is to create a list for the minister to choose from that would be composed and put there by the users of the system, to keep in accordance with the objectives we're trying to achieve in the bill of competitiveness, etc., and the best knowledge we can get on the board of directors. But that does not preclude if the users decide to come together and say, the best person we can have on this board is this particular individual associated with the municipality. There's nothing to prevent them from putting that person on the list to be considered for the board.
So it's still there as an opportunity for the users to put a municipal name on that board, or on the list for consideration to that board. It's not preclusive. We wouldn't want to enshrine in legislation that it would eliminate the exclusion of municipal officials from the board.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: But what you are saying... Someone who didn't want the mayor or a municipal councillor to be appointed by a user could rely on the legislation to argue that a mayor cannot be appointed even if he is designated by a user. The fact that he may be designated by another user would not make him eligible under the Act, if there was a question...
.1855
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.
If we're talking about mayors or aldermen, the policy objective of this bill is to limit elected officials on this board to one municipal, one provincial and one federal, and if it's a board of seven, leaving the other four to be nominated by the user group. Then you don't all of a sudden have a federal-municipal-provincial, and then a municipal-municipal-municipal. There are too many politicians in the mix and we're trying to get politicians off these boards.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: All right. In any event, our amendment has been tabled. You can vote.
[English]
The Chairman: All in favour of Bloc amendment 18.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We'll move on to government amendment 17.
Mr. Keyes: Again, Mr. Chairman, this responds to the concerns that came to us as a committee from ports that port users can play a key role on the boards and should not be disqualified.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We are in favour.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: One moment, please. I've been reading the wrong notes, Mr. Chairman. I apologize again. There's so much paper in front of me, I don't know where the heck I'm going.
Mr. McNeill: Just for explanation, currently the bill reads in paragraph 14(e) that:
- an individual who is an officer or an employee of a person who, in the opinion of the Minister, is
a user
- therefore cannot sit on the board. This responds to several of your submissions.
This proposal says that anyone who is a director, officer or an employee of a user that has a material contract with the port authority, or an individual who has such a contract, is prevented from sitting on the board.
Mr. Keyes: Maybe you can give us an example, Neil, of what we're talking about here.
Mr. McNeill: A shipping company, a shipper who would move goods through the port but would not have a particular contract with the port authority and therefore would not be in material conflict could probably be nominated to the board.
But an individual who owns a terminal or manages a terminal that has a material contract with the port authority and therefore would have privilege to confidential contracting and fees and tariff setting would be in a material conflict of interest. We would ask that this kind of an individual not be appointed to the board. This would allow the ports to have more marine knowledge on their boards, but the people would not have material contracts with the boards.
.1900
Mr. Byrne (Humber - St. Barbe - Baie Verte): I have a quick question on appointments to the board. Does it also affect directors, officers or employees of companies if they were already on the board and subsequent to their placement a particular company wanted to enter into a contract with the port authority? Would it mean they would be turfed?
Mr. McNeill: Yes, it would.
Mr. Byrne: It could.
Mr. Keyes: They would be in conflict with the act and would have to withdraw.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Byrne.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, may I say something?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Crête: I consider that by adding the group described in paragraph (e) of the amendment, we are becoming more catholic than the Pope. We are excluding people who may have a very direct relationship with the environment, who may be excellent administrators able to do an excellent job and governed by a code of ethics.
We may remember, for example, the presentation by paper manufacturers in Montreal, who took completely the opposite view. They wanted only users to be able to become members. There is probably a happy medium here. Our amendment rules out any contract worker. What is a material contract with a port station? It may be anything. In the case of someone for whom it is the principal net income, it is a material contract even if it amounts to $35,000.
I would like to propose a sub-amendment to remove paragraph (e) of the government's amendment, keeping the others, (f), (g) and (h), so that we can then consider our upcoming amendment under (e). Have I confused everyone? Therefore, my amendment seeks to delete paragraph (e) because I think it rules out too many people who could be good directors.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: We heard those representations at your committee. I'll give you a specific example. As it stands in the bill, paragraph 14(e) would prevent almost 500 or so designated users or classes of users in the port of Vancouver from sitting on the board. This amendment pretty much allows 80% of those 500 to be able to sit on the board, although it prevents a good 50 or so individuals within the community who have material contracts with the port - terminal operators and people who have leases and contracts with the port - from sitting on the board. It certainly opens it up to all of the shippers and carriers who do not have material benefits with the port.
Mr. Crête: Okay.
The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan: If you have a pecuniary interest in the success or failure of the port, you wouldn't be allowed to sit on the board. If there were no advantage to you, you could be on the board. But if there were an advantage to your being on the board because you would...
Mr. McNeill: We would control it in two ways. First, if you had a material contract with the port -
Mr. Jordan: Just elaborate for a minute on that. What does that mean?
Mr. McNeill: If I were the terminal manager of Vanterm in downtown Vancouver and had an annual contract or material lease with the port, I would be prevented from sitting on the board. However, if I had a small lease arrangement with the port, like the Cannery restaurant - that's been raised here a couple of times - and the port users nominated me, I could probably sit on the board. Under clause 6 of the bill, where you have a provision for conflict of interest guidelines, if my lease came up at the board I would absent myself from the board meeting.
So it deals with the people who have material contract conflicts with the port. It really does respond to clause 13, where many of your submissions were that we were being too catholic in paragraph 14(e) by not having people with marine knowledge serve on the board.
.1905
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I accept that explanation. That does not change our position, but the amendment can be carried on division.
[English]
The Chairman: Shall amendment G-17 pass on division?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That takes us to the Bloc's amendment, B-19 -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It is withdrawn.
[English]
The Chairman: - which is withdrawn.
Clause 14 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 15-Election of chairperson
The Chairman: We have three amendments registered against clause 15. The first one is G-18.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, the effect of this clause is that it requires the board of directors to elect a chair, and it increases the maximum term for the chair from one year to two years. That's what we were hearing from the ports when we were crossing the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Agreed.
[English]
The Chairman: Is that unanimous?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We now move to amendment B-20.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It disappears because the committee rejected earlier the suggestion concerning the role of the vice-chairperson.
[English]
The Chairman: So it's withdrawn.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Amendment 21 is also withdrawn.
[English]
The Chairman: Amendment B-21 is withdrawn.
Clause 15 as amended agreed to
On clause 16 - Term of office
The Chairman: We now have amendment B-22.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We would like to amend clause 16 by replacing line 13 on page 12 with the following:
- ``after the date of the continuance''.
Mr. Crête: It is because of the French text. You do not say in French ``suivant la prorogation''. You should say ``suivant la date de la prorogation''. This is a technical amendment.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: The member is absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. I recommend accepting.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Unanimously.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Accepted unanimously with great thanks on the part of the government. Of course, this will take another amendment off the table.
Clause 16 as amended agreed to
Clause 17 agreed to
On clause 18 - Power to manage
The Chairman: Against clause 18 we have two amendments. The first is G-19.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, we heard some concern from the ports on the need to clarify the role of the board in its relationship to management. This amendment clarifies the role of the board of directors. The role of the board of directors is to be ultimately accountable for the activities of the port authority, but not to manage those activities themselves.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That takes us to amendment B-23.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This addition clarifies the situation and does not contradict the amendment we have just adopted.
We would say ``may establish'', because that provides the possibility of not doing so:
(a) establish an executive committee and any other committee as it sees fit;
(b) determine the composition of any committee...
(c) delegate any duty or power of the board to an executive committee established under paragraph (a).
The purpose of this is to ensure that there may be an executive committee provided for under the legislation.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, the Canada Business Corporations Act and corporate by-laws deal with the topic.
.1910
The Chairman: So it's a good idea, but it's the government's position that it should be held to the letters patent to give individual ports the maximum flexibility.
Mr. Keyes: By-laws, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Okay.
Amendment negatived
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: You can't always win.
[English]
The Chairman: That's true - although I was beginning to worry.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Clause 18 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 19 - Appointment of officers
The Chairman: Do I have anything hiding here? On clause 19, I show one government amendment and no Bloc amendment. Is that true?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: There are two amendments. The liberals are proposing amendment G-21.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, there's a new clause, but there's only one amendment to the original clause 19.
Government amendment 20, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Responding to port concerns for clarity, on the appointment of officers it specifies that the CEO is not a member of the board of directors, as we've already discussed. This does not preclude the person from attending board meetings if he or she is requested to do so by the board. This is a common occurrence currently even at harbour commission meetings.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That's all right.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 19 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: We now have proposed new section 19.1, government amendment 21.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, we believe this provision, which originates from the Canada Business Corporations Act, is better placed directly into the bill. It highlights the responsibilities of the directors of a port authority. It makes it a punishable offence to not comply with part I, clause 23, regulations to patent, letters patent and the by-laws of the port.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We agree.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 20 - Obligations of port authority
The Chairman: Clause 20 has government amendment G-22 against it.
Mr. Keyes: This is consequential in nature. It gives greater certainty, given the additional status of federal agent status.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Is that in the document on the status of the federal agency? Is that in the document you gave us?
[English]
Mr. Keyes: When we moved and passed federal agency status, Paul, for greater certainty, it provides that regardless of what the Crown Liability and Proceeding Act says about crown liability -
Mr. Crête: Okay.
Mr. Keyes: Are we hanging in? You're wondering what the heck we are talking about in that interpretation.
The Chairman: Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Byrne: Neil, one of the questions we raised yesterday was this issue of liability that you were going to check into. Does the Crown maintain any liability under federal agency status for real property still in the hands of the federal government?
Mr. McNeill: Earlier you passed two amendments that said where the harbour commissions and LPCs are Crown liabilities, the Crown maintains that liability. This clause says if a port incurs a liability, it is the port's liability and not the Crown's.
Mr. Byrne: So existing land taken over by a port authority remains a federal liability.
Mr. McNeill: Correct.
Mr. Byrne: Thank you.
.1915
The Chairman: I believe there's a willingness to pass this.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: The cooperation we are getting here is remarkable.
Shall clause 20 as amended carry?
Clause 20 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: We now have new clause 20.1, which is found in government amendment 23.
Mr. Keyes: I can provide, Mr. Chairman, a full and thorough explanation. It is mighty boring and talks about Her Majesty all over the place, but again, it is consequential to the federal agent status we provided to the ports.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division, because we don't know enough about it. We agree on the principle.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 21-No appropriation
The Chairman: There is a government amendment in G-24. The Reform amendment has been dealt with.
Mr. McNeill: This is the one that has been replaced as a result of deliberations yesterday.
The Chairman: This comes out of the discussion we had when we looked at the Reform amendment yesterday.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: May I propose this amendment? Given that the question of the infrastructure program was raised, this has enabled us to avoid... In any event, I want this to be adopted.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: I come from the old days, Mr. Chairman. We spoke with Mr. Gouk, and a deal is a deal.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: So it is moved in the name of Mr. Gouk? Very good.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Byrne: In the interests of good government, I want to raise one point. It is a crown liability if it is a federal property. One of the questions raised yesterday was whether or not the Crown maintains or has any ability whatsoever to limit liabilities held against it.
One of the questions I raised was this. In a situation, for example, of an unsafe slipway, pier or something along those lines, the Crown under this act has no ability whatsoever to actually incur expenses on a location of a port authority. In other words, let's say a port authority decides an unsafe condition may exist at a harbour but does not want to incur costs at this harbour, leaving itself exposed to potential liability but also leaving the Crown exposed to potential liability. We don't have any ability to come in and bar access to a slipway. Even if we are talking about a $500 chain link fence, we can't do it, can we?
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have a question. It seems to me that the comment you are making in this case applies to the ports which will become CPAs. A distinction has to be made between the ports which will become CPAs and regional ports.
[English]
Mr. Byrne: So am I.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I see. This clause refers to the ports which are going to become CPAs.
[English]
Mr. Byrne: In response to that, Paul, I am also referring to CPA. What I'm referring to is that under this act, at a CPA there may be a piece of property had been owned by the federal government and then taken over by the CPA. It may develop into...so therefore we've established that it still remains on the books as a federal liability. I say this because I don't think we'd want to expose the minister to this, whoever he or she may be in the future.
.1920
There are numerous examples out there. You have, say, a small pier in a deteriorating condition. The floor on it may be unsafe. Naturally, you have a responsibility to limit access or tear the wharf out - one of the two things - to limit your responsibility and liabilities.
The port authority may decide not to do this. It may be a big job or it may be a small job, but it doesn't want to incur the expense. So what they are willing to do is expose themselves and the port authority to a legal risk.
The federal government, however, may not want to expose themselves to that risk. Under this act the federal government doesn't have any ability whatsoever to expend funds to come in and say they want to limit their exposure to liability by putting up as much as a chain link fence. In this act we don't have any ability to do that.
The Chairman: Mr. McNeill.
Mr. McNeill: First of all, when we set up a Canadian port authority we define all the property in the letters patent. We do not transfer that title or that liability for that property.
Mr. Byrne: No, we keep the liability.
Mr. McNeill: Right.
Mr. Byrne: That's the issue.
Mr. McNeill: We have the authority to direct that it be mitigating.
Mr. Byrne: You don't have any financial authority, though, to spend money.
Mr. McNeill: We can demand that the port spend its money to clean up a problem.
Mr. Byrne: How?
Mr. McNeill: We can do it through a number of mechanisms.
Mr. Byrne: By what instrument?
Mr. McNeill: We can do it through the supplementary letters patent, if need be.
Mr. Byrne: No, you can't, because the only way the supplementary letters patent can be amended, or can be...the port authority has to request you -
Mr. McNeill: No, we just passed the amendment that said we can initiate on consultation with the board.
Mr. Byrne: It doesn't have to be initiated by the board?
Mr. McNeill: No.
Mr. Byrne: Okay. That's answered the question.
The Chairman: Shall we call the question, Mr. Crête?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: [Inaudible]
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: I'm going to call the question on amendment R-12. It had been stood pending this new article here.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 21 as amended agreed to
On clause 22 - No guarantee
The Chairman: Against clause 22 I have government amendment G-25.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Have we done G-24? Yes? I see. Excuse me.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Again, Mr. Chairman, this is consequential to federal agency status.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 22 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 23 - Canada Business Corporations Act
The Chairman: Clause 23 has amendment B-23.5.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It may be rejected, because it has already been resolved. You can read it if you want to. It is of great interest to federalists.
[English]
The Chairman: You know, I think we should have had you pass this.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Clause 23 agreed to on division
.1925
The Chairman: Clause 24 has already been passed. We worked at it through last night given all of the amendments that were on it.
On clause 25 - Powers of port authority re railways
The Chairman: We have government amendment 32.
Mr. Keyes: Strictly for clarification, Mr. Chairman, it's an amendment that provides for greater certainty that the Railway Safety Act is intended to apply to railways within port authority boundaries. We're probably unanimous on this one.
The Chairman: You're getting a little ahead of yourself, aren't you, Mr. Keyes?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Can we be given further explanation on this? Can you repeat the explanation? I missed it.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: You have the Railway Safety Act. When there's a railway operating inside a Canadian port authority, we're going to make sure that the Railway Safety Act applies inside the port authority as well.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 25 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 26 agreed to on division
On clause 27 - Borrowing powers
The Chairman: We have a number of amendments against clause 27, the first being Bloc amendment 26.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That becomes... We rejected the idea of the executive committee earlier. Therefore, it's withdrawn.
[English]
The Chairman: So we've dealt with it; it's gone.
We also have government amendment 33, which basically says the port authority may not do a whole bunch of things.
Mr. Keyes: We're again going back to pledging property, Mr. Chairman. It allows the CPA to pledge property it owns and, if it's authorized in its letters patent, any movable assets on crown land. It has security for borrowing, so it's not the land but the stuff on it, and then their own land.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That takes us to Bloc amendment 27 to clause 27:
(3) A port authority may pledge its revenues and may mortgage or otherwise create a security interest in the property it manages or holds in any way.
Is it redundant now, Mr. Crête?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I just want to say quickly that the purpose of the amendment was to ensure that the borrowing capacity of a port authority would not be limited. As the CPAs will now be responsible for their expenditures, maintenance of facilities, etc, it would not make any sense to deprive them of the means they need to achieve those goals. That is the purpose of the clause.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Since we have already moved the amendment just before this one, it actually makes this one redundant because you've already said we're only pledging assets on crown land.
Mr. Crete: Okay.
The Chairman: So it's scrubbed.
Let me just check to make sure I haven't lost something behind the staple. Oh, I have two behind the stapled amendments.
Mr. Keyes: Is it pepperoni, Mr. Chairman?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: No. It's Reform amendment 20, which I guess we just lost, and Bloc amendment 28.
You'd like to withdraw that?
Mr. Crête: Oui.
Clause 27 as amended agreed to on division
The Chairman: This thing is still very thick. Shall we start to move page by page?
Mr. Keyes: How about if we do it in blocks, Mr. Chairman?
An hon. member: Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
The Chairman: Actually, we can't move in blocks as long as we have amendments. I marked out where we can.
Mr. Keyes: Oh, great.
The Chairman: For some reason, the government is amending every clause, which makes it much slower.
Mr. Keyes: Well, we want it to look more like the Keyes report, Mr. Chairman.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
.1930
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Do you think that it needed many amendments?
[English]
The Chairman: If for no other reason, finishing this process will end any discussion of the Keyes report. For that I will be eternally grateful.
Shall we deal with amendment G-34?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 28 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: We now move to new clause 28.1 in amendment G-35.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 29 agreed to on division
The Chairman: New clause 29.1 is created by government amendment 36.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 30 - Public to get financial statements
The Chairman: There are three government amendments, and one from the Bloc. The first government amendment is G-37.
Mr. Keyes: Again, Mr. Chairman, this is consequential, but this time to the fact that they're wholly-owned subsidiaries. You'll find that the following amendments are going to... G-38 deals with the financial statement, and G-39 strengthens the disclosure and accountability provisions.
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on G-37. It says ``audited annual financial statements and those of its wholly-owned subsidiaries''. Why ``wholly-owned'' only? Why not just ``and its subsidiaries''?
Mr. McNeill: We have only two wholly-owned subsidiaries. We have no other partnerships or subsidiaries. So we were just addressing the current situation.
Mr. Keyes: Would it be advisable to include any subsidiaries?
Mr. McNeill: Yes. To change it all you need to do is take out ``wholly-owned''. If a port enters into a partnership, what right does it have -
Mr. Keyes: To look at the other company's books?
Mr. McNeill: - to demand to have its subsidiary table it at the annual meeting?
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Chairman, the way this works for audited statements, if the auditors are satisfied that the subsidiary is controlled by the parent, they have no option but to consolidate.
Mr. McNeill: What if it's not controlled?
Mr. Cullen: If it's not controlled, it's not consolidated. So take out ``wholly-owned''.
The Chairman: So you have a subsidiary it has a minority interest in?
Mr. Cullen: No, a subsidiary has to be controlled. It could have a minority interest -
The Chairman: I saw a lawyer nod his head.
Mr. Cullen: - but a subsidiary by definition is controlled.
The Chairman: Okay.
So is there a subamendment, Mr. Cullen, that government amendment 37 be amended by removing the words ``wholly-owned''?
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This means that all subsidiaries will have to be accountable for their financial statements. I think that only those which have at least a 51% ownership should be so required, because those with less than 51% do not have control. If you remove any reference to a percentage, it will apply to all subsidiaries.
[English]
The Chairman: Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Cullen, but if I understand what you're saying, ``subsidiary'' implies a majority interest.
Mr. Harb (Ottawa Centre): Not necessarily, because in a subsidiary -
The Chairman: No, both the lawyer and the accountant nodded on that one.
Mr. Harb: I'm an engineer, so...
Mr. Cullen: A subsidiary by definition, Mr. Chairman, is a controlled company.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Is that the legal definition?
[English]
The Chairman: Yes. The lawyer confirmed that one.
Mr. Cullen: It is according to generally accepted accounting principles as well.
.1935
Mr. Chairman, to go back to amendment G-36, it has been brought to my attention by the research staff that we have the phrase ``wholly-owned'' in there as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It was indicated in several places in the bill that it concerned wholly-owned subsidiaries; that is stated in perhaps six or seven places in the bill. This will surely create a problem for us. If you remove it in one place, that means that the legislator has a different view there from somewhere else.
[English]
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Chairman, what I might say is that in some parts of the bill, ``wholly-owned'' is used in the context of what exists today, and what exists today is only ``wholly-owned''. But if the words are used apropos of providing a framework for the future, then it seems to me we should be deleting the words ``wholly-owned'' and putting in ``subsidiaries''.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Could this amendment not be proposed by the Liberals at report stage so that it can be checked? An amendment will be moved for the bill as a whole at report stage. Therefore, steps can be taken to ensure that there is no legal problem. It can be stated that the committee agrees to a technical change. If that doesn't make sense...
[English]
Mr. Cullen: I've prepared consolidated financial statements all my life, and a subsidiary by definition is controlled. But -
The Chairman: No, no. He's not arguing with that, Mr. Cullen. What he's suggesting is that at report stage, because the term is used throughout the bill and in some clauses we've already passed -
Mr. Cullen: Oh, I see.
The Chairman: - rather than trying to amend it in a few clauses now, we instruct the drafters to look at all the places at which this would be applicable and prepare one motion for report stage, which would clean up the bill in this regard.
Mr. Cullen: Okay.
The Chairman: That also gives them an opportunity to work you over in the back rooms if they don't like it. Okay?
Mr. Cullen: Fair enough.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête. I appreciate the advice.
Now I'm on the original amendment G-37, unamended.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes in his explanation indicated that amendments G-38 and G-39 were all of a group.
Mr. Keyes: Technically, Mr. Chairman, they are dealing with the financial statement.
The Chairman: Shall amendments G-38 and G-39 carry?
Amendments agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That brings us to Bloc amendment 29, found on page 127 of your package.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This amendment seeks to restore the consultation process which exists at the present time under the Canada Port Corporation Act, but we won't get into debate on this. You can vote against.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Technically, Mr. Chairman, the regulations already provide for it, so to some extent it's duplication.
An hon. member: He's withdrawing it.
The Chairman: No, he wants it voted down. You've proposed it and I'm calling the question.
Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We have passed amendments G-37, G-38, and G-39, and we've defeated amendment B-29.
Clause 30 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 31 - Quarterly financial statements
The Chairman: We have B-30, a Bloc amendment, on page 128:
- 31. A port authority shall prepare annual
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes is introducing the Bloc amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Keyes, but perhaps we could turn to the Bloc member to do it.
Mr. Keyes: No, I'm saying why I'm including their reference in the reason why, and I'm turning to our CA on the -
The Chairman: I'm beginning to feel as if I'm caught in a Monty Python skit here.
Mr. Keyes: You have to pay attention, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: You're defending it before it has been presented.
Mr. Keyes: We're whipping through this baby.
.1940
The Chairman: Let me start with Mr. Crête here. Introduce your amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We consider that the requirements to provide financial statements to the public every quarter was asking a lot. This requires a lot of work and these are things which are not consulted every day. Therefore, in order to simplify the administration, we propose that such financial statements be tabled each year. If there is a justification for this which we may not perhaps have appreciated, please tell us.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen: I would like Mr. McNeill to comment. For example, if it's a public company today that's listed and that prepares quarterly statements... But maybe Mr. McNeill has another example.
Mr. McNeill: We were simply driving that kind of commercial environment to the ports to say that you report quarterly to your community.
The Chairman: This is consistent with commercial reporting.
Mr. McNeill: Of a publicly-traded company.
Mr. Cullen: Yes. Since this is a no-share capital corporation, we were looking for quarterly statements.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête has indicated he will not move the amendment, and will withdraw it.
Next is government amendment 40.
Mr. Keyes: Again, Mr. Chairman, it's standard commercial practice.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 31 as amended agreed to
On clause 32 - Books and systems
The Chairman: Under clause 32 we have government amendment 41.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That observation was made earlier.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 32 as amended agreed to
On clause 33 - Special examinations
The Chairman: We are now on amendment G-42.
Mr. Keyes: I have a clarification that the minister makes the final determination regarding the special examination plan. There was some confusion. The current wording gives the appearance, incorrectly, that the minister's role is to mediate or facilitate, and we want to make it clear that he makes the final determination.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, do you have any comment on G-42?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: To whom could a determination by the minister be appealed? If the amendment were not adopted, to what body could an appeal be made? To any court or to a specific body?
[English]
Mr. McNeill: I don't understand it.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The present wording says that, in the case of disagreement, the matter will be resolved by the minister. The amendment adds ``may make a final determination'', so as to avoid any appeal. I would like to know at what level an appeal can be lodged at the present time.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: This addresses the terms of reference for the special examination. Is that correct? So the minister makes the final determination. It's the audit plan.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes. I don't want to delay there on this point, but if you add ``may make a final determination'', it suggests that otherwise it might not be final. If it is not final, who can reverse the decision of the minister at the present time? Is there someone or...
[English]
Mr. McNeill: Under normal special examinations, the auditor is chosen, he submits an audit plan to the board of directors and it's approved. If the special examiner submits his plan to the board of directors and the members don't like it, then either the board or the examiner can appeal to the minister and he may determine the final audit plan. That's what this is addressing.
Mr. Cullen: Your point, if I understood it, Mr. Chairman, was whether there was any appeal beyond that. I think this is saying no, but under the law, as opposed to under the administrative fairness or whatever, one could challenge it, I suppose. I don't expect you'd get a lot of harmony here.
The Chairman: Is the amendment carried?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 33 as amended agreed to on division
The Chairman: I note that we are now 20% of the way through this bill. Stick with me, folks, we'll be at 50% soon.
.1945
On clause 34-Report
The Chairman: We'll now go to G-43.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: With respect to public disclosure, Mr. Chairman, a full report could result in a less forthright discussion and findings by the auditors. This adds a requirement that a summary report of the special examination be prepared.
In addition to the full report, it limits the public's right of access to the summary report, not the full report. We'll allow some details of the full report to be kept confidential from the public, but not from the minister.
Mr. McNeill: This continues current practices of special examinations in the port system.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 34 as amended agreed to
On clause 35-Examiner
The Chairman: We'll now move on to government amendment G-44.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Just for further clarification, the auditor appointed by the minister to conduct a special examination is not intended to replace the full-time auditor of the port, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 35 as amended agreed to
On clause 36-Property
The Chairman: I have a number of amendments with respect to clause 36, the first one being Bloc amendment B-31.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It seeks to remove the reference to letters patent. It will be rejected on division.
[English]
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That takes us to government amendment G-45.
Mr. Keyes: It's technical in nature.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: The next is Bloc amendment 32.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Just one moment. I have a problem.
(2) The Minister may...
[English]
Mr. Keyes: It's concerning the management of federal property.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It will be defeated on division.
[English]
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That takes us to G-46.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, it clarifies that the Surplus Crown Assets Act does not apply to any personal property of a Canadian port authority.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We'll now deal with B-33.
Mr. Crête, is this more of the -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête:
(5) A port authority may manage, occupy or hold only the real property given to it under subsection (2).
Subsection (2) states:
(2) The Minister may, by the issuance of letters patent...
This is consistent with the amendment removing the reference to further letters patent. Therefore, it can be withdrawn. Do you agree? You do not seem convinced.
[English]
The Chairman: Amendment withdrawn.
I'm convinced by most of your arguments, Mr. Crête, but I can't convince my colleagues.
Those are all of the amendments to clause 36.
Clause 36 as amended agreed to on division
.1950
On clause 37-Powers and obligations where management given
The Chairman: The first amendment is a government amendment, G-47.
Mr. Keyes: It's technical in nature, Mr. Chairman. It eliminates the words providing an exemption for CPAs from the FAA requirements. It's relating to the retention of use of income from federal property. That's covered in another section, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The rule of silence.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That brings us to Bloc amendment B-34.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Amendment B-34 seeks to give all possible flexibility to the ports so as to enable them to exercise the necessary powers they need to ensure effective management and control of port operations. That is why we want to replace ``only for the purpose of operating the port'' by ``for the purpose of operating the port or for another purpose''. That is the reason for our proposed amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: There's a problem in that it defeats the purpose of the letters patent system for keeping track of what extra activities a port is authorized to pursue.
Mr. McNeill: And you've amended clause 24 to provide for this.
The Chairman: Yes, that's right. So is it defeated on division or withdrawn?
Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 37 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 38-Disposition of federal real property
The Chairman: Clause 38 has several amendments, the first one being B-35.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: As regards B-35, this has the same purpose as the previous amendment. It can be considered as rejected on division.
[English]
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: This brings us to G-48, on pages 151 and 152.
Mr. Keyes: We're back to crown land stuff, Mr. Chairman. It would allow CPAs to dispose of the fixtures, such as cranes, on crown land if the letters patent authorize the transaction.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: The next amendment is B-36, on page 153.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 38 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 39 agreed to on division
On clause 40-Land-use plan
The Chairman: That brings us to clause 40, for which we have government amendment G-49, found on pages 155 and 156 of your package.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yesterday, we adopted ``within 12 months''.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: We did this. We accomplished this already.
The Chairman: We accepted Reform amendment R-23. That negates the need for government amendment G-49.
Government amendment G-50 is the next one. That's one of these remarkably insightful ones.
Mr. Keyes: It eliminates prohibition against using real property or erecting or altering a structure except in accordance with CPA land use, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: If I clearly understand this amendment, things must always be done in accordance with the law, but there is no longer any prohibition against using real property in a manner not consistent with the land use plan in effect. Is the land use plan a federal or provincial legislation, or a municipal bylaw?
[English]
Mr. McNeill: First of all, we deal with this through our regs, clauses 47 to 52, but it also addresses the issue of land use plan.
.1955
Mr. Barry LePitre (General Counsel, Department of Justice): I'll mention for the information of the committee that the amendment we're suggesting here is for the removal of the prohibition that's in the act itself so as to clarify that during the period when the land-use plan is being prepared, during the 12-month period now, there wouldn't be a prohibition on the use of the land. To the extent that there is a need for regulations during that period they would be covered off through the regulations under clause 52, which are being proposed to be expanded to cover off regulation of uses in this land-use plan situation.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I know that we are completely removing the prohibition against using real property, whether there's a plan or not. Whether there is a plan or not, when you remove the whole subsection, lines 32 to 35, there is no longer any prohibition in the legislation.
The prohibition may come from some other source, from another regulation, from a federal act, etc., but not from anything in the bill.
[English]
Mr. LePitre: We could address the matter later or we could go to it now, Mr. Chairman, but there is a proposed government amendment 64, on page 188, which deals with the enabling provisions for clause 52 and includes the addition of an enabling authority for prohibiting uses of land. That, in combination with the other enabling authorities in clause 52, would allow for regulating or prohibiting uses in a structured way during, for example, the 12-month period during which the plans are being prepared, as opposed to the absolute prohibition that was contained in the subclause we're now addressing for removal from the bill. It allows for more flexibility in the regulation and prohibition of uses during the 12-month period.
Mr. Keyes: So where we're removing this by deleting these lines we're addressing it later in...where?
Mr. LePitre: In clause 52, in government amendment G-64.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We will vote against.
[English]
The Chairman: Wherever a subamendment is passed on division we'll apply on division to the amendment.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 40 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 41 - Fixing of fees
The Chairman: Amendment G-51 is something about warships.
Mr. Keyes: It simply extends the exemption from CPA fees to ships that are under the command of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I see. That's fine.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 41 as amended agreed to
On clause 42 - Discrimination among users
The Chairman: That brings us to government amendment 52.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm not yet in the government, and I never will be in Ottawa.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: It prevents Canadian port authorities from unjustly discriminating against classes of users as well as against individual users.
The Chairman: Absolutely.
Mr. Keyes: It allows CPAs to engage in commercially acceptable discrimination against or in favour of the different classes of users. Maybe Mr. McNeill can fill us in with an example.
Mr. McNeill: It also enables confidential contracts.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We are for motherhood.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 42 as amended agreed to
On clause 43 - Notice of new or revised fees
The Chairman: The first amendment to clause 43 is G-53, but I note we accepted Reform 24. Does that negate G-53?
No? Okay. Well, then, G-53, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: It restricts the notice requirements, Mr. Chairman, for new or revised fees to the marine charges.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
.2000
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This means that if there are fees other than those for wharfage, berthage or harbour dues, no notice will have to be given. Is that the purpose here? Could you give me any examples of fees other than those listed, for which it would be absurd to give notice?
[English]
Mr. McNeill: Your leases or contracts.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Leases?
[English]
Mr. McNeill: Leases with individual renters don't need notice, but for a published rate, such as berthage, wharfage and harbour dues, you need to give notice.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That brings us to amendment G-54 on page 167.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: This is consequential to that.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 43 as amended agreed to on division
The Chairman: Now we come to new clause 43.1, which is contained in amendment G-55.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: It's about the right to appeal, Mr. Chairman, responding to all the port users and their demands that they have the right to appeal Canadian port authority fees to an independent body.
The Chairman: Yes, this is a good amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Unanimously.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk is also very much in favour of this. It removes subsection 27(2) from the CTA.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 44 agreed to on division
On clause 45 - Official Languages Act
The Chairman: On clause 45 we have amendment G-56, found on pages 171 and 172.
This is consequential to federal agency status, is it?
Mr. Keyes: Exactly, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 45 agreed to
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: In both official languages.
[English]
The Chairman: God...the pizza works...
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I now just have to...
[English]
On clause 46 - Liquidation and dissolution
The Chairman: We have amendment G-57.
Mr. Keyes: This is housecleaning on dissolution, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Housecleaning on dissolution...from Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Crête, do you accept this?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: You say that this is just housecleaning?
[English]
The Chairman: Stan, do you want to clarify?
Mr. Keyes: It allows the minister to halt the dissolution of the port authority, thus allowing the port authority to resume its activities.
The Chairman: So is this on division or unanimous?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 46 as amended agreed to on division
The Chairman: For the next clause I'll check behind the staple, okay?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The interpreters find that we are talking very quickly. The interpreter is not complaining, but I am complaining, not about the interpretation but because I find it difficult to follow.
[English]
The Chairman: I think you're following exceptionally well. I think the rest of us are lost.
Okay, did you catch you breath?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Perhaps I am the only one lost.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm not going to touch that comment, not for a million dollars!
On clause 47 - Traffic control zones
The Chairman: We're at amendment G-58.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, this will more closely mirror existing traffic control regimes dealing with monitoring of ships and the establishing practices to follow ships. They're pretty technical in nature. Although the regulations can impose this requirement on port authorities, it's considered necessary to state this duty expressly in Bill C-44.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, do you have any comment?
.2005
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Is it as a result of the comments made to us by certain ports, who said that these regulations are already included in their bylaws?
[English]
Mr. McNeill: No, most ports have operating by-laws.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That's right.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: What we have been trying to do in this is to give harbour control or harbour master duties and by-laws in legislation, followed also by regulations.
The Chairman: Okay?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Unanimously.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 47 as amended agreed to
On clause 48 - Publication of practices and procedures
The Chairman: Amendment G-59 amends clause 48.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, on division for G-59.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 48 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 49 - Traffic control
The Chairman: We now move to amendments G-60 and G-61.
Do both amendments pass on division?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: For 60, yes; for 62, I'm going to see what is involved.
[English]
The Chairman: We first will deal with amendment G-60.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like some explanation on G-61.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: What it does is remove the authority for vessels to move in a port without expressed authorization from a traffic controller.
Mr. McNeill: Yes. When you wish to move a vessel from one jetty up to another jetty, at the moment you require vessel traffic management approval. This allows the harbour master to move the vessel.
Mr. Keyes: Does this impinge on any of our safety situations?
Mr. McNeill: No, harbour master is responsible for safety in the harbour.
Mr. Keyes: The harbour master is, but is he the one they're talking to, or is it the traffic controller we're not talking to any more?
Mr. McNeill: Under this, you wouldn't be talking to the traffic controller. This is talking about just moving a vessel up and down a jetty, or within a short range within a harbour.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, the bill talks about a captain or master of the vessel. Can a pilot be the master of the vessel?
[English]
Mr. McNeill: No, the harbour master has the role here, and the master of the vessel, not the pilot.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, but the bill talks about the ... Ah! The master; is this the harbour master? The bill referred to the master of the vessel; in my mind these are not the same thing. The harbour master is the person whom the minister chooses to appoint.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: The master of the vessel is the captain of the vessel. The harbour master is often referred to as the capitaine du port. There are two different roles.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 49 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 50 agreed to on division
On clause 51 - Application to military and police ships
The Chairman: Now we come to amendment G-62.
Mr. Keyes: Technical.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 51 as amended agreed to on division
.2010
The Chairman: That brings us to new clause 51.1, contained in amendment G-63.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: It places a duty on the port authority to make the appropriate arrangements to maintain order and safety on its property.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That's fine. Unanimously.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 52 - Regulations
The Chairman: That takes us to amendment G-64. It may actually address part of Mr. Byrne's question from earlier, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: No, it doesn't. This is separate. This is establishing the authority to constrain the uses of land in CPA ports. It also provides regulatory authority comparable to that which allows enforcement under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I understand that under the amendment, instead of regulating the work and activity in the port, we will be regulating the way the port is used. Why has that distinction been made?
[English]
Mr. LePitre: Mr. Chairman, this is the government amendment I was referring to earlier, which adds to the enabling authority in respect of the prohibition and regulation of uses of a port. Whereby earlier we removed the absolute prohibition from the act itself, now we have the enabling authority to regulate and prohibit through the regulations, in a more flexible way, given that we have a twelve-month period for the establishment of the landing fund.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The word ``works'' has been translated by the word ``ouvrages'', whereas it used to be translated by ``travaux''.
Mr. Louis Gautier (Counsel, Legal Services Directorate, National Transportation Agency): Mr. Crête, the term ``ouvrages'' has been replaced by ``travaux'' because under the new legislation, the Navigable Waters Protection Act does not apply. The Act in question referred to ``ouvrages'' rather than ``travaux''.
Mr. Crête: Thank you. They didn't understand really what they were doing.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 52 as amended agreed to
Clauses 53 to 55 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 56 - Fixing of fees
The Chairman: Amendment G-65 is a technical amendment similar to the previous one, having to do with vessels under the command of the Canadian Forces.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 56 as amended agreed to
Clause 57 agreed to on division
On clause 58 - Harbour masters and wharfingers
The Chairman: Government amendment G-66 is incomprehensible, Mr. Keyes. What is it?
Mr. Keyes: Simply put, Mr. Chairman, it removes the six-year time limit on appointments of harbour masters and wharfingers.
The Chairman: What's a wharfinger?
Mr. McNeill: A wharfinger is a ministerial appointment who collects the wharfage dues.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
.2015
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like to take two minutes of the committee's time on that point.
I introduced a private member's bill under which harbour masters would have been required to pass examinations assessing their competency before being appointed. Some individuals have been appointed in the past although there were doubts about their basic ability to fulfill the responsibility of a wharfinger. Is this amendment going to allow the government to continue to manage ports after the six year period and to appoint people as it did in the past?
[English]
Mr. McNeill: Yes, and the next government amendment will address that one. The Byrne amendment is arriving shortly and it will address it specifically.
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That will take a minute. It is to keep me happy.
I will vote in favour of this amendment, but subclause 58 (1) refers to:
- ...any person who, in the Minister's opinion, is qualified and assign responsibility to that
person.
- I propose that it should read:
- ...any person who is qualified and assign responsibilities to that person.
[English]
The Chairman: Somebody else, such as the chairman of the committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: G-66 on division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We're moving very fast.
Mr. Crête, you are making a serious point. You are concerned about the fact that it is a minister who has to pass on the competence of the people appointed. Is this the essence of your argument?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I think that the minister is able to judge, but the words ``in the Minister's opinion'' refers to a very personal judgment, and I would like those words removed. That would not prevent the minister from appointing such persons. The provision would read:
- ...the Minister may appoint as a harbour master or wharfinger any person who is qualified and
assign responsibilities to that person.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: Just to give you an overview, the harbour master function and the wharfinger function have been ministerial appointments for thirty or forty years. They are part-time, rarely paid more than $6,000 a year; I think that's the average. They receive a payment of $100 a month, I believe it is, and they get a percentage of what they collect.
The Chairman: If I understand Mr. Crête's question, it's not about the fact that the minister shall appoint. It's worded in such way that it makes it look as if the minister is passing on the qualifications instead of just saying the minister shall appoint qualified people.
Mr. McNeill: We just carried it over from the previous Public Harbours and Port Facilities Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Basically, when a harbour master is appointed, I want it to be someone who has proven his or her qualifications. The Minister can appoint the person, but he must be sure that the individual concerned is qualified. In the past, we have often seen the incumbent losing his job following an election. Some had five, six or ten years' experience and have become a valuable resource person for the harbour, but overnight he was dismissed and replaced by someone who had never worked in that environment in his life and knew absolutely nothing about the job. And even though only a very small amount of money is involved, the position is one which is very much sought-after by people in the community. The present provision perpetuates the impression that such appointments are made on the basis of political patronage. If the words ``in the Minister's opinion'' were removed, there would still be some leeway and it would be possible to avoid certain difficulties in this regard.
[English]
The Chairman: I believe, Mr. Crête, you had indicated a willingness to pass this on division.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I am moving it. It's up to the Liberals to decide whether they'll vote in favour or against.
.2020
[English]
The Chairman: I think the Liberals probably have greater faith in the ability of the minister to appoint qualified people.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I also have great faith in the Minister to appoint qualified people. I am not calling that into question. But it is also important that justice be seemed to be done, and that is the reason for my amendment. I will conclude on that point.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Well, I guess we'll just have our vote.
The Chairman: Defeated on division?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: They can vote as they wish, but I will vote in favour. Ask the Liberals if they are for or against. I would like them to express their opinion. I am not asking for a recorded vote, but I would like them to indicate...
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Chairman, I understood from comments made by the officials the kinds of qualifications for this type of position are barely minimal. No matter how you define it, almost anyone is qualified to serve. I think you're not really doing much by changing the wording.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Seriously, a port such as Cacouna, which handles millions of dollars every year, will continue for one, two, three, four or five years, that is the time for it to be transferred to the private sector, with the individuals currently there. There are other ports in the same situation. There are places where they do not have a great deal to do, where there is not a lot required of them. In Quebec, they might be required just to have a good knowledge of French. There are things of that kind which can be done. That is the principle when you hire someone for that kind of job; that has been the case since Confederation. That goes back to the time when, following a liberal electoral victory, Liberals were appointed everywhere. Following a conservative win, you found Conservatives everywhere. I think things have changed since then.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: The point is taken, Mr. Chairman. Let's have the question.
The Chairman: I'm sorry, Mr. Byrne. I did cut you off earlier. Do you want jump into this?
Mr. Byrne: We'll carry.
The Chairman: Thank you. All in favour of the government amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, it is my amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: I understand. All in favour of Mr. Crete's amendment to the government amendment?
Subamendment negatived
The Chairman: This takes us to the amendment G-66. All in favour of government amendment G-66.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: They are incredible!
[English]
The Chairman: We have a lot of support of it over here, Mr. Crete. On division?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 58 agreed to on division
Clauses 59 and 60 agreed to on division
The Chairman: This brings us to clause 61, on which there is government amendment G-67, found on pages 194 and 195. We're not passing this stuff.
What is being handed out right now is a replacement for government amendment G-67, so this is the new G-67. That is correct so far.
Mr. McNeill: Is this designed to address the concerns of both Monsieur Crete and Mr. Byrne?
The Chairman: Mr. Byrne, would you care to give an explanation of this?
Mr. Byrne: I think it's just a simple housekeeping amendment.
.2025
The Chairman: That depends on whose house needs to be kept.
Mr. Byrne: It's just a simple housekeeping amendment that promotes our federal responsibilities where they should be thus promoted.
Mr. McNeill: It really does make it clear, especially for some of the Atlantic region and the Quebec region, that where it will take some time to transfer and divest public facilities, the Government of Canada is responsible for the continued maintenance and operation of those ports.
The Chairman: Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Byrne: On behalf of the members of the Atlantic caucus, I would like to thank not onlyMr. Keyes and the minister's office, but the senior officials from the Department of Transport, whose kind assistance has brought us to this point in terms of the drafting.
The Chairman: This is not the Oscars yet, Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Byrne: After all those theatrics you're not going to tell me you're going to close the curtain.
The Chairman: Thank God you spared us the maps, Mr. Byrne.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The experts will tell me if I am mistaken. According to the first part, the disposal or transfer of federal real property may be affected under the authority of this section or the Federal Real Property Act.
I thought at first that regional ports came under an existing piece of legislation, and the current section provides more flexibility so that the disposal or transfer can be affected under either piece of legislation, which could be of particular benefit for some ports concerned. This would also probably enable some ports to become in the course of time Canadian Ports Authorities. Could it go that far? That is my question.
Finally, it is our understanding that after the six-year period in the case of regional ports, the minister will retain responsibility for managing ports and public port facilities that have not been disposed of or transferred.
This means that until disposal or transfer occurs, the minister will continue to operate them, but he could decide to dispose of them.
In the case of a ferry port, if the government were to decide not to renew the physical facilities, but rather to dispose of them, that could be done at the moment as is described. This would not guarantee that services would be maintained.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: I'm sorry, Mr. Crête, I didn't get your point.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I will repeat what I said. There's no problem.
It is stated that the minister will retain responsibility for managing ports and public port facilities that have not been disposed of or transferred. Let me give you an example. In a ferry port, there is a ferryboat. If the federal government were to decide not to maintain the port, and to close it down, this would automatically mean that the ferry could not operate.
Under these circumstances, it is not absolutely guaranteed that the ferry service would be maintained. The only guarantee given is that the minister will continue to manage these ports as long as they are not disposed of or transferred, but there is no guarantee that there will be no disposal.
This is very important, because we have to make sure that this does not simply guarantee that the minister will continue to manage them if he has not disposed of them. We want some guarantees that existing services will not be disposed of. That is not the same thing at all. Is that any clearer?
.2030
[English]
Mr. McNeill: It is our policy on the divestiture that when we have an operation, or the port or jetty is in use, we will deal with the users. But if there is no operation, you still want the government to continue to operate the port. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: What are you saying here?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm going to give you a concrete example. Let's take the case of the ferry between Rivière-du-Loup and Saint-Siméon. The company might want to continue providing the service and even to have a provincial government grant to ensure that essential services are provided. If the federal government did not maintain the facilities and in five years thought that the wharf had become dangerous and was therefore going to dispose of it, it would then be impossible to guarantee ferry service. Hence the minister is giving no guarantees that he will ensure that services are maintained.
In places where there are existing services, I want them to continue. That is what we discussed.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: There is an understanding in the department that we will continue the safe management of the structure, but we won't guarantee your ferry service.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I see. Are you guaranteeing...
[English]
Mr. McNeill: We are saying we will continue to operate that wharf to a safe standard, if we have not divested of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I understand what you are telling me, but that is not what I understand the clause to mean.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: When we go through the divestiture process - you have the guidelines in the book we gave you - there is both an operating and a monitoring period. If we do a transfer, there is a negotiated operating period that requires the operation to continue for a specific period of time. It's based on our financial model. There is also a monitoring period. This protects the crown from windfall profits and allows the community to continue the expected use of the port.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I think the clause should read as follows:
Subject to any regulations made under section 63, the Minister continues to have the management of public ports and public port facilities that the Minister has not transferred.
We should remove the words ``that the Minister has not disposed of or transferred'', because if we leave them in, the minister would be able to dispose of a facility or a service that is being provided. There is nothing officially prohibiting him from doing that. There's no official protection for existing services. There is no guarantee that a new minister, one or two years from now, might not take advantage of this provision. The only thing that is guaranteed is that services will be maintained when the minister has not disposed of the facilities. However, there are no guarantees that the minister will not dispose of them.
[English]
Mr. Harb: If the government decides to sell a port, then it's gone. So I think the objective here, if it is not sold, is to remain operational and maintained. At least that's what I understand. But it has no protection if the government decides to dispose of the port and sell it on the block - it's gone. That's what I understand from this amendment. Frankly, I don't have any problem with it.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harb.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I did not get an answer to my question.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: You're driving at the heart of the divestiture policy. The policy of the government, as announced in December, is that we will divest 500 public harbours in two ways. One is as an operating port where we will broker a deal. If it is not an operating port and does not wish to continue as an operating port, we will sell it on a public tender. Once the divestiture is executed, it is a transfer of title and therefore the government is no longer liable for that operation.
This amendment says if we do not dispose of this or divest of this within six years, we will continue to operate and maintain it.
Mr. Jordan: In other words, if there is a port and nobody is operating it, the government will.
Mr. McNeill: The government is still responsible.
.2035
The Chairman: Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Byrne: I think the heart of what you're getting at is exactly the same situation as existed ten years ago. If the Government of Canada wanted to, it could shut down the port of Rivière-du-Loup and the ferry service. It couldn't do that then, it can't do it now, and it won't do it in the future. I don't believe there's anything in any of the legislation such that you could really spell that out, to give those guarantees you're looking for.
I think from our collective points of view this amendment pretty well solves the problem. This articulates that Transport Canada still has a legal obligation to maintain the safety of the port.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Do you interpret the clause to mean that it would guarantee that where there are existing services... I'm not referring to ports that will be divested, because they are not useful. That is not the problem with the majority of ports.
Let's take the example of Rivière-du-Loup, because I think it is very concrete. The town has a ferry crossing and a wharf, which, in five years, will be out-of-date. A bit of dragging is done every year in order to maintain the port.
In three years, the federal government could decide that it does not want to continue paying these dragging costs and could dispose of this facility. It could even suggest that the port be moved to Cacouna and then there would be no further protection for the wharf in Rivière-du-Loup.
I see nothing in this clause that would cover cases of this type. Do you agree with me?
You may take any other example if you prefer. There are many ferry services in the Maritimes.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: In a practical sense, we began negotiations for the divestiture of the port of Rivière-du-Loup with an operator. Under the operating agreement there would be a number of guarantees and requirements. That is the only guarantee for continued operation. It's in the divestiture guidebook we delivered.
The Chairman: Mr. Byrne, was this not... Mr. Crête was using the example of Rivière-du-Loup, but you were also using the example of the ports in Newfoundland.
Mr. Byrne: That's right.
The Chairman: You're satisfied this meets that concern?
Mr. Byrne: Yes, I am.
About ironclad guarantees of continued levels of service, I don't think it's realistic for... It wasn't realistic twenty years ago, it wasn't realistic ten years ago, it isn't realistic today, and I don't think it will be realistic ten years from now.
The government has to have a certain flexibility in providing services. If the service is not there, for example the ferry service you're talking about, of course it would be a relatively low-priority maintenance schedule for that harbour. But if the ferry is still there, obviously that's where the interest would lie.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like to move the following sub-amendment:
- Subject to any regulations made under section 63, the Minister continues to have the
management of public ports and public port facilities that he has not transferred.
- I am removing the words ``disposed of or''.
Mr. Keyes: We have it on the bottom of the page.
The Chairman: He's saying amend it by taking out the words ``disposed of or''. So it would read ``the Minister has not transferred''.
Is that the essence of your...?
Mr. Crête: ``Has not transferred'': that's it in English.
.2040
[Translation]
This would not prevent transfers, but rather allow for them. However...
[English]
Mr. McNeill: It's the difference between operations and disposal...
Go ahead, Barry.
Mr. LePitre: I'd just like to point out that the use of the words transfer and disposal are references back to, for example, subclause 61(1), where in paragraph 61(1)(a) we talk about disposals in general, whereas in paragraph 61(1)(b) we're talking about transfers of administration and control.
It's intended to pick up the two different kinds of divestures that are available under the regional local ports divestitures... Transfers, disposal into the private sector and transfers of administration and control are under paragraph 61(1)(b). That's why the two words appear.
Mr. Byrne: If it's sold, it's disposed. If a CPA is formed, it's transferred.
Mr. LePitre: Excuse me. I was speaking in terms of transferred...in terms of transfers of administrative control to a province. That's what paragraph 61(1)(b) is referring to.
Mr. Keyes: It's transfer of management.
Mr. McNeill: If the provincial government in Quebec wanted to take over the whole range of ferry wharfs, it would be a transfer. It wouldn't be a disposal.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have completed my presentation. I would now like a vote on the amendment and my sub-amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: A vote on the amendment and a vote on the subamendment.
We've heard the proposal, which is that the words - I'm looking at the English text - ``disposed of or'' be deleted from part (a) of amendment G-67. All in favour?
Mr. Crête: Ça devient ``has not transferred''.
The Chairman: Yes, that's right -
Mr. Crête: Has not transferred.
The Chairman: - the minister has not transferred.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: And in French ``qu'il n'a pas transférés''.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.
Subamendment negatived
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 61 as amended agreed to
Clause 62 agreed to
The Chairman: That brings us to amendment G-68, on pages 196 and 197.
Mr. Keyes, would you please introduce G-68?
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, this establishes the authority to constrain the uses of land in public ports. It's been covered off before. It's the ability to prevent specific uses of public port lands that's essential to effective land use management.
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 63 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 64 agreed to on division
The Chairman: This brings us to amendment G-69 to clause 65...``a member of a class of persons''.
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 65 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 66 agreed to on division
On clause 67 - Objectives
The Chairman: This brings us to clause 67 and amendment G-69.5. I'm getting perilously close to something I'm interested in.
Mr. Keyes: A washroom break?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: Actually, I note that it is -
Mr. Keyes: Why don't we quit at 9 p.m. for ten minutes?
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Before we discuss the amendments on the Seaway, could we get the one submitted by the aboriginal peoples if it is still relevant? We are now on the Seaway. That amendment could affect the entire clause.
.2045
[English]
The Chairman: I have a number of amendments here, Mr. Crête, that speak specifically to that issue. I note, however, that...
Just a second, we have a couple of new amendments here. Why don't we take a ten-minute biological break? We'll reconvene in ten minutes precisely.
.2046
.2053
The Chairman: Let us reconvene. Thank you.
I wish to thank everybody for putting up with this. I think we're making some progress and have things moving along fairly well.
I do want to take a moment to introduce this next series of amendments. Members of the committee who were on the road in Montreal will recall that we had a presentation from the Mohawk Nation - from Akwesasne and Kahnawake in particular - who raised some concerns that I think resonated with members of the committee, and certainly with me, given that have a very similar situation in Manitoba.
As a result of developments initiated by, in this case, the federal government - namely, the development of the seaway - some problems were created on the traditional lands of the Mohawk. They have asked for some comfort. They have asked that any of these changes in the commercialization of the seaway preserve their rights and relationships. We're going to move through a couple of new amendments that are designed to do exactly that.
.2055
Mr. Crête, you also raised some questions about this. This is about the Mohawk Nation and some of their concerns. We're going to proceed with some amendments right now.
This is amendment G-69.5. Then we have government amendment -
Mr. Keyes: We didn't do clause 66, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Yes, we did. It passed.
Mr. Keyes: Oh, sorry. It went by me.
The Chairman: Clause 66 was passed, okay?
Mr. Keyes: Sorry. Okay.
The Chairman: Keep up, Mr. Keyes. We are now on clause 67, which has amendment G-69.5.
Mr. Bowie, amendment G-69.5 is the ``communities adjacent'' amendment, right?
Mr. Bruce Bowie (Director, Marine Policy, Department of Transport): Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, you took the words right out of my mouth. This provides a measure of reassurance to all those communities that charges to the seaway will not be driven by purely commercial concerns. It responds to concerns of first nations that there be no adverse effect on any land claims due to property transfers for any future reorganization of the seaway.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like to make a technical comment. In its present wording, the clause begins by protecting rights, while subclause (3) states:
(3) An agreement may include any terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate, including provisions respecting:
The clause goes on to mention transfers, management methods, construction, and so on.
So the amendment should refer to ``the protection of the rights and interests of communities adjacent to the Seaway''.
It's just a question of the French and English wording, but it would be better to do this correctly. Do you agree?
[English]
The Chairman: Do you have a question about the wording in the French version?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Rather than beginning with the word ``protéger'' or ``protect'', the clause should begin with the words ``the protection'', because of the way in which the clause is worded. Subclause 3 begins as follows:
(3) An agreement may include any terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate, including provisions respecting
a) the transfer...
b) the management...
Hence, b.1) should read as follows: ``the protection of the rights and interests...''. Otherwise, it does not make any sense.
Is this just a question of the wording in French, or something else?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Gautier.
[Translation]
Mr. Gautier: Mr. Crête, in all the other...
Mr. Crête: Am I on the wrong clause?
Mr. Gautier: It's clause 67, Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: Oh! I'm not on the right clause. I'm all mixed up. I apologize, I was on clause 69. That's fine.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, being on the right page improves the quality of the translation.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 67 as amended agreed to
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Clause 68 is passed on division.
[English]
Clause 68 agreed to on division
On clause 69 - Transfer
.2100
The Chairman: We're on clause 69, dealing with government amendment 70 on pages 202 to 204 of your package.
Mr. Keyes, do you want to comment on this?
Mr. Keyes: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It allows the minister to transfer property for any future reorganization of the seaway, including transfers to a binational body. We had long and lengthy discussions on this matter.
This particular clause of this bill is what I personally term a stopgap measure between the opportunity that this country, Canada, might have in forming in future a binational agreement with the United States on the St. Lawrence Seaway system. There could be a time when the two countries realize and understand the value of the seaway. In the future they may negotiate a common front for the operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway and all that might entail. This just allows for that opportunity to happen.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, do you have any comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bowie: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to draw attention to 1.2 in this amendment. You raised the issue earlier of the presentations by the Mohawk community. This again is a partial response to the concerns expressed at that hearing, where it was indicated that in the existing legislation the minister has the authority to transfer land. This amendment would require that the minister in selling land would follow the normal procedures of the Federal Real Property Act. It removes that concern about a direct transfer that might impact on the rights -
The Chairman: It protects aboriginal lands contained within that legislation. Thank you very much. I appreciate that clarification.
Government amendment 71 to clause 69, on pages 205 and 206. Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Again, this might be just a reiteration. It responds to the concerns of first nations that there be no adverse effect on any land claim because of property transfers for any future reorganization of the seaway.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: If I understand correctly, this is the new amendment G-71.
[English]
The Chairman: The new G-71, yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That takes us to government amendment 72 on pages 207 and 208.
Mr. Keyes: It's the same theme of any future agreements for the management of the seaway. It's a consequential amendment obliging the government to ensure there is a cancellation clause to any the future agreements providing for the management of the seaway, in case we move to that binational system.
The Chairman: On division, Mr. Crête?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Should the clause state that the international agreement may include the not-for-profit corporation that was formally responsible for management? This amendment merely states that the agreement shall include a clause providing for the termination of the agreement. Would it be advisable to state: ``or alteration'', given that the not-for-profit corporation may become one of the members of the international body? It might be safer to do this.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Yes, probably, because eventually, if it moves to a binational organization between our two countries, there would have to be a whole new process in order to make that viable and in order to ensure the not-for-profit agency that would be in place as the stopgap could be dissolved so we could move to the binational. If we don't have that provision and the binational says no, no, I'm in the legislation for life as the operating agency and I don't care what you do in the binational...
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I agree that the amendment is relevant. However, I'm wondering whether we might not add the words ``or alteration'', that is , to alter the agreement in such a way that the not-for-profit corporation is included in the new international body.
I may be splitting hair here.
.2105
[English]
Mr. Keyes: We don't want to bind ourselves. There might even be a better way to butter bread in the future. This provides us with the opportunity. It does not prevent the not-for-profit corporation from being incorporated into a binational. It only allows us to dissolve it if necessary. It wouldn't prevent us from doing it.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 69 to 79 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 80 - Powers re property of Her Majesty
The Chairman: I have just been rewarded by the researcher. Shall clause 80 carry? No. What about G-73?
Mr. Keyes: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It identifies the role of the person who enters into an agreement under section 69 as that of a manager of the seaway. It also addresses first nations' concerns about responsibilities for matters involving the land claims, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That's fine.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 80 as amended agreed to
Clause 81 agreed to on division
On clause 82-Discrimination among users
The Chairman: This brings us to clause 82. We have government amendment G-74 on page 211 in the English and page 212 in the French.
Mr. Keyes: It's somewhat technical in nature, Mr. Chairman. It allows the seaway operating corporation to engage in commercially acceptable discrimination against or in favour of classes of users. Without the amendment, the seaway operating corporation might have been able to legally engage in unjust discrimination providing it was aimed at a group of users and not just a single user.
The Chairman: So this is similar to what we had for the fourth legislation as it applied to the seaway?
Mr. Keyes: Exactly.
The Chairman: Will we pass this unanimously or on division?
Clause 82 agreed to on division
Clauses 83 to 86 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 87 - Traffic control
The Chairman: This brings us to clause 87, against which we have government amendment G-75. Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: This is classes of persons to be traffic control officers, Mr. Chairman. It gives us the flexibility in designating traffic control officers.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 87 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 88 to 93 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 94 - Traffic control
The Chairman: This brings us to clause 94, against which there is government amendment G-76 found on pages 215 and 216.
Mr. Keyes: Same as G-75, Mr. Chairman. It is classes of persons.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 94 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 95 agreed to on division
On clause 96 - Enforcement officers
The Chairman: This brings us to clause 96. Against clause 96 we have two amendments. There is G-77 for the government, found on page 217 and 218, and the Bloc is on 37. Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Again, this has to do with more flexibility.
.2110
[Translation]
L'amendement est adopté avec dissidence. [Voir Procès-verbaux]
Le président: Avec l'adoption de l'amendement G-77 avec dissidence, nous arrivons à l'amendement du Bloc no 37. Monsieur Crête.
Mr. Crête: Yes, I have the same concern as I have with respect to appointments to ports. Line 5 on page 50 reads as follows:
- The Minister may designate any person as an enforcement officer...and shall furnish each
person so designated with a certificate of designation.
- We suggest the following wording:
- The Minister may designate any person whose proven ability and knowledge of the Act as an
enforcement officer for the
Mr. Keyes: I think we went around this corner once before and -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We can move to the vote.
Mr. Keyes: Thank you.
Mr. Crête: I understand that it has been negatived on division.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Okay.
The Chairman: Are you trying to take over my job, Mr. Crête?
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 96 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 97 and 98 agreed to on division
On clause 99 - Warrant
The Chairman: Clause 99 has against it government amendment G-78, found on pages 220 and 221.
Mr. Keyes: An oversight. Okay, thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 99 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 100 to 107 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 108 - Payment of proceeds
The Chairman: That brings us to clause 108, against which we have government amendment G-79.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 108 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 109 and 110 agreed to on division
On clause 111 - Obstruction of ports
The Chairman: Against clause 111 we have Bloc amendment 38, on page 224.
That's right, Mr. Cullen, get the momentum going.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The objective of the amendment is to replace lines 32-40 on page 60 with the following:
111.(1) Where a contravention of or a failure to observe a regulation endangers the public or is a public nuisance or prevents a port authority from lawfully using or operating the ports, works or properties administered, managed or controlled by it, the port may, where necessary, intervene without notice through its officers or employees and use reasonable force to prevent or stop the contravention or to enforce the regulation, but recourse to such measures does not preclude the exercise of any other sanction provided in that respect.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Port of Montreal and the other major ports have the powers they formerly had under section 14, Part II of the Canada Ports Corporation Act.
The purpose is to give back some powers to the Port of Montreal, among others.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: That's not what Mr. McNeill said to me on that one. It's a little different.
The Chairman: It's rather late in the night for enlightenment.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The difference between the two is that in the initial wording, the officer may direct the person who appears to be in charge of the ship or goods, where our amendment provides that this would be done by the port authority.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: I think this clause is important because it's part of a comprehensive enforcement regime set up in the bill. What it has to ensure, and what we're looking to ensure, Mr. Chairman, is that enforcement officers have the appropriate powers of inspection, search and seizure, detention of ships, and removal of ships or goods obstructing the ports. It's an offence to fail to comply with any reasonable requirement of an enforcement officer. So we wouldn't want to replace this particular clause, Mr. Chairman. It's necessary.
Amendment negatived on division
The Chairman: That brings us to government amendment G-80, on pages 225 and 226.
Mr. Keyes: This also provides power to the enforcement officer, but this time to deal with abandoned goods or ships in all waters covered by the act. It's correcting an oversight, actually.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
.2115
Clause 111 as amended agreed to
Clause 112 to 114 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 115 - Offence and fine
The Chairman: We have government amendment G-81, on pages 227 and 228. Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Although a director or an officer is required by the act to comply with the letters patent, the code will provide sanctions other than prosecution for non-compliance, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: On division, Mr. Crête?
Mr. Keyes: Do they go to jail for a conflict? Probably.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: If I understand correctly, if a person does not comply with the code of ethics, he or she will be guilty of an offence. It will just be immoral, or something like that.
On division.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: It depends on your definition of ``sanctions'', I suppose.
Mr. McNeill: There are enough provisions that you don't need to prosecute for non-compliance.
The Chairman: I'd like it recorded that I'm in favour of morality.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 115 agreed to on division
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I think that it could. Morality is sometimes boring.
Some honourable members: Ah! Ah!
[English]
The Chairman: The translator disavows any association with that particular remark.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: Details, details, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I feel like I'm back in college here.
Clause 116 agreed to
The Chairman: We now have new clause 116.1, which is contained in amendment G-82 and is found on pages 229 and 230. Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, this authorizes the court to order a director -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That's unanimous.
[English]
The Chairman: It's unanimously supported.
Mr. Keyes: Thank you. That's the only time I love being cut off.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Now we have new clauses 117 to 125. I note that at this point in our proceedings yesterday, we had Reform amendment 25, which was deferred pending our dealing with new clauses 117 to 125.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It was defeated.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm sorry, no. I can't read my own writing. Thank you very much. It's a good thing everybody else is on the bit.
So where am I now? I'm back to new clauses 117 to 125. Well, we can go further than that, except that what I do not understand here...
May I just have one moment with the clerk, please?
The new clauses were contained within the defeated Reform motion, so that negates that.
Okay, wait a second here, folks. I think we're going to get into some serious momentum here. Moving on, we have a block of clauses, 117 through to 130. This is an unamended block. Shall they pass?
Clauses 117 to 131 inclusive agreed to on division
The Chairman: I'm going to get whiplash if we're not careful.
We now move to new clause 131.1, against which we have amendment G-83, found in the English on pages 239 and 240, and in the French on pages 241 and 242.
.2120
Mr. Keyes: Final offer selection, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Final offer selection, which we...
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: G-83?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Crête: Is there a presentation?
[English]
Mr. Keyes: You know what it's like.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I find it astonishing that this has come in the amendments. I assumed I had made a sufficiently strong demonstration at our hearing with the witnesses.
This provision will change labour relations quite significantly for all pilotage units. It will remove a bargaining power from the unit, and I'm not sure that this will be the right approach in the long term. When the strength of the two parties are unequal in labour relations, other games always come into play. In extreme cases, this type of situation could even push people into illegal strikes and other such procedures, which I am not saying are correct.
So I do not think that the final offer selection system is advantageous in the long term, for other employers or employees, and the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this amendment.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: I'd like to just pause the proceedings for one moment here, but please just stay at the table. Let me just take a couple of minutes while I sort out exactly where we're going, because we've now encountered what are known as unchartered waters. We will recess for two minutes.
.2122
.2124
The Chairman: Okay, I calls them as I sees them. We're back into the business. Are you ready? I move quickly when I'm in the mood.
Mr. Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Wait, I haven't called anything yet.
Mr. Keyes: Oh, I'm sorry.
The Chairman: That's right. I am about to call new clause 131.2, which would be created by government amendment G-84.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, the government withdraws amendment G-84.
The Chairman: Amendment G-84 is withdrawn, negating the need for a new clause 131.2 and the need to carry that.
Now we move to proposed new clause 131.3 contained within government amendment G-85.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, proposed new clause 131.3, amendment G-85, is being withdrawn and replaced. I'm sorry I don't have copies for everyone here on this one, but I'll read it slowly and the translation will catch it.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes, we are going to recess long enough to have copies provided.
Mr. Keyes: I can read it into the record, it's just one line.
.2125
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It is more than one line, it is ten lines.
[English]
Break is over for me, Mr. President.
The Chairman: Well, we're back in business. Logic reigns.
Mr. Keyes: New clauses 131.2 and 131.3 are withdrawn, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Attempting to understand what just occurred will not be helpful. Let me understand this, Mr. Keyes. Government amendment G-85 has been withdrawn.
Mr. Keyes: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: That negates the creation of new clause 131.3.
Clauses 132 and 133 agreed to on division
On clause 134
The Chairman: We move on to clause 134, against which we have government amendment G-86, found on page 249 in English and 250 in French.
Mr. Keyes: It eliminates the requirement, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to make a decision that is not really necessary. It takes away the ministerial responsibility to set the rate of interest to be paid.
The Chairman: So G-86 passes on division?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That's unanimous.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 134 as amended agreed to
Clause 135 agreed to on division
On clause 136
The Chairman: That brings us to clause 136. Shall it pass on division also?
Mr. Keyes: There might be an amendment. I'm just waiting to hear from the Bloc.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, there are no amendments.
[English]
The Chairman: Oh, just wait. The new Bloc consultant is in place.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We would like to move a sub-amendment to G-87, which amends section 136.1. We would like the fine to be $10,000 rather than $50,000. We believe that's much more reasonable.
[English]
The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Crête. Just quickly, you are introducing new clause 136.1 or an amendment to new clause 136.1 as contained in G-87. We have yet to pass 136.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We are moving a sub-amendment to amendment G-87. We would like to replace the number $50,000 with the number $10,000, that's on the second line of the new clause 136.2, which adds section 48.1 to the Act.
The Chairman: Just a moment, please, Mr. Crête.
[English]
It is my job to be organized here. We have actually jumped ahead of ourselves. We have not passed clause 136. We need to pass 136, and then we'll move to the clause that contains the amendment.
.2130
Clause 136 agreed to on division
The Chairman: Now we are on government amendment G-87, which creates new clause 136.1. It's found on pages 251-52.
[Translation]
Go ahead, Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I move that the fine be set at $10,000 per day, rather than at $50,000, that seems far more reasonable.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête has proposed a subamendment that would reduce the number ``$50,000'' to ``$10,000''.
Subamendment agreed to
The Chairman: That brings us to amendment G-87 itself.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That's unanimous.
[English]
The Chairman: It passes unanimously.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The whole amendment?
[English]
The Chairman: As amended.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
An hon. member: It passes on division.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 137
The Chairman: We now move to clauses 137, 138 and 139. Oh, I'm sorry; clause 137 has an amendment. We have government amendment G-88.
Mr. Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're amending clause 137 by replacing ``December 31, 1998'', on line 3 of page 69, with ``December 31, 1997'. We're replacing ``1998'' with ``1997''.
An hon. member: That's not what this says.
An hon. member: What about your amendment to line 2?
An hon. member: That's the first test.
The Chairman: That's not what this says, Stan. This says:
- with each Authority, its users and other persons affected, before
Mr. Crête: That's a new G-88 - it just replaces 1998 with 1997.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: This is not G-88.
The Chairman: Well, we're at G-88, clause 137.
An hon. member: Line 2.
A voice: You have to do that first before you do line three.
Mr. Keyes: I'm sorry. I'm jumping ahead of myself now. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Okay, then, let's get back to clause 137 of the bill. We're at government amendment G-88, which is found on pages 253 and 254 of the package of amendments. Mr. Keyes, it states that line two is to be replaced with the following:
- with each Authority, its users and other persons affected, before
The Chairman: It broadens the scope of the consultations.
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Shall clause 137 carry? Yes, it's unanimous.
Some hon. members: No, we have another amendment.
Mr. Keyes: This is where I'm going to make my amendment, now.
The Chairman: I'm sorry, are you making an amendment to clause 137?
Mr. Keyes: That's correct.
The Chairman: Okay, then we have not passed clause 137 unanimously.
Mr. Keyes: I have confidence that we will eventually.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes, your amendment is...?
Mr. Keyes: It would replace ``1998'', on line 3 of page 69, with ``1997''.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: In my mind, there seems to be no point in moving things forward like this. There are already provisions for bringing this report in regularly, and these circumstances have been examined many times in the past. That's all I have to say on this amendment.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 137 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 138 to 141 inclusive agreed to on division
The Chairman: That brings us to new clause 141.1, which is contained in government amendment G-89 and is found on pages 255 and 256.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, it places port authorities under the Access to Information Act. I'm sure everybody would be in favour of that.
The Chairman: Good, but what about the Privacy Act? I got a phone call, you know.
Mr. McNeill: The Privacy Act comes in a few amendments further up.
Mr. Keyes: Oh, I love you guys. Bruce Phillips is going to be so happy with you.
The Chairman: I hope he remembers this.
Mr. Keyes: I hope I get credit for it.
.2135
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: So those that are mentioned are those that have already been recognized.
[English]
The Chairman: He's asking whether these are the ones that are already recognized.
Mr. McNeill: Yes, but it's listed as schedule I at the moment, as the bill reads now. But as schedule I gets changed, all of these will be read as subject to access to information.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Is this up to date? Does it contain all the ones that have officially been recognized? Not that I'm saying we have to add some.
[English]
Mr. McNeill: No, not yet.
Mr. Keyes: There could be additions to this list.
Mr. McNeill: Yes.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 142 agreed to on division
On clause 143
The Chairman: This brings us to government amendment G-90 to clause 143, found on pages 257 and 258.
Mr. Keyes: It allows harbour commissions to continue to be covered by environmental assessment requirements contained in regulations under the CEAA, until their status is finalized.
The Chairman: This is a transitional -
Mr. Keyes: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Are we at clause 143? There are no...
[English]
The Chairman: It is clause 143, government amendment 90.
Mr. Keyes: What does this mean, Mr. McNeill?
Mr. LePitre: For your information, this replaces words that were in the definition of federal authority under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and puts them back into the exclusion from what constitutes a federal authority under that act, as was previously the case before the bill was introduced. It's really just a correction of words that had been deleted.
Mr. Keyes: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 143 agreed to on division
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I wanted to be sure that this was good for Hamilton.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, I want to assure you that the fact that the word ``Hamilton'' was contained in that reference had nothing to do with Mr. Keyes' interest.
Mr. Keyes: My father always taught me - measure twice, cut once.
Clause 144 agreed to on division
The Chairman: We are now on government amendment G-91 creating new clause 144.1, found on pages 259 and 260. Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Again, that's under the environmental assessment.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 145 agreed to on division
The Chairman: Now we move to government amendment G-92, found on pages 261 and 262, creating new clause 145.1.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 146 agreed to on division
The Chairman: We now come to clause 147, against which we have government amendment G-93.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 147 as amended agreed to on division
The Chairman: This brings us to amendment G-94 creating new clause 147.1.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 148 to 156 inclusive agreed to on division
.2140
On clause 157
The Chairman: Clause 157 has amendment G-95 against it. Shall government amendment G-95 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have a question on clause 157. Subsection (a) is gone. This is amendment G-95:
157. Subsection 3(1) of the Fishing and Recreational Harbour Act is amended
What are we deleting exactly? In the French version, there will be a word missing at the end of the sentence.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. LePitre.
Mr. LePitre: The effect of the amendment would be to keep paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act as is. That would allow for the references to harbour commissions to remain in place, since not all the harbour commissions might be affected by the proposed act at the same time. It was felt the references to harbour commissions should remain in place.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We should move a sub-amendment to have the word ``abrogé'' added on to the end of that sentence in the French version.
In the English version, that sentence ends with the word ``amended''. However, there's nothing in French.
Sorry. There's no problem.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 157 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 158 agreed to on division
On clause 159
The Chairman: Clause 159 contains Bloc amendment B-39.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Hold on, let me just wake up. We're withdrawing that.
[English]
Clause 159 agreed to
The Chairman: That brings us to new clause 159.1, which is contained in government amendment G-96.
Mr. Keyes: Again, it applies to federal agency status, Mr. Chair. It puts them under the Municipal Grants Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 160 agreed to
On clause 161
The Chairman: Clause 161 is amended by proposed government amendment G-97.Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: The status of the harbour commissions is unresolved. The amendment would preserve the status quo for them. It adds the reference to port authority in the same provision.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On division.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minuts of Proceedings]
Clause 161 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 162 to 165 inclusive agreed to on division
The Chairman: This brings us to new clause 165.1, which is created by government amendment G-98, which is another consequential amendment listing the various port authorities, etc.
Mr. Keyes: Yes, but subject to the Privacy Act, as you requested, Mr. Chairman. I hope my good friend appreciates it.
The Chairman: I'm going to frame this, Mr. McNeill, and mail it to Bruce, who is out of town.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: This brings the ports under the Privacy Act, the same way as they are brought under the freedom of information act. This creates new clause 165.1.
.2145
Clauses 166 to 176 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 177-Coming into force
The Chairman: That brings us to clause 177, which is amended by government amendment G-99.
Mr. Keyes, would you make sense of this?
Mr. Keyes: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
Is it okay, or do you want me to talk about it?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: In 1997?
[English]
Mr. Keyes: That's correct.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On July 1, 1997, 90 days after it receives royal assent.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Or 90 days after royal assent.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 177 as amended agreed to on division
The Chairman: That brings us to the schedule. Shall the schedule carry? Whatever that is, it's not a clause. It's Bloc amendment B-40, found on page 278.
Mr. McNeill: Mr. Chairman, just for a point of information, can we not deal with the schedule of the act listing all of the port authorities in a few days' time when we have completed the final evaluations and we have completed a list? Right now we have only eight in your schedule.
Mr. Keyes: Could it be put at report stage in the House of Commons?
Mr. McNeill: Yes, it could be available by the end of the week.
Mr. Keyes: If it's available, it would be the end of this week, but then we won't be able to -
The Chairman: We're not here then, so it would be either now or at report stage.
Mr. McNeill: It will be at report stage. Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, does that work for you?
Mr. Keyes: We want to make sure that all of the port authorities are on the schedule.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Personally, I would agree to adding some to the schedule, rather than taking some off. Officially, we are proposing this because Sept-Îles and Port-Saguenay are not on the schedule.
We therefore moved amendment B-40 to ensure that those two ports are added to the schedule. I would consent on behalf of the Official Opposition to have other ports - if there are any, added to the schedule before we report back to the House.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Could we pass this schedule and then add to that schedule at report stage? We can pass this schedule as it is. If there are additions, they can be introduced at report stage.
The Chairman: Except these aren't port authorities yet.
Mr. McNeill: As I understand it, just for clarification, if we deliver for you a comprehensive list for the schedule at report stage, will it also automatically amend the list that we just passed by the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act?
The Chairman: We have to move that as a consequential amendment.
Mr. Keyes: A consequential amendment is introduced at the -
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Point of Order, Mr. Chairman. We could pass amendment B-40. We moved that the port of Sept-Îles and Port-Saguenay be added to the schedule. We could put the amendment to a vote right now, and, once it's dealt with, adopt another amendment that would make it possible for port authorities whose CPA status is currently being evaluated to be added to the schedule if CPA status is approved before the report is tabled.
Can't we do that? I'm trying to find a way of solving the problem.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, you've made the motion. Shall we dispose of the motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: We'll see what happens.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It was confirmed that Sept-Îles would be added to the schedule. But since it was not, we moved this amendment to add it and Port-Saguenay to the schedule. If the Liberals are planning to vote against Port-Saguenay, we could at least officially add Sept-Îles today, particularly since we are told that the assessment is complete and CPA status has been approved for Sept-Îles.
.2150
[English]
Mr. McNeill: Our evaluation has been completed, but we don't know if the minister has been satisfied pursuant to your act. The minister has not decreed they will get CPA status. What we would like to be able to do is come back to you with a comprehensive list.
Mr. Crête: Okay.
[Translation]
So let's deal with this amendment, and then see if we can add other ports at the report stage if the minister agrees, particularly those that have been recommended to the minister or that are being currently evaluated.
[English]
The Chairman: Am I correct in saying that B-40 is defeated on division?
Mr. Keyes: He pulled it.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I moved that Sept-Îles and Port-Saguenay be added to the schedule. We moved that.
[English]
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: We'll deal with this motion at the report stage of the bill.
Mr. Keyes: You have to move a motion to that effect.
Mr. Crête: Oui.
Mr. Keyes: You have to rescind this now, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McNeill: We'll get back to you with all of the motions on access to information, privacy...and amend the schedules.
Mr. Keyes: It says here ``Shall this schedule carry?'' We have to say no.
The Chairman: No, the current schedule can carry.
Shall the schedule carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Perhaps I fail to understand. Shouldn't there be a motion to allow all ports that receive ministerial approval - among those that are recommended and those that are being evaluated - to be added to the schedule? That would give the minister formal authority. If there is no such provision, what authority would the minister have to add ports to the schedule? But he could, if the amendment were adopted.
[English]
The Chair: I see what you're saying. My sense of this, Mr. Crête, is that it's a bit redundant and that's what the whole intention of this CP legislation is: that each time a new port authority is created it would automatically, as part of its establishment, be added to the list. It is in the bill in the sensethat ...
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Mr. Keyes: We need a motion somewhere in the bill to say that we're going to be...
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have no problem with that.
[English]
The Chairman: The world runs on trust.
Shall the schedule carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chairman: Since this was so much fun, we're going to go right back to clause 1. If you recall, when we began this convention, clause 1 was held over to the end.
Clause 1 agreed to on division
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, I'm surprised. You've so massively improved this bill I was sure you would want me to rush it to the House.
Before I end this process, let me simply thank everybody. I appreciate all the time, energy, and effort that have gone into this. This has been a massive piece of work over a very long period.
Mr. Crête, I appreciate the cooperation from yourself and your colleagues.
To the staff, interpreters, all, thank you very much. I and the Port of Churchill thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This may not relate to our protocol, but I would nonetheless like to say how impressed I was by senior department of Transport officials.
.2155
You have already expressed all the usual thank-yous, but I would like to add on my own behalf that I was impressed by the competence of departmental officials.
I hope that, when we come to negotiating the various aspects of this legislation, we find the same kind of cooperation.
[English]
The Chairman: We are adjourned until 8:45 tomorrow morning. We will meet in Room 536 Wellington Building. We will have before us the most important piece of work this committee is dealing with. That is the TTT study on the last mode of transportation to bring it in line with the quality establishments we have at the Fraser Port.
Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.