1997-10-10

[Stage Direction]
Bill C-9. On the Order: Government Orders
October 2, 1997—the Minister of Transport—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport of Bill C-9, an act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, providing for the establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports, for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence seaway and ferry services and other matters related to maritime trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and amending and repealing other acts as a consequence.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): moved:
That Bill C-9, an act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, providing for the establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports, for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence seaway and ferry services and other matters related to maritime trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and amending and repealing other acts as a consequence, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak to hon. members about the bill before the House, the Canada marine act. One of the government's central goals is to strengthen Canada's economy and create a climate that supports job creation and investment. Only with a solid economic foundation can we retain the standard of living and social benefits that we have come to expect as Canadians.
Fast, reliable, low cost transportation is critical to Canada's economy. We must have a transportation system that is safe, efficient, competitively priced and operated according to sound business practices.
We have been working since 1993 to modernize Canada's transportation network, by commercializing operations, reducing subsidies and modernizing the legislation.
In all modes, air, surface and maritime, we are working toward greater efficiency by increasing user input and improving community and regional economies.
Our goal is a national integrated transportation system for the new millennium, one that will help Canada meet the challenges of competing in a global marketplace. A modernized multimodal transportation network will help to create jobs and growth by supporting domestic and international trade and by promoting tourism.
Marine transportation is of vital importance to Canada's economic health and makes an enormous contribution to our international trade, tourism and jobs. The sector handles 40% of the freight we ship each year. That accounts for 200 million tonnes of our trade with other countries, which translates into more than $2.5 billion a year in revenue and more than 45,000 Canadian jobs.
Canada's marine sector has to adapt to the challenges of the next millennium. It must keep up with changing markets, competition and a changing commodity mix. Modernizing the marine sector will have a direct impact on jobs and growth. A stronger and more efficient marine transportation system will improve our international trade performance and that means more jobs for Canadians.
It was to accomplish this goal that the Department of Transport began a review of Canada's marine management and regulatory regime in 1994. The next year the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport undertook a study of the marine sector. The leadership of my now parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Hamilton West, was evident throughout the process. The report on the marine sector became known as the Keyes report.
There were many recommendations which flowed from this report to improve the marine system.
Following the report the department held regional meetings with shippers and industry to discuss the recommendations and then began a series of consultations with key players in the maritime sector. Together these activities helped to shape the government's national marine policy which was announced in December 1995.
The policy is designed to increase efficiency in the maritime sector, reduce costs and give communities more control over their ports. It will help to ensure that Canada's marine sector continues to support international trade. It will also help us to continue to meet our top priorities, safety, security and environmental protection.
The policy calls for the government to continue, as regulators, our commitment to safe marine transportation and a clean environment.
The centrepiece of all this is the bill before us, which the government has reintroduced as Bill C-9. It was originally tabled in the House in June 1996 but did not complete the parliamentary process when the House adjourned in April 1997, prior to third reading in the Senate, as the election intervened.
We have reintroduced the legislation as it was passed in this House last spring. Not a dot, a comma or a change has been made. If changes are to be made the committee will deal with them.
We consider this an important bill. That is why we have introduced it as is. It is important to the competitiveness of our marine sector.
I welcomed the co-operation I received from the other parties who have agreed with my judgment that this bill should be referred to committee as soon as possible so that detailed study can begin.
We know that industry supports this bill and wants to see the marine system improved.
The revised act will consolidate and simplify maritime regulations, reduce red tape, and speed up commercial decision-making. It will enable the ports to meet client needs more efficiently and to reduce the bureaucracy. Overall, it will make our maritime sector competitive.
The bill will meet seven broad objectives. First, it will promote and safeguard Canada's competitiveness and trade objectives. Second, it will base marine infrastructure and services on international practices and approaches consistent with those of our trading partners. Third, it will ensure that marine transportation services are organized to satisfy the needs of users and are available at a reasonable cost. Fourth, it will provide a high level of safety and environmental protection. Fifth, it will provide a higher degree of autonomy for the management of the marine transportation system. Sixth, it will manage the marine infrastructure according to good business practices. Seventh, it will provide for the transfer of certain ports and facilities.
There are four main components to this bill. I do not think time will permit me to get into detail on all of them. However, I would like to say a few words about one in particular which is of great interest to members of the House, the port system. The bill will deal with pilotage, on which I believe consensus was reached in the last Parliament. It will deal with the seaway and it will deal with the ports themselves.
The port system has to be modernized. There is no question about that.
We have to go into the new millennium with a structure for our ports which is comprehensive and adaptable to all the needs that will be thrust on them.
We need to step up the commercial discipline of the port system and to simplify the decision-making process.
The bill will help us to make public ports into commercial ventures, and to gradually phase out the Canadian Ports Corporation.
Ports deemed essential to domestic and international trade will form a national port system and will be managed by Canada port authorities made up of representatives of user groups and governments.
Any port can apply to become a port authority, CPA as we affectionately call it. To be accepted it has to meet four criteria. It has to be financially self-sufficient, it must have diversified traffic, it must have strategic significance to trade and a link to a major highway or railway line.
The CPAs will be set up as non-share capital corporations with board of directors made up of federal, provincial and municipal appointments and user representatives. CPAs will recover their costs from fees charged to customers and must comply with the relevant provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act. They will not receive federal funding. The era of federal subsidies is over.
CPAs will be agents of the crown. Agent status will allow ports to pay for grants in lieu of taxes and will reinforce the ports' immunity from provincial taxation and regulation. Agent status will be limited to core port activities.
The directors of the CPAs will have to conform to codes of conduct and the government will set up a public accountability regime with new disclosure requirements. In addition, there will be annual financial audits and special examinations of the management operations and financial performance of CPAs every five years.
Port authorities will be accountable to their customers, local communities, the financial community and to the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal.
CPAs will have to seek financing from the private sector. The federal government will no longer be around to be responsible for their debts.
A second category of ports, regional and local ports, will be transferred to provincial and municipal governments, community organizations, private interests and in some cases other federal departments over the next six years. The process of divesting these ports is already well under way. To assist this the government has established a $125 million six year port divestiture fund to ease the transition.
The Government of Canada will continue to ensure operation of remote ports. Remote ports have been identified using criteria which reflect the communities degree of isolation. Reliance of marine and transportation is essential to their survival and we shall continue to support them.
This policy will be applied equitably and consistently across the country.
I want to pay particular attention to the sensitivities which some members have expressed to me in Atlantic Canada about the future of ports in that region. This is Canada's original maritime area. The sea, the ports and sea traffic are so vital to all those communities. In particular there appears to be a challenge in Prince Edward Island. This is a challenge I would hope the committee could examine in great detail.
Many of these concerns were expressed in the other place when Bill C-44 was before committee. In addition, many of my colleagues have approached me in the last few weeks with concerns.
I and my colleagues in cabinet will be sensitive to those concerns. We shall try to address all legitimate problems in a fair and equitable way to ensure this bill does truly reflect the national consensus.
Time does not permit me to talk about the other elements but other speakers on our side will talk about the rest of the bill and how important it is for quick passage by the House.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the general thrust of Bill C-9 is compatible with Reform Party policy. Several of us voted in favour of its previous incarnation as Bill C-44. However that is not to say there is no room for improvement.
I had been looking forward to working with the minister and his department to address some of the concerns that have been expressed with respect to this legislation. I found them to be very forthcoming and helpful. It is regrettable that the co-operative atmosphere here has been so poisoned by the contemptuous, I might even say contemptible actions of his ministerial colleagues in the House a couple of days ago that it is going to be difficult.
During the summer I had the opportunity to discuss the legislation with many interested parties. Others have come to the Hill to express their views since Parliament reopened. During the Thanksgiving break I plan to go to Vancouver to consult with stakeholders there.
Up to now I have found remarkable consensus among shipping companies, stevedoring firms, unions, even shippers, both in general support for the legislation and in the identification of shortcomings. In the limited time available for me today I can only touch briefly on a few areas where we would like to see further work.
The clauses of the bill which define the capacity and power of port authorities are inconsistent with the stated objective of allowing them to operate according to business principles. They are neither fish nor fowl.
The port authorities will have the responsibility to operate with commercial discipline but they will be denied the tools to do so. They may not, for example, diversify by establishing new subsidiaries on port property. Their borrowing and investment powers will be rigorously constrained and they will be subject to the vagaries of ministerial discretion in the setting of the annual fee that they must pay to the federal government out of gross, not net, revenues.
Port authorities will have to be self-sufficient but the minister will be empowered to continue federal contributions to the seaway for capital works. This constitutes unfair competition for railways and deep water ports, courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. Again, the legislation is inconsistent with the expressed objective of commercialization. It is the partial pregnancy syndrome that afflicts the government in so many of its endeavours.
The bill does not address the problem of excessive costs and featherbedding arising from pilotage monopolies. There is no incentive to cut pilotage costs by certifying the masters of Canadian vessels that ply the same inland waters back and forth on a routine basis or by the employment of available new technology.
The proposed boards of directors for port authorities are potential patronage havens as well as being a mechanism for continued political control. Government participation in entities which will be managing crown assets is normal and acceptable but if the government is serious about commercialization, indirect government control is not. Again, we are looking at partial pregnancy.
The size of the proposed boards, seven to eleven members, is far too large for most ports and the majority will be appointed by the minister, ostensibly in consultation with port users. Ah, patronage joy.
The Liberals should remember that governments come and governments go. They will not be forever in power. Do they really want to set up such a juicy system, not just for themselves now but for whomever comes behind them? Their mandatory provision for individual directors to be appointed by host municipalities and provinces is defensible and sensible. Each jurisdiction gets one.
It is unfortunate that there is no provision for labour representation on each board. This could readily be done by specifying that there be one on each board. It could be done without increasing the size of the board simply by reducing the number of ministerial appointments from these famous lists.
The elimination of ports police is problematical. I do not believe that was well thought out and it should be reconsidered. There is a lot more to port policing than guarding the security of cargo.
Sea ports, especially the larger ones like Vancouver, are wonderful funnels for contraband, for illegal entrance and they are targets for organized crime. When mobsters get the upper hand in a port they are extremely hard to dislodge.
Few municipalities have the resources to properly police a port. If the government is determined to do away with ports police it should seriously consider establishing a specialized branch within the RCMP.
Finally, there is no mechanism for the resolution of disputes with shippers. If the Canada Transportation Act can contain provisions with respect to railways, why can we not have something equivalent in Bill C-9 with respect to ports? Why should they be treated differently?
I cannot read the minister's mind. I do not know the intent of fast tracking this bill to committee. In theory, getting into committee early seems like a great idea, a chance for MPs to sit down and reason together away from the hurly-burly of the House and work together for the common good. It is a great theory but in practice in the last Parliament we Reformers learned the hard way that this is generally a policy for stifling any meaningful debate and ramming a bill through to the report stage according to ministerial specifications.
Therefore we do not support the procedure. We will vote against it. If subsequent events prove that our suspicions were unjustified I will personally apologize to the minister and nobody will be happier than I.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have spoken in the debate on the bill, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the voters of Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans for placing their trust in me once again in the June 2 election. They may rest assured that I will do my best to meet their expectations from me as their member of Parliament.
Right off, I would like to say that the Minister of Transport earlier presented a true picture of the procedures that led to this bill's return to the House of Commons.
He probably forget, however, as memory is fallible, or perhaps he omitted—a little more serious in this instance—to mention that the bill is back before the House because the members of the other House, the senators, blocked the bill before Parliament adjourned prior to the elections. This is more serious in a democracy.
There was a lot of input on the previous bill, Bill C-44. The former Minister of Transport, the member for Victoria, confirmed he had consulted Canadians across the country. The consultations took place in capitals, communities and among the people. We in the Bloc proposed a number of amendments to the bill. The initial consultation cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions.
So where does that leave us today? Unfortunately, because of unelected people appointed either by the ruling party or by the Conservative party, we must let unelected people interfere with democracy and completely set aside a piece of legislation that was the subject of extensive consultations. This is cause for concern. It has to be denounced because the members of this House have been democratically elected, they have been sent here by the people of their ridings. Is it normal and acceptable in this day and age to have unelected senators come and tell elected members what to do?
I will get to the substance of the bill in a moment. While all this is going on, the entire maritime industry in Canada and Quebec is suffering, and that is cause for concern. This puts an end to what I might call my preliminary remarks. I now come to the bill before us.
First of all, I want to reiterate the Bloc's position on this bill, for the benefit of the current transport minister. As for the principle of the bill, we in the Bloc Quebecois agree with it because, except for the dates, the vast majority of the provisions contained in the bill are identical to those in former Bill C-44.
In this respect, to avoid making the system even more cumbersome, it might have been possible, perhaps even advisable, to pass the bill quickly. At any rate, the minister can rest assured that, if the transport committee approves the few changes we are seeking, it will be possible to proceed quickly with this bill.
We will recall that the government had given Bill C-44, now Bill C-9 before us, the bombastic name of Canada Marine Act, which was undeserved, as we in the Bloc Quebecois pointed out, denouncing the fact that it did not contain—and still does not contain—anything about shipbuilding, shipyards and the merchant navy. That is a concern.
In 1994, when I was the transportation critic of the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, I suggested in committee a tax policy designed to promote shipbuilding in Canada and in Quebec, as is done in several other countries. Unfortunately, the legislation is silent as regards that proposal.
The bill before us essentially shows how miserably the federal maritime policy has failed in the past 20 years. The federal government just realized that its involvement over the years has resulted in costly and cumbersome bureaucratization as well as ineffective management. In this regard, I want to congratulate the government, and the current Minister of Transport and his predecessor, for accepting a proposal which the Bloc Quebecois had been pushing since 1994, namely to abolish Ports Canada.
Ports Canada was a fantastic tool for pork barrelling and patronage. I remember condemning that situation and putting questions to the former president of that body, who had engaged in lavish spending. He behaved as people did when money was not a problem in Canada. He spent tons of money for suites at the hotel located in the West Edmonton Mall. People slept in the so-called Truck Room. They slept in pick-up truck boxes equipped with jacuzzi baths for six to eight people, at a cost of $280 to $300 a night. Ports Canada people slept there.
The parliamentary secretary, who represents the riding of Hamilton West, is doing the right thing by supporting my comments. I am the one who told the House about these things, and I am pleased that the government has accepted the Bloc Quebecois' request to abolish Ports Canada.
Of course, we are happy to see that the government has also accepted the Bloc Quebecois' recommendation that compulsory pilotage be maintained in Canada. Once again, with all the modesty I can muster, the Bloc Quebecois was the only party to defend pilotage on a Canada wide scale.
The parliamentary secretary and member for Hamilton West will recall a report on the future of the St. Lawrence Seaway in which the Liberal majority even recommended allowing foreign captains to navigate in Canadian waters, which are dangerous waters—look at the St. Lawrence River—without a pilot on board.
It was crazy. I told the parliamentary secretary, “You are giving me arguments to use against you. You are giving me ammunition. Do not do it, it makes no sense”.
Unfortunately, this was the recommendation the government made in its majority report. Fortunately, today's bill includes pilotage and we in the Bloc Quebecois are happy to have, once again, the assurance that the environment will be protected by qualified maritime pilots such as those we have on the St. Lawrence, especially those on the Lower St. Lawrence, in Central Quebec and in the port of Montreal, as far as Quebec is concerned.
Since I have only one minute left and since, in any event, there will be another opportunity to speak of it, I now come to certain points with which we have problems, such as the divesting of ports with an envelope to undertake unproductive improvements. The former bill mentioned $125 million. We are still waiting to hear the amount. If the federal government stops running ports, it should hand over tools so that they can be improved and modernized, as it did with airports.
There is one last point that we disagree with completely. Since the government is no longer running ports, it should also give up its power to appoint the majority of representatives in local port authorities. On the one hand, the government is saying that it is leaving, but on the other it wants to hold onto control of port authorities.
In conclusion, we are looking forward to some good work in the transport committee with respect to this bill.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my party opposes this bill as is for the following reasons.
Bill C-9 will create a patchwork of privately run ports with new mandates supposedly oriented to financial self-sufficiency. It seems less likely that these ports will form an integral part of a coherent national strategy for meeting our transportation and regional development needs. Instead we will have a set of local activities which are not linked to a national vision or plan. The danger arising from the withdrawal of a federal presence in the port system is that we will be handicapped in relation to our principal competitor the United States.
The U.S. government has a transportation policy based on the national interest. It has developed mechanisms to support and fund national transportation infrastructure. The trust fund mechanism is used to fund airports, highways, inland waterways and harbour maintenance. For example in the U.S., dredging of harbours is done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is financed by the harbour maintenance fund.
Under the proposed legislation we are considering today, Canadian ports that need dredging will have to pay for it themselves. This is estimated to cost a port like Saint John between $1 million to $1.5 million a year. This imbalance in funding and resources in the absence of a commitment from the national government will undoubtedly hurt Canada's position in competing for the lucrative business of international container cargo and freight.
The proposed privatization will ultimately have negative implications for many of the people presently working in the port system and the maritime industry generally. Despite assurances from the government about job security, it seems likely that as a new profit driven management approach is broadened jobs will be lost among the longshoreman and administrative workers who presently work within the Canada Ports Corporation. There is evidence from numerous other sectors that short term financial considerations will inevitably prevail over the preservation of jobs and the maintenance of fair working conditions.
As productivity and throughput considerations become more dominant, who will look out for the welfare of the staff who remain in the service of the ports organization? Cuts to workforce inevitably put additional pressures on the remaining staff. The added stress this creates is often reflected in increasing numbers of industrial accidents. These sorts of conditions are rarely reflected in this sort of legislation.
Can the government assure us that there will be a fair and representative cross-section of the different interests who have a stake in the Canadian port system? Will the federal government be able to protect the national interest in the future?
In many cases the most important users of the port facilities, those with a real stake in its performance and fees are the farmers from the prairie provinces. Under the new arrangements they will also be granted only one voice on the board. We believe that the board must be more than just an expression of the interests of the local business community. There is no guarantee under the proposed legislation that this will be the case.
Furthermore will there be a representative of labour on the new board of directors? As a vital player in the activity of ports, surely there is a case for union representation on the decision making structure that will oversee the agencies.
Even more appalling to this scenario especially in light of the statement by the Minister of Industry that if you did not vote Liberal do not expect to be treated fairly, and the Prime Minister's obvious approval of this prostituting of their favours for votes, two or maybe three members of the board will be appointed, not elected, and the remaining four to eight members will be appointed directly or indirectly by the minister.
The former transport minister made the rather arrogant statement that you do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to check surveillance monitors and ensure doors are locked in reference to work done by port police. Although that may be one aspect of the work done, it is still done in a dangerous environment where without question criminal activity, drug, people and weapons smuggling is a major factor.
I think it is irresponsible to suggest that lower cost security guards should have their lives devalued and put at risk. The proposal to remove the Canada ports police from the newly created entity seems an unwise step. Private security firms are not peace officers and do not have the same range of powers enjoyed by the police.
It is likely that drug smuggling, already a significant problem, will increase as a result of this legislation. Neal Jessop, president of the Canadian Police Association in March 1997 was quoted as saying that abolishing Canada's ports police will open the floodgates to the smuggling of drugs, guns and other contraband by organized crime. What passes through the ports will end up on the streets of our towns and cities from coast to coast to coast.
Let us look at the case of Vancouver, for example. The Minister of Transport at the time said that Canada Ports Corporation will provide $1 million to B.C. to cover the cost of one year of a 10-person Vancouver city police unit to patrol the port 24 hours a day. When the $1 million for Vancouver policing runs out it will be up to the city and the port to determine who should pay for more.
Ian Whittington a port police officer and president of the Port Police Association for the Pacific region stated that the level of policing within Canada's largest and most major port will digress drastically. Of course Vancouver will not be the only port affected. St. John's, Newfoundland and Saint John, New Brunswick, Halifax, Quebec City and Montreal, every part of the country is going to be affected.
We need to have commitments that will ensure that all Canadians are safe. The privatization of the ports fits into a pattern of the gradual withdrawal of the federal government from a host of activities and functions vital to the well-being of coastal communities. Cutbacks to the coast guard search and rescue capacity and the demanning and automation of lighthouses form the backdrop to the privatization of the ports.
There are estimated to be approximately 500 public ports and harbours in Canada. It seems safe to assume that communities with ports smaller than those of Vancouver, Halifax and Montreal are likely to feel the brunt of this legislation. Why is the Liberal government turning its back on the legitimate needs of the smaller coastal communities?
When the existing employees of the ports and the St. Lawrence seaway are transferred to the new authorities, there is no provision in the act for the continuation of superannuation benefits for existing employees within the new regimes, as was the case with the air traffic controllers when they were transferred to the not for profit corporation Nav Canada.
It might seem somewhat paranoid to suggest that these types of things are going to happen. However, I happened to be in Churchill, Manitoba the day after the signing for the turnover of the port to the new owner. The prime example of the pilotage situation came into question as a contract had not been signed with the pilot who was then going to be working and bringing in the tugs. Because the contract was not signed and the pilot was thinking about not taking in the tugs, it was suggested that an American pilot might be able to bring the tug in instead. Thank heavens for wiser heads prevailing and immigration seeing fit to make sure that would not happen. It certainly leads us to agree with the Bloc member that piloting was a major question.
The bill fails to provide for the capital financing that would be required to construct new port facilities at some future date. The submission of the Halifax Port Development Commission is highly instructive on this point and worth quoting at length:
The funding needed for construction of major port facilities can only be arranged in part, if at all, in the private sector. No private sector lender or investor can advance the bulk of such funding against user commitments which may or may not materialize when the facilities are completed, and if they do then materialize, may or may not continue until the funding has been repaid. Under such a scenario, funding can only come from governments which have the necessary financial resources and can justify, in the interests of promoting the economy of their constituents, the assumption of the attendant commercial risk. Had Bill C-9 been in effect in the late 1960s, Halifax would never have been able to build and equip even one container berth, and the harbour would long ago have fallen into disuse.
Should these ports be privatized? Will they be required to disclose their capital expenditure plans for local community input and review? The kind of secrecy that normally shrouds the investment activities of private companies must not be allowed to prevail within the ports where a range of public groups have a vital stake in the financial posture of their ports. Why has the government not chosen to make mandated public disclosure of all financial plans a precondition for the transfer of the ports to the private sector?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-9. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member in the Liberal Party who chaired the committee and brought the committee meeting to Saint John, New Brunswick. I really appreciated that our people had the opportunity to have their say.
This bill was debated as Bill C-44 in the House during the 35th Parliament. It later died in the Senate. When this bill was debated earlier in the House I had a specific concern with respect to the section that deals with the policing of our ports. Nothing has changed with the reintroduction of this bill. The section is still there. But there is a question that I have for the minister.
This government's intention contained in clause 108 of Bill C-9 is to disband the Ports Canada Police across Canada. It will have a major negative impact on all Canadian citizens and port users. With the elimination of the Canada Ports Corporation the requirement for local port authorities to maintain and pay for the detachment of Ports Canada Police will disappear. How could this government allow the Vancouver port police to be disbanded when we are still debating the bill that allows for that disbandment? I cannot imagine this has taken place. What happened to democracy? Where did it go?
I have a copy of a letter that was sent on October 2 to all port police in Halifax port. The letter said in effect “Here is your pink slip, this is it, by the end of the year you are gone”. Those men, like the men in Saint John, have worked for 24 years. And those who have become superintendents in just the last few years are getting a larger severance package than the men who have been there for 24 years. The minister has to step in and take a look.
The Saint John Ports Canada Police service will be disbanded as will be the case for all other port detachments if this bill passes. Not only will well qualified and experienced port police officers lose their jobs, but port and community protection will be lost as well.
The policing of Canada's major commercial ports started in the early 1800s at the port of Quebec with the operation of private police forces.
In the late 1960s most major ports had a security force, but the security force was unable to cope with the policing requirements of the national ports. Smuggling, theft, drug offences, assault and traffic violations were the order of the day. The serious escalation of crime in the major commercial ports was very detrimental to Canada's international trade reputation and raised public concerns for the safety and security of the ports and of the communities.
In 1967 the Cassidy report traced the problem of our ports to the neglect of port policing by port management. That report revealed the deplorable criminal conditions which existed in the national port systems across Canada. This of course included my own city, Saint John.
The National Harbours Board adopted the Cassidy report in 1968. It reorganized its locally managed and autonomous police and security forces into a national force. Professional police officers were hired to command the force at the head office in Ottawa and at the port police detachments. The National Harbours Board brought the ports policing up to professional standards through recruitment, training and supervision. They had to take and pass eight courses, and members became legally sworn police officers.
The decision to reorganize the national police force in 1968 was taken only after study of all other viable options, which were an RCMP takeover, a provincial police takeover and a municipal police takeover. Allowing a locally controlled security force was not even considered, but it is considered by this government today. It is considered that the municipality's police force can take over, yet that report said it would not work. It also said the RCMP could not do it.
With a national ports police force we were safe, but the citizens and port users witnessed a complete turnaround as the ports gradually gained a reputation of low cost and low loss with the change to a security system.
In 1997 the Liberal government declared Canada's ports police redundant. The minister announced that it would be disbanded, yet we are debating it today.
The minister made this decision before Bill C-44 was passed. After it died on the order paper the Minister of Transport of the day still went ahead with the disbandment. Here we are debating it today. I have to ask how the government can eliminate the ports police before the bill becomes law. I have never heard tell of that before. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, have not either.
The minister is saying “I do not care about democracy. I do not care about the parliamentary system. I do not care about debate. I am going to disband it. I am going to move”. I find that incredible.
Mr. Stan Keyes: A lone voice.
Elsie Wayne: I do not know whether I am a lone voice in the wilderness, but I know that I have every port policeman behind me all the way.
With Bill C-9 an attempt is being made to download port policing responsibilities on to the municipal taxpayer. We saw what happened in Vancouver. The municipal police force in Vancouver took it over. It got a $1 million cheque from the government. I do not know how that happened when it has not been agreed to. The local police in Vancouver took it over but found that there were so many problems it could not possibly do it without adding 10 more local police officers.
The government has cut transfer payments to the provinces and the local police departments have been cut. In Saint John 30 police officers have been cut already. There is no way they can afford to take on the ports without more officers and without training.
There should be a marine act and there should be a marine unit in all local police departments. If the bill is passed the boys who are leaving the port police should be hired by local police departments. We should also be making sure they are being funded to allow that to happen.
There have been other examples of major North American ports abolishing dedicated port policing and all have reverted to a dedicated port police.
In Toronto, port policing was absorbed by the municipal force. Experience proved that port policing required a dedicated service and a specialized marine unit. This had to be created and had to be paid for by someone, but they did not have the dollars.
At the port of Boston, dedicated policing services were withdrawn in favour of relying on city resources. Without a dedicated and fully empowered police agency to target violations of environmental laws, the pollution in the Boston harbour increased tenfold and within six months they had to put back the port police.
The same thing happened in the port of Miami. This is happening everywhere. They try it but it does not work.
The Ports Canada police currently appears to be our first line of defence and its demise would be rejoiced by those elements sitting out there with criminal control of port operations and access.
It is very evident from the report that a dedicated port police function should remain. I feel a sense of déjà vu today for we have been down this road before and the amendments to change the port policing aspect of the bill were defeated.
I urge all members of the House and indeed members of the committee on transport to listen to the witnesses that will come before them. We must not allow Canada to become the country of choice by criminals.
Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, on a question of information, I suppose the clock will run out prior to the conclusion of my remarks. I would like to continue and conclude after question period.
In the one minute I was given on the first day of the 36th Parliament I called on the provincial government of Ontario to call an independent inquiry into the so-called Plastimet fire in the north end of my constituency. It has still to respond.
Today I have a little more time so I will first take the opportunity to thank the constituents of my home town, Hamilton West, for their overwhelming support, re-electing me to a third consecutive mandate with 50% of the vote. I promise to continue to be a strong voice for my home town and to remind myself it is a privilege to serve in the highest court in the land, the House of Commons.
On to the business of today, quite frankly I have lost count of the number of times I have had the privilege on many occasions both here in the House of Commons and across the country to speak to a bill that will prepare Canada's marine transportation system to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Formerly it was Bill C-44 and now it is Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act. Regrettably it was not approved prior to the dissolution of parliament last April. The government has reintroduced the legislation in exactly the same form. It is vitally important to Canada's transportation system. We heard from industry that it wants to see the bill adopted.
During the summer months the minister and I met all key stakeholders, including shippers, ship owners, port managers and pilotage interests. We have consistently heard the marine sector industry. It wants to see the bill adopted immediately, as soon as possible.
The government's overall goal is to strengthen Canada's economy and create a climate that supports job creation and investment. To support that goal the government took steps to modernize Canada's transportation system, commercializing transportation operations, cutting wasteful subsidies and overhauling legislation.
In all modes of transportation, air, surface and marine, we have made great progress in moving toward greater efficiency, greater say for those who use the system, and more local and regional autonomy. Much has been accomplished at Transport Canada by the government and by three successive ministers of transport, but more remains to be done.
Bill C-9 will make it easier for ports to operate according to business principles and will ensure those most affected by port related decisions are involved in making them. It will consolidate and streamline marine regulations, cut red tape, allow for faster business decisions and help our marine sector become more competitive.
Let us have a look at the history. For the benefit of those members who were not with us in the last parliament and to refresh the memories of those who were, I would like to take a few minutes in the short time I have left before question period to review the history of the bill and the development of the government marine policy.
In 1995 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, called SCOT for short, undertook a study of the marine sector and made a number of recommendations to improve the marine system, many of which were later incorporated into Bill C-44.
Following the SCOT report, Transport Canada held regional meetings with shippers and industry to discuss the recommendations. Based on the consultations the government adopted the national marine policy in December 1995.
I remind members opposite how much work has gone into the bill in close to three years. We had the SCOT report. We did a study across the country. We developed a marine policy. We went across the country. We developed the Canada Marine Act. We went across the country. We spent many months in committee with literally hundreds of witnesses and we developed a consensus.
There was give and take across the land by ports, harbour commissions, pilotage authorities, ferry services, and a consensus was reached. Because there was give and take, because there was an air of co-operation among all stakeholders, users and industry in the system, we were able to come up with the Canada Marine Act.
They came to us as early as this summer and told us not to come back to their communities with more bright ideas about how to modernize the marine sector. They have heard it all. They want us to get on with the job.
The Speaker: You will have five minutes remaining after question period.
As it is almost 11 o'clock and we seem very eager to get at it, we will now have Statements by Members.

Statements By Members
National Menopause Awareness MonthMrs. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that October is National Menopause Awareness Month.
Menopause is a major health concern of Canadian women. By the year 2000 approximately four million women will be entering or will already have experienced menopause. There is a need to build greater awareness through the dissemination of information on the effects of menopause.
Menopause can act as a trigger to accelerate the risk of certain diseases such as osteoporosis, which affects one in four women because of estrogen depletion.
The Liberal government has made a commitment to women's health through the establishment of five centres of excellence for women's health. These centres are mandated to conduct research and provide information to the public on key health issues affecting women.
Through the initiative of these centres and the work of other national organizations such as the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, greater awareness on menopause will make our health—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River.
Ukrainian CanadiansMr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the richness of Ukrainian culture displayed annually at Canada's National Ukrainian Festival in my riding of Dauphin—Swan River stands in sharp contrast to the injustice done to thousands of Ukrainian Canadians during Canada's national internment operations of 1914 to 1920.
When war broke out these hard working men, women and children were categorized as enemy aliens, imprisoned, their property confiscated, and their basic rights and freedoms removed. Five thousand Ukrainians were interned in 24 concentration camps across Canada.
From the 1980s Ukrainian Canadians sought acknowledgement from the Government of Canada of a wrong and restitution of the wealth confiscated from internees that still remains in federal coffers.
Despite efforts in 1991 by the member for Kingston and the Islands the situation remains unchanged. I ask hon. members to join me in bringing justice and closure to this regrettable event in our nation's history.
ImmigrationMs. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over 15 million people cross the Windsor-Detroit border each year. Imagine the chaos if all those people were required to file a U.S. immigration form each time they crossed the border. That is what section 110 of the 1996 illegal immigration act would do if Canadians are not exempted.
Last month while at the annual Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association meeting I raised this issue with U.S. representatives and senators and I was assured this law would be amended.
Yesterday the Canadian ambassador to the United States met with U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham, chair of the U.S. Senate immigration subcommittee, and agreed to form an alliance to defeat these proposed new border controls.
I commend both the Government of Canada and the senator for this important initiative. U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham is holding immigration committee hearings on the effects of the U.S. act. I encourage all affected Canadians to fax a written submission to the senator's office at (248) 350-0420 or deliver them to my office so I can submit them to the U.S. committee.
National Family WeekMrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, National Family Week is an opportunity to consider the fundamental importance of families and our relationships with those near and dear to us.
Once again this year, I have organized a drawing contest for grade 4 and 5 pupils in the riding of Ahuntsic. They are being asked to illustrate how they see the family. The three finalists will have their drawings reproduced in the annual calendar I send out to every household in the riding.&gt;
As members of Parliament we have a responsibility to show our young people, the future leaders of this country, the importance of promoting the family's well-being. This government demonstrated its commitment to families through several initiatives, including the establishment of children's centres of excellence and an increase in its contribution to the Canada child tax benefit.
Our families help us to realize our potential by providing us with the strongest support possible to deal with life's challenges. This week and throughout the year let us celebrate our families.
National Co-Operative WeekMr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the week of October 12 to 18 will be National Co-operative Week, with the theme “co-operation more than ever”.
This is a particularly appropriate one under the circumstances, since it emphasizes how modern the co-operative formula still is. It also reminds us of how long co-operatives have been with us.
Soon the Mouvement Desjardins, founded in Lévis in 1900, will soon be marking its 100th anniversary. This year has also marked the 75th anniversary of the Coopérative fédérée de Québec.
The week will also honour the work of the thousands of unpaid board members in the co-operative movement, who have been instrumental in the growth of the movement in our communities.
Quebeckers are particularly proud of the co-operative movement, for Quebec has more co-op members per capita than any other place in the world.
May I wish everyone a happy Co-operative Week.
Pay EquityMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are tens of thousands of public servants affected by pay equity. Many of these are my constituents who call my office continuously asking when they will receive their benefits.
While the matter is now before the human rights tribunal, I believe a negotiated resolution is in the best interests of everyone involved.
I call on our government to continue its work toward a resolution. The recent $1.3 billion offer is an indication of Treasury Board's good intentions to make payments to affected public servants.
I call equally on union president Daryl Bean and his executive to put aside political differences and work with Treasury Board. In the best interests of public servants, the union and Treasury Board should declare their commitment publicly to a negotiated settlement.
My constituents are demanding action. I encourage them, commend them and support them.
Red River FloodingMr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Manitoba residents faced a terrible period of destruction and loss last spring with the catastrophic Red River flood. Now months later with winter approaching many residents are still trying to rebuild their lives.
Instead of receiving flood relief as promised by the federal and provincial governments, they find themselves caught in the middle while these two governments argue over who is liable to bear the costs.
I received a letter from an Ontario resident who sympathizes with those affected by the flood and with the struggle for compensation they now face.
She suggests Liberal members of the House should move into trailers in Ottawa to get an understanding of what Manitobans are going through.
Last spring the prime minister went to Manitoba to show how he could throw a bag of sand. When is the government going to honour its commitments and start throwing some real help to Manitoba flood victims?
Land MinesMr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October 10, 1997 marks a special day for a campaign fought by a collective of over 1,000 agencies over the past several years. This group presided by Jody Williams has sought to put an end to the manufacture and use of land mines.
The Nobel Peace Price represents one of the sweetest victories for Canadian diplomacy and for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has worked long and hard for this cause.
We have won a battle in the fight for the ban on the manufacture and use of this weapon of the weak. However, the fight continues until we can convince the great powers such as the United States, China and Russia to join Canada this December here in Ottawa to ratify the treaty.
The Late Gilles BouletMrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday night, Gilles Boulet passed away. He was one of the bulwarks of Quebec's education system. We will remember him as a man who had a major impact on the people of Quebec.
In 1960, Mr. Boulet founded the Centre des études de Trois-Rivières, which became the Université du Québec in 1978. He supported the extension of university training to the regions by encouraging the establishment of the Université du Québec in Hull and in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. He also oversaw the fortunes of the Université du Québec for a decade.
Known both at home and abroad, he was appointed an officer of the Order of Canada in 1985 and received the Légion d'honneur in 1988. He became an officer of the Ordre national du Québec in
On behalf of myself and the Bloc Quebecois, I extend my sincere sympathies to the family of Mr. Boulet and express our gratitude for his great gift to Quebec society.
Land MinesMs. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the Nobel peace prize has been given to those working to ban land mines worldwide.
We hope this award will encourage the United States to join the over 100 countries planning to come to Canada in December to sign the Ottawa agreement.
We especially want to congratulate our Minister of Foreign Affairs for his leadership in achieving this international ban.
ViolenceMr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness and heartfelt regret that I rise today to offer sincere condolences to the Holtam and McKelvey families and their friends. They have suffered a great loss in the senseless murders of Leonora Holtam and her 6-year old daughter Jenny.
This tragedy occurred five minutes from my own home in Mission, British Columbia. We soberly consider our own families in the precious gift of life and mourn the tragic loss of the Holtams.
As members of this House I believe we can stand united against such violent and tragic acts which so horribly affect so many.
I respectfully limit my words today to use the rest of my time to pray for young Cody Holtam who is fighting for his life and for the families and friends of the victims whose lives will be forever changed by this tragedy.
Youth EmploymentMs. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's job strategy is working for Canada's youth.
We have just had the longest run of monthly job growth since 1994 and Canada's young people are feeling the improvement; 63,000 new jobs for youth since May, the best four month performance of the 1990s. The youth unemployment rate is down from 17.2% in May to 16.4%.
There is still a lot of work to do. We are committed to work with other governments, the private sector, communities and young people to equip them for the future.
In anticipation of national co-op week and international credit union day—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Churchill River.
North American Indigenous GamesMr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I rise today to give tribute and acknowledgement to the 8,000 young participants in the North American indigenous games that were hosted in Victoria, British Columbia this past summer. The impact of experiencing and sharing the involvement of fellow athletic and cultural participants from all over North America is a profound accomplishment.
Congratulations to the organizers and the people of British Columbia for making this event another success. It is our hope that these games will be a base for indigenous peoples' participation in the world's Olympics.
I would also like to recognize the four time champions of these events, Team Saskatchewan. Canada should be proud of its aboriginal peoples.
EmploymentMr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, statistics show that we are indeed seeing major improvements around the country in employment. Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick had significant reductions in the their unemployment rates last month. There has been a substantial shift in the country from part time to full time employment in the month of September.
The situation for youth has improved tremendously over the last four months, with a nearly 1% drop in the unemployment rate. Employment is up by nearly 300,000 jobs since February. The unemployment rate is 2.2 percentage points lower and private sector employment is up by a million jobs since the government took office.
It is very clear that the job strategy of the government is working for Canadians.
AgricultureMr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the summer of 1997 was very cruel on agriculture producers in Nova Scotia as dry weather conditions created the worst growing season in 100 years. Crop shortages are creating fear and apprehension among farmers who dread the long winter ahead. The situation for beef farmers is particular severe. Feed shortages of 50% mean that by February they will run out of feed for their herds. The prospect has many so concerned that they are putting their cattle on the market now and prices are depressed lower than those in the 1950s.
Dairy farmers have sought a price increase of 6 cents per litre to ensure they can buy feed for their cattle. Potato yields are likely to be two-thirds or less of the normal yields, jeopardizing the viability of this industry. Nova Scotia farmers face an extremely grim winter.
The Government of Nova Scotia has requested help and the prime minister himself has been asked to intervene but to date there has been no reply. I urge the minister of agriculture to stop delaying and meet with his provincial—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
JusticeMr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here are the disturbing facts surrounding the recent sentencing of three convicted rapists in Montreal. Found guilty of gang raping and sodomizing a pregnant teenager, they were sentenced to two years less a day. The court was told the men held a 17-year old girl captive for more than 12 hours, repeatedly assaulted her, and at one point dangled her over an apartment balcony to deter her from reporting the incident. One of the rapists was the father of the victim's unborn child, a gruesome circumstance which apparently prompted her to have an abortion.
In announcing the sentence the judge said the crown attorney's recommendation for prison terms of 10 to 12 years was grossly exaggerated. He also said that while the rapists' actions were deplorable, the victim had no signs of provable violence.
In my opinion there is no such thing as a non-violent rape. There is no such thing as torture without pain. As parliamentarians—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
HighwaysMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, this week I met with and outlined in detail to the director of investigations at the Federal Bureau of Competition aspects of the Highway 104 agreement that contravened the Competition Act. I also met this week with the auditor general to point out areas that break terms of the federal-provincial SHIP agreement. Both have shown an interest. In the last two weeks I have asked the Minister of Transport and the parliamentary secretary questions regarding untendered contracts, and with all due respect, their answers are incorrect.
Now the Prime Minister has written me a letter dated September 30, and with all due respect, his information is incorrect as well.
It is clear that the top levels of the government do not understand that this deal involves contracts that have gone untendered, funding formulas that have been improperly changed and federal funds that are being used in a way never intended.
The time has come for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport to realize they have a serious problem and they must contact the Nova Scotia government and fix it.

Oral Question Period
Rcmp InvestigationsMiss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we saw the minister of the treasury board squirming about a criminal investigation of his own office. He gave four different answers in four minutes. Surely that is a new Canadian record.
Now that he has had 24 hours to get his alibi straight, I was wondering if he could tell us just what—
The Speaker: Yesterday I asked the hon. member to please be judicious in her choice of words. I do not want her to push me too far, because then she will lose a question.
Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this question. Could he tell the Canadian public what he knew about this investigation and the search warrant and why he knew it in the first place?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the occasion to put the facts straight.
The first time I learned about a mandate that would possibly have been issued for a search warrant to search the regional offices of the ministers in Quebec was during the course of question period yesterday, in a question from the Conservative member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty hard to even read from a prepared script.
The RCMP investigation into the illegal fundraising tactics first of all was delayed until after the election. Then when the police did get two search warrants, they only acted against the party bagman, not the Liberal minister to whom he answered.
I want to ask the question one more time. Who in the world is running this investigation, the RCMP or the Liberal minister of the treasury board.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is very clear. The investigation is being run by the RCMP at arm's length from the government and at arm's length from ministers.
I want to tell the hon. member, after her totally wrong assertions about grants in the Prime Minister's riding, not only should she apologize but she should not be taken seriously on anything she says in the House on any subject.
Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, we are coming up with the facts. There are a lot more where those came from and the House will hear more about them.
Somebody, somewhere on the inside was giving special lists of these companies to Liberal bagmen so they could shake some cash out of these people. Somebody, somewhere on the inside was giving the minister confidential information about the RCMP investigation and secret, and I note, secret search warrants. The minister said yesterday “we were well organized.” That is the point. You betcha.
Just how well organized is this Shawinigan shakedown?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to indicate clearly what the facts are because these are allegations that are totally without foundation.
One of my employees was listening to the debate yesterday and immediately called Montreal, relayed the message to my legislative assistant who was here in the lobby and who sent me a note through a page which said that in Montreal there have been no search warrants executed. Those are the facts. That is how I knew.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have just learned about another tainted fundraising deal that was consummated in the heat of the Liberals' re-election passion.
The federal government cut a cheque to Les Confections St. Elie for $62,108 two days after the minister for HRD called in the police. Les Confections St. Elie then donated $1,500 to the Prime Minister's personal election war chest.
Why did the minister send that big cheque through just two days after the RCMP were involved? Was it because they gave a $1,500 donation to the Prime Minister's election fund?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is ludicrous. All projects from the transitional jobs fund are based on merit. That is absolutely clear.
As of this morning there have been nine projects in the Prime Minister's riding. Seven of them did not give a cent to the Liberal Party.
A representative of Mégatec company said very clearly this morning that he gave money to the Liberal Party without being pressured by Mr. Corbeil or anyone, and received the project strictly on its merits—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, this Shawinigan shakedown can no longer be written off as an isolated incident.
The minister admits that at least five companies were approached for campaign donations in return for government grants. We have found four other examples of companies receiving money from this tainted fund after they made donations to the Prime Minister. In fact, Les Confections St. Elie received a further grant of $220,000 after the Prime Minister was re-elected.
Why have they allowed this transition jobs fund to be misused as the Prime Minister's private election slush fund?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I could also give him the example of the Ryder Travel Group which has received a $600,000 grant and has only contributed to the Conservative Party, not a cent to the Liberal Party. It is based on merit.
Also I can give an example which pleased the official opposition. The hon. member for St. Albert was very pleased to write to me on July 24 supporting the transitional jobs fund in the St. Albert constituency, with funds going to Alexander Wood Products.
I could tell them—
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Yesterday, the minister finally admitted that a warrant had been issued to search his Montreal office, but he said it had not been executed.
Who informed the minister of the existence of a search warrant if it has yet to be executed?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, as I already said, I learned of the possible existence of a warrant when a Conservative member indicated yesterday that a warrant had been issued and then gave its number.
At that point, one my assistants checked with our Montreal office and was told that no search had been carried out. This is why I said that while a warrant may have been issued, it had not been executed.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, according to information we checked with various sources this morning, search warrants issued in the course of criminal proceedings are only made public after they are executed, when a report is tabled in the court house.
Who informed the minister that a warrant had been issued but not executed?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, I already answered the question. But it is a very good question, since I learned of the existence of a warrant when a Conservative member told us.
The real question is: How did the Conservative member know that a warrant had been issued, and also knew its number, since he mentioned it in the House?
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board, because the more he tries to explain, the less clear it gets and the less we understand.
Yesterday, when asked by journalists how he knew about the search warrant, his answer was, and I quote: “Because we are well organized. We checked and we were told it was not executed”.
My question is very clear. Was the minister suggesting he knew about the search ahead of time because he had access to privileged information?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, I have already given a very clear answer to this question. One of my employees phoned the regional office in Montreal and was told that no search warrant had been executed. This information was then relayed to my legislative assistant, who mentioned to me that no search warrant had been executed. That is how it happened. It is quite simple.
Perhaps it is worth repeating that allegations were made by the opposition regarding one of my employees, and Radio-Canada had to retract yesterday. I think I should warn opposition members that the same could happen to them.
Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, they can stop the melodramatics. When the minister says that they are “well organized”, does this mean that a minister's office which is under investigation might be informed of a search ahead of time? That is the question.
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that what is important to know is how the Conservative member, who disclosed the information in the House, had found out? That is the real question.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about Liberal influence peddling over the last few days. You know what they say, if you throw a rock and you hear a squeal you have probably hit a pig. And we have heard a lot of squealing on this—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Go directly to your question, please.
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When did the arm's length relationship with the RCMP and the government end?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the relationship continues as it was in the past. The arm's length relationship is still there as it should be.
My hon. friend in his squealing has not made a valid assertion. He should look at himself in the mirror before he presents these unwarranted premises to his questions.
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board indicated that they knew what the RCMP was doing.
Why did the Liberal government call in the RCMP on this investigation? Why did it not call in the Sûreté du Québec, the provincial police, which should be looking into this question? Is it because the government knew it would get better, more regular reports from the RCMP than it would from the sûreté?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is an unwarranted slur on one of the finest police forces in the world. The assertion, which is false, is particularly strange coming from the hon. member who comes from the province of Saskatchewan, the historic home of the RCMP.
I think his constituents will soundly criticize him for this unwarranted slur. It is totally unjustified. It is perfectly logical that the hon. minister thought that since these allegations related to matters—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in response to my question about a search warrant at his Montreal office, the minister told me it was irrelevant. Then he said that the warrant may have been executed. He then said that he knew of a warrant that may have been executed. Finally he said, and told us again today, that he learned about it from me. This does not sound well organized.
It is obvious that the minister does not know or does not want us to know anything about this matter. Can the minister at least clear up one thing for us today? How can a field organizer know about pending applications, the stage of the applications and the fact that they were on his desk?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, the real question is how did the member know. I learned about it from him in the House. The Conservative member mentioned at the same time that there was, which I do not know. The member also mentioned the number of the search warrant which I do not know.
The real question here is how did he know the information about there being a search warrant?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question again to the minister is very simple. Will the minister come clean and tell us—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am having a difficult time hearing the question and I know we all want to hear it.
Peter MacKay: Can the minister come clean and tell us by whom and how Mr. Corbeil was informed that applications awaiting approval by the government were sitting on his desk? Can he tell us that, please?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, can the member come clean and tell us how he had information that was supposed to be confidential?
TaxationMr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Liberaldom was rocked yesterday by the comments of New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna. Now free from Liberal office, the premier can honestly say that federal transfer payments and income support had become the opiate of the Atlantic region. The premier instead suggests that maritime businesses be stimulated by lowering taxes. Imagine that.
My question to the finance minister is, will the minister take this frank advice and make broad based tax cuts this government's number one priority?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see this last minute conversion by the member for the Reform Party.
In the last House the great advantage of the harmonized sales tax was that it substantially reduced taxes for small and medium size businesses in Atlantic Canada. That is why the then premier called for it and the other premiers in Atlantic Canada called for it. It was to lower the tax burden on those who were creating jobs. I am delighted to see that the hon. member now recognizes the wisdom of that approach.
Eric C. Lowther: Mr. Speaker, Premier McKenna said that he can finally speak his mind now that he has stepped down from office. I wonder if the minister across the way can actually say the same. To point to harmonized tax cuts does not at all address my question.
We have a national unemployment rate of 9%. It is time for the government to take off its rose coloured glasses and look at real solutions.
Will this government listen to the millions clamouring for tax relief or is it still stuck with the old vision of big government spending?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the member undoubtedly saw this morning that there were in fact 16,000 new jobs created and over 279,000 new jobs created since we have taken office. More important, the vast majority of those jobs have been permanent full time jobs. Not only that, but we have just come through the best four month period of job creation for young Canadians since 1990. This government is creating jobs. Canadians—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.
Fishing IndustryMr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last July, during a visit to my riding, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said, and I quote: “It is clear that a certain transition will be required for the Atlantic groundfish strategy ending next May”.
Now that the auditor general has made public the failure of government policy, which is tarnishing the reputation of coastal communities, can the minister now tell us what transition measures he intends to put in place?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I did visit his riding, Gaspé, as he indicated. I pointed out at that time in discussions with fishers in that area that we have too many boats and too many fishermen out there chasing too few fish. We have not had the recovery of northern cod stocks in particular that we would like. Therefore it will be necessary to continue with rationalization of the fleet and a reduction of the number of licences. These are programs that will come forward in due course. I should point out however—
The Speaker: The hon. member Bonaventure—Gaspé—îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.
Yvan Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the minister's irresponsibility is affecting 22,000 people.
Are we to understand from what the minister has just said that he will be leaving fisheries workers in the lurch as of May 1998, when his government had promised assistance until 1999? We need to know what is going to happen.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a moment ago, we realize there have to be some transitional measures with respect to licence retirement. This will affect fishers in Atlantic Canada, including the area of Gaspé.
I would point out to the hon. member that the TAGS program will continue until May 1998. My colleague the hon. minister of human resources has put in place a process for analysing the impact of the termination of the TAGS program. We will await of course decisions in due course.
Edmonton Institution For WomenMr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Jan Fox, the warden of the Edmonton Institution for Women deliberately and knowingly placed Denise Fayant in a dangerous environment that led to her murder. A year and a half later the Edmonton city police are now conducting a criminal investigation into her activity based upon the possibility of criminal negligence. I ask the solicitor general, will he immediately suspend Jan Fox from her position until this criminal investigation is over?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that Correctional Service Canada is co-operating fully with this investigation. It seems to me ironic that when we have similar incidents in men's prisons, the member does not call for the suspension of the warden.
Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, in response to previous calls for her resignation, Jan Fox has refused stating “People are murdered in institutions all the time”. This is a shocking and at least an amoral statement by an administrator who is responsible for the lives and safety of prisoners under her care.
I ask the solicitor general what measures has he taken to hold Warden Fox accountable for her contribution to the murder of Denise Fayant?
Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked. This member has already prejudged the warden of the Edmonton institution before she had a fair hearing.
I would like to quote a member of the prison advisory committee in the Edmonton Journal this morning: “It feels to me like there is a witch hunt going on”. I would also like to quote from the president of that same advisory committee who said: “Why are we looking for one person to blame? It seems to me that the member of the committee has agreed to work with him”. I am wondering who is really on the witch hunt here. Let the investigation take its course. Let the RCMP do their job.
Search And Rescue HelicoptersMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The government is planning to buy 15 search and rescue helicopters. We have learned that Augusta Westland's Cormorant model has apparently been selected by the government.
How can the government justify choosing the same type of helicopter as the one in the contract it cancelled at great expense in 1993?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made no decision as to which helicopter we are going to purchase. There are four finalists in the bidding process.
We still have the matter in process. Absolutely no decision has been made. But I expect that it will soon be made because we need to get good equipment, new equipment for our search and rescue operations because they are saving a great many Canadian lives. They provide a very valuable service.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very negative impact of the government's 1993 decision on the Montreal area, does the minister not agree that the government should seriously look at the offer that would result in the greatest spinoffs for Montreal and surrounding areas?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, whatever decision is made it is going to create jobs here in Canada. I hope that they will be distributed as widely as possible so that the maximum number of Canadians can benefit, but again I reiterate that we have made no decision.
The decision to cancel that previous contract was made because it was not an affordable product. It was far too much money, far too much equipment that was not necessary. What we are doing here is we are looking to get good value for the taxpayers and good operational equipment. But we have not, I reiterate, decided on which helicopters to purchase.
Kingston PenitentiaryMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a cop killer in the Kingston Penitentiary with a meat cleaver? I find that like a fairy tale but it is indeed a fact. Not only that, the authorities are issuing this killer a cleaver or a knife to go to work in the kitchen along with 20 other inmates who all work together with one guard. And I might add that the guard is a tad bit nervous. I talked to him personally.
Does the solicitor general condone such ridiculous situations that exist in the penitentiaries?
Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general's office and the correctional service staff are constantly monitoring inmates. We often have searches where we do find such weapons made by hand. Fortunately we deal with them at that time.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, these weapons are not made by hand. They are issued by the authorities to these guys. They take the guns away from the guards and they issue knives to the killers in Kingston Penitentiary.
The guards have a number of problems that are happening. They are afraid they are going to be dragging bodies out of that penitentiary if something is not done quickly and now.
The guards have proposed some very cost effective solutions to the problems that exist in Kingston Penitentiary. The minister and his office has the authority to make the immediate changes necessary to protect people in that penitentiary. Will he do it now?
Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of doing it now, it is a question of an ongoing commitment to the employees who work diligently. We will take a look at each incident.
We have advisory committees that work with the inmate committees. We look at the individual situations and we take the necessary measures.
Employment InsuranceMr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Again yesterday, the minister did not respond to my question concerning the Auditor General's severe criticism of the way the government is managing the employment insurance fund.
Today I would like to have a clear answer. Can the minister tell us what amount of employment insurance fund reserve is reasonable, according to his department's analysis?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, what the Auditor General's report was suggesting is that certain information might not be clear.
What I am saying, as I told the hon. member yesterday, is that the information on the employment insurance fund is, in my view, perfectly appropriate. It is already published with the federal budget. It is also published in the estimates and in the documentation provided each year when contribution rates are announced.
The information, therefore, seems to me to be crystal clear, and transparent. Technical analyses show us that attention must be paid to the results.
The hon. member ought to note also that the Auditor General had praise for—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister. The hon. member for Brampton Centre.
EmploymentMr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
After several months of a continued drop in the unemployment rate, today's job figures show that unemployment stayed the same in September. How does the minister explain these figures and especially what is the situation on job creation for our young people in Canada?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question very much.
The numbers that we saw yesterday are quite interesting. It is true that Canadians across the land do have a feeling of optimism. There is an optimism out there precisely when they look at the numbers.
Indeed 230,000 real jobs have been created in the last six months, many of them for young Canadians. Just this month we lost three-tenths of a point in youth unemployment.
We have created a number of jobs. We are on the right track but more needs to be done.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general reported this week that aboriginal youth are killing themselves. Their suicide rate is five to eight times higher than that of the general population.
Will anyone in the government, as the minister is not in the House, admit to failing our aboriginal youth and begin—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I know we are a new parliament but we never mention whether or not a person is absent in either our questions or our answers.
Would you go directly to the question.
Derrek Konrad: Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development admit to failing our aboriginal youth in this regard in its programs and begin developing some kind of a plan to end this human tragedy right now?
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in response to the question asked by the hon. member from the Reform Party.
I would just like to tell him that, as regards the RCAP, the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the government will soon release its response on all issues, particularly the ones we take most to heart: youth and the suicide rates among aboriginal people.
Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, chapter 13 of the auditor general's report reveals that the health department has known for 10 years that aboriginal people have been suffering prescription drug abuse that leads to death.
The department's veil of secrecy has been torn away and the minister cannot hide behind it any longer.
What specific action will the minister take to discipline those in his department who caused untold suffering to Canada's aboriginals?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health is responsible for delivering uninsured health benefits to aboriginal communities across the country. Some six million claims are made every year for prescription drug usage in those communities.
It is true this problem has been known for 10 years. Throughout that time the health department has worked with provincial authorities and with the first nations to address the problem.
By the end of this year, December 31, we will have in place technology across the country to help pharmacists detect abuse and to reduce the problem the member refers to.
EmploymentMr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Despite of all the cheer leading we heard this morning, Canadians woke up to the cruel reality that unemployment is stuck at 9%, a level which it has been at or worse for the past 84 consecutive months. To top it off, the Minister of Finance says that he will have to increase interest rates and kill off more jobs.
Does the minister want to be remembered as the Minister of Finance or as the notorious killer of Canadian jobs?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been in the House long enough to know that he is speaking nonsense.
We have embarked on a very steady process of job creation. The comments of the minister earlier on youth unemployment is something all Canadians can take a great deal pride in.
He also knows that last week long term interest rates and mortgage rates came down to a record level. The monetary stimulus the Bank of Canada has provided over the course of the last four years is paying off.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Finance stand there, let alone his colleagues cheer, when we have 1.4 million unemployed people? There is a 9% unemployment rate, continuing month after month after month, 64 consecutive months at 9% or worse, and he says the government is doing a decent job. That is simply not right.
Will he at least tell the Governor of the Bank of Canada that he will not tolerate an increase in interest rates? He knows the recovery is consumer led and that even a half per cent increase will result in that being thwarted.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that when we took office over 200,000 jobs had been lost for the previous three years prior to 1993. Since we have taken office the private sector has created over a million jobs.
Why is the NDP arguing against the very same policy that Labour brought in when the new Labour government was elected in England? Is it because the NDP is back somewhere in the 14th century and refuses to recognize the necessity to evolve?
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, every time we ask the government about the plight of the unemployed, people who are out of a job and who are looking for some hope, all we get is warmed over rhetoric from the previous campaign, blaming the previous governments, blaming provincial governments, blaming the private sectors, or quoting statistics to people who are actually looking for some hope and a job.
The Minister of Finance just told the member of the NDP that his assertion was nonsense. Let me quote to him what the Minister of Finance said when in opposition and there were rising interest rates. He said, and I quote—
The Speaker: The hon. member on his supplementary question.
Jean Charest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said young Canadians would begin to ask themselves if there was a future for them in this country.
What is the jobs policy of a government that allows interest rates to increase when it is not necessary, has high UI premiums and has CPP premiums that will take $11 billion out of the economy and hurt jobs? What is the job policy of the government?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to tell the hon. member what our jobs policy is.
When his government was in power, 370,000 full-time jobs were lost. Since we have taken office 900,000 jobs have been created.
When his government was in office, real disposable income was down by 8%. Since we have taken office it is going up.
When his government was in office net worth per household was stagnant. Since we have taken office it has gone up by 6.8%.
Their government did not produce; our government has produced.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.
Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canadians have a grave concern over—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Is the hon. member in her seat?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Go to your seat.
The Speaker: The hon. member will go directly to her question.
Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canadians have grave concern over the recent incident in Jordan. The elite—
The Speaker: We will come back. The hon. member for Dartmouth.
Human Resources DevelopmentMs. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. This week the Public Service Commission reported the efforts to bring employment equity to those with disabilities were going in reverse. There are now fewer persons with disabilities in the public service than there were 10 years ago.
Yesterday the supreme court ruled that disabled and deaf persons have a right to effective communication when receiving health care. The government has a clear obligation to Canadians with disabilities to take immediate action to respond to these challenges.
When will the government announce a plan to address the employment and access problems that face disabled Canadians?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, the government deeply cares about people with disabilities. It is part of our various plans to try to increase their numbers in the public service.
In the last report we indicated that we increased the number of various visible minorities, but unfortunately in the area of the handicapped we have to make even greater efforts in future years.
Public WorksMr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, it was said in the auditor general's report the other day that there are now over 20,000 credit cards loose in federal government offices.
The report indicates that the regulations governing the use of these cards are not properly enforced, meaning there is nothing to prevent civil servants from spending taxpayers' money on personal items or from lending their government cards out to friends.
Will the minister of public works bring in proper controls to ensure there are no abuses of taxpayers' money?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, the government welcomes the auditor general's report on this issue. The report also mentions there is no significant amount of damage or loss at the present time but there is certainly room to strengthen the framework and the controls.
In November 1997 the Treasury Board will issue the best practices guide for departments about acquisition cards.
Foreign AffairsSophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us what commitment he has received from the Government of Israel regarding the illegal use of passports?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Good question.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her timely and well placed question.
I am very pleased to tell the House that I received a written communiqué from the minister of foreign affairs of Israel this morning, first apologizing for the fact that any misuse of our passports may have caused inconvenience or problems of safety for any Canadian citizen and, second, agreeing that Israel will now undertake measures to ensure it will never happen again.
CrtcMr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday I raised concern that the CRTC violated its own guidelines by awarding a wireless cable broadcasting licence to a telephone monopoly, Teleglobe's Look TV.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage not only avoided my question but displayed a profound lack of intellectual capacity by suggesting that I was somehow in contempt of court.
I would like a sensible answer directly from the Minister of Industry. Why does the Liberal government condone the CRTC violating its own guidelines? Does the government want more power for monopolies or less choice for consumers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member has respect for process as do all members of the House.
There are processes involved in hearing applications for licensing where some of the allegations of the nature he has made are present. They can be adjudicated by the courts where there are disagreements on policy or other grounds. There is an appeal to the governor in council and I am sure he respects that process.
The EnvironmentMr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Twenty-four years after the Irving Whale went down in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the people of the Magdalen Islands are still waiting for a proper decontamination of the floor of the Gulf of St. Lawrence polluted by 150 kilograms of PCBs.
When will the minister deign to listen to the watchdog committees, including that of the Magdalen Islands, that are calling for action to deal once and for all with what the government itself is calling a time bomb.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has been working with the people in the area. She has had consultations. It was as a result of the consultations that the Irving Whale was lifted to avoid a terrible environmental disaster.
Individual Member's ExpendituresThe Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to table the document entitled “Individual Member's Expenditures for the Fiscal Year 1996/97”.

Routine Proceedings
Order In Council AppointmentsMr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
Committees Of The HousePeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of some committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the third report later this day.
Standing OrdersHon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That Standing Order 95 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
(1) When an item of Private Members' Business that is votable is under consideration, no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes, provided that the Member moving the item may speak for not more than twenty minutes.
(2) When an item of Private Members' Business that is not votable is under consideration, no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes, provided that the Member moving the item may speak for not more than fifteen minutes and provided that the said Member may, if he or she chooses, speak again for not more than five minutes, commencing five minutes before the conclusion of the hour during which the said item is to be considered.
This is an amendment to the standing orders.
(Motion agreed to)
Committees Of The HouseDon Boudria: moved:
That the Standing Committee on Finance be permitted to adjourn from place to place within Canada during its proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from my constituents asking the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to immediately suspend negotiations on social housing with the province of Ontario and to resume negotiations only if the minister proceeds under publicly declared principles established with the input of co-operative housing stakeholders.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present to the House. These names are in addition to the many on petitions that I have already presented in the House.
The first petition indicates that the petitioners are against the conditional sentencing provisions put forward in the last Parliament.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by some 234 people who support my private member's bill against the joy riding provisions of the Criminal Code.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the third petition concerns the government's treatment of herbal remedies. I support the petition.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I have now presented to the House a total of 34,000 names on petitions regarding sexual offences, about the way sex offenders are supervised and the way their records are kept.
This is the largest petition I have had to date on that subject.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I have other petitions which I wish to present regarding the UN convention on the rights of the child.
I am happy to table these petitions on behalf of my constituents.
Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present three petitions, two of which deal with the upgrading of the national highway system.
Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition regarding Canadian unity.
The petitioners call for the indivisibility of Canada. They say that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces, its territories and waters may be modified only through a free vote of all Canadian citizens, as guaranteed by the charter of rights and freedoms or through an amending formula, as stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a number of petitions on behalf of the residents of the city of Kamloops and a number of surrounding communities.
The first petition deals with a concern of constituents regarding our present tax system. I do not want to go through the long list, but they point out half a dozen areas of major concern in its unfairness, its bias and so on.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to undertake a fair tax reform process so that consumers do not continue to suffer financial security and unfair costs at this point in time.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which I wish to present.
The petition is signed by a long list of students at the University College of the Cariboo who point out that the government is presently taxing reading materials. They believe the 7% GST on reading materials to be unfair, unjust, wrong, stupid, dumb, and the list continues. Actually they do not use the words stupid and dumb, but that is what they are saying.
The students quote Newfoundlander Brian Tobin, who says “It is a violation of the concept of freedom of speech to tax the written word, to tax the ability of people to communicate with each other”. They simply agree with Mr. Tobin on that point.
They ask that the government come to its senses and back off from taxing reading materials.
Nelson Riis: The third petition concerns the increase in gas prices. I notice gas prices in this part of Canada are on the increase.
The petitioners ask the federal government to step in and establish a board to oversee the price of fuels, recognizing that Canada is a northern country and the cost of fuel is factored into the cost of living for every Canadian citizen.
They also suggest that the government give some consideration to Canada's crumbling national highways.
Nelson Riis: Finally, Mr. Speaker, petitioners are concerned about the debt load faced by students. They point out that students graduating from university on average have a debt load of $25,000.
Considering that so many young people have a difficult time finding employment, particularly employment at a decent salary, to enter their working life with this kind of debt load is wrong. They ask the government to give more consideration to changing the Canada student loan program and to coming up with a number of programs to support students.
As a personal comment, perhaps this is the time to consider doing away with tuition fees as many other countries have done in an effort to provide equal access for all students regardless of their level of income.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Kent—Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several residents in my riding asking that the federal government work along with the provinces to upgrade the highway system in Canada.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from approximately 300 Canadians who would like to see the income tax law changed so benefits can be applied not only to a surviving spouse but also to any designated individual, whether a common law partner, a son, a daughter, a friend or any other designated individual.
The petitioners believe the current law is unfair.
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from citizens in the city and county of Peterborough concerned about freedom of choice in health care. In this case there are approximately 150 signatures.
Among other things they ask that the only foods the Government of Canada may restrict from the market are those that are proven unsafe or fraudulently promoted and that section 3 and schedule A of the present Food and Drugs Act be deleted so that true claims for any product that prevents, treats or cures any of the 46 specific conditions can be allowed.
Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from British Columbians asking that the Senate be reduced in size. They feel there are too many senators and that the Senate is too costly. They would also like to see an elected Senate.
Questions On The Order PaperPeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find consent for the following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate to refer Bill C-9 to committee before second reading, all questions to dispose of the said stage of the said bill be deemed put, deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 21, 1997 at the end of Government Orders.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I apologize but I was not informed by my leadership. Will the whip give me assurance that consent has been reached?
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm to the member for Elk Island that the discussions have included leaders of all the opposition parties. We have come to an agreement that the vote on today's matter be deferred until Tuesday on returning after the Thanksgiving break.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): That consultation did take place and we do have an agreement.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, picking up where I left off, the centrepiece of the national marine policy of 1995 is the Canada marine act.
The bill was originally tabled in the House in June 1996. There followed discussions with stakeholders and a review by the Standing Committee on Transport which held hearings across this country.
SCOT, as it is commonly referred to, proposed a number of amendments to the bill after hearing a wide range of comments from interested parties, and further amendments were made at report stage here in the House of Commons before the bill was sent on to the Senate. Parliament was dissolved and we did not get to the completion of the bill.
I would like to discuss briefly how Bill C-9 will help modernize the three key components of Canada's marine transportation system, ports, the St. Lawrence seaway and marine pilotage.
First, the federal government will focus on those ports that are vital to domestic and international trade and on preserving access to remote regions. The remaining ports are being transferred to local interests who are in a better position to manage them efficiently and in response to local needs.
The legislation will create Canada port authorities, CPAs, with a majority of their boards of directors appointed in consultation with port users.
Bill C-9 repeals the Canada Port Corporation Act and the Public Harbours and Port Facilities Act. The Canada Ports Corporation will be dissolved.
To become a Canada port authority, a port must have financial self-sufficiency, diversified traffic, strategic significance to Canada's trade and have a link to a major rail line or highway.
Port authorities will be incorporated by letters patent for the purpose of operating a particular port. They will have powers to engage in activities related to shipping, navigation, transportation of passengers and goods and handling of storage of goods as well as other activities deemed necessary to support port operations.
Each board of directors will be composed of between seven to eleven members. The majority of each board will be appointed by the federal government only after consultation with the users who will then put the names on a list of candidates that will be considered by the Minister of Transport.
The remaining directors will be appointed by the municipality or the municipalities adjacent to the facility, involve provinces and the Government of Canada.
Perhaps the most important accountability mechanism in the bill is the provision that ports will have to go to the private sector for financing. As a result, all port related development plans requiring investment will be subject to commercial risk assessment.
During the last Parliament the biggest change introduced by the standing committee was to give the new port authorities crown agent status. Crown agent status gives port authorities a clear exemption from full property taxation and would enable them to be covered by the municipal grants act.
Then they will pay grants in lieu of taxes to the municipalities at the same levels as other federal facilities and installations. For most of the ports that will become CPAs this represents mostly a continuation of the status quo.
Any new obligations arising from agent status would come mainly to the federal government and not the agent. For example, crown agent status applies only to core activities of the ports and not to other more peripheral or non-core activities that they may undertake.
To make sure third parties know when they are dealing with a crown agent, the legislation obliges the port authorities to make this clear in their non-agent dealings.
The bill requires ports to borrow in their own name and not in the name of the crown. This emphasizes to lenders that the crown does not stand behind these obligations.
Another initiative I will address is the part of the legislation that will permit us to commercialize the operation of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence seaway system.
This system is a crucial waterway but it is also a business. The seaway faces formidable challenges, including high asset renewal costs.
Bill C-9 enables the minister to enter into agreements with a not for profit corporation or any other private sector interests to operate and maintain all or part of the seaway. The federal government would retain regulatory control over the navigation in the seaway and the existing seaway authority would be dissolved at an appropriate date.
The new not for profit seaway corporation would be responsible for operating the system for asset renewal costs up to a specific limit. There would be incentives to achieve operating efficiencies and lower costs.
Transport Canada is negotiating the transfer of the seaway operation to a group representing the major shippers and carriers on the seaway. We believe that this so-called users group is best suited to take over the system because users want to minimize their seaway tolls and ensure the long term integrity of the system. The industries represented, in particular the steel industry and the marine carriers, require the seaway for their long term survival.
On marine pilotage Bill C-9 allows the Minister of Transport to improve the way pilotage authorities operate in Canada. The authorities will have legislative support to ensure that they recover their costs from those who use their services as well as a streamlined appeals process for new pilotage rates.
Of course as always, safety and environmental protection will continue to be the government's top priority and any changes will help to ensure that our high standards of safety continue to be maintained.
In conclusion, Bill C-9 meets the goals of the national marine policy and it strikes a balance in how we manage our marine institutions and facilities. The bill complements the government's other transportation initiatives and is an important element in the overall effort to prepare our transportation system for the coming century. But no matter what changes are made or how many services are commercialized, Transport Canada will continue to make the safety and security of Canada's transportation system its first priority.
Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-9. I am glad to hear that the member opposite is positive about making all these changes to the marine act. I am afraid it is some 50 or 60 years too late.
I am here to talk about history. I want to give members of the House a history lesson. As we know, this bill will have a huge impact on the port of Churchill in Manitoba, which has been grossly neglected by this government and former governments.
It is ironic that in 1930 members of this House had a vision for the future of this country and built this huge shipping facility and in 1929 a railroad was built to reach that port. Unfortunately from 1930 to 1997 not a lot has been done with that port. It has been neglected, misused or underutilized.
I am glad to hear that the Liberal government has finally realized that privatization is not a dirty word. I am glad to hear that the government believes the private sector can perhaps carry on the business of transportation of commodities, including airports, much better than the government sector.
In the short time I have I would like to talk about the port of Manitoba, our direct access to the world. Its main purpose for construction as outlined in the Ports Canada document is that about 25% of western Canada's grain growing area is located closer to Churchill than to any other port. This covers the area of central and northern Saskatchewan, northeastern Alberta and northwestern Manitoba. In other words, Churchill is up to 1,600 kilometres closer to European markets than the port of Thunder Bay. Those are facts.
Even though those are the facts and that was the original intent for the construction of the port of Churchill the Liberal government and previous federal governments over the past 50 years have totally neglected this fact and have put the cost of transporting agriculture commodities on the backs of farmers. That is the reason we have an east-west focus rather than a north-south focus.
Like the hon. member for Churchill, I visited Churchill this summer and had a chance to meet with Mayor Spence and his council. I was amazed at the facility there. What really amazed me was the shape it was in and how long it had been there.
I differ from the member for Churchill. I understand from speaking with the stakeholders at Churchill that the changes in the marine act will have an immense impact economically on the community of Churchill.
We also fail to understand that not only is grain exported through the port of Churchill but also consumer goods. It is a gateway to the big north of Canada. There is over $300 million in consumer products transported through the port of Churchill by barge and there is no doubt this will increase as further development takes place in northern Canada.
I would like to put on record the myth that the port of Churchill is really not the place to export grain and agriculture products to the world, therefore forcing the farmers over the last 50 years to pay all these ridiculous transportation costs at the ports on the east coast as well as on the west coast. Today we are still doing that; 60% of agricultural products shipped go west and 40% go to the east.
The break even point at the port of Churchill, I believe, is between 500,000 and 600,000 tonnes. Having spoken to the port manager yesterday, so far this year 11 ships have come in and two more are scheduled to arrive. He stated to me that 400,000 tonnes will be shipped through the port of Churchill this year, about a 30% increase from 1996. The projection is that management of the port would like to see 3% to 5% of the prairie crop shipped through the port of Churchill.
The three western provinces produce about 30 million tonnes of grain; approximately 1.5 million tonnes are shipped through the port of Churchill, which is very little in terms of the total export and transportation of grain in this country.
It is good news with the passing of this bill that the port of Churchill will be out of government hands and into private hands.
I have a concern that there will be a lack of a voice on the port board by the producers and a lack of a voice in the transportation company which has taken over the rail line between The Pas and Churchill.
It is my hope that farmers will be consulted by both the new owners and stakeholders of the port and the rail line. Otherwise we will end up with another monopoly as we had in the past when CN was run by government and the ports were run by government and the farmers will get the short end of the stick.
Another concern I have is that the Canadian Wheat Board must increase the amount of grain moved through Churchill. It is long overdue that farmers get their grain to market without being hosed by the transportation system in this country.
Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased as the member for Lévis to rise in this debate, because everything marine is of great interest to me. My constituents are also particularly interested, because the chantier maritime de Lévis is in my riding. It was Canada's main shipyard before the Liberals arrived. It still has the potential to be the greatest one.
It also concerns me because, as the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans pointed out, all the Great Lakes traffic passes by us. Unfortunately, it often just passes by. We do not always reap the benefit, because there is not enough legislation favouring Quebec.
Bill C-9 is not new, as it replaces Bill C-44, which died on the Order Paper last spring, when the Prime Minister decided to call an early election. Bill C-44 had gone through all the stages in the House and had been referred to the Senate, which is not known for acting expeditiously. So, the old Bill C-44 was not passed by the Senate and is now being reintroduced as Bill C-9.
At this stage, we cannot be opposed to it, since second reading deals with the principle of the bill. The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to the objectives of the bill, even though we feel they are too modest. We, of course, strongly support the purpose of the bill, which is to transfer responsibilities to local communities.
But there are major uncertainties. The bill is flawed in terms of what it does not cover. For example, the $125 million fund for port authorities seems woefully inadequate. It would not even cover Quebec's needs, let alone those of the whole country.
It is insufficient. If that amount remains unchanged, we will probably oppose the legislation at third reading. But let us give the government a chance.
Then there is the appointment of the members of port authorities, which are supposed to be privatized. The government is keeping way too many powers, given that these authorities should manage their own affairs. Changes will have to be made in that regard, otherwise we in the Bloc Quebecois will oppose the bill.
We have other concerns. The hon. member for Kamouraska.—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques will discuss these, including the issue of pilots on the St. Lawrence River, which is a concern, particularly to those of us who are from the Quebec City region. The bill provides that St. Lawrence pilots will continue to ensure marine transportation on the St. Lawrence River.
Since I represent the riding of Lévis, I will of course primarily discuss the flaws of this bill, pompously called the Canada Marine Act. There is absolutely nothing in this bill about shipbuilding. In Lévis, which, as I was reminding you earlier, was, and potentially still is, the largest shipyard in Canada, the federal government has done nothing in its first term of office.
But during the 1993 election campaign, these folks made a number of promises. The first was to hold a Canadian summit on the future of shipbuilding in Canada. Not a whiff of a summit have we had, nor have we heard anything about the future of shipyards in Canada.
I am telling you this because the Conservatives did not manage to finalize anything before the 1993 election, but the Liberals had said they would do something about the project to replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery , the ferry running between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island.
The Liberal government dragged its heels and took forever to bring forth what looks like a mouse to me, because instead of allowing the Lévis shipyard to build a new boat for $60 million, it preferred to pay $30 million to refit an Irish ferry for service to the Magdalen Islands. This is no way to promote economic and maritime development in Canada.
In addition, we called for action; at the time, we formed the official opposition. We pointed out that the Liberal Party in its red book had promised money for the conversion of defence industries such as the Lévis shipyard to peacetime purposes. Yet, nothing, not a single penny, was provided in this area to help not only our shipyard in Lévis but also shipyards across Canada. Not one penny.
That was a fine promise, another broken promise. Each time the question of the shipyard in Lévis was raised, the then transport minister—and there have been quite a few—and the industry minister would reply: “The shipyard in Lévis should have a business plan. They should submit a business plan.” They did. The management of the shipyard submitted a plan but, in the end, they never saw a penny. This time, they were given a different set of reasons: new terms and conditions had to be negotiated into the collective agreement, and the workers had to make concessions. And they did. But even then, they never saw a penny.
There was, in the background, another condition the government did not dare state publicly. The shipyard was the property of the Société de développement industriel, a Quebec crown corporation. They said: “As long as the Quebec government is a shareholder, the federal government will not put money into this corporation.” Dominion Bridge, a private company, took over the shipyard a year and a half ago. Still, not a penny was provided for infrastructure, for military or civilian conversion. Nothing. And no contracts either.
Then, the shipyard in Lévis underwent a slight change in orientation. It secured the oil rig contract and has three contracts lined up and ready to go, including one from a Brazilian Crown corporation called Petrobras to build the Spirit of Columbus . But financial securities are required from both levels of government: the Quebec government, which has done its part, and the Canadian government, through the Export Development Corporation. Nothing has moved in a little over a year. All the while, there is a rig moored in my colleague's riding, at least in part, as the port of Quebec is right at the limit of the riding of Québec. It is the second largest rig in the world and we get to see it every day, but the federal government will not lift a finger.
I see that the hon. member for Beauce, who is supposed to represent the interests of the Quebec region, is listening. That is good, because I hope he will convey the message. Time is running out. This contract could create 400 jobs. So it is important.
Even workers from his riding are involved because his riding is next to mine. The same applies to the member for Bellechasse, the minister of state responsible for agriculture and agri-food and for fisheries and oceans. He was loudly defending the federal government in his riding instead of defending his riding on the federal scene. I woke him up at one point and told him: “Be careful. When there were 2,000 employees at MIL Davie, 500 of them came from the Bellechasse riding. You should look after their interests.” I urge the member for Beauce to do the same.
Furthermore, they let two bills die on the Order Paper when they called an early election. Now we know why: the Liberals were afraid of allegations and investigations. The Prime Minister said to himself: “Given the usual sluggishness of the federal government, the investigations will take so long that there is enough time for an election”. He called the election and he did the right thing. I congratulate him. I think he now has a majority of four members. It could have been different.
The Liberal government is not to be congratulated as far as maritime issues are concerned. I am not the only one to say so. All ridings with major shipyards are represented by opposition members, not by Liberal members; the Liberals were all defeated because of their inertia. And Canadian shipowners agree with us.
It is high time that the government did something in this area.
Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Dartmouth and the representative of thousands of people who are employed and affected by the activities of one of Canada's most vital ports, I would like to discuss the impact on Atlantic Canada of Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act.
First I will discuss the issue of divesting certain harbours and ports on the communities of Nova Scotia. Then I will look at some of the aspects of Bill C-9 that will have negative impacts on the port of Halifax.
The federal government announced in its national marine policy in 1995 that it planned to divest itself of all of its port facilities across the country which were under the control of Transport Canada.
Ottawa said it was spending $50 million each year to operate the country's 572 ports. The marine policy later became Bill C-44 which died in the House when the last Parliament was dissolved. Transport Canada is continuing with the divestiture scheme using other mechanisms.
The list of Nova Scotia port facilities reaches over 150. There are Amherst, Baddeck, Mulgrave, Port Hawkesbury, Canso, Liscomb, Mahone Bay, Tor Bay, over 150 communities which depend on their ports as an important pillar of their communities are in jeopardy.
Like their churches, their schools and their post offices, for those who still have the luxury of having a post office, the ports are an important part of their existence. So far Transport Canada has managed to unload three ports. The Weymouth port was sold to Irving for about $250,000. The Shelburne port was taken over by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Daysprings port was purchased for $30,000 by a shipyard company.
In the near future the Country Harbour facility will go up for public auction and the Sheet Harbour and Iona ports will be available for public tender. How many other buyers are there for these little ports? I would say precious few.
Transport Canada is holding public hearings in the affected communities. An executive assistant to Transport Canada's Atlantic region divestiture team has said that the affected communities are very hostile during these meetings. I can imagine why.
So many of these communities are angry because they do not think they have the resources to maintain or take over these facilities and they do not. These communities will go to ruin. These ports will go to ruin without the infrastructure that the government provides.
How can a port with revenues of $2,000 and expenses of $20,000 be profitable? But is profitability the only criterion by which we judge things now? Over 100 small ports which are central to the maritime fabric of life will flounder and go to ruin. For what? To save a few dollars.
This is the same mentality that wiped out the Yarmouth-Bar Harbour ferry in the winter time. It is the same mentality that will force people to pay a toll on the trans Canada highway. This is the same mentality that led the government to privatize the air traffic control system for a billion dollars less than it was worth. This is privatization ideology run rampant.
It is ironic that the Prime Minister is presently meeting with the four Atlantic premiers to talk about Atlantic Canada's need to get ahead at the same time as the government is pushing through legislation which undermines the essential transportation infrastructure in Atlantic Canada. At the same time it tightens the grip of big corporations such as Irving on our communities.
The port of Halifax-Dartmouth is another community which has major concerns about Bill C-44. The bill will prevent access for the port authority to the traditional primary source of funding for major capital projects and that is the federal government.
This is the primary negative feature of the bill. Many port facilities such as Halifax are capital intensive and have to be built well in advance of user commitments. Users often do not come until the facilities are in place. In the case of Halifax, because little of its traffic is captive, when users of the facility arrive there is no guarantee they will stay.
Ships float and boats are floating assets. They will not stay if they find another port which provides cheaper access to the markets in the North American interior that they seek to serve.
No private sector lender or investor can advance the bulk of such funding against user commitment which may or may not materialize when the facilities are completed. Funding can only come from governments which have the necessary financial resources and can justify, in the interest of promoting the economy of their constituents, the assumptions of the attendant commercial risks. This is true of all Canadian ports but also ports the world over which do not have enough captive or near captive traffic for their major borrowings to be bankable.
Had the bill been in effect in the late 1960s Halifax would not have been able to build and equip even one container berth and the harbour would long ago have fallen into disuse.
The bill should be changed to delete the provisions intended to prevent the federal government from providing capital funding to the new port authorities.
Another concern that we have in Atlantic Canada is the concern of labour with regard to this legislation. Labour needs a place at the new port authorities. From labour's standpoint the Canada Marine Act does not legislatively ensure that port labour will have a place at the new port authority boards. Port labour in Halifax is asking that it be grandfathered into the new board of the port authority so as to ensure that labour has a continued voice in the direction and running of the Halifax port.
The Halifax Port Development Commission also has serious objections to the bill on the one hand denying any access whatsoever for ports to parliamentary appropriation of federal funds, while on the other hand continuing to offer access to the consolidated revenue fund for the seaway.
As clause 67(c) states, the objective is to protect the long term operation and viability of the seaway as an integral part of Canada's national transportation infrastructure. The port of Halifax and the CN gateway are at least as critical a component of Canada's national transportation infrastructure as the seaway, and given industry trends, hold considerably greater potential to expand their role in international trade for the benefit of all Canadians.
It should also be noted that in many instances the seaway competes with Halifax for traffic, making the discrepancy of treatment that much more objectionable. We therefore strongly recommend that Bill C-9 be amended to ensure that the major ports and the seaway are treated in a consistent and equitable manner with respect to access to federal funds for capital investment.
Bill C-9 in its present form will have many detrimental effects on the communities of Atlantic Canada ports both big and little. Atlantic Canada and the port of Halifax deserve to have their needs met. Bill C-9 is not acceptable in its present form and we will be examining it carefully and constructively in committee.
Bill Casey: Madam Speaker, congratulations on your appointment to the Chair.
I am certainly pleased to talk on Bill C-9 today. It will have a big impact on my community and in many communities of the province of Nova Scotia and the entire maritime provinces because it deals with ports and harbours. It also deals with the St. Lawrence seaway which does not directly affect us but it certainly does indirectly. There will be a major impact on the federal ferry system, the pilotage programs and harbour police. Many aspects of the way of life in coastal communities either on the west coast or on the east coast will be affected.
The bill talks about the impact it will have on the ports and harbours and the pilotage people. It does not talk about the impact it will have on municipalities. It does not talk about the tremendous impact it will have on the provinces and the people. It will have an incredible impact on the people who are affected by the downsizing programs.
The thought crossed my mind as I was reading the bill that it is very much along the line of the present government policy of downsizing which seems to be pervasive throughout government programs. In some cases it seems to be innocuous and maybe even sensible, but the fact of the matter is that whenever national standards are taken away and the responsibility is given to the provinces and then down to the municipalities, we lose consistency and control over how the ports are managed. There will be inconsistencies from port to port from province to province and all over the country when this bill passes. I know it will cause a lot of grief.
Right now we have national policies which are inconsistent. Provincial policies change very rapidly. Provincial policies can change in an instant, whereas national policies only change over a period of time. They are much slower to change. The people involved who are affected by these quick decisions by the provinces will be hurt a great deal more than if the control of the port stayed with the federal government.
The pervasive downsizing approach by the government was eloquently repeated yesterday by the premier of the province of Nova Scotia, a former member of this House, who said, “We have suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts in recent years. Just give us a chance to get our bearings. It seems that the cutbacks are promoting cutbacks. Let us lay off for a little while until we get on our feet before you come back at us again”. That is what this is doing. This is coming back at the smaller communities and the smaller ports. Even though the premier of the province of Nova Scotia was a former member, he recognizes that.
A really good example of the negative impact of downloading and losing the consistency of national policies is the port police policy that the hon. member for Saint John so eloquently talked about a little while ago. The port police in Canada are highly specialized and highly trained police. They are specialized in the fields of drugs, immigration, firearms and contraband, all things that are really important to Canadians. If we lose an effective police force on the ports, the whole country will pay a huge price for it.
Under Bill C-9 all the ports police are being disbanded and municipal police or whatever are going to take over this responsibility. It is not even clear who is going to take this over. The government is disbanding the ports police and there is no plan.
Again we run into the inconsistency problem that I mentioned before where one port is doing one thing, another is doing something else and other ports have no plan at all. Basically if we do go to inconsistent port police we will have training that is inconsistent, quality that is inconsistent and the application of the rules and the law that is inconsistent.
We feel that the ports that have poor policing systems will be identified by the criminal elements in our country. They will become the ports of choice for criminal operations. We think that is going to happen because we are losing our national standards for our ports police. We are going to have every port with its own police application and approach. That is another big impact from downloading.
I am again going to quote Nova Scotia Premier MacLellan. He said yesterday, “Nova Scotians have been devastated by what Ottawa did. We have to get our financial house in order, there is no question about that, but excessive financial brutality is something else again. We just cannot do that. It is not the way to treat people”. That is what is happening.
Let us move on to a few other aspects of C-9. Probably the most important issue is the classification of ports. The government is dividing all ports into three classes: major commercial ports that are financially viable; regional ports that are to be divested over six years—I almost used devastated and that could be interchanged with divested because I believe they will be—; and the other class of ports is remote ports.
These again are separate from the fisheries and oceans small craft harbours where the same thing is happening. Those wharves are all being divested or becoming port authorities. It is going to have a tremendous impact on the communities.
Somebody in the closet in Ottawa who is writing this legislation does not have any idea of the impact this will have on communities like Wallace, Pugwash, Barachois and Parrsboro that I am sure Madam Speaker is very familiar with. Communities like Advocate and Shelburne in Nova Scotia where a military base just closed. Now they are having their port taken away from them or they are disowning the port I should say because the port is not viable by itself and they are going to lose.
The first classification of ports is major ports. They will become Canadian port authorities. They will probably be all right because they have already been designated as viable. The regional ports have a very uncertain future and this is where we are going to focus our attention. The third is the remote ports which will continue to be supported by the federal government.
Our focus will be on the regional ports such as the ports I listed a minute ago. These ports have not had the opportunity to be heard. They do not even have any idea what is going to happen to them. They do not even have any idea that this is happening. We want to make sure that the regional ports do know what is happening. We will make sure, to the best of our ability, that they are informed and given the opportunity to speak and tell us what the impact will be on their communities.
Often the port, the wharf, is the lifeblood of the community. If you take away the port and let it collapse, and this legislation will eventually force many ports to collapse, the whole community will collapse. I do not think we can stand by and let that happen.
One option that has been put up for the regional ports is to privatize the port facility or sell it. Sell it to whom? What about the community? What about the community that uses it for recreational boating and fisheries and as a centre of its commercial activity? What happens if it is sold to a company that has no interest in the community?
There was a proposal in Bayside, New Brunswick to sell the wharf and the whole port to a U.S. company. It wanted to take control over the entire port. It wanted to open a gravel pit or a quarry. It said that the only way it could do that would be if it totally controlled the whole port of Bayside. What happened to the people in Bayside? What about their concerns?
Had it not been for the MP for Charlotte, that deal probably would have gone ahead and an American sand and gravel company would now own a port in New Brunswick. It would own the whole port that tax dollars paid for, a port that is the centre of activity in the whole area of Bayside.
Again I hearken back to Premier MacLellan's comments about downloading, devastation, brutality. Let us go slow on this regional ports facility deal. We will be monitoring the regional ports facility issue very very closely.
There has not been enough consultation with the regional ports. They do not even know what is happening to them. We may propose that we split the bill. We should do the national ports and remote ports now and the regional ports later as we get other alternatives that will offer opportunities for these communities.
We just cannot wipe out hundreds of communities. There are hundreds of communities on the list that have been presented. Regional and local ports from all parts of the country in every province will be affected. These communities do not realize that they are about to lose the hub of their whole community. They have to know and must have a chance to speak and be heard. We will be bringing that to their attention.
The privatization aspect of this bill is really frightening. An American company can buy a port since there are no restrictions on who can buy and own ports. The bill just states that the ports are going to be divested, that they will be sold to the highest bidder. There are now planned auctions for ports in Nova Scotia. This is an incredible way to treat the people and the citizens of these ports that will be sold.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Whelan): Debate. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.
Jake Hoeppner: Madam Speaker, your father must be very proud of you in your elevation to the Chair. I congratulate you and wish you well.
I will take a different slant on this issue. I will try to point out why some of these ports are probably not profitable and why we need more cost effective transportation or handling of these ports.
My hon. colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain gave me some stats from the Canadian Grain Commission. They really tell the story of what has happened to many of the ports. The dates for all of these ports range from 1987 to 1996.
The Atlantic coast ports decreased from 552,000 tonnes in 1987 to 73,000 tonnes today. That is quite a decrease. The ports along the St. Lawrence have had an even bigger decrease. In 1987 they handled 11.8 million tonnes of grain. Today they are only handling about 4.4 million tonnes. We can see that the flow of traffic as far as grain is concerned has been diverted to some other transportation systems.
Thunder Bay has done a little better. It has actually increased from 1.1 million tonnes to 1.4 million tonnes, possibly because of the grain going to the U.S. being loaded in Thunder Bay and then unloaded at Duluth. Churchill, which my hon. colleague from Dauphin—Swan River talked about, used to handle about half a million tonnes or better of grain in 1987. In 1996 they were down to 227,000 tonnes. As we heard today that has increased to about 400,000 tonnes, which is a good trend for Churchill.
The Pacific coast has actually stayed very stable at from 60 million tonnes in 1987 down to 40 million tonnes in 1996. Because of market trends in shipping products to Asia, west coast ports have done better than east coast ports.
Why is that? One of the big reasons is that the costs at some of these ports have become almost unbearable for the shippers, especially grain farmers.
In 1990 the St. Lawrence Pilotage Authority negotiated a new wage contract that gave a 32% increase in wages over three years, which was unheard of in those days for other industries. Why these people were able to leverage this kind of a contract I have no idea.
In a nine month period pilots earn from $115,000 to $156,000. We were told during the hearings in Thunder Bay that they did not want to prove or disprove after nine months of operation that they still qualified for unemployment insurance. Their yearly earnings were fairly well looked after.
This brought to light other things. I am looking at some of my notes. Mr. Kennedy, one of the town fathers of Thunder Bay, pointed out that the cost of a tonne of grain going down the St. Lawrence Seaway on a 20,000 tonne freighter would be $2.50 per tonne just for the pilotage. That is more money to be paid by farmers than all the fuel taxes on a tonne of grain being shipped across the country. We can see the additional costs.
For a laker coming up stream with another type of freight it would be about $1.25 a tonne or about half. It is still very high and adds to the cost of operating the port.
He also pointed out that a 10 day trip from Montreal up through the Great Lakes to Thunder Bay and back would cost shippers $53,000 just for the pilot. That is as much as the total wage bill for the crew of the ship. We can see that something is wrong in the pilotage authority that should be addressed in the bill.
In 1995 we were led to believe that this was one of the most important issues and that it would be dealt with when the marine bill was brought forward. However it has been deleted and that really bothers me.
People will have to begin realizing that if grain transportation costs are not brought down there will not be much grain going through some of the ports. The sooner we recognize that, the better off we will be.
When I looked at some of the figures that the grain companies gave us, it was astounding what property taxes were doing to some of these ports and terminals.
Cargill has a terminal in Duluth which is a third bigger than its terminal at Thunder Bay. It was paying $27,000 property taxes at Duluth and $1.25 million at Thunder Bay. It is about the same for west coast ports. They are somewhat lower but the property taxes on some grain facilities are unbelievable. That will have to be addressed, or we will begin to see things happen such as what is taking place in rail transportation now.
Going back to figures the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain gave me, direct shipping to the U.S. by rail in 1987 was 60,000 tonnes. In 1996 it was 1.889 million tonnes. We see that these ports are interfering with the shipment of grain, in which direction it should go, because of the costs.
The Canadian Wheat Board, one of my favourite friends, tried a number of projects to ship grain down the Mississippi. It was quite successful. It would take grain up to Minneapolis, barge it down the Mississippi and export it.
Those things are happening. The government will have to realize it better do something to address the costs of ports or they will totally lose the business. Once the business is gone it is pretty hard to bring it back, except it can be attracted with lower costs that are feasible and reasonable.
I was astounded by what the pilotage did to shipping on the Great Lakes. A Canadian ship owner who testified before the hearings had five vessels in the seaway system. In 1994 he estimates he could have saved $475,000 on pilotage costs if they were in a competitive environment and operated on commercial rates. That was half a million dollars for four ships. When 10 or 12 million tonnes of grain are taken through the system, we can be seen how it affects shippers.
Why is the Government of Canada allowing these things to happen? As the whole transportation system was developing there was so much government interference in the system that they do not know how to rectify it. It is so far out of whack compared to the U.S. system.
While freight costs are a little higher as far as rail is concerned in the U.S, if I ship a load of grain through the handling system from my farm in Snowflake, Manitoba, to Seattle, I can save $16 a tonne just by elevation and handling charges in the grain handling system. These are items that we have to address.
I have a little story to finish up the whole debate. In the 1930s during the Bennett buggy days car tops were taken off, shafts were put on the wheels and cars were pulled by horse. In those days one of my neighbours who was shipping a carload of barley to Thunder Bay got a bill for a number of dollars and the price of the barley did not cover the freight.
The station master sent him a bill. He went to the station master and said “Sir, I haven't got any money. I can't pay this freight bill. The barley didn't cover the cost of it, so you are just out of it”. Things being very tough in those days, the station master said “Bring me a rooster and we will call it even-steven”.
About a week later the farmer came back to town and brought two roosters with him. The station agent said “Sir, I only asked for one rooster. Why would you bring me two?” He said “Well, sir, you have forgotten I have another carload of barley to ship”.
That is about the way we are running our transportation system today. It is becoming so costly that shippers cannot survive with it. Sooner or later it will die. If we have to pay it in roosters, the chicken industry in Ontario will also fold.
Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes, of course, the bill to be sent to committee as soon as possible. Let us remember that this is the old Bill C-44, to which we made a very constructive contribution to get meaningful results.
The government had not agreed to make some amendments that we considered essential, which is why we had voted against the bill at third reading. These amendments are still not to be found in the new bill.
Yet it has to be recognized that this is an important bill. It will create the port authorities and finally allow the regions to take over control of their port infrastructures, which is what the people of Quebec, among others, have been calling for over the past 20, 25 or 30 years, while the federal government has long been a distant observer of the vitality of our regions and of the use of port facilities in our regions.
This bill will introduce some interesting elements, but only if the federal government decides to put more than $150 million into the compensation fund it plans to put into place for when a regional port is handed over to regional authorities. Let me give you an example.
There are several port facilities in my riding that are affected by this situation. Since the community of Cacouna found out two years ago that a new ports policy was coming, it undertook some projects. A port development corporation has been created. It has already twinned with the French port of La Rochelle. It is getting a commercial development plan drawn up under the leadership of the director general of a pulp and paper mill in Rivière-du-Loup, a very dynamic business man.
The community has taken its fate into its own hands. It is prepared to take over, to assume administration of the facility, but only under acceptable conditions, and the federal government must turn over the facility under conditions which will maximize the port's future business opportunities.
For example, they expect that if the port entrance needs widening, or if the port needs dredging, that must be done. In other words, like any property, that it not be sold in a rundown condition. It must be sold in an acceptable condition and at a price that will enable the community to take it over.
The commercial ports are not the only ones affected by this bill. There are also ferry ports. Three are affected this way in my riding: the Rivière-du-Loup—Saint-Siméon ferry, the Trois-Pistoles—Les Escoumins ferry and the ferry between Saint-Juste-du-Lac and Notre-Dame-du-Lac on Témiscouata Lake.
Each case necessitates divestment, and the community has to take over the facility with the assurance that there will be a future for ferry services. In Rivière-du-Loup, an impact study by the Corporation de développement économique confirms that the ferry brings in $25 million and provides each government with some $2 million in tax dollars.
The talk of giving money to the regions out of kindness and a concern for equality is over. Governments have to consider ferry ports in Rivière-du-Loup an investment that stimulates the economy and provides revenues much higher than the cost of maintaining the facilities and especially divestment in the interest of the people of the community.
There is also the Trois-Pistoles ferry, which is a private operation, and which the Government of Quebec did not consider an essential service, but which in practice provides an essential service. It provides transportation to the North Shore alleviating traffic problems on the Saguenay ferry.
The federal government must be open and permit this port to operate at full capacity. It must also acknowledge the recreational and touristic aspects of the port developed in recent years. It is a haven where tourists, who have made Trois-Pistoles the cultural capital of the Lower St. Lawrence, can use the port infrastructure as a gateway to the river and enjoy all the benefits of the various tourist developments in our region.
All of these things are dealt with in the bill, which is why we want it sent to committee as soon as possible, so that the government can listen to our arguments and agree to a number of amendments, including one to increase the compensation fund to make it efficient and operational and ensure that the local authorities will be able, 10 or 15 years from now, to take charge of their own future and to control their port infrastructure.
There are other reasons why we want to send the bill to committee as soon as possible. There is the whole issue of the maritime pilots on the St. Lawrence. The last time the bill was before the committee, the Liberal majority came up with a last-minute amendment. We do not know where it came from but it did smack of influence peddling. This amendment took away from the pilots the role they were playing in terms of security. The amendment was designed to replace these people with machines, to remove some of the security measures they used to have and to threaten the independence they enjoyed as pilots on the St. Lawrence.
I had a quick look at this amendment, and I was surprised at the attitude of the government. I had discussions with pilots, who clearly demonstrated to me the essential nature of their functions, as good human judgment is essential to navigation on the St. Lawrence, where security is paramount.
There is also the question of the language of work for pilots on the St. Lawrence. Over the years, they have developed a tradition of working in French, and this tradition should continue.
In committee, we fought real hard and convinced the government to withdraw this amendment. Today, this aspect of the bill is acceptable to us, and pilots want to see the bill passed as soon as possible.
To conclude, let me add that we would like to vote in favour of the bill as a whole at third reading. That is why we would like to get a few additional amendments from the government.
When Bill C-44 was in committee, we managed to have the port of Trois-Rivières designated as a Canadian port authority, thanks in part to the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, who made very significant representations. Among other things, he provided information that helped the Prime Minister better understand what was best for Trois-Rivières, after originally saying that the status of regional port might not be a bad thing for that city.
In any case, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières was able to demonstrate that Trois-Rivières deserved to have a port authority, and he managed to convince the committee. This resulted in an improved piece of legislation.
There are still a few things that need to be corrected in the bill. If the government is prepared to do so, the end result will be even better. I am thinking in particular of a clause that seems quite obsolete. I am referring to the fact that port masters in Canada are appointed by the government, in a blatant display of patronage.
After the 1993 election, we had a port master who had been similarly appointed by the Conservatives, but who had developed an expertise. He had been there seven, eight or ten years and had become an expert in the field. Still, the Liberals got rid of him and appointed someone else. I have no doubt about the new appointee's competence, but he had to learn everything from scratch. I believe an amendment would be in order regarding this issue.
All this to say we are prepared to go to committee. We hope the review takes place as soon as possible, and we also hope the government will give favourable consideration to our amendments, so that, in the end, the bill is a true reform of Canada's marine policy and a tool to promote our economy.

Routine Proceedings
Committees Of The HouseDon Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 119.1(1), this House authorizes the televising of meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance held pursuant to Standing Order 83(1).
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as someone who comes from the Lower St. Lawrence and lives in a riding on the banks of that river, it seems only natural that I should take part in the debate today.
Without waxing nostalgic, I would like to tell you, and members of the House, that, in my youth—this goes back a bit—transportation was generally by boat. Boats took the place of trucks and trains. Things have changed over time, but I still remember those days when any child living along the river knew that its moods changed, just as moods change here in the House.
We in the Bloc Quebecois support the policy to divest and commercialize ports. However, as those who spoke before me have said, certain questions arise.
In Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act, one of the first questions that comes up concerns the fate of ports. We know that, historically, ports were not necessarily located where they might be today. We know that the facilities in certain ports are completely obsolete, and that others have been transformed over the years from ordinary harbours to deep sea ports. But on the whole these ports continue to serve the public and certain businesses.
Even though a reserve of $125 million has been set aside to help with the restructuring or sale of certain ports, serious questions come to mind. Will the free trade rules mean that people will buy only ports that are ready for use and financially viable? Will other ports, which often contribute to their region's economic development, be completely divested?
I am really concerned and I wish other members would share my concerns about who will buy these ports. Will local disparities be taken into account? Will these ports, as in our case, still be owned by Quebeckers? Since it was mentioned that Americans or people from outside Quebec will be able to buy ports, we do not know how the ports will be managed and what impact this will have on local and regional markets.
Consequently, we would like to have more information on this whole aspect of the port transfer before giving our consent to the bill.
My colleague from Lévis also spoke about shipbuilding. He is concerned about the issue of shipbuilding in the greater Quebec City area. In other areas in Quebec, we are also very concerned about this issue. He mentioned the rig. I will not come back to that, but it is nevertheless a monument which could become a monument to shame if the people opposite do not make funds available to allow the required work to be performed as soon as possible. This would bring—I will not say grist to the mill, that would be too easy—more rig overhaul contracts our way.
Shipyards are also involved in ship refit. There were years when over 2,000 people, or 2,000 families, lived off the contracts awarded by the federal government to repair or overhaul ships. The mood of the people in our region depends largely on the employment situation. Now that only 500 to 700 people work in our shipyards, this is becoming a problem. And what about construction starts? But this is a thing of the past, and I do not want to sound overly nostalgic. There is nothing in bill C-9 on this.
There is another major point, which I will call the interference issue. Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act, is a fine model of interference. We are familiar with this in my riding, where, following the 1993 election, the defeated Liberal candidate, Margo Brousseau, was appointed to the port of Quebec's board of directors. We would not want these things to go on. We would like people to be appointed to these positions because of their abilities, not because of their contacts.
Under Bill C-9, the government will appoint directors who will have decision making powers within port authorities, but it is withdrawing from any financial involvement. What a nice model of centralization that does not reflect the realities of the industry.
In concluding my remarks, I want to say a few words on the Pilotage Act. My colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques already spoke on this issue, but I would like to add a few words. We know the habits of our pilots on the St. Lawrence and we would like things to stay the same.
Therefore, we are totally opposed to the possible repeal of the Pilotage Act in favour of the creation of a central body such as the port secretariat, for which the government is already trying to find a role. The Bloc Quebecois will keep a close eye on this issue because it is of great interest to us, and we will not let it go.
In conclusion, we will not vote in favour of this bill unless certain amendments are made to our satisfaction.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the question on the motion is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and accordingly deferred until Tuesday, October 21, 1997, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
(Division deemed demanded and deferred)
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we call it 2.30?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 20 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.27 p.m.)