Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and
Communications
Issue 18 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 12, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill C-9, 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, met this day at 6:00 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, today we will proceed with our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9.
I have some observations which I should like to present to you. If you wish, I can read them now, or we can proceed with the clause-by-clause and deal with them after that. I am in your hands.
Senator Bryden: What is the normal practice?
The Chairman: It is your decision.
Senator Forrestall: I would like to hear your observations.
Senator Roberge: Are they amendments?
The Chairman: They are observations. I believe you all have copies of this which reads as follows:
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications heard over 30 witnesses in the course of its hearings on Bill C-9. It had two meetings with the Minister of Transport, one at the beginning of its deliberations, the other at the conclusion.
Witnesses came from all across Canada and represented a wide variety of marine interests. Many were supportive of the bill, but a significant number were concerned about what the bill might mean to them or, more significantly, what it might mean to their communities. In his second appearance before the committee, the Minister of Transport did much to alleviate these concerns, but the committee was still left with some degree of unease. This leads us to make some comments to the Minister which we trust he will accept and implement.
[Translation]
Our greatest concern is for the future of small ports in small communities. Some people are extremely anxious about the impact of divestiture on ports in their region, viewing this turn of events as catastrophic. They do not see how they will be able to attract the necessary capital to survive. Other witnesses called for an intermediary regime, something between CPA status and a local or regional port, a system that would be better suited to ports that are essential to an expanding local economy and that still require subsidies.
[English]
There were also concerns of a financial nature. Many ports or port communities are worried about the additional financial obligations which they face as Canada Port Authorities under C-9. These range from new expenditures for grants in lieu of taxes, the requirement to pay dividends based on gross revenues, the inability to have access to government funding, and the inability to pledge land as security for loans. Some saw these additional obligations posing a real threat to their ability to raise capital for future projects. Others saw them as a threat to their ongoing financial viability.
The committee notes that a review of this legislation is required under section 144, to be carried out during the fifth year that the proposed legislation would be in effect. Indeed the minister made much of this review in his remarks to us, pointing out that it would offer an opportunity to put right any unforeseen problems that might arise in the next few years.
We ask that the process of review of this act not wait for the formal process in four years time. We ask that it begin now for the smaller ports, with ongoing assessments of the economic health of communities where ports have been closed or divestiture has taken place. We would like to see the results of such assessments incorporated into the Minister's annual report on divestitures, called for under section 72(7) of the bill along with comments each year on the adequacy of the divestiture fund at that particular time. For the ports which become CPAs, we recommend that the Minister look carefully for any adverse financial impact that this bill might bring, right from the start of a port gaining CPA status. We also ask that the issue of user input to the boards of CPAs be carefully monitored to see whether the process now proposed will work satisfactorily.
[Translation]
Some concerns remain, namely that the environmental protection aspect of port and Seaway operations under Bill C-9 could suffer if detailed regulations are not adopted immediately pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The committee asks the Minister of the Environment to ensure that when CPAs are created, federal environmental protection measures are applied to the fullest and that, at the very least, current conditions are not allowed to deteriorate.
[English]
I leave this with you for your consideration. We can deal with these observations later.
Senator Spivak: In your observations, you ask the minister do certain things. In the past we have asked the minister for a letter. When we deal with the environmental section, that is what I will request. If the minister writes a letter to the committee stating that he will do certain things, it has almost the same force as an amendment. I put that forward for your consideration.
Senator Bryden: Madam Chairman, as you know, I have been particularly concerned about the situation concerning local and regional ports. Following on what Senator Spivak has said, I had the opportunity to discuss this with the minister, and I asked if there were some assurances that could be given to the committee in the form of a letter to the chairman addressing the concerns that I have discussed with him and officials from his department. I am sure it could also encompass the environmental concerns of the committee.
I would suggest an amendment to the statement just read by the chairman.
Senator Roberge: Do you mean an observation, not an amendment?
Senator Bryden: An amendment to the chairman's observation.
Senator Spivak: I was not suggesting that this be just an observation. I am not even suggesting that we would not want to have amendments. What I am saying is that, before the bill is passed, the minister should be asked to write a letter giving certain undertakings. We have done that before.
Senator Bryden: Yes.
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Spivak: That has much more force than asking the minister, under his good graces and offices, to do something. I do not know if that is what you have in mind. Do you wish to add something to the observations?
Senator Bryden: I will make this available to the members of the committee. It is short, so it will not take a long time.
The Chairman: I was about to suggest that you do that. We can come back to the observations once we have dealt with the clause-by-clause.
Senator Bryden: Perhaps it should be before the committee now instead of waiting to the end.
The Chairman: I am in your hands. Do you wish to do that now?
Senator Bryden: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: I am not sure what Senator Bryden is suggesting. The statement you have given us is a reasonable one. I accept that. If one of the amendments were acceptable to the committee generally, or an amendment from your side, preferably, sufficient to cause this matter to go back to the House of Commons for another look, then I would be quite happy to sit here all night and listen to statements about care and concern. I have not heard anyone say anything to that effect and certainly nothing from the chair. However, if Senator Bryden has something like that in his comments, then we should hear them.
Senator Bryden: I would suggest that, after the third paragraph of the observations which begins: "Our greatest concern is for the future of small ports in small communities...", that we add the following:
Therefore the committee recommends that the minister be prepared, on a case-by-case basis, to recognize that certain local/regional ports are essential to the economy of their regions or to the future development of their regions, and:
that such ports will not be divested until the Minister is satisfied that their facilities have been brought to appropriate operating standards for such a port;
that if the $125 million Port Divestiture Fund is not sufficient to facilitate the transfer of such ports, the Minister will seek necessary additional funding;
that the Minister may provide other funding for projects deemed necessary for the future operational success of such ports;
that the Minister will continue to maintain and operate such ports until he is satisfied a viable local entity is in place; and
that the Minister provide for the reversion of such ports to him if the local entity fails to continue such port as a viable operation in the region.
I would suggest that be inserted after the third paragraph.
In discussion with the minister's office and with the department, the minister has indicated that he would be prepared to provide a letter of undertaking to the committee that he would be prepared to do what we have asked. I cannot speak as to what else he would be prepared to incorporate as a result of the observations. I believe the undertaking Senator Spivak is talking about is quite possible.
Senator Spivak: Is this before we pass the bill or after?
Senator Bryden: Before we pass the bill.
Senator Spivak: Are you prepared to have a discussion about whether we might add a few items to this? I know you have not discussed that with the minister.
Senator Bryden: Just to make something very clear --
The Chairman: Perhaps I could be allowed to chair the meeting.
I passed around the observations and the agreement was that I should read them now rather than later when we have completed our clause-by-clause consideration. I proceeded to do that.
Senator Bryden now wants to add to those observations. That matter is up for discussion.
Senator Forrestall: I would suggest that this might create a problem because the statement by the chairman is being significantly amended. I suggest that it stand on its own. I have no problem supporting it with the proviso that that is what it is. I have no intention of withdrawing any of my amendments. We have amendments covering all of these areas. Senator Spivak goes even further in some of hers.
The Chairman: Does that mean you are opposed to including this paragraph?
Senator Forrestall: No, I am not opposed to having it included at all. However, it is not a substitute for Senator Bryden supporting amendments that purport to do the same thing. If we are wise and take our own counsel, we will send this bill back to the House of Commons for another look at the areas that Senator Bryden has mentioned, the areas that I have mentioned, and the areas mentioned by every person who has been around this table throughout the last three or four weeks, some of whom have been involved in this for seven or eight years, as I have.
Senator Bryden: This does not forestall people bringing forward amendments. It is perhaps more by way of explanation. If, per chance, I do not support some of your amendments, I want to be sure that you are aware that there is at least some recourse.
Senator Forrestall: You cannot have it both ways. That is all there is to that. Do not plead mother love when you were sent in here to do a job.
Senator Spivak: Are you telling us that the minister is not prepared to accept any amendments? This happens in committee all the time. It is good to know that. It will not prevent us from presenting the amendments, but it will illuminate the procedure.
The Chairman: We have a job to do, Senator Spivak. We cannot speak for the minister. We are dealing with Bill C-9.
Senator Spivak: I have my answer. Thank you.
The Chairman: If it is agreed that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9, we shall do so.
Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?
Senator Forrestall: No.
Senator Adams: No.
Senator Forrestall: And not on division. You are not going to go through it like that. "Clauses 1 to 3."
The Chairman: Have you anything to say on clauses 1 to 3, Senator Forrestall?
Senator Forrestall: Do you want me to start? I will read the damn thing and you will never get your bill.
The Chairman: I have told you before: That is not the way we operate here.
Senator Forrestall: Then, Madam Chairman, you and I are back to where we started.
The Chairman: I will not start --
Senator Forrestall: You do not move without agreement.
The Chairman: Senator Forrestall, let me finish.
Senator Forrestall: We do not move --
The Chairman: We will not deal with this with threats.
Senator Forrestall: I am not threatening you. I am just telling you what I will do, so you won't be surprised when I do it.
The Chairman: I said, "Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?" If you do not want them to carry, say what you have to say.
Senator Forrestall: This is highly unusual. As a rule, the title of the bill is the last clause to carry. You are moving the short title, interpretation and aboriginal rights. You want to include aboriginal rights with the title. Clause 3, aboriginal rights reads:
For greater certainty, nothing --
The Chairman: Have you something to say on clause 3?
Senator Forrestall: Yes, I am on clause 3.
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the application of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Do you want us to carry that in the same breath as we deal with the title of the act?
The Chairman: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry then?
Senator Forrestall: If it is your intention to ram this through, you are going to do a good job, but you will do a bad job in the long run.
The Chairman: Senators, shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?
Senator Forrestall: No, not even on division. Let us have a voice vote; a recorded vote.
The Chairman: Very well.
Senator Adams: Are we on clause 2?
The Chairman: All those in favour?
Senators De Bané, Bryden, Fitzpatrick, Poulin, Adams and Perrault.
All those opposed?
Senators Forrestall, Roberge, Buchanan, Johnson and Spivak.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Adams: Agreed.
Senator Forrestall: No. We have an amendment.
I move:
That Bill C-9 be amended in clause 4,
(a) on page 3, by replacing lines 27 to 30 with the following:
(c) ensure that maritime transportation services are organized, and that real property within the limits of a port is administered, so as to satisfy the needs of the users, to provide accessibility and equitable treatment, to be available at reasonable cost to the users.
Senator Spivak: Has this been printed?
Senator Forrestall: I am sorry. Do all members not have copies?
The Chairman: No.
Senator Forrestall: Everyone else has them.
The Chairman: Has everyone read the amendment proposed by Senator Forrestall?
Senator Forrestall: We are trying to give the minister some ability to effect fairness in the port, to satisfy the need of the user, to provide accessibility and equitable treatment, and to be available at reasonable cost.
Senators will recall a number of incidents. In one case, there was a very lengthy contract, the details of which turned out to be analogous to the difficulties discovered by Newfoundland when it signed a long-term contract with the Province of Quebec for the distribution of hydro power. They found that the return on the value of the power was quite significant, but and they were unable to get out of the contract. This is in part to address that type of situation. We want to ensure that the objectives of the bill at this stage are the correct objectives.
Senator De Bané: Madam Chairman, the objectives as set out in clause 4 are very well drafted. Subclause (a) refers to the achievement of local, regional and national social and economic objectives. Subclause (c) refers to being organized to satisfy the needs of users and being available at a reasonable cost to the users. Those different words show that the bill, in this very long clause, is trying to grasp all the different objectives that we would like to achieve. We talk here about the provisions of a safe, environmentally sound infrastructure commensurate with user needs, harmonization of standards and intermodal coordination, a high degree of autonomy for the management of local and regional services and facilities consistent with commercial practices, and also that the cost for users should be reasonable.
We want to achieve both economic and social goals at a national, regional and local levels. I think that, for those reasons, I would ask that this amendment be defeated.
Senator Spivak: Madam Chairman, the amendment in subclause (c) does not speak of real property. That property can be substantial in some cases. Do you really want to set up a situation where people can profit, speculate, do whatever with that property? The amendment states that the real property within the limits of a port is administered so as to satisfy the needs of the users. It is a very specific thing, as I understand it. There is nothing in there about real property.
Senator De Bané: With all due respect, that infrastructure is there for the users. This bill deals with the conditions, about how those ports should be exploited by the managers for the benefit of the users. The whole argument is to organize them in such a way that the managers will enjoy a autonomy to the greater benefit of the users.
Senator Spivak: What is the mechanism in this proposed legislation by which the minister may intervene if that is not the case?
Senator De Bané: This is precisely what Senator Bryden has achieved as a result of his negotiations with the department.
Senator Spivak: We are talking about law. We are not talking about a negotiation between two people.
Senator De Bané: Let me finish. Senator Bryden has tabled a document. He has given us notice that this is the conclusion of negotiations which he has had with the department. He is confident that the minister will send to our chairman an official letter confirming those commitments that were already made by the minister before this committee. Here they have been put in more precise language by Senator Bryden who, indeed, has achieved a major breakthrough. This is the answer to your query.
Senator Spivak: I am not denying that, Madam Chairman, but I want to ask you if this appears anywhere else in the bill. Perhaps we could ask our research person. Where in the bill does it speak to the power of the minister to intervene if there is, for example, improper use of the real property around the port?
The Chairman: We could ask the departmental officials who are here to come forward to answer your questions.
Senator Spivak: Thank you. I would appreciate that.
Mr. Louis Ranger, Assistant Deputy Minister for Policy, Transport Canada: Clause 4(f) does refer to infrastructure. I must mention that many of the issues you have raised are specifically covered in the detailed letters patent, for example, which are being developed for the Canada Port Authority. Perhaps Mr. Bowie could elaborate on that more specifically.
Mr. Bruce Bowie, Executive Director, Marine Reform, Transport Canada: Clause 8 deals with letters patent which are the authorities provided to the Canada Port Authorities to use the federal land which they have been entrusted with operating. It is true that in the letters patent the minister would prescribe any limits on the use of that federal land, and would have the ability to undertake amendments to the letters patent if he felt there was an inappropriate use.
Senator Spivak: What does that mean, under the "letters patent"? Does that mean that the federal real property must be incorporated for the use of the users of the port? Can it be divested?
Mr. Bowie: The federal real property remains the property of the Crown. They have no ability whatsoever to sell. They can lease the land in accordance with the conditions in the letters patents. They do not have any authority to sell the federal real property.
Senator Spivak: That will be done according to the letters patent and in accordance with the needs of the users and the community. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Bowie: In terms of federal real property, if they identified surplus property that was no longer required for the port, then they would identify the surplus and it would go through disposition in accordance with the federal Real Property Act which responds to the needs of the provinces and local communities in terms of the priority for distribution of that land.
Senator Spivak: That is very helpful. The other amendment talks about regional economic development.
The Chairman: We are dealing with the first amendment.
Senator Spivak: Will you go on to clause 4 on pages 3 and 4?
The Chairman: We are not there yet.
Senator Forrestall: Madam Chairman, I am interested in the situation respecting the Toronto Harbour Commission with regard to those lands that are redundant for port purposes but are very valuable for residential or other developmental purposes. How does the taxpayer of Canada find protection against the looseness and vagueness that this proposed legislation leaves them with? Authority is being taken away from the minister. We are not adding to his authority. Everything in this bill takes away or separates ports from the minister and the government. It is either good philosophy or it is not. In some cases it will work and in other cases it will fail abysmally.
The Toronto Harbour Commission has authority over land worth a billion dollars that is owned by the taxpayers of Canada, not the taxpayers of Toronto. How do we assure the taxpayers of Canada that their investment is protected unless we involve the minister and the government? We want protection through ministerial intervention.
Mr. Ranger, could you comment on the Toronto lands?
Mr. Ranger: Major ports will be agents of the Crown. The land continues to be owned by government. It is the Minister of Transport who issues the letters patent. In other words, it is the minister who spells out in considerable detail how that port is to be managed. The Minister of Transport continues to have considerable influence on how that port is managed.
Senator Forrestall: I am sorry, Madam Chairman, these are probably policy questions. I would not want to ask you to intervene there. I withdraw my question. I wish the parliamentary secretary were here, perhaps he could shed some light on it. I do not think it lends any support or strengthens the minister's capacity to order the development of our Canadian ports in a business-like, competitive and commercial fashion.
Senator Bryden: I notice that on my copy of the first amendment it says, "Prince Rupert Grain Draft." What I understand from the amendment is that it is an attempt to amend this in order to deal with the situation they described before the committee. I take it that is what is meant by, "to provide accessibility and equitable treatment, and to be available at a reasonable cost to the users." That relates to their real property.
The representatives of Prince Rupert Grain told our committee that they have a 60-year lease based on a tariff that was related to the number of tonnes of through-put. They wanted to reopen that lease and change it to run on a land-value basis. I believe that is the purpose of this amendment.
Senator Roberge: Yes, amendment 12 also ties into Prince Rupert.
Senator Bryden: I see. Does it relate to that specific situation?
Senator Roberge: It does.
The Chairman: Any other comments, senators?
Senator Forrestall: Let me ask the senator: Do you feel that that is an equitable position? Having asked that question, let me ask you the second question: Is there no way for the minister to intervene and correct that problem? That is what the amendment is addressing.
Senator Bryden: I can answer that in this way, the same way I suggested to the witnesses when they were here, and that is, normally we do not draft legislation to require intervention in a specific contract.
Senator Forrestall: This is not a specific contract, however there is no question that is the one that motivated it.
Senator Bryden: Those are the only people who raised the issue. That is not to say there should not be a general application amendment. I assume, Madam Chairman, that the pieces of this bill as they have been put together have been intricately interwoven. Therefore, if one is to remove one of the pieces, we must ensure it does not affect the whole structure.
I understood what the Prince Rupert people were saying. I still believe that it is not this committee or the Parliament of Canada's job to open up a bad contract, even if it is a bad contract for contracting parties.
Senator Spivak: This is not an individual contract. The way in which the Port of Prince Rupert and the Port of Vancouver operate affects the entire Western Canadian economy.
I spoke to the Minister of Agriculture and the whole point of what the Prince Rupert people were saying in terms of a northern route and the ability to get grain to customers on time, for example, Japan, is vital to the economy of the West. It is not just a lease and they should handle it even if it is a bad lease.
You would not say that about Churchill Falls or the Labrador agreement or other agreements which are not working well for one of the parties. Should they suffer forever? No, I do not think they should. If it is vital to the economy of the west, then we should do something, and we have the ability to do something.
I do not care how it is done. I do not care if you do it through a letter to the minister or through a motion, however, it is something that is very important to the economy of Western Canada.
Senator Bryden: It is very important to the people who appeared here. I believe they said it would cost them $1.3 million or $1.8 million, as against a comparable facility which would have rent of $500,000, if it were in Vancouver.
They did not indicate what would happen to the savings. I was about to ask them if they were prepared to supply their books. Will that simply add to the profit line of that particular company?
Senator Spivak: I am not suggesting that we investigate that particular situation, but I hope that the minister has that power. That is the intent. It is not for us to judge whether they have a case. The point is that the northern route is vital and, if it is not utilized there will be congestion in Vancouver, such as there was last year when it cost the farmers $60 million. It is not an insignificant problem.
Our responsibility is not to determine whether a lease agreement is fair. We cannot do that. The minister must have the power to hold the leases. I do not think that is unreasonable. That will require more than the amendment to clause 12.
Senator Bryden: Presumably, in the negotiations of the letters patent for that particular CPA, those areas would be addressed. To a large extent, both you and Senator Forrestall are correct, that part of the scheme of the CPAs is that these will be autonomous, functioning and commercial enterprises.
Senator Spivak: Exactly. However, not at a cost to the industrial strategy and the economic development of huge regions of the country. That is what this country was built on. That is the issue here. Perhaps the witnesses can help us. If that could be looked at under the letters patent, then I would be reassured that the minister can intervene. If not, I would not be reassured. You cannot deny that this is important. That has been government policy for a long time. It has not always been successful, but neither have the market forces.
Senator Bryden: The Crow Rate was absolutely essential for tens of years.
Senator Spivak: It still is.
Senator Bryden: But it has gone. We now have other vehicles, including the feed freight assistance to the Maritimes.
The Chairman: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Forrestall:
That clause 4 be amended on page 3 by replacing lines 27 to 30 with the following:
(c) ensure that marine transportation services are organized, and that real property within the limits of a port is administered so as to satisfy the needs of users, to provide accessibility and equitable treatment, and to be available at a reasonable cost to the users.
All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
Senators Forrestall, Roberge, Buchanan, Johnson and Spivak.
The Chairman: All those against?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
Senators De Bané, Bryden, Fitzpatrick, Poulin, Adams, and Perrault.
The Chairman: In my opinion, the nays have it.
With respect to clause 4, we have another motion. Do you want to read your motion, Senator Forrestall?
Senator Forrestall: I move:
That Bill C-9 be amended in clause 4,
(a) on page 3, by adding immediately after line 26 the following:
(c) promote marine transportation as a key to regional economic development;
(b) on page 4, by replacing line 3 with the following:
facilities and for the protection of the economy of areas in which ports are disposed of; and; and
(c) on pages 3 and 4, by renumbering paragraphs (c) to (h) as paragraphs (d) to (j) and any cross-references thereto accordingly.
In a sense, this motion speaks for itself. The phrase has been in the jargon of federal legislation for the last 40 or 50 years. Transportation, in fact, is a very fundamental part of our national economic well-being. It is not there, and I think it should be.
Now is not the time in our growth to be walking away from good concepts. As Yogi Berra would say, "The worst form of pollution is the disregarding of good ideas before they have had a chance to be used." This is a case in point.
We are looking to simply strengthen, in the eyes of Canadians, the resolve of the Government of Canada that we treat transportation in a way that recognizes its vital importance.
We are faced, Madam chairman and colleagues, with some very difficult situations. We have now heard the new president of the St. Lawrence Seaway suggest that they are unique and, as such, enjoy and are entitled to preferential financial support from the Government of Canada. With equal force, he told us how he thought the Seaway could survive, and that is through growth. There may be some new business in iron ore pellets. There is no significant information on the horizon that would indicate grain exports -- that is, iron ore up the seaway and grain back down -- will expand exponentially to the economic benefit of the Seaway. They have to find the business somewhere else, and where will they find it? They are going after Post-Panamax ships. They are already talking openly about, for example, Sept-Îles. He mentioned Sept-Îles eight or 10 times in their presentation. They will bring Post-Panamax ships into Sept-Îles and transfer their cargo to a fleet of 25,000- to 30,000-tonne ships capable of transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway, thus competing directly with the Port of Halifax which moves its traffic by Canadian National.
That is fine. Canadian National and the Port of Halifax can win that fight if the level playing field is in place, but it is not in place. Halifax will not be able to expand to accept those Post-Panamax ships because there is no longer a resource and no longer a method for the minister or the government to intervene and help, unless they will graciously give their approval to things like tax-free bonds for the port. If the province would do the same thing, there is a remote chance there.
I would never want to call into question the capacity of port operators, users and the commercial arena to find a resolution. However, if they do not find it in the next 18 months to two years, the Post-Panamax ships will be in the water. They will be looking for cargo, and they will be looking for ports of discharge.
On this side of the Atlantic Ocean, there is Freeport in the Bahamas and Halifax in Canada. There is Sept-Îles, where there would have to be an off-shore trans-loading from ship to ship, which at the best of times is not terribly safe. Operating in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the winter is not terribly safe.
We are talking about the removal of something from the legislation which, for 50 years or more, has been at the core of successive governments, Conservative and Liberal, federal and provincial, which have promoted marine transportation as a key to regional economic development. Now we are undermining that.
I would be interested to hear what Senator De Bané has to say about that. In his usual, analytical way, he can tear everything asunder, and he does an extraordinarily good job of it. I have been an admirer of his since his days in the other place. I marvel at his Casey Stengel capacity to explain and confuse at the same time.
Senator Perrault: You want a comfort clause.
Senator Forrestall: Yes, by way of an amendment.
The Chairman: Is there any discussion, senators, on the amendment?
Senator Adams: Question!
The Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment that was just read by Senator Forrestall?
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
Senators Forrestall, Roberge, Buchanan, Johnson and Spivak.
The Chairman: All those against?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
Senators De Bané, Bryden, Fitzpatrick, Poulin, Adams and Perrault.
The Chairman: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Senator Forrestall: On a point of order, I had asked for a recording of the votes. Will that occur? Will the names for and against be recorded?
Senator Spivak: We want it recorded.
The Chairman: We have the names here. Do you want to vote again?
Senator Forrestall: No.
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 5 to 7 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No, we want a vote.
The Chairman: Shall clause 8 carry?
Do you have an amendment?
Senator Roberge: Yes. It is as follows:
That Bill C-9 be amended, in clause 8, on page 6,
(a) by replacing line 4 with the following:
(f) the number of directors, between five and eleven; and
(b) by replacing lines 18 to 22 with the following:
(iv) the remaining individuals appointed by the chair of a committee of users established by the Minister for the purpose, the members of which committee have been selected and appointed by the Minister to represent the classes of users mentioned in the letters patent; and
(c) by replacing line 26 with the following:
(h) the charge on the net revenues of the bill.
Witnesses have told us that, in some cases you have 5 to 13 or 14 employees in a port. In Sept-Îles, for example, there are, I believe, 12 employees and between 7 and 11 members of the board. That seems a bit disproportionate in my estimation.
On the users side, in Sept-Îles you have three companies which have 95 per cent of the tonnage and 85 per cent of the revenue. It is a small town. There are not many people who have the knowledge and capability of sitting on a board of that nature. I believe it would be appropriate to appoint users to the board.
The Chairman: Any discussion on the amendment, senators?
Senator De Bané: This is precisely what subclause (iv) of (f) states:
(iv) the remaining individuals nominated by the Minister in consultation with the users selected by the Minister or the classes of users mentioned in the letters patent;
The minister will appoint them, but after consultation with the different users or class of users.
Here, of course, the amendment by the official opposition goes one step further. It is the users who appoint the individuals after consulting with the minister, so it is exactly the opposite. I feel that as they are properties of the Crown, and the minister must, ultimately, answer to the House of Commons and the Senate, he must appoint the board. He drafts in the letters patent their obligations, et cetera, so he has the power to appoint them but he must do that after consulting with the different users.
For those reasons, I submit that those two amendments should be defeated.
The Chairman: Any discussion?
Senator Forrestall: Madam Chairman, the senator has outlined the effect, but he has not given us a reason why there is anything wrong with what we are suggesting or proposing. Perhaps in his heart of hearts he believes the suggestion that was around at the turn of the century, which is that users cannot be trusted to do what is in the best interests of the port and the people of Canada. To suggest that the users cannot do that honestly is somewhat vague. I would blindly trust the users far more than I would trust political appointees.
I mention that because just the other day we had the minister defending his chair of the Halifax Port Authority at the expense of the chair of the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Corporation and the association of shippers. As a matter of fact, both of them were somewhat called to task. The minister said he had heard them and they are just "fuddy-duddies," that he had talked to the mayor who told him everything is okay in the Port of Halifax.
Nothing is okay in the Port of Halifax and I just wonder if the senator would care to tell us why there is something wrong? Does he not trust the users, the senior corporate people?
What is going on? Do you want to have a meeting?
The Chairman: I am listening to what you are saying, senator.
Senator Forrestall: I am interested in what Senator De Bané will have to say. I hope he responds. Surely the senator is not suggesting that these people would not want full, forthright and honest representation in their own best interests because they are the users. If they are healthy and prospering, why would the port not be healthy and prospering? I do not understand why they cannot be part of the decision-making process.
The Chairman: Any further comments on the amendments senators?
[Translation]
Senator Roberge: Let us consider the case of the Port of Sept-Îles where three companies control 95 per cent of all port activities. This is a small town. Few people in the community possess the knowledge and capability needed to sit on the board. This situation may be unique in Canada, but it is nonetheless real.
In addition, we have a number of precedents, such as Nav Canada where users sit on the board of directors. I do not see why provision cannot be made for this as well in this bill, considering that another bill already provided for something similar.
[English]
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Roberge that clause 8 be amended on page 6, as read by Senator Roberge. All those in favour of the amendment?
Senator Spivak, Senator Johnson, Senator Buchanan, Senator Roberge, Senator Forrestall.
All those against?
Senator Adams, Senator Poulin, Senator Fitzpatrick, Senator Bryden, Senator De Bané, Senator Perrault.
In my opinion, the nays have it. All those in favour of clause 8?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Forrestall: No.
The Chairman: The same senators. Carried.
Shall clause 9 to 11 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Senator Forrestall: No.
The Chairman: Did I hear a no?
Senator Forrestall: You heard a no on the other one as well, but you chose to ignore it. You heard me say no to clause 8 as well, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman: All those in favour of clauses 9 to 11?
Senator Forrestall: Madam Chairman, as somebody who has spent 35 years of my public life trying to support and promote the Port of Halifax, I find that there is nothing about this bill that I would care to support but, strangely enough, there are parts of it that are not bad.
No, I do not support that. I am opposed to it and I will vote against the bill.
The Chairman: Shall we have a vote on clauses 9 to 11?
Senator Forrestall: We will read the names into the record so the people will know that someone cared, and that people will know that my job here is not to pass government legislation. That is your job, Madam Chairman. My job is to make sure it is the best legislation possible to put forward.
The Chairman: My job is to chair the meeting, Senator Forrestall.
Shall clauses 9 to 11 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: We will take a vote. All those in favour? Senators Adams, Poulin, Fitzpatrick, Bryden, De Bané, Perrault.
All those against? Senators Spivak, Johnson, Buchanan, Roberge, Forrestall.
Carried.
Shall clause 12 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No. There is an amendment.
The Chairman: Who is proposing the amendment?
Senator Roberge: I am.
The Chairman: Senator Forrestall, would you mind reading it?
Senator Forrestall: I would be delighted. I move, on behalf of Senator Roberge, that Bill C-9 be amended on page 12, by adding after line 20 the following:
12.1 (1) A lease referred to in paragraph 12(3)(a), in respect of land within the limits of a port, remains in force on the coming into force of this section.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a lessee may, within six months following the coming into force of this section, apply to the Agency for a determination as to whether the lease is consistent with the objectives set out in section 4 of the Act and whether the rent charged is fair.
(3) The agency shall consider any complaint made by a lessee pursuant to subsection (2) without delay, and the port authority shall comply with any order, decision or direction issued to it by the Agency.
This is to round out the Prince Rupert dilemma, fixed as they are with a lease that cannot be amended and on which they simply sought to reduce the tariff. We have had a general discussion on whether this would mean windfall profits to someone or whether it would be passed along to the institute generally, in the hope that it would help to sustain the competitiveness of western Canadian grains. It is a simple amendment. It just offers relief to a port that has been trying for a number of years to get relief.
It seems to me that, as we remove the capacity of the minister to intervene, we are locking the Port of Prince Rupert into a long-term, unfair situation. We have the opportunity now to correct it. If we do not correct it, it would be akin, as I think I mentioned before, to having had the opportunity to correct the Newfoundland-Quebec contract for hydro power. Not to have seized that opportunity would have been reprehensible. It would be reprehensible for us not to correct a much lesser problem, but nevertheless a vexatious one, that cuts into the Port of Prince Rupert's capacity to remain competitive. That is what it is about. We are a trading nation.
Senator Spivak: I would like to ask the officials here a question. What is there under the letters patent, or anywhere else -- I guess that is what we were talking about previously, but this is more direct -- that would permit the minister to deal with this? What can he do?
Mr. Bowie: Under the letters patent, the minister would be able to put certain conditions on the port's ability to lease, if he wished to do that. But with respect to this specific amendment, the overall objective of the legislation is to allow the ports to operate on a commercial basis so that that they can be efficient and competitive. There are hundreds and thousands of leases that ports engage in right now for the use of their property. If all of those leases were to be subject to an arbitration process, then it would certainly call into question their ability to operate commercially. Specifically, as to your question, certain conditions could be placed, through the letters patent, on the ability of a port to enter into leases.
Senator Spivak: We are talking about leases already in force, not about entering into new leases. This lease is already in force. May I say, we understand that the objective here is to turn what was a public responsibility into a commercial operation. That is not at stake. However, there is also a public interest, and where it is a question of affecting the grain economy of the west, it seems to me that the minister is the only person who can represent that public interest. You have not reassured me that he can do something about a lease that is already in force.
Am I correct in assuming that if something is already in force, he cannot alter that under this legislation?
Mr. Bowie: Yes, that is correct. He would not have the ability under this legislation to overturn commercial leases.
Senator Spivak: You are saying to me that we are rendering the minister powerless to intervene when it is a critical matter -- we are not talking about the hundreds of leases and everything else -- pertaining to a whole regional economy, and we wonder why people are upset. That is all I have to say on the subject.
Senator Bryden: For the same reasons that I discussed on the definition clause, I would not support this amendment. The purpose of this clause really is not to involve the department in commercial arrangements, whether they exist at present or in the future. My view is still the same. It is the same on this, the operative clause, as it was on the definition clause.
Senator Spivak: We all know how these votes will go, but you have not given a reason why you think there must be that strict commercial principle. You would not say that for the Province of Newfoundland, or Atlantic Canada. I do not think you could say to me that it is only commercial, because if it were commercial, we could cut off the entirety of Atlantic Canada and transport them all to Toronto. Come on. This is not real.
What is your answer to how the public interest is to be maintained in areas where a commercial operation obviously has an anomaly that does not work to the betterment of the people in the region? What is your rationale? Let us hear it.
Senator Adams: We worked for more than two weeks on this bill. Why did you never come here to ask the minister the question? Now, at the last minute, when we are studying it clause by clause, you are here. We worked on it. I was here in the committee. You had the chance to ask the question of the minister two weeks or a month ago.
Senator Spivak: I was out in the West with the committee studying the Canadian Wheat Board bill. That is why I was not here. I come from the west and I felt I had to go out there.
This is not a matter of detail. It is a matter of broad philosophy. All I am asking for is your answer to that question, because it runs through the whole bill.
Senator Bryden: What was the question?
Senator Spivak: Forget it. Just forget it. That is not fair. I am a regular attendee.
The Chairman: It was moved by Senator Roberge that clause 12 be amended, as read by Senator Forrestall.
All those in favour? Senators Spivak, Johnson, Buchanan, Roberge and Forrestall.
All those against? Senators Adams, Poulin, Fitzpatrick, Bryden, De Bané and Perrault.
The amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 12 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: It is carried. Shall clause 13 carry?
Senator Forrestall: Do not get carried away. You are moving with an abruptness that is uncharacteristic of you.
The Chairman: I have been very patient so far, Senator Forrestall.
Senator Perrault: Hear, hear!
The Chairman: Shall clause 13 carry? I am following the process of adopting it clause by clause. Is it agreed? Is there discussion on clause 13?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: It is carried.
Shall clause 14 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: Do you have an amendment to clause 14?
[Translation]
Senator Roberge: It is moved that Bill C-9 be amended in clause 14 on page 13 by replacing lines 5 to 9 with the following:
d) the remaining individuals appointed by the elected chairman of a committee of users established by the Minister for the purpose, the members of which committee have been selected and appointed by the Minister to represent the classes of users mentioned in the letters patent.
This is similar to what was discussed earlier in reference to clause 8. The same explanations hold. I expect the same responses from Senator De Bané.
[English]
The Chairman: Is there discussion on the amendment?
Senator Poulin: No.
The Chairman: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Roberge that clause 14 on page 13 be amended by replacing lines five to nine with what Senator Roberge read. I do not think I need read it all over again.
All those in favour? Senators Spivak, Johnson, Roberge, Forrestall and Buchanan.
All those against? Senators Adams, Poulin, Fitzpatrick, Bryden, De Bané and Perrault.
The amendment is lost. Shall clause 14 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: The yeas have it. Do you want to vote on it? I am still on clause 14. Shall clause 14 carry? I will ask again.
All those in favour of clause 14? Senators De Bané, Bryden, Fitzpatrick, Poulin, Adams and Perrault.
All those against? Senators Forrestall, Roberge, Buchanan, Johnson and Spivak.
Clause 14 is carried.
Shall clause 15 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Forrestall: On division.
The Chairman: Did I hear "on division"?
Senator Forrestall: On division.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 16 carry?
Senator Forrestall: I have an amendment. I move that Bill C-9 be amended in clause 16 on page 14 by replacing line 11 with the following:
(c) a member of Parliament or
Senator Perrault: That is a silly amendment.
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on the amendment? Do you want to explain your amendment, Senator Forrestall?
Senator Forrestall: Why would I want to explain it? Have you read it? I direct your attention to clause (c). It says:
a Senator or a member of Parliament ...
Senator Perrault: That is incorrect.
Senator Poulin: It is the same thing.
Senator Forrestall: Yes.
or an officer or employee of the federal public service or of a federal Crown corporation;
Let me remind you what my amendment says:
(c) a member of Parliament or
Do we not have that dignity? It is a minor, little correction.
Senator Perrault: That is a good point.
Senator De Bané: Madam Chairman, I think that my friend's amendment does not reflect what is proposed in the French version of his amendment. If I look at the French version of his amendment, he is suggesting that only members of the House of Commons be covered.
Senator Spivak: It is a wrong translation.
Senator Bryden: The English is the wrong translation?
The Chairman: Could I have order, please? I have the amendment in front of me. We have "member of Parliament" in the English version, and we have "les députés fédéraux" in French. It means a member of the federal Parliament. "Député" means "MP."
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: In the French version, the reference "les sénateurs et les députés fédéraux" is to elected members of Parliament.
[English]
The French version of the law is correct. There is no problem with the French version of the bill.
Senator Spivak: What about the English version?
Senator Forrestall: What would be the proper phrase in French?
Senator Poulin: The proper French is in the legislation: "les sénateurs du Sénat" and "les députés fédéraux" in the House of Commons.
Senator Forrestall: I make my amendment in English. Are members of the Senate not Members of Parliament?
Senator Bryden: I believe it has occurred before that, without amendment, the text in English can render the correct version. What we have here is a translation error on the part of the English translator. I do not know the answer. It looks to be incorrect.
Senator Perrault: To my mind, it is incorrect the way it stands. If we want the bill to pass, we should seek a commitment from the minister that, at the first opportunity, it be amended properly in the other chamber. We have done that many times.
Senator Forrestall: Why can you not do that here and now?
Senator De Bané: I think that is a very reasonable suggestion.
The Chairman: In the bill, what does it say in the French version?
Senator De Bané: Both members of the Senate and the House of Commons are Members of Parliament. We have a Parliament with two houses. The French, I think, is more precise by saying "les sénateurs et les députés fédéraux." In English, I think it should be members of both houses.
Senator Perrault: That is correct. It could also say members of the House of Commons or members of the Senate.
Senator De Bané: I think Senator Perrault's suggestion is a very good one.
Senator Roberge: This bill has not passed yet. Why not modify it and amend it now? Why wait until it is passed and modify it again after? It does not make sense.
Senator De Bané: We are talking here of a housekeeping matter. Every year, a bill is tabled dealing with these routine amendments. It is passed by both houses without debate every year. If you look at the Interpretation Act, it says that you have to look at both versions to understand the intent of the legislature. We are quarrelling about terminology. This is abundantly clear. It would be highly irresponsible to delay the passage of the bill for something like this.
Senator Poulin: I would like to continue in the same vein as my colleague Senator De Bané. One of the languages is correct, and it is tradition that if one of the languages is correct, which is the French in this case, then the other should be, too. It identifies very clearly the members of the upper chamber and the members of the lower chamber. It is very precise. Therefore, it is a question only of language. It is a housekeeping issue. It is a question of making sure that the English will reflect the French. It does not have to go back as an amendment to the other house.
Senator Spivak: On occasion, something like this has been amended in committee. The former legal counsel was here a moment ago. I think it can be fixed.
Senator De Bané: I never thought Senator Spivak would participate in a filibuster.
Senator Spivak: I am not participating in -- are you crazy? Not at all. You can have it done. It does not take any time.
Senator Roberge: We are talking about a housekeeping matter.
Senator De Bané: Senator Perrault has come up with a practical suggestion.
Senator Roberge: There are an awful lot of housekeeping matters that need to be done in this bill.
Senator De Bané: Housekeeping matters are dealt with once a year --
The Chairman: Order, please.
Senator Forrestall: I was going to ask Senator Bryden if he would use his influence and call up the minister to see if we can change it here. You know as well as I know how the house has to deal with that. There is no need for the minister to refer an amendment of this nature to anyone. He accepts it and that is the end of it. If he does not accept it, then he will have to submit the whole process to another round of "look see" and "let us have a chat."
The Chairman: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Forrestall that Bill C-9 by be amended in clause 16, on page 14, by replacing line 11 with the following:
(c) a Member of Parliament or.
All those in favour? Senators Spivak, Johnson, Buchanan, Roberge and Forrestall.
All those against? Senators Adams, Poulin, Fitzpatrick, Senator Bryden, De Bané, Perrault.
The amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 17 to 61 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Forrestall: They can carry on division, with recorded votes for each one of them all the way through to 62, as far as I am concerned. This is stonewalling, and you are going to get it. We are wasting your time, which I know is very valuable --
The Chairman: Shall clause 62 carry --
Senator Forrestall: Madam Chairman, I am suggesting --
The Chairman: Do you have an amendment on clause 62?
Senator Forrestall: Yes, I do. Have we approved on division everything up to clause 62?
The Chairman: Yes, clauses 17 to 61 are carried on division.
Senator Forrestall: This is abominable.
The Chairman: Shall clause 62 carry?
Senator Forrestall: I move that Bill C-9 be amended in clause 62, on page 40
(a) by replacing line 32 with the following:
danger or hazard to life or property;
(b) by replacing line 35 with the following:
under the management of the port authority; and
(i) the measures available to the Minister to assist in cases where port authorities suffer from economic hardship.
The Chairman: Is there discussion on the amendment?
Senator Roberge: This relates to some of the recommendations made by Senator Bryden, whereby it gives the minister the possibility to make some recommendations where certain necessities are needed.
Senator Forrestall: Madam Chairman, I understand that a lot of people in Canada have seen the draft regulations, but this committee has not. It might have helped and facilitated if, with respect to the contentious areas, we could have had an idea of the government's intentions by way of regulations. That may have changed our approach to the bill.
There is no way in this bill for the minister to intervene by way of regulation or any other way. It may well be that regulations will allow him to re-enter and to do many things. We want to give him that authority and that power to do it. We cannot do it without access to the regulations, and so we are forced to try to amend the act in such a way as to allow him to influence or to enter, particularly with respect to dangerous or hazardous matters, and to be all-inclusive under the management of the port.
There will be times when the port cannot, on its own or with the singular help of the municipality or the province, take the steps and implement the measures that the port may need to remedy any one of a thousand situations. This is to give the minister that kind of authority and support. I move this amendment.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Forrestall that Bill C-9 be amended in clause 62 on page 40, as read by Senator Forrestall.
All those in favour? Senators Spivak, Johnson, Buchanan, Roberge, Forrestall.
All those against? Senators Adams, Poulin, Fitzpatrick, Bryden, De Bané, Perrault.
The amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 62 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Forrestall: On division.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 63 to 71 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Forrestall: No. I have an amendment to clause 72.
The Chairman: We are not there yet. Shall clauses 63 to 71 carry?
Senator Forrestall: I am curious. How do you get this grouping? Where do these numbers come from?
The Chairman: I can do it clause by clause, if you like.
Senator De Bané: We are following your amendments.
Senator Forrestall: How do you do that?
Senator Perrault: That is a discretionary matter for the chair.
Senator Poulin: That is her job.
Senator Forrestall: After a while, the fun and games come to an end. We are getting close to the nitty-gritty.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 61 to 71 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Forrestall: On division.
The Chairman: Shall clause 72 carry?
Senator Roberge: I move:
That Bill C-9 be amended on page 46, by adding after line 39 the following:
72.1 The Minister shall take no action under sections 70, 71 and 72 until such time as an economic impact study of the proposed action by the federal government has been completed and the port has been upgraded to commercial standards at the expense of the federal government.
I was flabbergasted to learn that no economic impact study has ever been done. At least, if it has, it has not been brought to our attention by the ministry. Normally, an economic impact study is done prior to a divestiture program.
Senator Forrestall: Senator Bryden suggested that such ports would not be divested until the minister is satisfied that the facilities have been brought to appropriate operating standards for such a port. I want to understand clearly what Senator Bryden intends by the first bullet in his epistle. What is wrong with the term "commercial standard"? Is there any reason why he might not substitute that for appropriate "operating standards"? To whom are they appropriate, and for what purposes?
Senator Bryden: Senator Forrestall, although this bullet looks very brief and very simple, it was not very brief or simple to develop. Indeed, terms like "commercial operating standards" were discussed and used. I do not think I am betraying confidences by saying that there is a concern that a given port might set their commercial standards very high insofar as the infrastructure they would require. That terminology is, quite frankly, very much a compromise. The intention is to give a type of benchmark. What are "appropriate operating standards" for a regional port? It is only a guideline. Indeed, as you know as well as I do, these are all with ministerial discretion, albeit put forward by the minister.
The minister can take your comments into account when he considers his response to this.
Senator Forrestall: We might just as well start talking about it now. With regard to a "commercially acceptable standard" and an "operational standard," for the Port of Halifax, just an operational standard requires about six new cranes capable of handling Post-Panamax vessels. These cost upwards of $30 million to $40 million each. There is $125 million in the divestiture fund, and we have this vagueness about "appropriate operating standards" as opposed to the understandable "commercial operating standards." Commercial operating standards for the Port of Halifax vis-à-vis container movements well into the next century must be based on Post-Panamax. It must be based on an enormous amount of investment. That would absorb the $125 million a couple of times over, leaving nothing for anyone else. At the same time, it leaves absolutely nothing for the Port of Halifax.
We are in the same dilemma as the airports were. You heard me speak on this before. The ambition of privatizing airports has dried up, because the federal government, in its wisdom, and quite understandably given the pressures it has been under for the last several years, has cut back to try to address our major problem. The ambition dried up simply because the federal government will not put forward the funds to bring the airports up to acceptable operational standards. They need new runways, terminals, towers, navigational aids, and so on. The same is true with the ports. If you do not bring them up to commercially operational standards, no one will take them. For you cannot go to the bank and borrow the money. You just simply cannot do it. The minister literally abandoned the improvement of the airports.
If we had the regulations and could see some way for the minister to intervene, I would be a very happy camper. However, I do not see it and I do not see it in the vagueness of your note. Had you said "commercial standards," I might have thought you were serious about this.
Senator Bryden: Please do not attempt to have this do more than it is intended to do. This does not address Canada port authorities, and Halifax is a Canada port authority. Canada port authorities have no access to the $125-million divestiture fund. This is designed to be directed toward local and regional ports, wherever it applies. It does two things, which at least are on the record clearly if the minister responds to this, as I believe he is prepared to do. It says concisely, and in a way that he can directly address, that if the $125-million divestiture fund is not sufficient, he is prepared to apply for necessary additional funding.
There is something further that I did not realize was included in his response, until he and his officials indicated it. He said that if further funding for projects is deemed necessary for the future operational success of the port, the minister is in a position to provide that. That is the third bullet.
Senator Forrestall, this does not apply to the Canada port authorities. In all honesty, I did not know how to specifically address the Port of Halifax. It may be unfair of me, however, I believe that ports such as Vancouver and Toronto can look after themselves. They received a huge amount of attention and consultation when this bill was being developed.
With a third level down, not in the bill or the regulations, we can come as close as we can come to a ministerial directive that says that we are prepared to do this.
There are those who would love to have this bill back in the House of Commons on some basis. Those people are not necessarily of the persuasion of the parties that are sitting in this room. We have had evidence from major players that they would like to see the bill completed so that they could get on with it. It has been there for four years. Most of us recognize this.
This is a very simple, and maybe not very effective, attempt to cover off one of the areas in the bill that many of us believe did not get as much examination as other aspects. Passing this proposed legislation to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would allow that party to do everything they can to bury it. I hesitate to make partisan comments, Madam Chairman, however, that is a very significant concern.
Senator Spivak: Did they vote against it in the House of Commons?
Senator Bryden: I do not know the answer to that.
Senator Spivak: How do we know that they would bury the bill if we do not know if they voted against it in the House of Commons?
Senator Bryden: I do not know. However, it puts the legislation back in play and puts it at risk. We have been involved in this process for four years and we are trying to cover as best we can those areas that it is possible to cover.
The Chairman: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Roberge that Bill C-9 be amended on page 46 by adding, after line 39, the words as read by Senator Roberge.
All those in favour: Senator Spivak, Senator Johnson, Senator Buchanan, Senator Roberge, Senator Forrestall.
All those against: Senators Adams, Senator Poulin, Senator Fitzpatrick, Senator Bryden, Senator De Bané and Senator Perrault.
In my opinion, the amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 72 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Senator Forrestall: On division.
The Chairman: Carried, on division.
Shall clauses 73 to 139 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chairman: Shall clause 140 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We have an amendment by Senator Forrestall.
Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, I move that Bill C-9 be amended in clause 140 on page 82 by replacing line 6 with the following:
140. (1) The Minister, after consulting with each municipality and province to be affected, may enter into.
We are trying to broaden the stroke of consultation. We have proceeded with this bill without requiring economic or environmental impact assessments. We are proceeding with this bill without the vaguest idea or notion in the world where 75 per cent of the significant ports of Canada will find the wherewithal to bring their ports up to acceptable commercial standards. I have spoken on the subject of the Port of Halifax. Where will they get the money to build the facilities, reclaim the land, buy the trains and maintain the business.
We believe there has not been the level of consultation. We notice, for example, that very few of the people who appeared before us, who let us have their views, were afforded such an opportunity in the House of Commons. Rather, the appointees of the minister appeared.
We always need the fullest consultation. You see the difficulty we are having in Toronto. We know the difficulties in Oshawa. We have heard about the impasses all over the country, the conflicts between port authorities and the municipalities. In another five minutes, we will not have an obligation to these people whatsoever. It will be taken away from us, unless we want to reintroduce it.
We are trying to suggest that the minister, through this bill, proceed only with consultation and transparency, words that members of the present government were so wont to use and did use very freely and frequently. There is no transparency in this bill at all. Everything is hidden or removed.
This is not a major amendment, but it assures the municipalities who will suffer when there is a withdrawal of grants in lieu of taxes or a withdrawal of other subsidies.
The staff seem to think this is funny; I do not. They can sit there and chuckle away until the cows come home, as far as I am concerned. It is vitally important that the municipalities on the Miramichi know where they will obtain the significant contributions to their municipal coffers that are derived from the port and its activity, directly and indirectly. Where will they find the money?
The ports of Pugwash, Nanaimo, Prince Rupert and every port in Canada, except for those half-dozen large ports with massive cash flows, will be adversely affected. We have a chance to allow the minister to re-enter, to let the municipalities provide a door that they can go through in terms of communications with respect to the implications of the bill.
We are providing the operators and users of our ports with a bill that removes government from it altogether. That will not be wise. It is too much, too quickly. There is too much uncertainty. The big ports will survive, I am sure, and the smaller once will go under. There is no room to consult.
Senator De Bané: I wish to remind Senator Forrestall that clause 140 deals solely with authorizing the minister to enter into agreements for one purpose, and one purpose only: the continuation of ferry services provided by Marine Atlantic Incorporated.
Senator Forrestall: That is what I am talking about.
Senator De Bané: Clause 140 states that the minister may enter into an agreement "ensuring the continuation of services." It is to ensure the continuation of services, but it will be done in a modern, cost-effective way. For someone who has an interest in Atlantic Canada, you want to give the minister the means to ensure the continuation of ferry services. For that reason, I recommend that this amendment be defeated.
Senator Forrestall: Souris, in Prince Edward Island, is a good example. There is no way for the minister to consult with the municipality. He is at arm's length. It is entirely conceivable that the Port of Souris will cease to exist as such and a Prince Edward Island port authority -- we used to call them local port authorities -- will cover all four ports on the island. There is no mechanism; there is no control. A board could move the ferry from Souris to Georgetown, and there is no way to intervene. There is no way to make your views known to the minister. There is no door. I suggest that without the door, there will be a lot of unhappy campers.
The Chairman: Is there any further discussion?
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Forest that Bill C-9 be amended in clause 140 on page 82 by replacing line 6 with what was just read.
All those in favour of the amendment? Senators Buchanan, Forrestall, and Roberge.
All those opposed to the amendment? Senators Adams, Poulin, Fitzpatrick, Bryden, De Bané and Perrault.
I declare the amendment defeated.
Shall clause 140 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: Carried, on division.
Shall clauses 141 to 204 carry?
Senator Forrestall: On division.
The Chairman: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 205 carry?
Senator Spivak: Honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-9 be amended in clause 205, on page 101, by adding the following after line 17:
(3) Sections 47, 73 and 101 shall not come into force until regulations have been made under paragraphs 59(j) and (k) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
I have a question for the officials.
Mr. Bowie, in your testimony of Thursday, May 7, you said:
We are looking to the CEAA regulations to address that issue --
-- the application of the triggers <#0107>
-- but if they are not ready in time -- and the department recognizes that they may not be ready in time -- we have a second safeguard in that the NWPA stays until other regulations pursuant to this legislation are put in place. It is covered in two ways.
I said:
Are you saying that the Navigable Waters Protection Act will stay in place until new regulations?
You said:
Absolutely.
I made a big mistake there. I should have asked you whether they will stay in place until the CEAA regulations are in place. That is my question. Will the Navigable Waters Protection Act stay in place until the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency makes the regulations, not Department of Transport? What is your answer?
Mr. Bowie: In terms of regulations and the regulatory process, it is not the agency or the Department of Transport. Regulations are in fact made by the Governor in Council, and they are put forward by a particular minister.
To answer your specific question, we must recognize that the Navigable Waters Protection Act really has two parts. One part is to protect navigation, and the other part is the environmental trigger. To accept an amendment that would not allow navigation to be protected until environmental protection is triggered by the CEAA would put at risk the port's ability to protect navigation in a harbour, which is the primary purpose of the NWPA.
Right now, ports are responsible for navigation in a harbour. They are excluded from certain actions under the NWPA. The Seaway is in the same situation. They have the expertise, through their harbour masters and operational personnel, to ensure by their own regulations that navigation is protected within those limits. The difficulty with that amendment is that it precludes the minister from being able to develop regulations that will allow the ports to protect navigation within their harbour.
Senator Spivak: On May 7, you said to me, "Absolutely." Are you now saying that was not correct?
Mr. Bowie: No, that is correct. The NWPA, to the extent that it applies right now, would continue to apply until regulations are put in place. That is what we said.
Senator Spivak: Which regulations? That is the question.
Mr. Bowie: The regulations under clause 62.
Senator Spivak: These regulations will be of the same force as the trigger, as the Navigable Waters Protection Act is now. That is the key. We do not want regulations that will diminish the trigger. We want regulations that will maintain it, otherwise a lot of organizations will be upset.
Mr. Bowie: Under clause 62, use and environmental protection is one of the areas that would be subject to regulation. That is on page 40.
Senator Spivak: When you look, for example, at regulations in clause 98, they state:
(1) The Governor in Council may make regulations for the management...
(b) the use and environmental protection of the Seaway.
It says nothing about environmental assessment.
On page 40, clause 62 of the bill, it is the same thing. It merely states "the use and environmental protection of a port..." and says nothing about environmental assessment.
Mr. Bowie: "Environmental protection" is a broad term that encompasses assessment, navigation matters, et cetera.
Senator Spivak: Are you prepared to give your legal opinion that the terms here include environmental assessment? I am sure that you are not prepared to do that. Do you have a legal opinion?
Mr. Bowie: I cannot give you a legal opinion. I am not a lawyer.
Senator Spivak: I thought you were a lawyer. You mean to say that you are dealing with environmental assessment and that you are not a lawyer? These are legal terms.
Is there someone here who is a lawyer?
Mr. Barrie LePitre, General Counsel, Legal Services, Transport Canada: Yes, I am a lawyer with the legal services unit of Transport Canada.
Senator Spivak: Are you prepared to give me a legal opinion on clause 62(1)(b) relating to the use and environmental protection of a port, and on the fact that it says nothing about environmental assessment?
Mr. LePitre: It would not be appropriate for me to provide you with a legal opinion. However, I can indicate to you that the legislation generally speaks in terms of enabling powers for regulations in respect of navigation, and use by ships of navigable waters. At the moment, we are talking about the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and we are also talking about the environmental assessment aspects of navigational matters. The enabling authority here is quite broad in terms of navigation generally, including the environmental aspects of navigation.
Senator Spivak: Right, but I am not addressing navigation. I leave that to other people. I am addressing the triggers under the Environmental Assessment Act. I know the regulations are being developed. I believe that, in your testimony, you said that if they are not ready in time, you have a second safeguard; that is, the Navigable Waters Protection Act stays until other regulations are in place.
I am very puzzled about this. Is it correct that the status quo, whatever that may be, stays in place until the regulations are developed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency? If there is a hiatus and then there are other regulations, we have no assurance that those regulations will perform the same function.
This matter is an unintended consequence of this legislation. It is a very important area. The whole question of triggers and the diminishing of the regulations is of great concern.
Mr. Bowie: If I could explain the current situation --
Senator Spivak: -- The reason being the universal application.
Senator De Bané: Let him talk. If you want to talk for two hours, I will go for dinner and come back. Will you let them answer or not?
Senator Spivak: Yes, I will.
Senator De Bané: I see you are filibustering. You can continue, but give them an opportunity to answer. You have repeated the same question 100 times. When will you let them answer your question?
Senator Spivak: Senator De Bané, I think you are impugning my motives as a senator.
Senator De Bané: I do not need to look at your motivations. You have asked the same question 100 times. How often do you want to repeat it?
Senator Spivak: That is my privilege. I am not repeating the same question, I am looking at a very specific point here.
Senator Johnson: It is a very important point.
Senator De Bané: Please re-emphasize it again.
Senator Spivak: I believe that, in all the time I have been in the Senate, nobody has ever accused me of filibustering. If I were to filibuster, maybe it will be until 8:20. That hardly constitutes a filibuster. I do not think your outburst is appropriate. I have never done this to any other senator who wishes to question a witness. This is an important point and I would like to pursue it.
I wished to make sure that my meaning was clear, because it is an abstract legal point. I am not a lawyer either, so I wanted to make sure that you understood my question as I explained it. Perhaps I did not explain it properly.
Mr. Bowie: It is very clear that although local port corporations at the present time, and Canada port authorities in the future, are subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, we both know that there are no regulations in place. It is a top government priority to ensure that, for the new Canada port authorities, this process is followed through. Whether it is guidelines or regulations, we must ensure that the issue of environmental assessment is addressed for these Canada port authorities and that it is continued in the legislation.
At the present time, in the absence of those regulations, local port corporations are currently excluded from the Navigable Waters Protection Act because of their legislation. They have developed voluntary processes to address the environmental assessment issue in the ports that they are operating right now. This type of process has been put in place at the Port of Vancouver, where they have had very detailed hearings with respect to the projects that they undertake. They do assessments on a regular basis for these projects. I am saying that we have the ability, within this legislation, through regulations, to put a little bit more substance around those voluntary processes. It is not intended to replace the CEAA, but if the CEAA is not successful in addressing those issues by the time the bill is in place, we have the regulatory authority to strengthen the internal processes that are in place and to ensure that any entities that are currently subject to the NWPA would continue to be subject to the NWPA, such as harbour commissions.
Senator Spivak: Can you tell me how that process will work? When the CEAA regulations are finished, will they replace the temporary regulations?
Mr. Bowie: If there was a need to develop temporary regulations because the CEAA was not in place, yes. The CEAA's regulations would override all other regulations, in terms of environmental assessment.
Senator Spivak: That is not addressed in these. It is to clarify the letter. Do you think that this could be addressed by the minister reassuring us? That would help clarify the situation if we knew, definitively, that the CEAA's regulations would indeed be the paramount regulations, and not the Department of Transport regulations. That is the point I wish to make.
You are looking at two aspects of the act. I understand what you are saying about the navigable waters -- I am not touching that. I am talking about whether they will be as strong as the trigger. That is the point I am asking, and it is a difficult point to get across. Do you think the minister could give us that assurance?
Mr. Bowie: I cannot speak on behalf of the minister, but I can certainly take that issue back to him.
Senator Forrestall: I wonder if I could ask the department officials to shed some light on the timing of regulations. When are we likely to see them? What is the status of the regulations under this act?
Mr. Bowie: A preliminary draft has been developed. We are currently in discussions with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the port community and harbour masters.
Senator Forrestall: With all of the port community, or just some of it?
Mr. Bowie: We have asked the port community to nominate a number of individuals to form a working group to work with us on the regulations. All of the ports have identified who they want to be a part of that working group. It is mainly harbour masters, who deal with these kinds of issues on a daily basis, who will work with us on developing the regulations to ensure that they address the objectives of the legislation. We are also working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as a part of that working group.
Senator Forrestall: Without asking you to disclose any of the details, do any of the regulations that you have been involved with deal with the financial aspects of this bill or the consequences of it?
Mr. Bowie: Two types of regulations are being established for port authorities. One relates to operational regulations that deal with navigation and environmental issues and that sort of thing. There are also a number of financial types of regulations. There are various clauses in the bill that address that; it is a separate initiative under way right now. At this point, we are talking at Canada Port Authorities, where financial regulations are being developed, as well.
Senator Forrestall: Have you called upon the ports for consultant services, with respect to the development of regulations as they might pertain to the financial aspects? Have you called on them for contributions, as you have, perhaps, in the operational regulations dealing with the day-to-day operations and the conduct of activity in the ports? Have you asked for outside help in that area?
Mr. Bowie: Yes, an initial draft has been distributed to ports and central agencies that have an interest in the financial regulations as well.
Senator Forrestall: Madam Chairman, we were told by a group from British Columbia that they, indeed, were looking at the regulations and had seen them. Then you remember at one point, and I apologize here, I believe I said to you that I must have misheard, the regulations are obviously not drafted or ready yet. That is not the case, is it? We have heard now that the first draft of the regulations are done.
The first draft of the regulations affecting the financial aspects of this bill has been drafted and distributed. I feel that I have been somewhat misled, and I would like some kind of an explanation. I am not asking the very distinguished witnesses who are here trying to help us, but I want some kind of an explanation. I wish we could all know what the status of these regulations is. I asked for them and the clerk told me he could not get them. I thought that they did not exist. I think Senator Bryden may recall my saying that it is perhaps a figment of my imagination. We do not know what is in the regulations, and yet the regulations are out there circulating.
Senator Perrault: The ideas concerning them are being circulated, but not the definitive, final regulations.
Senator Forrestall: You are quite right, Senator Perrault, but the intent of the regulations is clear. I do not know quite how to handle this. There is something wrong. I think the committee has been misled.
Mr. Bowie: I want to clarify that these are certainly in the very preliminary stages of development. As I mentioned, they had just gone out to the practitioners. They have not had input from the practitioners, and they are therefore in a very preliminary state of development. It would be very difficult at that stage to have broad consultation without the input of the practitioners on these regulations.
The Chairman: Is there any further discussion?
It was moved by Senator Spivak that Bill C-9 be amended on clause 205, on page 101, after line 17, as read by Senator Spivak.
All those in favour? Senators Spivak, Johnson, Buchanan, Roberge and Forrestall.
All those against? Senators Adams, Poulin, Fitzpatrick, Bryden, De Bané and Perrault.
The amendment is defeated.
We apparently have another amendment being proposed regarding clause 205.
Senator Bryden: Madam Chairman, I take it, having done this, that the department is at least going to have the minister consider whether some assurance can be given in the terms.
Senator Spivak: Can I underline, and perhaps this is for future discussion, that I would appreciate having it in a letter.
The point is that Bill C-9 retains what is here until the new CEAA regulations are in place. That might not be possible, and there might be a way to go around it, but that is the essential point. We can discuss this later, or I could write my own letter. It is up to you.
Senator Bryden: Having worded it as clearly as you have, I am confident that the department will be able to brief the minister and see if this is a way to give at least some level of assurance -- if not what you are asking, then at least something.
Senator Spivak: It is not a difficult thing to do. It is a difficult point to get through. It is one thing for the ports to do their own thing. That is not at issue at all. It is the trigger that comes in place when the federal authority is involved. You do not want that to be weakened. That is the point.
The Chairman: Senator Forrestall, do you wish to amend clause 205?
Senator Johnson: I will read the amendment. I move that Bill C-9 be amended in clause 205, on page 101:
(a) by adding the following after line 9:
(2) Part 2 of this Act shall not come into force earlier than the day that is four weeks after the day that a report on its financial impact is presented to the Senate by the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications; and
(b) by renumbering subsection (2) as subsection (3).
It is the intent of this amendment that we look at the financial ramifications of this bill prior to its coming into effect, according to this bill, in January, 1999. We would rather that we had the opportunity to study this further, and that four weeks after that time, we could then revise the final date for the bringing into force of the bill, which, of course, at this time, is coming into force on January 1, 1999. I believe Senator Forrestall has another comment on this.
Senator Forrestall: We have moved this amendment perhaps because of the difficulty we have had with the bill. I think, in the course of our deliberations -- and the chairman or the clerk can correct me -- we had one port whose representatives had done a fair amount of homework and had prepared a very coherent and clear economic-impact study. None of the other ports had done that. The Port of Halifax has not had an economic-impact study done on the effect of this bill. To pass this bill without that study, without that information, seems to me to be wrong in some way. We would be allowing the ports to go running off helter-skelter, with no direction other than the direction they are able to give themselves, and no one knows what will happen to the very significant investment the taxpayers of Canada have in these ports. The Port of Halifax alone has capital replacement costs that stagger the imagination. Try to reproduce that with the Port of Vancouver, the Port of Toronto. We know that in the Port of Toronto, just with surplus lands, we are looking at between $1 billion and $2 billion worth of real estate, depending on whose view you are hearing.
The port on the Miramichi, Senator Bryden, has not conducted an economic-impact study. The regional municipality there has a financial structure in place based upon revenues, real and anticipated, from the port. If that changes, what happens to the ports of Miramichi? No economic-impact study has been done, either by the ports there or by the federal authority. I do not think the province has done anything, but I would stand to be corrected. Certainly, we have not heard from them.
By this amendment, we are trying to make sure that there is an open and transparent process, and a continuing awareness of the impact on these areas of any significant change in federal contribution. It is not there now. We believe that the bill should not be proclaimed until such time as there is a full economic-impact study done with respect to all of these ports. Many of them will not need one. A lot of ports up for divestiture have comfortable resting places to go home to.
Bayside is well along in negotiations with the department with respect to the future of the port there. However, by and large, this is just simply not true.
The taxpayers' investment in these lands is a very real investment, and it is huge. It is gigantic. We do nothing to protect it. We do nothing to ensure transparency. We do nothing to protect against potential abuse. The abuse is there. We have heard it from more than one witness in front of us recently. The fear is that someone goes in -- the devil -- and develops the port not for the shipment of goods, but rather to develop the port and the land into condominiums, commercial and retail outlets and other non-port or port-related activities, and reap the benefit.
Consider the Port of Toronto. I would draw it to anyone's attention who wants to know the magnitude of this problem. Look at the discourse, the dialogue and the debate that is going on with respect to the Toronto Harbour Commission. The City of Toronto, the Government of Ontario, and the poor feds are caught in the middle here in Ottawa.
I do not want senators to treat it lightly. There is no accounting procedure. There is no transparency. It is to be regretted. I am glad that we on this side do regret it.
I wish that Senator Bryden, in his letter, could indicate to the minister the seriousness of the need for economic-impact studies. I would throw in as well the whole question of other studies that should be done, such as environmental assessment, but we will get to it eventually.
Senator Johnson: I agree with my colleague, of course, but one of the other reasons for being adamant about this particular clause is that up to 600 small harbours and ports around Canada are just beginning to phone around to find out what is happening. I have had several calls myself from people on the Prairies. In terms of the financial impact, no one has any idea what will happen.
In your observations and recommendations, Madam Chairman, you say that if the $125-million port divestiture fund is not sufficient to facilitate the transfer of such ports, the minister will seek necessary, additional funding. I am wondering if we can flag that, especially when it comes to the smaller ports where the communities near these ports will be seriously compromised. Does that observation tie in to what we are talking about here, that you will talk about and insist upon some kind of economic and environment assessment, of course, but also that the impact of this change will be monitored carefully? Will you reiterate that in your remarks, and add environmental to your observation? Is that possible?
The Chairman: We will deal with the observations once we finish dealing with the clause-by-clause examination. You can come back with the observations.
Senator De Bané: Senator Forrestall's amendment obviously defeats the whole purpose of Part 2 of the bill. Part 2 essentially enables the minister to continue the direct operation of public ports. By stating in his amendment that Part 2 will not come into force unless such and such happens, he is preventing the whole purpose of that section, which is to allow the minister to continue the operation of those ports.
You have heard the minister himself say that the fund of $125 million will serve, among other things, to do feasibility studies for the different ports that might have a different regime. All that has been taken care of.
For the reason that this amendment would defeat the whole purpose of Part 2, I recommend that it be rejected.
The Chairman: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Johnson that Bill C-9 be amended in clause 205 on page 101 by what Senator Johnson has read into the record earlier.
All those in favour? Senators Spivak, Johnson, Buchanan, Roberge and Forrestall.
All those against? Senators Adams, Poulin, Fitzpatrick, Bryden, De Bané and Perrault.
The amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 205 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chairman: It is carried on division.
Clause 1 was stood. Shall clause 1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chairman: It is carried on division.
Shall the preamble carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chairman: It is carried on division.
Is it agreed that this bill be adopted?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chairman: It is carried on division.
Is it agreed that we report this bill with observations?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Forrestall: Madam Chairman, the amendments have been defeated. It is the intention of senators on this side of the table at third reading to present a minority report setting out our views and setting out the potential detrimental effect of the bill on the ports in Canada, especially the small ports, which are the lifeblood of so many small Canadian communities on our coasts north, east, and west, as well as on our many inland waterways.
Having said that, your statement is fine. Do you want a discussion about it?
The Chairman: Regarding the observations, Senator Bryden wished to add something after the third paragraph.
Senator Bryden: I believe it regards support from government.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It is agreed that I report this bill with observations to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.