TRAN Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 4, 1997

• 1533

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Good afternoon, and welcome to our second meeting on Bill C-9.

Committee members, you had decided that we would have a session with the department, which we have done, and that we would have another meeting, which we are here for today, to start identifying possible amendments.

It may be a bit difficult to run the meeting in an orderly fashion, because I want to allow you some latitude. I'll make an attempt at doing this very casually, hoping that you will identify the areas of concern to you, share them with the others, and hopefully come to agreements.

We will meet in two weeks. Therefore, you have two weeks to continue the exchange that we will engage in today. Hopefully when we meet on November 18 we can go clause by clause, and complete it.

Unless there is disagreement by the majority of the committee members, on November 18 we will plan to order some food. I doubt that we are going to do this in an hour and a half—

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Sure, we'll do it in an hour.

The Chairman: In case we don't, we will plan for some food.

I'll now open the floor. You made the decision that we would have this session. It's a good time to explain what your intent was, and what you want to identify.

Mr. Keyes.

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

As the chairman has already enunciated, the reason we are here today is to share some ideas—to show each other's hand, as it were, on some of the amendments that may be prepared.

If he hasn't already done so, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the clerk could distribute a number of the government amendments that are going to be presented two weeks from today at clause-by-clause.

• 1535

I have managed to retrieve as many of the amendments as I could that are complete and that have gone through legal and have gone through the interpretation of whatever it is we want to do that has to be transmitted entirely throughout the bill and reflected in each and every clause, if particular clauses need to be adjusted with the amendment. You have them in front of you now, in both official languages.

Most of them, as indicated by the minister in the beginning and the officials who followed, are technical and consequential in nature. I would invite all members to have a look at these amendments, and if there are any questions, they can certainly be discussed.

I also look forward to any amendments the members opposite might want to share with us, so that we can take their amendments, along with their reasoning or explanation, back to the department, and maybe find some ground to make Bill C-9 a better bill. Of course if the amendment isn't satisfactory to government, then we will vote on those two weeks from today.

I thank my colleagues for this exchange. Hopefully we can do some work here today just to see what each other is doing, so that we can proceed smoothly, or more smoothly, two weeks from today.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Everyone has a copy of the government document?

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, before we get into the bill, and looking at that itself, there are a number of items that have crossed the standing members' desks. There are some questions I think we should get out of the way first, as a matter of clarification, if that would be all right.

I noticed coming across my desk, and yours as well, a request from the Windsor Harbour Commission for an exclusion. In it they give their reason. Would it be proper for this committee to have the details as to Hamilton's reasoning for not being included? Could we have the same as Windsor provided? We don't have any reason why Hamilton has been excluded from this bill. I think it would be very helpful to the committee to have that, if that's possible.

The Chairman: Researchers? We can get this from the parliamentary secretary?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can assist the member. A great deal of discussion occurred prior to the make-up of the former Bill C-44, the exact duplicate of Bill C-9. At the time, Hamilton's wasn't so much an exclusion as it was not an inclusion on the list to become a Canadian Port Authority. At the time of the debates, and in the information that we were given, the Hamilton Harbour Commission decided as a commission that it wanted to pursue commission status. At the time they were not put on the Canadian Port Authority list to be included as a CPA, but when we come together as a committee coming up to clause-by-clause discussions, we'll have to see what the rest of these amendments will look like when we come together two weeks from today.

The idea of bringing forward more witnesses again I think was a matter already resolved by the steering and then the full committee. To open up that can of worms would be a... I can just see a huge ball of string starting to unravel right across the floor, and we'd end up doing eight months of committee work, travelling the country again, visiting ports and pilotage authorities, etc., who have told us in no uncertain terms that “If you show up again—please, don't”.

We've gone through this bill. We spent two and a half years putting it together. The consensus that was reached, the trade-offs that were made, the “I'll do this and you do that” negotiating that took place—that's behind us now and we have to march on.

• 1540

The Chairman: I want to intervene at this point because we have 90 minutes and there is a vote tonight, I understand.

The purpose of our being here is to identify areas of concern, and you likely did so. I hope we won't spend 90 minutes suggesting that we should reopen or not. If we need to debate that, we'll do it at another time. Today, in all fairness to all members, I think we should identify the possible amendments. I am sure that when we narrow it down and get some out of the way, there will be some that are contentious. At that point we will be able to identify them and we'll deal with them. Today I hope we will spend our time identifying the possible amendments. That's the purpose of this meeting.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I want to add one more thing to your comments. I want to thank Mr. Bailey for mentioning Windsor and the Windsor letter, because that particular file is being actively looked at and will be looked at over the course of the next two weeks before we come together again for clause-by-clause.

Mr. Roy Bailey: My intention is not to get into debate, Mr. Chairman, but if you are going to look at exclusions and inclusions and you don't know the past, how are you going to know the future? That was the reason I asked the question.

I just have one more question.

The Chairman: Briefly.

Mr. Roy Bailey: We don't have a policy yet, but there are a lot of questions about pensions and benefits as they go from one port authority to another. My big question concerns the movement of nuclear waste. If a railway carries it, does it come under the Department of Transport, or is it an environmental issue? Where do we get at this to ask that question?

The Chairman: I think you need to identify which clause deals with that and share it with all parties. Otherwise, we won't be moving in on any clauses. So I would prefer that you identify the clause of concern and share with your colleagues your intention to amend it.

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): With respect to the harbour commissions, unless advised otherwise for good reason by Mr. Keyes or others, we will be proposing an amendment that will allow all of the harbour commissions to come in as port authorities only on the basis of application, rather than having it decided for them. That's something we could perhaps discuss at another time.

The other question I wanted to raise—and I guess Roy and I are walking on each other's feet here—was there has been so much correspondence and some personal presentations with respect to this public service superannuation. That's a very big issue out there among employees. Is there anything in this document you just passed out that addresses that?

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, there isn't any reference to the superannuation or the continuation of it. The government has always taken the position that when an organization is commercialized or divested or sold, continued participation under the Public Service Superannuation Act is not an option. In fact, the divesting of the organization has required or encouraged new employers to establish new pension arrangements or agreements appropriate for their particular workforce. For the economic environment within which the new organization will operate, they will be charged with forming their own.

Mr. Lee Morrison: With bigger organizations like the Vancouver Port Corporation, that's not a problem for the workers, although it might be a problem for the port authority. But in smaller institutions where you have public service employees, they may be hung out to dry if there is nothing in the act to protect them. They don't have successor rights and they don't have a multi-million-dollar corporation that is going to take them over. I think it behoves us to pay attention to the well-being of those people, some of whom have paid into superannuation for 15 or 20 years.

• 1545

Mr. Stan Keyes: I look forward to seeing his amendment on that, sure.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Are you looking forward to an amendment from us, or you are...?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Like I say.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Okay.

The Chairman: Keep in mind that it could mean renegotiating the future programs for all of these partitioned employee groups, an impossible job for one negotiator. We'll come back to that.

Mr. Fontana, on this issue only, for half a minute.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think Lee has raised an important... I will defer to Mr. Guimond. Mine can wait.

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond is next.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): It will be in the same view as you, Joe.

Mr. Joe Fontana: How do you know that?

Mr. Michel Guimond: I can read your mind.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I must have imagined that Mr. Fontana arrived after me and that I had asked to speak.

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond, he wanted to make a clarification. That's all.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm speaking for roughly the same reason. In answering Mr. Morrison, the Parliamentary Secretary used three terms. He said:

[English]

“...when an organization is commercialized or divested or sold...”.

[Translation]

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us exactly into what class the ports fall. I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that, unlike NAV CANADA and the airports, the Canadian port authorities are still Crown corporations.

On this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to announce that our party will move amendments to this bill so that employees can continue to be members of the Canadian government retirement pension plan because, in my view, their case does not fall into any one of these three classes.

They are being removed through amendments to the bill, but that doesn't mean we can treat them in the same way as airport and NAV CANADA employees. Their situation is not quite the same.

Independent corporations or independent regional corporations are not being created as in the case of the airports. The ports still belong to the Crown. So port employees should continue to be members of the Canadian government employees pension plan.

[English]

The Chairman: Before we go on, I just want to state that we are not talking about existing clauses that we wish to amend. We're talking about adding new clauses. Is that correct? Is there a clause in here that refers to superannuation?

Mr. Joe Fontana: There may be.

The Chairman: Is there one?

Mr. Joe Fontana: No, there isn't.

The Chairman: We are here today to deal with existing clauses, but you can identify if you want to add new clauses. If you say no, that's fine. We can deal with this issue and be here at Christmas 2004.

Today I was hoping we could look at the bill that has been assigned to us by the House to see if we can improve on it. You can identify if you wish to add new clauses. What we are trying to do now is modify... If there are amendments on this bill, let's try to agree on this and then we can start adding. If we start adding now, we won't deal with the possibility of co-ordinating our amendments and we won't deal with the bill, that's for sure.

Mr. Guimond still has the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I believe that here we can... It seems to me the meeting this afternoon is more of a session for clearing the terrain so that we can, as it were, show our respective colours before the clause-by- clause consideration on November 18. By then, each of us will have been able to do his checks so that the exercise is much more productive.

I believe it is also important today to clearly state our points of disagreement and to see whether the party in power could move in the direction of the amendments we are suggesting so that we can be more productive.

• 1550

Consequently, I'm saying it would be good for the government to reflect on the pension fund issue. I have tried to provide arguments to assist in that reflection.

The Chairman: All right. The researchers are taking note of your comments and all committee members are aware of the importance of the issues. The only thing I wanted to avoid today was holding a major debate on new clauses. But if that's what you want, that's what we'll do.

[English]

Mr. Bryden, Ms. Desjarlais, Ms. Parrish and Mr. Fontana.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was sent over by the whip, so I presume I have standing at the committee. I'll just put in my 25 cents' worth.

There are two clauses in the bill that do concern me. I have some familiarity with the previous version of the bill in the last session of Parliament, and I would like to submit them for the government's reconsideration. Those provisions are subparagraph 8(2)(f)(ii) and the related paragraph 14(1)(b). These two provisions assign the individuals to the boards of directors as determined by the letters patent.

The existing clause says “one individual appointed by the municipalities mentioned in the letters patent”. I propose that it be changed to read “one individual appointed by each of the municipalities mentioned in the letters patent”.

I did get a legal opinion on this when I brought it up in the last session of Parliament. It is a nice bit of tidying up. It does give the minister the option of adding more members from municipalities to the boards of directors subject to the municipalities he chooses to name in the letters patent. So I do believe it does work.

Second, on the matter of the Hamilton Harbour Commission's exclusion from the bill, I suggest we seek a written explanation from the Department of Transport officials and the drafters of this bill on the rationale behind this exclusion and whether that rationale still holds sway after the many months since the bill was deferred. If we get that written explanation I'm sure the committee, even in my absence, can come to a good judgment with respect to this amendment.

The Chairman: I'll make a request of the parliamentary secretary. Is that a problem? Do you wish us to direct it to the department directly?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, it may be a futile cause if the honourable member puts forward an amendment himself. Anyone is welcome to put forward an amendment to this—

The Chairman: Let's be clear now. You must be replacing someone because you're not on the list. Do I see you as a member of this committee here today?

Mr. John Bryden: I was assigned by the whip to replace John Cannis.

The Chairman: Therefore you are a full participant. No amendments will be presented today. Today we are identifying areas of concern where we want amendments to be presented later.

Mr. John Bryden: This is an area of concern for me, but I wouldn't want to rush into it. Whether I'm here or not, I would find it helpful to have an explanation from the bureaucrats. Bureaucrats prepared this bill. Is this an amendment they felt was compelling? Is it something they supported and wish to put forward?

Mr. Stan Keyes: May I respond, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: If you wish.

Mr. Stan Keyes: The bureaucrats responded to our construction of the bill the first time. This committee constructed this bill, not any bureaucrats. Second, I promise to undertake to respond to the honourable member and his request on an explanation as to what transpired.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): I want to reinforce the fact that I am concerned about the superannuation issue and the pension plans for employees. I am concerned not just about those going over to port authorities, but also about cases where ports were sold and employees 20 years or more into their working lives were left out on the fence. We've already seen the case of Churchill, so I will give you a perfect example of something that didn't flow smoothly.

• 1555

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to know if it's appropriate to look at a really general topic—for example, the term “user”—to see whether we can get a clearer definition of the term “user” throughout the bill. Some concerns have been brought to me from various stakeholders that they can't get on the boards. Is that an appropriate question to bring up?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Then I'd like it addressed, please.

The Chairman: We'll be getting information on this, subject to a possible amendment, or the information could perhaps formulate an amendment. Is that fine?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lee, Michelle, and Bev have addressed the issue that I wanted to talk about.

First, I have a question for the research staff. As I understand it—because I think Michelle was absolutely right, as was Lee—there is a big difference between something that continues as a federal agency, as the CPAs will... There are Treasury Board guidelines that make it possible for superannuation to continue unless otherwise specified by the minister—Treasury Board, the Minister of Transport, or both.

There is existing legislation that where an agency continues—in this case the ports will continue—superannuation can continue under those particular items. Therefore, I would like to ask a legal question or research question.

I think in Bev's case it's a little different; divestiture has occurred, such as is the case in Churchill. An equivalent pension plan was put in place. There is a difference between what you do with ports that have been divested and sold off... There's a certain treatment and prescription there. But I think there is, as Lee and Michelle have pointed out, some legal framework for these ports to continue as federal ports, albeit they're agencies as opposed to federal ports, and for Treasury Board guidelines to allow for superannuation and for those employees to be protected in some way, shape, or form.

I'm wondering whether the research department can comment on this now or perhaps when we deal with the clause-by-clause.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): In another connection, if I correctly understood the bill, it's not out of the question that the Canadian port authority may sell the properties, but can the Minister authorize their sale? I would like clarification on this point.

[English]

The Chairman: Is anyone in a position to respond to this?

Mr. Stan Keyes: I didn't understand the question.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You're saying the board of directors can sell the properties?

Mr. Claude Drouin: That's correct. It can't sell the properties. Have I understood that correctly?

The Chairman: It can't. You're asking whether the Minister can authorize it to do so?

Mr. Claude Drouin: Is the Minister authorized to sell them? Let's suppose an organization needs the land, as Mr. Guimond was thinking a moment ago; in that case, is the Minister authorized to make the sale?

[English]

The Chairman: Do you understand the question, Stan?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Subclause 45(3) says that where the minister gives the management of federal real properties to a port authority, the Federal Real Property Act, other than sections 12 and 14 and paragraphs 16—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. The interpreter doesn't understand Mr. Keyes because he's speaking too softly.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: Maybe the book was in the way of the microphone.

The answer is yes, it's subclause 45(3). They can, through the minister, dispose of real property. There is a provision to do that.

Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to say to my committee colleagues that I'll be proposing substantial amendments to the bill with regard to local and regional ports, as well as ferries. I'm currently conducting research on several issues. I feel a clause-by-clause analysis at this stage beginning on Tuesday, November 18, may be premature and that I may need a delay to complete the research, based on the volume of work that's required.

• 1600

The Chairman: Keeping in mind that you agreed to the schedule we have—

Mr. Gerry Byrne: I'm prepared to put forward a motion to change the schedule and have my colleagues vote on the matter.

The Chairman: In a steering committee meeting.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've spent the last week or so going over representations made with respect to Bill C-9, and some of the issues that have been brought to my attention as still needing some attention are the employee pension health benefits and superannuation—that's been raised already. Some of the stakeholders believe the disposition of federal real property by the CPA is not permitted, so I'm glad we had that clarification. Grants in lieu of taxes have come up again. I think we've beaten it to death. I think it was a reasonable compromise between no taxes and full property taxes. I hear what they're saying, but I think it's been flogged to death at this point.

I think a lot of stakeholders are saying that the term “user” should be better defined. That's been brought up. Some stakeholders are saying that the number of members on the boards of directors should be limited, a smaller number. I'm not swayed by that argument. I think to get a reasonable balance on the board you need to have a minimum size of the board of directors to represent a number of different stakeholders. I've put that on the record.

There are some stakeholders still wanting to debate this question of the scope of operations of a CPA. We had a lot of discussion and consultation at this committee. How do you effectively manage the scope of operation of a CPA, recognizing there's another business community out there that may feel threatened if there's some property development or business development ideas within the boundaries of the CPA?

My own view is that we struck a reasonable balance. Perhaps through the letters patent, as long as there are items in the letters patent that don't run contrary to the bill, I think there's reasonable scope to accommodate. For example, on the Vancouver port, Granville Island, there's a restaurant. I think the stakeholders there are concerned that given the way it's written now, the restaurant would have to be shut down. I think they probably would still have the scope to operate such a restaurant, and I think within reasonable limits there are still possibilities to meet that fine balance through the letters patents. I hear what people are saying, but I think we struck a reasonable balance.

There's some concern about the compliance costs of CPAs. If you look at the compliance costs of CPAs as opposed to the benefits of having some local autonomy, local governance, I think you'll see that a reasonable balance has been struck to get local governments to get local input. There is some compliance cost, but I don't believe the compliance costs are that burdensome.

My colleague will obviously talk more about local and regional ports, so I'll leave that one.

The only other one, Mr. Chair, is this question of the stipend based on percentage of net income or net revenues. There are a lot of stakeholders still concerned about that. We had many discussions on that issue. I'm not sure we've really nailed it down yet. Personally I'm going to meet with the department to see if I can understand better why we shouldn't make some amendments there.

Those are the issues, Mr. Chair, that have been brought to my attention. I think we should either make amendments or leave things as they are.

• 1605

The Chairman: What we have here, colleagues, is a bed four feet by eight feet and we have a blanket on top of that bed that is exactly the same size. For two years the committee argued over how to fit that blanket on the bed. They came to a point where they said this is where it fits. Where we're at now is we're starting to pull on the blanket. If I pull one inch, somebody's toes are sticking out at the other end. We haven't been here an hour and all our toes are out and it's going to get cold this winter. That's the issue here. If we start pulling on the blanket we'll reopen the—

Mr. Joe Fontana: Get a bigger bed.

The Chairman: As chair of the committee I want us to be aware of where this leads. If we redo the work it's a two-year job. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't amend and you shouldn't pull on the blanket. I'm just talking about the consequences of the direction we are taking now.

Mr. Keyes.

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

Just following your line of discourse, when we came together here today it was to recognize that we have a bill before us. It's the same bill we worked two and a half years to construct, Bill C-44. The majority, the bulk, the intent of this bill is going to remain the same.

I thought there were going to be suggestions at this meeting on how we might be able to make the bill better. There have been some solid suggestions here today. They're being recorded by the researcher. They'll be looked at by the government side and of course examined thoroughly so that if and when two weeks from today the opposition brings forward an amendment reflecting what they've discussed here today, the government will be prepared to either accept it or reject it with a reason. I just want to make sure that's clear.

I also wanted to answer on another subject, and that's the superannuation, Mr. Chairman. The reason you won't find it in this lot of amendments that we put forward before you today is that... You can imagine that the government members too have been receiving correspondence on the subject of superannuation.

I have two things I want the members to consider. One is that it can be a detailed piece of business, including running through justice and, quite frankly, Treasury Board. Treasury Board deals with the money and we can't just decide on our own that we're going to do this if Treasury Board's going to turn around and say oh no you're not because there's no money to do that. There are some steps that have to be taken between now and then.

Mr. Fontana, this is for your information. There is a good possibility that the superannuation or its possible deliverance to existing members in ports across the country—in other words, maybe grandfathering the idea of the ones that are there now getting superannuation—may not even have to be part of this bill. It could be done outside of this bill. Why hold up an entire bill on a subject that might be able to be accomplished outside of this bill? That explanation again will come fully when we receive it and give it to the members at the time we go to clause by clause. I hope that's helped to clarify some of the questions.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mark.

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

I certainly am very conscious of your concerns as the chair. I believe the concern you heard today really reflects our public responsibility as elected officials. We all have received correspondence from numerous parties and constituencies. It is our job as MPs to bring these to the table.

I just wanted to echo one comment made by Mr. Bryden in regard to the Hamilton Harbour Commission. I think if a written document were available it would certainly give us an explanation of why they were excluded. It would also help us explain perhaps the parameters that are established for an exclusion if there is such a thing, because there is interest for others—well, certainly at least one harbour commission—to push to be excluded. Speaking as a new member, it certainly would be helpful.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'll make every attempt to respond to that question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Chairman, I think we're really here to pull on the blanket. Otherwise, why are we here?

The Chairman: I only explained the consequences. I'm worried about your toes.

• 1610

Mr. Lee Morrison: There has been concern expressed by some of the stakeholders about the appointment of directors. It has already been brought forward that a lot of people think that the numbers are a bit high, but there's also some question about the way the users, the representatives, would be picked.

First, of course, you have to define users, which has been previously raised. But it has been suggested to me that the users should be able to provide a list, a firm list, from which the minister must make his choices. I just wonder if the government has given any consideration to that.

It has also been suggested that since users per se and their employees, directors, etc., are excluded, perhaps the qualifications for directors should be a little more open. This is rather than saying they must have experience or stature with the industry. They could also be representatives of national, regional, or local interests without necessarily having expertise in transportation. That's quite common in the business world. You have people coming out of toothpaste companies running radio stations.

So I think that is something the government might look at. I hope somebody is listening.

The other thing, of course, is this question of the stipend. I think that after superannuation, that would be my biggest single issue. It isn't improper that the stipend should be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. I think the government should revisit the question of having it on net, and that this would be same rate for all once it is net. I know one of the bureaucrats said that it's very difficult to define net, but people who pay their income tax don't have this problem. So I think this is something that should be revisited.

I understand that the committee actually favoured this the last time around. Is this correct?

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, it's not.

Mr. Lee Morrison: No? Then I was misinformed. But I do wish the government would take another look at that.

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Keyes asked a moment ago not to hold the entire bill hostage because of this pension issue. He suggested the possibility of a grandfather clause, but what guarantee will there be, before the bill is passed, that workers will still be able to be part of the plan?

You also spoke of checks with Treasury Board, but what would be our basis for determining whether the question will be considered one day, once the bill has been put forward, on the possibility of the grandfather clause?

Will the grandfather clause that you are going to develop be in the bill?

[English]

The Chairman: Are you willing to address that?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Your representations, and some of those from my own colleagues, about superannuation are being made now. That's being considered. When we come to clause-by-clause analysis, when either your amendments or ours come forward, whichever, there will be a full explanation as to why we will decide to not do it or do it. That will come with the sureties—

Mr. Michel Guimond: Okay, I missed that explanation.

The Chairman: The purpose of this whole exercise is to identify areas of concern. It's to give the department and the minister an opportunity to prepare responses and positions for possible amendments.

I have no one on the list. Are there any other areas in the bill that are of concern to you that we can identify so that next time we meet, the department has some information to assist? Mr. Morrison.

• 1615

Mr. Lee Morrison: I think this one is a lost cause, but I do wish the government would take another look at the question of the certification of masters of Canadian vessels as pilots. This seems to be a thorn in the side of just about everybody except some of the pilotage authorities, and I think it should be revisited.

If you wish, I could show you some samples of some amendments that we would propose, but I would prefer that this stuff come from the government side, because then it has a chance of passing.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Well, Mr. Chairman, through you to Lee, probably the toughest negotiation we had during the construction of this bill and its inevitable outcome—the way it sits today as Bill C-9, and Bill C-44 before it—had to do with the arguments put forward on pilotage versus the shippers.

I understand that because we are again at this point in the bill, the shippers are going to take every opportunity to come forward and start revisiting all this stuff all over again. But they too will admit to you, if they haven't already, that they are fully cognizant and aware of the fact that what is in Bill C-9 today on pilotage is going to stay in the way it is. You're not going to see an amendment from the government side on pilotage.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Are you clear on this?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: We'll suspend proceedings and resume in three minutes in camera for the steering committee.

For everyone else, it's been nice having you, but the party's over.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.