:
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good morning.
First, thank you for having us appear before you to speak about Bill C-3, the International Bridges and Tunnels Act. I will speak today about the history of the bill and its importance to Canada's international bridges and tunnels.
In Canada there are 24 vehicular and nine railway bridges and tunnels that link our country to the United States. Mention has been made of five railway bridges and tunnels; however, it now appears that the number is nine.
Of the bridges that carry vehicle traffic, fourteen are located in Ontario, nine in New Brunswick, and one in Quebec. The rail bridges and tunnels are all located in Ontario, except for one, which is located in New Brunswick.
Most of these bridges and tunnels came into existence through special acts of Parliament quite some time ago. The acts served mainly to incorporate the company responsible for building the bridge or tunnel and determine the terms and conditions of the construction. They are specific to the bridge or tunnel in question, and most, if not all, do not address modern-day concerns such as safety and security.
The bill before you addresses many of the issues that concern us today. Whether it is to strengthen the trade corridors that we share with the U.S. or protect our national borders, the bill is intended to strike a healthy balance among the interests. The principle behind this bill is quite simple. It is to ensure the efficient flow of traffic, people, and goods across the border. It is a means to give tools to the federal government to fix problems should they arise.
[Translation]
Our international bridges and tunnels are highly valued components of our national transportation system. They are undeniably important to international trade, as they are the means by which the majority of our trade with the United States is transported. They ensure, both directly and indirectly, many jobs for Canadians in the transportation and tourism industries.
International bridges and tunnels fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. No law has ever been adopted that uniformly applies to all international bridges and tunnels, and sets out the manner in which the federal government can exercise its jurisdiction with respect to these structures. This means that today and until this bill is enacted, the federal government has limited authority when it comes to determining: who may build a new international bridge or tunnel; where this bridge or tunnel is to be located; the use that is to be made of it; how it is to be maintained; and the level of security that will be exercised over this bridge or tunnel.
[English]
This bill is the culmination of past efforts to amend the Canada Transportation Act to include provisions dealing with international bridges and tunnels and to strengthen, refine, and improve upon these provisions.
It borrows from former Bill C-26 and Bill C-44, both of which died on the order paper. Now, in a stand-alone bill, the subject of international bridges and tunnels is front and centre.
The bill proposes the same regulatory powers in the areas of maintenance, repair, operation and use, safety and security as were in former Bill C-44. With this bill the government will be able to ensure that all international bridges and tunnels are properly maintained and, where appropriate, demand that certain repairs be done necessary to keep the structure in good condition. Also, it will make sure that appropriate security measures are put into place and that security information is shared with the government.
Bill C-3 also proposes the same approval process for the construction of new international bridges and tunnels and for alteration to existing structures as did former Bill C-44. It may be that in establishing the guidelines governing the approval process, the government will take inspiration from the United States—more specifically its presidential permit process for the construction of new international bridges that has been in place for quite some time. That process ensures that applicants obtain all required permits and consult with all interested government departments, including the Canadian government.
[Translation]
Allow me to draw your attention to the new provisions. These fall into two categories: the construction of bridges over the St. Lawrence River, and the approval of transactions affecting the ownership and control, or operation of international bridges and tunnels.
The section dealing with construction over the St. Lawrence River is technical in nature and serves to correct an oversight in current legislation. Mr. Harvey, legal counsel with Justice Canada assigned to Transport Canada, will be able to explain this provision to you and guide you through the legalities.
The effect of this new section will be that any new construction over the St. Lawrence River will no longer require a Special Act of Parliament, which is the case today. This bill is also proposing that any transactions that have an effect on the ownership or control, or operation of international bridges and tunnels be approved by the government.
[English]
The policy decision behind this is simple. It is the government's responsibility to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, and as such, it must know who owns and operates these structures.
Finally, when former Bill C-44 was introduced, we consulted with bridge and tunnel stakeholders, many of whom you might hear from at these hearings. Since Bill C-3 was introduced, we have had further consultation with the stakeholders. As was the case with Bill C-44, it is believed that the stakeholders generally support the bill and the involvement of the federal government in the area of international bridges and tunnels.
However, the extent of the involvement will become clearer once we develop the regulations. We fully expect and look forward to working with the stakeholders in the regulatory process, when they will be consulted once again and their views and concerns taken into account. We at Transport Canada are committed to working with these stakeholders and any other stakeholders to ensure that all international bridges and tunnels are safe, secure, and operated in a manner that ensures the efficient flow of traffic across our border.
Thank you.
My questions relate to clauses 23 to 28, the new provision talking about change in ownership, operator, or control, just to get a bit more clarity around what the intent of this new provision is.
Is it setting up a provision where the Governor in Council approval is required to build, sell, or assign a transfer...? Is that for the future? How does it apply? It's a bit vague in respect to the past. Is it retroactive? And under what circumstances would this be applied?
Again, it applies to whom or to what? Is it to a municipality or to a province? I want some clarity on that.
Also, on the scope of information that's to be disclosed, if there's corporate confidential information, how would it be treated? Could it be accessed through ATIP? And who will have access to the information? Would it be the CBS, the Canadian Transportation Agency, the minister? I'd like some clarity around the disclosure aspect and whether it is retroactive.
Let's go back to clause 15, which is entitled “OPERATION AND USE”, and which grants powers to regulate the use of bridges, to regulate the tolls that owners may charge, and so on. I've previously had the chance to ask you this question, but I'd like to hear from you again.
Did you speak with our partners, the provinces in particular, which operate and manage a number of these bridges? I believe there is some interference here. This gives you a power that goes beyond safety issues. You'll be able to intervene and limit, regulate the use of a bridge and tunnel at all times, based on the type of vehicle. For example, you could order operators to prohibit truck traffic on a given bridge or in a given tunnel.
Have I correctly understood the meaning of this clause?
You've no doubt reached agreements enabling you to negotiate with your partners. However, if the bill is passed as it stands, you'll be able to make them do what you want. Have you discussed this with them and do they agree on it?
I'd like to refer back to clause 15, specifically paragraph 15(b), which of course provides the ability for the minister to make regulations regarding tolls, fees, and other charges that might be imposed on the operators.
I'm interested in the financial impact this will have on the operators themselves. I'm sure you're aware that they have raised some concerns about the impact this will have on their financial viability and, more specifically, to borrow at advantageous interest rates, especially those who have intentions of expanding in the future. Of course, expansion would presumably lead to a greater viability for those facilities.
I would assume this is the first time the federal government has actually intervened in the free market of setting tolls. Is it not?
:
Yes, they have told us they are concerned about that clause. As Éric just explained, that clause is.... We will negotiate what it will mean and how far we will go as we go through the regulation processes.
The objective right now is to be reactive, as opposed to proactive. We don't intend to tell the bridge owners or operators how much they can charge, but if they increase their tolls, we want to be told. We want to be informed of that, and if increasing the tolls in one area creates problems--it could be decreasing as well, by the way, or it could be increasing or decreasing, which then affects the flow of traffic, and that goes against the grain of this act—then the government wants to sit down with the operator and have a conversation.
This is the objective behind it. Again, it's to be reactive, as opposed to coming in at the outset.
We have explained that to the operators. They understand it. They are concerned about how this issue may affect their credit rating. We're hoping it can be resolved if they have conversations with their bankers, but I understand they might need representation to you, the committee, as well. We're open to discussing what, if any, changes they want.
Some of the questions I was going to ask have been answered.
I'll go back, first of all, to consultation issues. In the material we received with our briefing, on page one, tab B, you say the stakeholders have not been consulted with respect to these two new provisions. My understanding is they were consulted on the process for Bill C-44, and I heard Mr. Hicks say there was some consultation by telephone currently, but the third paragraph says these stakeholders have not been consulted with respect to the additional provisions. I presume those are the two at 4 and 5 under the numerical tabs we have. Those are the two changes between Bill C-44 and Bill C-3. The first is the change of ownership and the control--Ms. Stronach asked some of the questions about the issue of access to information under that--and the other is the one on the St. Lawrence River.
If I understand it, the St. Lawrence issue was basically a catch-22, and this is attempting to resolve that. Is that more or less correct?
:
Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président. I wanted to come back to the issue of consultations more specifically, because what I want to do is just have you take me through a practical case where we're talking about ownership change for the Ambassador Bridge, for example.
The Governor in Council has the ability to make that decision, but what would be forthcoming in terms of consultations with the province and with the municipality? That's really the heart of my concern.
We're giving the authority to the federal government. I understand the need for that, but there's also a need for local input when these ownership changes or alterations may have a real impact on certain areas of the country. So that's specifically what I'm looking for. In the case of change of ownership, how would that work?
:
We seem to identify in the mind, in talking about there being safety issues relating to the derailments, and to the marine disaster on the west coast, for example, and that risk, and to the issues of air safety, whether these included the flight attendants or whether they included other aspects of air travel security....
I just want to make sure, when we each start talking about issues such as airport rents and fees, or in the case of ports about the ability to make the ports more sustainable and competitive, and particularly about the issue of competition with the U.S. ports, that it's an issue we begin some work on. I don't expect we're going to.... These would be the higher priorities.
I guess on reflection and looking at this, I would have liked to see it mentioned—not with the intention to have it done, as Mr. Julian said before, by the summer recess, but so that it was simply acknowledged as a major topic; that was all.
That's why I would suggest it be a lower number somewhere, but listed as an item we've acknowledged, because somebody looking at this work plan, while we've said it's “not limited to”, is going to ask whether we are looking at competitiveness. We can say yes, but if it's there, the question doesn't have to be asked.
:
I don't know how the members feel about it, and maybe I'm being a little too specific, but I agree with Mr. Bell. I like having a focus and an agenda and dealing with the agenda, and I'd rather be more thorough than not enough, even if we don't have to say it's required that we deal with those issues.
I think competitiveness is an issue. I think security should be included in this. Maybe what the paragraph should read is—and I'm back to the safety issue comment—“Safety solutions on all modes of transportation--rail safety, marine safety, air safety, and road safety”, keeping in mind competitiveness and security and other issues that may be there, but also acknowledging that safety is the key focus of this agenda, notwithstanding that it may make them non-competitive. Obviously, we don't care, if they're not competitive, because safety is the number one key.
I don't want to be in a situation like my first bout of my last committee. Sometimes I would listen to witnesses, but with respect, they had no relevance to what we were trying to study. I would hate to see a situation where we get witnesses who may offer information on what happened on a boat that went down or a rail that went off, but really don't give us any idea how we can stop it from happening, so that we are talking about the issue rather than talking about the solution.
That would be my two cents' worth, to make it safety solutions, keeping in mind the issue of competitiveness and the issues of security and anything else the members think would be relevant to keep in mind on it, because it doesn't restrict us. But certainly the people reading this, the witnesses and experts who are coming forward, would be in a situation to say this is what they're going to gear their conversation toward—safety as the main theme—but keeping in mind these other issues.
:
I'll jump in and add my two cents.
First of all, I like the idea of solutions. Let's get on with solutions, as opposed to issues. And safety is the number one priority.
I would put competitiveness as a separate thing, because with the rise of China and the rise of India, we want to make sure we're capturing that trade and have the appropriate investments and resources and infrastructure in place to take advantage of it, so that we don't lose investment or our business elsewhere.
I think it's a significant enough piece that it needs to have its own line in there. We may not get to it, but we shouldn't lose it as an issue.
:
Is everyone good with June 1?
I will ask that we adopt the first report as presented with amendments. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: There are a couple of issues I want to discuss and on which I want clarification. During the first meeting we did discuss how the rounds would take place. I've checked the minutes, and when I read the minutes, the procedure we followed was correct, but it was also brought to my attention that perhaps the way it was recorded was not correct, or did not reflect our intention.
I understood the intention to be that we would have rounds until everyone had spoken once, and then we would open it up for the last five minutes for the Bloc and the New Democratic Party. The way it is presented in the form is that we would have one round of seven minutes for each party and then another round of five minutes for each party and then an open floor for five minutes each for each person who has not spoken.
I look for direction from the committee. Initially when I saw it, that wasn't the way I interpreted it, so I'm looking for clarification and direction.
Mr. Jean, go ahead, please.