Skip to main content
Start of content

TRAN Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
 
Meeting No. 7
 
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
 

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities met at 11:13 a.m. this day, in Room 371, West Block, the Chair, Merv Tweed, presiding.

 

Members of the Committee present: Don H. Bell, Robert Carrier, Ed Fast, Hon. Charles Hubbard, Brian Jean, Mario Laframboise, Hon. Andy Scott, Brian Storseth, Hon. Belinda Stronach and Merv Tweed.

 

Acting Members present: Brian Masse for Peter Julian and Rick Norlock for Steven Blaney.

 

In attendance: Parliamentary Information and Research Service: John Christopher, Analyst; Allison Padova, Analyst. House of Commons: Wayne Cole, Legislative Clerk.

 

Witnesses: Department of Transport: Éric Harvey, Legal Counsel, Legal Services; Brian Hicks, Director, Bridge Policy & Programs; Evelyn Marcoux, Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs.

 
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Monday, May 1, 2006, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act.
 

The witnesses answered questions.

 

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

 

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 is postponed.

The Chair calls Clause 2.

 

Clause 2 carried.

 

Clause 3 carried.

 

On Clause 4,

Brian Masse moved, — That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 2 the following:

“Or the application of any provincial or municipal law, except in the event of a conflict with an approval issued under this Act.”

 

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

 

Clause 4 carried on division.

 

Clause 5 carried.

 

On Clause 6,

Don H. Bell moved, — That Bill C-3, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 37 to 39 on page 2 with the following:

“CONSTRUCTION

6. (1) No person shall construct an international bridge or tunnel without the approval of the Governor in Council.

(2) Despite subsection (1), the approval of the Governor in Council is not required in cases of replacement, substitution, expansion or twinning of an international bridge or tunnel at an existing international crossing.”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Don H. Bell and it was negatived on division.

 

Clause 6 carried.

 

On Clause 7,

Brian Masse moved, — That Bill C-3, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 3 the following:

“(b) certify under oath, prior to the application being processed, that the following matters have been carried out and provided with the application:

i. that 180 days prior to filing the application, the applicant provided public notice in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality in which the construction or alteration would be carried out as to the intended application, how copies of the application and studies, plans and reports in support of the application may be obtained from the applicant without cost, and that the public has the right within the 180 deadline to review these documents and communicate their views to the applicant. to the clerk of the municipality, and to the Minister;

ii. that a similar notice was filed with the clerk of any municipality likely to be affected by the resulting construction, alteration or operation of the facility together with two copies of the intended application and all supporting studies, plans and reports;

iii. that the applicant had appropriately qualified professional consultants prepare studies and reports with respect to the potential impact of the proposed construction or alteration and vehicular operations on local planning, property use, public safety, traffic patterns, impacts on property values and the natural and social environment, as well as with respect to alternatives means of undertaking the project and their potential effects;

iv. that where requested by the any such municipality, the applicant held a public meeting in the municipality regarding its intended application which provided an opportunity for questions from the public;

v. that the that the applicant subsequently provided written responses from appropriately qualified technical consultants to questions regarding the applicant’s studies and potential effects;

vi. copies of any correspondence or submissions from the public concerning its proposal and minutes of pubic meetings held pertaining to it;

vii. copies of questions or comments received from any federal, provincial or municipal agency concerning the proposal and responses made to these;

viii. a statement as to the mitigation measures and any compensation measures the applicant is prepared to take in response to public, agency or municipal concerns;

ix. a report from the local municipality regarding these matters including any requirements, conditions, compensation and mitigation measures which the municipality considers appropriate for inclusion as a condition of approval to ensure the project is consistent with the public interest.”

 

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

 

Clause 7 carried.

 

Clause 8 carried.

 

Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive carried severally.

 

Clause 12 carried.

 

Clause 13 carried.

 

Clause 14 carried.

 

On Clause 15,

Brian Jean moved, — That Bill C-3, in Clause 15, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 13 on page 7.

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brian Jean and it was agreed to.

 
Brian Masse moved, — That Bill C-3, in Clause 15, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 7 the following:

“(2) An authority, to be known as the Regional Public Border Authority, shall be responsible for ensuring the effective operation of subsection (1).”

 

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 655 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

 
Brian Masse moved, — That Bill C-3, in Clause 15, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 7 the following:

“15(2) Despite subsection (1),

a. where Parliament has authorized in an Act referenced in the Schedule a particular mode of transportation use for an international bridge or tunnel, any proposed change in such mode of use shall be deemed to be an alteration requiring an application pursuant to s. 8 of this Act;

b. no regulation which affects the operation or use of an international bridge or tunnel shall be made without prior consultation with and consent of provincial and municipal authorities regulating highways and lands providing access to the facility.”

 

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

 

Clause 15, as amended, carried.

 
Brian Jean moved, — That Bill C-3 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 7 the following:

15.1 If the Minister is of the opinion that a change in the tolls, fees or other charges for the use of an international bridge or tunnel is resulting in adverse effects on the flow of traffic, the Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, order the owner or operator of the bridge or tunnel to impose the tolls, fees or other charges that, in the opinion of the Minister, would not result in adverse effects on the flow of traffic. Before ordering an owner or operator to impose specified tolls, fees or other charges, the Minister shall consult with the owner or operator concerning the impact that those tolls, fees or other charges could have on their financial situation.

Debate arose thereon.

 

Brian Masse moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “operator” the following:

“or other levels of government ”

Debate arose thereon.

 

Brian Jean moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “government” the following:

“or any other entity that is, in the opinion of the Minister, a relevant stakeholder having regard to all circumstances ”

 

New Clause 15.1 was allowed to stand.

 

At 12:49 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

 



Georges Etoka
Clerk of the Committee

 
 
2006/06/07 4:45 p.m.