Bill C-23 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence

This enactment amends the Canada Marine Act to clarify and make technical changes to certain provisions. As well, the amendments
(a) modify the Act’s purpose;
(b) modify a port authority’s access to federal funding;
(c) add provisions regarding the power of a port authority to borrow money;
(d) provide additional regulatory powers to the Governor in Council;
(e) add provisions regarding port amalgamation;
(f) modify provisions regarding the appointment of directors of port authorities; and
(g) add a penalty scheme and streamline certain other enforcement provisions.
The amendments also include transitional provisions, corrections to other Acts and consequential amendments to other Acts.

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 12. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 4, 2007, we will consider Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence.

Joining us today we have Emile Di Sanza, Janet Kavanagh, Guylaine Roy, and Ekaterina Ohandjanian.

We are doing the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-23 today. If I may, I'm just going to ask for a little bit of direction from the committee. Everyone has the order that the clauses and the amendments are in. If the committee wants to deal with the grouping of clauses up to each amendment, we can actually get to the meat of the amendments and discuss them. If that's agreeable, I will proceed that way.

With that agreement, I will ask, shall clauses 1 to 4 inclusive carry?

(Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 5)

Criminal Code

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly to Bill C-13. This bill is similar to Bill C-23, which was debated in the House.

I may be a rookie here but I remember Bill C-23 very well. We were in favour of the bill but the government decided to dissolve Parliament. So here we are, debating the same bill all over again, except that the number has changed.

The context is fairly important as we start, Bill C-13 is really Bill C-23. It contains so many important new aspects to make our criminal justice system work more equitably and to modernize it. It is why I was proud as a member of the Liberal justice team and as a member of the Liberal justice committee team to approve it and to send it on for eventual approval and royal assent.

Alas, the Prime Minister and his team decided that they were afraid of the environment. Their new Minister of the Environment had failed so miserably to act on the environment that they had to scuttle the whole Parliament because they were afraid of a couple of bills that might change things. In that mess, in that melee unfortunately, this good justice bill was killed and had to be reintroduced again.

One might ask, what difference does it make? It makes a difference to people who care about the criminal justice system. It may not mean a lot to people, but one of the biggest things we could have done in the last two years that I have been here would have been to modernize and make more effectual our criminal justice system, to move the maximum fine to be imposed for any summary conviction offence from $2,000 to $10,000.

A $2,000 fine is within the means of many people, but a $10,000 fine for a serious summary conviction offence, that does not warrant jail time, is a serious fine and might very well have a deterrent effect on those type of crimes for which a fine is appropriate.

There were many other amendments, which could be in effect and the law in the country now, that were just simply thrown away.

Language rights are very important in my province of New Brunswick which is officially a bilingual province. I represent the city of Moncton, which is an officially bilingual city. This is bread and butter for New Brunswick politicians. It is disturbing to me that the parliamentary secretary, when asked why Bill C-23, which contained many provisions to improve the delivery of justice services in both official languages was not given the priority of other bills, turned his answer to Bill C-2 and the tackling violent crime bill.

I asked why Bill C-23, which everybody agreed upon, was given second shrift to Bill C-2 and of course why was Bill C-2 killed?

This love child of the Conservative justice agenda, why was it killed by the Prime Minister? Was he so afraid of other bills which showed the incompetency of his own ministers?

It seems shocking to me. It included: Bill C-10, involving mandatory minimums which was a bill improved upon at committee and which had passed the House; Bill C-22, which modernized issues surrounding the age of consent and the age of protection, and provided for the first time a close in age exemption which made the bill very palatable in protecting young people; Bill C-32, for which Mothers Against Drunk Driving had been clamouring for some time; and, Bill C-35, a reverse onus on bail provisions which in effect codified the existing treatment of the law by jurists in the country, jurists who are exceptional jurists.

I have said this for two years. It seems like I just got here but I am here again defending judges and saying that they were enacting the provisions of Bill C-35 long before we had to make it law. Finally, there was Bill C-27, with respect to dangerous offenders.

Those were all bills that were moved along and would be law now had the government not pulled the plug on its own agenda. It euthanized its own criminal justice program.

In light of the Conservative vote on the capital punishment issue today, it is not surprising that Conservative members believe in terminating things. They have terminated their own hopes and dreams for criminal justice.

However, we want to move Bill C-23 along, which is now Bill C-13. It is an important bill that will deliver a lot of valuable aspects to the criminal justice system.

However, as I move to what is probably bread and butter for me as a New Brunswick politician, the language of the accused, I want to highlight what the bill will do and what it has done in the past. It is important to note the existing context.

At the request of the accused, a judge will order that the accused be granted a preliminary inquiry, a pre-trial procedure, and trial before a judge without jury, or judge with jury, who speak the official language, one or the other, which may be the language of the accused.

If the accused speaks neither English nor French, a judge will order that the accused be granted a preliminary inquiry or trial, without a judge and jury, who speak the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony. The court is also required to provide interpretation services. That is the existing set of laws.

What Bill C-13 does to improve upon that, in clause 18 of the original bill, is to suggest that once the accused appears in court, the judge is required to advise him or her of the right to trial in the official language of his or her choice, but this requirement, as it exists now, is only if the accused is not represented by counsel.

What Bill C-13 does, which Bill C-23 did and which we all agree on, is take away the issue of representation and says that the judge must advise the accused, whether represented or not, it was a false barrier, to his or her right to have a trial in the language of his or her own choice. That was a good change and it leads me into some of my further debate points when I say that the judge was required to advise the accused of his or her languages rights.

I know the member for Beauséjour is a member of the bar. He is experienced in certain criminal proceedings and would know, coming from a francophone milieu, that it is critically important that the gatekeeper for language rights in that context, the provincial court judge in most instances, has that positive duty to inform a judge of his or her right to a trial in the language of his or her choice. It is important to know that the judge is already doing that.

With respect to preliminary inquiries and the trial in both official languages, clauses 18 and 21 changed it so that they became more accessible. Trials in the proper language of the accused, either French or English, would be improved by this bill.

I might add, as an aside, that the translation of documents would be ameliorated certainly by these amendments and we are all in favour of that.

I guess where the rubber hits the road is what to do with the amendments presented by the Senate. My friend, the parliamentary secretary, discussed at length some of the amendments, and I want to counter on the two on which we might have a more elaborate discussion.

We know that this bill is aimed at modernizing our criminal justice system and making it more effective. That goes without saying. My party had indicated that it would support the passage of this bill when it was first introduced before prorogation. It was the bill that I mentioned earlier, Bill C-23.

In the context of this modernization, it is important that the rights of all Canadians be respected with regard to the use of official languages in court proceedings.

Canadians, particularly those in minority language situations, know they have certain rights under the Criminal Code, but it is the federal government's responsibility, and I suggest our responsibility as lawmakers, to ensure the application of those rights is clear and that the judicial process is not delayed.

The way the government presented its view of language rights in Bill C-13, a justice of the peace or court judge would only be charged with finding some way to ensure that accused persons are informed of their language rights. That is really not enough.

One of the amendments that we proposed should be supported. We are in argument with the government on this, at least according to the parliamentary secretary's speech. It is important to say from the outset that the judge already has a duty to advise the accused of his or her rights. The language says that the judge must ensure that the accused knows of this option.

I have witnessed many first appearances and I am very confident in the ability of our judges to advise accused persons of their rights. It is commonly done throughout the province of New Brunswick and in any federally appointed court system where official languages are important.

The amendment proposed by the Senate would ensure that the federal government takes on its responsibilities through its agents to inform any accused persons of their right to proceed in the official language they understand. The Senate amendment simply takes out any potential middleman in the administration of justice. The judge would inform the accused of his or her rights.

I do not think that it is an undue burden for a judge. If there is clear communication during court proceedings, we are simply providing for clear access to justice for all those involved. It falls in line with our democratic society's pledge to have an expedient judicial process and it takes out the aspect of appeal.

I think the government wants efficacious legislation but I cannot be sure sometimes because some of the legislation it presents is so poorly written and so hastily delivered, only for the purpose of a television spot on the news, it is not always clear. In this case, however, if the government would only support this Senate amendment, it could have efficacious and fair language policy through the Criminal Code.

Sadly, the other Senate amendment respecting the reporting on official language requests is not one that the opposition can support. We cannot agree with it because it would require the Minister of Justice to report on the language of proceeding or testimony in criminal matters across this country.

There can be no way that all attorneys general in all provinces and in all territories would have the means to uniformly report on this. As the parliamentary secretary rightly commented, it is not the minister's mandate. In saying this, I do not mean that the Minister of Justice is not competent. I mean that he is not competent in the law to do such reporting. For that reason, we support the government in its opposition to that Senate amendment.

I understand the Senate's concern with ensuring that there is accountability in respecting language rights but we can surely do a more effective job in ensuring this by using the other resources that are in the community.

I know well-known jurists and hard-working jurists in my own province.

They are Sacha D. Morisset and Christian Michaud, who are both members of the Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick. They often highlight the statistics with regard to French language trials in our province. If it can be done in New Brunswick, I am sure it can be done in Canada.

Again, we do not support that Senate amendment.

In short, we are very happy to get moving with this important legislation. We are happy the Senate took the time to improve the bill by suggesting that judges, who are the gatekeepers in our system, have the duty to inform an accused of his or her rights respecting language in this country.

It is bedrock in this community and this country that we offer services in both languages with respect, at least, to the Criminal Code of Canada and the criminal justice system.

On this one amendment from the Senate, I urge members of the government to agree with the Senate and with the Liberal Party and its justice team that it will make the situation with respect to the delivery of language rights in this instance a much better thing.

I am very proud to suggest that we support the bill and one of the amendments suggested by the Senate, which is one of the two that are excluded from the government's list in the final motion.

I want to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words “agrees with Amendments No. 2, 4, 5 and 6” and substituting therefore the words “agrees with Amendments No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6” and by deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “disagrees with Amendment No. 1”.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Just to shoehorn in at the end. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister for appearing here today, and thank you to the minister for taking the initiative to talk about Windsor as a critical border gateway as part of the central Canadian trade corridor.

We often talk about the Ambassador Bridge and the million dollars per minute in two-way trade. I think what is seldom talked about is the amount of economic activity that passes under the Ambassador Bridge along the Detroit River connecting the upper Great Lakes and the lower Great Lakes.

Short sea shipping is seen by many in the community as a real possibility for future growth for a smaller port like the port of Windsor. How does Bill C-23 help smaller ports? I think we've heard a lot from the bigger ports testifying before us here, in particular with respect to the new borrowing limits and things like that. But how is Bill C-23 going to help a smaller port like Windsor become more competitive, capitalize on its opportunities, and become a larger port?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Colleagues, I'm pleased to continue the discussion on Bill C-23, which basically proposes amendments to the Canada Marine Act. As you may know, the CMA required the Minister of Transport to complete a review of the provisions and application of the act.

In 2002 the government appointed a panel to undertake coast-to-coast consultations on the Canada Marine Act and to report back to the Minister of Transport with recommendations. Very broad-based consultations were held and generated extensive and substantive input from stakeholders, including all levels of government, Canada port authorities, marine transport companies, marine industry associations, as well as associations representing other modes of transportation, shippers, logistics companies, and labour organizations. The result was the CMA review report tabled by the Minister of Transport in Parliament in June 2003, which subsequently provided the direction of Bill C-61.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-61 aimed to build upon the commercial operating environment envisioned by the National Marine Policy of 1995 and the subsequent Canada Marine Act of 1998. It reflected an approach that responded to industry concerns, recognizing the importance of promoting strategic investment and productivity improvements.

Bill C-23 addresses many of the same recommendations flowing from the CMA Review. I believe that Bill C-23 goes even further in terms of optimizing our port regime in order to compete in today's global economy and putting Canada's major ports on a more competitive footing with their international counterparts.

The ports have been waiting a long time for these changes. Canada Port Authorities have told us that these proposed amendments are fundamental to the success of Canada's . marine ports in today's global environment. A number of provinces have also echoed a similar message.

If we wait any longer, opportunities could be lost. Opportunities that have the potential to have a significant and long-term positive impact on regional economies and ultimately on the Canadian economy.

Marine transportation accounts for almost a fifth of the volume of Canada's exports to the United States and over 95% of the approximately 162 million tonnes of commodities and processed goods Canada exports to other countries. All parts of the country benefit from the production and employment generated by the marine sector.

While the largest absolute impacts are in British Columbia, followed by Ontario and Quebec, the positive economic effects of marine transport activities extend to all regions of the country. Clearly, the marine sector makes a significant contribution to the output of the economy, is a creator of high-paying jobs, and also a significant generator of federal, provincial, and municipal revenues. The proposed amendments in Bill C-23 would have a positive impact on the marine industry and would position Canada port authorities, which are so important to Canada's economy, to respond to the emerging trends in globalization and to support Canada's national trade objectives.

At this point, I think it's important to distinguish between the legislative proposals of Bill C-23 and any related and complementary policy initiatives that may be put in place. As part of our commitment to openness and transparency, and also to ensure that you have a comprehensive understanding of the modernized strategy envisaged for our port authorities, we have shared with you the various policy initiatives that are being pursued.

I understand that a number of questions and comments have been raised concerning land management policy initiatives, and I have provided additional information and I trust have responded to these questions. These policy initiatives are very important and of course necessary. They reflect the result of significant analysis and examination, including third-party studies in some cases. They are initiatives that will have an immediate impact on industry within the existing legislative framework. However, they do not make up the substance of Bill C-23 but are complementary to the bill's provisions.

While Bill C-23 is national in scope, I understand that it has generated significant discussion regarding the role of municipalities.

Our cities are economic generators by themselves, but they also serve as essential transportation hubs and gateways, providing access to ports, airports and border points. This means that what happens in cities is essential to the rest of the country. Through the $33 billion Building Canada Infrastructure Plan, we will fund investments in transit, local roads and highway projects to help mitigate our growing congestion problem.

We are convinced that these investments will have a major impact on Canada's competitiveness; on the environment, and on the quality of life of Canadians. The Building Canada Plan underpins a national emphasis on trade gateways.

We cannot talk about trade gateways without talking about ports. In addition to the Asia Pacific Gateway and Corridor initiative, l signed a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in July 2007 to develop the Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway and Trade Corridor.

There are many marine-related opportunities along the St. Lawrence River and throughout the Great Lakes. Opportunities for increased short sea shipping that have the means to alleviate congestion, facilitate trade, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase the efficiency of the transportation system through better utilization of waterway capacity.

In October 2007 the federal government also signed an MOU with all four Atlantic provinces to advance the important work of development and developing a forward-looking Atlantic gateway strategy. There are many opportunities to explore that, and that will include our ports.

I understand some concern has been raised with respect to community involvement in port activities, particularly related to land use. On this issue I would like to note Captain Houston's remarks of last Tuesday. He confirmed that there is a significant history of ensuring that the municipalities have a lot of say in how the port is developed, over and above what is required by the port authority.

For the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Captain Houston explained that a municipal liaison forum has been established that brings together the board of directors with municipal councillors on a regular basis to ensure that the views of the community are understood and considered. In addition, each and every project that is implemented in the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is submitted to the development process of the municipalities of jurisdiction for their comments, and wherever possible their comments are accommodated.

I'd like to add that I have seen this process in action recently. Working with the communities of Delta, Surrey, and Langley, as well as others, including Transport Canada, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority has been part of a team effort that has created the Roberts Bank rail corridor, a series of nine overpasses that will facilitate traffic flow and reduce congestion in the lower mainland near Roberts Bank.

The needs of municipalities are clearly being considered in activities related to the ports, but equally important, regular dialogue is now occurring to ensure that all parties can learn from each other. The proposed amendments in Bill C-23 are absolute imperatives for the success of our gateways and corridors strategy.

While all of these separate and complementary initiatives are important, the reason I'm here today is to discuss Bill C-23, amendments to the Canada Marine Act.

This bill has five key components. The first amendment is designed to level the playing field for Canadian ports with other ports around the world. Bill C-23 removes the prohibition against federal funding in respect of contribution program funding for infrastructure, environmental sustainability, and security.

Currently, with very few exceptions, our Canadian ports are prohibited from accessing federal appropriations, while ports around the world are receiving increasing government funding for capital, environmental initiatives, and security enhancements. In addition, transportation sectors other than maritime are able to access these funds. It does not make any sense to discriminate against Canadian port authorities when we know that ports are an integral part of our long-term objectives, particularly regarding our national gateways and corridors strategy.

As you know, one of the objectives of our national policy framework for strategic gateways and trade corridors is to optimize the efficiency of the existing multi-modal transportation system. Greater use of the marine mode, especially with initiatives such as short sea shipping that are eligible for funding under the Building Canada Fund, will be a key solution to get goods off congested highways and railways and help protect our environment at the same time.

Short-sea shipping is also a priority for the United States, and we are working closely with our U.S. colleagues to further develop these opportunities. So let's put our CPAs on a more level playing field with the other transportation modes and the ports of other countries.

We are proposing amendments to the Act that would provide the option of a commercial borrowing regime for ports earning revenues of over $25 million a year for a period of three consecutive years. These amendments will allow the largest, most diverse CPAs to make financing decisions that are affordable, prudent and sustainable. For those eligible ports that choose to implement a commercial borrowing regime, they would be subject to a code governing borrowings in combination with commensurate accountabilities on the part of the Board.

Amendments are being proposed that are geared to providing long-term stability and continuity in the governance of CPAs. Bill C-23 provides for an additional term of re-appointment of board directors, thereby increasing the maximum tenure for a director from six to nine years, three terms of three years. Incumbent directors would remain in office until a renewed or new appointment is made. I would add that this is a term of a maximum of nine years.

On the subject of governance, I would like to clarify a very important point, one that is often forgotten or not well understood. You may recall that Captain Houston also noted this point in his remarks before this Committee. Specifically that Board members are appointees. Their fiduciary duty is to represent the best interests of the port authority board members. The act moreover stipulates that board members are not there as representatives of the people that nominate them – this is a matter of law, as such, and it does not matter whether it is one appointee or three appointees, board members must represent the best interests of the port.

Other amendments related to facilitating future amalgamations were warranted. You may be aware of the three ports in the lower mainland that amalgamated, effective January 1, 2008. The proposed amendments in Bill C-23 would put in place additional provisions for a consistent and streamlined approach to responding to potential future amalgamations, should the need arise.

The administrative monetary penalty amendments that are part of this package would provide ports with a modernized enforcement regime consistent with similar legislative impacting entities such as the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. Moving away from the lengthy court system for regulatory offences and introducing an independent review-and-appeal process has been demonstrated to result in a more efficient and cost-effective process, benefiting both the enforcement officers and the users of the marine system.

Mr. Chairman and honourable colleagues, I believe that these proposed amendments are the right thing to do for the marine transportation system. They are long overdue, and they are a critical part of this government's overall policy and frameworks supporting transportation and trade in Canada. They are also integral to the long-term objectives of the three national gateway and corridor strategies: the Asia-Pacific one, the continental one, and the Atlantic gateway.

Bill C-23 is required to ensure that Canadian ports have the tools they need to compete in a global trade environment and in support of their role with the national policy framework for strategic gateways and trade corridors. And it's the right time to make these changes for the Canadian economy.

Thank you very much, Chair and colleagues, for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe, I'm sorry, but as I stated earlier, I would call the meeting at this point in time and allow for the exchange of our witnesses and for the minister to come forward.

I want to thank the witnesses for attending today and for a lively, spirited debate. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

We'll recess for a few minutes to allow the minister and his officials to come in on Bill C-23.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

There's not much time left, but I just want to clear up something.

I was glad to hear Mr. Vaughan talk about the intelligence of our approach to infrastructure. What I was concerned about initially was the confusion of this bill with a series of other issues that have absolutely nothing to do with this bill. But the connection has been made by Mr. Freeman and Mr. Iler, deliberately, with the island authorities and with the City Centre Airport, and then by Mr. Vaughan suggesting that the resources for the port come only out of lawsuits.

I want to put on the record that the lawsuit to which they have made reference is one where the federal government—and you had one of the lawyers here before this committee explain what happened—sat down with the province and the municipal government and tried to extricate the city out of a lawsuit it was going to lose. You heard that as testimony in this committee and that the Government of Canada handed over $35 million in indemnities in order to keep the city safe, harmless from what the city viewed, because it signed on to the agreement, as an irresponsible action against the port authority among other players.

I don't think we get a clear picture of things if we confuse one with the other. So Mr. Freeman, and Mr. Iler in particular, I'm afraid that if you want to make an impact on Bill C-23, you'll have to do it a little differently.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Order, please.

Can we have the mikes shut off, please?

Mr. Vaughan, I do want to just remind you that this committee started reviewing Bill C-23 in December. Regrettably, whether you were or weren't informed in a timely fashion is a point of debate. But the time has expired, and I'll go to Monsieur Laframboise.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

What does that have to do with Bill C-23?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Freeman, that may be your key issue. We're dealing with Bill C-23. We were considering amendments. The chairman quite generously allowed individuals to come forward. You're appearing as an individual, but you claim that you are a member of a community in Toronto that is very much.... By the way, I live in Toronto as well.

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 11 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 4, 2007, we are examining Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act, and other acts in consequence.

Joining us today, from the Community Airport Impact Review, is Mr. Bill Freeman. As individuals, we have Mr. Adam Vaughan and Mr. Brian Iler.

I will advise the committee that we have the minister coming at twelve, so I will stop the proceedings short of twelve o'clock so that we can have the full hour with the minister, as I presume most of the members of the committee want.

The witnesses here today have been advised that because of the time restrictions, we are asking them to make a three- to four-minute presentation; then we will do the question-and-answer segment around the table as time permits.

I don't know whether the witnesses have picked an order in which they would like to speak, but we will start with Mr. Vaughan. You have four minutes.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I don't know if people are aware of this, but at least in my province--and I've heard it from several provincial ministers--the navigable waterways act is often a duplication of resources, and it slows up a lot of development. It causes some environmental concerns. And indeed, quite frankly, it is a nightmare in rural Canada. I would like to put this motion that we deal with at least looking at the navigable waterways act and the impact it has on governance, on use, and on environmental protection. I would like to study it. It's an act that goes back over a hundred years in many cases, so it needs something up to date.

To put it into perspective, if I had a ditch, and if this pen--which doesn't float, but it could possibly be a pencil, for my example--floated, that ditch would be a navigable waterway, and it would require a tremendous amount of input by the federal government. The difficulty with that is it's already required by many provincial governments, the same exact work, and it takes sometimes up to two or three years to get something done. This includes building a bridge, building a walkway. Mr. Watson had an example this morning of something that happened in his riding. A little ditch requires just a walkway for pedestrians, but it can't be built and has been held up for some years, simply because it has been deemed a navigable waterway, even though a canoe would never float in it no matter what happened. This is the difficulty.

I've looked at interpretation bulletins. I've looked at different situations. And I think the best thing to do is study it and have all members of this committee do so. I think we do have some free time to do it. For instance, the suggestion of one hour with the department next Thursday may even be possible, to at least get a preliminary on it if we do have time. I know that's a bit fast, but I think it would be appropriate.

I just wanted to mention as well that the minister, even though he's coming to speak on Bill C-23, is also prepared to answer questions on infrastructure, because I know that's been an issue. I would like to see maybe some future meetings deal with the infrastructure aspect, probably some time in the next 30 or 40 days.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I find myself in a position where I must say something on behalf of some of my other colleagues, most especially Mr. Don Bell, who could not be here, and especially given that Mr. Houston is here representing the lower mainland ports.

I just want to advise the committee that our B.C. caucus has in fact met not only on the amalgamation of the ports, but also on the impact of Bill C-23 on both the lower mainland and the larger issue of the Pacific gateway. And without putting any words into their mouths and constraining what we will do or say on this, I just thought Mr. Houston might want to know that the members of the Liberal caucus are in sync on movements in that area. That will make Mr. Fast very, very happy, I'm sure. It's important that the stakeholders also know where members of Parliament are coming from—as I say, that has nothing to do with those of us who are much more parochial—because we want to advance the issues of the continental gateway as it starts with and ends in Toronto.

[Patrice Pelletier]

I can perhaps address part of it, but I'll let you judge if it has something to do with Bill C-23.

There are three gateways in the country: Atlantic, continental, and the Pacific. In terms of the continental gateway, there is a subdivision that addresses the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes and one that addresses southern Ontario. The idea is to come up with a plan together. That plan is driven in terms of the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes. Right now there is a market study that will give the common strategy about what the market is and how this market can be conveyed to the end destination.

People within that gateway are getting organized the same way as the Pacific gateway. They have organized themselves very well. I think Gordon can talk about this.

I see a little bit of the same thing in many respects. We didn't talk about environment, but there is action with Green Marine--Alliance verte--in our part of the world. That is before laws and really avant-garde of auto regulations toward improving the environment. I see a convergence toward this. I don't see that because it's a smaller authority or an authority in a different basin or adjacent basin that it will be disfavoured.

I think the element underlying all of this is how we increase trade from a national perspective. We know there are gateways. We have to interlink with the southern Ontario gateway, which is very different from ours, but we're connected because we know where we're going. Sixty percent of the trade coming into Montreal stays in Canada, 40% goes to the United States. And 75% of that 40% goes to the Midwest, because that is the hub for merchandising and so on. Our neighbours in Ontario have to deal with the same issue. Personally, I see convergence in terms of our overall objective.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I suspect he's doing that because he wanted somebody to make an intervention on behalf of a Great Lakes gateway from an economic perspective in terms of developing the entire economy of Canada.

I thank you, gentlemen, for pointing out that there is a Pacific gateway strategy. The government members are keen to take full credit for it. We're not going to engage in partisanship, but it is one of the gateways. On the other, I see Mr. Hanrahan and Mr. Leroux, along with Monsieur Pelletier, have done well, speaking about the gateway that comes from Atlantic Canada and through the Port of Montreal.

I want to thank you before I make my comment on focusing strictly on the changing economic and trade patterns that impact on the way the port authorities see the world, and the way they must prepare for the world.

We have a variety of ports in Ontario. Mr. Watson has pointed to one, Windsor. There are several others. I'm thinking in terms of my own home city—Toronto—although other people might view themselves as expert on what happens in that city. I know that what you'll want to do is give us an indication about why it's important to think about the macro-economic changes for which we must prepare. That's why I asked you—and I'm wondering, Mr. Hanrahan, whether you'll do it perhaps from a different perspective—to talk in terms of governance issues in a CPA that will take into consideration any potential or foreseeable differences with local authorities about developing the infrastructure for changing trade patterns--why it would be important from your perspective that the jurisdictional authorities vested in CPAs, and confirmed by the courts, stay within the structure of material that must be dealt with from an investment perspective locally, but within a larger perspective.

And I'm taking the lead from Monsieur Pelletier, who said that the Port of Montreal really has a great dependency on the northern European market, secondarily on the southern Mediterranean, and thirdly from the Indian market accessing the Atlantic through the Suez Canal. This strikes me as a more studious approach to what should be happening with a port like Montreal if it's going to be a gateway into the Great Lakes basin, the northeastern United States, the midwest United States, and the biggest market in Canada, the Golden Horseshoe.

Those Canadian ports that are resident in the interior of that gateway, the Great Lakes ports, must have a similar strategy based on significantly similar economic assessment of where the future is going. So I'm wondering whether from your perspective the governance issues addressed by Bill C-23 are focused appropriately on that expansive mode, or whether they should concentrate, notwithstanding the jurisdictional decisions that have already been confirmed by the courts, on local issues only.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses here today.

I have two questions. One will be for you, Mr. Hanrahan.

You obviously have some of the larger ports represented here and talking about economic development. What does Bill C-23 mean for smaller ports—say, for Windsor, Ontario, or for Hamilton, or ports like that?

Secondly, the question I want to ask the bigger ports here is this. It seems that in order to capitalize on the economic expansion you need to do, there are currently two hindrances. One is access to the significant federal funds that are available, whether it's the billion dollars of Asia-Pacific money or $2.1 billion for the borders and gateways initiatives; and the second obstacle is the ability to access more private capital.

The question for you is, could you have moved ahead on some of your projects more quickly had a bill like this been in place months ago, years ago, or whenever?

I'm getting to a timing issue here. If we delay this, is that going to mean a problem for you? Could you have moved ahead more quickly? Because those two obstacles are clearly going to be removed by a bill like this.

Those are my questions.