Transport Committee on June 6th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone.

As stated at our last committee meeting, we're here today for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act.

Just before we proceed, Mr. Hubbard has a comment or a question.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I just have a question, really. This morning I found in my office a notice where a new master of the Royal Canadian Mint has been appointed. With appointments, under normal operations of committees, those names come before the committees for vetting. We have a timeframe to look at that name and consider whether or not he should appear before the committee. In fact, with all the attention the position has had in the last year or two, it might be good, at least for our committee, to consider having Mr. Bennett appear before our committee to explain his past to us and his resumé, in terms of whether or not it is an acceptable appointment.

I wonder, Mr. Chair, if you, as chair, or the clerk have received notice yet of that appointment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have not received any notice. We can certainly check into it—

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Chair. I think we have two weeks or so many days in order to review it.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair and Mr. Hubbard, but the reality is that we are not the committee for that, but the government operations committee is responsible for that appointment. It's not our committee, so if they want to call him before them, that's their prerogative. It doesn't have anything to do with us.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thanks for the clarification, but in terms of the announcement, it appears that the minister is responsible for transportation, infrastructure and communities. It came out under Mr. Cannon's name.

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

The minister is responsible for 17 crown corporations besides this portfolio, so he is a very busy person, but it's the government operations committee that would be responsible for that—for all crown corporations—not this committee.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you again.

Could we sometime, Mr. Chair, have some indication of just what we are responsible for as a committee? The post office is something that has emerged. We could have a list of the different organizations that are under Brian and the minister's—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I could ask the department and our clerk to help me with that for the next meeting.

Okay, we do have guests, I would like to say--I hate the word “witnesses”--but they are here to offer us advice as we go through this bill clause by clause.

Pursuant to the standing order, consideration of clause 1, the short title, and the long title of the bill are postponed.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I call the question.

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I have some questions regarding clause 2.

Clause 2, being definitions, that's under “Interpretation and Application”. The question hinges on the definition of “alteration”, and whether or not...there are a number of places throughout the bill where the term “alteration” is included.

We heard from the Ambassador Bridge company with respect to the concerns they have. There are a number of clauses referring to “construction or alteration”. That phrase goes hand in hand throughout many clauses in the bill. The concern they had raised in their presentation to this committee that is referred to in clause 2 was that because they operate one of only two bridges in private ownership of all the tunnels, crossings, and bridges, and because of the unique history they have by virtue of both the presidential order and the Canadian government's agreement in the original agreement for this bridge, this puts an unfair restriction on them both in terms of their financing ability and their ability to operate.

A number of the suggestions or requests they had were that this committee consider the deletion of the references to alteration, by defining alteration in clause 2. There are numerous ones throughout clause 6 and clause 7 where these refer to the words “or altered” or the word “alter” itself. I'm just wondering if I could hear further from Mr. Hicks or the staff with reference to that point and to the point made by the Ambassador Bridge people and the reason. I gather this was in the original bill, but I would like to hear that reference or the explanation of the concern for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Harvey.

[Éric Harvey, Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport]

The idea of including “alterations” is just that...everybody understands why constructing a bridge and why it would be regulated in the way it's proposed here. Vis-à-vis alterations, a series of alterations may have a significant impact on the traffic capacity of a bridge, and this is really what it's about---having regulations that will make sure that through alterations you may have an impact. When you impact traffic, the GIC is informed and then can approve it, but it's just not to leave decisions to the industry that may impact the traffic at the border.

In that respect, these provisions are neutral in that they apply the same way to everybody. There is no specific reference to any specific crossing in the entire bill as to why this would apply to one and not to the other. All these provisions and all those that refer to “construction and alteration” are applicable to all bridge operators.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Is the concern of the department the issue of a reduction in capacity rather than an expansion of capacity? An expansion of capacity on the crossing itself, be it a tunnel or bridge, really doesn't have any effect. It's governed by, as one of you called it, the end of the funnel at each end, and those are the road links, the highway connections.

If an operator wants to expand, connections will be required on each end. The capacity is there. Do I understand that the department's concern would be that someone might want to reduce capacity and therefore have a negative impact on the capacity to handle international trade between the U.S. and Canada?

[Brian Hicks, Director, Bridge Policy and Programs, Department of Transport]

I think it's actually more than that, and I'll use an example. Quite recently the Queenston-Lewiston Bridge in Niagara Falls added a fifth lane on their bridge. Obviously going from four lanes to five lanes would add capacity. Through this bill we would check the safety of this to make sure that by adding more capacity the lanes are not too narrow and causing safety problems and that the traffic leaving the highway and going onto this five-lane bridge is actually safe and secure.

So yes, we applaud people adding more capacity, but we want to make sure that it's done in a safe and secure manner.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chairman, the concerns that were raised during that time related to the possibility of competitiveness, I think, rather than the safety issues. And I don't know if we defined that more clearly, but they were talking about, as I recall, the issue of other bridges being built in which either the Government of Ontario or the federal government may have an interest, and then it's the combination of the regulation of tolls, plus the ability of capacity that seems to be perhaps an intrusive factor, if you want to call it that, in the arrangements by which these bridges were built.

So again, I just want to understand that it wouldn't be a case of limiting the ability of one bridge to expand to the benefit of a competitor nearby, for example.

[Brian Hicks]

I think the intention of this bill is to make sure there is free-flowing traffic across the border and to make sure this is done in a safe and efficient manner. So any time somebody submitted an application to us, whether to add more lanes on the bridge or to alter the bridge or tunnel, we would be looking at the traffic flow, the safety and security matters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I know that in Windsor West, where we have the Ambassador Bridge and then also the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, both have operations right now geared up for expansion of classes and facilities that are on the surrounding properties to increase capacity. But as you do that, this also decreases capacity and creates other situations about the free flow of traffic.

We don't have a border authority in our region, despite having the Ambassador Bridge, a privately run facility; the Detroit-Windsor ferry, a privately run facility; the CP Rail tunnel, a privately run facility, and then the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, which is owned by the City of Detroit, leased to a private company, and the other half of it is owned by the City of Windsor. There's no overall coordination body.

Will this provide some measure of coordination or at least examination that if one of those border crossings has infrastructure or other maintenance or repair, it doesn't happen at the same time? It's symbiotic. In fact, it goes beyond just Windsor, where what happens in terms of our flow of traffic affects even upwards to Niagara, but also, more importantly, down towards Sarnia, which is very close to us.

My concern is that once again there would be less of a focus on how those things come together, because currently we actually have processes under way to design new plazas that also affect different roads that seem to be running independently, and that could have consequential effects on the free flow of all the traffic.

[Brian Hicks]

That's an excellent point, and we are concerned about it. This came to our attention in the Niagara area where the Peace Bridge and the Niagara Falls bridge both had construction plans. The two of them, because they work so well together, have staggered their construction so that the whole frontier is not under construction at one time. It would be our intention that we would take the same approach at other frontiers, in other areas, and since they all would be applying to us, we would ensure that we're not creating a bottleneck at the border.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We are ready for the vote.

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4--Relationship with certain Acts)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

On clause 4, we have an amendment. I think it's in front of you. It's brought forward by the NDP and entitled NDP-1

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To my colleagues, the intent of this amendment originally comes from the City of Windsor, with expressed concern that you could have municipal by-laws and provincial laws that conflict and don't get the proper attention with regards to licensing and permits in the jurisdictions of border-crossing footprints.

So the simple addition at the end is:

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

This raises the awareness of the applicant to have to work within the jurisdictions of the province and the municipality, but at the same time provides that the act still has the authority at the end of the day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Discussion? It is admissible.

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

An amendment is being proposed to clause 4, with respect to the international bridge over the St. Lawrence River...

All right. I received the clarification I was seeking.