Transport Committee on June 6th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If I could, I just want to make a comment here, and it is based on the advice I've received from officials that the amendment does appear to be contrary to the principle of the bill. At this point, although I had previous information that it was admissible, I am now advised that it is inadmissible.

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Could we use the occasion of the discussion, however, to deal with what...?

I would read this the way you did in your second interpretation, relative to the principle of the bill. Having said that, though, the way it was presented by Mr. Masse was different from your interpretation of the bill in the context of a consultation or a requirement to be aware of inconsistencies. He may have presented it differently from how it's interpreted by officials, and that's fine.

Maybe we can use this occasion.... Mr. Jean has said that there are many places within the act where the objectives of the particular amendment that Mr. Masse was proposing are met. Just for reference, where are they?

I'm with the department, and the officials, and Monsieur Laframboise in terms of the paramountcy of federal jurisdiction in terms of international border crossings. However, I also would be of the view that this paramountcy does not necessarily allow taking it to the level of unilateralism, if you like. I mean, there should be a requirement, and I'd like to know where it is so we can satisfy the objective that Mr. Masse articulated, without taking away the paramountcy of federal jurisdiction.

[Evelyn Marcoux]

Do you want to answer? Go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Having acknowledged that it is inadmissible, I am going to look at limiting debate.

Mr. Jean.

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

I was just going to say very quickly—and really, I think this is good, Mr. Chairman, because it identifies some of the other amendments that have been proposed by the NDP—that I really wish I had had an opportunity to speak to them about the amendments earlier too, so I could have satisfied some of their concerns.

We can look at a copy of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, under which, of course, all bridges and any international tunnels require an assessment to be done. I have copies, if anybody wants one.

If we turn to, for instance, paragraph 4(1)(d):

The purposes of this Act are (d) to ensure that there be opportunities for timely and meaningful public participation throughout the environmental assessment process.

All the yellow tabs deal with municipalities, or public process, or provinces, and so on. So I'll just give a couple of examples.

Subsection 18(3):

Where the responsible authority is of the opinion that public participation in the screening of a project is appropriate in the circumstances--or where required by regulation

they will do so.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Are you reading from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act?

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

Yes, I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

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

I can keep going through it, but the reality is that each of these tabs deals with either.... Here's a better one.

Subparagraph 33(1)(a)(i):

Where a project is referred to a review panel, the Minister shall, in consultation with the responsible authority

--either municipal or provincial--

appoint as members of the panel, including the chairperson thereof, persons who (i) are unbiased and free from any conflict of interest

It goes on, Mr. Masse. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires serious consultation with all authorities already.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse, you may make a last comment.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Some of the motions we will have are amendments that came about from the historic incorporation of the City of Windsor in relation to its jurisdiction. It's why the City of Windsor has suggested amendments to protect that type of status and to provide some of the solutions that they think are necessary to avoid the problems we've had.

We can basically deal with them as they come in terms of admissibility or inadmissibility, but it's just one act. That's not the role being sought by the motions and amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Do you want it on the record, Mr. Masse?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay, we'll go to the vote.

(Clause 4 agreed to on division)

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6—Prohibition)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have an amendment on clause 6 that was circulated and submitted by Mr. Bell. I'll ask him to make a comment, please.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

This is again further to the discussion I had with the department with respect to, number one, the issue of alteration. I heard that argument, and there was no deletion of the definition of alteration. I guess it's the application of alteration.

There are two aspects to this, and I would refer you to clause 6 as it now reads, which is basically that: No person shall construct or alter an international bridge or tunnel without the approval of the Governor in Council.

This is suggesting that, first of all, the first subclause would be more or less the same:No person shall construct an international bridge or tunnel without the approval of the Governor in Council.

The deletion is the reference to “alter”.

The second part is: 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.

My understanding is that there has been clarification. I have a copy of a letter from the U.S. Department of State clarifying to the Detroit International Bridge Company, which is the incorporated Ambassador Bridge, as we know it: “We have determined that the DIBC does not require a Presidential permit to expand or twin the existing bridge at that location.” The location is the Ambassador Bridge.

I realize that is the U.S. government's position, and we make our own decisions. I only wanted to talk about consistency in terms of going back to the original agreement of 1921. I said that I would bring forward this proposal for discussion by this committee so that there is at least an opportunity for discussion.

I again heard the argument from the department that it relates to the question of a fifth lane, for example, and the impact of expansion and/or twinning. I'd appreciate comments. It's in that same light, but I would appreciate any further comments that the department wanted to make on that.

It's the concern, as it was expressed, because of the uniqueness of the Ambassador Bridge, the historical relationship that it has, and the fact that it was built with private funds, with both the Canadian government and the U.S. government's presidential permit allowing it in terms of its ability to function in the marketplace, in terms of boring capacity, and things of that nature.

Could you comment on that?

[Brian Hicks]

The bill relates to all 24 international crossings. We've been very careful in the wording so that what we've put in the bill is applied fairly to everybody.

Our intention with this particular clause is that if you are going to construct, twin, or alter a bridge, you would then need Governor in Council approval.

I know that we use the word “twinning” a lot with bridges. In effect, you're building a new bridge. Whether it's a twin or not, you're actually constructing a new bridge across the border. The wording in this bill as it currently stands would require Governor in Council approval.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Twinning is another word for expansion, I guess, realistically. I appreciate you say it's a new bridge, but if you have an existing bridge...and I can relate it to a bridge in my jurisdiction, the Lions Gate Bridge. The alternative was to expand the number of lanes, and the question was whether the structure of the bridge could hold the additional lanes, or whether the way to obtain that extra capacity was to parallel or twin it. So it's a little different from a new bridge at a physical location that might be moved in the general proximity, which could be a mile or two miles away. You're talking about the impact of a particular bridge at a location.

I guess the difference, as explained to me by the witnesses from the Ambassador Bridge--and I just want to ensure that their interests are well vetted by this committee before we make our determination on this bill—in the distinction of those 24 locations you made reference to, in the financing and capacity of those bridges, is that there is no private liability, if you want to call it that. If the governments want to do something, they have the ability to raise the money. They don't have to go to the market to do so; they can do it through taxation, and make a government decision to apply funds to that, as opposed to a private operator, who has to make an economic case that will get either bond holders, banks, or someone to provide that money. Restrictions that might seem not unreasonable in a government owner context are unduly restrictive in a private owner context.

It's a question of what the interests of the Government of Canada are. I gather we want to ensure that safety and protection are the primary concerns--and the integrity of these international crossings. That's why I said I would raise this issue on behalf of the witnesses.

[Evelyn Marcoux]

The minute the government receives a request for construction of any piece of infrastructure, whether it's a bridge or a road, it triggers the environmental assessment process. As part of that process, a lot of consultations are done with the community. The building of these bridges--and the case we're talking about is twinning--involves all of these consultations, plus the definition of a business case that needs to be put forward. At the end of the day, those structures are federal jurisdiction; they are the sovereignty of the Government of Canada. This is where our trade and business are going to be carried out with our neighbours, the Americans. It has to be part of a process.

Whether it's privately owned, publicly owned, or publicly managed, this act is trying to eliminate the differences between them. The governance of each bridge will remain as is. But the government is trying to bring in a policy that will take into consideration all the elements before giving approval to an important crossing that will determine a lot of economic factors.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I'd be interested in the government's side, Mr. Jean's side, or comments on this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Would this amendment have an impact on issues like the direct process, where you could have alterations of a significant magnitude of not only the bridge but the tunnel in our community? Would this have an impact on that binational process?

[Evelyn Marcoux]

Do you mean the revision of the clause?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes.

[Evelyn Marcoux]

We just received the clause this morning. New subclause 6(2) would absolutely have an impact on the big process.