Transport Committee on June 8th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Harvey has convinced me. We're opposed to the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Carrier.

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

I'd like to have something clarified. Mr. Harvey has convinced me of the importance of reaching this decision. My question relates to the translation. In the English version, we note the words: “any officer of a department”, while the French version refers to a “fonctionnaire”. The French version seems more general. A “fonctionnaire” could be anyone. Isn't an “officer” someone with more authority?

[Éric Harvey]

To my way of thinking, the words “officer” and “fonctionnaire” are equivalent. We don't want to impose too many restrictions, as this would prevent us from delegating and from rapidly responding to a situation. That's why a more general term was used, although it's restricted to a departmental official.

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

For the sake of clarity, would it be better to use the word “cadre” or “officier” in the French version?

[Éric Harvey]

No. I believe the word “officier” is an anglicism. If you use the word “cadre”, you're raising a slew of questions. What exactly do you mean by “cadre”? Which level of “cadre”? I recommend that you stick with the current wording.

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

I'll trust you on this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Since Mr. Masse has withdrawn the amendment, shall clause 18 carry?

(Clauses 18 to 22 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 23--Prohibition)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have an amendment to clause 23. It is Liberal amendment L-2.

Mr. Bell, will you speak to it?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

The copies were circulated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I want to make sure everyone has a copy of it.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

It was circulated at the last meeting.

I should add that in subclause (1.1) of the proposed amendment, the word “only” should not be in there. Delete the word “only”. It should read, “taking into consideration the following factors”, rather than “taking into consideration only the following factors”.

The reason this came up is that during the discussions with the witnesses, one of the comments was that some criteria should be provided. I'm aware that in the Investment Canada Act, for example, there are references I think to the net benefit to Canada. There are some guidelines so that people can understand the considerations that will be used in the decisions.

Here there were no criteria. If I understand the kinds of things that came out of the discussion with the witnesses, the issues that would come up on the acquisition of a bridge or tunnel would include the safety and security of the public, the criminal records of the people who want to acquire it or to whom it might be shifted, and the financial resources--and therefore the ability of a company to continue to operate the asset they're taking in a satisfactory way.

The issue really is that of providing some direction so that people will know under what circumstances or what guidance these decisions would be made.

I would appreciate the department's comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Harvey.

[Éric Harvey]

When we developed the provisions respecting the transfer, the instructions I had were to make the lid very tight in terms of covering all possible transactions. For example, if you simply refer to the sale of the property, of the bridge, what can happen is that you can transfer the stocks of the company that owns the bridge and you achieve the same purpose without infringing the act.

Really, the mandate I had was to make the lid very tight, and I also got the assistance of a specialist in corporate law just to be sure that, essentially, our provisions were very tight. This means in fact that essentially the intent is for all potential transfers, no matter for what reason they exist, would be covered.

Now, the motion before you wants to, if you will, establish a box around the GIC when the GIC makes their recommendations. In other words, it sets a series of conditions and says this is it, nothing outside these criteria. I understand the word “only” is removed, but it nevertheless puts some kind of limitation in terms of the GIC discretion.

The bill is looking at bridges in a very general and broad way, concerning transportation, to start with, trade, security, safety, all of those criteria, and all of these matters will become, if you will, the framework that will apply to GIC when making its decisions. In other words, GIC cannot make an arbitrary decision. The decision that has to be made has to be consistent with the spirit of the act so that it's consistent with Parliament's intent.

I guess the risk of enumerating is that it will be interpreted as limiting the discretion of GIC. I guess the risk, when you enumerate, is that you may not think about something that may happen in the future that would make sense and be consistent with the spirit of the bill, yet not be able to use it. That's the risk I wanted to explain to this committee at this stage in the discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I appreciate the comment, Mr. Harvey, but the intention wasn't to limit. The intention was, I guess, to provide some direction or priority or focus, in terms of what would be considered. That's why I want to make it clear that removing the word “only” would have been limiting, and it was the intention to ensure that it consider the following factors, to give some direction to people to know that what it is we're expecting will be the main concern, and to maybe depoliticize, to some degree, and ensure that there's a businesslike focus on the kinds of decisions that are made, rather than potentially being wide open. I am concerned, because of the nature of the crossings, or the importance of them, and the fact that there are only two of them that are privately held, that they're done in a fair way and that it's less political and more businesslike and more rational.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Harvey.

[Éric Harvey]

I would like to add one comment. If you go to subclause 24(2), you'll see that the person who submits the application has to provide the minister with the information that will be listed in guidelines. In other words, it's not as if people will be shooting in the dark. I mean, those operators who want to make a transfer will know what is expected of them in terms of what they have to provide. This will help. And of course they will have to explain the circumstances, and that will then assist GIC in terms of making the decision it has to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

This reminds me of the Income Tax Act and how well that's going, with people coming along--lawyers primarily--and finding loopholes. I think that's the situation. You're limiting the minister; you're limiting the ability of the Canadian government to decide who owns the bridges.

What if a foreign power that we're not friendly with comes in and wants to own the bridges? What if somebody wants to own all the bridges and force the price of transfers to go up? There are just so many things. By setting that down, we need to take into consideration that for these important bridges and tunnels, for these passageways for I think 50% to 60% of our economy, we need to have it as wide open as possible so that we can make decisions as a government that are in the best interest of Canadians. The governor in council has to make the decisions in the best interest of Canadians; that's what it's there for.

I just think by limiting it, it's sort of what we're doing with the Income Tax Act. We're inviting the possibility of people finding loopholes that are not to our benefit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

To the researchers, concerning this amendment, how does this compare with U.S. legislation with regard to their sale? This seems to really limit the scope of that. We've seen controversies on infrastructure sales recently in the United States, with the Dubai issue.

I think this would be different from what they have in the U.S. We do have joint ownership of some of this infrastructure, because of the 24 international crossings that are bridges or tunnels for car and vehicular traffic, only two are privately held. The others ones are jointly owned by governments.

[Éric Harvey]

I must admit that I'm not fully aware of the U.S. legislation.

One thing I would add is that the rationale for having control over the transfer is in fact consistent with the same rationale to have, initially, GIC approval to build the bridge. In other words, if you come and ask the GIC for permission to build a bridge, there will be, of course, assessments of the need for the bridge, and so on and so forth, but the GIC will undoubtedly look at your actual capacity to do it, and there will be a series of things, all kinds of things.

Here what will happen is the GIC will look at everything that has nothing to do with the new bridge, because the bridge will already exist, but it will nevertheless look at all the criteria in terms of who will operate it, the intent, the plans, and all of that. In that sense, the same spirit will go with the assessment of the transfer that should normally go with the initial authorization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.