Finance Committee on May 29th, 2014

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You're not comfortable.

[Nathalie Martel]

Yes.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You can appreciate our discomfort, then.

[Nathalie Martel]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Can I call the vote on the first amendment, then? Is it a recorded vote, or are all in favour of the first amendment?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

We will abstain.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 371 as amended agreed to)

We'll go to clause 372, and we obviously have a second amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 372 as amended agreed to)

Next is the amendment to clause 373.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 373 as amended agreed to)

There's no amendment for clause 374.

(Clause 374 agreed to)

Okay, I want to thank our official.

Thank you, Ms. Martel.

All right, we'll go now to division 28.

Colleagues, we have an awful lot of amendments on this, but I'll highlight them for you.

We have amendment LIB-21. That's the first one I have to deal with. The vote on amendment LIB-21 applies to amendments NDP-19, NDP-20, LIB-22, LIB-23, NDP-21, LIB-24, NDP-22 and LIB-25, as these amendments are consequential.

I suggest we ask Mr. McKay to move amendments LIB-21, and then we have NDP-20. First, I'll ask Mr. McKay to move amendment LIB-21, then I'd recommend colleagues speak generally to the amendment and the clause, then obviously we'll vote on amendment LIB-21.

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

This clause allows the federal government to collect tolls on the new bridge, but the federal government has yet to provide a solid business case justifying these tolls. The proposed tolls are opposed by the City of Montreal because of how they will divert traffic and contribute to greater congestion, thereby hurting the region's economy. We've proposed five amendments—and as you've rightly pointed out they are consequential—to remove specific provisions allowing the federal government to establish and collect tolls on the new bridge.

It's pretty simple. Unless there's a business case that's been made, which it hasn't, there's no basis for getting an amendment to a bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Keddy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I have a question to our witness on the diverting of traffic.

It's an interesting point. I think most of us have driven a fair amount on both highways. I'm not aware of any studies where tolled highways cause diversion in traffic, actually. I'd simply ask our official if she's aware of any other studies.

[Thao Pham, Assistant Deputy Minister, Federal Montreal Bridges, Department of Transport]

Good evening, Mr. Chair.

Actually there were studies done with respect to the potential traffic diversion. That study is part of a business case that, as you know, is now confidential because we have started the procurement process. It is very important that we keep it confidential at this stage, because it will affect of course the bids, the competitive bids that will be coming in.

In general terms though, Mr. Chair, with respect to traffic diversion, what we see around the world and in big cities is that initially there is some diversion but then there is a return to achieve equilibrium between the different roads. That is my answer to the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Keddy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Yes, I wasn't quite clear. I think you've answered the question with other examples around the world, but I'll use an example from Nova Scotia. It's the only part of the Trans-Canada Highway that has a toll on it. It goes through the Cobequid Pass, from the other side of Truro up to the New Brunswick border practically.

When that tolled highway went in, everyone said that there was no way that people would use it. They would drive around; it's the same distance. I'll guarantee you, no one drives around it—no one. They use the tolled highway. It's closer. It's a better road. It does not affect traffic flow. It affects traffic flow to the tolled highway.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

And one road is—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Order. Order.

Thank you, Mr. Keddy. We'll go to Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I want to say that Mr. Keddy just made my point. He compared having a toll highway and the option to use back roads instead. Obviously, there isn't a choice. It's the only highway and the only place that takes you to Truro or Halifax, but the Champlain bridge is one of four. The Trans-Canada Highway wasn't replacing another road, but in this case, the bridge is replacing another one.

It was mentioned that studies had been done to find out the impact that a toll would have on traffic. We won't have access to those studies. Not Mr. Keddy or anyone else can deny the fact that a toll is generally set up to adjust the flow of traffic. Tolls always have an impact on traffic. No one is questioning the fact that the Champlain bridge isn't new infrastructure, but one that is being replaced. As things stand, the bridge doesn't have a toll, but the Conservatives plan to put one on the new bridge.

In Montreal, when the extension was done on Highway 25, a toll was set up. On Highway 30, an extension, a toll was put in place and met with little resistance. But in this case, a toll is being put on one of the main gateways to Montreal, one that is used to transport 19% of Quebec's GDP. And yet we're being told that a toll won't have any impact on traffic on the Champlain bridge or the other bridges. Clearly, it will have consequences and they have been studied.

Ms. Pham, you said the studies hadn't been released. They exist but are confidential. The transport committee heard from Transport Canada officials. They said they didn't have all the necessary information and hadn't studied the impact a toll would have on the region or the island's other bridges.

I am willing to accept what you're telling us, but other Transport Canada officials—I don't know whether it was you or others—said that all the analysis hadn't been done.

The Quebec government is obviously against the toll. The business organizations don't want a toll, because they understand the negative impact it will have. I can't wrap my head around why the government is so determined to go this route. It should work with the provinces more.

Now we're hearing that the federal government is willing to divest itself of the would-be toll bridge in the hope that the Quebec government will manage it. Then the Quebec government will be told that, if it doesn't agree, it will have to get rid of the toll and take responsibility for the bridge. The federal government is being totally irresponsible. It is putting Montreal's economic well-being in jeopardy. And that is why we proposed a slew of amendments, including four that address the toll on the bridge.

I don't understand why the federal government is being so stubborn about this. The Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs talks constantly of consultation. There's no consultation. The federal government is imposing its will. The Quebec government is against the decision, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal is against it, and the Agence métropolitaine de transport is against it. All of them understand the impact a toll is going to have on the Jacques-Cartier bridge, the Victoria bridge and the Louis-Hippolyte-La Fontaine bridge-tunnel.

Once again, I'd like to know who supports the Conservatives' plan to impose a toll. Do you even have a single witness who is in favour of putting a toll on the new Champlain bridge? I have yet to hear one.

Before voting on this solution and the amendments, I'd like you to show me people who will be affected by the toll and who are in favour of it. I still need to meet a single one. We've been discussing this for about a year or a year and a half now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Merci.

Can I go to the vote then on amendment Liberal-21? It's a recorded vote, I assume.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

A recorded vote on amendment Liberal-21.

(Amendment negatived: yeas 5, nays 4)

That amendment is defeated. As I mentioned, that applies to all the other amendments on this clause.

We shall now go to clause 375.

Shall clause 375 carry?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

A recorded vote, please.

(Clause 375 agreed to: yeas 6, nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Ms. Pham, for being with us here tonight. I appreciate your staying this late.

[Thao Pham]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll now go to division 29, Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act. With respect to clause 376, we have amendment NDP-23. We'll allow our officials to come to the table.

Again, thank you so much for being with us. We appreciate you staying to this hour. We appreciate that.

And I appreciate all my colleagues for being here and working very hard. I sincerely do.

We will go then to amendment NDP-23. Who will move that?

Mr. Rankin, please.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Perhaps I can put a little context around the amendment and signal where we're going on division 29 as the official opposition. We are opposed to this initiative, but I want to say specifically that we are essentially 25 minutes before closure and are dealing with another omnibus bill, a part that would create a new administrative tribunal mechanism that has really nothing to do with the budget. But that's just like how the Mr. Justice Nadon thing was dealt with on the back of the last omnibus budget bill, trying to retroactively bless that.

Here we are caught because in a sense one could support a shared services model. We've seen that in Ontario. We've seen that in British Columbia. There's much to be said in favour of it if there is any level of trust in trying to achieve administrative efficiency and cost savings by grouping tribunals together in some fashion and providing shared services for them. As I say, that has been done elsewhere and we applaud those initiatives.

What is concerning to so many people, of course, and to so many tribunals with which I've consulted, and administrative law professors is that there's a need for administrative independence for these agencies. That's why they were created in the first place and there's a great fear of them on the part of this government, since this individual who's the subject of this amendment, this administrator, essentially is going to be accountable to the Minister of Justice, the same Minister of Justice who has appointed cronies to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and unbelievable patronage.... It gives us pause that there would be this kind of initiative to deal with at this time.

For that reason, my says that the individual should hold office during good behaviour for a term of up to five years, but may be removed at any time by the Governor in Council for cause. That's the reason for the amendment. Simply put, there's a great fear that the ability to appoint an administrator at pleasure, as the government would wish to do, for a term of five years, would simply create another patronage pool for this government. That's the reason for the amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

I will go to Mr. Keddy, please.