Finance Committee on Nov. 5th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

I don't have any other questions on this division from members, so I want to thank our officials for being with us at this session.

Colleagues, I don't have any questions on division 15 either, unless someone indicates so. We'll move to division 16.

I'll just highlight, colleagues, we will not get through these divisions today, so you'll have to indicate to me in some way what you want to do.

We'll go to division 16. We have officials from Transport who we want to welcome to the committee. Welcome. Thank you so much for being with us here today.

We are going to Monsieur Caron.

Go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We are at division 16, which deals with marine facilities. Ms. Henry, we talked about this at the technical briefing, but I would like to ask you the question again.

As things currently stand, a port authority cannot acquire another port. The bill seeks to partially correct the situation. Is that correct?

[Joyce Henry, Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport]

You're correct in saying a Canadian port authority. There are two types of ports, just to sort of back up a little bit. One is the Canada port authorities; there are 18 of those. Currently, they don't have the ability to acquire a public port because they're federal properties. The proposed amendments are to rectify that, to allow them to potentially acquire what are currently Transport Canada-owned ports as part of our divestiture program.

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

Right now, a port authority cannot acquire federal properties, such as lands, buildings or, in this case, existing ports owned by Transport Canada?

[Joyce Henry]

They can manage those facilities on lands if that is given to them in their letters patent. There is a specific schedule for that. They can also lease or own private land. In terms of federal, they can own land in their own right as well, but not federal real property.

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

Historically, why have port authorities not been allowed to acquire federal properties, such as ports? Why is there such a ban?

[Joyce Henry]

That's an excellent question. I'm not completely sure. I have been told that the idea was always that they would be able to have both real property and federal real property.

At this point we're trying to support, in part, the divestiture of Transport Canada-owned ports. We used to have, I think,180. We have around 53 left. The budget announced that there would be an additional $43 million over the next few years in order to facilitate that. This is also part of that program, to allow Canadian port authorities to potentially acquire some of our ports.

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

Has a specific port authority approached you to make a request for such an amendment? Of the 18 port authorities that you mentioned, have some approached you or the government, pleading for an amendment to these regulations or this legislation?

[Joyce Henry]

My understanding is that some Canadian port authorities are interested in acquiring certain Transport Canada ports. There is a directive that the federal government has in terms of divesting. Port authorities aren't at the top of that list. There's sort of a list that has to go through other federal departments, crown corporations, provinces, and municipalities before it can be offered to private interests or Canadian port authorities if this amendment is accepted.

So, yes, I believe some port authorities have talked to us about that.

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

You work for Transport Canada and some ports are currently owned by Transport Canada. Terms and conditions are also followed in terms of Transport Canada's port divestiture program. For instance, they will be offered to a municipality first and foremost, to a region or other areas. If a port authority ends up being in a position to acquire a port owned by Transport Canada, has an order of priority been established for this divestiture offer? Will the port authority jump to the top of the list of parties that might be interested in buying a port belonging to Transport Canada?

[Joyce Henry]

I'm not an expert on the divestiture process; it's a different part of the department.

My colleagues can correct me if they know more, but my understanding is that as an individual, a Transport Canada port is put on the market, for lack of a better term, but as the list is exhausted—federal departments, crown corporations, provinces, and municipalities—at the end of that list would be private interests including, if this is accepted, Canadian port authorities. In that instance, whoever wanted to acquire would put forward their expression of interest and then they would be in some sort of competitive process.

Is that fair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I want to talk about the Canada Marine Act and our government's strong commitment to environmental protection and proper assessment of projects. I wonder if you could confirm that this act would not allow one existing bypass of our environmental laws and in fact would allow the government to place even stricter environmental considerations on projects.

[Joyce Henry]

The current federal environmental laws, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, and laws such as that, would continue to apply.

I think you are probably talking about the second set of amendments that are proposed here. In that regard, the idea is that we would be able to potentially incorporate an existing regime for LNG projects that don't have a current federal regime. We would strengthen the environmental regulations by taking existing and established regimes, in this case in British Columbia, forward into our regulations.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I don't want to put words in your mouth; I just want to understand this. The changes will strengthen the laws and put in better laws to enforce these environmental guarantees. Is that correct?

[Joyce Henry]

In terms of existing federal laws like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Fisheries Act, there wouldn't be any changes to those that I am aware of.

What we would be able to do in this instance is to take an established regime, established regulations, laws and enforcement activities.... In this case in the province of British Columbia, they have an established oil and gas regulation commission, and they are used to regulating these types of projects. We don't have that sort of expertise in the federal government at this point. We're hoping to incorporate them as regulations under the Canada Marine Act.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Good. Thank you.

That is all I have, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have some time for Mr. Keddy on this round.

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

I have a quick question for a point of clarification.

With regard to these changes to the Canada Marine Act, there is nothing in these changes that affect the pre-1867 water lots. Those are not a big issue for every port authority, but they are certainly a big issue for areas like Halifax that have a number of them.

[Joyce Henry]

No, there is nothing I am aware of in that regard.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Brison, you have questions on division 16.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes.

Are there any rules in place to ensure that local governments are consulted prior to any significant regulatory changes or acquisitions or divestitures that take place under this division?

[Joyce Henry]

I would say that there is nothing to prevent consultations by Canadian port authorities vis-à-vis municipalities.

In terms of divestiture, unfortunately that's not my specific area, so I'm not sure. I know a public notice is put out, but I'm not sure about the specifics.

I can come back to you if you wish; it is just not my specific area.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Certainly.

There is a difference between having rules in place to ensure that local governments are consulted.... I believe you just said that there are no rules to prevent that from happening, which would imply that it might be a negative.

Again, will you come back to us to answer the question on what rules are in place, if any, to ensure that local governments are consulted?