Evidence of meeting #56 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was measure.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Can I clarify whether it is in terms of the divestiture of Transport Canada-owned ports, or in terms of a Canadian port authority specifically acquiring Transport Canada...?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Well, for any significant regulatory changes, acquisitions, or divestitures that would take place under this division.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
What I can say on regulatory changes is that all of our regulations follow the Canada Gazette process, so in that sense they are published. Normally, we would have consultations with the department anyway, with stakeholders and the public.
However, there is a formal process under Canada Gazette, part I, where regulations are published, and comments are taken into account before we go back to Treasury Board to finalize the regulations in Canada Gazette, part II.
In terms of divestiture or acquisition, I'd have to come back to you on that.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
With respect to consultation, you talked about LNG as one of the examples. You talked about Prince Rupert at a previous committee hearing. Has the federal government or the Department of Justice considered any of the consultative requirements that may be new based upon recent Supreme Court decisions?
The reason I'm being very specific is that the change you are imagining is that the port authorities in Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and Quebec could pick up a federal port, as the government is looking to divest itself of these ports. The consultation requirements now, particularly on unceded title land, have gone up.
Does this act incorporate any of those enhanced consultation requirements of the federal government?
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
I just want to be clear in terms of what's being proposed under these amendments.
For a TC-divested port, the only amendment we're making here is that the Canada port authorities would potentially be able to acquire those lands. In terms of everything else, like anything else that goes around the divestiture, that would remain the same. That would include any analysis around what would be required in terms of duty to consult.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand that.
To understand just whether this has been contemplated, is that because of this particular amendment, because port authorities occupy a grey zone? They're a different kind of entity for Canadians to understand who owns them and who directs them. Is it a federal or provincial jurisdiction? This is what it will look like to some courts as an intergovernmental transfer. The requirements on consultation if government is transferring ownership of a property from one agency to another are quite high. When you're starting to talk about energy development, ports being used for LNG terminals and whatnot, that's going to hit a consultation trigger almost automatically.
I'm just asking, was any consultation done with Justice to try to incorporate any of the new regime consultations that I know the B.C. government is going through right now about these types of specified projects? It's a bit of a new world. I'm wondering if this legislation is catching up to that new reality by the Supreme Court.
5:25 p.m.
Corrie Van Walraven Manager, Ports Policy, Department of Transport
By the time a port would be able to acquire a public port it would have already been offered to a federal department, a province, and a local municipality. They would have already refused and would not be interested. Then they would be offered to a private citizen or a CPA, a Canada port authority.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. I understand.
Pardon me, Chair, I know we're trying to keep an eye on time, but this is actually an important piece.
If the initiative here is to free up federal ports to allow for development and that development path that you see is to put port authorities higher up in the line.... I understand that they still fall behind certain.... But they're put forward in consideration for purchasing these lands I assume for development purposes. It's not embedded in the legislation but that's the effect that the government, I assume, is hoping for.
Am I far off here in terms of the analysis and the impact of these...?
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
You're not off. It's just that Transport Canada has been trying to divest of ports for a while, as you probably know. In terms of the port authorities, the idea is just that it would be one more opportunity for a buyer, potentially. Also, because they have expertise in the port business and have been successful in corridors and gateways in attracting investments and creating jobs, all of that would position them well potentially for that. Up until this point, because of the way the act is written on federal rail property, it hasn't been possible for them to acquire. In terms of duty to consult, obviously it's something the department in general is considering in terms of all of our activities, as probably every department is. In terms of specifics on divestiture, the divestiture program doesn't actually fall under my area so the short answer on the specifics is I don't know.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Forgive me for maybe going beyond the scope of what you brought to the table
Is there a limit for this?
There's no maximum imagined. A port authority couldn't be limited to picking off one or two of these federal ports?
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
They can't acquire any property like this without the minister's approval through an issuance of what are called supplementary letters patent, which amends their letters patent. In that sense, there is a control mechanism on what they're doing.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
There still remains a mechanism of control at the federal level?
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If a port got real ambitious and started to pick up many of these divested federal ports....
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
The other important point is that they have to be financially self-sustaining. I don't want to call them controls, but there are embedded checks and balances in the Canada Marine Act on that respect as well.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I'll go to Monsieur Caron, and then I'll suspend after that.
I'd like the subcommittee to meet with me at the back of the room or in the hallway. I'd like to have a little discussion about how we're going to deal with the next divisions.
Mr. Caron, go ahead.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Henry, you answered part of the question I wanted to ask, as you talked about ministerial control. As a result, a specific port could not build a port empire in order to take control of a region. However, a port or a port authority could still decide to buy other ports to subsequently shut them down and thereby reduce competition, correct?
Let me give you a hypothetical example, from my part of the country nonetheless.
The Port of Québec is a port authority. To increase its share of the market, if it decided to gradually buy the ports of Cacouna, Rimouski, Sept-Îles and Matan, and close two or three of them—specifically the one in Sept-Îles because it is probably its major competitor—could things be done in that way?
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Again, this gets back to the divestiture program specifics themselves. I believe, but I will check for you, that there is a clause now that requires anyone who is taking over a port, whether it be a port authority or another department, or a municipality, or a province, or whatever, to keep that going as a port for a certain amount of time.
Corrie, I don't know if you want to add to that. You may have more....
5:30 p.m.
Manager, Ports Policy, Department of Transport
That's correct. Also, the Minister of Transport does have final say over any acquisitions of property for a port authority.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
My last question is for you, Ms. Van Walraven.
You said that the ports intended to be divested by Transport Canada had already been offered to the province or the region, but if the province or region declined, they could be transferred to a port authority.
With its maritime strategy, the Government of Quebec is expressing a renewed interest in eventually acquiring certain ports. Can the process be reviewed if the interest is there?
5:30 p.m.
Manager, Ports Policy, Department of Transport
The current process is subject to the Government of Canada's process for disposal of surplus assets.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I'm asking because there is a renewed interest in Quebec to actually acquire those ports. They might actually have said no the first time they were offered under previous governments. Now they might want to acquire them. Are they still going to be offered them before they go to any other potential buyer including port authorities?