Evidence of meeting #58 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was authority.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Rankin.
We'll go to Mr. Keddy for seven minutes.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to our witnesses, a large group of witnesses here this morning.
My first question is for Mr. McAllister with the Heart and Stroke Foundation. First of all, thank you for the great work you folks do. That's a remarkable record, 75% decrease in deaths from heart and stroke.
You say that the provinces have the ability to use electronic tools now, but do all provinces and territories have that ability or is it only a portion of them?
9:25 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Ontario, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
Thank you very much for the question.
To the best of my knowledge, all of the provinces that operate provincial lotteries allow their provincial gaming corporations to use technology.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
So the Heart and Stroke Foundation has the ability then to work at the provincial and territorial level but not at the national level with the use of electronic tools.
9:25 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Ontario, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
The real key, if I could just back up a little bit, is that the original intention, based on discussions with people who were involved in developing the original legislation, was to prevent charities from getting into things like slot machines, video lottery terminals, and so on and so forth. The legislation was framed 30 years ago in order to preclude that outcome when the agreement was originally achieved between the federal government and the provincial governments in terms of how lotteries would be managed on a national basis. This is sort of a classic case of a law of unintended consequences. What they were trying to preclude 30 years ago were VLTs and slot machines, and charities getting into that.
Today it's blocking us from using computers for entirely legitimate means such as issuing tickets and random draws in terms of avoiding the costs and complexity associated with putting, literally, a million paper tokens into a big Lucite drum, turning it with a motor, and physically reaching in. It takes us 15 days to do our draw because we have to draw 75,000 tickets. We're just trying to sort of catch up with the 1990s, let alone 2014.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
We appreciate that. It is a great visual though.
9:30 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Ontario, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
Sir, I've been there and I would be happy to bring you by and give you an opportunity. You have to keep all your job prospects current these days.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Janice Gray from the Canadian Cancer Society, you made a statement that it costs roughly $100,000 to run a paper lottery.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Manager, Lottery, Canadian Cancer Society
That's one touch point in the whole process. There are about 10 different touch points where the use of modern technology and computers would absolutely change the lives of how we do this every day. I picked one process to say that one little touch point would be $100,000 extrapolated across every lottery across the country. To Mr. McAllister's point, it's in the millions and millions of dollars of savings if we get this amendment. It's huge.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Very good, thank you.
Ms. Zatylny, are all port authorities across Canada set up with the same system of governance?
9:30 a.m.
President, Association of Canadian Port Authorities
Yes, sir, they are. They are set up to operate as extreme arm's-length organizations from the government. They each have independent boards of directors as well as an executive management team.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
The reason I ask is that I recognize the great job you folks do. Quite frankly sometimes the road and rail lengths to your ports are the weak link in the whole system.
However, why should a port authority have control if I happen to live on that port water and want to put a private wharf in to tie a boat up? I'm talking a recreational boat, like in the port of Halifax, for instance.
9:30 a.m.
President, Association of Canadian Port Authorities
Well, sir, I think there are a number of issues that you are touching on in the question. Certainly with respect to port lands, the lands that are under the control of the port authority as described in their letters patent are theirs to manage for the benefits and purposes of managing a commercial multi-user port. The harbour master within that port authority has the responsibility by law to ensure the safety of the operations of both the commercial vessels coming into the port authority and also of recreational boaters who might be coming into that vicinity, so the decisions that are made with respect to what types of facilities can be attached to or built onto a port authority property are very much based on the lands that they control and the responsibility for ensuring safety.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
I appreciate the safety aspect of it, but in the large harbours are there no harbour authorities in the country that have private land in that harbour as well as land controlled by the harbour authorities?
9:30 a.m.
President, Association of Canadian Port Authorities
Not that I'm aware of, sir. If it is controlled by the port authority, it is the port authority land.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
It goes a step further. If you're an independent business, and you're working in that harbour, it's not necessarily port authority land; it's private land. When you build a wharf to ship product from your company, that wharf then belongs to the port authority. Even though you paid for it, you're paying taxes to the port authority on it.
9:30 a.m.
President, Association of Canadian Port Authorities
That depends on the individual agreement between the terminal operator, or the lessee in some cases, and the port authority.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
That was my original question. Is there some difference in governance or is there one system of governance for every port authority?
9:30 a.m.
President, Association of Canadian Port Authorities
There's a single system of governance for the port authority. However, within each port authority there are individual arrangements and different arrangements with terminal operators and with individual businesses based on the business model of each port authority. Some port authorities completely operate their own terminals and their own wharves. Other port authorities will lease to an independent commercial operation, in which case that operation pays lease rates back to the port authority.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Even if that operation privately built that facility with their own money?
9:35 a.m.
President, Association of Canadian Port Authorities
If they're on port land, they would be leasing a part of that property.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Brison, please, you have seven minutes.