Transport Committee on May 11th, 2006

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.

I wanted to come back to the issue of consultations more specifically, because what I want to do is just have you take me through a practical case where we're talking about ownership change for the Ambassador Bridge, for example.

The Governor in Council has the ability to make that decision, but what would be forthcoming in terms of consultations with the province and with the municipality? That's really the heart of my concern.

We're giving the authority to the federal government. I understand the need for that, but there's also a need for local input when these ownership changes or alterations may have a real impact on certain areas of the country. So that's specifically what I'm looking for. In the case of change of ownership, how would that work?

[Brian Hicks]

A lot of the details you're asking for will come out of the regulations. We have not developed the regulations. We will be consulting with all kinds of stakeholders in developing the regulations.

What we have in mind is that when an owner or an operator of an international bridge has the intention of selling, they would notify us that they're selling it and they would tell us before the sale who they would be selling to. You mentioned a little earlier that the Fort Frances bridge is for sale, and in fact they told us that the bridge is for sale. So even though this act isn't enforced, they have actually gone and told us their intention of selling.

As for what we will do, who we will consult, we haven't discussed that. That would come out of the regulations.

[Evelyn Marcoux]

But the objective is in terms of how much power the government will give itself to respond, to agree or disagree to that request. It's really an issue of public safety at the moment. We don't want a bridge to be in the wrong hands, in the hands of “terrorists organizations”. So it's really under extreme cases that the government will not allow a transaction to go forward. It would need a good reason to do so, and those are the details we will develop at the next stage.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

In the consultations you had with the provinces, did any of the three provinces impacted raise that concern, that they wanted to be consulted in the case of places where the Governor in Council actually has the power to make the decision? Did that come up in the consultations with the provinces?

[Brian Hicks]

The consultations we've had so far with the provinces have been on questions like coordination. They see it the same way we do, that if an international bridge is going to be restricted for alterations or construction, they want to make sure that industry knows that. So I think most of them have been very supportive of that provision.

As far as the sale is concerned, nobody has raised it yet, but to use my answer to reply also to Mr. Bell's question about the consultations that have gone on, in regard to that page at the beginning where it said we have not discussed these new provisions, we have consulted with certain people. This discussion is ongoing. We've set up conference calls. We've had some. We have not finished all of the conference calls with the three provinces, so I don't know today whether one or two of the provinces will bring that up. They have not so far brought it up, but we do have other conference calls scheduled.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Okay.

In general, then, the discussions with the provinces have been more on the principle of the bill than the mechanics. Is that fair to say?

[Brian Hicks]

The provinces understand that international bridges are federal jurisdiction. They have expressed...I wouldn't say a concern, but curiosity as to what would be in the regulations. They have asked about cost, and if the federal government would be imposing something on them that would cost money--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

A fair question.

[Brian Hicks]

--who would implement it. I think they have been reassured when we've explained to them that our intention is not to impose some federal standard on them but in fact we would be using their standards.

All provinces have engineering safety standards. So what we would do is, if we were looking at a bridge in New Brunswick, we would say, “Does this bridge meet the New Brunswick engineering safety requirements?” If it does, end of conversation. If it doesn't, if according to New Brunswick's own rules this bridge isn't safe, that's when we would step in and have a conversation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think one of the keys to this legislation is the idea of increasing the efficiency of transportation on our international borders.

One of the questions I was going to ask you to expand on is how this regulation compares to that of our American counterparts, and is it actually increasing the efficiency?

[Brian Hicks]

As Evelyn Marcoux was saying earlier, the Americans have a presidential permit process, and the U.S. federal government steps in when a bridge is going to be constructed or if there are major alterations on the bridge. After that, they delegate that authority to the local states, and it's up to the local states then to be concerned about traffic flow and the efficiency. We've been down to Washington and we've explained what we're doing. They've been very interested, but as of today, the efficiency and fluidity of traffic remains with individual states.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It was brought to my attention that Mr. Blaney and Mr. Storseth are going to share their five minutes, and then we can get into the last one.

Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Good morning.

If I've understood correctly, in the United States right now, the states manage bridges and bridge construction. Is that correct?

[Brian Hicks]

The U.S. federal government requires a presidential permit for the construction or alterations, but after the major construction or alteration, then it's the state.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

As you said, this bill is designed to fill a legal void and the House gave it its unanimous support on first reading. So I see there's sufficient desire to move it forward.

Do you believe the bill would have negative financial impact on operators or would impose restrictions on them?

[Evelyn Marcoux]

The operators of international bridges and tunnels are responsible entities, particularly since the events of September 11. Additional security measures have been taken.

The federal government can't say right now whether those bridges are properly managed because we don't have any information on the subject. This bill would enable the federal government to ensure that infrastructures are well and securely managed.

We don't anticipate that this will result in any major additional expenses for operators. These infrastructures are obviously expensive to operate; some are older than others, and reinvestment is required in some cases, but that's their responsibility.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

That answers my questions, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, any comments or questions?

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

Two comments. I just wanted to point out to the committee that only two of the bridges, if I'm correct, are privately owned. Is that correct? All the rest are provincial or state...?

[Brian Hicks]

Two of the vehicular bridges, the rail bridges.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Hubbard, did you want to ask a question?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Just in response to Mr. Fast, are we going to pursue the issue of any opportunity for the operators to appear if they want to?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think if we have any more questions for these people, then we can do that after we have that discussion.

Mr. Laframboise.