Transport Committee on May 11th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

The first report of the committee has been circulated to members of the committee. I'm asking you to peruse it, look at it, and then I am asking for a motion to agree to the report as presented. This is basically the information that was garnered from the steering committee after the last meeting.

Mr. Laframboise, go ahead, please.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

If I understand correctly, you want us to adopt the report immediately. Do we discuss it first?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If you want to, we can discuss it first, or move it to the end of the agenda and deal with the witnesses. What do you prefer?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

We could talk about it after hearing the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is everyone in agreement with that?

There is no problem. Okay, thank you.

Then we'll move right into Bill C-3, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 1, 2006, Bill C-3, an act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another act.

We have witnesses before us today, and I would ask them to introduce themselves.

Proceed.

[Brian Hicks, Director, Bridge Policy and Programs, Department of Transport]

My name is Brian Hicks. I'm the director of bridge policy and programs at Transport Canada.

[Evelyn Marcoux, Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs, Department of Transport]

I'm Evelyn Marcoux, director general of surface infrastructure programs at Transport Canada.

[Éric Harvey, Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport]

My name is Éric Harvey. I work with Transport Canada's Legal Services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome.

I would ask you to proceed.

[Evelyn Marcoux]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good morning.

First, thank you for having us appear before you to speak about Bill C-3, the International Bridges and Tunnels Act. I will speak today about the history of the bill and its importance to Canada's international bridges and tunnels.

In Canada there are 24 vehicular and nine railway bridges and tunnels that link our country to the United States. Mention has been made of five railway bridges and tunnels; however, it now appears that the number is nine.

Of the bridges that carry vehicle traffic, fourteen are located in Ontario, nine in New Brunswick, and one in Quebec. The rail bridges and tunnels are all located in Ontario, except for one, which is located in New Brunswick.

Most of these bridges and tunnels came into existence through special acts of Parliament quite some time ago. The acts served mainly to incorporate the company responsible for building the bridge or tunnel and determine the terms and conditions of the construction. They are specific to the bridge or tunnel in question, and most, if not all, do not address modern-day concerns such as safety and security.

The bill before you addresses many of the issues that concern us today. Whether it is to strengthen the trade corridors that we share with the U.S. or protect our national borders, the bill is intended to strike a healthy balance among the interests. The principle behind this bill is quite simple. It is to ensure the efficient flow of traffic, people, and goods across the border. It is a means to give tools to the federal government to fix problems should they arise.

Our international bridges and tunnels are highly valued components of our national transportation system. They are undeniably important to international trade, as they are the means by which the majority of our trade with the United States is transported. They ensure, both directly and indirectly, many jobs for Canadians in the transportation and tourism industries.

International bridges and tunnels fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. No law has ever been adopted that uniformly applies to all international bridges and tunnels, and sets out the manner in which the federal government can exercise its jurisdiction with respect to these structures. This means that today and until this bill is enacted, the federal government has limited authority when it comes to determining: who may build a new international bridge or tunnel; where this bridge or tunnel is to be located; the use that is to be made of it; how it is to be maintained; and the level of security that will be exercised over this bridge or tunnel.

This bill is the culmination of past efforts to amend the Canada Transportation Act to include provisions dealing with international bridges and tunnels and to strengthen, refine, and improve upon these provisions.

It borrows from former Bill C-26 and Bill C-44, both of which died on the order paper. Now, in a stand-alone bill, the subject of international bridges and tunnels is front and centre.

The bill proposes the same regulatory powers in the areas of maintenance, repair, operation and use, safety and security as were in former Bill C-44. With this bill the government will be able to ensure that all international bridges and tunnels are properly maintained and, where appropriate, demand that certain repairs be done necessary to keep the structure in good condition. Also, it will make sure that appropriate security measures are put into place and that security information is shared with the government.

Bill C-3 also proposes the same approval process for the construction of new international bridges and tunnels and for alteration to existing structures as did former Bill C-44. It may be that in establishing the guidelines governing the approval process, the government will take inspiration from the United States—more specifically its presidential permit process for the construction of new international bridges that has been in place for quite some time. That process ensures that applicants obtain all required permits and consult with all interested government departments, including the Canadian government.

Allow me to draw your attention to the new provisions. These fall into two categories: the construction of bridges over the St. Lawrence River, and the approval of transactions affecting the ownership and control, or operation of international bridges and tunnels.

The section dealing with construction over the St. Lawrence River is technical in nature and serves to correct an oversight in current legislation. Mr. Harvey, legal counsel with Justice Canada assigned to Transport Canada, will be able to explain this provision to you and guide you through the legalities.

The effect of this new section will be that any new construction over the St. Lawrence River will no longer require a Special Act of Parliament, which is the case today. This bill is also proposing that any transactions that have an effect on the ownership or control, or operation of international bridges and tunnels be approved by the government.

The policy decision behind this is simple. It is the government's responsibility to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, and as such, it must know who owns and operates these structures.

Finally, when former Bill C-44 was introduced, we consulted with bridge and tunnel stakeholders, many of whom you might hear from at these hearings. Since Bill C-3 was introduced, we have had further consultation with the stakeholders. As was the case with Bill C-44, it is believed that the stakeholders generally support the bill and the involvement of the federal government in the area of international bridges and tunnels.

However, the extent of the involvement will become clearer once we develop the regulations. We fully expect and look forward to working with the stakeholders in the regulatory process, when they will be consulted once again and their views and concerns taken into account. We at Transport Canada are committed to working with these stakeholders and any other stakeholders to ensure that all international bridges and tunnels are safe, secure, and operated in a manner that ensures the efficient flow of traffic across our border.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Ms. Marcoux.

We'll start our questioning as previously agreed.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Do you not have three...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Actually, I think there's just one presenter.

Ms. Stronach.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you very much.

My questions relate to clauses 23 to 28, the new provision talking about change in ownership, operator, or control, just to get a bit more clarity around what the intent of this new provision is.

Is it setting up a provision where the Governor in Council approval is required to build, sell, or assign a transfer...? Is that for the future? How does it apply? It's a bit vague in respect to the past. Is it retroactive? And under what circumstances would this be applied?

Again, it applies to whom or to what? Is it to a municipality or to a province? I want some clarity on that.

Also, on the scope of information that's to be disclosed, if there's corporate confidential information, how would it be treated? Could it be accessed through ATIP? And who will have access to the information? Would it be the CBS, the Canadian Transportation Agency, the minister? I'd like some clarity around the disclosure aspect and whether it is retroactive.

[Evelyn Marcoux]

Thank you.

I can start, and Éric will finish.

Is this retroactive? The answer is no. The corporations that own the bridges today won't be affected. We're not going to revisit who owns bridges today and then put them through a process. However, once this act is in force, if there is a request for transferring the shares or the ownership, then, yes, there will be a process and applications will have to be forwarded.

In terms of access to information, Éric will speak.

[Éric Harvey]

As you know, the Access to Information Act provides for a series of safeguards vis-à-vis confidential information. So assuming that information would be provided by those proposing to transfer a bridge to the minister for the purpose of exercising the approval process set out in these provisions, the safeguards that exist in the Access to Information Act vis-à-vis sensitive commercial information would be subject to it.

The application of these provisions apply to all bridge operators regardless of who they are, private companies and publicly owned bridges as well.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

In section 26, it says:

The minister may, in accordance with any terms and conditions that the minister considers appropriate, order a person

and then down to paragraph (c):

to relinquish control of an entity that owns or operates an international bridge or tunnel if that person acquired control of the entity without the approval of the Governor in Council.

Does that apply retroactively, or is that for future consideration?

[Éric Harvey]

The rule of interpretation vis-à-vis the coming into force of a statute is that the statute comes into force on a date and applies from that moment into the future. So consistent with what Evelyn just mentioned, it means that all transactions that may happen prior to the coming into force of the act won't be subject to it, but any future transaction will be.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Okay, and just one--

[Evelyn Marcoux]

But section 26 itself will be used if someone proceeds with construction without getting GIC approval. So this will be used to sanction someone who has gone forward without doing the proper process.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I have just one other point. How does it affect repairs, if someone wants to amend a bridge or had a twinned bridge?

[Evelyn Marcoux]

You mean the act in general? If someone wants to repair a bridge.... We have to keep in mind that the objective of the legislation is to ensure consistent free flow of traffic. If the project is complex and will delay or cause traffic problems, then we need to be informed and we will negotiate with the bridge owners on the process. But for all alterations, a submission will be sent to us and we will administer it, again, once we have established the regulations and the guidelines.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

All right, we'll move on.

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Here I have the version of Bill C-3 that was provided to us. I see that clause 16 has two different titles. In the English version, it's entitled “SECURITY AND SAFETY”, whereas it bears the title of “SÛRETÉ” only in the French version. Is that a mistake?

[Éric Harvey]

It's not a mistake. In fact, this question was discussed at length with the Justice Department drafters.

According to the Francophone drafter who helped us, the word “sûreté” has a broader meaning than the English term “security”, broad enough to embrace the meaning of the terms “security and safety”. After a number of discussions, we agreed that the term “sûreté” was sufficient to represent both notions.