Transport Committee on May 11th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Some of the questions I was going to ask have been answered.

I'll go back, first of all, to consultation issues. In the material we received with our briefing, on page one, tab B, you say the stakeholders have not been consulted with respect to these two new provisions. My understanding is they were consulted on the process for Bill C-44, and I heard Mr. Hicks say there was some consultation by telephone currently, but the third paragraph says these stakeholders have not been consulted with respect to the additional provisions. I presume those are the two at 4 and 5 under the numerical tabs we have. Those are the two changes between Bill C-44 and Bill C-3. The first is the change of ownership and the control--Ms. Stronach asked some of the questions about the issue of access to information under that--and the other is the one on the St. Lawrence River.

If I understand it, the St. Lawrence issue was basically a catch-22, and this is attempting to resolve that. Is that more or less correct?

[Evelyn Marcoux]

Éric can speak to that.

[Éric Harvey]

That's correct. I can give you a long explanation. It's essentially a technical thing.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I waded through the background paragraph and figured out that's what it was.

The other issues I had relate to that. One is the question of retroactivity. Clause 26 of the bill is on pages 16 and 38, I think, of the.... The first section is a description of clause 26 and of the ministerial powers to order a person. There's no definition of “person” in the bill that I could find. Is there a fallback to a federal definition of person that would include a corporation as an entity?

[Éric Harvey]

Yes.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Would it include a provincial government or a municipal government? I think it doesn't apply in British Columbia right now, but I know in my area, municipalities have just recently been given person powers.

[Éric Harvey]

Clause 3 of the act says it is “binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or of a province”, so this act would apply to a province by virtue of this provision.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

But it wouldn't apply to a municipality. And there isn't one now, I guess. I'm just curious as to the application and the references. I'm looking particularly at clause 26, where it makes reference to a person.

[Éric Harvey]

The intent is to cover all operators.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

When you're talking here about selling, assigning, or transferring, or otherwise disposing of, what happens if one of these companies sells shares or sells a portion? Is there no trigger in terms of percentage? They might not sell outright; they might just take on a partner, for example. Is that covered?

[Éric Harvey]

You have a reference to the control and entity in paragraph 26(1)(c).

I believe that what's important to understand vis-à-vis clause 26 is that it can be used only if there is a breach of clause 23--in other words, when a transaction happens without the approval of GIC. In other words, I'm selling you my bridge without seeking GIC approval. In that case, and in that case only, or under similar circumstances in the act, the minister can use this.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

With regard to the question that Ms. Stronach asked about retroactivity, I presume when we say without the approval of GIC, it's implied that because of the previous individual acts there was approval of GIC?

[Éric Harvey]

No, I think the approval of the GIC referred to here, if you read the provision--

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I'm looking at clause 23 as well?

[Éric Harvey]

It refers to clause 23. In other words, as long as clause 23 is not in force, these provisions cannot be used.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

And this act, in effect then, in one fell swoop, in one action, brings all the existing bridges and tunnels that are known about to be under the approval of the GIC.

[Éric Harvey]

Well, it doesn't change the current situation. In other words, the current situation stays as it is. Clause 26 cannot be used except to change situations that exist.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Okay, let me put it the other way then. Maybe I'm not getting this. Clauses 23 and 26 say that the only way you can operate, purchase, or acquire control, but more particularly just operate an international bridge or tunnel, is to have approval of GIC, and if the existing legislation that created some of these entities did not have approval of GIC, and if this is not retroactive, is the purpose of this bill to, in effect, bring all those 24--or whatever it is--tunnels, theoretically giving approval of GIC so that in future...?

[Evelyn Marcoux]

It's for new ones. It's addressing new requests for--

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

So the existing ones--

[Evelyn Marcoux]

They had their own act of Parliament.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

They had some separate act?

[Evelyn Marcoux]

They had sanctions.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

So they're not covered then, theoretically, unless there are changes?