Transport Committee on May 30th, 2006

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

This bill was passed unanimously by the House, by different parties. At this time there was some discussion relating to the costs that could be involved in the implementation of that bill, but--and I think Mr. Hubbard mentioned a constructive point--if you have specific concerns regarding that bill, I think this committee would be pleased to have them listed.

We've heard the member of your association who spoke previously raise some concerns regarding the fees. We also have information from Standard & Poor's that it is not a real worry if you were to improve or make any investments in those; the bill wouldn't have a great impact on it.

I don't know if you want to comment on this, but--

[Dan Stamper]

Our association commented on the financial issues, and they commented on how the members all see this bill as having an impact on their ability to finance. I think they supplied a few letters to the committee in reference to that, and we left it up to the association to talk about it.

Our position on the bill--and if this committee requests it, we will go into more detail--is that health, safety, and security issues in the bill are not a problem. Beyond that, I think a private company that has its own money invested in its facilities, property, and property tax should be exempt from most of the other issues within this bill.

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

Even though you own the bridge, I think we have some obligations to health and safety boards, so I guess you would be willing to share information related to health and safety in order to ensure the facilities are okay. I think we all agree there's a regulatory gap, which is why this bill is here, because it's as if there is a hole in the law that we need to fill. And I think that's the main goal of this bill.

[Dan Stamper]

We accept the language, health and safety, and security issues. We're not at all here complaining about those; there should be some uniform procedures at the borders in reference to those issues. It's all of the other issues that the bill spends 80% of its time on that concern us. As a private company, we believe that it's not a matter of the health, safety, and security issues, but all of the other issues on ownership, which we ought to be exempt from.

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

Well, I think if you were able to provide us with specific issues, they would be more than welcome at the committee. That's what the committee is intended to do.

[Dan Stamper]

We're respectfully asking for the right to be able to do that and to supply additional information to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would suggest to you that if you could get it to the clerk or me, we would certainly see that it's distributed to the members.

[Dan Stamper]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

I think I understand the nature of your reservations or concerns, but I think you would also understand that our interests and your interests aren't necessarily completely the same. So we can take away the health and safety issues; everyone seems to be in agreement that's a reasonable expectation.

I'd be curious as to what percentage of the industry, as you would define the industry you find yourself in, is public and what percentage is private. I know that you're not going to know this in detail, but you'd have a better sense of this than I would.

[Matthew Moroun]

On a percentage basis, the entire industry is public, with the exception of us. There's one small private bridge. But as you mentioned, as far as magnitude is concerned, it's all us.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

So in terms of the concerns you express about the value of your asset and the fairness of this, surely you would have understood when you became engaged in this that you were engaged in something that is overwhelmingly public and that your engagement was the exception—although, as someone mentioned earlier, we're moving in the direction of public-private partnerships more and more. But generally speaking, it's still in the public domain. Therefore, it would have to be understood and considered as a part of the business case one would make in venturing into this that these kinds of regulations might come along from time to time.

[Matthew Moroun]

Well, sir, of course it's very much public. From our standpoint, we not only acknowledge but also work with, and perceive ourselves to be partners of, hundreds of Canadian Customs and Immigration officers who control entry and exit on the bridge every day of the week. Without them the bridge could not function. We understand that we have to work with many public agencies. But at the bridge's origin and in the original legislation for it in Parliament, in exchange for the private entrepreneur sticking his finances, neck, and reputation on the line to build the bridge, the government granted that company one right—and the right was in perpetuity.

We honour that original legislation and we'd like to keep it that way, and as long as we continue to do a good—and I think the numbers speak for themselves—we'd like to run our business as a private sector business. Do we acknowledge in day-to-day operations that we need to work with government? Absolutely. We couldn't get the job done without them. But as far as the private business nature of the company is concerned, if the government were to live up to that original grant of perpetuity, we shouldn't be infringed on as far as the private sector nature of our business is concerned.

[Dan Stamper]

I'd like to add that most of the other public crossings were private, or built privately, and it was because they got into financial trouble that the government had to take them over and financially keep them operating, making them public. When our bridge went into bankruptcy because of the Depression, the government did not step in; the private entrepreneurs had to reorganize and find funding to keep it going.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

The question really is to what extent the government, in protecting in the bill its interests or what we would perceive to be the government's interest, is in conflict with your rights in perpetuity, in terms of the operation of the bill. If the Government of Canada says that if you want to change ownership it believes it has a right to have something to say about it, that obviously diminishes the value of the asset, if it's imposed on your successors.

So the question simply becomes whether or not the government has the right. I would argue it should not be something that would be perceived, at least.... It may not have been the case originally, but I can't imagine that is something that would not be conceived of.

[Dan Stamper]

But I think for the government to have the right to deny a potential buyer for any reason, including that he is an American, is wrong. If they want the right in statute and regulations to prohibit someone who's not qualified or who is a security risk to Canada, I don't think we have a problem with that. But the way the bill's written today, any purchaser would have to be approved by the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Because of time constraints, I've asked Mr. Storseth and Mr. Jean to share their time, if that's okay with the committee.

Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to clarify one of the things talked about a little bit earlier. Part of this legislation is to fill some of the holes that were left in Bill C-44 and some of the concurrent legislation before this.

One of the things we talk about is the annual inspection reports. Are they actually delivered to the government? Does the government actually get a copy of these inspection reports?

[Dan Stamper]

The government comes to the bridge every year and goes through our inspection reports and asks whatever questions they have. That's why they're there for two or three days. We do not turn over a copy of the inspection reports for the government to take back to Ottawa.

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

What would be the issue with this?

[Dan Stamper]

For us as a private company, lawsuits and other issues around what we do and what our inspections are would be a concern to us.

[Matthew Moroun]

We have some trepidation with Transport Canada from the standpoint that it's very likely they could be our primary competitor. As with any other business.... Imagine, if you were in the auto supply business, for instance, that the government decided to start an auto supply company and then decided they should also regulate the auto supply business. You'd feel very squeamish about delivering any sort of proprietary information.

We open our inspection reports to them when they come to the bridge, and they can comment on them. They've never had any problems with them. I don't know how it would work out if they did. However, we're not in the business of giving proprietary information to would-be competitors.

[Dan Stamper]

We also have our independent engineers who do the annual inspection give a certificate to the government—which they do get—on the condition of the bridge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you very much.

As a business owner from northern Alberta, I've been involved in many businesses. In fact, I got my licence to practise law and lobbied the government immediately to close down all the law schools, because I wanted nothing more than to have no more lawyers so that I could charge whatever I wanted for my services. But that didn't work, so here I am today.

I'm interested that a couple of weeks ago you were in the United States dealing with the Detroit River International Crossing Commission. You're here today dealing with this particular bill. I understand your position; you're taking very much a capitalistic approach to this. But would you agree with me that there is a bottleneck; that we have some problems with traffic flow across the border in your particular area?