Evidence of meeting #5 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ambassador.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Good morning, everyone.
I think we'll get started with the order of business today. You have the agenda in front of you. If we could, I'd like to bring forward the motion from the last meeting. The hour and the timeframe are correct. We have discussed this item to some degree, but I would like to call for some short comments, and then we can move on to the regular business.
Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, it will be no surprise to you that I'm speaking against the motion.
When we had our initial discussions setting up the transport committee, we had some discussions about this area, but then Mr. Laframboise offered a compromise that I think has worked very effectively up until now. We have good balance between party representation; we have good balance with individual members getting on for questioning, which is extremely important.
That has worked well over the last few weeks, so I'm a bit perplexed as to the insistence of the parliamentary secretary in continuing to bring this issue up. What we've had is a system that has worked well. We've had a system that guarantees one supplementary question for each of the opposition parties. Over the first two rounds that gives each of the opposition parties a chance to raise the issue, and then to come back to issues that may have come up in the first round of questioning.
The proposal Mr. Jean is putting forward would actually do two things. In the case of one party, the NDP, it eliminates any possibility of a supplementary question, which is a broad parliamentary tradition dating back centuries. The fact is we have supplementary questions in parliamentary tradition because issues come up from the initial questioning that we need to pursue. That's why the principle of a supplementary question is extremely important.
In the proposal from Mr. Jean we also have a backloading of government members, which I feel is completely inappropriate. In fact, after the first six speakers, two-thirds of those who speak in the remaining time would be Conservative members. I don't feel it's useful for the opposition to have what is, in effect, a back end dominated by government members.
I take my responsibility as an opposition member very seriously. I understand the role of government. The role of government, in the end, is often to make decisions that are important.
But the input of opposition members is extremely important. The input of each of the opposition members here is extremely important. That's why I believe that our current structure, which allows each of the members to intervene but also preserves that principle of supplementary questions and allows us to do our work as opposition members, is the best route to go.
I am a member of Parliament, but I'm also representing the nearly 20% of the population who voted NDP in the last election, and of course that means I am here as a representative of my party. To move from the current structure, which gives me that supplementary, to a structure in which I get one question out of 12 does a disservice both to the opposition members and to those folks across the country who voted NDP, even if we don't necessarily have the same number of members in the House.
We have a current structure that has worked well. It provides one supplementary question for each party and allows that alternation between Liberal and Conservative members once we go through those supplementary questions; every member gets a chance to intervene, and there is no backweighting of government members. The Liberals and Conservatives alternate until everyone has finished speaking.
This proposal would backweight it so that it is almost exclusively government members in the back end; two-thirds would be government members intervening and questioning witnesses. For all those reasons, I think our current structure is the route to go. It has worked well. It allows the collaboration we need in this committee.
I think we have a very talented committee composed of very dedicated committee members, and we found that balance when Mr. Laframboise moved his motion at that initial meeting. Why would we throw out that balance for something that in effect allows a greater concentration of government members to speak and eliminates the right to supplementary questions for at least one of the opposition parties? For those reasons I oppose the motion.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Very briefly, I know that we've beaten this horse to death, and I think it's already been dead about four times. But the committee sets its own agenda, and we are not bound by parliamentary traditions. This gives all Canadians the equal right to be heard at least once, in my mind.
With respect, the back-weight that Mr. Julian is talking about is because there was absolutely no democracy before. I'm surprised that the NDP would come forward to oppose something that gives fair treatment to every member of Parliament in this committee. I'm shocked at that.
That's the only comment I have.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Seeing no more comments, we'll call the question.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We'll move on to the orders of the day. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 1, we have Bill C-3, an act respecting international bridges and tunnels. Bill C-3 is an act respecting international bridges and tunnels and it's making a consequential amendment to another act.
I would ask our guests to come forward, please.
Good morning. I'd like you to introduce yourselves and, once that's complete, I think we can move right into the presentations. We'll try to keep you here for as little time as possible, as little time as you need.
Go ahead.
Dan Stamper President, Canadian Transit Company
My name is Dan Stamper. I'm president of the Ambassador Bridge.
Matthew Moroun Vice-Chairman and Principal of Centra Inc., Canadian Transit Company
My name is Matt Moroun, and my family owns the Ambassador Bridge.
Skip McMahon Executive Director of External Affairs, Canadian Transit Company
I'm Skip McMahon. I'm the executive director of external affairs for the Canadian Transit Company, the Ambassador Bridge.
President, Canadian Transit Company
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all the members of the committee for this much desired opportunity to speak today on the proposed legislation governing international border crossings between Canada and the United States.
First, let me say we are concerned with the intent and the spirit of Bill C-3 as it relates to our company. I would like to share our perspective on the bill's effect on our private sector enterprise and on whether it would improve our accountability and add to our successful record of accomplishments in supporting trade and tourism for our region and the world.
At the Ambassador Bridge, we know the world is watching, and we continue to earnestly perform our duties on a daily basis, while preparing for the future.
Let me provide some background so that you may clearly understand our concerns. In the early 1920s, a private entrepreneur developed a plan to finance, construct, and operate a privately owned international bridge, which became known as the Ambassador Bridge. This effort included private investors taking the full risk of this investment and the responsibility to garner all the needed property, the necessary legislation in both countries, along with the local, state, and provincial approvals.
After accomplishing all of the above and constructing the bridge, the economies of both countries were affected by the Great Depression in the U.S. With no help from government, the private investors reorganized and survived this horrific economic crisis.
From the mid-1960s through to today, the Government of the United States, the State of Michigan, and the Ambassador Bridge have improved the roadways on the U.S. side our bridge, to the extent that all three freeways are connected to the Ambassador Bridge. At the same time, there were no improvements to the Canadian roads leading to the bridge.
Our company has a reputation of speaking clearly on matters that involve our industry, and I intend to do so today. Our effort is to clarify and offer meaningful facts and direction for improving and strengthening the relationship between Canada and the Ambassador Bridge, while acknowledging the differences between public and private border crossings, as well as to articulate our concerns about Bill C-3.
We believed the governance of the Ambassador Bridge by Canada was resolved and put to bed with an agreement reached in 1992, after more than a decade of litigation between the parties. It is as if some people cannot forgive us for the way in which a 13-year-old litigation was settled. As the basis of this settlement, we agreed to invest millions of dollars in Canada on behalf of Canada Customs for new facilities, solely at our expense. Since that date, we have invested tens of millions of dollars more than what was required under the terms of the settlement, which created continuous and significant benefit to Canada.
Having gone above and beyond the terms of the 1992 agreement, we are troubled and question the true intent of Bill C-3. Comments made by members of this government during a recent question and answer period only heightened our concern.
The following comments were made by the Conservative MP for Essex:
In my corridor, a private bridge operator is threatening the binational process for moving forward. This private interest is moving very quickly to twin the span there which really threatens to undermine a process that we are a partner in. It is important that we get this bill through in a very timely fashion without holding up too many add-ons because the clock is ticking with respect to this private interest moving forward. It is a project that, in my humble opinion, is not in the national interest, certainly not in the community interest. It is important that all members in the House support this legislation and get it through quickly, so that we can avert this type of situation or at least have some oversight over what is happening. This is a necessary piece of legislation.
Quite frankly, this troubled me, since when I read the member's speech regarding Bill C-3, it contained so much misinformation that was being discussed as if it were truth. Whoever is perpetuating these myths is not doing a favour to the economies of the region, nor to the economies of Canada, the United States, Michigan, or Ontario.
Those who believe that they are helping the region are hurting its citizens on both sides of the border as tourists and business investments are chased away. I am really here to tell you about our positive actions for the border, and how we want to work with the Canadian government, but let me deal with a few more outrageous statements.
This is a quote:
When we look at the level of traffic and the impact of the backup of that traffic into communities such as Windsor, there obviously is a need for new bridges.
The truth is that the traffic at our crossing and at the Detroit-Windsor tunnel is down about 30% from 1999 levels. The optimistic traffic numbers projected by DRIC have been revised downwards several times already. With the Ontario government's no-smoking ban coming into effect on May 31, Windsor's tourist business is projected to fall even more dramatically. In fact, the bridge is only at about 50% capacity today.
Yes, there were traffic backups at the bridge immediately after 9/11, as there were at every crossing, but why haven't you been told that our company, not the Canadian government, fought and even sued the U.S. government successfully to build customs booths and to ensure that they were fully staffed? When they opened, the truck backups disappeared. In fact, the deputy police chief of Windsor wrote to me and complained that his biggest problem now is speeders on Huron Church Road.
A second statement requires correction. In your chambers, it was stated, “In my corridor, a private bridge operator is threatening the binational process” . The facts are as follows. After agreeing in 1992 to settle all outstanding litigation and investing tens of millions of dollars, we announced in 1993 that we were preparing to build additional lanes between Windsor and Detroit, consistent with that agreement. The Canadian Transit Company publicly began its effort to enhance its facilities in 1993 and has continued to acquire the necessary property, and engage consultants and engineers to prepare all necessary documents for that construction.
It is DRIC that began in 2001 and has been rushed in an effort to catch up with the replacement of the Ambassador Bridge's commitment for additional lanes. The same bureaucrats in charge of the DRIC process are the people responsible for approvals of the Ambassador Bridge project. This creates a group of bureaucrats as a competitor of the Ambassador Bridge at the government-owned Sarnia-Port Huron bridge, and creates a direct conflict, since they are judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to the Ambassador Bridge projects.
Thirty percent of all international commerce crossings are destined for, or emanate from, industrial businesses in Windsor. This number is so large that if a separate crossing were built just for Windsor shippers, it would be the fourth-largest crossing at the border. The reality is that Windsor is an industrial town, and any new truck tunnel or dedicated road will not change things. This is a pipe dream for the naive.
It's not my desire to be offensive, but the truth does need to be told. As mentioned earlier with regard to Huron Church Road, the fact is there are problems at the border. The main impediment at the border is the lack of any adequate surface roads and thoroughfare from the Ambassador Bridge to Highway 401 on the Canadian side. The fact is that Michigan has invested $184 million, federal and state dollars, for the Ambassador Bridge gateway infrastructure. Michigan has streamlined and maximized border investments with the gateway, and the Ambassador Bridge has invested nearly 500 million private dollars preparing for additional lanes between Windsor and Detroit.
Windsor roads from the border to Highway 401 remain deficient and will impede trade in this corridor. Despite all the public and private dollars invested on the U.S. side of the bridge, despite the $300 million that Canadian federal and provincial governments announced in 2001 to be allocated to improve access to the current border facilities, Canada has failed to solve their well-known problem, a road from Highway 401 to the border.
Also, there is a seriously underdeveloped road system surrounding the border crossing. We will stand in line first to support improvements to the Canadian connections to the Ambassador Bridge and we urge you to focus efforts in this direction.
In our view, public moneys that would be devoted to a new crossing, which would disrupt communities not now impacted by the bridge, would be better spent on improvements to the existing corridor.
Specifically regarding Bill C-3 and the health, safety, and security aspects of the bill, I am certain that mutual agreement can be worked out on the technical terms as it has been achieved in the past. We have little difficulty with security matters either, because immediately after 9/11 we engaged, managed, and are paying for 24-hour-a-day armed security at the Ambassador Bridge, unlike other border crossings. Most of the latest security technology innovations are put into service first at the Ambassador Bridge.
We are aware that the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association has given testimony regarding sections of Bill C-3 dealing with toll collection and financing, and we won't touch on that today.
To the extent that the sponsors of Bill C-3 are trying to emulate the presidential permit process in the United States, they have not done so in Bill C-3. The presidential permit process is designed to focus on the single issue of whether new border infrastructure is in the public interest. Thus the U.S. agency that decides whether to issue such permits, the Department of State, focuses only on that public interest issue and does not involve itself in approval of changes of ownership or operation of bridges. Ownership and operations are matters left to the bridge owner both by the U.S. and by Canada. This is wise policy, since there is no reason to believe that the private sector will not do a good job in self-regulating, as it has for decades without any problem.
By contrast, Bill C-3 would involve the Canadian government in such matters; however, Bill C-3 is much too invasive in injecting government into the regulation of bridges. For example, the bill unnecessarily puts the Governor in Council into a micromanagement position by authorizing it to adopt regulations on the operation and use of each bridge. Simply stated, there is no problem with the status quo that would warrant this proposed new level of government involvement. Bill C-3 is a solution in search of a problem.
Further, in the case of plans to add another span at the Ambassador Bridge, the state department has determined that no presidential permit is needed, since the Ambassador Bridge has previously been approved by statute. So too in Canada, existing bridges should be grandfathered against any requirements relative to obtaining approval for new construction or alterations. Any other approach would cause private investors to think long and hard before making significant infrastructure investments.
On the other hand, to the extent that Canada wishes to take responsible steps to ensure that persons with criminal backgrounds or persons who pose a security risk do not control or come into control of new or existing international crossings, we have no objection to that type of limited and reasonable regulation to protect the public interest.
At the same time, any new measure should make clear that foreign ownership in and of itself is not unlawful or impermissible nor provides grounds for disapproval. Government regulations in this area that go beyond reasonable security considerations might stifle private investment and involve the government in private sector affairs best left unregulated.
Further, Bill C-3 carries with it the risk of inappropriate extraterritorial impact. At the minimum, the bill should be amended to provide that the government be advised of change of control and ownership, not that it have a right to approve or disapprove control—other than for security concerns, and then only after consultation with the U.S. This will ensure against unilateral action on a matter as fundamentally binational as a bridge across the border. The scope of the regulation-making authority must be focused exclusively on the purposes of Bill C-3, safety and security.
Further, I note that there has been a trend in recent months in our nations and elsewhere to enhance the growth and benefit of private-owned infrastructure projects. The Ambassador Bridge and several new or planned privately sponsored toll roads offer examples. The growth of private investment in infrastructure should be promoted by the Canadian government as a means of achieving the benefit of private funding and efficient operations, saving taxpayers' resources for use on other projects.
As noted above, public funds could be well spent in Canada by improving the approaches to the Ambassador Bridge. We have a long-term relationship with Canada and the Government of the United States, built on 78 years of history and respect. Now, with the stroke of a pen, the Government of Canada unilaterally attempts to wipe away what we have achieved. Moreover, the bill as drafted seems to allow the government to act retroactively as well.
As you are aware, there are numerous pieces of legislation governing the Ambassador Bridge, not only in Canada but also the U.S. The legislation in both countries has been created, and together they govern the Ambassador Bridge as an international border crossing. Any unilateral change may disrupt the meaning and application of these international agreements.
If changes are needed, we are ready to work closely with the government to develop meaningful legislation that continues to protect the public and continues to create an environment that not only allows for but also motivates the border crossing operator, whether public or private, to invest in and manage efficient border crossings for the good of Canada and the United States.
We are not a new company starting out but a legitimate border operator that has done its best for the good of this country and our American neighbours for over 75 years. We want to work with the Government of Canada, with Ontario, with Windsor, with those in the United States, such as Michigan and Detroit, to provide the most efficient border crossing experience for business and consumers in North America.
We are already the best operator, according to the U.S. government report, and we intend to remain number one. We also are fully prepared for the future, and believe meaningful and thoughtful legislation will ensure that all border crossings can fulfill their mandates on behalf of Canada.
We would like to invite any and all members of Parliament to visit the Ambassador Bridge for a tour, either as a group or as individuals. We would be pleased to host such a tour of the entire facility so that you are able to see firsthand that it is a total international piece of infrastructure, not just two halves being operated separately. A tour would help crystallize and clarify your views with a greater insight to the perception and actual restrictions we face.
If I could leave you with one message, it would be that the Ambassador Bridge wants to work cooperatively with the government and with the who are others involved for the good of both citizens and the economy. Irritants such as those in Bill C-3 can be dealt with if the parties are willing to do so. We stand ready to meet with representatives from the Canadian government for the betterment of the border and Canada, similar to what we accomplished in 1992.
I'd now like to turn it over to Matt Moroun.
Vice-Chairman and Principal of Centra Inc., Canadian Transit Company
Thank you. My name is Matt Moroun. Of course my family owns the Ambassador Bridge, and has since 1979. Thank you for the opportunity to meet this distinguished committee to discuss the proposed legislation, Bill C-3.
The Ambassador Bridge has a distinguished record of serving the travelling public for over 77 years. It has weathered much over its history, including the Great Depression, world wars, the auto pact, ownership litigation under the Foreign Investment Review Act, NAFTA, 9/11, and power blackouts.
For the last 18 years, it has managed to be the most popular and preferred border crossing in North America by a measure of traffic count. For all those years, the Ambassador Bridge has been a shining example of the success of the private sector, having financed its own construction, maintenance, and operation entirely without government funding of any kind. Since 1979 the bridge has been owned by my family. We have operated the bridge successfully, not only financially for our own interests in its long-term future and as shareholders, but more importantly as stewards of a great responsibility.
To that end, we have successfully cooperated as partners with Canada Customs, Canada Immigration, the Department of Homeland Security, the Michigan Department of Transportation, the Ontario Department of Transportation, Transport Canada, Fish and WildlifeService, and more agencies than I can name.
Permit me to suggest that there is no meritorious catalyst for additional and burdensome regulation of the Ambassador Bridge at this time. The state of the bridge is strong. Its finances are sound, its management sharp and successful, and its track record the best in the industry. Additionally, there exists no national or international event occurring recently or expected that would encourage or attract the invasive fettering of government.
However, do not confuse my words as introversion or egocentrism. We are neither. Instead, we relish the opportunity to discuss with this committee--and, if we are able, Transport Canada--the issues and challenges of the border and specifically the Ambassador Bridge. We not only favour outside input, but look upon the Government of Canada as a partner and primary stakeholder in our long-term future and, importantly, our day-to-day business. It may seem incongruous that our operation has thrived for over 77 years without invasive federal regulation, even though the bridge itself would be incapable of functioning without hundreds of distinguished Canada Customs and Immigration officers on our plaza and inspection areas every day.
To that end, we are not suggesting that the Ambassador Bridge go it alone. That would be a ridiculous statement and an ignorant one. We are asking this committee, and especially Transport Canada, to please put down your sword, set this legislation aside, and instead engage in meaningful dialogue, not just at a very formal hearing to discuss the legalese of this legislation, but rather to discuss and brainstorm and cooperate with one another toward an even more successful Ambassador Bridge for the advantage of the operation, the government, and the public.
Thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Stamper, you made reference to the Detroit River International Crossing Study. Do I understand that the U.S. has backed away from this study now, the State of Michigan?
President, Canadian Transit Company
The State of Michigan held hearings similar to what you're holding here today over a period of about a month and a half, took testimony from witnesses, and within a week of finishing that testimony both the House and Senate passed resolutions taking away funding for the direct study, and smacked the Michigan transportation people for overreaching with their efforts in DRIC and in the cost of DRIC.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
So in terms of the issues you raise in your presentation, the suggestion that in some way this is related to the proposal for an alternate crossing, then at least from the State of Michigan's side they've withdrawn their interest in that. Is that correct? Is that your understanding?
President, Canadian Transit Company
Politically, the State of Michigan has withdrawn funding for the DRIC. I don't know what the ultimate reaction of that is with the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, with Transport Canada, and with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. It was a four-party effort.
I believe that the State of Michigan is withdrawing its funding, and unless one of the other parties picks up funding, the study would end.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
When we had Mr. Hicks here last week from the Department of Transport, I asked a question relating to a statement we have in the material about the consultation with the stakeholders. Initially the report we have, Mr. Chairman, says stakeholders have not been consulted with respect to the additional provisions. Those are the changes between Bill C-44 and this proposal--the two main changes.
Then Mr. Hicks made a statement that there have been extensive briefings and consultations, but he also made the reference in the written form suggesting that although there hadn't been consultations, their concerns would be dealt with during the regulation process.
Have you or your company been involved, Mr. Stamper, with extensive briefings and consultations with the Department of Transport?
President, Canadian Transit Company
I called Mr. Hicks when I read Bill C-3 and asked what the intent of Bill C-3 was. I got an explanation that the deputy minister was concerned about security and...maintenance, health, and safety issues.
I said to Mr. Hicks that Bill C-3 went way beyond that and asked why he didn't pick up the phone to call me and let me know what their issues were in reference to our bridge. I said we'd be glad to respond to them. The answer I got was that they were having more problems with their own bridges than with ours.
Skip and I did meet with Transport Canada about three weeks ago. I gave the same kind of presentation to them at the time--that we appreciate and understand the concern on health, safety, and security issues; we've lived up to or exceeded our obligations beyond what everybody else has done at the border; we would work with Transport Canada to develop legislation that governs those things correctly.
The balance of Bill C-3--as it relates to a private operator who has invested their life, their money, their responsibility--just doesn't make any sense. We ought to take a step back, sit down, and work together to create legislation that accomplishes the government's goals.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
My understanding is that there are two private bridges, and yours is the number one crossing between the U.S. and Canada. Is that correct?
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
A presentation to us on May 16 from Mr. Garlock on behalf of the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association indicates they have two areas of concern.
It says,
...there are two areas within the legislation that we have explained would be injurious to crossing operators in a way not intended by the legislation.
It says,
The first and most significant issue deals with the intent to approve setting of tolls, fees, and charges.
It goes on to indicate the independence of some of the members.
I presume this would potentially have greater impact on a private operator. How do you see this relating to the issue of competition--the impingement, if you want to call it that--on the setting of fees?
President, Canadian Transit Company
As I said in my testimony, the same people who are asking, through this legislation, to govern fees and to govern tolls are also competitors of ours. They own and operate bridges. They compete with us--so we see it as a way to control not only the bridges that they own, but also our bridge. We're very concerned that Transport Canada would be both our competitor and our governor.
We appreciate health, safety, and uniformity among the bridges, but this bill goes way beyond that. It is not a health, safety, and security bill.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
The other aspect is the grandfathering part. I gather, in looking at the bill, that it seems there is the reference to grandfathering, if you want to call it that, with respect to operators, but not with respect to owners. Can you comment on that?
President, Canadian Transit Company
Yes. There is an article towards the end of the bill that grandfathers an operator. If you're an operator the day before this legislation goes in, you're an operator the day after. But it does not grandfather any of the other issues, and given that we have 77 years invested and hundreds of millions of dollars, the bill does something way beyond, as I said, health and safety issues, and it concerns us.
If what the government wants is to have uniformity on those issues amongst the border crossings, we're in favour of it and will work toward it, but when it starts getting into the micromanaging and control of all the other aspects of a private business that's been very successful, it raises big red flags for us.