Transport Committee on Feb. 5th, 2008

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Yes.

I'll let Emile speak to the issue of the Auditor General, and maybe about mediation.

[Emile Di Sanza]

The Auditor General would certainly have scope to undertake an examination of any public funds that would accrue to any of the port authorities.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

But they would have a harder time piecing those funds through the other investments the port authority might be partnered with, because you're getting into lease agreements and—

[Emile Di Sanza]

There are a number of other instruments--for example, the special examination that ports are subject to, and the financial audits. In the case of any public funds from any programs, certainly the Auditor General would have full scope to conduct whatever examinations are appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing before us today, and also thank you to your staff members.

I can tell you, as a representative from western Canada, specifically British Columbia, that our region is very excited about this legislation. As you know, the Pacific gateway is a huge opportunity for Canada, as well as the other two gateways you mentioned.

There have been some stresses. There have been restrictions on the ability of the ports to do the job they've been mandated to do. This certainly frees them up to a much greater degree.

We had some witnesses before us an hour before you came. The suggestion was that there hasn't been enough consultation on this bill. There was concern that there hadn't been enough notice for them to provide their representatives with authority to speak. Yet I note that this piece of legislation goes back to 2002. There were extensive consultations going back that far.

Could you explain the consultative process that you and your staff went through to come up with the bill before us today?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I'll let Emile speak to the historic background and the consultation.

The Bill C-61 that Jean Lapierre put forward is basically the benchmark. As a minority Parliament, we've taken less contentious pieces of Bill C-61 and those elements we believe have gone through consultation but received unanimous support, and we've parsed that into different pieces of legislation.

We've done the International Bridges and Tunnels Act. We've come forward with this piece of legislation. We've done the railway freight shippers' rights, which was Bill C-8. I congratulate you for that. That has generally been the approach. Honestly, I think there has been a great deal of consultation on all these pieces of legislation. There is not one member around the table who is not cognizant of that.

Emile, maybe you could back up to the Bill C-61 period.

[Emile Di Sanza]

As you pointed out, there were extensive consultations as part of the review of the Canada Marine Act in 2002 and 2003. They went across the country and met a large number of stakeholders.The report emanating from that review, for which I believe there were 140 briefs or presentations to the committee, was broad-based. That report was tabled in Parliament by the Minister of Transport at the time, in 2003. There were reactions following that. There was feedback from various interested parties on the review panel's report and further recommendations of possible changes to the proposed legislation.

After Bill C-61 was tabled in the House, we received feedback from various interested parties. We've continued our dialogue since that time in preparation for the bill before you today with various stakeholders and interested parties. Since that time there have been developments and changes related to various other initiatives, particularly the gateways initiatives, which I think has a bearing on a number of the elements introduced in these proposed amendments.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

If I could drill down and be a little more specific, during your process of consultations from 2002 until the present, have there been ongoing consultations with the cities of Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal?

[Emile Di Sanza]

Through various mechanisms, there has always been input in some capacity or other, either from interested parties in those municipalities or, in the case of Vancouver, because of the Asia Pacific initiative and the exercise we've just gone through in terms of the port amalgamation, there has been considerable input into a number of different areas. Of course we have direct dealings with port authorities and various associations across the country that represent either users of or suppliers at the ports themselves.

Have we had specific dealings with the municipalities? I'd say indirectly, since the time of the consultations. Of course the panel did visit these various cities during the consultations, and there were opportunities, whether for municipalities, provinces, or other stakeholders, to have input.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

During that process, did any of the cities or the respective councils of those three major cities register formal opposition to this particular bill or its predecessor, Bill C-61?

[Emile Di Sanza]

I'll have to verify that. I don't believe that to be the case, but we can certainly check.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I might just add that in the case of Toronto, for instance, Mr. Tassé basically did meet with officials from the City of Toronto on his report, which was a special report under those circumstances.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming again.

In response to Mr. Fast's question, in the 2002-03 period, I know that a number of municipalities in greater Vancouver made presentations, and in my former role as mayor of the district of North Vancouver, I made a presentation to the panel, supporting changes and basically supporting the need for improvements to the port regulations. Therefore, as you've mentioned, Minister, this bill builds largely on Bill C-61, which was begun by Minister Lapierre under the previous Liberal government. Generally speaking, I support it and our party supports it.

One of the issues you made reference to is the relationship with municipalities. Again, the port of Vancouver, where I have the greatest knowledge, has done a pretty good job on that. North Vancouver, for example, was the second municipality, again during my term as mayor, to sign an official protocol and accord with the port of Vancouver, a municipal protocol to exchange information about planning so that there was less chance of breakdown. So it's important that this kind of philosophy flows through the act and flows out of this act.

Particularly with respect to the Pacific gateway, for which I'm the Liberal Party critic, the importance of China can't be underestimated. We know the estimates are that by 2015, certainly by 2020, China will be either the number one economy or tied for number one economy in the world. The gateway is poised to try to take advantage of that for all of Canada and the opportunities that present through both Prince Rupert and the Vancouver ports and the amalgamated ports. Sixty percent of the containers coming into the port of Vancouver come from China, and 40% of the containers leaving presently go to China, so it's a huge player, as far as we're concerned.

Port growth and modernization in China is going on at a phenomenal rate. That's why it's important that we do our best to catch up. We know that in the United States and in fact countries down to Central and South America, they're improving their port facilities in anticipation of this growth out of China.

One of the concerns I have in talking to stakeholders and port authority people in Vancouver is they feel that we're not moving fast enough. I know this bill will help, but part of the concern was that back in December of 2005, Mr. Harper indicated during that election time that a Conservative government would equal the commitment of the Liberal government in terms of the gateway, which at that time was $591 million over five years under Minister Emerson when he was a Liberal minister. The concern I have is that what we've actually seen—and I did this through a parliamentary question to get the answers as to what the actual spending was in terms of gateway funding—is that in the five-year total, the comparable five-year period, we're some $39 million shy with your government's commitment; and in the first two years, the 2006-07 and the 2007-08 period, we're something like $79 million shy. So the money has been rear-ended.

I know your government has extended it to $1 billion, which is another $450 million, in the years 2011 to 2014. But I guess the concern I've heard relates to maybe some of the things in this act but also in terms of the flow of money actually happening and front-ending it rather than pushing it back; and by the deficiencies I've mentioned there, it's putting the Pacific gateway at a technical disadvantage where we see the U.S. ports pouring money into their facilities and we see what's happening in China, and we don't want to lose out on those opportunities.

I'm just curious. The Province of B.C. has made China a priority. They're doing it in a whole variety of ways. We've recently seen the United States move ahead of us on approved destination status for tourists, which affects the ports by virtue of the cruise ship industry, which is big out of Vancouver, because a lot of those tourists in fact cruise Alaska, cruise the Pacific coast. We have the potential for three to four times the current rate of tourism out of China, which is big money for all of Canada.

Can you comment on how we can get this money for the gateway—the Pacific gateway in particular is my interest now—flowing more quickly than in the current plan?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'd ask you to be very brief. I want to make sure that all members get a chance.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Okay.

I don't want to dispute the quantum. I know that we've put in $1 billion. There are a lot of projects out there, and we funded the gateway council. Minister Emerson was basically responsible for that. Clearly, you asked him the question; you didn't ask me the question in the House. I think he can respond to that, or I'll make sure you get that information.

Are the projects being delayed? No. The ones being put forward are bought into by the federal government, and when there is involvement with the communities they're there. I've given you examples of some of the projects that are taking place in Vancouver in the lower mainland.

You're absolutely right to indicate that Prince Rupert is a very strategic port. We've moved in that area from phase one, and we're looking at phase two. We are working with the first nations to be able to get that done. I work closely with the Government of British Columbia to make sure that transportation issues related to labour relations are smoothed out. I recall that when I became minister, one of the outstanding issues was the problem my predecessor had left me of the trucking dispute in the Vancouver port. We were able to settle that.

As we're moving forward, both your party and our party see that it is extremely important--and we firmly believe this--to make sure we capitalize as much as possible on the growth that is coming over the next several years. There are challenges, and clearly we've identified and tackled them. We've put in the money that is required to be able to go forward.

The Prime Minister, Minister Emerson, and I concluded an agreement with the B.C. premier. There was an announcement on the gateway strategy. As I recall, Premier Campbell was very supportive of the initiative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Minister. It's always a pleasure for us to see you here presenting your bills, which are important. The Bloc Québécois will support the bill, which we find positive on the whole. However, we nevertheless still have some minor reservations about granting additional powers to port authorities enabling them to lease the lands they acquire for future use.

Following the testimony of a councillor of the City of Toronto, we learned that there was quite a conflict between the city's orientation and that of the port authority, two administrations that do not work together or jointly.

In your presentation, you cited a very interesting example, that of the Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority. It has formed a municipal liaison forum to ensure that the community's viewpoint is understood and taken into consideration. I find that quite logical.

You say in your presentation that the needs of the municipalities are obviously taken into consideration in port-related activities. That's a nice statement, but I wonder whether the bill provides for certain mechanisms. Will there be a mechanism to ensure that, before they go ahead, the projects presented by the port authorities to security federal funding receive the consent of the municipality?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

It's always a pleasure to see you, Mr. Carrier, and to discuss the bills.

I'm going to leave it to Mr. Di Sanza to answer that question, more specifically as regards the content of the legislation.

[Emile Di Sanza]

Under the current marine policy, the legislative framework, the various regulations and letters patent that apply to the ports, the port authorities are already required to submit land use plans to the municipal administrations and to consult them.

I believe you're referring to the strategic initiative and the political viewpoint. We've clearly stated—and you'll find that in the documents we've submitted to the committee—that the use of lands for temporary purposes is subject to very specific criteria. We wanted the conditions on which the ports could exercise that flexibility with regard to lands used for temporary purposes to be very transparent. You'll find those detailed conditions in the documents available.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Very good, that answers my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson, we have a couple of minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Just to shoehorn in at the end. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister for appearing here today, and thank you to the minister for taking the initiative to talk about Windsor as a critical border gateway as part of the central Canadian trade corridor.

We often talk about the Ambassador Bridge and the million dollars per minute in two-way trade. I think what is seldom talked about is the amount of economic activity that passes under the Ambassador Bridge along the Detroit River connecting the upper Great Lakes and the lower Great Lakes.

Short sea shipping is seen by many in the community as a real possibility for future growth for a smaller port like the port of Windsor. How does Bill C-23 help smaller ports? I think we've heard a lot from the bigger ports testifying before us here, in particular with respect to the new borrowing limits and things like that. But how is Bill C-23 going to help a smaller port like Windsor become more competitive, capitalize on its opportunities, and become a larger port?