Transport Committee on Feb. 7th, 2008

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 12. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 4, 2007, we will consider Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence.

Joining us today we have Emile Di Sanza, Janet Kavanagh, Guylaine Roy, and Ekaterina Ohandjanian.

We are doing the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-23 today. If I may, I'm just going to ask for a little bit of direction from the committee. Everyone has the order that the clauses and the amendments are in. If the committee wants to deal with the grouping of clauses up to each amendment, we can actually get to the meat of the amendments and discuss them. If that's agreeable, I will proceed that way.

With that agreement, I will ask, shall clauses 1 to 4 inclusive carry?

(Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Next we have clause 5, NDP-1 on page 1.

Mr. Masse, you may proceed.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment here is intended to provide some balance, and also, hopefully, provide better relations between the port authorities in some areas where there are some difficulties. We all heard from testimony that even if you're appointed to the port authority through a municipality--it doesn't matter where, with the federal government, etc.--your loyalty is still, at the end of the day, to the port authority. What I'm hoping through this amendment is that you're going to see a greater weight for people in that area who at least understand the issues and can be sensitive to them. But we heard testimony that--for anybody who is appointed there--the number one priority is to administrate the port.

I believe that by diffusing some of those political appointments, and by being more inclusive to people from that region, you provide an opportunity to ensure that some problems that are emerging between municipalities and ports are unplugged, so to speak, before they actually happen.

So the intent of the motion is to provide that greater balance and hopefully prevent problems from happening, and also ensure that there is more of a regional approach to the actual port running the operations. There is a responsibility for many of these ports to serve a national purpose--and that's Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver--but I think there are enough people from that area with enough knowledge and understanding who can bring some good skills to the board and be seen as somebody within the community who will eventually make the situations better when they do make appointments.

So that's the reason for the amendment, and I hope members will consider this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I am advised and am prepared to suggest to the member that the submission of the amendment is inadmissible because it is beyond the scope of the bill.

Shall clauses 5 to 13 carry?

(Clauses 5 to 13 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 14)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're moving on to clause 14. We're going to G-1 on page 2.

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Chair, this particular amendment actually clarifies a typographical correction that would replace the word “and” with “or”, which would expressly state and make it clear that each of the subparagraphs are stand-alone and independent exceptions to the prohibition. It's to clean up the Vancouver Port Authority. I was speaking to Mr. Bell earlier today about it.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 14 agreed to as amended)

(Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to)

(On clause 17)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That brings us to clause 17, NDP-2, on page 4.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment too is to sever issues, once again related to the port, that may not be necessary for their core operations. The Marine Act calls for the principle of engaging in the goods distribution through marine activity.

We've seen—say, for example, in Toronto, with the Porter airline—that it can create difficulties. As well, you could have other developments across the country that create problems. What we're saying, through this amendment, is that these wouldn't be part of the port authority; they would be separate to their entity alone. It wouldn't eliminate them entirely, but at the same time it wouldn't make them part of the port authority. The port authority core business, once again, would be the marine transport of goods.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there comments?

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm not sure whether you've had an opportunity to look at paragraphs 28(2)(a) and (b) of the act. From my perspective, reading in light of those would seem to indicate and cause some confusion, because there it is already stated exactly what kinds of businesses they can undertake. I would suggest this is redundant, except, of course, if you want to amend that section.

This could seriously compromise the existing activities in support of port operations, including activities of mutual benefit between, for instance, ports and municipalities. For instance, the Quebec Port Authority actually did some work in lead-up to the 400th anniversary—the Quebec birthday, in essence—and other things. My understanding is that the Saint John Port Authority has worked with the municipality sometimes. This would eliminate any opportunity for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

That's the question I wanted to ask Mr. Di Sanza.

Nothing in the Act, as it reads now, would forbid port authorities to create equipments that could be used by communities for any other purpose than passenger transportation. Am I right?

[Emile Di Sanza, Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport]

Do you have some specific examples? For instance, the Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority said that they set up a system to facilitate transportation outside their facilities. We have heard of other examples too. As a matter of fact the Québec Port Authority also put into place equipments that benefit the entire community.

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

Okay. That is why we shall not support it. This is already covered elsewhere, and some communities already asked for such arrangements.

[Emile Di Sanza]

Indeed the Act contains some provisions to this effect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

This doesn't stop there being partnerships. It says the port authority itself cannot be the one that actually engages in those activities, but that doesn't prevent others, through an agreement, from engaging in activities with the port authority. This is a prohibitive clause, so that the port authority itself is not the proprietor of that operation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure this committee should be engaged in discussions that prescribe what a particular port authority might do by legislating what all port authorities have to do. I think we're getting into a redefinition of letters patent.

I notice that Mr. Masse has indicated that nothing prevents any of these authorities from engaging in a relationship with other jurisdictions that may be of mutual benefit. I don't think you can legislate that somebody engage in activity that's of mutual or reciprocal benefit, because that definition changes as you go forward.

The legislation, as it currently exists, encompasses that possibility for the authorities—in fact encourages it, as we heard some of the other port authorities suggest. A classic example of it, of course, comes from the Lower Mainland of Vancouver, where we have three port authorities, which might have been considered to be in competition with each other at one point, who have come forward saying, we want to amalgamate and want to make sure we are compliant with the legislation, because we see things that are of reciprocal benefit to us and see that there is reciprocal benefit to the municipality or municipalities adjacent to our own authorities.

They didn't come and say, pease put further restrictions on us. They didn't say, please come and redefine our letters patent. They simply said, we want to be able to be compliant; let us do our business.

I think that's what the legislation was intending to do. That's why we support it. I find that something like this goes beyond the intent of the legislation. I don't know whether you've ruled this in order, but I would find it difficult to believe that it is in order with the legislation; however, your decision is yours.

I don't think we're going to support this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I did rule it admissible; that's why we are having the debate.

Is there no further comment?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clauses 17 to 21 inclusive agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have a proposed new clause, NDP-3, page 5.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The reason we've submitted this amendment is for greater accountability by our ports. With this legislation there would be significant borrowing available to both the small and large ports, be it short- or long-term borrowing--billions of dollars, in fact. We've heard testimony that there are billions of dollars of required updating of our ports.

For port authorities there would also be access to at least one piece of government funding, through the border infrastructure fund of the Department of Transport.

We're requesting that this provide the opportunity for the Auditor General of Canada to audit a port authority. That doesn't mean it will automatically happen, but it will provide the opportunity for the Auditor General to examine those business practices, especially given that we will see greater applications from ports for government funding. I suspect we haven't seen all the programs fleshed out by the government. Those programs will of course be eligible for the Auditor General to look at. I think it is a better strategy to have the entire port looked at and audited by the Auditor General so they're not doing piecemeal auditing.

Hence this is submitted. I believe there would be greater accountability and greater confidence, especially when we look at security issues around the ports and the fact that they are going to have partnerships with third party operations and so forth. It will be done through the Auditor General, very sensitively, and through the Government of Canada. That's why this amendment has been submitted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Again, I would have to rule that inadmissible. The amendment seeks to amend section 43 of the Canada Marine Act. Since it is not being amended by Bill C-23, it is therefore inadmissible.

This moves us to clause 22.

(On clause 22)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have amendment NDP-4, page 6.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, this amendment is to build better relationships with the ports and municipalities. It's intended to ensure that when there are land use changes, especially given that ports can now enter into 99-year leases for their property for anything beyond condominium development.... This is going to change the land use practices of the ports as well as adjacent private sector owners of lands next to the ports, as well as municipal land, potentially.

The goal is a cooperative approach, so when land use planning comes into effect there will be support and, hopefully, compromise and the addressing of issues, be they environmental or planning, for the uses of the land. It could be a whole host of things, as we've seen. This legislation is opening up a wide chasm of different types of usage that are new to these areas.

The intent of this amendment is to make sure there are going to be cooperative developments with the port authority and also with the municipalities and the provinces.