Transport Committee on Feb. 7th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Once again, I'll have to rule it inadmissible, as it against the principle of the bill.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

I have nothing against it being ruled in order but it is not for the reason you just gave that we would have ruled it inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise, if I may, I'm sorry, we cannot have debate if I've ruled it inadmissible.

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

Do you have a legal opinion, Mr. Chairman? You are not the Almighty, you know. Do you have an opinion from the legal counsel of the House? Could it be tabled?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, I do. I can either share it with you or read it to you in English. I can share the French. Would you prefer I give you the document or just read it?

I'll read it to you. It basically says, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” It's my opinion that the introduction of this framework for consent is contrary to the principle of Bill C-23 and therefore inadmissible.

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

Are you going to send us the counsel's opinion in both official languages?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Oui.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I have a point for clarification. It is the call of the chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Absolutely, and you can challenge that call if you choose to.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I think we know the result of that, but I want it to be clear for the record that it is the call of the chair, of discretion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Absolutely.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

(Clauses 22 to 26 inclusive agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We go to clause 26.1, a new clause, NDP-5, page 7.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, again, Mr. Chair.

Once again, this is the lesser of the previous amendment that was ruled out, but this is calling for consultation with the municipalities by the port authority when they're looking at letters of patent for their development.

I'm not going to repeat the previous comments I've had. But once again, the intent here is to provide some type of systemic address to some potential conflict that can come out of this bill with planning development, for environmental as well as for the protection of other property owners, so that's why this amendment is asked for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Once again I will have to rule that this amendment is inadmissible since section 23 of the Canada Marine Act is not being amended by Bill C-23. It is inadmissible to propose such an amendment.

(Clauses 27 to 32 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 33)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have NDP-6 on page eight.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've suggested to change two clauses here related to the issues of national security and the port authority itself.

The first is to request that the Minister of Public Safety have the opportunity to have a security audit at the ports. To support this, we've looked at different ports in the United States and their suggestions. As well, there are the issues over development, again, with third party arrangements, and hence the second proposed subsection is to call for a relationship with the Investment Canada Act.

The Government of Canada has already issued that they are going to clarify rules on foreign investment in this particular act. What we're suggesting with these two amendments is, first, that once again the Minister of Public Safety has the opportunity to examine security. Since we have had the ports basically dismantle their policing operations, and there's no standardization of that, you have several different ports that have different agreements with local security branches as well as a different hiring of municipal police officers and so forth. This would provide the opportunity for the Minister of Public Safety to at least have an opportunity to analyse the different ports and determine whether or not they are sufficient as security measures.

We know from evidence that's presented through other committees as well as in the general public and also from CBSA that there's actually a lesser degree of scrutiny of some of the actual containers and cargo coming into our ports. That has repercussions when it comes to everything from public safety, be it merchandise, etc.

Just last night there was another meeting of the all-party intellectual property committee, where we were discussing this very issue with the Chamber of Commerce as well as with the Manufacturers & Exporters. There was concern over the fact that different types of merchandise are getting into Canadian ports without the proper scrutiny. CBSA admittedly does not have the resources right now to be able to deal with those issues.

Having the minister able to get in and provide that audit is important, because what it does is take away some of the concerns and provide a degree of analysis that is necessary, especially given the scrutiny we're getting with the United States. We do know we're going to see a continued thickening of the border if we do not have some of our port operations adjusted appropriately to meet some of the needs of security that are coming in. Once again, we believe the Minister of Public Safety has the proper tools to be able to provide that oversight, to provide that audit, and then to provide suggestions as to how to fix that.

Secondly, to conclude with the Investment Canada Act, the reason that clause is in there—and there's nothing stopping us from adding this in the bill today, even though the government is examining it now—is that we've seen non-democratic governments actually purchase Canadian companies. In the United States recently we've seen the situation with their ports and purchasing, with the issue over Dubai, and we've seen them wrestle with this issue.

Hence, having this oversight would give some comfort, especially when we have issues surrounding national security. It's an important opportunity that gives the government the tools to actually have part of that oversight administered through the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

As there is a lot of discussion, I am going to allow debate on this and a vote.

Mr. Jean.

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

That was my question. I'm surprised at the admissibility.

No disrespect, but the Canada Marine Act deals with economic policy and this is about security, which is already covered under the Marine Transportation Security Regulations. The enabling statute, of course, is the Marine Transportation Security Act. It would be duplicitous, at the very least.

I will give you some examples, Mr. Masse. Section 351 of the regulations--and thanks to the department for this--requires audits to be conducted annually at these facilities, including a security plan that contains a security procedure for each marine security level, continuous monitoring of a marine facility, and continuous monitoring of approaches, including land and water, as well as specific restricted areas in a marine facility and vessels that interface with the marine facility.

Other requirements under the regulations are that the minister conduct security assessments that take into account threats, types of security incidents and other elements, particularly in relation to foreign ownership. Any time a change in operator occurs, there is already a requirement to obtain a new statement of compliance from Transport Canada that looks at the review of a security assessment and security plan.

This is already actually in a statute. I don't know why it wouldn't be ruled inadmissible, to be honest, Mr. Chair, because quite frankly, it's totally inappropriate for this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It would maybe be helpful for the committee members.... I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's discussion, but I believe there's a role in this bill for this provision and I think it enhances the opportunity for national security, especially when we have the increased amount of capacity that will happen at our ports, be it through their operations or through their investments, be it their private investments that they're having or the foreign investments or be it the public investment as we look at more money.

I can maybe be helpful here. For example, the task force of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey examined the situation and has made recommendations similar to the United States', and they actually do have some policies in place for national security. I know, as of June 2008, the government is looking at coming at the issue of foreign investment, and once again I would hope that for the sake of oversight this committee would adopt the recommendations.

Once again, the United States and different ports are already looking at it. They're actually making recommendations to have that oversight from their perspective in their ports, calling on greater scrutiny. So it's coming from both directions in the United States, and this amendment would help us here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Volpe.

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

I'd like some clarification from the officials. Again, with all due deference to those who are very concerned about security in the United States—I am no less—I'm not surprised that there would be great focus on this. There's been a huge industry built around security and paranoia, most of it directed to us.

I would like whichever official, perhaps Mr. Di Sanza, to explain one thing for me, if you will. The proposed amendment to section 61--that's proposed subsection 61(1)--says that “a port authority shall take the appropriate measures” but ends off with “including having an annual security audit performed by the Minister of Public Safety.” Is this obligation on a port authority to constrain another minister from another department to fulfill his or her duties consistent with this legislation?

[Emile Di Sanza]

On this particular point, I would ask our legal counsel to respond.

[Ekaterina Ohandjanian, Legal Counsel, Justice Canada]

If we follow the lead in the national security policy and we recognize that the Prime Minister was clear to distinguish between the responsibilities of the Minister of Public Safety and those of the Minister of Transport, and in that regard focused the attention on marine transportation security in the Marine Transportation Security Act and kept matters of national security separate, then it would not be consistent to bundle these together in this instance. It would not be consistent with the government's national security policy.