Transport Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Further to that line of questioning, the issue in many of the larger urban areas, and I'm thinking of North Vancouver and the Vancouver area, is that although the ports were there initially, the community has moved in around them. It's the very nature of the evolution of cities. And I guess the question is in terms of not only the compatible land uses for adjacent properties but the issue of payment of property taxes. Is there any intention through this--I don't see it anywhere--to change the question of the payment of grants in lieu of taxes?

The second is, if lands are used for non-port purposes--in other words, you're going to allow them to lease them out commercially--there's the issue of whether they pay taxes or grants, and of competitive fairness with occupiers of adjacent municipal land. Would a big-box store or an office complex have an advantage then by virtue of the land? I don't think that's the intention of this.

I have a final question on the reference that residential use is not contemplated at this time. As a former municipal politician, I can tell you that the concern when it comes to residential development is the significant impact it has on municipal services. I'm thinking of schools, I'm thinking of roadways, traffic flows, and things of that nature, more so than even the commercial traffic.

[Emile Di Sanza]

I'll answer briefly. Taxes are payable by the leasees on any port lands at commercial rates. So there's no competitive benefit, if you will, for them in that regard.

I don't know if Ms. Kavanagh would like to comment.

[Janet Kavanagh]

This is why one of the conditions is that it must always be leased to third parties. Those third parties, when they enter into use of that property, pay the same tax rates as any other commercial entity in the city.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Carrier.

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

I would like to ask a question about the port authority amalgamations provided for in the bill.

Do you know whether there have been a number of amalgamation requests? Do you know whether there are a number of possibilities for amalgamation? If this happens, have you developed criteria for approving amalgamations, or will you automatically approve requests for amalgamation?

[Emile Di Sanza]

As I said earlier, nothing is really targeted in the bill. It is based on the amalgamation of the three ports in southern British Columbia. At that point, it was clear that some provisions were needed in the act to make amalgamation easier when boards of directors had indicated their intent, when consultations had been conducted with interested parties, particularly the users, and when the project had been evaluated. With Vancouver, it was the boards of directors in particular that conducted the evaluation.

In the future, if port authorities show a desire to amalgamate, they will perhaps be able to look at Vancouver's experience to see what steps to follow and what challenges they may encounter. Furthermore, some provisions in the bill, although there are few, could make the transition easier, if necessary.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a very specific question. If the Toronto Port Authority, for example, has a dispute with the municipality on the use of lands, to what specific body under this bill do they take that dispute?

[Janet Kavanagh]

It would depend on the nature of the dispute. For instance, if it's with respect to the payment in lieu of taxes, there is a dispute resolution body that both parties can go to. This is at Public Works.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Say, for example, it's the use of a property. If they want to use it for some type of commercial purpose, the municipality objects, and they're both set in their positions, what body do they take that dispute to?

[Janet Kavanagh]

There is no body under the Canada Marine Act. Whether there are other avenues open to them within the municipal context, I'm not sure.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

There aren't, and that's the whole point. It's in the courts, and that's the problem with this bill.

Secondly, why in this bill was the issue of security not addressed? There hasn't been very much. This is what's driving a lot of the port development in the United States, especially with cargo inspection and so forth. Why did this bill not look at some standards and procedures for cargo inspection and so forth?

There was the reversal of the former port police and so forth. Now we have everything from security guards to municipal police officers working on contracts. Why did this bill not provide some provisions for standards set for those things?

[Emile Di Sanza]

There is another piece of legislation, the Marine Transportation Security Act, that deals more specifically with security considerations.

Of course, when it comes to clearance of cargo, I guess that falls even somewhat further to the revenue and customs authority.

[Ekaterina Ohandjanian]

If I may supplement, it actually does, in the sense that we have an amendment in Bill C-23 that recognizes for the first time the link between the Marine Transportation Security Act, which is the proper legislative scheme for security-related provisions or regime, and the Canada Marine Act. So for the first time we've linked the two together. We can anticipate that if there's the will to provide substance and further security-related mandate on the part of the port authorities, that would be done through the Marine Transportation Security Act, but because of the link, it now recognizes that it's doable.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Is it possible to do that in this bill?

[Ekaterina Ohandjanian]

The link is still to the Marine Transportation Security Act. It's recognizing that this act has the subject matter expertise relating to security.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

We do have a subcommittee meeting following this, so I would thank our guests. I suspect you'll be back with the minister when he comes before the committee. I appreciate your input today. Thank you.

I'm going to adjourn this meeting.