Evidence of meeting #6 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ports.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
No, not this bill, but it is certainly related.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your presentation.
The first question I have is, what is your department's estimate of the actual infrastructure and other financial needs of the ports right now?
9:40 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
I'll approach it by virtue of what the ports indicate their capital investment plans are over the next five years. We can verify this, but the last time we did a compilation, I do believe it was close to $1 billion. I will confirm the exact amount, because it will depend on when we received some of their reports.
I think that gives an indication of the magnitude of some of the capital investments the ports had contemplated within a regime that did not allow them access to infrastructure funding of any sort. Now, there may be some instances where some of the ports—maybe some of the larger ports, but not necessarily only the larger ports—could have expansion plans in conjunction with private partners that might impact on those amounts.
We don't have any specific numbers as to the kinds of projects ports may specifically have as a result of this.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I guess one of the concerns I have is that this bill doesn't have any funding with it. In fact, you substantiated those concerns when you talked about the gateway funds. Obviously this is going to water down the accessibility of those funds for someone else, if you remove something out of there for this here. It's going to create some considerable conflict, I think. There is already a strenuous need to honour gateway funds regardless of entertaining the addition of 19 different organizations in there.
I noticed on your policy initiative on borrowing limit flexibility that Vancouver, for example, under the current system, if I have this right, can borrow up to half a billion dollars right now. As an example, what would their capacity increase to under the new model?
9:40 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Once again, it would depend on what their board of directors determined. There may be no change whatsoever. They may decide they wish to stay within the current regime and their current borrowing limit, if that limit is sufficient; or they may choose to go to the more commercially based approach being contemplated here, if they require some additional funds for their capital expansion or environmental enhancements—and they would borrow those.
In response to your previous question, ports will finance their operations by virtue of either borrowing.... In the case of this, they may be eligible to apply, as other parties might be, for projects. Some of these projects might not be related specifically to port operations. They may consist of access to the ports; they may be environmental enhancements that could be required; in other instances, they maybe relate to security, if a security funding program becomes available.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Has the department done an analysis, though? Under this current system, if you add this up—and I did—you're probably close to $800 million in terms of the borrowing capacity of our port structures right now.
Have you done a model as to what their capacity for borrowing would be at the end of the day if they did move towards this?
9:40 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Sir, the port authorities are, if you will, commercially autonomous. It's their board of directors that determines what their capital plans are.
We do track the sorts of things that go on. We do hear from port authorities, from time to time, what their projects are. In some cases, they do come to see the department to seek increases in their borrowing limits because they do have specific projects they're contemplating, for which part of the financing might come from borrowing limits, but part of the financing could also come from private terminal operators. In some instances, what a port will do is set up—
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I understand all of that, and I'm going to move on to another question, because I don't want to waste my time on this. I just wanted to know whether your department had done an analysis of your new proposal and what the logic was for that percentage increase. Quite frankly, you're not answering my question.
I do want to move on to something else with my time, though. With regard to the commercial designation of those properties they're going to be able to use for flexibility, will they fall under the municipal act of the municipalities when they're going for rezoning or new usage of property on that site?
9:45 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Ms. Kavanagh, could you respond to that question?
9:45 a.m.
Janet Kavanagh Director of Port Policy, Ports Policy, Department of Transport
The land flexibility issue is to provide ports with a planning tool and allow them to generate revenues from property for the long term. The bill doesn't change anything that is currently in play with respect to municipal zoning or provincial laws.
9:45 a.m.
Director of Port Policy, Ports Policy, Department of Transport
They would not fall under municipal or provincial zoning or requirements with respect to federal real property, as is the case now and as is the case for all federal entities.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
What is your classification of commercial properties? What does that include? Under the municipal act there are several different classifications of what is determined commercial. What is your definition, which will apply under the act, of commercial usages on port lands?
9:45 a.m.
Director of Port Policy, Ports Policy, Department of Transport
I believe we would look at those standard definitions as to what is there, and really the limit of that is no residential.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
You are saying there are no classification standards for commercial property. You do not have a definition that you use for what is categorized as commercial property.
9:45 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
You will see it contained in one of the issue papers.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I have it right here and I don't see it. It just says the use is classified as commercial, non-residential, but the commercial categorization is quite broad and municipalities often divide that up into different types of commercial classifications. What I am looking for is your specific definition of commercial, whether it encompasses everything or other things.
9:45 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
What we would have to look at there is the kinds of applications that port authorities would be making in that regard. They are subject to and they would have to have due regard for the land use plans of adjoining municipalities and—
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
According to this, they're not accountable to that because they're not under the municipal act. In your plans you have working associations, which are non-binding. I know that.
Does your commercial categorization include any industrial? That is often the case in some municipal plans as well, the commercial/industrial. Is industrial included in your commercial categorization?
9:45 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Once again, we're not changing the fundamentals of the act or the letters patent. If we look at some of the letters patent, that will give us an indication of the kind of semi-industrial or commercially related, value-added type of operations some of the ports have deemed to be complementary to their operations. Letters patent do vary. When they were set up in the late 1990s, if we look, for example, at the ones for Fraser River, they stipulate certain types of secondary industrial activity, if you will. We can take some indication from that of the sorts of things that might be applicable, but the intent here was to put some fairly strict parameters around the uses that could be made of these lands.
In many cases they already have the ability to make use of those lands. In some instances what was not clear was that it would be for temporary use, so there would be a fairly lengthy process for them to come in, have changes to the letters patent for something that might only be in place for a limited period of time, because their original intent would have been to keep those lands for long-term purposes, for port purposes.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
What concerns me is that we're introducing a more assertive policy, which might be fine for land use management on their property.... And Mr. Chair, I did ask questions similar to this during the briefing I got with the department and I may have got an answer. It could be in my office this morning, but I have yet to see it. I would like to see it and I would like to see tabled to this committee the specific rules and your definitions of commercial property and of the land use you categorize under there.
As well, you mention your policy change in your paper here, bilateral mechanisms for working with community associations and municipal governments. Maybe the department could provide us with specific cases of those. That would be helpful to understand.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our panel here this morning.
I want to start with the foundation for the bill before us. A review was done a few years back. You've also mentioned in your presentations that a report was tabled since that review. There have been recent consultations with stakeholders. Can you elaborate on some of the detail of those more recent consultations that have occurred?
Can you also define for me, or give me a sense of who the stakeholders are we are talking about? Is this industry, the government, or the community groups? Does that include labour and those types of things? Give us some of that foundation first before launching into questions.
9:50 a.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
The review that took place in 2002-03 was, as I indicated earlier, quite broad. It touched on a variety of areas. It touched on access to federal contribution funding, security, governance structures, and so on.
We've had the benefit since 2003, when that report was laid out, of being able to participate in such venues as conferences on short sea shipping, where ports indicated that if they were eligible for infrastructure funding, there could be opportunities to enhance the use of waterways in such a way as to provide for more sustainable transportation systems. There have been several workshops around the country with interested parties, including stakeholders, ports, terminal operators, shippers, importers, exporters, and a variety of other interests that have bearing on the ports themselves.
We have a very close rapport as well with the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. We participate in their governance seminars, where they invite board members once a year to come in and look at best practices in governance structures. They have various other technical workshops dealing with operations of the ports themselves.
As well, we meet on a regular basis, of course, with various other associations representing various interests in the marine sector.
