Transport Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

[Emile Di Sanza]

In response to your question, no other amalgamations are specifically targeted here. All we're doing is based on the experience we've had with the Lower Mainland amalgamation; we've had to work within the confines of an act that didn't specifically recognize the prospects for an amalgamation, so we've had to introduce regulations.

The proposed amendments complement the regulation we introduced in May that provided for obligatory consultations in the case of amalgamations. We've also adjusted the governance structure with regard to the board of directors and with regard to the period of transition for the various amalgamating port authorities in terms of fees and other matters related to their operations. This is in place in case ports decide in the future that they wish to avail themselves of that potential option.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast is next.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to follow up on some of the discussion regarding the funding that's going to become available if these amendments are passed.

As I heard Mr. Masse make his comments, I believe he was gently lamenting the fact that there's no money attached to this particular bill, but my colleagues to the right here have made it very clear that there's actually a tonne of money attached indirectly, because we have the $2.1 billion gateways and border crossings fund, which is on top of the $1 billion Asia Pacific gateway and corridor initiative. This legislation is critical for allowing moneys to flow from the federal government to ports across this country. Is that not correct?

[Emile Di Sanza]

That's correct, sir.

This is an economic policy legislative framework. It outlines the rules under which the port authorities operate. Right now there is a specific prohibition, and the intent here, by virtue of the proposed amendment, is to remove that prohibition.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I believe clause 4 of this bill specifically repeats—actually on two occasions—the critical issue of competitiveness of our ports and of our economy, to make sure that we're competing successfully against many of the other ports around the world.

I'd like to hear from any of the four of you about the competitive context within which this bill is playing out. In other words, I'm assuming our major competition is to the south of us, from ports in the United States. Where are we already seeing competitive pressures coming from, specifically what ports? Are you able to tell us that?

[Emile Di Sanza]

On the west coast, there are obvious pressures coming from U.S. ports south of the Vancouver ports, south of Prince Rupert. Now, fortunately, the assessment has been made that there are competitive advantages in terms of the amount of time it takes for a shipping line to arrive at North America from Asia. It's important, obviously, that ports be able to capitalize on that sort of thing.

The access to infrastructure investment would only serve to ensure the competitive viability of ports. As I mentioned earlier, clearly our ports are well run, financially stable ports, but they are also competing with ports, whether they are on the west coast or elsewhere, that receive government funding in a number of different areas. We're trying to put them on a level playing field

We also need to look forward. The Panama Canal is expanding to allow larger ships. What does that mean in terms of a change in shipping patterns? Could that possibly affect the east coast? Are there trade opportunities opening as a result of possible trade routes in from India via the Suez Canal that could potentially have considerable benefits to east coast ports, whether it be Halifax or other ports in Atlantic Canada, or Montreal, for that matter? Are there opportunities as well in terms of a different kind of access into the major market in North America, the one around the Great Lakes, via the Seaway?

Those are all things that are in play at this time, but obviously both the port authorities and various observers, including Transport Canada, are looking very clearly at what kind of shifts are occurring in trade patterns. Obviously when the national marine policy was being developed in the mid-1990s, the role of Asia—and of China particularly—on the world market scene was nowhere near what it is today and what is being projected, not only for Asia but also for other evolving economies.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Is it safe to say that the ports support this legislation?

[Emile Di Sanza]

From the discussions we've had to date—and I made reference to a press release that the Association of Canadian Port Authorities released last week—I think generally they feel that this is very much in the right direction and, presumably, would support that. I would imagine that you will be hearing from a number of port authorities--presumably the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, but also other interested parties who make use of the ports.

[A voice]

Shippers.

[Emile Di Sanza]

Exactly, shippers, importers and exporters, and a variety of other interests, and the shipping lines—the vessel operators—would use them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fast.

We are close to the time. I'm going to just open the floor up—Mr. Jean has not asked any questions yet—and then I'll give each opposition a couple of minutes.

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Di Sanza, I just want to talk very briefly. I don't have a lot of time. My understanding is that you are, in essence, one of the leading experts in this particular field. You are the secretary who was involved in the review, who actually got us to this point. Is that correct?

[Emile Di Sanza]

I wasn't specifically the secretary to the review, but that review was conducted under the auspices of the office for which I'm the director general.

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

All right, so you are considered one of the leading experts in Canada. Would that be fair to say, in your humble opinion?

[Emile Di Sanza]

I wouldn't say it, but....

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

Others do.

[Emile Di Sanza]

I think we do try our best to make sure we know what's going on in the marine sector.

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

I appreciate your humility, sir.

I have two questions. The first is in relation to two particular ports on the St. Lawrence.

There are five ports on the St. Lawrence, but I'm referring particularly to Quebec City and Montreal. I notice that they have had actually, in operating revenues, the greatest increase over the last three years, since 2003. In fact, Montreal has had a 20% increase in operating revenues, and Quebec City has had a 30% increase in revenues. I would like your professional and expert opinion on the actual results of this legislation, and the other legislation that has accompanied it, in relation to jobs and economic growth in those areas.

[Emile Di Sanza]

Indeed, I think each port authority typically goes through a fairly rigorous exercise to look at what kind of spinoff effects there are in the local regional economies.

The port authorities do issue annual reports that outline their contribution to the economies. They outline the trends, obviously, in terms of shipping patterns and so on. Clearly Montreal has grown in terms of its handling of containers. For the port of Quebec City, most of that probably would have been from the cruise ships and bulk operations that take place there.

We also undertook with various associations in the industry, several years ago, an analysis of the contribution of the marine sector to the Canadian economy. It broke out by regions, provinces, and that sort of thing a high-level look at the impact of the marine sector on the economy. The analysis clearly demonstrated that it has a significant impact.

As I mentioned, each port does their own more detailed analysis in terms of jobs, their contribution to taxes, and their contribution to the local economy in terms of spinoff effects.

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

So you would suggest that there would be an increase in economic activity in these particular ports, given this new legislation, obviously on a long-term basis--

[Emile Di Sanza]

There are provisions being proposed here...particularly access to contribution funding, which, I would assume, ports would factor into their long-term plans as one possible option.

As you know, the Ontario-Quebec continental gateway and trade corridor initiative was announced by the federal Minister of Transport and his provincial colleagues from Quebec and Ontario last July. There are very detailed studies going on in terms of identifying priorities and targeted areas to do the same thing for that region that I guess is being done on the Asia Pacific. There's also a similar exercise going on in Atlantic Canada.

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

That's great news on an economic basis for the communities along the St. Lawrence.

I'd like to refer you to the second of three pages on the second-last policy initiative, land management flexibility. You referred to it earlier, and Mr. Masse had asked some questions on it.

For those people who are interested, it's under the second-last blue tab.

It talks about enabling the CPAs to lease or licence such land on a temporary basis. What hit me the most was the indication in the last paragraph, on the second page, that land use plans “must” account for the relevant social, economic, and environmental matters and zoning bylaws that apply to neighbouring lands.

Obviously these ports have an incredible impact on the local communities. This policy change, I was very happy to see, deals with social, economic, and environmental matters.

I'm wondering if you could talk very briefly about that.

[Janet Kavanagh]

On that point, it really reflects and enhances what is already there with respect to many Canada port authorities. Canada port authorities must have a land use plan. That land use plan must take into account surrounding uses of land. That land use plan has to be made public. Canada port authorities must have an annual meeting, a public meeting where a sufficient number of the board is there to answer questions.

It really is a further reinforcement of those concepts. The same concepts that are in place now would apply to this temporary use. It's very much a reinforcement of those ideas and very much in keeping with the provisions.

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

This is good news for those communities that are concerned with....

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Bell, you have a couple of minutes. Then we'll go to Mr. Carrier.