Transport Committee on Nov. 6th, 2012

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Denis Coderre]

Welcome, everyone.

First of all, I would like to thank our witnesses.

We don't have much time because of the vote. So the speeches will not be long. You are mainly going to make your presentations, quickly. Then we will move on to questions, in order to take full advantage of this hour and fifteen minutes. Obviously, I would have liked us to have been able to do this work in more detail, but that is the situation.

Since I am the vice-chair available, I will chair this meeting. I reserve the right to ask a question or two, if I have any. In other words, we are going to follow the usual procedures.

Ms. Leslie, you have the floor.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before we begin, I would like to ask if it would be possible to have

unanimous consent to continue for an extra half-hour, in light of the time we lost.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Denis Coderre]

Is that a motion?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Denis Coderre]

Therefore, we have this motion. We won't need to discuss it at length.

Do you agree to extend the meeting?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Denis Coderre]

We do not have unanimous consent.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I have a point of order.

We had planned to provide an hour for each group of witnesses, but because of the delay I would suggest that we split the remaining time precisely in half, as opposed to shortening the officials' presentations and then continuing with the original timing of the other group of witnesses.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Denis Coderre]

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre. I fully agree with that. We must take maximum advantage of the presence of our guests.

I don't know if you wanted to speak as long as planned, but we are going to divide the time in two. I suggest that everyone make their presentation and, then, we will take the rest of the time to ask questions of any of the witnesses. Is that okay?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Denis Coderre]

We'll start with Ms. Borges, from the Department of Transport.

[Helena Borges, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs, Department of Transport]

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

I will speak to you about the Bridge to Strengthen Trade Act, which would authorize the construction of a new international bridge across the Detroit River between Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan. It was referenced on page 159 of the budget action plan of 2012, last spring.

The Windsor-Detroit trade corridor is by far the busiest border crossing, handling almost 30% of Canada-U.S. trade and 30% of Canada-US truck traffic. That represents over 7,000 trucks per day. In 2011, Canada-U.S, trade reached $689 billion. Michigan-Canada trade exceeded $70 billion. There is no trading partner more important to Canada than the state of Michigan. Canada conducts more trade with Michigan than it does with any other country in the world, except for the United States as a whole.

Presently, 99% of the Windsor-Detroit truck traffic crosses the 83-year-old, four-lane Ambassador Bridge, the only major Ontario-U.S. crossing without direct highway access and without significant redundant capacity for truck traffic. As such, a new bridge is a very high priority for shippers and manufacturers.

Therefore, a new border crossing is necessary. The Government of Canada has been working with Ontario, Michigan and the United States government in the past 10 years to develop the Detroit River international crossing project.

Canada and Michigan signed the agreement on the crossing in June 2012, which was an important step toward the construction of the new public crossing. The agreement shows that the Government of Canada and the Government of Michigan are fully committed to proceeding with the project quickly.

This project has the support of all major automotive and auto parts manufacturers, including the big three in Detroit, plus Honda and Toyota. It also has the support of all major chambers of commerce in Canada and the United States, as well as the local chambers of commerce in Michigan.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Denis Coderre]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but I hear a telephone ringing, and it isn't mine.

I would ask that you put your cellphones on vibrate.

All right? Sorry.

[Helena Borges]

The crossing also has the support of labour unions in both countries, as well as major manufacturers, including companies like Campbell's Soup, Amway, Kellogg's, Myers, and other firms.

As well, the project has the support of the City of Windsor, the County of Essex, and the City of Detroit, not to mention the legislatures of Ohio and Indiana.

Despite the broad support for this project, its primary opponent has launched several legal challenges against the Government of Canada that are aimed at delaying or stopping the project.

In accordance with the intent of the 2012 budget, the Bridge to Strengthen Trade Act aims to create jobs, increase economic growth and encourage long-term prosperity in Canada, and especially in the two regions most affected by the recent economic difficulties: Windsor and Detroit.

The project has already undergone a rigorous and coordinated five-year environmental assessment process on both sides of the border and has complied with the laws in Canada and the United States, namely, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, and the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act.

The three governments granted their approval in 2009, by concluding that the project would not harm the environment.

The environmental assessment decision was also upheld in Federal Court last year after it was challenged and appealed by the opponent of the project. The Federal Court of Canada confirmed that the environmental assessment was properly carried out and that it complied with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

In this context, the Bridge to Strengthen Trade Act will shield the new bridge from existing and future legal challenges of regulatory permitting decisions and administrative approvals required under specific Canadian laws.

Basically, the new legislation will eliminate any possibility of legal challenge by allowing the construction of the project without requiring other permits or authorizations in Canada.

The legislation is by no means a way to avoid environmental obligations or other regulatory obligations, as it would still require the Government of Canada and the future P3 proponent for the project to meet the commitments made in the federal environmental assessment report, as well as complying with the intent of the obligations under relevant federal legislation pertaining to fish and fish habitat, species at risk, and navigation.

To this end, the bill requires that the plan be filed for each law for which a permit would not be required, explaining in detail all the measures that will be taken to mitigate any adverse environmental effects caused by the project. These commitments also include continued consultations with affected communities in the region, the first nations, and responsible federal departments.

To ensure accountability, the bill includes financial penalties if these obligations are not met. The critical advantage of this legislation is that it makes it possible to assure the P3 bidders that the project will not be delayed because of legal proceedings on the Canadian side and that the crossing will be built without delays or interruptions.

By introducing and passing this legislation, we will send a strong message to the P3 market. This will no doubt enhance the quality and the number of bids that we receive for this project, which we hope to get under construction shortly.

The legislation also clarifies a number of corporate governance issues and provides some minor amendments to the International Bridges and Tunnels Act, consistent with the crossing agreement that was signed in June, such as confirming the crown's authority to establish a corporation to implement the project both in Canada and the United States, authority for that corporation to establish tolls and other charges for the use of the bridge, and to charge tolls under a P3 arrangement.

With this act, we are taking the necessary steps to ensure the timely implementation of this project in light of its importance to the long-term economic prosperity of both Canada and the United States in general, and of the Windsor–Detroit region in particular.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Denis Coderre]

There is still a bit of time left. Does anyone else want to speak? It doesn't seem so.

We will start with Madam Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks very much.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for appearing today. We have lots and lots of questions. I'm hoping we'll be able to get through as many as possible.

To begin, I'm relying on different reports saying how many lakes and rivers there are in Canada. Is your department actually able to give us firm numbers on that?

[Nathan Gorall, Director General, Navigable Waters Protection Task Force, Department of Transport]

No, we're not, and it's because such a list doesn't exist. I think if you were to go to Natural Resources Canada, they would not be able to define for you every single body of water in the country.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

So you wouldn't even be relying on provincial data for that?

[Nathan Gorall]

We do have plenty of statistics about Canada's busiest waterways.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I want to ask some questions about the criteria being used to define which lakes are protected and which won't be. First of all, can you elaborate on the precise criteria that is used or that was used to determine which waterways qualify to be included on schedule 2 of this new act?

[Nathan Gorall]

I'm going to hand it over to my colleague Sébastien Belanger in one second.

I do want to make a quick point. It's with respect to the language that we've heard quite often in the public domain with respect to protected waterways. From my perspective, that is an overused expression, in the sense that protection of a waterway seems to imply that we are abandoning waters, when in fact there is plenty of environmental legislation that will protect the quality of the drinking water and the environment of the water. There is the Species at Risk Act, which will continue to protect the environment and the users of the waterway.

I want to make a quick point for clarification that there are listed waterways in the bill and then there are unlisted waterways. From our perspective, it's not protected versus unprotected.

I'm going to turn it over to Sébastien, who's going to walk us through the criteria. Thank you.

[Sébastien Belanger, Marine Safety Policy Advisor, Department of Transport]

We used four data sets that could be found across the country. That was one of the biggest challenges: finding the navigation data for both commercial and recreational traffic such that it could be comprehensive.

The first one we used was a CHS score, which was generated by analyzing the Canadian Hydrographic Service's nautical charts, specifically their level of service, which is based on risk that is highly correlated not only to the volume of traffic in the waterways but also to the demand by mariners, both commercial and recreational, on their charts.

Another key indicator we used was freight score, which is a very strong indicator of commercial navigation across the country. That data was garnered from Statistics Canada with help from the CBSA and others.

Then we used a navigation work score. The navigable waters protection program, for decades and beyond, has been providing building permits for infrastructure in and around Canadian waters. Within the databases that are used to track those applications, we were able to query the infrastructure that is there to support recreational and commercial navigation, marinas, wharves—

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Belanger, if I may...I only have seven minutes. What's the final piece?

[Sébastien Belanger]

The last one is a survey score that was used. In discussion...it was a survey with our regional officers and our managers, who have been spending decades working both with users and with builders in the waterways.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

If I take what you're saying and I think about Manitoba, for example, Manitoba probably has over a hundred thousand lakes. Only three are going to be protected—and I'm using that word specifically—under this new act.

What specific criteria would have been used, for example, with regard to Rainy Lake deserving protection over Cedar Lake? Because Rainy Lake is this tiny little lake, and Cedar Lake is a major.... I mean, if you're talking navigation, I don't understand how a little lake could be protected whereas a major waterway wouldn't be.