Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 20 - Evidence - June 8, 2005
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 8, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill C-3, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act; and Bill S-31, to authorize construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence River and a bridge over the Beauharnois Canal for the purpose of completing Highway 30, met this day at 6:29 p.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are meeting today with Minister of Transport, the Honourable Jean Lapierre, and a number of officials. Our order of business is a little bit complicated today, so I will go through it.
We will first hear from the minister on Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act, and we will discuss the bill briefly with him. At seven o'clock, we will conclude questioning on Bill C-3 and we will hear from the minister on Bill S-31, an act to authorize construction and maintenance of bridges over the St. Lawrence River and the Beauharnois Canal for the purpose of completing Highway 30. We will discuss that bill with the minister. The minister has to leave at about 7:30, but the officials will stay.
We can then revert to discussions with the officials on either bill. Once we have completed questioning of the officials on both bills, we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3.
[Translation]
The Honourable Jean-C. Lapierre, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport: Madam Chair, Bill C-3 involves a slight re- organization of Government in so far as it amends several pieces of existing legislation, including: the Canada Shipping Act, the National Marine Conservation Areas Act, 2001 and the Oceans Act.
As you are well aware, the marine transportation sector is a major contributor to Canada's economy. Our ports are among the most competitive in the world. Every year, Canada Port Authorities generate more than $20 billion worth of economic activity. They are responsible for more than a quarter of a million jobs. And, they handle over $100 billion worth of goods — one quarter of all Canadian trade. However, it is imperative that our marine transportation system run as safely as possible. Therefore, Bill C-3 is designed to improve marine service delivery, in both policy and operational functions.
Let me give you a little background. In 1995, the government transferred most of the Coast Guard from Transport Canada to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Areas related to commercial shipping were exempted. This created significant confusion for marine stakeholders and bureaucrats alike.
Prime Minister Martin decided, on the very day he was sworn into office, to revert all marine policy responsibilities back to Transport Canada. Bill C-3 does just that. It transfers policy responsibilities, such as the development and management of legislation, regulations, standards and guidelines to my department.
It allows the Coast Guard to focus on its operational needs and requirements as it transforms into a special operating agency. It more clearly defines my responsibilities — as the Minister of Transport — and those of my colleague — the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It simplifies roles — giving my department responsibility for regulating all vessels on the water, including commercial vessels. The clarification of roles and responsibilities is welcomed by marine stakeholders. They have expressed their views on the inefficacy of having two departments competing in the same area.
Bill C-3 sets out to transfer operational responsibilities related to pleasure craft safety, marine navigation services, navigable waters protection and pollution prevention and response to Transports Canada.
I will give you a quick example. Prior to December 12, 2003, regulatory responsibility for marine pollution was split between Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Today, that responsibility is consolidated at Transport Canada. This allows for enhanced enforcement and compliance activities and reduces the risk of damage to the marine environment.
And Transport Canada now manages the National Aerial Surveillance Program, which focuses on detection and investigation of pollution incidents. In other words, we have planes patrolling the east and west coasts. As part of the transfer, Transport Canada is getting not just the responsibilities but also the employees and the budgetary funds that were being used to carry out these responsibilities from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. To do otherwise, would complicate things. Although housekeeping in nature, Bill C-3 will improve the way the government does business. It means better protection for seafarers, the public and the marine environment. It also means clearer rules and processes to promote a more competitive marine transportation sector. So, there you have an overview of the bill, which is really just housekeeping in nature. We are here today to make the necessary legislative changes required to make the whole system more effective.
I have it on good authority that the split in Coast Guard responsibilities dates back to the time of Doug Young and Brian Tobin. However, that structure created a certain number of inconsistent administrative responsibilities. Our aim is to create a more logical structure.
The Chairman: There we have an overview of Bill C-3. We shall now move on to questions from Senators.
Senator Nolin: I have not been following this bill. However, I was present at a meeting where we heard from representatives of Nunavut Eastern Artic Shipping Inc. They are, of course, a for-profit entity, but they also serve an area where the cost of living can be extremely high. In their brief, they quoted a statement made by your parliamentary secretary. If you will bear with me, I would like to read it to you:
[English]
Specifically, all Canadian Coast Guard policy responsibilities and certain operational responsibilities relating to...marine navigation services...or transferred to Transport Canada.
[Translation]
Do you agree with the parliamentary secretary's assertion?
Mr. Lapierre: Policy is our jurisdiction, whereas operations or fee-setting are not.
Senator Nolin: The Coast Guard does currently have a policy. The witnesses provided us with a document downloaded directly from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' website. I could let you see it if you wish. The Website states that ``there is an exemption for waters north of 60 degrees latitude and for James Bay, Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay.'' This is clearly a policy, which, if you parliamentary secretary is to be believed — and you have told us that his statement is indeed correct — should be your jurisdiction. The witnesses contended that the Coast Guard should not be able to set the policy and benefit from it at the same time. I think that this stands to reason. In other words, the two Federal entities should have completely separate jurisdictions, and indeed I believe this is what you are endeavouring to achieve. Put policy — and the example I just gave you is clearly a policy — in the hands of the Department of Transport and leave the responsibility for the operation of the Coast Guard with Fisheries and Oceans.
Do you not think that it would be much more effective and in line with the intent of your legislation for you to take control of policy and the corresponding regulations and to leave operations with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?
Mr. Lapierre: At first blush, it would seem the logical thing to do. I think Mr. McDonald is better placed to address this issue than I am.
[English]
Mr. Gerard A. McDonald, Director General, Marine Safety, Transport Canada: I would be happy to respond. The Orders-in-Council that transferred the Coast Guard responsibilities to Transport Canada talked of marine navigation services included under the Canada Shipping Act. They relate to four specific regulations under the Canada slipping Act: The vessel traffic service zone regulations, the Eastern Canada vessel traffic service zone regulations, the private buoy regulations, and the aids to navigation protection regulations. We are talking here about the marine navigation services fees, which are operational fees charged by the Coast Guard to offset the cost of certain of their services. Those services are charged for under the authority of the Oceans Act, which is not part of this bill.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that politicians should be in charge of policy. This is quite obviously a policy decision. Indeed, the existence or non-existence of an exemption or leaving the operation in the hands of an entirely different entity has no bearing on my opinion on this matter. Creating two separate jurisdictions will act as a counterbalance and will avoid a situation where the same entity is responsible for setting and implementing the policies.
As far as fees are concerned, revenue is generated by the organization in charge of operations. It might be an idea to look at this issue and to amend your bill to reflect your goal. It has been brought to our attention that administrative measures have been put in place and that the bill respects them.
You have taken a decision and your bill is designed to implement these policies. We agree with what you are trying to achieve. All we need to do now is to dot the I's and cross the t's.
Mr. Lapierre: You are saying that fees should be set by one entity and administered by another, but you have to take account of those paying to use the service in the equation. The decision on awarding an exemption is the bailleywick of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Senator Nolin: The real issue here is whether we are dealing with a policy decision or not.
Mr. Lapierre: It is a decision as to how government is organized. This is normally the prerogative of the Prime Minister, as indeed, it is in this case. I think that this warrants further study. I shall endeavour to meet with my colleague as soon as possible with a view to providing you with an answer — within the next few days — to your question of whether it would enhance the balance. It all comes down to whether we really want to put Dracula in charge of the blood bank.
[English]
The Chairman: Our researcher has provided some information that we did not have at our meeting yesterday, and that is the 1998 clarification issued by the Coast Guard of its marine service fees policy. That clarification explains that if a voyage takes place entirely North of 60, you do not pay the fees, and that if a voyage takes place south of 60, you do pay fees.
We were given to believe yesterday, probably by inadvertence, that no such clarification had been issued. It was issued.
Although that does not address your political issue, Senator Nolin, it was part of the discussion.
Senator Nolin: It is a political decision. The purview of the bill is to give to Minister Lapierre and his colleagues the authority to look after the policy matters and to leave the operation to other agencies. I think it is perfectly logical.
The Chairman: I am not disputing that, but the other element that was discussed yesterday was whether the fees should be levied North of 60. I simply chose this time to make senators aware of this information that we have.
Senator Adams: My question is supplementary to that of Senator Nolin. We heard witnesses yesterday from companies that are concerned about these fees that they have been charged North of 60 since 1996. We also heard from shareholders of a company based in Hay River. They go North of 60 from Hay River up to Cambridge Bay and Tuktoyaktuk and they are not charged a fee. However, for transport from Hudson Bay up to Baffin Island, fees are charged by the Coast Guard.
Senator Watt and I live in that area. We are concerned about this because when the government charges the companies a fee, the cost of goods coming into the community goes up.
I will let Senator Watt continue with the questioning.
Senator Watt: Minister, as you know, it is very expensive to live in the North. The cost of transportation is high, as is the cost of living in general. Nunavik in Northern Quebec is one of the biggest taxpayers in Canada.
Senator Adams met with the people from Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping yesterday. Unfortunately, I could not attend that meeting. That company is owned by groups in Nunavik and Nunavut, and Makivik is a shareholder. There is another shipping company that is owned by the northern stores and the federation of co-ops, which is also a joint venture between Nunavut and Nunavik.
What want the Government of Canada to implement its policy with regard to fees as soon as possible. The policy says that the fee will not apply to the provision of services North of 60, and I would like a more precise definition of that. I believe that Hudson Bay, James Bay and Ungava Bay, including northern Labrador, should be included in this policy.
The implementation of this policy would be very much appreciated by the people in the North because, as Senator Adams said, when the cost of anything with regard to transportation goes up, that cost is passed on to the consumer, and the consumers are being hit very hard. Also, since this policy was established in 1996, perhaps there is some entitlement to reimbursement.
Mr. Lapierre: I sympathize with this situation, and with the suggestion that there should be checks and balances in the establishment of fees. However, I have no authority in that. This is the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He has given the exemption and is the one who could clarify or add to it in the way you are suggesting.
Bill C-3 does not address that, because it only deals with policy. Although it is outside the scope of the Order-in- Council, we could have discussions with my colleague. Perhaps he could speak to this committee on that issue. I know that this is a concern, and not only in the North. Dredging fees are also of concern. Everyone thinks that I am responsible for these fees, so I get an earful everywhere I go.
The Coast Guard falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. If I interfere with it, we will be back to the shared responsibility and accountability that we are trying to correct with this bill.
I do not want to interfere with the responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Perhaps he would be receptive to your suggestion and no legislative changes would be required. He has the authority to do that.
Senator Watt: We have a copy of a letter to him to which he has not replied. I could forward a copy of that letter to you.
An MLA in the Nunavut legislature introduced a resolution stating that these new user fees should be implemented immediately and that there should be reimbursement of fees paid in the past nine years. We could provide that to you.
Would it be better for you to discuss this with the minister or for us to make a direct presentation to him? We have no hesitation in doing that.
Mr. Lapierre: You can get two for the price of one. I undertake to raise the matter with him as this has a direct impact on transportation issues. I will do that and report back to you. I would like to have a copy of the letter to which you referred.
Senator Watt: Thank you.
Senator Eggleton: Minister, I would like to know how this change might bring about improvements in the operations of the Coast Guard. There has been concern for some time about the age of the vessels, the size of the force and its effectiveness. What are your plans to improve the service?
Mr. Lapierre: Senator, that is exactly the point of his bill. I have no responsibility for the Coast Guard; it is the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. However, we have Coast Guard officials here today who could answer your specific questions. Sometimes it frustrates me that I do not have responsibility for the Coast Guard, but people with greater knowledge thought that it should be split off from Transport. I have nothing to do with their corporate plan, but I know that the Coast Guard has great needs.
Senator Eggleton: Perhaps the officials could respond to this later.
The Chairman: The officials will stay to help us understand the ramifications.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Given that this bill is designed to improve the situation, does it include any provisions for enhancing anti- pollution initiatives or issues of this type?
Mr. Lapierre: This area will henceforth come under the jurisdiction of the same department. Officials with knowledge of the marine sector also have a handle on environmental issues. These officials will assess the various problems and will play a leadership role with Environment Canada and provincial public safety staff. Teamwork is the name of the game but Transport Canada will retain overall responsibility.
[English]
Senator Eyton: The bill seems sensible and reasonable on its face. Has the bill been well discussed? Does anyone oppose it or parts of it?
Mr. Lapierre: I have been the Minister of Transport for one year and no one has spoken to me about it, but I do not think it is matter of general discussions. I have received no negative representations.
The Chairman: For the committee's information, the only people who asked to appear, or even submit representations on this bill, were the Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping representatives, who appeared before the committee yesterday.
Senator Eyton: My second question follows up on the comments of Senator Eggleton. I am a mechanic, so I like to see how things work. I see that you have taken over some important responsibilities, which is coherent and intelligent, and I applaud that. However, there is still a separation between Transport setting policy and someone actually doing the work. How do you coordinate and manage that?
Mr. Lapierre: I will ask Mr. McDonald to speak to that.
Mr. McDonald: Four areas of policy responsibility were transferred: Pleasure craft safety, environmental response measures, navigation services and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. For the most part, Transport Canada has full policy responsibility in those areas, which we interpret to mean the making of the regulations.
As we briefly referred to, one area in which there is potential for crossover is navigation services. However, our policy responsibilities are restricted to the making of regulations with respect to those navigation services. Those regulations define the areas that would be subject to traffic regulations and the setting of buoys and their size and structure.
The operational responsibility, actually operating the vessel traffic service system and the placement of the buoys, is the responsibility of the Canadian Coast Guard. They have years of experience in that. As a policy-making department, we do not believe it is our responsibility to tell them how to do that work. They are quite capable of doing that on their own. We work closely with the Canadian Coast Guard on a number of issues, and we do not foresee that to be a problem in the future.
Senator Eyton: Is the Coast Guard accepting of the structure embedded in this bill?
Mr. McDonald: Most certainly, yes.
Senator Munson: Minister, although this may not be your jurisdiction, what is your personal view on user fees? The company from which we heard yesterday is very much against this. It costs them money every time they ship to the North. I would like to get your views on user fees.
Mr. Lapierre: In principle, I agree with user fees, although I have never met anyone else who agrees with me. Without user fees, the government would be giving grants to everyone for everything. I believe that there are services provided by the government for which we should charge. The fees do not always cover all the costs, but they are at least a contribution. I believe that user fees are useful and good public policy in many instances.
Senator Munson: This company believes that the North is being penalized by these fees.
Mr. Lapierre: I do not have an opinion on that case because I do not know the circumstances. However, in principle I believe that charging user fees for many services provided by government is a sound policy.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We shall now move onto discussion of Bill S-31.
If I am not mistaken, Mr. Minister, you have a presentation on this bill?
Mr. Lapierre: It is short and sweet.
[English]
Bill S-31 authorizes the construction and maintenance of two bridges, one over the St. Lawrence River and one over the Beauharnois Canal. The current legislation under the Navigable Waters Protection Act does not allow me, as minister, to authorize this construction.
[Translation]
Bill S-31 will give the authority to complete Highway 30, which will provide the city of Montreal with a bypass. Montreal is one of only a handful of North American cities not to have a bypass.
Rumour has it that the Highway was given the number thirty because various governments over the past 30 years have promised to complete it. It is now a priority for the Government of Quebec and also for the Government of Canada. We have an infrastructure agreement in place. Indeed, we recently signed a comprehensive agreement with the Quebec finance minister for a total project cost of $1.2 billion. Consequently, we require the necessary legal authority to build these two bridges.
[English]
Highway 30 will go from Vaudreuil-Dorion to Candiac. This autoroute will provide the Montreal region with a four-lane highway via the south shore by 2009 and will help ensure the smooth flow of persons and goods in the Greater Montreal area.
Existing bridges over the St. Lawrence River, including the Pierre-Laporte Bridge and the Quebec Bridge in Quebec City, the Laviolette Bridge in Trois-Rivières and the Îles-de-Boucherville Bridge in Montreal, also required special acts to authorize their construction. Bill S-31 is based on those acts.
The Highway 30 extension project is divided into two sections. The first is the 35-kilometre western section between Châteauguay and Vaudreuil-Dorion. The necessary bridges over the St. Lawrence River and the Beauharnois Canal are part of the western section.
The second section, the eastern section, is south of Saint-Constant, Delson and Candiac and spans about nine kilometres. Quebec will be fully responsible for the eastern section, and the province will own the infrastructure of both the western and eastern sections, including the two bridges, once construction is complete.
The Governments of Quebec and Canada are in negotiations for the financing of the project. Given that the private sector is asked to participate in a public-private partnership, it would not be prudent for the government to publicly discuss the level of investment of the public sector in the project. Once we know the level of investment from the private sector — and we will know that in the next few months — the governments will negotiate the final public investment. The cost for the western section of the highway is estimated at $1 billion, while the cost of the eastern section is estimated at $200 million, for a total capital project of $1.2 billion.
The adoption of Bill S-31 is also necessary because the private partners must know that Quebec has obtained all the required federal authorizations prior to proceeding with construction. The bill also contains provisions requiring Quebec to submit bridge plans, specifications and sites, as well as any substantial changes to these for approval by the Governor-in-Council. It will also allow the Governor-in-Council to pass any other regulations regarding the bridges with respect to navigational issues.
This important legislation is a step toward reducing congestion on the Greater Montreal road network. Completing the extension of Highway 30 will provide the Quebec highway network with a link that will allow thousands of cars and trucks to bypass the Island of Montreal. This will help relieve the volume of traffic on the saturated bridges on the south shore — the Champlain Bridge, the Victoria Bridge and the Jacques Cartier Bridge — and promote competitiveness in our trucking industry.
[Translation]
We have been talking about Highway 30 for years now. We are now at the most critical phase. The Government of Quebec has successfully obtained right-of-way for the entire length of the highway. We are now sounding out the private sector with a view to establishing a public-private partnership. I am really keen to see the results of the private- sector studies. We are of course envisaging a toll for using the new road. We will have to await the outcome of the private-sector traffic studies to determine the income the highway is expected to generate.
Successful pilot projects of this nature have been conducted in New Brunswick and British Columbia. We intend to draw on the experiences of other provinces. Quebec is only just starting to look at this possibility and we want to help them. If I am not mistaken, there is currently approximately $250 million in the Federal-Provincial Infrastructure Agreement. This project will require far more than that. This promises to be an interesting process. It will also be interesting to see the level of private sector take-up.
I have it on good authority that there are currently two major traffic-related issues under discussion in Quebec. The first of these pertains to Highway 25, which could potentially experience very significant traffic volume. The second relates to traffic volume on Highway 30. The Quebec government has issued a call for proposals from the private sector.
[English]
The Chairman: Senators, you should have two maps before you. The small map indicates where the new bridges would be. The large map shows the main traffic arteries onto and off of the island of Montreal and includes statistics of their average daily traffic loads.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: You will recall John F. Kennedy's address in the early 1960s, in which he stated his goal of sending a man to the moon before the decade was out. Do you believe, Mr. Minister, that bridges linking Highway 30 will have been built by the end of this decade? Do you seriously believe that?
Mr. Lapierre: Not only am I sure, but we have built up a lot of credibility on this issue. I have to tell you that I dealt with this particular matter many times during my years as a radio host. It was a great subject for open-line programs. I am working in close co-operation with the Quebec Ministers of Transport and Finance as well as the the premier himself.
No-one believes the pledges made by politicians on Highway 30 anymore. We want to show people that they are wrong and that we intend to stand by our promise. The 2009-completion date is very tight. Things are already underway. Hydro-Québec recently removed its towers. The necessary expropriation process has been completed. Now in order to get the private sector on board, we have to ensure that we are ready to go. The biggest test for us will be private participation.
Senator Nolin: Indeed, let us look at that issue for a moment. You were reported in La Presse, last March, as saying that time was of the essence and, as such, you were more concerned with the project itself than the with private sector participation. Is this still your position? Are you and your provincial colleagues still convinced that this is the way to go?
Mr. Lapierre: Both we and the Government of Quebec would prefer a public-private Partnership model. This is why passing this Bill is so important. We believe that the public-private Partnership is the best way of delivering the goods quickly.
If the worst came to the worst and there was no interest from the private sector — but I have been told there is even if I have not checked personally — both the provincial and federal governments are committed to seeing the project through.
I am sure you are aware of the congestion on the bridges in and out of Montreal. What is happening is that Montreal is becoming inaccessible. There used to be rush hours, but nowadays they begin so early in the morning that the whole day ends up being one long rush hour. Something has to be done.
Consequently, no matter whatever happens, we are committed to reaching our goal. Transport Quebec, which is driving this initiative, is working to achieve a public-private partnership. We are keen to see this rolled out in August but we cannot afford any more delays.
However, we should not overlook the capacity of our own bridges. The Champlain bridge, for one, is a federal jurisdiction. These bridges are rapidly wearing out and as a result, our infrastructure is now in jeopardy. There is no other option than for the project to go ahead. The preferred formula for the time being is the public-private partnership, but if that fails to provide the desired outcome, we will still have a responsibility to make sure the initiative goes ahead.
Senator Nolin: There is also a safety issue. Since Highway 30 has not been completed, most traffic currently uses Highway 132. As a result, hazardous substances are being transported in close proximity to residential areas.
You are preaching to the converted here, but we need you to set our minds at rest. We intend to give our approval. That is not the problem. However, since we have you here, we would like some clarification. As far as the public- private partnership process is concerned, are you confident that the Fall deadline can be met? It is important that the process be complete by then.
Mr. Lapierre: Yes, that is right.
Senator Nolin: According to the progress report published on May 31, everything appears to be moving along well.
Mr. Lapierre: The corridor-acquisition process is spread over the 2003 to 2006 period, while the partnership studies are slated to be completed in 2005, i.e this year.
I have been told that these will be ready in the early Fall. We have a joint committee with the Government of Quebec working on this issue. There is no room for an ad hoc approach here. We are all singing from the same song sheet and there is political will on both sides. Take the example of Transports Québec. Mr. Charest has asked the deputy minister to take special responsibility for the initiative. We are well aware that people are cynical about this project and we cannot afford to let them down.
Senator Nolin: I made a statement to my colleagues yesterday, in which I talked about how Mr. Duplessis used to be able to make political hay out of the construction of a bridge for three or four elections.
Mr. Lapierre: Some signs have been there so long and are so faded that you cannot read them anymore.
Senator Nolin: One issue that cannot be avoided is that of environmental assessments. What will be the process here?
Ms. Evelyn Marcoux, Director General, Surface Programs and Divestiture, Transport Canada: The federal environmental assessment process will take over from the provincial one. The province is undertaking impact assessments in the east and has already completed studies in the west. The federal government has begun its process and we intend to work in parallel and co-operation with the provincial effort. We are of the opinion that any delays that do occur will not be a result of environmental assessments.
[English]
Senator Munson: Why is it necessary to have federal government approval to build a bridge in a provincial jurisdiction?
Mr. Lapierre: The waters are under federal jurisdiction.
Senator Munson: Are they close to completing the environmental assessment? Have they started?
Ms. Marcoux: We are proceeding with that. The federal government started its environmental assessment process a few months ago, and it is working well. We are working closely with Quebec, and we do not anticipate any problems.
Senator Munson: We know how long these environmental processes take.
Ms. Marcoux: We are not dealing with a territory that would be problematic such that it would take two or three years. We think we can do this in the appropriate time.
Mr. Régent Dickey, Manager, East, Highways and Borders, Surface Programs and Divestiture, Transport Canada: Quebec has already done its homework on this. We use that information and do our own due diligence. It does take a long time sometimes, but the work on the environment is almost done. It should be finished in a matter of months.
Senator Munson: Has Transport Canada estimated the potential economic benefits or time savings as a result of the building of these two bridges?
Mr. Dickey: That is part of the study that the private sector will do. There is a benefit anticipated.
Mr. Lapierre: We have to look at the trade benefit as well, which is our concern. All the trucks that go to the U.S. and to the Maritimes currently have to go through Montreal. That makes no sense. They cause traffic jams there all the time.
Also, there are many companies that have plants on the Island of Montreal that cannot respect their deadlines with on-time delivery. Some of these companies are in jeopardy due to this. When their trucks are stuck in traffic, they cannot make their deliveries on time. It has a huge economic impact in that sense.
Senator Mahovlich: I am from Toronto, where we have a private highway. We thought the trucks would all use that highway. However, because of the fee charged to use it, they do not. When I go to the airport, I have to pass these huge trucks. One truck takes the space of four or five cars.
If you charge truckers to use this private highway to bypass Montreal, they will not use it. They will go through the center of the city.
Mr. Lapierre: It will be up to the private operator to attract truckers. I am sure they will learn from the experience of Toronto and other places. They will want volume, so they will have to make it attractive to the truckers to use the highway. That is the type of traffic that would make a difference.
Senator Mahovlich: You ought to do a study of that highway in Toronto. It is not working.
The Chairman: The road in Toronto runs parallel to Highway 401. This one is on a completely different route.
Senator Eyton: Senator Nolin referred to John F. Kennedy who had a favourite rule that he applied to great undertakings. He said that invariably things take twice as long as imagined, cost twice as much as provided for and, when finished, have half the utility. If a project passed what he called the rule of two and a half, it could proceed. Do you think this project would pass John F. Kennedy's rule of two and a half?
Mr. Lapierre: I am sure it will. This is a must. The mayors in the Montreal region usually fight amongst themselves on everything. On this they are in total agreement, which I have very seldom seen. Everyone sees the benefit of it.
Senator Eyton: You did not want to get into all the financial details, but I heard the figures of $1 billion and $200 million, for a total of $1.2 billion. The material that I looked at showed a federal fund of $150 million, but you mentioned that the federal government had set aside $250 million. Is that correct?
Ms. Marcoux: Yes, $250 million has been put aside.
Senator Eyton: What has been set aside by the Quebec government?
Ms. Marcoux: The same amount.
Senator Eyton: Therefore, there is a shortfall.
It is obviously a great project and it makes a tremendous amount of sense, but I am curious about the criteria used for it. Like Senator Mahovlich, I am from Toronto. Toronto could use a new road system as well. What criteria did you apply to proceed with this project? Toronto, Vancouver, Victoria and Halifax all have some of the same issues as Montreal.
Mr. Lapierre: The provinces set their own priorities for the infrastructure program. The Province of Quebec decided that Highway 175, which goes to the Saguenay, and Highway 30 are two of their priorities. We work with the provinces in establishing their priorities. We have the same type of agreement with every province. New Brunswick has done their entire national highway system in this way.
Senator Eyton: This is very expensive road and bridge building, because it is in a heavy populated and important urban center. This is very different than building a highway through lightly populated rural areas. I know something about the cost, particularly in Toronto.
Have Ontario or British Columbia not asked for similar arrangements for their greater urban areas?
Mr. Lapierre: We have many projects underway with B.C., as we had with New Brunswick.
Senator Eyton: I am talking about concentrated, very large and very expensive urban projects.
Ms. Marcoux: As you know, the provinces are responsible for their highway systems. They determine the projects to which they want the federal government to make a funding contribution. We have many projects going on in Ontario, both in transit and highways.
Quebec has chosen this list as their priority. Highway 30, as was mentioned earlier, has been on the radar screen for a few years. They have made this a priority for financing.
Senator Eyton: I understand that. Am I correct that Ontario and Toronto have not come to you with an application for similar types of road work?
Ms. Marcoux: They have not.
Senator Eyton: Senator Mahovlich referred to the parallel highway, which is Highway 407. I am very familiar with that road and can say that there is heavy traffic on it. However, on Highway 407 they inverted John F. Kennedy's formula. It took half the time they imagined and, although it did take about twice as long to construct as anticipated, happily, the revenues are about twice as much as anticipated. It has been a very good project for the private sector, albeit the subject of quite a lot of criticism. If you use that project as a precedent, you will get lots of private interest.
Mr. Lapierre: You are right. I was recently in Israel where I witnessed Canadian expertise at work. Acon Construction has experience in Toronto and they have since improved some of their systems. I was very impressed with what they have done in Israel.
That company and others will be interested in the Quebec project. The Quebec government will look to a wide range of companies for their interest and expertise.
Senator Eyton: We do have expertise. SNC Lavalin also played a very large part in the construction of Highway 407.
Senator Hubley: Welcome, Minister. This new highway will be very busy. It will result in significant improvements in travel time for the city of Montreal.
I come from Prince Edward Island, from where the best potatoes, lobsters and mussels in the world come. These products must travel to market, and toll highways add cost to the transportation of them. Do you foresee a toll system on this highway?
Mr. Lapierre: Yes, I do, and I beg to differ with you on the lobster. I was born in the Magdeleine Islands, and I happen to think they have the best lobster.
Truckers from the Maritimes are frustrated with the time they waste on the Island of Montreal. It is very costly to them to waste hours coming through the Louis-Hippolyte-Lafontaine Tunnel and driving right across the island to deliver their wonderful lobster to Ottawa. They pay a high price for traffic jams. It is up to the private-public partnership to make it advantageous for people to use the new highway. It will be a question of equilibrium and market forces.
An addition, all the transport infrastructure in Montreal has to be rebuilt. There is an enormous amount of work to be done. The newest infrastructure in Montreal was built in 1966-67 for Expo `67. It must all be redone. We are hoping to get this project done as soon as possible because following that we have to rebuild the infrastructure on the Island of Montreal.
Senator Eggleton: Having travelled many of the roads in and around the Montreal area, I appreciate the need for this.
Aside from the infrastructure fund and the possibility of private-public sector partnership, the reason for this legislation is to deal with the Navigable Waters Act. I notice that in cases that do not deal with the St. Lawrence River you do not need legislation in order to get approval. Why do you not get one bill to deal with all cases on the St. Lawrence River?
Mr. Lapierre: I would lose the pleasure of being here, for one thing.
Senator Eggleton: Aside from that.
Mr. Lapierre: Bill C-44, which amends the Canada Transportation Act, is currently before Parliament. That will take care of international crossings. We have an even worse problem there because a vacuum exists with governance of those crossings. You will soon be seized with that.
I will ask Ms. Marcoux to address your direct question.
Ms. Marcoux: We do not plan to build many more bridges over the St. Lawrence River. There is a legislative void in this area. We have needed such legislation only four or five times in the history of Canada. It is something that can be considered.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister. Your testimony has been very useful and enlightening.
Mr. Lapierre: I will notify you, in writing, of the outcome of my discussions with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Chairman: We would really appreciate that.
[English]
Senators, the officials will stay with us to answer further questions on both Bill C-3 and Bill S-31.
[Translation]
First of all, could you introduce yourselves?
Mr. Dickey: Madam Chair, my name is Régent Dickey. I am responsible for the Autoroute 30 project at Transport Canada. With me today is Ms. Evelyn Marcoux.
Ms. Marcoux: I am Evelyn Marcoux. I am the Director General of Surface Programs at Transport Canada.
[English]
Mr. McDonald: I am Director General of Marine Safety at Transport Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark A. M. Gauthier, Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Transports Canada: My name is Mark Gauthier. I am Senior Counsel for Legal Services at Transport Canada.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: I realize that there is a split jurisdiction, but the Coast Guard is part of this, so I would be interested to know about the operational improvements planned for the Coast Guard. How will this affect the operations and what plans are there for improvements in the operations, given all the tightening over the years, the age of the vessels and those kinds of problems?
Mr. Charles Gadula, Director General, Marine Programs Directorate, Maritime Services, Canadian Coast Guard: We are very pleased with the shift since the Order-in-Council and the announcement that we would become a separate operating agency reporting to a deputy minister who reports to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
We see a fair amount of synergy between the hydrographic program, the science program, support to other government departments such as the Department of National Defence or the RCMP, and some of the maritime security initiatives. We are now concentrating our efforts on what we can do best, which is delivering service. We had some good news in the last budget with the announcement of a couple of science vessels for offshore and four ships to do maritime security jointly with the RCMP in the Great Lakes area. Many of the stakeholders are glad to see a focus on the Coast Guard doing operations.
We did split off a couple of pieces that were near and dear to us, such as the office of boating safety. That made some sense because it works very well to put all the pleasure craft in one area.
By and large, the impact on employees of the Coast Guard has been positive. In the regions, where most of the work is done, their interaction with stakeholders and clients is also a good news story. From our perspective, we are moving in the right direction and, as I said, the budget announcement was very good news for the Coast Guard.
Senator Eggleton: What is happening with regard to the replacement of some of the older vessels?
Mr. Gadula: We have a 25-year fleet recapitalization plan. In the budget there was a combination of two announcements addressing the most pressing need. It dealt with a couple of the scientific research vessels and some ice capability on the East Coast.
We have new ships at our highest need level going to the East Coast and the West Coast and two tranches of mid- shore patrol vessels, for a total of eight. Our group considers this to be very positive. It shows the migration from some of the services we used to deliver to some of the services that are beginning to be demanded.
For example, with the new change in technology on navigation services, there are less floating aids to navigation required, so we are able to put some of that effort into the other floating platforms.
Another example is the icebreaking program in the South. We find that with greater use of technology we are able to give ice information and routing information with less use of icebreakers. Ships are moving on time with less cost at the end of the day.
We are optimistic that it will be very positive.
Senator Eggleton: I hope so, too.
Senator Hubley: Did the minister say that Transport Canada is now solely responsible for the policing of marine pollution?
Mr. McDonald: Yes, that is correct. We are responsible for the approval of the oil handling facilities for the organizations that are responsible for the cleanup of pollution. We also assumed responsibility for the National Aerial Surveillance Program, which surveys for pollution incidents.
The Coast Guard retains some operational response capability with regard to mystery oil spills or spills North of 60, which are not covered by the private sector response organizations that now exist.
Senator Hubley: How far out on the ocean are you responsible for? Do you go into the exclusive economic zone?
Mr. McDonald: Yes, out to the 200-mile limit.
Senator Hubley: Environmental legislation appears in many departments. Is this being coordinated now?
Mr. McDonald: Yes, it is coordinated. You are probably aware of Bill C-15, which was recently passed, which had some oil pollution response provisions in it. Our primary pieces of legislation are the Canada Shipping Act and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. We coordinate our work with the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Given the new provisions in Bill C-15, we are in the process of negotiating an enforcement memorandum of understanding with those two departments on how we will interface in that regard.
Senator Adams: How many ships does the Coast Guard have operating?
Mr. Gadula: We currently have 107 operational ships.
Senator Adams: I am mainly concerned about icebreaking.
Mr. Gadula: We have an icebreaking fleet that we deploy to the Arctic areas and we have a six-ship icebreaking unit that we put in place for summer operations in the high Arctic area, that being the Lancaster Sound and the Baffin Bay area. We go into the Hudson Bay area in the lower Artic, and we deploy vessels to the Western Arctic as well. For the Arctic operations we have six icebreakers.
Senator Adams: There are now international flights going over the Arctic. I am wondering what will happen if a plane crashes in the sea. Last March, the American rangers conducted some rescue exercises. I live in Rankin Inlet, but sometimes I feel as though I live in Toronto because planes going to and from Europe are flying over our community. There is only one place in the Arctic for emergency landings, and that is at Iqaluit. I think there have been a couple of emergency landings there. Not long ago, someone got sick on a British Airways flight and they had to land there.
How do other countries deal with this situation?
Mr. Gadula: In Canada, the Department of National Defence has overall responsibility for search and rescue, including in the Arctic area. They have a major air disaster plan and we have a major marine disaster plan.
In addition to this, with the Northern strategy coming up and the International Polar Year in 2007-08, we have studied the need to augment the rangers and prepare a better search and rescue plan specific to the Arctic region. It is on our agenda and we will be discussing that at the national search and rescue secretariat in the next months.
In the past, through the new SAR initiative fund, we have supported putting in place components like rangers. For the environmental response strategy in the 25 communities, we have equipment for the people who deal with any environmental situations in those communities and we are trying to knit them all together. In addition, we began an expansion of the Coast Guard auxiliary into the Arctic area, although we had a few hiccups. It is currently being addressed by Mr. Jack Kruger, President of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, who works out of Yellowknife. Mr. Kruger has taken that in hand for the marine element. There is room to unite and have one set of communication gear so that everyone can talk to each other.
There is a system in place but, due to the environment there, the local people will have to be the first responders and others will come in as required. This is an area that is in the Northern strategy and that the National Search and Rescue Secretariat, together with the territorial governments, will be bringing together.
Senator Adams: Is the Nunavut government involved as well?
Mr. Gadula: Yes.
Senator Adams: It was mentioned that the military and the RCMP will be joining the Coast Guard. Do the military and the RCMP have any icebreakers?
Mr. Gadula: The majority of government icebreakers in Canada rest with the Coast Guard. Under our agreement, if the RCMP, for example, requires transportation or a platform, the Coast Guard is ready and willing to provide it. The government set it up with one civilian fleet to serve the needs of all departments.
Senator Adams: Is the responsibility of the RCMP in the situation of a plane crash mainly communication?
Mr. Gadula: Yes, they are responsible for that kind of communication.
Senator Mahovlich: Are the members of the Coast Guard not trained policemen? Do we have an academy like that of the Americans?
Mr. Gadula: Yes, we have the Canadian Coast Guard College in Sydney, Nova Scotia, which provides a degree as well as discipline training on the navigation side, but not policing. The Coast Guard does not have an enforcement role. The Coast Guard is not an armed institution at this time.
Senator Mahovlich: If there is a problem, you have to call on the military or the RCMP?
Mr. Gadula: If there is an enforcement issue, we have to do that. That is why we have gone to joint patrols with the RCMP on the Great Lakes.
Senator Mahovlich: Does the Coast Guard have any responsibility for Canada's lighthouses?
Mr. Gadula: Unfortunately, lighthouses are in my jurisdiction, and we pay a great deal of attention to lighthouses, although the term ``lighthouse'' might mean different things to many people.
Senator Mahovlich: Senator Pat Carney has a strong opinion on lighthouses.
Mr. Gadula: We have traditional lighthouses where people used to live to man the foghorns. We have minor lights that look like a lighthouse. The local people call those lighthouses. We also have unmanned lighthouses that used to be manned. From a navigation and safety point of view, we are very interested in maintaining the lights and foghorns where they are needed. We do have a place in our heart for lighthouses.
Senator Mahovlich: We need not be concerned about our lighthouses?
Mr. Gadula: There is a lot of debate around lighthouses at the moment but, as an essential part of the navigation system, where they are required they will continue to exist.
Senator Mahovlich: There was a problem in Victoria with a lighthouse that was deteriorating.
Mr. Gadula: The amount of money available to maintain equipment and structures presents a challenge, but we do our best within the constraints that exist.
The Chairman: I wish to thank our witnesses. You have been very helpful.
Senators, is it agreed that, as indicated on our agenda, the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3?
Senator Nolin: How do you suggest that we proceed before we receive the minister's response to us?
The Chairman: I suggest that we attach observations to our committee.
Senator Nolin: We do not know what the minister will tell us.
The Chairman: We could put on a broader record than the committee record the minister's undertaking to come back to us and his sympathetic response to the concerns raised by this committee with regard to the jurisdictional element. He did not address the question of fee exemptions. He made a commitment on the jurisdictional element.
Senator Nolin: Yes.
The Chairman: Governments never move as quickly as one would like. If the rest of this bill is worth passing, we should probably pass it and keep nagging the minister for a further response on the jurisdictional element, if nothing is done about that.
Senator Nolin: You are in charge.
The Chairman: That is my recommendation.
Is it agreed, senators, that we proceed with clause-by-clause consideration?
Senator Adams: The Minister of Transport said that he and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would discuss the user fees.
The Chairman: Yes. That is on the public record as part of the proceedings of this committee. He reiterated that undertaking in his last statement before he left. If we attach observations to our report to the Senate, that would also be on the Senate's public record. It would be my intention, as chair of the committee, to write to the minister drawing his attention to our report and urging him to respond, and I would write to him again if he does not respond.
Senator Adams: I am very concerned about these charges for transportation in the North. According to what we have learned, no fees should have been charged since 1996. I want to make sure this is dealt with.
The Chairman: Senator Adams, the level of fees charged or not charged is beyond the purview of this bill. However, we can make observations about anything we want. Normally, we would proceed to considering observations in camera after concluding clause-by-clause consideration.
Senator Adams: In my experience, once a bill is passed observations are forgotten. As soon the minister has the bill, the observations are disregarded. I am concerned about the extremely high cost of living in our communities. I want to make sure that the concern the witnesses expressed yesterday is addressed.
The Coast Guard could not even guarantee that it could free ships stuck in the sea ice. When I had a construction company, I paid an extra 30 per cent to ensure that my materials were delivered on time. When they did not arrive, I still paid the 30 per cent.
People in the North are very concerned about the price of dry goods, et cetera.
The Chairman: Senator Adams, I assure you that, regardless of what we say in our observations, as chair of this committee I will follow up on this, repeatedly, if necessary, because the minister made an undertaking to this committee. The fact that he chose to repeat it as he was leaving indicates that he did not do it lightly. He knew what he was saying, and he wanted to make that sure we knew what he was saying. That is all I can offer you.
Senator Adams: I wanted to make sure, Chairman. I will mention it on the floor of the Senate also to ensure that it is on the record.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, senators, that we proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It is agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: There are 37 clauses, honourable senators.
Senator Nolin: I object to clause 16, but I agree with the rest.
The Chairman: Are you willing to consider clauses 1 through 15 and then contemplate clause 16?
Senator Nolin: Yes.
The Chairman: Very well.
Shall clauses 1 through 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Senator Nolin, do you wish to propose an amendment to clause 16?
Senator Nolin: I will vote against clause 16, and I will make my point at third reading.
The Chairman: Shall clause 16 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I would like this to be on division.
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 16 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Nolin: On division.
The Chairman: On division.
Shall clauses 17 through 37 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It is agreed.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, do you wish to attach observations to this bill?
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Since you mention it, I think it would indeed be a good idea.
[English]
The Chairman: Senators, we have written to the Government of Quebec asking if it wishes to appear or make comments on Bill S-31. We have not yet heard from them so, depending upon how things work out, it is quite possible that we will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-31 next Wednesday.
The committee continued in camera.