Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 5 - Evidence - November 8, 2006
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 8, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill C-3, respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another act, met today at 6:45 p.m. to consider the bill.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) presiding.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications will now come to order. Today, we welcome Mr. Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport. Accompanying him are Ms. Evelyn Marcoux, Director General, Surface Infrastructure Program, Mr. Bryan E. Hicks, Director, Bridge Policy and Programs, and Mr. Alain Langlois, Legal Counsel for the Department. Welcome to all of you. You have the floor, Minister.
[English]
Hon. Lawrence Cannon, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities: Honourable senators, it is with pleasure that I appear before you again, this time to discuss specifically Bill C-3, a bill referred to you by the Senate for your consideration.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that the Senate and this committee have been asked to review a bill that deals with international bridges and tunnels. There were previous bills, Bill C-26 and Bill C-44, to be exact, but those bills died on the House Order Paper and therefore did not make it to the Senate.
I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that Bill C-3 goes further and is more complete than the other bills. I am therefore proud to speak to you about this bill this evening.
The last time I appeared before you, I spoke about strengthening our national transportation system through the adoption of strong federal policies and legislation. I also spoke to you about the importance of trade corridors to our country's economic well-being and the need to ensure that a safe, efficient, secure and sustainable transportation system is in place to support these trade corridors.
Of the many legislative initiatives introduced by my department this year, Bill C-3 touches upon all these issues. Bill C-3 applies to all of Canada's international bridges and tunnels. The bill does not differentiate between small or large bridges and tunnels; between those that carry vehicles, trains or both; or between those that are owned publicly or privately. The reason for this is simple: under the Constitution, the federal government is responsible for all these structures, no matter what shape or form they come in.
[Translation]
To date, no law has been adopted by Parliament that has clarified the extent of the federal government's role when it comes to international bridges and tunnels in general, and that provides the government with concrete tools with which to consistently exercise this jurisdiction. The tools provided by Bill C-3 include the establishment of administrative processes for approving the construction of new bridges and tunnels. Also included are the powers to make regulations in the areas of security and safety, operation and use, and repair and maintenance, and certain extraordinary powers, such as the power to make ministerial orders for necessary repairs, and emergency directions in the face of security threats.
Honourable senators, in your review of this bill, you will learn that over the years, over 50 special acts of Parliament have been adopted to deal with half that number of bridges and tunnels. In most cases, these special acts were enacted for the purpose of approving the original construction of these structures, and rarely did they focus on issues such as safety and security. Regrettably, times have changed and Bill C-3 is needed to address these issues.
On the issue of security, the last time I was before you, I made reference to this government's commitment to invest in national security. Border security, in particular, is a priority of this government, At least since 9/11, the issue of security has also been a priority for the owners and operators of Canada's international bridges and tunnels. Many have invested significant time and resources in improving the security of their structures.
The reality of today is that these security measures must be regularly assessed and updated to meet new security threats. Bill C-3 would enable the government to play a greater oversight role in this area. It will promote the sharing of security information between the government and the bridge and tunnel owners and operators, and will empower the government to make regulations on issues such as what type of security measures should be imposed, and how often these measures should be re-evaluated.
[English]
While the safety and security of Canadians is always our first priority, we must also recognize that our international bridges and tunnels play a crucial role in Canada's economy and are also deserving of our protection. It is interesting to note that the four busiest border crossings between Canada and the United States, in terms of both traffic and trade, are all bridges. Trade also translates into jobs, so protecting trade also means protecting jobs. At last count, more than 860,000 Canadians were employed in the transportation industry and over 40 per cent in the trucking business. The real challenge will be in choosing the right security measures that protect but do not hinder trade.
This bill also applies to rail bridges and tunnels. While they may not be as numerous as the international bridges and tunnels that carry vehicles, they are just as important to trade. In 2005, 17 per cent of Canada's trade in terms of value was transported by rail. On October 4 I told you that it is projected that the value of container traffic in 2020 will have more than doubled from what it is currently, leading to the injection of $10.5 billion per year into Canada's economy.
[Translation]
On another note, many of these bridges and tunnels were built years ago. And, while engineered to last many decades, it is a fact that this infrastructure will have to be renewed, and additional structures will have to be built.
Currently, the only way that government can give its approval for new construction or alterations to existing structures is by way of a special act.
Clearly, when House and Senate time is so precious, this is not the best solution. Bill C-3 proposes that this approval process be dealt with administratively, rather than legislatively.
Bill C-3 also proposes a second approval process, which was not found in any of the previous bills dealing with international bridges and tunnels, namely government approval of all transactions that affect the ownership or the operation of one of these structures.
The question you may ask is why have the government intervene in this area? It is true that some of the special acts that I have referred to do make this a condition to any transaction, but most do not.
The simple answer is that the nature of these assets requires it. If the government is to truly exercise oversight over these bridges and tunnels, it should know at all times who owns and operates them, and be able to ensure that these structures are being operated in accordance with government objectives, such as in the interest of national security.
[English]
Finally, Bill C-3 is an enabling piece of legislation. The regulations and guidelines to be adopted under this bill will circumscribe the extent of the government's involvement with respect to these structures. Much of the work has already been done, and still more lies ahead in the development of guidelines and regulations.
I can tell you that during the many consultations with stakeholders, the majority have been very supportive of this initiative. The government has clearly demonstrated its willingness to consider stakeholder input, and the House of Commons amended the bill during third reading in response to concerns raised by a municipal government. The issue dealt with the federal government's obtaining municipal input into the decision-making process for construction, alteration or change of ownership in an international bridge or tunnel. This bill as amended includes provisions for the Minister of Transport to consult with other levels of government or individuals who may have direct interest in the matter.
It has also been suggested that building a second bridge beside an existing one is somehow different than constructing a new bridge. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires a full review of the application for a new crossing or alterations to an existing structure. As such, this bill addresses both situations, and each will require Governor-in-Council approval.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and honourable senators, for allowing me to speak to you today about Bill C-3. I will be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Clause 15 of the bill empowers the government to make regulations stipulating the types of vehicles that can use a bridge or the tolls that may be charged to bridge users. Certain stakeholders such as bridge owners and operators maintain that the authority to stipulate which vehicles can use the bridge is so considerable that ultimately it could affect their communities and their activities. Obviously, they have demanded that they be consulted before any decision is reached.
The House of Commons committee proposed a number of amendments, particularly with respect to subclause 15(2). A consultation mechanism was added. However, pursuant to subclause 15(2), the minister shall consult with local authorities or any interested party if he deems this to be necessary, under the circumstances. I believe that this was the compromise worked out by the House of Commons committee.
I would like to know why the bill does not require the minister to engage in consultations at all times. In the initial version of the bill, there was no mention at all of consultations. Now, however, there is a provision whereby consultations will take place provided the minister feels these are absolutely necessary. Why the reluctance to consult the main parties affected by the federal government's decisions?
Mr. Cannon: Thank you for your question. I will ask Mr. Hicks to address more specifically this aspect of the bill.
[English]
Brian E. Hicks, Director, Bridge Policy and Programs, Transport Canada: Thank you for the question. For the construction or alteration of any international bridge, there is a requirement to do an environmental assessment process. That process involves extensive consultations. It was our view, in developing this bill, that to add another set of consultations after the one that had already been undergone for the environmental assessment was duplication. You would then end up asking what kind of consultations would you do for the environmental assessment and why would that be different than the consultations under this bill? That is why originally the bill did not include more consultations.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Some stakeholders argue that they were not consulted during the drafting stages of Bill C-3. In the case of the previous version of the bill, the former Bill C-44 which died on the Order Paper, stakeholders affected by the bill's provisions were consulted extensively. There is a major difference between Bill C-3 and Bill C-44. In Bill C-3, clauses 23 to 28 stipulate that any transaction involving the ownership, operation or monitoring of international bridges and tunnels requires prior federal government approval.
The Canadian Transit Company claims that it was not consulted on clauses 23 to 28 of Bill C-3. As the owners of the Ambassador Bridge, one of two privately owned bridges in Canada, the company would truly have liked to be duly consulted before the bill was tabled.
I understand that broad consultations were held in 2005 in conjunction with Bill C-44. Why did Transport Canada not consult with the stakeholders affected by the changes introduced in Bill C-3?
Mr. Cannon: I was told that the owners' association was consulted and that nothing could be done before the bill was actually tabled. No doubt Ms. Marcoux can provide a more detailed answer.
Evelyn Marcoux, Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs, Transport Canada: Consultations were held in conjunction with Bill C-44 and C-26, but then a new government was elected. At the time, we had been in contact with the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association.
Obviously, at the drafting stage, consultations were more limited, but as soon as the bill was tabled, we took steps to explain the new clauses. We received broad, but not unanimous, support from the association. However, after explaining the reasons behind the new clauses, we were better able to address most of the concerns raised.
The Chairman: The aim of clauses 13 and 14 seems clear. The provisions are aimed at increasing federal government oversight with respect to the state of repair of bridges.
Clause 13 authorizes Transport Canada to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain bridges and tunnels in good working condition. Clause 14 empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting bridge and tunnel maintenance and repair.
You want to play a greater oversight role. Whatever you may have heard, do you really believe that there are problems today in terms of the maintenance and state of repair of international bridges?
Mr. Cannon: Based on our experience with the Jacques Cartier Bridge Company, we believe that bridge maintenance and repairs are carried out quickly on a regular basis. Following recent incidents — no doubt you will recall the collapse of the Concorde overpass in Laval — all federally owned structures were inspected, notably all bridges in the Montreal area. A visual inspection was conducted. However, regular annual inspections are done as part of a clearly defined procedure in place.
We want to establish the same kind of procedures to ensure that structures are regularly checked for problems that could go unnoticed.
The Chairman: You would like international bridges to be regularly checked as well?
Mr. Cannon: Yes.
The Chairman: And you would conduct these inspections on set dates?
Mr. Cannon: In the case of the Champlain Bridge, an inspection is conducted over a two-year period. A physical inspection of a set span of the bridge is done. Technicians on site check the bolts as well as the condition of the steel. Over a period of two years, the entire bridge is inspected. If memory serves me well, the operation costs several million dollars.
This is the kind of process that we are considering. Certain methods already employed could be incorporated into this operation.
[English]
Senator Zimmer: What screening technologies do they have such as X-rays? I presume they use things like that. What methods do they have to find out about these deteriorating bridges?
Mr. Cannon: The engineer is here so I will have him answer that question.
Mr. Hicks: There are all kinds of different techniques. It depends on the type of bridge and the way it was constructed. As you mentioned, if it is a concrete bridge and there is reinforcing steel, then you want to do X-rays and so on to see the condition of the steel and the voids in the concrete. In other bridges, if there is scour under the piers, we will send down divers who look in the river bed to see the condition of the piers. Each bridge type is peculiar and requires a different type of examination.
Senator Zimmer: I presume the X-rays will pick up the fissures and cracks that you cannot see by the naked eye?
Mr. Hicks: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you for agreeing to meet with us. I have a couple of questions on the actual construction and management, to help us sort out what exists presently.
I notice in the briefing paper that was prepared by the Library of Parliament that there are two border crossings that are private. The rest are publicly owned, either singly or in partnership, but managed by private operators. Are they all managed by private operators?
Mr. Cannon: Ms. Marcoux can answer that. The governance structures in some cases are different. The one in Cornwall, for instance, is managed by The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated. The one in Fort Frances is private, and the Ambassador Bridge is private. There are different structures in terms of governance.
Ms. Marcoux: The international bridges are managed through Crown corporations that are under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada or some authorities that would have mixed governance between the United States and Canada, while some are privately owned, as the minister explained.
Senator Tkachuk: Other than those two, the bridges are all privately managed even though they are publicly owned. They may be managed singly or in partnership between the two countries. Is that correct?
Ms. Marcoux: That is correct. The governance of Crown corporations, for instance, operates at arm's length from governments. They are de facto operating with their maintenance systems. The minister and Parliament have oversight over their corporate plan.
Senator Tkachuk: They are the shareholders?
Ms. Marcoux: Yes. As you know, they have a different governance system than if they were a department, for instance.
Senator Tkachuk: Let us deal with the privately owned ones first. If they wish to build new facilities and there is ongoing construction with companies involved from both sides of the border, do they merge to put all of this together? They both work under different jurisdictions and different laws. How do they get that organized?
Mr. Cannon: Are you referring to the under the bill in front of you or as it is done now?
Senator Tkachuk: How will they do it under the proposed legislation in front of us now? How will that happen?
Ms. Marcoux: Each bridge has a different governance system. This bill only regulates the Canadian side of the operation. They are used to managing together, the Canadian and the American sides, and they consult regularly about what steps they will take in terms of maintenance or capital investments. They meet in the middle. For example, the Peace Bridge is an authority that has American and Canadian staff on board. They have contracting procedures to ensure that Canadian and American contractors have access to the work and that sort of thing.
The bridge is very much managed in consultation. This bill will apply, as I said, to the Canadian side of the operation, which will be managed accordingly.
Senator Tkachuk: One section of the bill refers to incorporation by letters patent. Could you tell the committee what that means? Later clauses of the bill state that the Governor-in-Council, on the recommendation of the minister, may revoke those letters patent. I think it would be difficult for a government to go to a bank and ask for a loan if they knew the government could revoke the incorporation. How does that work? Why is it necessary to have that in the bill?
Alain Langlois, Counsel, Legal Services, Transport Canada: First, it needs to be stressed that there is no requirement in the bill that compels someone who wants to construct or operate a bridge to obtain letters patent. This measure provides an additional tool in terms of corporate structure that can be used to start a corporation that will construct or operate a bridge. You can either incorporate a company under the Canada Business Corporations Act and apply under the other provisions of the bill to construct or operate a bridge or tunnel or you could apply for letters patent.
You would normally not anticipate a private investor who wishes to operate or construct a bridge to ask for the issuance of letters patent. You would normally expect those companies to go under the Canada Business Corporations Act. However, where the governance structure includes a mixed element of public and private partnership, here is a tool that enables the government to issue letters patent.
To get to your point about the possibility of the Governor-in-Council's revoking letters patent, just to make it clear —
Senator Tkachuk: Just so it is clear, the letters patent exist in the case of a private company and the government doing a partnership.
Mr. Langlois: Ultimately, it will be the choice of the corporation. If a purely private corporation wants to have letters patent issued, then these tools are available for that corporation.
Basically, the provision in this bill allows for a choice. Either you go under the Canada Business Corporations Act or you ask for the issuance of letters patent. Under normal circumstances you would not expect a private entity or a fully commercial proposal where you only have the private sector involved to ask for letters patent. It does not mean it is impossible. If they come in, there is that tool available to them.
With regard to the revocation of letters patent, subclause 29(4) of the bill does not give the Governor-in-Council a power that it does not already have. There is a principle in common law that implies that the power to issue implies the power to revoke. That principle in common law has been codified in subsection 31(4) of the Interpretation Act. That section codifies the principle that if the Governor-in-Council issues letters patent, it has the ability to take them back. This clause in Bill C-3 does not create a new power for the Governor-in-Council. It already has that power.
Senator Tkachuk: Why do you state it, if it already has that power?
Mr. Langlois: This clause directs the Governor-in-Council as to how a revocation of letters patent will be done. This bill requires the Governor-in-Council to issue a notice that the letters patent were issued and then allows for the publication of that notice in the Canada Gazette. This is a requirement that is not in the Interpretation Act.
To be clear, this clause does not give the Governor-in-Council a power it does not already have.
Senator Tkachuk: I am still not clear why you need it.
The way it has been described is that if these private groups or public groups want to do upgrading or build a new border crossing, an application, approval and a piece of legislation is required. Is that the way it is presently done?
Ms. Marcoux: It is not a piece of legislation. The purpose of this bill is to make it administrative. It would require the approval of the Governor-in-Council.
Senator Tkachuk: This bill is but proposed legislation. That is how it is done presently.
Ms. Marcoux: That is correct.
Senator Tkachuk: What this bill does is get rid of that one step in legislation. If someone wants to make a proposal, they make it directly to the minister. What is the process after that? Is there a regulatory body that advises the minister? Is there someone in Transport Canada who receives them? Does the chief of staff get it? How does it work?
Ms. Marcoux: In developing this, we went to Washington to look at how the Americans do it. They have something called the application pyramid process. We are trying to learn the good and the bad from that process. We are trying to simplify it and make it more user friendly.
As the bill states, and as the minister indicated, we will have to create regulations and guidelines. That is the process that will take place next.
Once that is in place, the application will come into the department. It will be processed through these steps of regulations. It will go through the environmental assessment process as per the act. The requirements under the Water Protection Act will continue to exist. The Fisheries and Oceans Canada permit will continue to be required. There will be an extensive consultation and regulatory process to go through. Eventually, a recommendation will be made by the minister through Governor-in-Council to approve the regulation.
Senator Tkachuk: I can see a private company going through the environmental process and everything else. However, if the government is applying unto itself, is there not a conflict of interest? I always find this strange. That is why I do not like Crown corporations. The government is the shareholder and it rules on the environmental policy of the Crown corporation.
Here you will have a government organization making an application. The government will be ruling on itself as far as environmental impact and all the rest of it. Maybe it is just I from Saskatchewan who sees a problem with this.
Mr. Cannon: Absolutely not. I think you are cutting the corner too quickly there. You have to remember we do not plunk a bridge in the middle of somewhere. We need the provinces to buy in because there must be roads that will lead to it. Environmental impact studies must be done. All the other provisions of legislation that generally govern this kind of thing will be present. I do not see the Crown being in a conflict of interest in this case.
One of the reasons we added that consultation process with municipalities was specifically to take care of concerns that municipalities might have, for instance, in the province of Quebec, in terms of their schema and in terms of how they develop their territories for years to come. That is a concern we want to look at.
Senator Phalen: My first question is somewhere in the vicinity of where Senator Bacon was. Having recently seen the news reports about the overpass collapse in Montreal, I would like to know who is currently liable if such an accident were to happen on any of the international bridges or tunnels. Would this proposed legislation change the legal liability?
Mr. Cannon: I am told that generally speaking all the operators have insurance to cover that kind of liability.
Senator Phalen: Has anything changed in that respect?
Mr. Cannon: No.
Senator Phalen: I received correspondence from the City of Windsor, dated September 19, in which they outline their concerns that this proposed legislation ignores the municipality in the decision-making process, even though the municipality will be directly impacted by any changes.
Can you or have you addressed any of the concerns of the municipalities?
Mr. Cannon: At the outset I will indicate to you that of course this is federal jurisdiction. That is the first point I want to mention.
Second, I was responding to the senator's question in terms of the consultation process. We did introduce amendments to be able to take care of those concerns to make sure that we do not literally railroad a bridge or a tunnel into some place without having spoken to the interested parties, the stakeholders or the municipalities. In that regard, the bill does cover those aspects.
Senator Phalen: They seem to be using two acts to support their claim. One is the 1921 act incorporating the Canadian Transit Company and another is a 1927 act incorporating the Detroit and Windsor Subway Company. The latter act states that the companies shall not construct or operate any of the works mentioned in the act along, under or over any highway, street or public place without first obtaining the consent expressed by the bylaw of the municipality having jurisdiction over such highway, street or other public place and upon terms to be agreed upon with the municipality. Do these acts still have any force?
Mr. Cannon: I will let our lawyer respond to that, but I think that the legislation you are talking about pertains to the construction period. As you well know, before authorizing construction of a bridge or tunnel, many municipalities must ensure that it respects the urban plan, the rules and the regulations, the bylaws, et cetera, in terms of its construction. I would suspect that is what we are referring to.
Mr. Langlois: The minister answered the question. The act puts conditions on construction and initial operation. They had to consult the municipal official and get an approval of the bylaw. The passage you refer to is accurate.
This infrastructure has been constructed and the operation is started without telling you that these bills are spent, construction has now been completed so the conditions have been met. This bill will apply to future construction. If someone wants to construct new infrastructure, the conditions that will have to be met will be the ones in the bill in front of you.
Windsor would like to have — I do not want to call it a veto power — a right to approve construction and operation. The government addressed that concern through the amendment that was made in the House committee, to have the minister consult with the municipalities that are implicated through the construction operation.
Senator Phalen: Has anyone spoken to officials at the City of Windsor since I received this letter on September 19?
Ms. Marcoux: What is the date of the letter?
Senator Phalen: September 19. I am just wondering if they are happy or still upset or what?
Ms. Marcoux: I believe they are coming to testify here at the end of the month.
Senator Phalen: I know that.
Ms. Marcoux: Regarding the new crossing in Windsor, an extensive consultation process is happening right now with four levels of government — the Province of Ontario, the federal government, Michigan and the federal government of the United States. That foursome is going through an extensive consultation process and the City of Windsor is totally involved.
Over and above what we had in the bill for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, additional consultations were added to this bill at the request of the City of Windsor in two or three different clauses to give another voice to Windsor in the consultation process. I do not know if they are happy, but I would argue that we have accommodated that request very well.
Senator Phalen: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Minister, this is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate you. I have not always agreed with your choices, but clearly, you stand by your political beliefs and I respect that.
I have known you for 35 years, as a businessman, as a provincial minister and as a consultant. Faced with a project affecting one company in particular and representing 25 per cent of the market, I think the old Lawrence Cannon would have met with stakeholders before adopting a bill. As I see it if, indirectly, they are about to lose control of their company, then I think their concerns should at least be heard.
The truth of the matter is that your decisions affect them. I understand that there are municipal, provincial and joint corporations, but one private stakeholder is affected more than any other. I received a letter saying that you had refused to meet with them. The old Lawrence Cannon that I knew would have happily met with these people, if their company was affected. As a consultant, I am sure you requested meetings on occasion with individuals. Why then, Minister, at a time when you are announcing public-private partnerships in Quebec and asking private companies to invest in projects, are you refusing to speak to those directly concerned?
Mr. Cannon: I am happy to welcome you to Canada's Parliament. Since you mentioned Autoroute 30, you are absolutely right. The Prime Minister and the provincial premier announced an amazing project. When you said that departmental officials had refused to discuss the bill with the Ambassador Bridge authority, I have to tell you that we are open to discussions. If people want to discuss matters with us, all they need to do is write —
[English]
Senator Dawson: We have requested on more than one occasion to meet with the Honourable Minister Cannon to discuss the above issues and we have not been granted an audience. In this case, because it is a private company and it is the only real player, if you will be doing private-public projects I think you should be indicating to the private industry that you will be cooperating.
[Translation]
Mr. Cannon: Senator, Ms. Marcoux has told me on several occasions that she met with stakeholders. If there are any other issues that warrant discussion throughout the course of the process, then I will be happy to examine them. I believe that to date, we have come up with a draft legislation that reflects a consensus of opinion. If there are any particular areas of concern, I invite people to communicate with Ms. Marcoux. We will review suggestions and proposed amendments. You are quite right to say that I am open to new suggestions. That is always the case. If I have learned one thing over the years, it is to be receptive to new ideas.
Senator Dawson: I have one last comment. I see that you have announced the new ``Michel Fortier'' autoroute than will cut through the riding of Vaudreuil, Mr. Fortier's riding of choice. I am a little surprised that you did not select Autoroute 50 for your announcement, given that all politics is local. However, I expect there will be another press conference at some other time.
The bill was the brainchild of the previous government, therefore we agree that we should move quickly on this initiative. However, the only real difference between Bill C-3 and the former bill is the way in which the private sector is treated. I ask that you talk with these stakeholders and see how the bill could be improved, if at all possible.
Mr. Cannon: Once again, I feel compelled to set the record straight. Autoroute 50 has been fully funded. There are no problems on that score. I get along extremely well with my counterpart Michel Després with whom I served in Quebec City. We have successfully developed a project in partnership with the Quebec government. The friendship forged over the years with my former colleague in the National Assembly enables me to state very clearly at this time that we can resolve issues. I hope that I can say the same of you, senator.
Ms. Marcoux: I would like to comment on two or three points. First of all, the operators of the Ambassador Bridge met with us on several occasions. I believe you also met with Mr. Garlock, the head of the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association. The association had a problem with the toll issue. The clause was amended to address their concern and that problem was resolved. They also mentioned two other big concerns. The first was the requirement for a permit to construct or make alterations to a bridge. The federal Environment Act requires that consultations be held when changes are being proposed. It is important to recall the bill's main objective. The government has jurisdiction over these infrastructures, but it has never given itself the right tools with which to exercise that jurisdiction. That is precisely what this bill does.
Second, by acknowledging that Parliament's time is valuable, the government wants to bring in an administrative measure instead of having to introduce new legislation each time a new bridge is constructed or alterations made. As such, this bill is a positive initiative that will serve the government and bridge operators well.
Two problems remain with respect to the Ambassador Bridge, namely construction and alterations. In our opinion, these international bridges are critically important to our international trade. The goal is to ensure —
[English]
— a free flow of goods, people and merchandise. It is the number one objective we are trying to achieve after the administrative objective.
I would argue that it is not unreasonable for the federal government to have access to reports on bridge structures or to information on who owns those bridges, for security and safety issues. It is not unreasonable to understand what changes will be made that could affect the flow of traffic or that could create problems for the commercial trade.
The other point causing problems for the Ambassador Bridge is the change of ownership for the operator and control. This clause was not created for the Ambassador Bridge; it was created for all international bridges. The objective, again, is for the government to understand who owns these structures. It is not meant to interfere with private sector enterprises that want to acquire or transfer a bridge, in the case of a succession for an estate or will. The government will do its due diligence to ensure a bridge is not falling into the hands of terrorist associations. That was the extent to which this clause was put in place.
We do not want to have someone own the bridge and then lease the bridge; that is why the subclauses are there. We need to know that an owner will not sublease a bridge to an undesirable party.
Those are the purposes of these clauses. We have tried to reassure the Ambassador Bridge and Fort Frances owners of these clauses.
Senator Mercer: You have me more confused than I was when we started. This confusion of publicly owned bridges managed by privately owned companies has confused the issue.
I agree with my colleague from Quebec. I think it is important, minister, that you find time to meet with the people. There are two major bridges in the process and, obviously, if the City of Windsor would like to meet, you should if you can. I leave that to you.
This was going to be my last question, but I will start with it first. The cost of delays at the Canada-U.S. border has been estimated to be $12.5 billion per year. The context we are dealing with is extremely important to the country. Can you explain to me how the provisions of this bill will enhance the efficiency of operations at international crossings when they potentially increase the delays due to new layers of security at the crossings and may raise the cost of regulatory compliance?
Mr. Cannon: You are right in indicating that 28 per cent of our commerce and trade with the U.S. goes through the Windsor-Detroit crossing, either over the bridge or through the tunnel. Clearly, it is an important issue.
Generally, in terms of safety and even more security, to accelerate the flow of traffic we use a series of measures created by the government. The Americans are clearly preoccupied by the security issue. We add on layers to the risk management regime. At the same time, we ensure there is a free flowing regime in place.
A number of initiatives have been taken over the course of some time now in order to facilitate and to stabilize this irritant, as you mentioned. For instance, if I am not mistaken, in that area there is a system of screening freight rail cars. Screening will be done so that our American counterparts will not be worried about the goods entering their country.
We are redoing the Cornwall Bridge, and we will be allocating monies to build a new plaza where all of these issues will be addressed. We want to look at modernizing the information technology, to enhance security but increase the flow and rapidity with which we can get our goods to the United States.
Senator Mercer: I appreciate your comments on the Cornwall Bridge. I assume the cost of that will be borne by the federal government.
Mr. Cannon: Yes.
Senator Mercer: In your remarks, you said that the bill also includes the power to make regulations in the areas of security and safety, operation and use, and repair and maintenance, and that it includes certain extraordinary powers, such as the power to make ministerial orders for necessary repairs, and emergency directions in the face of security threats.
Would that apply to all bridges, including the two privately owned bridges?
Mr. Cannon: That is correct.
Senator Mercer: Then you go on to say that security measures must be regularly assessed and updated to meet new security threats and that Bill C-3 would enable the government to play a greater oversight role in this area.
Who is paying the bill for the operation of those two private bridges?
Mr. Cannon: The operator will pay the bill.
Senator Mercer: We have regulations today that we are imposing on private enterprises, and they must comply. I am not suggesting we should not be concerned about safety and security. I just want to be clear on who is paying for this. The Government of Canada is paying for the bridge in Cornwall. Are the owners paying for the Ambassador Bridge and Fort Frances Bridge?
Mr. Cannon: That is correct.
Ms. Marcoux: The bridges are financed by tolls. Most bridges are self-sufficient and collect their revenues through tolls. They will use that toll money to implement safety and security measures.
Senator Mercer: I do not think they would be in business too long if they were not making money.
Ms. Marcoux: All I am saying is that that measure will apply to privately owned bridges as much as government- owned bridges. It will be provided through the toll structure.
Senator Mercer: I do not drive across the border often enough to remember the last toll I paid when I crossed the border in Gananoque. Are the tolls comparable from bridge to bridge? Are the tolls the same if I go across Cornwall or the Ambassador?
Ms. Marcoux: No. The tolls vary, and they are competitive.
Mr. Cannon: They are close in rates. That is what I am told.
Senator Mercer: Therefore, the government may be making money at the Peace Bridge. Do we own the Peace Bridge?
Mr. Cannon: Yes.
Senator Mercer: Do we make money in the same manner as the people who own the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor?
Mr. Hicks: The Peace Bridge charges tolls, and all of that money is reinvested into the bridge. Presently, extensive improvements are being made to the Canadian Plaza, funded by the tolls.
Senator Mercer: Are the improvements to the Canadian Plaza at Fort Frances and at the Ambassador Bridge borne by the owners of those two bridges?
Mr. Cannon: Yes.
Senator Mercer: Are they different owners?
Ms. Marcoux: Yes.
Senator Mercer: I find it curious we are doing it that way.
I wanted to address also the question of permits from the American side. I think Ms. Marcoux referred to them, and I understand from my research that the permits on the American side are referred to as presidential permits.
Ms. Marcoux: Yes.
Senator Mercer: I understand that the improvements they want to make to the Ambassador Bridge are to construct a new bridge next to the existing one. Have the permits been granted by the U.S. government, the Michigan government and the City of Detroit?
Mr. Cannon: No, not to our knowledge. We do not know that. If you have information in that regard, do you want to enlighten us?
Senator Mercer: No, I am speculating on information that I have. Maybe that will be cleared up in a meeting.
My concern is that we seem to be mixing apples and oranges here. I do not understand why we suddenly want to regulate these bridges. The Ambassador Bridge has been around since the early 1920s, and Fort Frances has been around for decades. Other than our natural concern for security since 9/11, is there another driving force behind our decision to implement these amendments?
Mr. Cannon: I think it is coherent public policy to be able to assume our responsibilities in the sector and spirit of our jurisdiction.
You are wondering why we have regulations. Fundamentally, the regulations will be gazetted in part one and in part two they will go through a consultation process. We will not just pull this out of our hats. All involved parties will be able to buy into this and comment on the regulations.
You have identified the security issues, but there is also the issue of the time factor. The same reasoning was behind Bill C-44 — whether the Government of Canada plays a role necessarily in its jurisdictions.
Senator Mercer: Minister, you brought up Bill C-44 and another bill as well. What was the other bill?
Mr. Cannon: Bill C-26.
Senator Mercer: Is this bill exactly the same as those two bills?
Mr. Cannon: No. I mentioned previously, for instance, that there are concerns about consultation with the municipalities. We have tagged that in terms of considerations. Ms. Marcoux will address the other issue.
Ms. Marcoux: The ownership clause is a new clause as well.
Senator Mercer: I do not understand the ownership clause. Are you saying that if I owned the Ambassador Bridge, before selling it I would have to advise the Government of Canada that I was going to sell the bridge to Senator Zimmer, for instance?
Mr. Cannon: Yes, for a very simple reason. I do not know Senator Zimmer. He might be a very fine gentleman, but — I think we mentioned this before — we are worried about terrorists. We want to know to whom bridges are being sold. That is one of the considerations.
Senator Mercer: Is there a possibility that the Government of Canada has concerns aside from that?
Mr. Cannon: No. There are no ulterior motives here. The Americans are extremely preoccupied by security around the borders. This is not something new for us. We are quite aware of that.
We have two challenges. One is to be able to respond in a reasonable and appropriate manner to those concerns. Second, you and I and all parties in the House of Commons and here in the Senate are preoccupied by our commerce and to ensure that our trade corridors run and flow efficiently and effectively so that our goods and services flow smoothly. Those are the challenges we want to address.
Senator Mercer: My last question is with regard to the environmental impact assessment that has been mentioned several times.
I assume that there are environmental assessment processes already in place on both sides of the border, so there should be no need for us to address those other than to say they must be followed.
Ms. Marcoux: Yes.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you for your remarks and candour. Sir, I am a good risk, but I do not want to buy a bridge.
I want to take a bit of a different slant. You mentioned that the minister had orders for necessary repairs, current condition, infrastructure, renew, build and rebuild. However, I am interested in the status of our international bridge infrastructure, not just the statistical data involving when they were built. More importantly, I am interested in a comprehensive, in-depth examination of what our status is. We have no idea where we are at. Could you enlighten us, Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Hicks: By status, do you mean the condition of the bridges?
Senator Zimmer: Yes. When were they built? How long have they been there? What is the comprehensive status of them?
Mr. Hicks: Those are complex questions. There are 24 international bridges for vehicles, and there are nine international bridges for rail. They were all built at different times. Some of them go back to the early 1900s. In fact, most bridges are 40, 50 or 60 years old.
A number of bridges, by their legislation, are required to submit an engineering report to the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Not all international bridges are required to do so. A few of them do because of their legislation. We are aware of the status of those bridges. We monitor them, and we see the condition they are in.
Other bridges are not caught by their legislation. To be quite candid, we really do not know the condition of some of these bridges. The Fort Frances Bridge is privately owned. We do not have much information on its maintenance and repair.
Some international bridges are owned by provinces. The provinces own these bridges in an area of federal jurisdiction. What we are asking in this bill is for the provinces to share with us the information that they have on the condition of their bridges.
Generally speaking, these bridges are in good shape. The large bridges between Ontario and the U.S. charge tolls, and they use those tolls to keep the bridges in good shape. Most provinces have a regime to look after their bridges. We would like the provinces to share that information with us.
Senator Zimmer: Do we have any empirical evidence? I suspect the answer probably is that every bridge is different, but is there an average lifetime of bridges, or are they all so different that you cannot provide that information?
Mr. Hicks: They are all different. Many of these bridges were built with a lifespan of about 75 years. I would have to go back and check the numbers, but I think that the average age of all of these bridges is probably 40 or 45 years old, somewhere in that vicinity.
Just because a bridge is 75 years old does not mean it will fall down. What it means is that that was the lifespan it was designed for, and through recapitalization and rehabilitation a bridge can be strengthened to last longer.
We are finding that trucks are getting heavier and there are more and more trucks, so bridges are aging more quickly these days than they did in the past.
Senator Zimmer: If I can draw an analogy to that, it is almost like a human being. They say our age expectancy is up to 120 years old and it depends on how the body is treated on the way. It is a good analogy, because it depends on how you feed it, fix it and repair it.
My office was in touch with an expert in civil engineering who specializes in bridge research. We were told that there is an obvious need to formulate an effective policy to address the increasingly costly problem of bridge infrastructure, and the ministry made reference to that. We were informed that this is a problem of unprecedented scale and level of complexity.
They indicated there is a three-term solution: a short-term solution, as in screening methodologies to better identify unsafe bridges and an immediate attention to repair; a medium-term plan for better assessment of the impact of the economy and well-being of society and prioritization of resources; and a long-term strategy, which is more preventive, in the reduction of the overall costs of the problem through, for instance, new technology and innovation.
Do you have short-, medium- and long-term plans to try to address this?
Mr. Hicks: Your consultant was absolutely right that you need to have a plan to look after these bridges. However, the federal government finds itself in the awkward position of owning only five of the 24 international bridges.
In this bill we have said that owners are responsible for maintaining and looking after their bridge. We are asking them to share with us how they have done that so that we can assure Canadians that the bridges are safe. However, we are not saying that they must have a long-term plan to maintain their bridge. If a bridge becomes unsafe, then we are worried about it.
Senator Zimmer: Considering that our bridges are getting older and the level of service will gradually become more of a concern, is there a proactive plan to address the problem? I am thinking of a plan specifically related to detecting corrosion damage, which may have been a contributing factor in the disastrous failure of the Montreal overpass in September.
It is one thing to x-ray and find a fissure, crack or other problem, but it is another thing to have preventive maintenance or to build bridges in a way that will prevent such problems from occurring.
As an example, I watched the film September 11 and the sequel, and the architect said the two towers should have stayed up. They made one critical mistake, and that was the insulation around the metal. Had insulation prevented the heat from melting the structure, the towers would have stayed up.
What do you do to fight the elements of corrosion, weather and ice breakup? What preventive measures do you use in building or maintaining bridges so that damage does not occur? That is very difficult because of the elements.
Mr. Hicks: Looking for new techniques keeps engineers employed. We are forever learning from past mistakes. When I was at university studying bridges we watched a film of the Tacoma bridge, which oscillated until it fell apart, and we learned from that. This past summer was the fortieth anniversary of the collapse of the Heron Road Bridge in Ottawa. Again, we learned from that. Engineers are continuing to learn.
We have experimented with reinforcing bars that rust inside of a bridge. We have hooked up batteries to them to try to reduce the corrosion. We have covered them in coatings. The technology is always progressing.
Canada came up with a new bridge design code about two years ago. That code is light years ahead of where the old code was. We are continuing to learn.
Senator Zimmer: Do you talk to your counterparts around the world about their bridges and their technologies? If they have accidents, do you learn from those?
Mr. Hicks: Are referring to the department?
Senator Zimmer: Yes.
Mr. Hicks: Yes, we do. In fact, we belong to a number of organizations whose meetings and conferences we attend, and we continue to learn from them.
Senator Munson: This has been touched upon before, but I am curious to know, with all these consultations and discussions, what the impact of the new regulations will be on the private operators. Will it be so horrendous that those private operators may be forced to sell or go out of business? It seems to me it will require a lot of money to deal with maintenance, repair, and so on.
Mr. Cannon: Can you be more specific?
Senator Munson: I am referring to the financial impact of this regulation if the private operators have to repair their bridges. If they did not think they had to repair their bridges very much and now they have to repair them a lot more, it may put them in a spot.
Ms. Marcoux: Operators are in business today, whether the bridges are privately owned or government owned or managed or operated. We believe the operators are responsible people. As my colleagues said, we have no reason to believe that the bridges are not safe. We just do not know whether they are safe or not because at the moment we do not have the means to obtain that information.
The regulations will have to undergo an extensive consultation process with the bridge operators and other stakeholders who will want to take part in this process. As you know, regulations are mainly successful if they are done by consensus. I cannot tell you today how expensive the process or the regulations will be, but we are dealing with reasonable, competent people, and we do not expect to have unreasonable regulations on the table. It is in everyone's interest to have safe bridges. The bridges should be maintained, and if they need repairs, they should be fixed.
Senator Munson: It has been mentioned tonight that we do not want these bridges or tunnels to fall into terrorists' hands. Therefore, you must take a hard look at this. Minister, do you have a problem with private operators owning two bridges between two sovereign countries? I think that if you did a survey of Canadians today, they would think that their border is very secure because there are two governments involved, with customs and with police. They feel secure. I do not have any position on this myself, but when I was on the Defence Committee, we went to Windsor to talk about security issues with the folks there. They know there is a private operator, but I do not think Canadians in general know.
Do you have a problem with private operators in light of the world we live in today and the security issues at hand, or is it part of the free enterprise system?
Mr. Cannon: No, we do not have a problem with that.
Senator Tkachuk: What would cause a government to pull letters patent?
Mr. Langlois: If the letters patent were no longer needed.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not sure.
Mr. Langlois: They are no longer needed if the company stops operating.
Senator Tkachuk: It is a way to dissolve a company?
Mr. Langlois: Yes. For example, if a company on the disabilities pass transfers a bridge or a tunnel to another operator, the company can be dissolved. Under the Canada Business Corporations Act, there is a process that allows a company to be dissolved. This is the way to dissolve a company.
This provision was not put in the bill as a means to penalize an operator for failure to respect one of the provisions in the bills. This clause is there purely on an administrative basis.
Senator Zimmer: I have one last question. Ms. Marcoux, you made a reference to this, and so did the minister. Are any of the private operators absentee landlords? Can they lease it off to somebody else? Are any of bridges leased off to other private operators?
Mr. Cannon: I do not believe so. Not to our knowledge.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister, for agreeing to appear before our committee.
Mr. Cannon: The pleasure was all mine.
[English]
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned until November 21, at 9:30, when we will meet with the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association.
The committee adjourned.