Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 6 - Evidence - December 6, 2006
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 6, 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 this day at 6:15 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Tonight, we are dealing with Bill C-3, respecting international bridges and tunnels.
Our witnesses from Transport Canada are Ms. Evelyn Marcoux, Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs; Mr. Brian Hicks, Director, Bridge Policy and Programs; and Mr. Alain Langlois, Counsel, Legal Services.
Evelyn Marcoux, Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs, Transport Canada: My colleagues and I wish to thank the Senate committee for inviting us back to speak to you about Bill C-3. We have listened carefully to the presentation made by stakeholders and your questions to them. We would like to take this opportunity to discuss some of the issues that have been raised and then answer any questions that you may have.
We would like to discuss the issues by categories. Windsor was a prominent issue discussed, so we will start there.
Much of the discussion of the committee has focused on Windsor and the Windsor border issues. This is not surprising. About 25 per cent of Canada's trade with the U.S. passes through Windsor and the international bridge and tunnels that support this trade are important infrastructure. To complicate matters, there are several ongoing initiatives — federal, state, provincial, municipal and private — that seek to offer solutions to the border, traffic and infrastructure problems that exist in the area. I would like to focus on two such initiatives, with the goal of clearing up some misunderstandings that may have occurred during these hearings.
The first of these initiatives is the Border Transportation Partnership, which was established in 2000. This is a binational body that includes Transport Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, the United States Federal Highway Administration, and the Michigan Department of Transportation. There are four bodies of government involved in this initiative, and their goal is to develop a long-term strategy to deal with border issues in the Windsor- Detroit area.
In pursuit of this goal, the partnership team identified the need for additional cross-border capacity, and established the Detroit River International Crossing study, DRIC. DRIC is the son of that initiative, and it was created to help assess the additional capacity that is needed in Windsor. It is a formal environmental assessment process that is required by federal, state, and provincial legislation, to review the environmental impacts of all possible options. DRIC is a highly consultative process, and extensive consultations with stakeholders have been held and are ongoing.
In the course of its study, DRIC identified at least 15 possible locations for the crossing, customs plazas and associated highway connections, which was subsequently narrowed to a focused area of analysis that continues to be studied.
At the same time, parallel to that process, the Ambassador Bridge, which is not a member of this binational partnership, has developed a plan to twin its bridge. The twinning of the Ambassador Bridge was studied by DRIC as a possible option, but it was rejected, after extensive public consultations, due to unacceptable community impacts in Windsor.
The Ambassador Bridge continues to pursue its twinning project independently of the DRIC process. These are two separate initiatives. Bridge officials are conducting, as they should, their own environmental assessment of this project, as this is one of the governmental approvals that Ambassador Bridge, or any bridge or tunnel for that matter, must obtain before commencing construction. Transport Canada has provided them with guidelines on how to meet the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, consistent with our responsibilities under that act.
Due to Transport Canada's involvement in both the DRIC process and its support of Bill C-3, the bill has been seen by some as a tool to facilitate the DRIC process. This is not so, and it is unfortunate that the bigger picture seems to have been lost.
The history of Bill C-3 does not start at Bill C-44, or even at Bill C-26. It originates, more likely, in the 1960s and 1970s, when the Canadian government, even at that time, recognized the need to apply consistent rules and policies to the country's international bridges and tunnels, while acknowledging that each of these structures is owned and operated differently. This is what we want to stress to you today, that Bill C-3 seeks to impose a set of rules that will apply to all international bridges and tunnels equally, regardless of how they are owned or operated, by providing the federal government with the means to fully exercise its constitutional jurisdiction with respect to these structures.
Moving to the ownership issue, it has been suggested that the federal government is in competition with the private crossings as it owns or controls all of the international bridges and tunnels, with the exception of two, and that, as a result, this legislation targets only these privately owned bridges. As this is also untrue, I would like to clarify the ownership structure of the country's international bridges and tunnels. By the way, this clause of ownership has a similar application in the U.S. and in two other legislations regarding other similar structures and bridges.
There are 33 international bridges and tunnels; 24 of these are for cars and trucks, and nine are for rail. All the rail bridges and tunnels are owned privately, by CN, CP, or other short-line railway companies. Of the 24 bridges that carry vehicles, two are owned by private companies: the Ambassador Bridge and the Fort Frances-International Falls International Bridge. Eleven out of 33 international bridges and tunnels are privately owned.
The 22 others are "publicly owned." It is perhaps the use of this term that has caused confusion. The notion of public ownership implies that there is some type of government involvement. In reality, this could be federal ownership, but also provincial or municipal ownership.
For example, of the 22 publicly owned vehicle bridges, nine bridges are directly owned and operated by the Province of New Brunswick, two are owned and operated by the Province of Ontario, and one by the Province of Quebec. As you heard from Mayor Francis, the City of Windsor owns the Canadian half of the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel. The Ogdensburg-Prescott Bridge is owned by an American authority. Four international bridges are directly or indirectly owned and operated by federal Crown corporations and, as you have heard from Mr. Tom Garlock, the three bridges for which he is responsible are owned and operated by a joint provincial-state authority.
As you can see, there are many different ownership structures, and contrary to what you might have been led to believe, Transport Canada does not own or operate a single international bridge or tunnel.
[Translation]
For the Minister of Transport, it is as if these bridges and tunnels were privately owned, because without Bill C-3, the federal government has no particular power, control, or authority over these structures, other than specific powers that may have been given to it in these structures' original legislation. This even applies to the bridges that are owned by the federal crown corporations who report to Parliament through the Minister of Transport.
I do not doubt, honourable senators, that you are fully aware of the particular relationship of independence that exists between government and crown corporations. While the governor in council reviews and approves their corporate management plans, and in doing so may have some say as to how these bridges are managed, the minister has absolutely no authority over the day-to-day operations of these organizations, including safety and security. Therefore, despite having constitutional jurisdiction over these international structures, in the absence of legislation that applies equally to all international bridges and tunnels, the federal government is without the means to exercise this jurisdiction. That is the primary purpose of this bill.
On the issue of consultations — an issue of particular concern to the city of Windsor — Bill C-3 proposes to streamline the approval process for the construction of new bridges and tunnels. Stakeholders will be consulted in connection with these processes. The local municipality and the province in which a new bridge is to be located will, of course, be consulted.
In fact, the bill was amended in the House of Commons to add consultations with municipalities, at the request of a member of Parliament from the region. But to impose a duty to consult with municipalities on the Minister of Transport, when they will most certainly be consulted in the context of the environmental assessment process that must take place, not only implies that constitutional jurisdictions (or those delegated to municipalities) will not be respected, but it also has the practical effect of marginalizing the bill's attempt to streamline the approval processes, so that they will remain more burdensome than they should be.
In the particular case of Windsor, Transport Canada consults with, and will continue to consult with, the city in connection with the DRIC process and the Ambassador Bridge's application to twin its bridge, and it does so in recognition of the parties' respective jurisdictions.
[English]
Why is this legislation needed? I believe it is important to give you a quick overview as to why this legislation is needed, as this is one of the questions that have been asked in committee. I will begin with safety and security and then move on to other important sections of the bill.
I do not wish to give the impression that it is the department's position that these international bridges and tunnels are not being properly maintained or that measures are not being taken to protect these structures from security threats. Based on the information that we have been provided, it appears that our international bridges and tunnels are currently safe and secure.
Having said that, it comes down to a question of oversight and the ability to oversee structures that are important to trade, and to Canada, and for which, ultimately, the federal government is responsible, and Bill C-3 will provide this. In fact, I believe that every stakeholder that appeared before this committee, including the Ambassador Bridge, agreed that the federal government should be involved in the safety and security of international bridges and tunnels.
[Translation]
Without Bill C-3, the Minister of Transport has no power to order an international bridge or tunnel to inspect its structure, or to disclose copies of their safety inspection reports to the federal government. The safety reports that have been shared with Transport Canada to date were done so on a voluntary basis, but we do not receive reports from most of the international bridges and tunnels.
In the case of the Ambassador Bridge, the bridge allows officials from Public Works and Government Services Canada to read these reports in their offices, but government officials are not allowed to make copies. If these reports revealed repairs that the Minister of Transport, in his wisdom, deemed necessary, the minister has no power to order that these repairs be performed.
Transport Canada relies entirely on the bridges and tunnels to properly inspect and maintain their structures, without the power to verify this information and ensure that this is the case. The Minister of Transport currently has no say regarding security. He cannot order a bridge or tunnel to undertake a threat and vulnerability assessment, to identify security gaps, or order that these security gaps be addressed and then reassessed on a regular basis. While some bridges and tunnels undertook this type of assessment after September 11, not all did and there was no requirement to share their reports with Transport Canada.
And, as in the case of safety inspection reports, if deficiencies were noted, the minister would have no power to order that certain security measures be implemented. And, finally, the Minister of Transport currently has no authority to issue an emergency direction in the case of an immediate threat to the security or safety of an international bridge or tunnel.
[English]
As you know, many international bridges and tunnels were created by a special act of Parliament. These acts and the permission that they granted were, for the most part, only valid for that structure, so that permission for any new construction by these existing bridges and tunnels would still have to be obtained by the Governor-in-Council, generally given in the form of a special act of Parliament.
Bill C-3 replaces the need to enact a special act of Parliament with an administrative process, and one that we expect will run in parallel with, or may even serve to coordinate, the many permits that already have to be obtained. The approval process contemplated in Bill C-3 should not delay projects currently underway, but should speed up the process.
Without Bill C-3, any alterations to these structures defined in Bill C-3 as a conversion, an extension or a change in use do not require Governor-in-Council approval. As this is a transportation-based bill and part of our mandate is to protect the safety, security and efficiency of the transportation system, the federal government should have the necessary oversight to ensure any alterations to such structures do not negatively affect the system, including traffic flow.
[Translation]
Now, let us talk about tolls. Under Bill C-3, the minister will have the power to regulate the same types of issues in terms of operation and use that were authorized by most of the special acts: how the bridge is to be used, and by what types of vehicles.
The same can be said for tolls. Under many of the special acts, changes in tolls had to be approved by the now defunct Board of Railway Commissioners. In many cases, it was also this body that had the power to deal with complaints about tolls received from the public. Under Bill C-3, tolls do not have to be pre-approved by the minister. The minister's powers in regard to the setting of tolls are very limited. The minister would only intervene if a bridge or tunnel were to change its tolls, and this had a negative effect on traffic. At that point, the minister could set a new toll rate only after consulting with the bridge as to the potential financial implications that this new toll rate will have.
[English]
Without Bill C-3, no government approval is required for the transactions that result in changes in the ownership or operation of international bridges and tunnels. Current owners can sell or lease their bridge or tunnel to whomever they please, even if this person may present a risk to national security or has no regard for the structure's long-term operation, as the federal government currently has no say as to who owns and operates these bridges and tunnels, even though it is constitutionally responsible for them. The government feels it is important to be involved in such decisions to protect the safety, security and efficiency of a transportation system.
This is not aimed at the government getting involved in directing who will own the bridges. It is about the government having a right to examine who is applying to own the bridge.
With respect to the presidential permit, I want to point out that we are trying to, as we said before, have a similar system to the United States. We are not copying their process but learning from it, taking the best from it and giving it a Canadian flavour.
The presidential permit has been in place for a long time. In 2004, changes were made to the process, and they are looking at the same type of issues, namely, ownership, security and changes in the structure.
Our counterparts at the U.S. Department of State inform us that they are currently working on regulations, which will provide guidance on how these new rules are to be interpreted, and we will continue to monitor the process.
Bill C-3 proposes to adopt a similar streamlined approval process, but one that is based on Canadian values and with Canadian interests in mind.
[Translation]
Lastly, I would like to address the issue of confidentiality. Stakeholders, in particular, the Ambassador Bridge, have raised legitimate concerns about the treatment and protection of confidential information disclosed to the Minister of Transport or Transport Canada in the administration of this bill. Any confidential information provided to the federal government is protected from disclosure to the public through Access to Information legislation. The Canada Transportation Act does provide another level of protection for some confidential information provided to the Minister of Transport. We take the matter of confidentiality very seriously. As such, we have reviewed, with legal counsel, whether this other level of protection provided by the CTA should apply to Bill C-3 as is, or if these provisions should be tailored to meet the particular needs of Bill C-3, taking into account the type of information that will be provided under the bill. It was determined that the protection offered by the Access to Information legislation is sufficient.
[English]
I would like to summarize by reminding you that this bill is the result of efforts over the past years to amend the Canada Transportation Act, to include provisions dealing with international bridges and tunnels and to strengthen, refine and improve upon these provisions. It is highly inspired by former Bill C-26 and Bill C-44 tabled by previous governments, which both died on the Order Paper. As Minister Cannon explained the last time he appeared before you, Bill C-3 applies to all Canadian international bridges and tunnels. It does not make the distinction between small or large bridges and tunnels, between those that carry vehicles or trains or both, or between those that are owned publicly or privately. Under the Constitution Act, the federal government is responsible for all of these structures, no matter what shape or form they come in.
We need to remain focused on the fact that the principle behind this bill is to ensure the efficient flow of traffic that relates to people and goods across the border. It is a means to give tools to the federal government to fix problems, if and when required.
Thank you honourable senators for allowing us to appear before you again.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Despite your explanations, questions remain, even if they are redundant. Representatives of the company that operate the Ambassador Bridge raised some concerns, as you have done before the committee. They are afraid that the government will be both judge and jury in the process to authorize the building of a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit, near the Ambassador Bridge.
Senior executives from the company — and this perception is firmly anchored in them — see the government as their competitor, as well as the one who will have the final say over the bridge project. They are convinced that there is a conflict of interest. To us, that appeared to be what they were feeling. The people from the Ambassador Bridge want to protect their past investment, and we can understand that. Their main problem is section 57 and its retroactive scope. In their view, this section targets their company directly, and consequently, their chances of obtaining authorization to proceed with their project could well be compromised.
I think we have to understand their concern. They want reassurance — and this is normal — first, on conflicts of interest, and on the impartiality of the approval process. I would like to hear what you have to say about this.
Alain Langlois, Counsel, Legal Services, Transport Canada: I will start by explaining the legal aspect, and then I will let my colleague talk about policy aspects.
Section 57 of the act, as proposed, does not have any retroactive effects. That is important to point out. In terms of application, when an act is in force, there are three types of effects in time that it can have. It can have retroactive effects, and I will give you a simple example. Let us take a bridge that has already been built and that is in operation today. If the act before you were to require the operators of the bridge to make an application under section 7 of the bill, which is essentially an application for permission to build the bridge, even if the structure has already been built, we would be dealing with an act that has a retroactive effect; that is not the case here.
An act may also have a forward-looking effect. When the effects of an act apply only to facts that occur when the act comes into force — or after — the act has a forward-looking effect. That is not the case here either, because the act applies to facts that began before the bill came into force, but that were not completed. The legal effect is essentially an immediate effect. I would say that in legislative terms, that is standard. All acts, without exception, come into effect the day they receive royal assent. Nothing in this bill strays from the norm whereby an act has legal effect the day it comes into force. From a legal perspective, that is the clarification I wanted to make.
The Chairman: Perhaps you have an answer to that. Their problem is that they want to build another bridge — they have plans to do so — and that the department also wants to build a bridge. What will they do with the existing one and with the one they plan to build?
[English]
Brian E. Hicks, Director, Bridge Policy and Programs, Transport Canada: I believe there is a bit of misconception when we are talking about the federal government being a competitor with these other bridges, as Ms. Marcoux was saying in her speech. Transport Canada does not own any international bridge or tunnel; they are all managed separately. They are all owned either by Crown corporations, provincial governments or municipalities. In our view, there is no competitive situation here.
If we look at the way that international bridges have come about, if we go back in history, there was an entrepreneur that wanted to see a bridge built. He approached the Canadian government and the U.S. government and asked for authority to build a bridge. In Canada, we passed a special act of Parliament; in the U.S. they passed a special act of Congress, and we allowed people to go ahead and build a bridge.
The Chairman: What about the public-private partnership, PPP? That is not only public; it is private.
Mr. Hicks: In Windsor, we set up this DRIC process to assess where the best place would be to build a new bridge. It is an environmental assessment process, as Ms. Marcoux was pointing out. They have examined a bunch of different alternatives and said that this is the best place to build a bridge.
The fact that an entrepreneur wants to build a bridge and the government has identified that a new bridge is needed, they are not contradictory. The owners of the Ambassador Bridge have approached government saying that they want to twin their bridge. We have said that is fine, but an environmental assessment is required. At the same time, government is saying that another crossing is needed. We are examining that.
Therefore, these are two separate processes. They happen to be running in parallel, at the same time. However, one does not supersede the other. They are both being considered.
The Chairman: Usually with the PPP, once the private partner is paid off, the ownership reverts to the government partner.
Ms. Marcoux: The issue of the PPP that is being discussed now is an option that could be considered when the time comes to build a new crossing.
A public sector-private sector partnership in those kinds of infrastructure projects is not uncommon. For instance, the Confederation Bridge was one of the first PPPs done in Canada and it is actually a great success story. The contract was well negotiated and it is being well maintained. The Confederation bridge consortium owns the bridge for 35 years, and in 35 years it will revert to government.
Every financing and ownership of a structure is different and is negotiated on a case-by-case basis. If the government decides to go on a PPP, also referred to as P-3, venture, there will be the proper request for qualification and proposal that will go through the system and it will be open, I imagine, internationally as this is a major project. It will depend on what the government will negotiate at that time. It might end up being publicly owned at the end of the lease or the arrangement, or it could stay with the private sector. There is no one formula for P-3.
The Chairman: I am not convinced, but my colleagues can ask more questions.
[Translation]
The Mayor of Windsor maintains that the bill goes too far and that the jurisdiction of municipalities is not taken into account. He is also afraid of the impact unilateral decisions will have on his community. He sent us proposed amendments, and I would like to hear your comments on two of these proposals.
[English]
At clause 2, he proposes to amend the definition of "international bridge or tunnel" to limit it to approaches and facilities "that are directly related to the bridge or tunnel and are in the immediate vicinity thereof but excludes local or provincial roads."
[Translation]
That is what he is telling us. In section 7(1.1), he would like to see "the minister shall" instead of "the minister may," as well as an obligation to provide information to the municipalities under the process. What do you think about the Mayor of Windsor's new proposals?
Ms. Marcoux: The project underway, the DRIC, is a consultation of four levels of government. It is a very broad consultation. The City of Windsor is at the table and has been consulted. The change to the bill to broaden consultations to cities was granted by the government following a request from the mayor of Windsor through his member of Parliament.
It is virtually impossible for a government to make a decision of this scope unilaterally. In fact, the Environmental Assessment Act requires governments to consult the parties. It is inconceivable for a government not to consult the city where such infrastructure would be built. Not only is it done through the DRIC process, but there is also a clause stating that if the minister feels that the consultations did not go far enough, the minister reserves the right to undertake further consultations.
The Chairman: Now, let us consider the matter of changing the definition of "international bridge or tunnel" with the goal of limiting it to approaches and infrastructure.
[English]
They are directly related to and in the immediate vicinity of a bridge or tunnel.
Mr. Hicks: When we came up with the definition of an international bridge, you must realize that an international bridge is different than a regular domestic bridge. When we define a domestic bridge, it is where it basically touches down to the ground, where its meets the road at the street level. An international bridge is different. Many of the bridges have a toll plaza; they all have a customs plaza — they are part of the bridge.
When the Mayor of Windsor was testifying, he took the definition of an international bridge to mean road. I believe he said 20 to 50 kilometres for a bridge. I must add admit I never thought when I looked at a bridge that it would be defined as such 20 to 50 kilometres in advance.
We were very specific in the way we defined an international bridge to include those facilities and approaches leading to the bridge that would include the toll and the customs plaza.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The protection of confidential information seems to be a source of concern to us in the case of Bill C- 3. Several witnesses have testified about what they perceive as being shortcomings in the area of confidentiality within the bill; they pointed out to us that Bill C-44 was an integral part of the Canada Transportation Act and that this legislation protects the confidentiality of information.
I would like to know why none of the provisions in Bill C-3 are aimed at clearly establishing that the information provided to Transport Canada will be adequately protected. You will agree with me that this cannot be put into the regulations.
Mr. Langlois: The first comment I would like to make is that section 51 of the Transportation Act is not a section that is commonly found in all federal legislation. It is quite rare that extra safeguards are put in place to protect information that is to be submitted to a minister or to the government in federal legislation.
Basically, the reason for that is that the Privacy Act has provisions that very effectively protect confidential information that is tabled with the government. A person in charge of a government institution cannot disclose information of a confidential or proprietary nature to anyone who asks for it.
The Access of Information Act provides tremendous protection to the confidentiality of information that is submitted to the government. The objective and the main aim of a section such as the one in the Transportation Act is not so much to give additional protection to the information that is tabled but to allow for the disclosure of that information.
Subparagraph 1 of section 51 is often invoked, but we forget about subparagraph 2 which allows the minister, even if the information is confidential and notwithstanding the provisions of the Access to Information Act, to disclose information he or she has received pursuant to this legislation to other institutions, to the Transportation Agency for example, as far as grain information is concerned.
Therefore, the main objective of the section is not so much to provide additional protection to the information that is received but to give permission to the minister, because the information concerned is confidential, to disclose it to someone else, which he would not be able to do if that section were not part of the legislation.
I repeat, the Access to Information Act provides a great deal of protection to the information tabled with the government.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I want to try to clarify, as much as I can, what has been going on here. I agree with you that there are many issues on the table. This is a border, after all. We have the City of Windsor worried about traffic; we have the building of a new bridge; and we have the environmental assessment by DRIC to study all that. However, none of these have anything to do with Bill C-3. These are issues that are happening now and would be just as important and just as controversial if Bill C-3 was off the table.
I will go through three step-by-step processes.
First, a while back, we were told that this bill was very different from the previous bill, Bill C-44, a bill introduced by the previous government. However, our researchers here in the Library of Parliament pointed out two key differences; the rest is the same. The first difference is one is built around security, from what I understand, which is to prohibit the sale, transfer, ownership or control of an international bridge or tunnel without Governor-in-Council approval. It seems to me that is a good change, just by the fact that this is a border and government has to have something to say about who owns the crossings at the border. Any government that would abdicate that responsibility in this day and age would be a bit irresponsible.
The second difference is a new provision, subclause 4(4), that was added to allow for an international bridge to be constructed over the St. Lawrence Seaway despite section 13 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which says:
No approval of the site or plans of any bridge over the St. Lawrence River shall be given under this Part.
You might want to explain that, so we know what that change is.
The other two are amendments that were given in the House to improve the consultation process, which I understand the MPs from Windsor wanted in the bill. Am I correct there?
Ms. Marcoux: Yes, plus an amendment on the tolls issue.
Senator Tkachuk: We may have missed one here. That is good that you mentioned that. I believe we all understand the first one. The second one, though, is a little complicated. If you could run that by us, we might enlighten ourselves.
Mr. Langlois: Subclause 4(4) is a technical amendment. It is quite simple to understand, but nevertheless it is technical. Under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, there is a prohibition on constructing a bridge over, under or above navigable water without the approval of the minister. At section 13 of the same act, there is a second prohibition that says no one can give approval to construct a bridge or tunnel above or under the St. Lawrence Seaway. Two restrictions are found under the same act that prevent the construction of any structure across the St. Lawrence River.
There is a second prohibition, because when the St. Lawrence Seaway Act was enacted, the authority to approve construction over the St. Lawrence was granted to that authority. Unfortunately, that bill was repealed in the 1990s, and there was no consequential amendment made providing for the repeal of section 13 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act that would have reinstated the ability under that act to approve the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence. Basically, right now, if someone wants to construct a bridge over the St. Lawrence, they need a special act of Parliament because of the void created by the repeal of the St. Lawrence Seaway Act. The purpose of this subclause is to allow construction of an international bridge over the St. Lawrence River.
Senator Tkachuk: Does the organization, DRIC, include representatives of the same group, the commission? Is that American and Canadian officials, or is that just Ontario and Canadian officials? Who are these people?
Ms. Marcoux: The DRIC people are the State of Michigan, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the federal government and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
Senator Tkachuk: This all exists apart from Bill C-3.
Ms. Marcoux: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: All this is going on whether Bill C-3 exists or not. All those issues, without Bill C-3, exist presently.
Ms. Marcoux: Yes. The DRIC process had its origin in 2000, and the amendments to the Canada Transportation Act have been going on for longer than that. The changes we are trying to bring forward, one could argue, go back to the 1970s. These are independent, separate processes that are getting confused because the Windsor issue is such a complex, important and huge issue.
Senator Tkachuk: Exactly. If this bill did not exist, another bridge could be built in Windsor. After all, it could be a public-private partnership. The government could pass legislation in the House, as you have to go through everything else, and say, "Here is what we will do."
Ms. Marcoux: If this bill fails, to our chagrin, because we have been working on it for a long time, then we go back to the original of passing one piece of legislation every time a request for a crossing is granted; it has to be debated in Parliament.
You did not get a full response to your earlier question on the toll amendments, which again was brought forward after the representation, which the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association have put forward. They were concerned that the minister would have powers over the setting of the tolls for the bridges, and they were concerned about their rates of financing and borrowing being affected, because government had a veto, if you will, or a right of oversight over that.
Clause 15.1, which you have in front of you, was amended by the House following those representations, and the minister now has the power to intervene only after the fact, after the tolls have been increased by the operators and it has been proven to cause a problem to the free flow of the traffic or the transportation of goods. This would be done after the minister consults with the operator and is convinced that the numbers are there to support the argument.
The amendment is fairly strong, and the clause is seriously amended to take that into consideration. Again, the government's objective was not to interfere in the operations of the bridges; it is there to ensure the free flow of traffic and that the measures taken by the operators are not a detriment to the free flow of trade.
Senator Phalen: I would like to clear up something. You said in your submission that the twinning of the Ambassador Bridge was studied by DRIC as a possible option, but it was rejected after extensive public consultation due to unacceptable community impacts in Windsor.
In the statement last week by the Ambassador Bridge people, they said:
Let me point out that it was the DRIC team, not us, that said, "However, the Canadian evaluation notes a second span of the Ambassador Bridge would be an expansion of the existing crossing, not a new crossing of the river with new connections to the freeway systems in Ontario and Michigan."
How do you respond to that?
Ms. Marcoux: The request that is in front of us is considered as a new piece of infrastructure, and it is being studied because the request has come forward. We have someone in the room who is the expert on that. If you like, she can come to the front.
Senator Phalen: DRIC says that it is not.
Ms. Marcoux: DRIC says that it is what?
Senator Phalen: I will read it again. DRIC said:
Let me point out that it was the DRIC team, not us, that said, "However, the Canadian evaluation notes a second span of the Ambassador Bridge would be an expansion of the existing crossing, not a new crossing..."
Which is it? I would just like to know which statement is correct.
Ms. Marcoux: The request in front of us is to construct a multi-lane span that would be located next to the existing bridge, not attached to the current bridge. As such, under the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, it is considered a new structure and hence has to be studied as such.
Kaarina Stiff, who is sitting in the room, in charge of that process, can give you more technical details if you want. It is a process that is required under the current regime to be considered.
Kaarina Stiff, Environmental Assessment Project Manager, Surface Infrastructure Programs, Transport Canada: To respond to the senator's question, in the Detroit River International Crossing project, when we initiated the formal environmental assessment process in early 2005, we started with a broad study area and considered a range of options. In considering those options at the beginning of our process, we did include proposals that were being put forward by various private-sector companies that had ideas on how to improve the cross-border traffic in Windsor. In the terminology of our process, we were considering options for a new or expanded international crossing. Understanding that the twinning of the Ambassador Bridge was one of the options that had been talked about for some time, that was an option that we considered.
In the parlance of our process, we were talking about a new or expanded crossing in reference to the fact that the Ambassador Bridge does exist there today and there was a proposal out there to do something at the existing crossing. That was the parlance that our process used and, as was described earlier by Ms. Marcoux, as we moved through the evaluation criteria and applied the criteria to the options that were developed, a decision was made by the partnership in November 2005 to narrow our area of focus and remove the option of twinning the Ambassador Bridge from consideration in our study.
I hope that helps to explain a little bit about what the DRIC process is doing and the difference between the private- sector proposal that is still there. In the parlance of the study that we were doing, we used that terminology to help people to understand that we were considering a broad range of options. Again, as Ms. Marcoux indicated in her speech, the application by the Ambassador Bridge to continue with their proposal is something that is happening in parallel. It is a separate process. We have been processing that in accordance with our legislative requirements under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and the last documentation submitted to us was for a proposal. It was slightly altered in March of 2006, and that is the documentation that we are working with, the proposal that they put forward at that time.
Senator Phalen: I am getting more confused. I lost my train of thought. Senator Tkachuk says that nothing has changed. All these arguments would have been there before. The same arguments we have had were already there and nothing is new. However, when a new bridge is built and someone has the right or authority to redirect the traffic to other bridges, that is new; and that is what seems to be the case with the new bridge that we are talking about. If someone is able to direct traffic into that bridge and away from the Ambassador Bridge, that is certainly new.
Mr. Hicks: Directing traffic is a provincial jurisdiction.
Senator Phalen: It is key.
Mr. Hicks: We do this all the time. If you were to look at the bridges between Ottawa and Gatineau out here, trucks are allowed on certain bridges; they are not allowed on others. Trucks are allowed on certain streets; they are not allowed on others. That has always been the situation. Under Bill C-3, it is exactly the same way that it has always been.
Senator Phalen: It is not when the 401 is put directly into the bridge. Where will the traffic go?
Mr. Hicks: It depends on what restrictions are put on the road.
Senator Phalen: It can still be determined at that point that only certain cars will go over that bridge; is that what you are telling me?
Mr. Hicks: We are saying that in the bill, the federal government will have the authority to consider the operation of a bridge, and it does have the authority to indicate what vehicles will cross a bridge.
We talked about dangerous goods. Some bridges allow dangerous goods across and some do not. There is one international bridge right now that does not allow trucks across the bridge, period.
Once again, we are saying that in the best interests of the free movement of traffic and trade, the federal government will have a say as to who uses the bridge and who does not.
Senator Phalen: The Ambassador Bridge people are farther down. It seems to me that Bill C-3 has the effect of killing the Ambassador Bridge. I do not know if I am out in left field on this or not, but it seems that this allows one to direct traffic wherever one wants. Their claim is that traffic can be taken away from them, reduce, and in the end, they will probably go bankrupt.
Ms. Marcoux: The intent of this bill is not to put anyone out of business, regardless of who owns the bridge. The intent of this bill is to ensure that the government fulfills its constitutional obligation and that it has the tools to do so.
The Ambassador Bridge is very important to the economy of our country, and it is important for trade between the United States and Canada. No one has any intention to hurt the Ambassador Bridge.
That being said, this bill is greater than the Ambassador Bridge. It will provide the government oversight capabilities of all crossings. It is not the intent of the government to penalize. If we were to penalize or drive the business away from the Ambassador Bridge today, we would create problems with respect to other bridges. Why would we want to do that?
It serves a purpose, and it is an important purpose. The government is giving itself that tool to be able to intervene in case a problem arises and there is a need to intervene. Right now, it has absolutely no tools or power to do so.
Senator Phalen: I understand that. I have no problem with oversight. I believe the government should have it. That is not my issue.
Is there anything in this bill that guarantees traffic? If the volume of traffic on the Ambassador Bridge last year was so many cars, is there anything in this bill that would guarantee that? If another bridge is built, does that reduce the amount of traffic? Will everyone lose?
Ms. Marcoux: Market forces are what will make these bridges survive.
There is a need to have an additional crossing. It has been recognized by everyone involved in these files. The crossings that are in existence, including the new one, will survive by market forces. We do not have any intention to intervene in that process, other than if there is an emergency or it is necessary.
Senator Phalen: In my opinion, the Ambassador Bridge people seem to be saying that if they cannot twin the bridges, they will not be able to compete.
Ms. Marcoux: The twinning process is subject to an environmental assessment.
To return to the request from the mayor of Windsor, consultation needs to happen. An infrastructure like this cannot just be built without consulting. The twinning process will go through an environmental assessment, including a consultation process, which will involve all stakeholders, to ensure that this is the right solution.
Whether or not they can proceed with this will depend on many factors, a couple of them being the environmental assessment and the consultation process, which will include the stakeholders.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: What year did the last bill concerning the construction of a private bridge go through?
Ms. Marcoux: Private? Are you referring to the Ambassador Bridge?
[English]
Senator Dawson: When was the last time a bill came into the Senate and the House asking for permission to build a bridge? I have been here for 30 years, and I had not seen one.
We are changing the law to say that from now on, if ever we want to build a bridge — and we only have one project — we need a bill that will give us the right to build that bridge. That does not seem minor to me, Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: I feel these issues regarding security are extremely important, the same as you thought they were important under Bill C-44.
Senator Dawson: Yes. We have also seen there are changes. You said it was a minor change.
Senator Tkachuk: No.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: One of the changes in the bill is that the owners of the Ambassador Bridge, since the passing of the new legislation, no longer have the right to sell it. That is not a minor change. If that is a minor change in the opinion of the senator, it is not so for the owners of the bridge. In my opinion, it is a significant change.
At the very beginning, when were debating the bill, it seemed to me to flow from Bills C-26 and C-44. I feel it is a major change. Even if people in the department do not remember the bill being passed, it would have been easier to deal with the question of ownership. Even if we must build a bridge, it should be done through legislation.
I do not want to burden the Senate, but one bill every 40 years would not be excessive. In my opinion, it is as if we were trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. If you agreed with the Ambassador Bridge people and they wanted to build an extension to the bridge, would you have tabled a bill or would you have said that it is an issue of expanding the bridge?
Ms. Marcoux: The Act respecting the Acquisition, Operation and Disposal of the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel by the City of Windsor was passed by Parliament in 1987. Before that, there was the Fort-Falls Bridge Authority Act, in 1970, and the Milltown Bridge Act in 1966.
Senator Dawson: Construction or modification?
Ms. Marcoux: Construction. And there are 53; they appear in the schedule of the bill. What was your question?
Senator Dawson: Suppose the Department of Transport was happy about the expansion of the Ambassador Bridge, that they felt it was a good idea. Would you have considered the project as the construction of a new bridge that required legislation or would you have considered it the expansion of a bridge without legislation?
[English]
Mr. Hicks: Right now, one would need a special act of Parliament or authority from the government.
Right now, as we have heard, there is the possibility of two bridges in the Windsor area. There is the application for twinning the Ambassador Bridge and the DRIC process. We know there is interest in building another bridge in the Buffalo-Fort Erie area. We know there is a rail bridge in Niagara Falls that private investors are considering and might want to convert from a rail bridge to a road bridge. New Brunswick is in the process of considering building a bridge at Calais-St. Stephen.
We have to remember that when a bridge is built and adds new capacity, it takes time for traffic to grow, and then all of a sudden a new bridge is needed. I am reminded of the bridges between here and Hull and Gatineau. For years we have managed with the five bridges, and we have held the pressure. Now there is a lot of talk about building one, two, maybe even three bridges.
I believe that is what we are finding at the international border.
Senator Dawson: The adoption of Bill C-3 means that since it will be a departmental decision, these issues will never be debated again. We will never get the chance to ask the people, who are trying to build the bridge, what affect it has on the other bridges. That is a major difference, as far as the application of our responsibilities.
I totally agree with the constitutional responsibility of government to control ownership and security. I have no problem with that.
I am finding here that in the past, these issues were debated around the table of the House of Commons and of the Senate, and from now on they will be discussed around your table. Not that I do not like you or the way you do things, but I feel it is a major change. We might agree with that, but we cannot say it is minor.
The people who are concerned, whether they are with the City of Windsor, the Ambassador Bridge people or the people in New Brunswick — we have been told by certainly two of the big players — maybe do not trust you, and maybe they feel they trust us more. They want to have the chance to come in front of a committee of the Senate or of the House of Commons and say that they have a problem with this bridge or with this project.
Am I to understand we are going to lose that power? There is no doubt about that.
[Translation]
Are we not losing the right to know what is happening with the construction of bridges between the United States and Canada?
Mr. Langlois: Presuming the authority already exists under an existing statute, it must first of all be determined if the enabling statute allows for the authority to build a second bridge, to expand it or to alter it. If it is allowed for under the legislation, there is no need to come back to Parliament. However, if the legislation is limited, we must go back to Parliament.
Here we are discussing construction and alteration, and as you mentioned yourself, they do not come back before Parliament annually. The bill is not limited to construction and alterations. It talks about operations and the transfer of ownership.
You talked earlier about the transfer of ownership and the fact that the bill limits the possibility of transferring the ownership of a bridge or a tunnel. The bill has no other prohibitions. It ensures that the authorization of the governor in council is necessary from now on to carry out a transfer. There is no restraint on the power to transfer. The authorization of the governor in council may appear as an obstacle to a transfer. However, the legal mechanisms that were formerly available to the owners of bridges and tunnels still exist, even if this bill is in effect.
Senator Dawson: Perhaps I did not express myself very well. This is a change in terms of the preceding bills. Bill C-44 had no such provision and Bill C-3 does provide for it. It is therefore, in my opinion, a significant change.
I have never seen this bridge. However, for the owners of it, we are not talking about a minor change. These people want to be heard and are demanding support.
Ms. Marcoux: Ownership was set out in Bill C-44.
Senator Dawson: And what about the amendment? Unfortunately, I do not have that document in front of me.
Ms. Marcoux: The two clauses that are different are the following.
[English]
Crossing over the St. Lawrence River and a transfer of the bridge.
Senator Dawson: That is a change. Again, I do not want to exaggerate, but it is a minor change for a senator, but it is not a minor change for the owners of the bridge. For them, it is a major distinction between past legislation, which they seemed to support at that time, and legislation today, which they are clearly indicating that they oppose. They know this is their last chance to be heard, because if they are not heard by us on this legislation now, they will not come in to see us on another bill and say that they have another issue to deal with.
I would like to say that two or three of my colleagues are not here. There is a special caucus meeting at the same time as this one. It is not that they are not concerned with the issues. They are, but they have a conflict and they wanted me to express that.
We want to be sure that both the City of Windsor and the Ambassador Bridge people feel that there is a level of comfort, that the people, who are there to defend them, defended them.
Ms. Marcoux: There are two things: The ownership clause is not an uncommon clause in legislation of this kind. It exists today in some of the individual legislation; it exists today in the presidential permit process in the U.S.; and it exists today in other kinds of bridges in other similar countries. This is not an uncommon piece. The objective of that piece of legislation is really for the safety and security of Canadians.
[Translation]
The government has a responsibility. Imagine if one of these bridges were transferred to terrorists or to people who wanted to turn around and resell them with the aim of closing them down or harming the trade between the two countries.
The government wants to give itself the right of review in order to ensure that public security is not endangered. That is the only aim of that clause.
I know that the Ambassador Bridge people and the president himself are very worried about the transfer clause in the case of a succession. This issue does not worry the government. That is not the aim of this clause. Tomorrow morning, the government of Ontario may decide to privatize one of the bridges and sell it. At that point, the Government of Canada would want to have a right of review concerning the intentions of new owners of the bridges, in the interest of security.
Your next question concerned whether or not you would be consulted or involved if a new bridge was to be built. In the bill, guidelines must be established on the way to proceed in order to manage applications for new structures or alterations to existing structures. In such cases, there will no doubt be consultations.
[English]
It is embedded in the bill, and under the Environmental Assessment Act, I must repeat, it is also an extensive consultation process. Just consider the DRIC process right now for a new crossing to be constructed; these consultations have been going on for four years. One could argue it is a long process, but it is an important issue for the residents of the local communities and for the members of Parliament, and it does not preclude members of Parliament from these consultations, quite the contrary. Ministers will make sure that the members of Parliament are consulted when they go through a process like that. It will be your duty to do that.
Senator Dawson: It will not be in the law. If you can find the article that says you will come and consult with us, I would like you to give me a number.
Ms. Marcoux: It does not say we will come and consult the Senate, unfortunately.
Senator Dawson: Not the House of Commons either.
Ms. Marcoux: No. Individual members of Parliament that will be affected by the crossing will be consulted.
Senator Dawson: For the last 100 years we have been consulted. People thought that this was important enough to submit it to Parliament. I am waiting for the argument that says this will cause us so many projects that it will delay other legislation. There are a lot of issues delaying legislation right now. Actually, there is a committee discussing it tonight. The reality is that we can take on another bill per year, and I believe we would survive, whether it is the City of Windsor or the Ambassador Bridge people, if people are concerned enough about not trusting you — not you personally.
[Translation]
In my opinion, we have the responsibility to ensure that amendments can be presented to satisfy these people. If you could assist us in our deliberations, we would be very pleased.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I supported Bill C-44, as well as this, and I am no friend of government intervention. I understand the strong concerns of the private owners of the international bridge, but they are also in the private sector with great risk. They sit on a border, for one thing, which they know involves two countries. There is a lot of risk to this. We will all try to act in our self-interest, both the Americans and the Canadians. We also have the jurisdictional problems of Michigan and Ontario, and we have the question of Windsor.
I hate to say it, but the world does not revolve around Ontario. It does not revolve around the Windsor bridge.
We have a Canadian border that goes from Vancouver, even across to my province, although we have no bridge. All those security issues across the country have to be administered. After September 11, 2001, I am concerned that the government exercise its constitutional jurisdiction over these areas.
Politics is a wonderful thing. I cannot imagine a government that would allow a private company to be bankrupt because they diverted all the traffic from their bridge. It is possible in a closed society with or without legislation. In an open society, I do not get it. We will have lots of discussion on Tuesday at the clause-by-clause.
Ms. Marcoux: A government that would divert traffic to put a bridge out of business would be operating against the objective of this bill. In diverting traffic from a crossing, it would create congestion. That is what this bill is trying to avoid.
Redirecting traffic would only be used where there is a need to allow free movement of goods and people.
Senator Adams: The bridge has been there for 70 years. We have a border between the United States and the river. Did the Ambassador Bridge go to the United States?
It has been there for 70 years. Did they find out whether there was any damage to that bridge?
Ms. Stiff: An environmental assessment process for a proposal of a new structure would include an examination of the environment around the bridge. It will not look at what historical impacts the bridge may have had.
There would be local and provincial regulations regarding water quality from runoff that would speak to day-to-day management. The study will not look at whether the bridge is having a negative impact right now. That is not the purpose of the environmental assessment process.
The Chairman: Would the environmental assessment process cover the potential impacts on the city because of traffic and noise in residential areas?
Ms. Stiff: Yes. One step we need to do, as part of our role as a responsible authority under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, is establish the scope of the project being assessed and the factors that need to be considered.
We prepared draft environmental assessment guidelines that speak to issues we would expect to be addressed. It includes air quality and noise impacts on the community, as well as a desire on our part to see consultation occur with the City of Windsor to gain an understanding of the impacts on local traffic and air quality.
That is explained in the draft environmental assessment guidelines. We are working on a process to make those guidelines available to the public and to get input on any factors we may have missed.
Senator Adams: We have better technology today than 70 years ago. How many more months or years will you study the Ambassador Bridge?
Ms. Stiff: The environmental assessment guidelines are given to a proponent to outline what we require, as a responsible authority, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to meet our legal obligations.
It will be up to us to work with the proponent to make sure they provide information to satisfy us that the legislation that governs the environmental assessment process federally has been met.
We do not have legislated timelines for that. We provided the draft guidelines to the proponent. It will take them time to gather the information in the studies. We will work with them to keep the process moving efficiently.
Senator Adams: I have a question on clause 6. The ministry does not have any authority to make decisions on any bridges built in the future. It has to go to the Governor-in-Council to approve any new bridges and tunnels.
Will the Governor-in-Council have more power than the Minister of Transport to approve new bridges?
Ms. Marcoux: Clause 6 says that the minister will not be able to approve this. The minister will need the approval from the Governor-in-Council.
Senator Adams: What does the Governor-in-Council have to do with it? Does it have an engineering department?
Ms. Marcoux: The Governor-in-Council is a body of cabinet that gives approvals to processes. The Governor-in- Council approves the corporate plans for Crown corporations and appointments. Their mandate is wide ranging. They would approve this process also.
Senator Tkachuk: They approve us.
Senator Adams: I understand that. If anything had to be changed in the bill, the Senate would pass it, and the House of Commons. If anything has to be changed on bridges, it has to go through the Governor-in-Council instead of the minister.
Ms. Marcoux: The minister will recommend it to the Governor-in-Council.
Senator Adams: Will it be approved faster?
Ms. Marcoux: This would alleviate a concern of Senator Dawson. This makes sure the Minister of Transport does not have the last say in the process. It has to be vetted through a cabinet committee of ministers, ultimately the Governor-in-Council, to give approval to these projects.
This will not be done in isolation by a minister in his office. He will have to consult with his colleagues in cabinet to get that approved.
Senator Adams: In clause 13, although you say the minister has no authority to approve anything to do with the structure, it says the minister has the right to order the owners or operators to take action with respect to keeping the bridge in good condition.
Ms. Marcoux: Some of the clauses from the bill will require Governor-in-Council approval. Some can be done under the minister's authority. This clause is one the minister has the authority to do, if I read it correctly.
Senator Adams: If they want to make any changes, you said in your brief, the minister has nothing to do with the bridges. Yet, here in clause 13 of the bill it says differently.
Ms. Marcoux: This is a proposal in front of you. Presently, before this bill becomes law, the minister does not have these powers. When this bill hopefully becomes an act of Parliament, this will give the minister the powers we are asking for in this bill.
Senator Adams: I am having a little difficulty with that. You said in your brief that he has no power today.
Ms. Marcoux: That is correct. This bill will give him the power, if it is passed.
Senator Adams: Some companies are concerned that if the minister has this power, he or she may not approve certain bridges. Will the minister have the power to do that?
Ms. Marcoux: I will try to explain the difference between the government owning the structures and the minister having direct authority over the structures. Those structures have a variety of governance models. Some are owned by the Government of Ontario, the Government of Quebec, the Government of New Brunswick, authorities, private corporations and Crown corporations. The minister has no direct powers over these corporations.
A Crown corporation reports to Parliament through a minister, but the powers of the minister are limited to recommending that the Governor-in-Council approve the corporate plans. A minister does not have any direct authority on the day-to-day operations of those corporations. That is the difference.
Senator Adams: Senator Tkachuk did not agree with clause 23, dealing with change of ownership. Why would they have to consult with the Governor-in-Council in order to change ownership if they are private?
Ms. Marcoux: The objective of the clause on ownership is to ensure that the new owners are not a security threat to Canada. They must be able to provide assurance of that to the government and the Canadian people. It is a security issue. We want to be able to reassure the Canadian public that these structures are owned and operated by law abiding citizens who are not a security threat to anyone.
Senator Adams: Are you talking about the government not trusting someone who wants to buy a private bridge?
Ms. Marcoux: It is not a question of trust. It is a question of ensuring that the Canadian public is secure and that these bridges are operated by people who do not pose a security threat.
This is a standard clause in other legislation in Canada, as well as in the United States and other countries.
Senator Adams: I do not really understand that.
Senator Phalen: Are there procedures in place in the event of a terrorist attack on a bridge?
Mr. Hicks: That is one of the reasons the security provisions are included in this bill. We know, from talking to the operators of a number of the bridges, that they have security measures in place, be it security from terrorism or for a spill or an accident on the bridge. A number of the bridges have emergency response programs in place.
There are other bridges that we do not know about. The operators have not told us what they have in place, and we have no authority to ask them. If this bill is enacted, once the regulations take effect, we will then have the authority to ask all the bridges about their security measures. We currently have no authority to do that.
Senator Phalen: Is it correct that training for the people working in security on the bridges is provided by the bridges?
Mr. Hicks: That is correct.
Senator Phalen: Do you know who trains them?
Mr. Hicks: Again, we have no authority to ask that. I do know, from a few of the bridge operators that have shared information with me, that a former OPP official runs the security operation of one bridge. A former official from Canada Customs is running the security system of another bridge. I know that both of these individuals have taken extensive training in this area. However, I cannot tell you what all the bridges have done.
Senator Phalen: You do not have the right to track that?
Mr. Hicks: No, I do not.
Senator Phalen: We heard yesterday from the Teamsters Canada union that their members work in security on some of the bridges. If these people are members of certain security companies, who trains and monitors them? Is there no check on that?
Mr. Hicks: It is exactly the same whether it is a public bridge or a private bridge. We have no authority to ask those questions. When we have organized workshops and invited these people to share with us what they are doing, some bridges have been very forthcoming and others have refused. We cannot insist that they give us that information.
This bill will give us the right to make the regulations. We plan to ask international bridges and tunnels to do a threat and vulnerability assessment, to examine their bridge and see what is vulnerable and what kind of threat could be imposed. Once they have done these studies, we will put measures in place to protect the bridge. A number of bridges have done that, because they are good corporate citizens, and some bridges have not.
Senator Phalen: I have no problem with oversight; I agree with the government having oversight, so I am not opposed to this bill. However, I can foresee some problems. I have a concern with the Ambassador Bridge. I am concerned when a private company is not able to twin its bridge, for whatever reason.
With regard to traffic control, that bridge has been there for many years, as have all the roads leading on and off the bridge. There suddenly seems to be a problem with that because of traffic flow. Is it fair to legislate against improvement of the facility because there is too much traffic in the area? That is my concern, and I cannot sort it out.
Mr. Langlois: With respect to a private company not being able to twin its bridge, this bill will neither prevent it nor give them more rights than they currently have. If their enabling statute does not allow the twinning of a bridge, they still need to come to Parliament to have a special act passed. This bill will give them further rights, because they will not have to come to Parliament. They will be able to apply to the minister, and if the Governor-in-Council approves it, they can build the structure. This bill takes nothing away from a private owner.
With respect to traffic control, it is important to put the history of these bridges in perspective. When these statutes were enacted early in the century, most of these bridge companies were subject to the Railway Act, which was enacted in 1888 and repealed in 1996.
These bridge companies are subject to many regulations in terms of traffic, tolls and the level of service they have to provide to users. This bill will not create something that never existed in time. Actually, it is quite soft if you consider the previous provision that used to be embedded in this legislation. It reasserts the constitutional jurisdiction of Parliament to have oversight over matters concerning international bridges.
Ms. Marcoux: To clarify your first point about a private company not being able to twin its own bridge, right now we are going through the process of assessing that application. There was no final answer given to the Ambassador Bridge. Ms. Stiff explained the process she is going through with that application.
As Mr. Langlois said, currently no one would be allowed to do this without coming through the existing process. We are trying to streamline the process, make it more efficient and free up Parliament to attend to different business. I believe the legislative agenda is busy; when ministers try to put forward pieces of legislation, it is a lengthy process, and rightly so. The intention of previous governments, including this government, is to free up time of legislators for other issues, to remove this burden from the current legislator. This will allow businesses to go through these processes in a more efficient way in order to allow the free movement of traffic and people.
Mr. Langlois: This is not the first industry to go through the process. Back in the early 20th century, all of the industry corporations were created by special acts.
With time, these kinds of legislations, with respect to all industries, were enacted to avoid Parliament having to enact every piece of legislation to allow a company to do whatever they may be doing; this is what we are trying to achieve here. This industry is no different to the other the industries throughout the country that went through this process a long time ago.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We have made you work hard tonight, but I believe we need answers to our questions and above all, to the questions of the witnesses that we have met with. We will have to reflect carefully about this until next Tuesday and we will see at that point what is to be done. I thank you for your appearance and for your good advice.
[English]
Senators, we will meet next week on Tuesday. We will adjourn until Tuesday morning at 9:30, when we will make a decision.
Senator Tkachuk: There are one or two technical amendments that the government will be proposing that have to do with the NDP. There were two amendments made to the bill in the House. They were not done properly, so they have agreed to fix them. They are technical amendments that are in this bill now. One of them was on the consultation process, and I cannot remember the other one. Those are the only ones of which I am aware.
Mr. Langlois: The two technical amendments made in the House are to have the French mirror the English. They are very technical.
The Chairman: We will see you Tuesday morning.
The committee adjourned.