Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 6 - Evidence - December 12, 2006
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 12, 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 9:35 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I asked that the observations be distributed to honourable senators so that you would have time to read them. Do you all have a copy of the observations? Usually we deal with the observations at the end once we have adopted the bill, but this time I think we should read them first and work with the bill afterward clause by clause.
[Translation]
We have a correction in French, on line 16, page 1, instead of "Le comité aimerait traiter...", we should write "aborder." And in the last paragraph, on page 2, it should read "quant à la participation éventuelle du fédéral.'.
Senator Chaput: Which one, Madam Chair?
The Chairman: It is on page 2, last paragraph, it is written: "quant la participation éventuelle". And it should read "quant à la participation éventuelle...."
[English]
Do you wish to comment on them once you read the observations, or do you wish to wait until we adopt clause by clause? I am in your hands.
Senator Mercer: I have some reservations about doing clause by clause today. I am concerned that we do not have all of the information we should have. I am concerned that this bill is being rushed through Parliament.
There does not seem to be any great need for this bill. Under the current legislation, if someone wants to build a new bridge it would require an act of Parliament. I understand from my discussion with Senator Dawson — who is on his way this morning — that the last time we did that was 25 years ago and the time before that was 30 years ago. I do not see that Parliament has been clogged up with legislation that is being delayed or that bridges are not being built because we do not have this legislation. Twenty-five years is a long time between pieces of legislation.
I am concerned that we do not have all the information. In my research in the last week, I came upon a press release from the office of the Premier of Ontario and from the Prime Minister's office dated September 25, 2002, in which both Premier Eves and Prime Minister Chrétien announced a $300 million Canada-Ontario investment at the Windsor gateway, which was to be spent on infrastructure.
In the questions I have asked various witnesses here, including the mayor of Windsor, and representatives of various bridges and tunnels involved, I asked repeatedly about government money being spent in this area. The answer consistently came back that there has not been much government money spent. Yet $300 million has been committed to help with the infrastructure of the Windsor gateway. I would like to know where that money has been spent and what effect it has had. I am also concerned that, if the money has not been spent, time is running out. The joint press release issued by Premier Eves and Prime Minister Chrétien in September 2002 indicated that it was a five-year agreement, which means that the agreement would end in September 2007. September 2007 is like tomorrow in the context of how bridges are built or repaired and how plans are made or environmental assessments are performed.
We should take a moment — and I mean a parliamentary moment, which is longer than an ordinary moment — to sit back and ask, "Okay, what is the real effect of this? Why do we need this bill to be passed before the end of 2006? Indeed, what has been the effect of this $300 million?"
Are there other announcements that I have not discovered yet? I have repeatedly asked questions of witnesses about Highway 401. I see no reference here or in subsequent releases related to this $300 million. They talk about Highway 401 but I suspect that if we are talking about the Windsor gateway, which is one of the focal points of the bill, then Highway 401 has to be involved.
It is a principal road from the industrial heartland of our country through Windsor to that border crossing and to other border crossings in Southwestern Ontario. I am concerned that we do not have that.
I would also suggest, as a way to clear the air, that sometime in late January or early February this committee visit a couple of the sites; perhaps Niagara Falls or Fort Erie and certainly Windsor, where there are so many crossings in one small area, or perhaps we could go to Sarnia. We could visit a couple of those locations and actually have a look at what we are talking about. I have been to Windsor. I have been to Sarnia, to Niagara Falls and to Fort Erie, but each time I was either a tourist or on other business and my attention was not focused on border crossings.
It would be in the best interests of all concerned — this committee, the legislation, the communities involved, both government and private enterprise, and most important the residents of those border crossing towns — for us to take time to step back and visit a few of those places. We should talk about that. If we discover a valid reason that causes this legislation to make sense, then I will be on board. At this point, I feel compelled to suggest that we go back a step, and if we do not do that I will have difficulty supporting the legislation as it currently exists.
The Chairman: I am sorry you missed the meeting we had with senior officers of the department where we asked all the questions to which we felt we needed to have good answers and we received answers. It is too bad you were not there to advance the questions that you have this morning.
There are people from the department here, and I suppose they could answer your questions now.
Senator Mercer: That may very well be so. That because that would change the tenure of this meeting and then I would have to apologize to my colleagues who have not had a chance to prepare for that type of meeting this morning. I know that most of my colleagues come fairly prepared for these meetings and have their questions ready and have done some research. I would catch a number of them flat-footed if we were to proceed that way this morning. I am concerned about that as well. I must show due respect to my colleagues.
The Chairman: Do you wish to have answers to some of the questions you just mentioned?
Senator Mercer: Yes, I would love to have answers to some of those questions and if we want to do that now fine, but I do not think the meeting should be all about Senator Mercer. The other members of the committee have just as much right to ask questions, whether they be tough questions or not.
Senator Tkachuk: We have an agenda for today. We have agreed to this agenda. I had not heard that there was going to be any change to the agenda.
The Chairman: I was not aware.
Senator Tkachuk: Neither was I aware. My view is that we should deal with the agenda we have before us. We have observations before us. The questions Senator Mercer is raising are — I am trying to find a good word to use here — not as relevant to the bill as he may have said. I do not want to get into an argument here only because that is not part of the agenda. I feel we should proceed with the agenda. We have the observations before us. We should deal with the observations and then go to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill as we had agreed to at a previous meeting.
Senator Mercer: This should not be a surprise to anyone. I indicated via the clerk yesterday that I intended to raise this issue this morning. I spoke to him before the steering committee met last evening and indicated I would bring this matter up and, indeed, I also indicated that if we proceed there is an amendment that I will propose to the bill as it currently exists.
The Chairman: I was told you wanted to put forward some amendments to the bill; you can table those once we proceed with clause by clause.
Senator Mercer: If we could address the agenda that Senator Tkachuk has rightly brought up, perhaps I would propose that we might alter the agenda and not do clause by clause today but discuss future plans of the committee to re-examine some of the witnesses and to plan a visit to the border areas that are affected. I believe they are mainly in Southwestern Ontario, from Niagara Falls or Queenston Heights over to Sarnia, but perhaps there are other parts of the country that need to be visited. I do not know how that is done from a technical point of view, as I am not on the steering committee, but I would propose that we alter the agenda to reflect that.
Senator Stratton: How long have you been studying this bill?
The Chairman: For one month.
Senator Stratton: You have come to now, sir, with that? Do you not think that will be seen by the public as simply a delay tactic, to put it bluntly?
Senator Mercer: Senator Stratton, the issue of the $300 million agreement between the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada just came to my attention in the past couple of days, since the last meeting of this committee.
Therefore it was difficult for me to bring it up beforehand, since I did not know about it. Had I known about the $300 million agreement between Canada and Ontario, I would have reframed my questions or asked more pointed questions and I would have asked specifically about the $300 million. It only makes sense.
Senator Stratton suggests this is a delay tactic, but I would suggest that this committee do due diligence on this bill. I do not think this committee has all the information it needs. Moreover, as I said earlier in the meeting, prior to his arrival, I do not see Parliament being backed up with legislation that this bill is meant to affect. My understanding is that the last time we had legislation that affected bridges and tunnels was about 25 years ago and before that 30 years ago. There are no line-ups on Wellington Street of people wanting this legislation.
Senator Tkachuk: The point you brought up, Senator Mercer, is about an infrastructure bill. The information on that $300 million and $600 million infrastructure fund is on the website. The departmental officials will be willing to tell you about it. If you want the information on the $300 million it is readily available. That money was for the City of Windsor to use for its own improvements. It is a separate issue from the bill. However, I cannot argue with you about something that has nothing to do with the bill. You can bring that up, but if you want to simply postpone the inevitability of the bill you will have to make the motion and we can start work on that tomorrow night. We can bring in more witnesses.
Senator Mercer: I am not willing to accept the inevitability of any piece of legislation until we agree to it.
Senator Tkachuk: Of course not.
Senator Mercer: Our job as committee members is to examine the issue as fully as possible, and several of my colleagues on this committee were not aware of the $300 million agreement.
Senator Tkachuk: It has nothing to do with the bill. That is why they were not aware of it.
Senator Mercer: It has a lot to do with bridges and tunnels.
Do we really know that it has nothing to do with the bill? You tell me that it has no effect. Maybe we should have another hearing where we call the witnesses, my colleagues are prepared, and we ask those questions of the department.
Senator Tkachuk: We have people here to answer that question, Senator Mercer, so let us ask them to answer the questions.
The Chairman: Let the department answer the questions.
[Translation]
Evelyn Marcoux, executive director, Surface Infrastructure Programs, Transport Canada: Madam Chair, the funds you are referring to are part of a program.
[English]
The program was created by the former government when they created Infrastructure Canada. They created several infrastructure programs, like the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund of $2 billion and a Border Infrastructure Fund of $600 million. This was done after the September 11, 2001 events. The Border Infrastructure Fund was intended to assist the existing infrastructures at the borders by improving the facilities. The $300 million that was announced is joined with the Ontario government and it is to proceed with some specific projects to provide immediate relief to the area because of the congestion and the additional safety and security measures as a result of 9/11 and through the border agency. It was there to provide immediate relief until a long-term solution could be found. The long-term solution is being looked at through the Detroit River International Crossing Study, which we explained last week.
We are working very closely with the City of Windsor and the Ontario government to provide assistance and to move projects forward. We have six specific projects on the go; if you would like more details we can give them to you. That is the background for that money.
That fund was also used at other border crossings in Quebec and other places in Ontario. It is not a fund specifically for Windsor, but because the Windsor crossing and gateway is key to trade, as has been explained many times to the committee, there was a desire and a request to look at that issue immediately.
Senator Mercer: The reference to spending money in Quebec must be under another agreement. This $300 million I referred to was an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario.
Ms. Marcoux: The fund itself is $600 million. Part of the money was for Windsor and part for Quebec.
Senator Mercer: In other words, $300 million was to be spent in Ontario and the other $300 million was to be spent on other border crossings across the country?
Ms. Marcoux: The objective was for the money to be spent on the six major crossings in Canada, because that is where the traffic was being affected greatly after 9/11.
Senator Mercer: Most of those crossings are in Ontario.
Ms. Marcoux: Many of them are in Ontario.
Senator Mercer: The majority of the major border crossings are in Ontario.
Ms. Marcoux: Those that benefited from the agreement are.
Senator Mercer: What has been the effect of spending $300 million in Ontario for immediate relief post-9/11? What has the money been spent on? Has all of the $300 million been spent?
The Chairman: Senator Mercer was not here when we had the people from the department and we asked all the questions we wanted to ask.
Senator Mercer: I am interested in knowing if the money has been spent and what it has been spent on. Do we know what the effects have been of that immediate relief post-9/11?
Ms. Marcoux: We would be happy to provide you separate briefings on the details of the projects. There are six major projects going on. The money has not been spent. The way this program works is the priorities are set by the provincial government. Roads and highways are under provincial jurisdiction. The provincial and territorial governments come to the table with their list of projects that they want to qualify. We go through a process between Infrastructure Canada and Transport Canada of assessing these projects and their merit based on criteria, cost-benefit and safety issues, et cetera. Once that is finalized, a joint announcement is made by ministers at both levels of government.
From that point the eligible costs can kick in and you can start working. The total approvals of the projects must go through Treasury Board submissions and a contribution agreement must be signed.
That process is still ongoing but the work on the ground started, I believe, two years ago. We can go into much more detail, but I do not think that would serve the purpose of this bill today.
Senator Mercer: You indicated that the money has not all been spent. If that is the case, how much has not been spent? Am I correct in assuming that, as it is a five-year agreement, the agreement will expire in September 2007?
Ms. Marcoux: Depending on the urgency of the situation, there are different mechanisms. In the case of Windsor, a memorandum of understanding was signed to get this project going because of the urgency while the other processes were being handled. Not all the money has been spent. We do road-rail grade separation at Walkley Road, road grade separation at Howard Avenue, intersection improvement at Huron Church Road and Industrial Drive, pedestrian overpass built at Huron Church Road built for the safety of children to go to school, improvements by the customs plazas at the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel and so forth. Those are the projects.
The Chairman: It has nothing to do with the bill.
Ms. Marcoux: That is in answer to the question of how much money has been spent.
Senator Tkachuk: Just so I understand, do we have a motion on the floor?
Senator Mercer: I would move that we delay the agenda of doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3.
The Chairman: You do not need a seconder. We will take a vote.
Senator Stratton: Could we have a recorded vote, please?
The Chairman: Okay. I am against the motion. We are voting now.
Senator Adams: I want to make sure; what are we voting on right now?
The Chairman: We are voting on a motion from Senator Mercer to delay the adoption of the bill.
Senator Adams: No.
Senator Champagne: No.
Senator Dawson: I agree.
Senator Johnson: No.
Senator Mercer: Agree.
Senator Munson: Agree.
Senator Phalen: No.
Senator Stratton: No.
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Senator Zimmer: Agree.
Mr. Thompson: Yeas, 4; nays, 7.
The Chairman: We will deal with the observations first and then with the clause by clause.
Have you read the observations, senator? Do you have any comments?
Senator Tkachuk: I am at an advantage because I had a look at them yesterday and had agreed to the observations in steering committee. I am not sure whether other honourable senators on my side have just received copies.
The Chairman: Did honourable senators have time to read the documentation? Are there any comments or observations?
In that case, we will complete clause-by-clause consideration, and we will adopt the observations afterwards.
Is it agreed that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed. Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Champagne will move the amendments. Do you want an explanation now, or should we wait?
The Chairman: We will wait. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 7 carry? I think there are some proposed amendments to clause 7.
Senator Champagne: I move:
That Bill C-3, in clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 11 on page 3 with the following:
"of government that have jurisdiction over the place of the proposed construction or alteration and with any person who, in the".
The Chairman: In French?
Senator Champagne: It is really a question of correcting the French. It takes much longer to correct in French than in English.
[Translation]
And in French, it would read:
Le ministre peut, s'il est d'avis que, eu égard aux circonstances, il est nécessaire de le faire, consulter le gouvernement provincial et la « municipalité » ayant compétence à l'égard du lieu où se trouve le pont ou tunnel international à modifier ou de celui où il sera construit ainsi que toute personne qu'il estime directement intéressée en l'occurrence.
It is said in different places that it is "les gouvernements qui sont compétents."
The Chairman: The "municipalité" is not a government.
Senator Champagne: Yes, since the "municipalité" is not a government, we have to write "le gouvernement provincial et la municipalité ayant compétence."
The Chairman: Perhaps it should read "l'administration municipale"?
Senator Champagne: The researchers assured me that the words "administration municipale" would not necessarily be correct. We have to say the "municipalité," and that includes its governance.
The Chairman: So, this is Senator Champagne's amendment.
[English]
Shall clause 7 carry, with amendments?
Senator Adams: There was discussion about the wording, particularly "The Minister may"; there was a discrepancy present. We discussed changing the word "may." Is that change included in the amendment?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Senator Adams: I just wanted to make sure.
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry, as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried, as amended. Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 15 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: At clause 15, lines 35 and 36 in French, madam Chair, the same wording appears as in the preceding amendment to say "gouvernement provincial et la municipalité ayant compétence".
The Chairman: It still reads "l'administration municipale" and it should rather be written "municipalité"?
Senator Champagne: Yes, the "gouvernement provincial et la municipalité".
[English]
The Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 15, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 15(1) carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 17 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 18 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 19 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 20 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 21 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 22 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 23 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 24 carried?
Senator Champagne: I move:
That Bill C-3, in clause 24, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 11 with the following:
"of government that have jurisdiction over the place".
[Translation]
The Chairman: And in French, we should write?
Senator Champagne: In French, we come back to this rather long sentence that we had earlier:
Le ministre peut, s'il est d'avis que, eu égard aux circonstances, il est nécessaire de le faire, consulter le gouvernement provincial et la « municipalité » ayant compétence à l'égard du lieu où se trouve le pont ou tunnel international à modifier ou de celui où il sera construit ainsi que toute personne qu'il estime directement intéressée en l'occurrence.
[English]
The Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
Senator Adams: I think "jurisdiction" should be more like "security." I would want to make sure I have authority. If the owner of a bridge wants to build someplace, I want to ensure the amendment will say the minister has "authority."
I want to be clear on what "authority" means. Does "authority" mean the power to stop everybody? If the minister does not like the way an owner works a bridge, could the minister have it torn down? Could you clarify the amendment more?
Senator Champagne: I think that "jurisdiction" really would iron away all your doubts. "Authority" could be authority of different things. If you have jurisdiction, then I do not think there are any doubts.
The Chairman: No. Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 24, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 25 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 26 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 27 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 28 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 29 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 30 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 31 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 32 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 33 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 34 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 35 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 36 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 37 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 38 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 39 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 40 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 41 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 42 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 43 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 44 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 45 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 46 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 47 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 48 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 49 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 50 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 51 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 52 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 53 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 54 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 55 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 56 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Could this be interpreted as a sunset clause, meaning that this bill would automatically be brought back to the House and the Senate for review after five years?
The Chairman: The clerk will answer your question.
[English]
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: A quick read of that section indicates that it would not be considered a sunset clause. A sunset provision would put a time limit or an expiration date on certain provisions. This is a review to be conducted by the minister that would be tabled in Parliament.
Senator Dawson: As we were told, we have one of these bills every 30 years. The people who are concerned both from the private sector and from the City of Windsor are worried about how the bill will apply to them.
In the past, all these bills would have been debated fully. Any decisions on changing a bridge from Canada to the U.S. would have been debated fully in a committee. To ask that every five years the people who are concerned have the opportunity to be heard and to meet with a parliamentary committee to discuss their grievances is not an exaggeration. The people we have met with have asked that often in the past few weeks.
All the witnesses have said they are worried about how this bill will be applied. Is there a wording that could be more forceful as far as ensuring that they get the opportunity to be heard?
[Translation]
The Chairman: If I understood you well, you are not satisfied with the fact that it is written that the fifth year the minister must complete a review of the provisions and the operation of this act?
Senator Dawson: Usually, a sunset clause would make the review mandatory.
The Chairman: We could perhaps suggest, at the third reading, that the committee review this issue.
Senator Dawson: If the committe agrees to the principle that there should be a sunset clause, since we review such bills once every 30 years, I think we should take 15 more minutes in order to develop a clear definition of what is meant by "the minister's report."
I am determined to make sure that Windsor's citizens and other owners are reassured on the fact that they will be heard in due form. I would appreciate if we could suspend the audience for a few minutes in order to study with the clerk and the department's representatives if there are ways to write such an amendment.
I agree completely with Senator Mercer. First of all, last week, Senator Mercer and I were told that a bill such as this one would appear every 30 years. I never imagined that the consideration of this bill would go so fast this morning. Second, we were also told that the pictures of Windsor that we were shown were three years old.
I just want to make sure that we will not hear again about this bill, because the Department of Transport's representatives will not want to talk about it, but before, I would like to hear the evidence of people involved.
Instead of moving an amendment at the third reading in the House, I would prefer, if the committee agrees with the principle underlying my amendment, that we take some time to study this point.
[English]
If members agree that there should be a sunset clause, we could take a few minutes now. If you do not agree, I do not mind.
Senator Tkachuk: According to this, there will be a review in five years. It is quite common.
The Chairman: That is what it says.
Senator Tkachuk: The minister sends a report to Parliament. A report is given. The House of Commons committee then does a review of the bill. We just completed one on money laundering in the Banking Committee. It is a common practice that all bills are reviewed every five years.
The Chairman: It is in the bill.
Senator Dawson: If everyone agrees with the wording as it is now, I have no problems. I want to be clear that if within the first five years there are major recriminations on the part of either the cities or the partners in the project, they be heard.
The Chairman: You want them to be heard.
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Hopefully, you and I will still be here in five years; we will make sure of that. If this committee wants to review a particular aspect of a bill at any time, we just do it. There is no reason why this Transport Committee cannot look at any bill it wishes to do, at any time.
Senator Munson: We can review, but what practically can we do?
Senator Tkachuk: We can make amendments.
Senator Munson: The review in the bill happens during the fifth year. Nothing will happen in the third year if we see a problem.
The Chairman: Even in the third year, any time a committee sees something going wrong somewhere, it can call people to appear before the committee to see what is happening.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, and make amendments.
Senator Dawson: We are not always sure we will have a charming chair like you, though.
The Chairman: I will not be here in three years. You can deal with another chair.
Senator Phalen: I do not see a problem with adjourning for a few minutes.
The Chairman: We can suspend the adoption. I called the law clerk to come here. We will discuss with him what we can do with this. We will suspend consideration of clause 56, and we will come back to it as soon as he is here.
Senator Tkachuk: The way the provision reads now, the minister must have a report ready for Parliament at the end of the fifth year. It is clear that he must. Once that report is completed and tabled before Parliament, that triggers all kinds of activity, both in the House of Commons and, if need be, in the Senate. It triggers a parliamentary review, if members so wish. There is not much room for the minister to manoeuvre. He must complete the review, according to this.
Senator Dawson: It seems everyone agrees that that provision is in the bill and has been interpreted in that way. This is the first time I have seen it.
Senator Tkachuk: That provision is in almost all bills nowadays. Part of the problem before was that there was no review of bills put forward. Now it is not unusual. We do it all the time in the Banking Committee.
The Chairman: If there is a problem within the first five years, the committee can always ask for the minister to appear.
Senator Munson: If there is chaos in the first year of the bill and we bring the minister before us because we believe there should be an amendment, how long does it take to change things? How long is the process to amend what is now law? Is it the same laborious process we go through with most bills — months and months and months?
Senator Tkachuk: I do not know.
Senator Munson: It is one thing to talk and another actually to change things.
Senator Tkachuk: It is not unusual for any bill to have this. This is a normal practice.
Senator Munson: I know that.
Senator Tkachuk: We do the reviews and we make recommendations. In the Banking Committee, we have made several recommendations regarding for example the bankruptcy provisions and others. The minister introduces amendments to the bill as a government bill.
We do not necessarily have to do it. If there are serious issues, those are dealt with directly by the minister on behalf of the government and brought in as part of an omnibus bill or as amendments to the act. We deal with that all the time.
Senator Munson: Then I am satisfied.
Senator Tkachuk: It is pretty solid.
Senator Adams: Madam Chairman, a bill will pass and there must be a review after five years. Even though the minister introduces it, it will start all over again. That is why I have difficulty. Senator Munson said there might be a problem in a year or two. The minister has the power to say that he cannot do anything for another three years.
Senator Tkachuk: However, we can.
The Chairman: As a committee, we can.
Senator Tkachuk: That is our job. We are supposed to watch those guys.
Senator Adams: That is where I have difficulty. If there is a problem, the minister can say that he cannot deal with it for five years. He has to wait for five years.
We have to look into Bill C-62. We know it is not working. We never reviewed it. A clause in the bill says that after five years we can review it. The government never changed anything.
The Chairman: We will hear from the law clerk. He is on his way here. We will suspend discussion on clause 56 and take it up again once he is here.
Shall clause 57 carry? Senator Mercer, do you have an amendment to propose?
Senator Mercer: Yes. I have provided the clerk with copies in both languages. I move:
That Bill C-3 be amended in clause 57, on page 24, by replacing line 18 with the following:
"57. This Act does not apply".
The Chairman: Could I have a copy of the amendment, please?
Senator Mercer: Here is the French version.
The Chairman: I can read both.
Senator Mercer: This amendment is to remove the retroactivity of the bill. Clause 57 means that the bill would apply to any proposal for construction or alteration of an international bridge or tunnel that has been submitted to the proper agency.
There is a lot of money, time and energy involved here. I am proposing that we exclude anything that is already in the system. There are a number of people who have already made applications; plans are well under way; money and time have been spent. They are on their way through the approval process.
I do not think it was the intent of this bill, or I hope it was not, to have people start the process all over again, which we all know is costly and time-consuming. That would slow down a process that takes years to get going.
I am always concerned when any legislation is retroactive. I do not think there is a need for it in this case.
The Chairman: Is there any discussion, senators?
Senator Tkachuk: My view is that the way the amendment would read would mean that the new agency would not have any jurisdiction over the decision-making process of anything ongoing, which seems to me a very difficult thing, because who would have jurisdiction? It would leave a vacuum. If something is ongoing, there are decisions being made. Somebody has to make the decisions. The bill says these people will make the decisions. There is nothing wrong with that.
Senator Mercer: My argument is that some people are going through the process as it exists now, seeking approval as required without this bill. I am saying that that should continue for those projects that are currently in the system.
If this bill does pass, anything that happens after that is subject to this bill.
Senator Tkachuk: That is right.
Senator Mercer: That includes the existing approval mechanism for environmental assessment, et cetera.
Senator Tkachuk: The consultation with the City of Windsor is all in this bill.
Senator Mercer: That is right. It is done and in certain cases, the process is ongoing. There are environmental assessments.
Senator Tkachuk: Are we concerned about one project?
Senator Mercer: We are concerned with all projects.
Senator Tkachuk: Would you take away the jurisdiction over all projects that are ongoing?
Senator Mercer: No, I would take away the jurisdiction of this bill from projects already in the system. If we were to pass this bill and have Royal Assent tomorrow, starting on Thursday morning everyone who comes up with a new idea, a change, a new process, who wants to build a new bridge, becomes subject to this bill. I think that is fair.
If this bill is to pass, the bill will come into effect. Anything prior to its coming into effect should be excluded from the bill. People have made commitments and have done work on their plans in the process. I do not think it is fair that we hold up that process. How long will this delay certain projects?
Senator Tkachuk: I do not know that. You are building up speculative hypothetical questions for which no one knows the facts. It is difficult to argue.
I can argue common sense. It seems to me that when you establish a new authority, it would have the legal authority to handle the ongoing business of borders and security, whether that process has started or not started. It does not make sense to leave a vacuum simply because you have a new bill.
All this clause does is ensure that there is no vacuum in the jurisdiction, and there should not be any vacuum.
Senator Mercer: I do not think my amendment provides a vacuum.
Senator Tkachuk: It does.
Senator Mercer: It does not, because there are existing rules now. The existing rules apply for those items that are currently in the system. Any new ideas and initiatives are subject to the new provisions. There is no vacuum there.
Senator Tkachuk: There are certain provisions that the members from the City of Windsor wish to have in this bill that are now in this bill. There is a reason for that. They wanted to ensure that there was a consultation process, which this bill ensures, with the City of Windsor.
The members of the House have said that they agree unanimously with this bill if it is brought back without substantial amendments. All the political parties in the House of Commons are in total agreement. This amendment would jeopardize that.
Senator Dawson: We were told repeatedly during committee meetings that projects are going on; environmental studies are being done. One example is the parallel building at the Ambassador Bridge, which is subject now to environmental studies. We were told repeatedly that will continue.
Senator Mercer is proposing that we make it clear in the bill that this bill does not apply to those projects that are subject now to environmental assessment. I clearly agree that all the security measures apply. However, if there is a project that is ahead of others, it would not be fair to say that as of now we are starting at zero with a level playing field. That is not what we were told at committee. I agree with Senator Mercer. I want to be sure that, as was said during committee, projects that are ahead and that are undergoing the process of environmental studies by the province should not be affected. As I read it, the amendment would protect what has been done already.
Senator Tkachuk: Clause 57 is exactly the same as proposed section 172.03 contained in Bill C-44, the previous bill, so nothing changes.
Senator Dawson: I am not the lawyer here, but there are also amendments to that bill that say, as of now, people cannot sell their bridges without the permission of the government, and that was not in Bill C-44.
Senator Tkachuk: We do not have an amendment to that effect. We have an amendment on clause 57.
Senator Dawson: You can understand that for the people concerned that there is a major change in this bill. This provision will mean that the work they have invested in preparing their project will be respected. That is what we were told.
The Chairman: Clause 57 is the same clause that appeared in Bill C-44. That is what I hear from Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Mercer: That does not make it right, Madam Chair.
Senator Dawson: It does not mean we would not have amended it at that time. A year and a half has passed since then, and a lot of work has been done on projects. Are we saying that all those projects start over at zero? If that is the case, it is certainly different from what we were told in committee. Again, submit it to a vote of the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: No one is saying that.
Senator Mercer: Currently, clause 57 says the following:
For greater certainty, this Act applies in respect of any proposal for the construction or alteration of an international bridge or tunnel that has been submitted to any department, agency or regulatory authority of the Government of Canada before the coming into force of this section.
That clause says that the bill applies to what is already in the system. We are saying that what is already in the system should be subjected to the current regulations, the current approval process that is place and that has served us well for many years. This amendment says that the bill should apply to all new projects and proposals but not the ones that are already in the system. The system and the approval process that are in place should apply. We are not asking for the approval process to be removed. We are asking for the current approval process to continue. If we go with the current wording, it means that those people have to start all over again, and we have heard testimony, as Senator Dawson said, that there is at least one major project and probably other small ones that I cannot recall in the system and starting them over would cost a lot of money and time.
Senator Tkachuk: We have no evidence of that; no one submitted any evidence of that. As far as I am aware, no authority has been given for a new bridge anywhere.
Senator Mercer: Yes, there has been a presidential warrant on the American side.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Mercer, we are a sovereign country, and we get to decide about what is built on our side of the bridge, not the Americans.
Senator Mercer: I agree with that.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not convinced and I do not think we had any evidence here from the Americans that they had approved the bridge on the other side. We are not sure of the bridge on the American side, and we are a sovereign country and we get to decide whether that bridge is built on our side of the border, not the Americans.
Senator Mercer: You will not find me disagreeing with you that we do set the rules. The approval process for a border crossing does involve getting approval on both sides of the border. We regulate what happens on this side of the border. I am relating the fact that we did see evidence in a letter that was circulated from an American regulatory agency, whose name I cannot remember, which referred to a presidential warrant for the Ambassador Bridge. That is inconsequential, but interesting.
What is consequential is the fact that the process on this side of the border is well underway, and my understanding is that the Ambassador Bridge people are in the final stages, and the environmental assessment study is one of the final hurdles that needs to be overcome.
If we leave this bill as it reads — "this Act applies" — they are back to square one and have to start over.
Senator Stratton: Question.
Senator Tkachuk: We have an amendment.
The Chairman: Do you agree with the amendment?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Senator Stratton: No.
The Chairman: Will we take a vote?
Mr. Thompson: The Honourable Senator Bacon?
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Thompson: The Honourable Senator Adams?
Senator Adams: No.
Mr. Thompson: The Honourable Senator Champagne?
Senator Champagne: No.
Mr. Thompson: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: The Honourable Senator Johnson?
Senator Johnson: No.
Mr. Thompson: The Honourable Senator Mercer?
Senator Mercer: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: The Honourable Senator Phalen?
Senator Phalen: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: The Honourable Senator Stratton?
Senator Stratton: No.
Mr. Thompson: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Mr. Thompson: The Honourable Senator Zimmer?
Senator Zimmer: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: Yeas, 5; nays, 6; abstentions, none.
The Chairman: The amendment did not carry. Shall clause 57 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 58 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 59 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 60 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall the schedule carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
We will go back to clause 56, which states:
A review of the provisions and the operation of this Act must be completed by the Minister during the fifth year after this section comes into force.
What happens if we need to do a review prior to that? The senators were wondering if we could review.
Michel Patrice, Parliamentary Counsel, Legal Services, Senate of Canada: The bill provides that the minister will do a review of this act and will cause a report to be laid before each House of Parliament within the first fifteen sitting days after the report is done.
The question, I think, relates to whether a committee of either House can do a review of the operation of this act. Do I understand the question correctly? There are committees of each House; each House can provide a mandate to each of their committees, if they wish to do so.
Obviously, you do not have to wait for a report to be laid if you want to undertake a review of any act of Parliament or operation of a department or so on. You need an order of reference from the Senate should you want to undertake such a review.
It does happen in certain acts that parliamentary review by a committee of either House can appear after a certain period of time. It does exist in certain acts where the parliamentary review is provided in the act. That being said, it does not stop you from seeking an order of reference from your chamber to undertake a review.
Does that answer your question?
Senator Mercer: Are you saying that if we wanted we could put in another review process? How extensive a review does that have to be? It says here that the minister must cause a report and the results of the review to be laid before each House of Parliament. However, it does not really talk about how extensive that report is and, with all due respect to the people at the Department to Transport, that could be a fairly cursory review as opposed to a detailed review that perhaps a parliamentary committee might want to see.
Are there ways of strengthening this to ensure that any reviews by the department and by the minister be extensive as opposed to cursory?
Mr. Patrice: You are right you do not know what the report will include in terms of the review done by the minister. Is there a way to provide for an extensive review, or could you amend the bill by saying that the report shall include, and then a list of requirements of what the report may contain? Yes, you could do that. You could propose an amendment but you would need to know exactly what you wanted in terms of the report. I do not know if you had an answer regarding what the minister thinks the report should include.
The Chairman: Any time a committee wants to have a review of the application of a bill, the committee can have terms of reference and ask for the minister to appear before the committee and study the situation.
Mr. Patrice: Yes, that is within your power.
The Chairman: We do not need to amend clause 56 to do that.
Mr. Patrice: You do not need a provision in an act that provides for such a review should the Senate decide to provide to one of its committees an extensive order of reference.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Honourable senators, shall clause 56 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that this bill be adopted as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? You already have a copy of the observations. Are there any comments on the observations, senators?
Senator Mercer: The only comment I would have, chair, is that it would have been nice to have the observations a little in advance so we could read them and think it through.
The Chairman: We were still working on them yesterday, Senator Mercer.
Senator Mercer: I appreciate that.
The Chairman: It is the same thing for the amendments.
Senator Mercer: I appreciate that as well, although notice was given and I just think it would be nice to have a little more time. I am not objecting, I am just commenting on the process.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments, honourable senators?
Senator Tkachuk: I move the observations.
The Chairman: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk that we table the observations. Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, with the observations to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you, honourable senators.
The committee adjourned.