The Corporation of Hamilton will ask Government for millions of dollars in compensation if it is stopped from collecting wharfage fees, the city's Mayor revealed last night.

Charles Gosling told The Royal Gazette it was still unclear if City Hall would be able to levy the charges under the controversial Municipalities Reform Act 2010, which was approved by MPs on July 23 and goes before the Senate today.

"We still have great concerns with the Act," he said.

"We think that what they are doing with respect to the wharfage is unconstitutional and we just think that it's a very, very speedy Act and one that, if they had engaged us in discussion, I think we could have done a better reform package."

The Mayor added: "If the bill is passed through the Senate, I guess we need to get a proper agreement from the Minister [without Portfolio] in terms of what our compensation should be for the use of our docks."

Last year, wharfage fees generated about $7.5 million in revenue for City Hall — roughly 35 percent of its budget.

Asked how much City Hall would ask for from Government if it loses wharfage fees, Mr. Gosling said: "I would hope that we would be looking at a figure very, very similar, if not equal, to what we are getting today."

The Act removes the Corporation's legal power to collect wharfage and port fees — a move strongly opposed by Mr. Gosling and supporters of the Save Our City campaign, who claimed it would lead to "death by financial strangulation".

But on the night the legislation was passed in the House of Assembly, Minister without Portfolio Zane DeSilva told MPs the Corporation might be able to continue collecting the cash.

Mr. Gosling told this newspaper afterwards he was looking forward to working with Government now the legislation had been explained more fully.

But last night he said: "Having had time to reflect on what the Minister had to say, with the whole thing of wharfage, I think people got thrown off because they are not familiar with what it means.

"Wharfage is the rent for the use of the docks that belong to the Corporation and I'm afraid we can't really operate properly not knowing fully whether we are going to be receiving the full [amount] or a piece of that or none at all. As landowners and landlords we have the right to be able to establish what we feel is a proper rent value for that."

Mr. Gosling said the Corporation was about to start setting its budget for next year but could not do so without an idea of how much money would be coming into its coffers.

"We are reliant on a ministerial decision that we have no control over in terms of what our revenue should be. That really doesn't allow us to do any short-term, let alone long-term, planning."

The Mayor said Mr. DeSilva left the Island the day after the bill passed and was not yet back. He said the Corporation hoped for an immediate meeting on his return to discuss the fees and whether the new Act would reduce the city boundaries.

He confirmed that the Corporation had spoken to its attorneys regarding the new law but added: "We really haven't set a game plan per se".

Mr. Gosling said he was unsure how senators would vote on the issue today. "Senators are for the most part, particularly dealing with the independent senators, our most senior statespeople," he said. "While there's a kind of, I guess, a pushiness on my part with parliamentarians, I guess I'm a little more respectful of the senators and provide them with the information but don't bully them the same way I would the parliamentarians."

He added: "I will be listening to the debate with great interest."

Independent senators Walwyn Hughes and Joan Dillas-Wright declined to comment last night ahead of the debate.

Opposition Senate leader Michael Dunkley said it shouldn't be taken for granted that he and his two party colleagues would oppose the bill. "I don't think it's appropriate to say anything until after I speak [in the Upper House]," he said.

It was not possible to reach Mr. DeSilva yesterday.