TRAN Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 13, 1999

• 1534

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Order, please.

Thank you very much, everyone, for being here. We are meeting today to look at the estimates based on a request from members of the committee.

I will start by welcoming the minister and his colleagues from the department.

Perhaps, Ms. Bloodworth, you would introduce the members of the department who are with you.

No, I see the minister will do that.

• 1535

I will spare you my part of the speeches and proceed directly to hearing from the minister, followed by questions.

As all of you know, we are here from 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. There is no problem going beyond, but it will be on another day, because we don't go beyond our time. We have other meetings.

Mr. Minister, please.

Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): I thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you here today to review Transport Canada's plans and priorities and to report on some of our most recent activities. Accompanying me to provide background and details for any questions you may have are my Deputy Minister, Margaret Bloodworth; Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Louis Ranger; Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs and Divestiture, Ron Sully; and Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Ron Jackson.

In November, you asked me here to review our Departmental Performance Report and the Supplementary Estimates B. I updated you at that time on some of our more significant accomplishments in the proceeding year. Today I would like to summarize the status of the major initiatives we have been advancing, beginning with progress on the legislative front.

[English]

I think we're all in agreement, Mr. Chair, that we have a need to modernize our legislative framework for all transportation modes. Of course, a significant accomplishment along those lines was achieved through your help in 1998 with the passage of the Canada Marine Act.

A lot of analysis and consultation went into this benchmark legislation, which was the first comprehensive attempt at increasing competitiveness and reducing costs in Canada's marine sector.

In fact, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that this wouldn't have been possible without the work of my former parliamentary secretary, Mr. Keyes, the member from Hamilton West, who toiled for a long time as chair of this committee and also as parliamentary secretary to help this act be passed.

The passage of the act allowed for the transfer of operational responsibility for the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway to the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation last October. It also makes possible the establishment of 18 Canada port authorities. It takes the 18 ports and harbour commissions and makes them into Canada port authorities.

On March 1, Vancouver, Montreal, and Halifax were established as CPAs in accordance with the provisions of the act. We have just received the requisite approvals from the finance department and Treasury Board for sections of letters patent for another eight ports—Prince Rupert, Québec, Saint John, St. John's, Saguenay, Sept-Îles, Trois-Rivières, and Fraser River. These are scheduled to be established as CPAs on May 1.

The remaining seven ports referred to in the act—North Fraser, Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Hamilton, and Toronto—are scheduled to be established as CPAs shortly thereafter.

In terms of the Canada Shipping Act, as you know, track I of the act has now completed its passage through the House and we expect to bring it completely into force this fall.

Again, the committee worked long and hard on this essential piece of marine legislation, which I think is going to go a long way toward making Canada's shipping industry more competitive. We're now in the process of drafting track II, and that will be before you either later this year or early next year.

The Marine Liabilities Act is being drafted. This new act will clarify responsibilities and streamline the various liability regimes into a single act. I hope to introduce this bill before the House recesses in June.

There's also the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987. For various reasons, including regulatory developments in the United States and Europe, our department has begun an assessment of potential amendments to the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987.

Beginning last January, my deputy met with stakeholders across the country to provide input for possible amendments. The goal of this particular act is to support the competitiveness of shipping conferences by exempting them from certain provisions of Canada's Competition Act. Its application may be affected, I should say, by a new American law that is set to take effect this May.

• 1540

Margaret Bloodworth invited stakeholders across the country to give their views, and we are now assessing the comments we have received.

While stakeholders' opinions differ on what should ultimately be done with this piece of legislation, initial responses indicate agreement that amendments are necessary. I think there's a general feeling that if we do nothing, then this will be to the disadvantage of Canadian industry, shippers, and ports, and ultimately the consumer.

You're all familiar with the Railway Safety Act, because that also involved extensive work by this committee. It's coming into force on June 1. It allows us to streamline the bureaucratic process and clarify the roles and responsibilities of all the parties, strengthening the powers of inspectors and making it easier to ensure compliance with the regulations.

The establishment of a permanent consultative committee on rail safety will ensure that safety continues to be the primary focus of all parties involved in the delivery of rail services in Canada. With its improved regulation of safety, the amended Railway Safety Act is expected to reduce railway accidents and trespassing incidents, and thus prevent many injuries and deaths.

[Translation]

We have now turned our attention to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. Bill C-77 was tabled in the House of Commons last March 25th to amend this important ground transportation law. The bill is intended to reflect developments in the regulation of carrier safety performance over the last decade and to resolve the increasing inconsistencies in the regulation of the extraprovincial bus industry.

The proposed amendments provide a national framework for carrier safety compliance and a national approach to reforming economic controls of the bus industry. While retaining the basic model for regulating carriers in federal jurisdiction, they reflect a marked shift to carrier safety as the primary focus of a national regulatory regime, and create the tools for ensuring consistency in the regulation of carrier safety.

The amendments also eliminate barriers to competition in the bus industry while allowing the carriers some flexibility to deal with low density and rural transportation. Finally, they support the national and international harmonization objectives of NAFTA and the agreement on internal trade.

We welcome your upcoming review of this bill which will benefit the bus industry in Canada.

[English]

On the airport front, on the eve of completion of our five-year program next March, we think the airports policy has been a great success. Transport Canada has been busy conducting a statutory review of the leases of the first four local airport authorities done by the previous government—Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and Montreal.

The review examines a number of key policy issues, including safety and security, financial viability, and governance. As the results of the study become available, you will be informed. I certainly would look to members of the committee for advice should any changes to the way we structure this policy and its application to the various leases be required.

To date, the operation of management of 105 of 136 airports has been transferred to local entities, and 95% of commercial air passengers are travelling through airport facilities operated by local entities. Many of the airports that have been transferred are undergoing comprehensive redevelopment, with new runways, new terminals, and renovations, all without government funding.

To assist the remaining Transport Canada airports in their bid for financial self-sufficiency, the department has implemented a comprehensive program of cost reductions and revenue enhancements to match levels of service to demand, as it arises. We hope to have all the transfers completed by March 31, 2000.

[Translation]

I would like now to address a few issues that have attracted a great deal of attention of late.

• 1545

First, the Estey Report on the grain handling and transportation system, which was submitted to me at the end of December 1998. I invited stakeholders to provide comments up to the end of February. I'm pleased to tell you that during the comment period, a majority of responses favoured the implementation of Justice Estey's recommendations over any other alternative.

[English]

In other words, we have had some consultations with various stakeholders, and we've heard their views on the Estey report. By and large there is a consensus to look at the recommendations of Justice Estey as a good starting point for reform of the system.

Of course there are some opposing views, certainly from discussions the wheat board has been having, and the National Farmers Union. Obviously I would be misleading you if I said it was without controversy. There are some concerns.

A number of technical, operational, and administrative details that we think are quite important and should be discussed have emanated from the wheat board and others who are concerned about the Estey report. Those positions have to be taken into account before we come forward with any final decision.

I'm in the process of discussing these options right now with colleagues Ralph Goodale and Lyle Vanclief.

An issue related to the Estey report is the short-line railway development and rail-line rationalization that's gone on since the implementation of the Canada Transportation Act three years ago. In that time, more than 24 new short-lines have been created in the country, with operations on more than 7,100 kilometres of track. I understand four new lines are going to come on stream very shortly, and only 1,500 kilometres of track have been discontinued.

Overwhelmingly, then, the short-line policy in the CTA has been a success. Lines that could have been abandoned have not been abandoned, and the 1,500 kilometres that have gone by the wayside really have had no takers, whether by the local community or by other companies or interest groups. They are just not viable. There's no question that certain parts of the country were very overbuilt by rail.

Justice Estey, as you know, recommended that the current legislative provisions governing branch-line abandonment be reconsidered to ensure that the spirit of the legislation is respected. He also recommended that a portion of savings flow to affected communities.

Now, these are pretty significant recommendations, and certainly I'll be interested in hearing your views on that, even this afternoon in a preliminary way, along with other views dealing with western grain transportation.

As far as the government is concerned, we are committed to ensuring that rail rationalization is reasonable and fair to all parties. As I've said to you before, we've leaned on the railways where local communities have needed more time. The railways by and large have been pretty cooperative and have allowed solutions to be found so that these sections of track can be kept in operation.

We are going to hold a special conference on short-line railways in Toronto on May 3 with the industry. Hopefully this will showcase successful Canadian developments and provide a forum to review industry issues arising from the growth of the short-line industry in the country.

One thing you're very familiar with—you did the passenger rail study—is the VIA/CN task force on corridor access. As you know, a couple of weeks ago I announced the results of that task force on access issues in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. This was initiated as part of the response to your committee's report, called The Renaissance of Passenger Rail in Canada.

I think these results provide immediate tangible benefits, including increased frequency of trains and improved scheduling in the corridor. What's more significant, as far as I'm concerned, is that we now have established a framework for future passenger rail service enhancements, demonstrating a commitment on the part of VIA and Canadian National to cooperate for the mutual benefit of both passenger and freight services.

Also in response to your report we have made the commitment to test private sector interests in operating elements of VIA Rail—and its potential ability to do so—as a possible means of ensuring ongoing cost-effective delivery of passenger rail services across the country.

• 1550

I engaged the services of Société générale Canada to undertake a series of consultations to gauge the degree of private sector interest in the passenger rail market. This is an exploratory process only. It's to help me develop options to take to my cabinet colleagues. Findings of the study will be included as part of the strategic business plan for passenger rail, which we hope to complete in the course of the next few months. We'll certainly keep you plugged in on these developments.

I've also recently approved a strategic plan for safety and security, developed by the department to define our long-term vision and strategic direction for the safety and security of the transportation system. I think you have a copy of that.

The plan presents the department's objectives and overall strategies, and the degree to which it meets these goals will be the benchmark for assessing its effectiveness. A mechanism for evaluating performance is currently being developed. We have been moving towards a greater emphasis on performance and demonstrating results. We think this is the key to a safe and secure system.

Obviously, the onus is being placed on industry to demonstrate that its practices are safe and that safety information is systematically shared. This plan targets the main constituents of the transportation system—those who operate and use it—to foster development of a safety-conscious culture.

I perhaps can cut short my remarks by just quickly mentioning that we have been undergoing a lot of consultations with industry on the year 2000. You might want to ask me specific questions on that later, and I can be a bit more precise with the answers. In the transportation sector generally, I think we feel quite comfortable that the industry is going to be ready to meet the potential challenges of that particular development.

One thing, of course, that is very important is sustaining Canada's ground transportation system. We all know, whether we drive cars or own businesses or serve constituents who own businesses, that transportation is as critical to today's scheduled economy, based on just-in-time delivery, as it is to the continuing competitiveness of the traditional economy. The transportation sector, believe it or not, has been a leader in productivity growth and can make greater gains that can improve the quality of life for Canadians. That's why we're working on a ground transportation strategy aimed at improving and sustaining our transportation system over the long term.

In the meantime, we are working with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in developing a focus on improvements to our trade and transportation corridors and developing opportunities for all federal departments to work together to make sure that goods and people are able to move efficiently through our borders, gateways, and key road and rail corridors.

Of course, we're working with limited resources at this time. I think everybody realizes that funding is the key here, and that funding is tight. Unless the premiers come out in unison, as they did last year, for help here, and everybody else in industry takes up the cause, then it's unlikely we will be funded. But I'm hopeful that we are making headway to get funds for a sustained ground transportation strategy.

There has been lots of discussion on the issue, and I'll be meeting with my provincial colleagues next month to discuss this, to flesh out a basic framework we can agree on, including dealing with that wonderful issue of tolls.

I see I have ten pages on tolls from Mr. Casey. I will not read those ten. I guess he's satisfied.

An hon. member: I wouldn't say that.

[Translation]

Mr. David Collenette: On a global scale, climate change is one of the most critical environmental and economic issues we face today. Transportation plays a major role in its evolution. Responding effectively to this issue is a complex and difficult task.

As I said earlier, next May, I will meet here in Ottawa, with my provincial and territorial counterparts, to review the progress of the Transportation Table my department is co-chairing. Mr. Sully is one of those responsible for this study. This table will report on options for action by this summer.

• 1555

[English]

We're also looking at air competitiveness issues. I understand my officials have been or will be meeting with you, because you're looking at this particular issue. It's a very important one, and we will give you all the background information you require to make some reasoned judgments on the legislative and regulatory regime, key policies, and the main factors influencing commercial behaviour in air service markets. I think you'll find the officials' input of extreme value on this particular question.

There we go, Mr. Chairman. You have lots of time for questions.

Merci.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Before we proceed to questions from Mr. Muise—he is probably replacing—the way in which we proceed is that if you wish to speak, just indicate it. I will follow a list in the order in which you give me a signal.

The questions will be in this order: Mr. Morrison, Mr. Keyes, Mr. Guimond, Mr. Calder, Mr. Bailey, and Mr. Cullen.

Do you want a four-minute first run, or is that enough? Okay.

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, towards the end of your speech you touched peripherally on ground transportation, which is of considerable interest to me. As you know, federal highway funding has been declining. It's down to about $200 million a year now. The federal government, however, continues to extract about 20 times that amount as fuel taxes from Canadians on an annual basis.

All of the bilateral funding agreements for western Canada have expired. Ontario's, I believe, will end next year. If that trend continues, federal highway funding at the turn of the century will be zero for the first time since I think 1919. Maybe this is a millennium project, but—

Mr. David Collenette: Thank you for your support.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Lee Morrison: You've been widely quoted, Mr. Minister, as saying you want to have a fairly major federal program in highways. You've been quoted as talking about $700 million a year. That would still be only 15% of the annual take from the fuel taxes, and it would be far short of what's needed to catch up, but it's certainly a lot better than nothing. You wouldn't need specific provincial matching commitments just to give us our money back.

How hopeful are you that we can actually hope to see some federal infusion of funds into the ground transportation system, specifically highways, within the next year?

Mr. David Collenette: Mr. Morrison, let me talk about the dedicated taxes issue. I've answered this question before.

The way government works in the parliamentary system, unlike some other systems, is that revenues are revenues and expenditures are expenditures. Taxes and revenues aren't linked. I realize that in the United States this is not the case, and maybe other jurisdictions, but in the parliamentary system in which we operate, all revenues go into the consolidated revenue fund for use in general expenditures. This allows governments to choose priorities. As you know, we chose health care last year, with the consent of the provinces.

I would submit to you that, yes, you're right, there's a disparity between the amount collected in fuel taxes and the amount spent on roads, but that is not being wasted. One could argue that much of that difference was applied to the incredible amount of money we've put back into the health system.

Where I think you have some justification in your argument is that by and large over the last 70 years fuel taxes and transportation expenditures have been more or less in line. There's always been more collected than spent, but since 1984, the line has really gone off course—either way; the taxes have gone up, the expenditures have remained static.

• 1600

The Mulroney government used this as a way to finance their deficits, and frankly, we have not done anything about that, because we needed those revenues to get our books balanced. The question is, can I convince my colleagues, especially the Minister of Finance, to start putting some of that money back?

I have never been quoted as stating any particular figure coming from the federal government. You may be quoting from a newspaper article that quotes from unnamed sources who speculate, but I have never put a dollar figure on it. The federal-provincial task force has come up with the view that $17 billion has to be spent on our roads over the next ten or so years. That's their wish list. People then extrapolate that, well, this means $8.5 billion has to come from the federal government, which means $850 million a year. This is where this extrapolation occurs and these figures pop up.

I hope to be able to make the case, with your support and others', for funding for highways. I think the climate is more conducive to it today for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the one you talked about.

We are in danger of seeing, for the first time in 80 years, the federal government not participate, on a long-term basis, in highway financing. If it wasn't for the leftover of the payment for buying out the constitutional obligation on the Newfoundland Railway, I think the amount we'd actually spend would look even lower. It's that big chunk up until 2003 that's really elevating the figure.

So you're right, and I think we should do something about it, but it's a question of priorities. We need your help on that.

The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just two questions.

First, this committee's fourth report suggested several ways to revitalize passenger rail in Canada. I know it's an issue that's close to your heart, Mr. Minister, and you touched on it briefly. I wonder whether you can give us an update on where you are in implementing the government's response to our fourth report. In particular, can you tell us what, to date, would be the private sector's interest in these opportunities to deliver passenger rail services?

Mr. David Collenette: I'm glad you raised that one, because you are indeed expert in this particular area. The committee members worked hard on the report.

The basic dilemma, as I've said before, was do you go to cabinet and say you want $1 billion over five years to buy new equipment, and then do all those things necessary to make VIA really competitive, or do you find other ways to finance that?

I don't think my colleagues would walk back on program review. I'm privy to a lot of internal discussions. We undertook some very tough cuts, so I can't see us hiking up the subsidy—it's now gone to $170 million—another $70 million or $80 million a year, and throwing in another big chunk of cash on an annual basis for infrastructure, because that would be walking back on the government's priorities.

If I asked for that, we wouldn't have any hope of getting money for highways. That's why we've been pursuing this route of trying to involve the private sector. It's been misunderstood by many, and there are some out there who not only misunderstand it but are also making mischief. They look at the experiment in Britain and say, “This has been a disaster, and we don't want that here”, but we're not proposing the British system. What we are proposing is to look at their experience and the experience of other countries and to entice the private sector to participate in the operation or the maintenance and the financing of new equipment.

We've sent out a document, as I said in my speech, to I think 40 or 50 companies, every one of the big equipment manufacturers in the world, some the world's biggest financial houses, private sector operators in Europe, and Canadian companies in the technical engineering sphere.

Mr. Ranger, who's collating all this, and his officials are telling me that some really exciting things are coming back, things of interest to the private sector, to help finance a system.

• 1605

But the end result—and I want to really emphasize this—has to be that we maintain a national passenger rail corporation, whatever it's called, such as VIA or something else, that offers a seamless service from coast to coast, that can re-equip itself within a reasonably short period of time, can offer better service, more frequency, and, in my view, reopen services that have been shut down over the last 10 or 15 years. That's the goal.

I think, although maybe I'm biased, that is motherhood for anybody who believes in passenger rail travel, but the only way to get there is for the government to take money out of the taxpayers' pockets and pay for it or try to finance it another way.

That's what we're looking at. We're doing it at the airports, we're going to be doing it at the ports, and we've done it with the air navigational system; why can't we do it with the passenger rail system, as long as we maintain that essential core network?

There are regional issues that have to be looked into here, especially in Quebec in terms of the maintenance of jobs, and especially in the Montreal area, the central plant now for the maintenance of rolling stock. It's very important to them. Certainly if the goal is to increase services, you're going to increase jobs across the country, including in places like Montreal.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Minister, I have seven questions.

Mr. David Collenette: Seven questions!

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, and I will try to ask them quickly.

The Chairman: There will be other turns.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, okay.

I will begin with an easy question. You spoke about the Canada Marine Act, and indicated that the status of certain ports had been settled as of March 1st. You also said:

The remaining seven ports referred to in the Act—North Fraser, Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Hamilton and Toronto—are scheduled to be established as CPAs shortly thereafter.

We are delighted that the port of Hamilton has been included following the adoption of an amendment tabled by the government.

I will now ask the easy question: what do you mean by "shortly"?

Mr. David Collenette: Soon. The departments and their officials have simply granted priority to the larger ports of Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver with which they are working at this time.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Three to six months?

Mr. David Collenette: No, no, no, no. In June or July 1st.

Mr. Michel Guimond: That's fine. I think the interpreters have just caught up with me because my colleagues from the Reform Party laughed when there was nothing very funny in your answer.

Mr. David Collenette: It's the time of year; it's spring.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I now have a more difficult question to ask you about the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, that you dealt with on page 3 of your brief. You said that Bill C-77 was introduced for first reading.

Mr. David Collenette: Yes.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I will read an extract from the French version of your brief:

The amendments also eliminate barriers to competition in the bus industry while allowing the carriers some flexibility to deal with low density and rural transportation.

Mr. Minister, does the Canadian bus transportation industry agree with this comment?

Mr. David Collenette: I admit that there are differences of opinion within the industry, but the House of Commons can debate the various arguments and your committee can hear witnesses representing the industry. We do believe however that there will be a consensus on this bill. You might want to make some amendments after having debated it. This is one of the reasons why we have a legislative process.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you. Mr. Minister, I would like to deal with the airports. In your presentation, you did not speak about NAV CANADA. I don't remember if this was provided for in the Act, but does your department intend to undertake its own study of the level of service offered by NAV CANADA? Instead of waiting for you to answer that our committee will study air transport, I will mention it myself, and point out that our research assistant has included a chapter on NAV CANADA. I would like to know if your Department is at all concerned about what is happening.

• 1610

Accidents have happened recently in Fredericton, Mirabel, Baie-Comeau and, again this morning, in Gaspé, where four people were killed. In this case, we have been told that apparently, the weather was quite treacherous. But in other cases, including Fredericton and Baie-Comeau, the air safety services provided by NAV CANADA have been brought into question. Investigations will show that this corporation did not meet its obligations.

The chairman of the Canadian Air Transportation Safety Board likes to travel; it seems that he was a former minister of Transport. He puts on his boots and he goes out into the field. We haven't yet seen him carrying dead bodies, but I imagine he will do so when another accident occurs. I don't know if, after your political career, you will hold that position or if you like to travel as much as Mr. Benoît Bouchard. In other words, Mr. Minister, will you and your Department study the level of service that is being offered by NAV CANADA at this time?

Mr. David Collenette: Mr. Guimond, you also have spring fever.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Spring...

Mr. David Collenette: Fever.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Oh, yes.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Collenette: La joie de vivre, life is beautiful, etc.

First of all, on behalf of the Canadian government, I would like to offer our condolences to the families of those who were killed in the accident in Gaspé this morning. As you have said, four people died following this tragic accident.

You also mentioned investigations undertaken by the Board that is chaired by your friend, Mr. Bouchard, the Conservative...

Mr. Michel Guimond: The other one.

Mr. David Collenette: Yes, the other one. It would be inappropriate to make comments about these accidents before we receive a report by the Canadian Air Transportation Safety Board.

However, generally speaking, I can assure you that we are constantly examining the level of service provided at the airports; this is the responsibility of Mr. Jackson, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Safety and Security. He might like to add a few words. We know that NAV CANADA has undertaken a reorganization of its services, and we will continue to monitor the level of service so that safety will remain constant and adequate.

Mr. Jackson.

[English]

Mr. Ron Jackson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport): Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Guimond, as far as the safety of the air navigation system is concerned, as you know, when the air navigation system was commercialized in November of 1996, the commercialization act basically established a baseline of services that NAV CANADA had to provide. The services NAV CANADA was required to provide were the services that were provided on that date of transfer, and any changes to those levels of service would have to be subject to a safety study, done by NAV CANADA, that would be approved by the minister. Before NAV CANADA could make any changes, they would have to demonstrate that there was no unacceptable risk to safety.

If the minister determines there is a risk to safety, the minister can direct NAV CANADA to maintain the services they would wish to change.

Second, if the minister determines that the service is not adequate and that safety is prejudiced because the level is too low, the minister can direct NAV CANADA to increase its level of services at NAV CANADA's expense.

So we have the tools, Mr. Guimond, to make sure the system operates safely. We do have a set of regulations that requires NAV CANADA to meet certain standards. Through audits and inspections we are watching them to see that they operate to standard.

The Chairman: Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I see the general direction in which you're going here. One of the ways in which you're going is definitely to make Canadian railways competitive with U.S. railways.

• 1615

With that in mind, there are two points I don't see in here that I think should have been—namely, the fuel tax issue, and, more importantly, on the issue of depreciation on rolling stock, that we bring the Canadian depreciation more in line with the U.S. depreciation, thereby making our railways as competitive. We're watching Canadian railways right now buying U.S. railways—CN, for instance, buying Illinois Central. That's one thing I'd like you to comment on.

The other thing you have in here is a subject that is very near and dear to me—namely, short-line railways. Municipalities right now are becoming more and more interested in the purchase of short-line railways because it helps advance their industrial plan.

It's a good thing as far as I'm concerned, because one of the things they're able to do is circumvent property taxes through the municipal act. They own the right of way, and therefore, there's one of the overhead costs of operating a branch line. Those branch lines are much more efficient and cost-effective with the municipalities operating them.

Do you see in the future the possibility of us establishing federally a low-interest-rate loan program, for instance, for municipalities interested in purchasing a branch line, which could be incorporated into their industrial plan?

Mr. David Collenette: I know this has been an issue in your area, in the Orangeville area in particular.

I think you make a good point. Through Agriculture Canada there have been funds made available to assist municipalities in acquiring branch lines in the west. This comes as a result of the reorganization of the various regimes governing grain transportation and grain subsidies, which I don't disagree with, but I suppose the argument could be made that, look, you do it for western grain, so why don't you do it for other municipalities that are interested? I think that's a good point.

We have no money in Transport Canada to assist the municipalities, and I would take what you said as a representation. Maybe if the government has an infrastructure program, again, this is a component of it. When we've been talking about a national highway program, I've tried internally, and with my colleagues, to talk not just highways but also national transportation infrastructure, because there are infrastructure issues like that—commuter rail, urban transport, border crossings, and intelligent transportation systems.

So all kinds of things could be funded under the rubric of transportation infrastructure, and I think the one you raise is one that should be considered in any program.

Mr. Murray Calder: For instance, what about an expanded mandate from the Business Development Bank of Canada that underneath a transportation portfolio they could advance low-interest loans? These municipalities are not asking for grants; they're asking for access to loans.

Mr. David Collenette: That's something that really should be asked of Mr. Manley when he comes to this committee, or if he comes here. Maybe you should have him come to this committee.

That's a point we will note. I think it's probably better to do it in a form of program assistance through some infrastructure program. This is an issue that could come up in the conference in May.

This is not a private conference, is it?

A voice: No, it's open.

Mr. David Collenette: And members can go?

A voice: Yes.

Mr. David Collenette: If any of you want to go to the conference we can make arrangements. You can talk with some of the short-line people and put this on the agenda.

Mr. Murray Calder: Good.

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Minister, thanks for your report. It was brief and to the point.

I have really two things I'd like you to deal with within my time limit.

I want to comment first of all on the Estey report. You were quite right that it has raised a lot of controversy in the prairies. Some are extremely positive and some are extremely negative. I believe the number one issue, as you probably know, is the lifting of the cap on freight. That seems to be the one that crops up in the most places, at least in my area.

I'm wondering if it's fair for me to ask you this question with regard to the Estey report: What is your option? What do you think of the report, and what do you think should be done with it?

• 1620

Rather than waiting for some of the very extreme positions, I was wondering what would be your option, as Minister of Transport, if you had an opportunity to see it invoked.

Mr. David Collenette: That's a great question to ask.

When I came in, I had been away from this area for a long, long time—almost 20 years, when I was on the committee before—and had the chance to look at it from a fresh perspective. We had all the stakeholders together in Winnipeg in July of 1997. I'm talking about the wheat board, the grain companies, the railways, the farmers' groups—everybody.

They all said—this was as a result of the problems with the weather and deliveries the previous year—the status quo was unacceptable. That was unanimous. They all said you would have to move up the statutory grain review by a year. That was unanimous. They also said you have to get somebody impeccable to head the review. That was unanimous.

So I agreed that the status quo was unacceptable. We moved up the review by a year. No one challenged Justice Estey's appointment, no one. Everybody thought he was the best choice.

That's the good news. He brought forward a report that I think is probably as comprehensive a report as you're going to get in dealing with a complex, controversial issue.

I guess my view is that if the status quo is unacceptable, what's the alternative? Well, we have only one alternative, and that is Estey's report.

For the wheat board or anybody else to say they have other models, well, fine, put those on the table in front of Estey. It was his job to go through all this material and come forward with recommendations. That doesn't mean to say they don't make good points that shouldn't be taken into consideration.

I like to think of the resolution to this as the Estey report being the basis, the foundation, for real change in western grain transportation. I'm not alone on this. The ministers, the provincial governments, are with us.

I've met with the ministers from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and B.C., and they are with us on this, even the Government of Saskatchewan, the one in the most difficult situation. They believe we have to take the work Estey did and see where there are some rough edges, see where the modifications have to be made, and use that as the starting point for any final solution. That's where we're at right now.

Now, there are ways to get at it. I'm getting a little ahead of myself, because we have a few internal discussions and have to make a couple of cabinet decisions, so I can't pre-empt that.

Certainly we're trying to keep up the pace so that this just doesn't get swept under the rug. I don't think anybody wants it swept under the rug. But I do say publicly... and I met with the wheat board. Mrs. Bloodworth and I and others went out a few weeks ago. I said the same thing to them—you are a very important component of the system but you don't have a monopoly on wisdom, and I want you to work with the other stakeholders to try to make the best of this.

I think they will. They have some tough issues.

It's interesting; you're from a farming community, and you said the issue you're hearing a lot about is the rate cap. You didn't mention the transportation role of the wheat board.

Mr. Roy Bailey: No, no, I said that's the most common thing raised.

Mr. David Collenette: Right, but they're on about their own role in transportation.

Now, it's natural with any big organization that there's some inertia when it comes to change, especially if you take away a role that they historically have had, but as I said to them, on the assumption that one accepts Estey, and the transportation role is no longer the prerequisite of the wheat board, you're still going to be in there, because you're going to be overseeing the contract-based system Estey is recommending we put in place.

So I would hope we can get a consensus on this. There's politics in everything. If this gets off the rails because of politics in the west, then the people who are going to suffer are the producers, and the taxpayers in the country generally.

So I would hope I can count on your support and other members' to try to really work our way around this issue.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister. I have a couple of questions—three, to be exact.

During the last Parliament, this committee did a report on the national highway system. One of the things we recommended was that the federal government department work with the provinces and territories to look at public-private partnerships to see what kind of framework would be appropriate.

• 1625

Now, I understand there might be a report coming out soon on this, so I don't want to steal the thunder, but when we get into these discussions about financing the national highway system, what is your gut feel? Is there a real potential for public-private partnerships in the sense of not only tolling, but shadow tolling, or other user-pay concepts?

We know that around some of the major centres some of it is working already, but the area that seems to be the really tough area is lower-density traffic areas. Is there any scope or potential for cross-subsidization?

There is also the political backlash of paying tolls. We've all heard that. But that's politics. In terms of a policy perspective, my own feeling is that if the public has an option, they can either take one highway and not pay for it or take another highway and pay for it.

You have the classic example in Toronto with the 407. People have the option, and it's taken pressure off the 401. You can see it—although some days you'd wonder.

That's my personal take on it. I think there is a real role for it as long as the public has options. If you're prepared to pay for it, then take it. If you're not, then you have the free road.

As we get into these discussions, this issue is going to become more and more important. What is your sense of the potential for public-private partnerships in our national highway system?

Mr. David Collenette: I don't want to scoop the report authored by Brian King, the deputy minister of transport for Saskatchewan—and by, in our department, Mr. Ranger—because it will be out very soon. It deals with the general policy considerations.

I think in your question you summed up the issue pretty well. This is what makes Mr. Casey so upset, that in places such as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, where he's been focusing, there is no option for people. He argues that this is an impediment to internal trade and the like. I think there is justice to that kind of argument.

On the other hand, you can't expect provinces, if we are really that far behind with $17 billion of work, to rely exclusively on the taxpayer, whether it's federal or provincial. I suspect tolls would be more acceptable in the 407 context. For example, there's been discussion about building a ring road around Montreal to relieve a bottleneck. Right now you have to go through the heart of Montreal, trucks and everything. It's crazy. The same goes for Vancouver. You need a ring road there, or a bypass.

That's probably where you could get away with putting in tolls that industry and individuals will probably pay. Truckers don't mind paying tolls if they can improve their efficiency, with lower fuel consumption and so on.

This is something we'll have to discuss with the provincial ministers, but I don't think Mr. Romanow could put a toll highway across Saskatchewan and get away with it politically, or even maybe make it viable. I'm not so sure that could happen.

So you may have a solution whereby part of the 25,000 kilometres deemed the trunk national corridor, if you will, would have to remain toll free. Again, this is in consultation with the provinces. Everybody has to agree. Allow the provinces to get into private partnerships, which also means, then, under any federal-provincial funding, with federal dollars. That may be an option. That's what I want to discuss with the provincial ministers.

I would have said to Mr. Casey, if he had been here, that I don't think we can be too pure on this issue. I think he's made a very good contribution to the debate, but to then imply that we shouldn't consider toll roads or shadow tolls or involvement of the private sector would be the wrong way to go—if you can address this issue.

• 1630

Let's assume that we have this kind of policy. Let's assume that Paul Martin says, “here, Collenette, you've got x hundreds of millions of dollars”, and the provinces all agree. What happens, then, to those highways in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that are already locked into the arrangement? Mr. Casey has said, well, they have to be bought out. That's his view. I suppose that's an option, but all of these issues really have to be dealt with pretty soon. If we hope to get some money in next year's budget, we had better have all our ducks in line on these issues so that we don't have any fights and unnecessary political problems.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Good. I look forward—

The Chairman: Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I have another—

Mr. David Collenette: The answers are too long.

The Chairman: The questions are too long.

Mr. David Collenette: Mr. Chairman, the questions are so good that they demand such comprehensive answers.

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, the committee members know that when I suggest four minutes, they can ask for fifteen or thirty each... They decide. When they make decisions, I hold them to it. If they have shorter questions, we'll have... We're here to hear the minister. This is what we want to hear.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Well, Mr. Minister, I'm mainly concerned about the overall picture. Today you have been pinpointing certain areas of concern, certain tasks, and certain responsibilities that your department is going to have to deal with in the years to come. But I see you as a juggler walking a very narrow line—

Mr. David Collenette: I've been called many things before, but never a juggler.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Stan Dromisky: —and you're juggling some really hot potatoes. There's no doubt about it. The way I see it, you're making contact with one hot potato at a time, but there are a lot out there.

You have already mentioned quite a few of them. We were talking about VIA, highways, airports, ACAP, the seaway, harbour safety—and we can go on and on. My concern is about you and the department and into the future. Will that act continue? Will some of the potatoes be dropped? Will there be a change? What I really would like to find out, more or less, is where we are going.

Mr. David Collenette: This next year is going to be a very interesting one for Transport. We can't drop any of these potatoes or drop the ball, because we're really going to cause problems in the country.

On Estey, we really can't drop the ball in grain transportation—and I'm not just saying me, the government, but everybody. It's a problem. We're talking about Canada's competitiveness. It's at stake here. We have to deal with the issue.

With respect to passenger rail, that equipment's not going to keep going much longer. You're going to have deteriorating service. The public wants better service and we have to deal with that issue.

The airlines are having challenges. When there was a strike at Air Canada, Canadian put more planes on. Both the action of the strike and the reaction to it by Canadian Airlines meant that both companies lost even more money. There's the whole question of international air routes and who gets what. It makes it tough for the department and for me, as minister, because, essentially, by making a decision one way or another you're effectively manipulating the bottom line of private companies—because we regulate the foreign carriage.

We didn't even mention the air charter review, which is going to be an interesting thing. We're working on that right now. As for the airports—I've talked to Mr. Morrison about this—and the whole question of the financing of the big airports, there is the allegation by some in the airport community—or certainly by some in the airline community—that we're now over-building as a result of these airport authorities. As you know, there's a dispute in Toronto between the country's largest airport and the largest air carrier.

These are hot potatoes, in your words, and they have to be dealt with. Then there's ground transportation, which we've spent a lot of time on. I think it's going to be a real “hot potato” year. If we drop any of them, we're really not doing our job.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you. I kind of led you right where to I want you, and that is—

Mr. David Collenette: Into the oven.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: You've identified a multitude of areas, and yet you have left out a great number because of the time factor.

• 1635

I'm going to ask the unthinkable, a question that nobody will ever ask in any committee, and that is, in light of the fact that we had 20,000 people working in the transport department, which was cut down to about, what, 4,000 now, somewhere in that neighbourhood...

Mr. David Collenette: Yes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: In light of that and in light of the fact that we have such a greatly growing area of serious concerns emerging on the horizon—and some of them are with us already—do you feel that there is a need to increase staff in specific areas at this time and in the near future in order to deal with some of these problems?

A voice: Mrs. Bloodworth—

Mr. David Collenette: I'll let the deputy answer that, but I will say that we have increased the number of air inspectors.

I think you make a good point. The purpose of program review was to shed unnecessary duties and expenditures of departments; it wasn't to eliminate the department—in this case, transport. As the economy grows, more people fly, and I think you're going to need more people on the air inspection side. The public will demand that, which has implications for the budget.

Maybe Mrs. Bloodworth has other ideas about areas in which we could have increases.

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth (Deputy Minister, Department of Transport): Let me say first of all that it's not just a question of quantity but of quality, and we like to think that the 4,300 we have are top quality.

The second point I would make is that many of those 20,000 people were not taken away from the existing functions we still have; they went with their functions. For example, NAV CANADA went with 6,500 people. It's not that we had 20,000 people doing what we still do.

Thirdly, the minister makes a good point. The area of safety was not cut at all in program review and has grown somewhat. Certainly in some areas in which we are under stress, there are good arguments that we'll have to look at increasing resources there, not by huge amounts—we're not talking about hundreds of people—but there are places where we are short of people. Some of it has to do with recruitment. We have difficulty in certain areas in recruiting specialist technical staff. But the area of safety is the main area in which I would see that there would be some pressure for additional staff. Again, it's not huge numbers; it's in certain areas to deal with workload on the inspection side.

The Chairman: Before I go to Mr. Muise, I'll just remind us that we're doing estimates, but at this point we're not going to change gears. It's a very interesting discussion, but I will take the opportunity to say to my colleagues that we don't need to invite the minister to appear on estimates. He's been so open with us that I think that at any time committee members would like to invite the minister just to talk about everything... I can't speak for him, but I believe that he would probably accept. I find that every time we do estimates we do everything but, and I allow you to do that, but... An example was to increase... and when we do estimates we can't increase; as a committee we can only decrease.

But I will let you go on. It's very interesting.

Mr. Muise, please.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming here today. I was very interested in your comments about the strategic safety plan, which leads me to my first question. Late last summer, a very tragic accident happened in Yarmouth harbour, between a fishing vessel and the high-speed ferry, The Cat, in which the captain of the fishing vessel died. Following the crash, the department promised a full investigation into the cause of the accident. It's been over six months since then and I'm wondering if you can provide us with an update as to where that investigation is, when we can expect the final report, and whether any safety recommendations will be forthcoming.

Mr. David Collenette: As you know, all accidents are investigated by the Transportation Safety Board, which now doesn't report to me, the minister. It reports to Mr. Dion, the president of the Privy Council. It's at arm's length from our department.

Because of the Swissair crash, they are really overstretched. They've really been working overtime. That's why the Fredericton crash report is overdue. It should be coming out reasonably soon. It's unfortunate, but that delay is there and I can't really comment on it, except to say that they're the ones who have to come forward with an analysis of what went wrong and they're the ones who would then make any recommendations.

• 1640

Mr. Mark Muise: I have just a bit of a supplementary to that. The ferry is scheduled to come into operation again next month. I'm asking you if you can give us any indication of whether there will be safety measures put in place to ensure the safety of the people using the harbour, be they fishermen, recreational boaters, passengers on the ferry or those employed on the ferry. Can they expect to have safe conditions in which to operate?

Mr. David Collenette: I should say that even though there are accidents, say, with Fredericton, or in this case, we don't always wait for the TSB to report. Mr. Jackson's officials are observers on any investigation and they make some judgments of their own. You're right: they can't necessarily wait for reports if it's obvious that a certain solution has to go into effect.

On this one, perhaps he can tell you what has been happening.

Mr. Mark Muise: Okay.

Mr. Ron Jackson: Thank you.

The TSB, as you know, looks at the occurrence from the point of view of the causes and the contributing factors for the accident. That's independent and is done in the time that it takes to do a thorough investigation.

As the safety regulator for the marine transportation system, as the minister rightly states, we observe the TSB's activities, but we also look at the circumstances around the accident to see whether any rules were broken and to see whether any procedures need to be refined in order to make the environment safer.

I believe that in the case of The Cat and the unfortunate fishing vessel it got tangled up with, there have been some changes made to the procedures in the harbour in terms of speeds and operating procedures and so on to mitigate the risks of something like that happening again.

Mr. Mark Muise: The Cat is very important to the area from an economic and touristic point of view. What I'm concerned with is making sure that it can operate in a fashion that is as safe as possible for everyone who's involved there. I would urge the department to look at that and come up with recommendations before that vessel resumes service this spring.

Mr. Ron Jackson: There is one piece of work underway that you might be interested in knowing about. Because of the number of catamarans and hydrofoils and other vessels that are operating at high speeds, we are developing a code for high-speed craft to ensure that they operate safely.

Mr. Mark Muise: Good. Thank you.

The Chairman: Very quickly, Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Very quickly, Mr. Minister, the department has been aggressively pursuing a program of wharf divestiture over the past years in an attempt to transfer the responsibility for the maintenance of those wharves to the stakeholders themselves, who basically derived their livelihoods from these structures. Transferring responsibility to the local interest would guarantee long-term survival of these mainstays in rural communities. A group in Digby has banded together to gain access to the wharf there, but is being rejected by the department because they've already signed a letter of intent with an outside company that views the wharf as a possible money-making operation.

Mr. Minister, why doesn't the department give pride to the local interest, which depends on this wharf for its livelihood?

Mr. David Collenette: I don't know if Mr. Sully wants to talk about the specifics—if he has the information—but sometimes local members like yourself hear only one side of the story. We're not going to give away the family silver. The whole point of divestiture was to put it into local hands or private hands so that it operates better and relieves the taxpayers of the operational burden. We've had occasions, like those with airports, where the Halifax airport authority put out all kinds of misleading misrepresentations in public. They were negotiating in public, and we can't and won't do that.

We try. We've bent over backwards to try to give the advantage to these particular communities so that they can take the assets. But sometimes they go public in the newspapers or they go to see the local MPs to try to get the politicians involved, and I refuse to be involved in that. We have officials. These are private negotiations and they have to be done in that way.

I don't know, Mr. Sully, if you have—

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Minister, to that end, I certainly haven't been in the press and I don't intend to be, because this really concerns me. It's my community's concern that I put at the forefront here.

The Chairman: If Mr. Sully has anything to add, we'll allow it and then we'll move on.

Mr. Mark Muise: Can I just make a little comment before he...

The Chairman: If you can do it in 10 seconds.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you. I can do it in 10 seconds.

The department contracted the services of a certain individual to go to Digby. There were nine people at that meeting, and that individual now is the person heading the committee that has signed the letter of intent. Now, it might not be conflict, but it certainly gives the impression that it is.

• 1645

Mr. Ronald Sully (Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs and Divestiture, Department of Transport): I don't know the specifics, but I just want to make the point that normally when we start these discussions it's a very inclusive process. We try to get the users and the local municipality in the room together and we encourage them to form a partnership or a joint approach. We think that's the best way to ensure that all of the local interests are properly represented. In this case, I'm not sure what happened.

Mr. David Collenette: Mr. Chairman, we'll get a written answer for Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: I would appreciate that. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, there's one thing I'd like to ask the minister about. With regard to railway safety at the grade crossings and the trespassing that's happening on railways and everything else, I'm just wondering if some safety gains could be realized. What's Transport Canada doing to prevent this, to save these lives that are lost at the railway crossings?

Mr. David Collenette: As you know, this is of particular concern in Canada, where there are so many unprotected crossings. There is an initiative called Direction 2006, which aims to reduce the number of collisions at these rail crossings and also to reduce trespassing, hopefully by about 50%. This initiative really is not just ours alone, because we have to work with the local police agencies, with safety organizations such as the Canada Safety Council, and with the railways—and the unions have to be involved as well. In December, in conjunction with the Railway Association of Canada, we announced funding of $250,000 to help with this. A lot of the initiative is really work with local authorities and community groups; it's public education, public awareness. Some recent statistics show that this is working.

It's something that is really tough to deal with in a country like Canada, I can tell you. I have a CN line right in the middle of my constituency, in the Don Valley. As fast as CN puts up a chain-link fence to stop people from going across the tracks, it's ripped down. Any morning you go there, when you have GO commuter trains or freights coming through, you can see joggers whipping blithely down the track with their earphones on, listening to the radio show.

We live in a free society that is so big that it's just tough to deal with all of this. You get crazies. I was in the cab of a special RAC train, a CN train, to Windsor last year, and the driver said, “Look at this nutcase.” A guy ran the barriers right in front of us; we were doing 80 miles an hour. You just have to get this public awareness. You have to just keep drumming it through. Obviously, where possible, you can build grade separations on the main lines. There is a program for that and for putting signals in, but we can't do it everywhere. It's just a difficult country to work in. Hopefully, through public education and awareness... maybe members, in their constituency newsletters, could talk about this, or they could go to local radio stations, do an interview on this, talk about it. Everybody—parents and others—wants to help. We just have to keep making the point.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Minister, you raised a number of interesting points in your presentation. There is one that I am most interested in. We have already touched upon the subject. It involves the local railways.

As my colleague Murray mentioned earlier, there was some discussion of possibly having an infrastructure program. If this isn't done within the Department of Transport, it could be done in another department. We could then have an envelope of $75 to $80 million for all of Canada, which is not an exorbitant amount, to help these companies.

You know that we have a big problem at this time. There is a shortage of drivers in the trucking industry. The Americans, who sign free trade agreements, say one thing, and then do something else. Here in Canada, drug and alcohol tests are compulsory; the drivers must also be bilingual. It is getting harder and harder to transport our goods to the United States.

• 1650

You know that there are a number of businesses in the Beauce. Our unemployment rate is 4% and we are threatened. We need this help. We have a large scale project for our railway industries. I wonder if it might be possible for the Department of Transport or for another department to have a budgetary envelope for this purpose. This envelope would not be among the largest. If I understood correctly, many billions of dollars are available for infrastructures. It would be good to have $75 or $80 million available for a few years in order to help these businesses to start up, as they would create a number of jobs; this would also allow us to keep and create many other jobs in the manufacturing sector.

I would like to know, Mr. Minister, what your position is with respect to the possibility of helping local railways through the Department of Transport or through another department.

Mr. David Collenette: I think that this is a good question. We must help the communities by buying railway lines. As Mr. Calder said, perhaps we could give the Federal Development Bank the order to grant loans for the purchase of local railways. If you speak to your colleagues and support such a program, you will have my backing.

I answered the question in the context of the infrastructure program. I must point out that we need a number of programs such as the one that might apply to local railways. Mr. Morrison said that road transportation policies throughout the country were part of the problem when it comes to transportation. And you have just raised another problem. We have to find some way of encouraging the funding for the purchase of local railways and devise some plan that would allow us to truly compete with the Americans and with other modes of transportation.

Mr. Claude Drouin: You say, Mr. Collenette, that it would be preferable to ask the Federal Development Bank or Industry Canada rather than having an annual envelope of $75 or $80 million from the Department of Transport. It might be more difficult to use the infrastructures program. If it were part of the infrastructure program, some regions would have some very difficult choices to make: choose a short line railroad or a highway. There would not be any more money for the region. They would be programs like our first infrastructure program in Quebec; there would be a certain amount per capita and the region would be entitled to that amount. In that case, I think you would prefer to use the Federal Development Bank or Industry Canada.

Mr. David Collenette: The Department of Transport has a mandate to help communities that want to buy local railways, but in the case of a private corporation, it is the responsibility of Industry Canada and the Federal Development Bank.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Thank you.

The Chairman: Madame Desjarlais.

[English]

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): First of all, I must apologize for being late, but actually it sort of ties in. I was at the Canada-Russia parliamentary get-together, and some of the members from Russia were actually commenting on the Arctic Bridge and the agreement to work in conjunction with the Port of Churchill for use of that as a transport area.

It was really interesting that the very port that they talked about was viewed with some scorn by Justice Estey, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't see him as being quite as impeccable as everybody else does. Only when he was taken to task did he retract some remarks he made about the Port of Churchill. I'm pleased to see that you're not accepting his report verbatim and are suggesting that it be used as a basis for discussion, for finalizing, rather than being totally accepted.

• 1655

In regard to the short lines, I'm going to follow along with some of the comments made. A number of communities have indicated that the rail lines make it impossible for them to afford to purchase short-line rails, that the cost is just so inflated that they can't do it. There is a question out there as to the amounts that they charge based on the upgrades to the track, which are paid for by taxpayers' dollars; there is the question that the rail line should not be able to charge for the 100-pound track because the upgrade from 60 pounds to 100 pounds was paid for by taxpayers' dollars. Is there any comment on how this is perceived at Transport Canada?

Mr. David Collenette: The railways would argue that the shareholders paid the government x billions of dollars for the assets, which really compensated for the public investment.

I suppose when you look at the share price of CN being floated at $29 and sitting up there at $70 or $80, you might say, well, maybe we didn't get enough. At the time, who knew? Who knew how the market was going to go in the last three years? It has gone up in an exorbitant fashion. You really can't use that argument. You really can't say, well, the taxpayers paid for this.

It's the same with NAV CANADA and the airports too. We have rent formulas at the airports. We enter into a deal and we assume that those public investments will be recaptured through the rents—and in the case of the CN sale, through the sale price of CN.

Where you make a good point is the question of prices that are charged. It's supposed to be the net salvage value of the rails and the land, but communities have a right to go to the CTA and appeal and get a judgment as to what's fair and what's not fair. The railways kind of bend.

If you have a particular problem, let me know, and we'll see if we can intercede for you. We did in Barrie, Ontario, where CN held off ripping up the rails and finally came to an arrangement with the City of Barrie. It is possible to make these kinds of arrangements. In some cases, the lines are just not viable, especially in the west. There are some in Ontario and Quebec as well; nobody wants them and nobody is really going to be able to make a business case out of keeping them up, so they have to be abandoned.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Certainly the other part of this is that the portion of the line that's profitable isn't included. They're not allowed to take that. It's sort of pick and choose for the rail companies. Maybe that's good business, but for the survival of communities it's not what's best, ultimately, for the provinces or for the country. This was mentioned by a number of different communities at the Hudson Bay Route Association meeting, which takes in people from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I believe they are sort of challenging through the CTA. It certainly was a concern that they had.

I also just want to make a comment in regard to the Wheat Board. They made an excellent presentation at that meeting, and it was obvious that people who had been involved for a number of years did not understand exactly how things worked out. My thoughts were that there would be more support of the Wheat Board's proposal after that meeting than there would have been before.

Mr. David Collenette: But what the Wheat Board didn't tell that group, probably, is that if you went to an Estey-based contracting system, the Wheat Board would oversee the contract, as I understand it, and they could stipulate that there would be certain movements from certain ports. The notion that Estey is incompatible with the economic viability of Churchill is just not on. Frankly, there's a lot of misinformation going on out there, because some people don't understand and some people who do understand don't like the notion that their particular way of doing business is going to be changed or that the fiefdom is going to be disbanded.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Actually, they weren't totally negative to Estey's report either. It was just very informative, and it was good to see that people were open after all those years.

The Chairman: I'm taking names for a second round. Could I have an indication from members as to whether there are any amendments or not? If there are none, I can plan the time to allow more questions. If there are, we can allow time today to deal with the amendments or we can have another meeting. If there are no amendments we have time today to complete. We have another half-hour. If there are no amendments, we'll proceed.

• 1700

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I pass.

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Before I ask my question, Mr. Minister, I wanted to pick up on your exchange with Ms. Desjarlais, just by way of a comment. Your response with respect to 100-pound rail is quite valid as it affects CN. CN was sold after the upgrades and I suppose the shareholders have an interest there. But CP got the same deal. They were a private company. They did get that 100-pound rail handed to them on a platter at no cost, and I think that she has a very good point when she says with respect to the taxpayers that, having bought that 100-pound rail, there should be some consideration of that in establishing the salvage value.

The question I want to ask is on a totally different subject.

Mr. David Collenette: If I can answer that, CP would probably argue, if Mr. Ritchie were here, that it was the compensation the railway should have required from the government for hauling grain at below-market rates for such a long period of time.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes, well, you—

Mr. David Collenette: I don't like to give the railways' rationale, but in fairness that's probably what he would say.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Lee Morrison: They've told me that already, David, but you know all the arguments that I have for that. Let's not get into it right now.

As for my question, Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board are both having really serious problems with recruiting and keeping inspectors. I know that the department itself is short by about 70 aviation safety inspectors and that they're losing a net of, I believe, four inspectors a month. I don't know when we'll run out of inspectors completely.

In the estimates, on page 25 of part 3, there is this bureaucratic reference I want to read to you. It's such wonderful bureaucratese: “commissioning an independent study to define and validate problems”.

Now, really, I hope that you, as the minister, or your deputy minister, or both of you, have some idea of what the problems are and what the solutions are. If there's going to be a study, couldn't it be directed toward recommending solutions instead of trying to “define and validate” a serious problem that we already know is there?

I want to know your opinion of what is wrong. What do you think the problem is and, as minister, what do you propose to do about it?

Mr. David Collenette: Perhaps first I should ask Mrs. Bloodworth to explain the bureaucratese. She's responsible for the bureaucracy.

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: First of all, Mr. Morrison, that's a reference to two studies that have actually been done already. We may do others, because they've proved—in one case, certainly—to be successful.

We did look specifically at our technical inspectors and asked Price Waterhouse to do a study that would quantify the particular problems we had on the salary bases. The collective agreement that has just been signed recently regarding those employees has allowed for what's called “terminable allowances”. It's a terrible term—it sounds fatal—but it's similar to what we've used for our computer people in government. It allows for certain payments to people after they have been with us a certain time, in order to enable us to retain them. In fact, we've had some success with that. We're not completely there yet, but it's been helpful.

We've done another study to support the collective bargaining with the pilots. That's not complete yet.

Treasury Board is, as you probably know, the employer and the negotiator. This provided an objective basis for them to support the bargaining process with, and we're quite pleased with the result on the TI case. Therefore, we're going to look seriously at doing it in some of the other selected areas where we also have problems. They are quite geographically specific and specific to certain specialties, and that's where we have to identify exactly what we have to do. We are quite pleased with the TI—the technical inspectors'—ones, but we still have challenges with aircraft engineers and with our pilots.

• 1705

Mr. Lee Morrison: Is any progress actually being made? That figure that I gave—a net loss of four aviation safety inspectors per month—is probably from a couple of months ago. Is any progress being made or is the trend still downwards?

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: I wouldn't say that the trend is downwards. We're holding our own, but we're not doing as well as we would like to do. It's early to tell with what I've just talked about—the allowances—because the agreement was just signed. I have only anecdotal evidence of inspectors. I've heard that some have said they've decided to stay instead of leave because of that. We'll only really know quantitatively after we've had six months' or a year's experience with this allowance program. I'm personally quite optimistic. It's not the total answer, but it will be a big help to us in the specialties where we were very much underpaying.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Should I start going by VIA to preserve my life?

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: No.

Mr. David Collenette: Perhaps I can just say one thing to Mr. Morrison. It was fashionable in the late eighties and early nineties to assume that government employees were overpaid, that somehow they didn't pull their weight. We went through program review and the restraint and we froze wages for six years. We're paying the price for that now.

Not to be unfair, I would say to you that your party was at the forefront of advocating government cuts and eliminating bureaucracy and all the rest of it. I hope that the kind of question you ask shows that you and others are sensitive to the fact that you're not going to be able to keep people unless you pay them properly.

I remember that in the defence department we had a hell of a problem keeping pilots. Some of the wealthiest people with private planes in Canada—companies—had former military pilots, for the same reason: you just can't pay to keep them. In fact, I think Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, among others, probably got a hidden subsidy with all the military pilots that they took over the last few years.

The bottom line is that you have to pay people what they're worth. I hope your question gives us an opportunity to say to the president of the Treasury Board and to the government, look, if we have money available we have to find ways to give inspectors, as Mrs. Bloodworth said, more money or pay some bonuses to keep them on the job. Otherwise, the system will break down.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Take some money from Copps' budget and put it into yours.

Mr. David Collenette: Is that the RCMP budget, the cops' budget? Is that the Reform position? Take it from the cops?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Minister, since you were here last time, I've finally figured out why railways just don't elude me... whether I'm here, whether I'm at home or whatever. I finally remembered. I was born in a railway town on the wrong side of the tracks, I was told, so I just can't seem to escape this whole thing of railways.

I need some help here, because I believe this is very serious. You mentioned, Mr. Minister, that some short lines are coming on but that another 1,500 kilometres of railway is to be abandoned.

Mr. David Collenette: They have been abandoned: 1,500 kilometres have been abandoned and 7,400 kilometres have been short-lined.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Okay. I have some problems with this. I know you can say that it's no longer our property, but let me put in perspective what's going on. I'm talking about seven different RMs, three different towns, and two villages, where the railway has been long gone. The bulldozers have come in and pushed out the culverts. It's grown up to weeds. Then, the CPR, in my constituency alone, gave away four different pieces.

None of the RMs, none of the towns, and none of the farmers—nobody—has been notified yet, except through me notifying them that this was given away to a “trail organization”. To date, Mr. Minister, these people haven't been notified. I get calls to say to send the taxes to the CPR; where else are you going to send them?

The problem is, Mr. Minister, that without huge sums, which the RMs can't afford, not one mile of any of these facilities can be turned to what they were intended for.

• 1710

My dilemma today is this: all of these governing bodies are on my back asking what to do and I can't get any answers, although I suppose you might say, well, the CPR has the right to give this land away and get some $13 million or more in tax credits. But I have little jogs of 24 pieces aligned here, 30 pieces aligned there, which connect nowhere, and a lot of angry people, with no answers from anybody. I know that they may have the right to give it away, but this is a real dilemma. It's not just happening in my constituency; it's happening in my colleague's constituency as well. How do I handle this, Mr. Minister?

Mr. David Collenette: You've put your finger on an interesting point. We're going to have to get back to you in writing.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Would you?

Mr. David Collenette: We don't have jurisdiction over land that's no longer the railway's, that's been abandoned under the procedures of the 1996 act. Maybe what you're saying indirectly, by inference, is that you're advocating that the government re-open the 1996 act and get back into the regulation business. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Roy Bailey: No, not necessarily. What I'm saying is that we have a major problem here. With respect to some of the rail that will be abandoned this fall, rail that is no longer functioning, I find now that some of the RMs, as a retaliatory measure, are coming up with zoning bylaws and so on to prevent the removal of the steel and so on and so forth.

What I'm saying, Mr. Minister, is that although I'll be the first one to admit that CP can do what they like with their land, I want you to understand that we have a fight on our hands, because this land is of no value whatsoever, except that in some cases it could help, particularly if it goes through grazing land. Now, Mr. Minister, if somebody is going to come in and own six miles of grazing land through a rancher's pasture, then I'm telling the RMs yes, they can demand that they have a fence to PFRA standard, they can demand a fireguard, and they can also control, by zoning bylaws, who is going to use that land, even though the CPR has given it to somebody. There's a big fight coming on the prairies with these giveaways.

Mr. David Collenette: You raise a very important issue and we'll get back to you on it.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I'll keep you informed.

An hon. member: On a daily basis.

Mr. David Collenette: I haven't had any questions lately; it'd be nice to have a question or two.

The Chairman: Yes. This was a five-minute question with no time for an answer, but it's an important point.

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three questions and one comment. I will start with the questions. You are going to go beyond the allotted time because you will be speaking. So I will try doing it that way.

On May 3rd, you will be holding a seminar on local railways. Will both sides of the issue be presented during that seminar? In your text, you say that you will deal with the progress that has been made in Canada, but it would be good if the program, if it hasn't yet been finalized, would represent both aspects. Mr. Drouin spoke about central Quebec earlier. This illustrates the problem with assuming the lines and funding them. I am expecting you to present both sides of the story, including the somewhat negative aspects, in order to avoid having a biased opinion put forward.

Secondly, Mr. Minister, in your brief, when you spoke about the railways, you did not speak about the high speed trains. You congratulated us on our report on the future of passenger rail transportation. You accepted 98% of our recommendations, but the one dealing with high speed trains (TGV) is still pending. When will we have an answer on the federal government's commitment to high speed trains?

My third question deals with the year 2000. Mr. Minister, I know that things are being done here, in Canada, with respect to transportation systems and Y2K. You are taking part in international forums. Last year, you attended a conference of European transportation ministers.

• 1715

What do you intend to do? Some airlines' operations may be affected if they travel to countries that are not... Here, in Canada, things may work, but this may not necessarily be the case in the air over Indonesia or Zimbabwe. We have no assurance that the systems in these countries are Y2K compliant. The operations of airlines such as Air Canada and Canadian as well as charter companies in Canada could be affected. Do you intend to raise this question in international forums?

This is my final comment. You closed your presentation by saying:

Finally, my senior officials are looking forward to meeting with you to help you launch your review of the competitiveness of Canada's air transportation system [...]

We in the opposition are also looking forward to the committee meeting. We were most unhappy when the Liberal majority passed a motion stating that the committee would not meet until a bill had been introduced in the House. We wanted to work and we are happy to meet.

Mr. David Collenette: Mr. Guimond, you are talking about the policies of this committee, and I am not a member of the committee. It's up to the committee members to discuss this issue. It's in the past.

As for the question on the year 2000, it is true that some people are concerned about the airline system in the country, but there are no problems in North America and in Europe. I don't think that there are any problems. I have confidence in the airline system. As you know, Canada and the United Kingdom monitor the airspace over the North Atlantic and we have 700 flights per day in this area. The Americans monitor the airspace over the Northern Pacific. That means that the system will be safe in both North America and Western Europe. I have confidence in countries such as Japan. I do not know to what extent the system will be safe in countries such as Indonesia and China. International consultations are underway to determine whether or not any particular country presents a risk.

As for the high speed trains, I have talked to may colleagues in the Department. In all honesty, it is going to be difficult recommending that we subsidize the high speed train companies or the Lynx project at a time when were trying to attract funding from the private sector to improve VIA Rail. Furthermore, given the prevailing climate at Canadian Airlines and Air Canada, it would be difficult to subsidize a company that would be competing with the airlines. However, we have not made a decision yet. I'm hoping to have an opportunity to talk to Mr. Chevrette over the next few days, or in a week or two, about the Government of Quebec's position. I have spoken with my Ontario counterpart and I think that he shares my concerns. However, the door is still open.

Mr. Ranger will answer your question about the May 3 conference.

Mr. Louis Ranger (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Transport): This conference is a departmental initiative and we're quite proud of it. We know that 7,100 kilometres of railway lines have been picked up by the shortline railways. No doubt these railway lines would have been abandoned today or embroiled in a complicated abandonment procedure. However, that does not mean that everything is perfect. We're going to invite people who have gone through this experience to share it with others. Also, we want to get the point of view of the shippers. Is everything running well? Could there be any improvement? Everybody who wants to have their opinion heard on this issue will be able to do so. I can tell you that a lot of people have volunteered to speak and talk about their experience.

• 1720

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I'd like to pick up on your remarks about the VIA-CN task force on corridor access. I know there was a concern expressed by this committee about the access of VIA to CN and CP track.

By the way, will this report and the report coming out of this public-private partnership exercise be be available to the committee? I'd like to request that the committee members get access to those reports.

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, would you like to answer that now?

Mr. David Collenette: First of all, we have to be careful here. These are confidential documents, with private companies, on market solicitations, so there are confidentiality agreements involved. I'm not sure how this applies to access to information, but in fairness to these companies, they are giving us data from their own operations, so I'm not sure we can make that public.

But certainly any analysis that we do and any conclusions that we draw will obviously form the basis of a cabinet confidence and, at a certain point in time, we have to explain our reasoning to you as to why we would take a particular course of action. Therefore, some of the reasoning would have to follow from this analysis.

I'd have to check and have the DM check, because we can't go out and enter into confidentiality agreements with private companies and then have them plastered across the front page of The Globe and Mail.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Are you referring to the VIA-CN task force or the public-private partnership report or...

Mr. David Collenette: I thought you were talking about the VIA—

Mr. Roy Cullen: The VIA-CN... but I also asked about the other report coming out on this public-private partnership on the national highway system.

Mr. David Collenette: Oh. I answered a question that you didn't ask.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Roy Cullen: No. I asked both, actually. You've answered the question on the VIA-CN task force report. Will the other report on public-private partnerships be a public document?

Mr. David Collenette: The one on the P-3? Yes, we're going to release that publicly.

Mr. Roy Cullen: You're going to release that.

Mr. David Collenette: That's between governments.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I read just bits in the paper about the VIA-CN task force report. Is VIA happy with the result? Are you happy with the result? Does it create a lot of additional access or frequency? In your remarks, you mentioned something about a future framework. Maybe you could elaborate on that.

Mr. David Collenette: First of all, when I talked about the confidentiality, that applies to that particular issue, as it does to the other studies we're having with the private sector—solicitation of interest for VIA.

With respect to the task force report, I don't have all the details here, but I know that first of all, part of it has gone into action; there is one new train, Ottawa to Montreal. There will also be another express train, Toronto to Montreal, with provision for two more in the next little while, although some capital improvements would have to be made on the track.

What has emerged from these discussions is that we now have a way to proceed with the railways in order to improve access to the tracks, which we hopefully will incorporate into any policy that comes forward with with respect to private sector involvement in the reorganization of VIA Rail.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Do you think that CN really pushed the envelope as hard as they could? Are you happy with this?

Mr. David Collenette: I think we got them to move and I'm grateful for that. We're certainly a lot better off now than we were a year ago. I'm still not satisfied that further movement is not required. The railways would rather operate in a collegial way and develop a framework rather than force the government to somehow become more involved, which is what the committee recommended. Basically you said, “Look, if they won't play ball, you have to use your statutory authority.” I think CN understands that. We haven't gone down that road. We've tried to work in a collegial fashion.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a supplementary to one question I asked earlier.

• 1725

Mr. Jackson, I believe it was you who mentioned that the department is working on developing a code for high-speed travel. Could you elaborate a little on who's doing this, who's putting it together, what kind of consultation process is taking place, and when it will be ready for implementation?

Mr. Ron Jackson: The high-speed code is for high-speed watercraft. It's limited to that. It's being developed in the marine safety area. It's being consulted through something called the Canadian Marine Advisory Council, which is a forum whereby all the interests in the marine industry come together twice a year to discuss regulatory changes. In fact, the next session is in the first week of May. I believe it's being held on May 5 and 6 here in Ottawa. If I'm not mistaken, the high-speed code will be an item of discussion. I'm not sure exactly where it stands, but I can get back to you with the status of the code.

Mr. Mark Muise: If you would, please?

Mr. Ron Jackson: Yes.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

My second and last question is to the minister.

Mr. Minister, I have just a quick question on highways in Nova Scotia, but I won't touch tolls. That's Casey's bag and I don't profess to be able to do anything with that.

There's a stretch of highway between Halifax and the Annapolis Valley that is a 101 series highway on which there have been some 30-odd fatalities and some hundreds of injuries in the last little while. Local politicians, emergency workers, and local residents have made this section of highway a real concern and have been calling on the provincial and federal governments to twin this highway from Halifax to the Annapolis Valley. There's also another section of uncompleted highway between Digby and Weymouth that is really very seriously treacherous for the people who are using it. Can you tell us if these two projects have been discussed as provincial and federal priorities?

Mr. David Collenette: I don't know the roads you're talking about. I assume that they may form part of the national highway system. If they do, they would be eligible for any funding that would come about as a result of a federal-provincial program, but the determination to move on one stretch of highway rather than another is up to the province. It's not up to us. If the province says that this is a dangerous highway and they have to twin it, if it's part of the national system and if the money's available, that's their priority and that's what gets built.

Mr. Mark Muise: What I was asking, though, was whether there has there been any discussion between you and your provincial counterpart on this issue at all.

Mr. David Collenette: I've talked to Mr. Huskilson a number of times and I don't remember that particular issue coming up. It may have. Again, it's not that I'm not interested. I'm interested in a generic sense about unsafe highways or inefficient highways. The province is the one that's really up on the intricacies of a particular highway and the problems with accidents and all the rest of it.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

This concludes our consultation on the main estimates, 1999-2000, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35, under Transport, vote 15 under Privy Council.

Again, I want to thank you very much, Mr. Minister. You've always been very co-operative with the committee and we know that you will continue to be. We really appreciate that. This was a very informative session.

Mr. David Collenette: Thank you.

The Chairman: To your colleagues and to my colleagues, we had planned to ask the department to be here again tomorrow on our study. It was unfair of us to ask them to be here today and then again tomorrow for two major presentations that they need separation for. Therefore, with your permission, it will be held next Tuesday. For next Wednesday, we plan to invite—and we have discussed this with them—the Air Transport Association, and on the Tuesday and Wednesday after that, it will be Air Canada and Canadian or Canadian and Air Canada.

There seems to be some legislation lining up. If it comes up, I will ask you to agree to have special meetings for the legislation.

Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, as I suggested to you at the Liaison Committee, you must ensure that there is some money available so that the committee can travel to the regions of Canada in order to get feedback from people using the airline service.

The Chairman: The committee hasn't yet made a decision as to whether or not it will be travelling. We prepared a budget and submitted the request. The basic budget was submitted and we have to go back to the committee.

Mr. Michel Guimond: The airline companies are going to be appearing before us here. When are we going to formally adopt the plan prepared by Mr. Christopher? We should also start looking at the regions that we may be visiting in May and June. When are we going to do that?

• 1730

The Chairman: We decided to hear the Department to get some clarification on certain items. Up until now, you have been the only one who has talked about travelling. No one else has talked about travelling. When the committee decides that it wants to travel, I will be prepared to receive recommendations. Personally, I think that it's wise to first of all hear from the Department and then make our plans based on the report.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You have already invited the airline companies to appear.

The Chairman: You have only to say no and it's cancelled. There's no problem.

Mr. Michel Guimond: No. One thing does not exclude the other. After hearing the airline companies, what are we going to do?

The Chairman: You're going to decide whether or not you're travelling.

Mr. Michel Guimond: It's not just about travelling. After hearing the airline companies, when are we going to give our input and decide what approach to take with respect to Mr. Christopher's plan? When are we going to do that?

The Chairman: I would be prepared to discuss that issue after the Department's presentation on Tuesday. If you would like, we could talk about this earlier. Tell me what you would like and I'll make it happen.

[English]

We were to meet today until 5.30. It's past that time. I will continue it, but you all know that the session we just had took two hours and could have been done in an hour and a half. We would have had a half-hour for what we're doing now.

[Translation]

Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Chairman, there has been a request for money. I said no.

The Chairman: We asked for money to run the committee. That does not include money for trips.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes.

[English]

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: For travel money, we have to go to the House.

The Chairman: We have to go to the House, and we don't have a plan.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: We've set the budget?

A voice: Operational budget—

The Chairman: We did, and they're meeting tomorrow.

[Translation]

The meeting is adjourned.