:
Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 49 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
The orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), are the main estimates for 2007-08: votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75, under Transport, referred to the committee on Tuesday, February 27, 2007.
Joining us today is the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and joining him from the department are Mr. Louis Ranger, Guy McKenzie, David Cluff, and André Morency. Welcome.
I know the minister has an opening statement to make, and then we'll proceed to questions from the committee.
Please, Mr. Minister.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to appear before you once again. Today my officials and I are here to discuss the 2007-08 main estimates for the Transport, Infrastructure and Communities portfolio.
In November I described the responsibilities of this portfolio, which brings together Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada, along with 16 crown corporations, and some of the challenges we face. In this portfolio we continue to tackle some of the most important issues facing Canada today, including the productivity of our economy, transportation safety and security, environmental sustainability, and the quality of life in our cities and communities as supported by public infrastructure.
I know that as members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities you share many of these concerns. I would like to take this opportunity at the outset to thank you for your active involvement in the legislative agenda and a number of important policy questions that have an impact on the portfolio.
[Translation]
Since this government took office a year ago, we have made serious investments in all of these areas. I would like to take the opportunity to thank this committee for its support as we continue to move forward on behalf of Canadians.
[English]
For example, in the March 19 budget, we announced a new infrastructure plan worth $33 billion, which will provide long-term predictable funding for provinces, territories, and municipalities. This is the largest investment ever allocated to Canada's public infrastructure by a federal government. It is being provided over a seven-year timeframe that supports long-term planning by all levels of government. In making this commitment, we are providing over $17 billion in base funding to municipal governments for their infrastructure needs through the GST rebate, including $8 billion in new money to extend the gas tax transfers to 2014; $2.3 billion to provide equal per jurisdiction funding for provinces and territories of $25 million per year through 2014; $8.8 billion for the new Building Canada Fund to support large- and small-scale projects, such as waste water treatment plants, highways, public transit, and cultural and recreational facilities; $1.3 billion for a new national fund for public-private partnerships, plus $25 million for a new federal office for P3s; and substantial support for international trade, including $2.1 billion for a new fund for gateways and border crossings, and additional funding for the Asia-Pacific gateway.
[Translation]
In addition, budget 2007 commits $4 billion to complete our commitments under previous programs, bringing the total infrastructure funding to an unprecedented $37 billion over the next seven years.
In fact, just last week I mentioned in the House that this government is providing an additional $200 million to the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund. This will help smaller Canadian communities meet their pressing infrastructure needs. Together with matching funds from provinces, territories and municipalities, this means some $600 million in infrastructure investments.
The plan reflects the results of extensive consultations we held last year with provinces, territories, the municipal sector and industry. As you are aware, officials from the portfolio visited every province and territory last summer. Subsequently, I released a report on what we heard during these consultations and it is posted on the Transport Canada website.
[English]
The government also recognizes the need for strategic investments to ensure our continued economic growth and prosperity. That's why Budget 2007 has announced new investments in gateways and border crossings and improved transportation integration.
Soon I will be going to cabinet to set the policy and program framework for the new funds, including the types of projects to be funded. Of course, Treasury Board must also approve how these programs will be managed. We will continue to discuss this with our partners as we proceed with program approvals, following which the Government of Canada will negotiate agreements with the provinces and territories for the funds and work with them to identify key infrastructure priorities.
This is the work we are currently doing, and as you can see, there is much to be done. That is why today I am asking you to recommend that Parliament approve the spending in main estimates tabled by the on February 22.
The 2007-08 main estimates for the portfolio, which total $3.9 billion, include $859 million for Transport Canada and $2.1 billion for the Office of Infrastructure Canada. The remainder of the funding is allocated to various crown corporations.
[Translation]
Because we don't have time to go into all the numbers, I would instead like to briefly discuss the two major components of this portfolio—Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada.
[English]
For Transport Canada, the 2007-08 main estimates--$859 million--are showing a net decrease of $558.2 million from the 2006-07 main estimates. The primary reason for this decrease is that in this fiscal year's presentation of the main estimates, the Transport-related crown corporations are now displayed separately from the transport portfolio. The result is a decrease to the department's spending estimates of $771.8 million. This decrease was offset by $213 million in funding for new initiatives, such as passenger rail, urban transit, the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative, and program measures in support of this government's clean air agenda. Finally, of $363.2 million in revenue, $298 million relates to airport lease revenue based on the amended ground lease formula and includes a forecast of repayment of deferred rent.
[Translation]
As for Infrastructure Canada, the total funding being sought is $2 billion, up from $1.8 billion in 2006-2007. The increase is due to the roll-out of previously announced programs and an increase to the amount provided under the Gas Tax program.
These main estimates include a provision for $29 million in funding for the operations of Infrastructure Canada to ensure effective management of infrastructure programs and gas tax funds, as well as research, policy development and other key programs.
[English]
As minister, I have a number of other portfolio responsibilities that do not require any appropriations from Parliament and are therefore not displayed in the estimates. They include the ship-source oil pollution fund, the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, the Pacific Pilotage Authority, the Atlantic Pilotage Authority, the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, the Blue Water Bridge Authority, Ridley Terminals Incorporated, the Royal Canadian Mint and subsidiary, and Canada Lands Company.
Honourable members, my limited time today doesn't allow me to go into detail regarding all the items on the list. However, I believe the numbers I have been able to present today demonstrate the importance this government places on the priorities we have identified under the portfolio.
I would welcome the committee members' questions on our overall approach, Mr. Chair, or any of the specific measures contained in these estimates.
Thank you. Merci.
:
Thank you, Mr. Minister and your colleagues from the department.
Of course, we would welcome the opportunity to ask you about all of those crown corporations for which you are responsible, and perhaps you will make yourself available as the reporting period for all of those crown corporations comes due before Parliament. We'd be delighted to take a look at all of the innovative components, if there are any that you ascribe to those organizations, and indeed to your own department, ones that don't begin with the introduction of, “This is a program begun in 2000”, “This is a program begun in 2002”, etc. But I know your heart must be in the right place, so we look forward to having that discussion with you.
I want to begin by referring to something, Mr. Chairman, that you handed out, and that is the statistical information on Transport Canada safety inspectors for civil aviation. This is something that came up when you were last here, Minister, and about which some of your officials, who I think are in the audience--yes, there we go, Monsieur Grégoire--promised to have information for us ASAP.
Well, two and a half weeks later, we're looking at allocated inspector positions going from 1992-93 to 2006-07. I don't see here the other figures that Monsieur Grégoire referred to us. There was a number like 1,400 and about 800-and-change remaining as allocated inspectors, even though he knew the numbers then.
I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, whether these figures for allocated inspector positions reflect the changes in the numbers of flights that have taken place in the country under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada, or indeed the numbers of flight miles, and whether these numbers are absolute numbers or whether they actually reflect a diminution relative to those expanding flights and flight miles.
Mr. Minister, about a week ago, during Rail Safety Week, you made an announcement of some $10.4 million for railway crossing safety. That wasn't the issue that was underlying all the derailments we've highlighted for you and that others have highlighted for you. In fact, there's a derailment, especially with CN, once every three and a half days. None of that $10.4 million went to address those issues. Moreover, there are about 103 different expenditures for that $10.4 million.
You will appreciate this question, I'm sure, that all of them except two went to Conservative ridings outside Quebec, and the ones in Quebec were all those that the newspapers and pundits and political analysts say are the target of the Government of Canada.
When did we start making an association between safety on railways and the political ambition of a government?
Welcome, Minister.
I thought I might change things to Canada Post for a minute, if I may. In the annual report, in the segment on the Canada Post group of companies, when you look at what their revenues were and their income from operations, they made less than the Purolator segment for the first time. I know this has been a focus.
It suggests that Canada Post cannot endure another threat to other revenues, if you see that trend happening, which is evident in the report. As people have discussed, if you're looking at reducing the exclusive privilege to satisfy the concerns of others like the international mail group, we have to take a look at things.
I think in December you told Parliament that you would review the problems of the international mailers and examine what legislative options you had. Just to kick things off on that, what kind of review on the international mail problem have you done? What kinds of legislative options are you looking at?
:
There were a certain number of deficiencies identified by the Office of the Auditor General. The first one touches on the roles and responsibilities and the need for the organization to focus much more on its security screening applications and operations.
Second, the auditor needed better management tool systems to be put in place. What we did, of course, as any government would do, is, one, recognize the seriousness of this issue, and, second, have a fulsome discussion with the chair, which I did at the time. The chair recognized the importance of making sure that this issue be tidied up, to use that expression, and felt it was maybe time to pass the task to somebody else.
I asked Margaret Purdy, who is a person with a great deal of experience in this sector particularly, to take on the task as interim chair. I appointed her on January 26 of this year and asked her to make sure that the Auditor General's special examination of CATSA be put into place. She has developed an action plan--if I'm not mistaken, deputy--and she will be making sure that those specific recommendations are put in place.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Minister. Good afternoon, gentlemen.
I would like to put a brief question regarding the Canadian Transportation Agency. We made a long and careful study of Bill that will give extra powers to the Transportation Agency, powers that were asked for by many people. The extra powers have to do with noise in marshalling yards and various other nuisances, and the railway tracks that could be handed over to suburban transit authorities. I do not think that the bill has received royal assent yet, but it should come soon.
Therefore, I am expecting that the extra powers given to the Transportation Agency will be accompanied by extra funds so that it can act as promptly as possible once the legislation has been adopted.
Now, how do we explain this slight decrease in the budget of the Transportation Agency? Will there be more work for the same number of persons?
Thank you to the minister for his appearance here today.
I'm relatively new to the transport committee. I came over just before Christmas. One thing that's become really clear to me is that the responsibilities in Transport Canada are massive. They're complex. But the portfolio also deals with some very critical priorities, critical responsibilities, from coast to coast.
To start, this Conservative government is addressing green initiatives in the Great Lakes Basin. We can't overlook that this is important in my hometown of Amherstburg, for example. The last primary only treatment facility on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes is now being replaced with a new $30 million facility there because of COMRIF.
We're addressing long-term structural needs with respect to international trade, and I don't think this can be downplayed. This is very significant. Not only our window on Asia, with respect to the Pacific gateway initiative, but our window on the United States, which for me is one of the most critical.... It is our reality in the Windsor region. We have the busiest border crossing, not just in North America but in the world: $1 million per minute in two-way trade with the United States at the Ambassador Bridge, at that corridor only. So it's critical to Canada's economy, all the way to Quebec. We often joke that—you may well know, Minister—there are 17 stoplights between Montreal and Mexico and they're all on an 11-kilometre stretch from the end of the 401 to the border along here on Church Road in Windsor. The infrastructure is over 75 years old there.
Budget 2007 made a commitment. It did a few things. One, it outlined the federal government's responsibilities with respect to funding the projects there, the new crossing, and it further announced $400 million as a downpayment.
First, to either you or your officials—whoever is fine—can you verify that that is included in the estimates, that $400 million downpayment with respect to the Windsor–Detroit crossing?
![-](/documentviewer/assets/images/publications/arrow2_up.gif)
I have one last question. Of course, you might guess what this might be, but in the 2007 federal budget, it did not address one of the most important financial issues in my riding of Saint John. It's a local issue. It's an issue that has continued under a number of different governments. The bridge in Saint John is the only federal structure in Canada that has a toll. Now, I understand it's put on by a federal-provincial-municipal authority. The original cost, Minister, was around $18 million for this bridge. Since the bridge opened in 1968, the citizens have paid approximately $23 million for the bridge, yet we still owe another $23 million. We accept the principle that some costs need to be met for repairing the bridge, but I was wondering whether or not you would consider giving some reasons as to why you wouldn't consider forgiving the debt for the bridge and leaving the authority to be responsible. On either side of the bridge now, as you may know, is a provincial highway--since the original 1968....
Previous ministers have looked at this, and I was hoping that since you would like to look at doing something important for the Atlantic region, you'd consider forgiving the debt.
On that note, as you know, Minister, we've had an opportunity to study rail safety recently. We've heard from a lot of witnesses.
I know you're a minister who for the first time put a ministerial order against CN. As for a safety action plan, there were 76 enforcement actions over the last year, I think. This government, through the department, did an independent review of the Railway Safety Act in October, and indeed encouraged this committee, through me, to take another look at rail safety as much as we could. Indeed, I wanted to bring to your attention, Minister, that one particular witness, who had survived a double fatality in B.C., said your actions were long overdue; he in fact applauded your actions. I wanted to bring that to your attention.
My first question is actually in relation to the Quebec bridge. I know that my Quebec caucus, especially the Conservative members, have come to me over time on the Quebec bridge and have had a lot of questions on that. I was wondering if you could give us an update on what has taken place in relation to that CN property.
:
I'll let Mr. Volpe speak to that question. Clearly, in Alberta, he's going to have a...I'll grant him Alberta, but apart from that....
The total amount of money that's being spent.... I mentioned the gas tax funding before, in terms of the $8 billion being carried forward.
There's the GST rebate, which brings the total rebate for communities and municipalities to 100%, so that's $5.8 billion.
I'm on page 167 of the budget, colleagues.
Then $8.8 billion for the Building Canada Fund.
For gateways and border crossings there is $2.1 billion. That specifically, of course, is not necessarily on a jurisdictional basis.
The Building Canada Fund would have the P3 projects, which are $1.2 billion.
There's the equal per jurisdiction funding, which is the $25 million per jurisdiction for seven years, which totals up to $325 million per province and per territory, for a grand total of $2.275 billion.
There is the Asia-Pacific corridor initiative, which is roughly $1 billion, as well as the other projects, which are sunsetting infrastructure initiatives for about $4 billion.
So the total amount on table 5.3 is $37 billion.
:
I think there's a general tendency, clearly in North America but also in large parts of this world, to more open skies policies. What it does is it reduces all the obstacles and at the same time enables the consumer to have the best price possible to be able to fly. It gives the airports more traffic. It fundamentally is a winner, I would say, for the economy.
My discussions last week with the U.S. secretary of transport, Ms. Peters, as well as the Mexican secretary of transport, Mr. Téllez, were extremely interesting in that sense. We have committed to looking at opening, through our trilateral agreement...to opening all our skies in the next 10 years. Discussions will be ongoing on that.
As you know, we have an agreement with the United Kingdom. The European Union, as I mentioned to Mr. Zed, is interested. They've already sent out feelers in that regard.
So I think there is a tendency that way, and Canada is stepping up to the plate. We literally are part and parcel and an important actor in that regard.
Last week I also had the opportunity to go to Hamilton to welcome the first Globespan aircraft flight from the United Kingdom; it had one stop either in Ireland or in another destination and then to Canada. It is a competitive carrier. The prices are low. I believe that is going to stimulate clearly the Hamilton airport over the next coming years. That's important, because it will then become the hub for a very busy carrier, not only in North America...because Hamilton is now, for that carrier, the North American stop, its privileged and first stop.
So this clearly will stimulate economic activity in Hamilton.
Actually, I do appreciate the fact that the minister is staying for the duration of the meeting.
I want to go back to a couple of issues that have been raised, first of all, to one by , who has referred again to the allocated inspector positions that I referred to earlier on.
noted that over the course of the last 13-odd years the number of inspector positions had actually increased. I thank him for seeing that. However, the question I had asked was whether there was a reference--and I know I'm repeating myself, so Mr. Grégoire will probably provide us with this information later on--on whether these numbers of inspectors have kept pace with the increase in the number of flights and flight miles.
I'm being non-partisan here. It is important for us to address an issue that's been raised on many an occasion, and that is, if the safety management systems that you are proposing, Mr. Minister, are going to add some validity, they have to be measured against the inspectorate's abilities to get the job done for Canadians under Transport Canada's mandate.
If you would be so good as to tabulate those figures for us so that we have a good sense, I'd appreciate it.
You know, Mr. Minister, lest you think we were inventing things--as I said, I could read the list where all of these things exist. There are 55,000 crossings across Canada, according to your initiative. There are 103 projects, and all but four of them are in ridings where you have representation. I applaud members for making representation on behalf of their constituency, but I wanted to make the connection with rail safety and how that fit in with what we have been talking about all along. That is, about every three and a half days you have a primary track derailment, especially with CN. We've been trying to get at that, and we wondered why your department--it says here “leading department”, so the responsibility would be yours--wouldn't be acting on a report that had already been commissioned by your predecessor and that was available to the department and to the public.
I just want to clear this up, and I want to be fair, because in the past I've said that this draft report from the Lapierre inquiry was available. You, on national television, said you weren't permitted to make it public. Just a few moments ago you said it appears that CN has changed its mind.
I'm going to give you an opportunity to clarify it, but just let me put it in place for you. CN has said they never had any objection to having that report publicized. In fact, what they did was they dealt with your department on the draft so that the final report, which was then subject to audit to ensure that they complied with that report, was the one that we would be judging. All of the questions that we've been raising are subsequent to the publication of that audit that took place about a month ago. So our question, my question specifically, is why we don't use the legal mechanisms, the regulatory mechanisms that you have at your disposal, to ensure compliance by CN with a system that they participated in putting in place. After all, they tied your hands--by your definition, not by theirs--by saying “We want to have input, so until we have input, please don't judge us.” You complied, and then on their final paper they're not complying. So what's going on, Mr. Minister?
:
I think you're confusing a certain number of things, Mr. Volpe. First of all, my predecessor, Mr. Lapierre, did not have an action plan that was available. I just asked my deputy minister that question and that's not the case. So there wasn't something, the day that I came in and was sworn in, that I could come in with in front of this committee and say, “Here's the plan, gentleman, let's go forward.” That wasn't the case.
On the issue of the safety audit and the notices that we put forward, we did in effect do that. We went back and checked a certain number of issues in the summer of last year. We then indicated to the authorities of CN that we wanted them to abide by these enforcement measures that we were putting forward. There was some discussion. They refused. They didn't want to do it. We literally, and I'm being quite transparent here, said, “Well, if this is not the case, we're going to bring you to court on this issue.” They then indicated that negotiations and discussions were to take place. They took place, and then they slowly complied with it.
But this having been said, Mr. Volpe, at the end of the day, I did not have any intent or any idea on my part to cover this up. CN indeed had indicated to us that they didn't want this information to be made public, and we were obliged to follow what the law requires of us. Then, further and pursuant to that, they said, “Okay, fine, we'll make that information public.”
That's my version. That's the version my officials had, and that, as far as I'm concerned, is what the truth is here on this issue.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Earlier, Mr. Minister, you said that something that is too strong will not break, but we should not dodge the issue.
I have a specific question about inspectors. I have always maintained my position in their regard. I am very interested in check pilots, who have been trained and who can never visit an aircraft and who cannot verify whether the pilots are competent and capable of checking the aircraft. I am interested in them.
At the outset, I was given a list of the check pilot positions that had been filled. Mr. Grégoire, are the 873 positions on my list meant for 873 check pilots? If not, when will you give me the list of check pilots for the years 1992 to 2006 and 2007?
I am interested in check pilots because these people can never go on the ground to visit an aircraft and see whether it is in good condition. I am interested in them. Does my list represent 873 check pilots?
I want to move on to your comments on P3s and the P3 fund, on a desk in the federal office for P3s. You have mentioned here in your comments $1.3 billion for a new national fund for public-private partnerships, plus $25 million for a new federal office for P3s.
The first question is this. Why do we need to have these arrangements if in fact government can presumably go to market and get money for a better rate than, often, corporations can? A value-for-money argument....
Secondly, what happens when you get into a P3 and the company goes south on you? In other words, are taxpayers going to be left holding the bucket here for arrangements that are made? Presumably we're all hoping that an arrangement with a P3 goes well, but what happens if a company goes bankrupt or overextends itself? Presumably the taxpayer then has to foot the bill, because there's a contract to build, whatever, a bridge, etc.
My question, then, is, why do we need these? Everyone knows that when a government goes to build a bridge, you don't have people in your department go out in trucks and build a bridge. You contract that from the private sector. So it's not like we're talking about the private sector not being involved; it's how they're involved. I know many people are concerned about this P3 arrangement.
:
Specifically, on the last part, Mr. Dewar, in terms of eventual apprehension as to whether or not the private partner will not honour its obligations, the process in the ones I've been involved with, the process to select a private partner, is a long and extensive one. There is a chronology that's respected. In many, many issues where this has gone forward, that provision, or at least that contingency, is taken care of in the way you ramp up to it.
In the P3 office there is an amount that's dedicated to public-private partnerships. We feel, for instance, there are a lot of funds in Canada that invest abroad, and they would want to invest here in Canada under conditions that are similar to the ones they're already engaged in.
I'll give you an example. Not too long ago, the Ontario teachers' fund purchased 20%, if not 30%, of the Confederation Bridge. That is something they now possess, and that will give that fund a return for its money. That is an example of being able to take Canadian savings and capital and put them to the use of the Canadian economy.
The question of the office.... Clearly, because we are going to need additional staff, we're going to need personnel to run this office, and that's the reason why there's $20-some-odd million for the office, Mr. Dewar.