:
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting four.
The orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), are supplementary estimates (C) 2009-2010, votes 1c, 5c, 20c, and 35c under Transport, referred to the committee on Wednesday, March 3, 2010.
Because we are doing estimates, before I introduce our guests, I do have to just say that we are going to call vote 1c, which opens the debate that we're going to have today. By saying that I will now refer to the Honourable John Baird, who is the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Also joining us is the Honourable Rob Merrifield, who is the Minister of State for Transport. And joining us with the ministers we have, from the Department of Transport, Yaprak Baltacioglu, and also John Forster, from Infrastructure Canada. Welcome.
I know that the ministers have opening statements, so I will ask them to make them and we'll get on to questions. I just want to advise the committee that the ministers are here for one hour and the staff are staying beyond that. Because I think there are going to be lots of questions, I'm going to keep the timelines very tight.
Do you know how long your presentation is, Minister?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm very pleased to be joined by my deputy and associate deputy.
I should say at the outset, we have been tremendously well served—the Canadian people and the government—by the hard-working talent at the department, particularly with the economic action plan. They have worked incredibly hard and done an outstanding job.
I want at the outset to start on a non-partisan front, as I always do, Mr. Chair, and compliment the leader of the opposition for his shuffle of his shadow cabinet and the addition of Bonnie Crombie, not only as critic but also as a member of this committee. Welcome.
[Translation]
I have spoken to this committee many times over the past year on the Government of Canada's commitments to Canadians. Specifically, our Government remains committed to stimulating the economy, creating jobs, and supporting Canadian families through Canada's Economic Action Plan.
[English]
Since we announced the economic action plan in January 2009, the government has worked closely with provinces, territories, and municipalities to green-light projects and to get work under way. As announced in budget 2010, the Government of Canada has committed to almost 16,000 projects across the country, of which 12,000 have begun or in fact have been completed. Construction is under way in every region of the country. Project managers have told my department that work has begun or is completed on close to 3,250 projects worth over $12.9 billion. As we head into this construction season, these numbers are increasing each and every day.
Members, our funding matches the pace at which funding partners build their infrastructure projects. Provinces and municipalities manage these projects, and we will reimburse costs after claims are submitted. I should note that in many cases work has begun on projects, but the claims haven't been submitted yet. It shows that the municipalities and provinces in question are putting all their efforts into making things happen on the ground. We have been urging our partners to get these bills in as soon as possible. To meet the cashflow needs of the project proponents, we are carrying forward $1.4 billion from the past fiscal year to match the pace of construction of our partners and will reimburse them this fiscal year when we receive their claims.
One of the primary goals of the action plan was to create and protect jobs. Finance Canada indicates that the plan has contributed to the maintenance and creation of over 130,000 jobs since July 2009. It is estimated that about 45% of the jobs created or maintained by January 2010 have been in the manufacturing and construction industries.
Last Wednesday the Conference Board of Canada released its report indicating that if it were not for the boost in infrastructure spending Ontario's economy would have lost an additional 70,000 jobs in 2009, and in 2010, when spending peaks, another 40,000 jobs will be added to the payrolls in the province. That is a report commissioned by the Conference Board of Canada by Premier Dalton McGuinty.
[Translation]
Year one of the Economic Action Plan was two-fold: it introduced new infrastructure funding, and it accelerated existing funding. We introduced the $4 billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, which has resulted in almost 4,000 new projects across the country. Close to 300 of these have been completed. That's improvements to 300 roads, parks and trails, cultural facilities and more that had not been started this time last year.
[English]
A thousand more projects will be completed in the coming months. We transferred $699 million to the provinces and territories through the provincial-territorial base funding initiative. For every province that could match the accelerated funding, we have provided it. That's money for highways, for green energy, for public transit, water, waste water, and that has been made available much earlier than expected.
Overall, with the accelerated approval under Building Canada, we have committed nearly $9.6 billion to more than 6,000 projects since the launch of Canada's economic action plan. That means that since January 2009, Infrastructure Canada has committed funding to an average of 16 projects per day, every single day. I'm proud of our achievements in designing, launching, and implementing an infrastructure program faster than has ever been done before.
We couldn't have done it alone. We worked very closely with provinces and territories to make things happen, as well as municipalities in every corner of the country.
With respect to transport, nowhere has our government been more clear about our commitment to safety and security than with respect to air security. For countries like Canada, who take terrorism very seriously, the attack on December 25 was a stark reminder that we must remain vigilant. That's why in the weeks following our government took additional steps to strengthen aviation security. We announced new body screeners and strengthened explosive trace detection capabilities. We announced our intention to develop a passenger behaviour observation program and we introduced measures to meet new U.S. rules for U.S.-bound flights from Canada. And on February 25 we announced an additional $1.5 million over five years for CATSA.
I'll turn it over to my colleague, Rob Merrifield.
I would just like to add a little on a couple of issues. The first one is CATSA, which is a crown corporation that looks after airport security.
Our government's commitment to airport security is absolutely unequivocal. On December 25 we changed airport security, not only here in Canada, but around the world. The United States implemented very strict restrictions regarding baggage as well as security of passengers. Within the following few days, over 200 flights were cancelled as we tried to react to that incident.
There is no question that the full-body scanners have been very well accepted. We have 14 of them in operation today. The rest, the other 30, will be moved into operation in the next few weeks.
I was just in Mexico City as well as in Japan. The international community, not only in South American countries, but as well in Mexico, is very concerned about signing a unilateral agreement on standards of security. In Japan, with the Asia-Pacific, it's the same thing. I just got back on the weekend.
So the international community is very concerned about this and about making sure that when you get on a plane, it doesn't matter where in the world, you have a standard of security so that the passengers can feel very comfortable that all the security measures have been taken and that they are going to land safely.
Full-body scanners are being very well accepted by the users. I can report that.
I also want to tell you that we are doing something that is very much of concern, not only to Canadians but also to our international communities, on the cargo side of airport security. In this budget, we have added $37.9 million to be able to deal with air cargo screening. This is something we know a considerable amount about because of a terrorist attack we've had in our country, the Air India attack. It certainly will go a long way in addressing some of the concerns we have, not only here in Canada but internationally, as other countries are moving to the same concerns and are trying to address these issues. We will be having state-of-the-art equipment with the additional funds that are being put into airport security.
I'd like to talk a little bit about Marine Atlantic, which is also something we are very concerned about. We want to make sure that umbilical cord--as some people call it--to Newfoundland, that corridor that is so important to Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada, is dealt with in an appropriate way. We have significant problems. Two years ago, the on-time service was 10%. That's totally unacceptable.
Last summer we put on a new vessel, Atlantic Vision. We've been monitoring this vessel's performance over the last year. It is performing reasonably well. Our on-time service this last summer was around 50%. So we have improved considerably.
There is $175 million to renew the fleet and to deal with onshore deficiencies in Budget 2010. Together with the $416 million, that's almost $600 million that, as a government, we've put into Marine Atlantic in the last couple of years. This is no small amount of money. It is very important for them to be able to revitalize their fleet and be able to accomplish what needs to be done, which is to have a service that is respectable for that area of the country. There's another $28 million in the budget to support the other ferry systems in eastern Canada as well.
With that, I think I'll turn it back to my colleague for closing remarks.
:
Out of respect for Mr. Volpe, who I know has some questions, I'll be very brief.
I know this committee has done some excellent work with respect to vehicle safety, and particularly on the issue of Toyota's recall. I'm very happy to provide some more details and material to you. I'll leave it with you today. I understand your request is urgent and that you require the most accurate information possible.
The documents in question are the long-form expansion of the Toyota complaints received since the year 2000. This represents about 650 pages. There is a list of e-mails exchanged between Transport Canada and Toyota Canada concerning the recent series of recalls. This represents about 2,500 pages. Some of this material also needs to be reviewed by the Access to Information and Privacy Office regarding personal identifiers and third-party information.
The department has informed me that it will take approximately four days to remove the personal and third-party information from the material provided, after which time it could take at least 20 days to obtain consent from Toyota to release the information.
We are committed to being as transparent and as open with the committee as possible on these issues, and we'll make everything available that you request as quickly as physically can be done, because we appreciate the important work of the committee in this regard.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good day, Ministers.
Mr. Baird, I have a question for you that has been asked before.
Regarding the December 30, 2010 and March 31, 2011 project deadlines, would it not be possible to grant a short extension to Quebec municipalities?
As you know, problems arise when municipalities are in the midst of elections. In 2009, a general election was held in all municipalities. Many saw a change in administrations. The same thing occurs when a new government is elected to office. As you observed when you replaced the Liberals in office, it took you a certain amount of time to get used to the new rules and to put your new vision in place.
For that reason, I'm asking you if you might possibly agree to give Quebec municipalities, the urban as well as the rural ones, more time to complete their work and their projects.
:
I am mindful of the fact that the needs of the municipalities vary from region to region, or from province to province. In the case of our Economic Action Plan that was first introduced 13 or 14 months ago, it was very clear that the deadline for projects was the end of March, for two main reasons. This was fairly well-known before the elections in Quebec, perhaps 10 months before the elections were held.
Let me outline these two reasons. First, the goal is to stimulate the economy as quickly as possible. That is a priority. In the past, in the case of our government and the Building Canada plan, or of the previous government and its various programs, sometimes, three years passed before the first grants were available or before an agreement was negotiated with a provincial government. Many of these investments are associated with areas under provincial jurisdiction. We must work with the provinces, not only with Quebec, and we respect that. In the case of the Economic Action Plan, we felt that it was important to move forward and to stimulate the economy as quickly as possible. We do not want to see those who are out of work wait one, two or three years, as has been the case in the past.
The second reason is that we want to return to a balanced budget situation as soon as possible. A project in Niagara Falls was announced. There were funds in a budget that dated back nine years. Billions in infrastructure program funding dated back to 2003, to the previous government.
There have been some municipal changes in Nova Scotia and throughout government as well. They are prepared to spend all of their money. All of the municipalities that requested funding under the stimulus plan maintained at the time they applied that projects were shovel-ready and that they could complete the work by the end of March. I realize that everyone would like to have more time, but we need to stay on schedule with the program. I think that I have answered your question clearly.
:
When it comes to the CATSA employees, they're subcontracted out, and this is actually much more efficient. It's actually deemed to be somewhere between 20% and 25%.
When I talked to Tom Ridge in the United States, he suggested that our model is much better than theirs. Really, CATSA is a product that came out of the 9/11 attack. We had to react very quickly. If there's one thing our American counterparts are saying, it's that they wish they'd taken on the Canadian model.
We regulate it. We have CATSA, which our government employees are monitoring and watching. This is one of the recommendations of the Auditor General. We have changed that to make sure it is done as efficiently as possible.
Now, we're not satisfied yet, because what we did announce, the $1.5 billion of extra money into CATSA over a five-year period, is to make sure that we do a complete review of CATSA, making sure that we are doing it as efficiently as we possibly can. We're not satisfied yet that we are getting not only the best procedures but also the best value for money. Perhaps we'll even look at the structure of it.
We're launching that review now and we're very serious about it, but your concerns are understood. We understand that Canadians are prepared to pay but they want an efficient system.
Thanks to you, Minister, for coming in today.
I'm interested in talking about aviation safety, of course. You made an announcement yesterday that you're taking back the responsibility that was assigned to the association that represents the business jet industry. You've also delayed implementation of air taxi and helicopter SMS.
I worked very hard to get some witnesses in front of this committee to talk about the larger issue of aviation safety vis-à-vis major carriers. Since we've seen that in a number of areas the system is not working as well as you thought it would, and as well as this government and the Department of Transport thought it would, are you now considering actually doing a review of aviation safety vis-à-vis SMS for large carriers?
:
Then maybe we should get you in front of the committee here and understand exactly the nature of the review that you are conducting.
When it comes to aviation security, I know this issue certainly must be in front of cabinet, because there are some cabinet members who are not very happy with aviation security in this country and who don't view the way we're conducting it.... I agree with you to an extent, and I agree with the assessment that the honourable Minister of State made in saying that the system was ramped up after 9/11 and a lot of these decisions are knee-jerk. We need to go back and look at aviation security to understand what is effective and what works for people.
The frustration that travellers may feel sometimes at the way security is carried out is legitimate, and we need to have some understanding of where we're going with this system. Quite clearly, if you or your department had attended the forum that the Liberals and I conducted during the prorogation, you would have seen that the experts are saying that our system is not correct. It's not working. If I could characterize the aviation security system at airports, it's a Maginot line. It can be gone around very easily. Perhaps when you talk about behavioural identification, you're starting to realize that we need to identify threat, rather than simply provide a public relations gesture when someone enters the airport. That is extremely important, and I hope your review will take that into account.
Mr. Merrifield, you've got mail.
The post office comes under your responsibility, and I know that there's been considerable discussion there. You know Canada Post has historically been one of those institutions that has created great connectivity among Canadians. It's really been part of the social fabric that we have had as a benefit of a country. My understanding is that Canada Post still has one of the lowest rates for postal service in all of the developed countries, and it's a tremendous benefit to us.
Mail is changing. Technology has changed. We all receive mail in different means now, but I know the Liberals have a motion in the House that mail delivery has to continue to historic mail boxes in rural areas of the country.
I grew up in a rural area. Mail service was anticipated and anxiously awaited, I would say. We even had Saturday delivery at one time. I wonder if you could tell the committee what steps the government has taken to protect mail delivery in our rural areas.
:
Sure. That's a very good question, and it's a concern of anyone who lives in rural Canada.
We brought in a service charter, as you recall, in September to make sure we have a universal system and that there's an obligation on behalf of Canada Post. It's the first time, actually, in the history of the country that we have an agreement with Canada Post, and they've agreed to deliver on certain criteria according to their charter. When it comes to end-of-lane delivery, and this is the real issue, we have put forward a directive to Canada Post saying that we want every one of those mailboxes retained in their original position prior to 2005, to comply with the law. If they don't comply with the law and they put the mail carrier at risk, and it's not safe as deemed by the Labour Board of Canada, then there's no option there.
Eighty-eight percent of those who have been analyzed stay right as they are, so the 12% have to be changed, moved in some way, because they don't comply with the labour codes. Those are the ones where some people will get a little upset because they may have to travel a little farther, maybe to a community box that is half a mile away or maybe a few hundreds yards away, depending on where you're at in the rural area.
Our objective is to make sure that every safe mailbox is retained, and we hold Canada Post to that. It is something they're complying with. This analyzing and moving the boxes is not cheap for Canada Post. It costs them somewhere between $250 million and $300 million to actually analyze and assess these boxes, so they would prefer to leave them where they're at as well. This is really about safety and making sure that these men and women who are neighbours and friends who carry the mail in the rural areas are protected and are safe.
We've actually had 120 auto accidents since 2005 and we've had three deaths, so this is fairly serious. There's no one who wants to get their mail in the rural communities.... I live in a rural area as well, and I wouldn't want to put my letter carrier at risk, and I don't think anyone in Canada does either. This is something we are working very aggressively at. Actually, only 6% of the population of Canada gets their mail via rural delivery, and 88% of those are not going to change, so we're talking about a very small number. But people habitually get their mail in a certain way and they don't like to get it changed in any way, so we understand that.
:
Ministers, it is a pleasure to see you both.
I'm going to challenge you that it was anything but quick, because when you look at the supplementary estimates (C), and you look across the suite of infrastructure programs, it was anything but swift or timely.
On the infrastructure stimulus fund, 44% wasn't delivered. That is $850 million unspent of $2 billion. When you look at the communities component of Building Canada, 48% wasn't delivered. That is $135 million of $250 million. On provincial-territorial-based funding, 48% wasn't delivered. That's $240 million unspent of $495 million. Of the green infrastructure fund, 93% wasn't delivered in the fiscal.... That's $186 million unspent of $200 million. So it wasn't timely. In fact, there was a lapse of $1.4 billion, and that was a lost opportunity to create approximately 30,000 jobs.
In fact, the economic action plan promised to create 190,000 jobs. What we see is, “It's coming”. There was a net loss of 300,000 jobs in this recession. Yet you are taking credit for it. Can you explain it to us? Can you admit that you failed to deliver on your commitment in budget 2009? When you are suggesting, especially, that 300,000 Canadians have lost their jobs since the recession hit, you should simply--
I think you're using what I would call “Kennedy math” and you're better than that.
Let me tell you this. Would I have loved to have spent it all immediately? You bet. Let me use two examples that you cited. One is that we offered all the provinces and territories.... Every province and territory has $175 million available under Building Canada. We said to every province and territory, we will give you that money right now if you want it, and a majority of the provinces said they'd take it. Some provinces said no, they didn't want it.
Ontario, our provincial government, said no, they were too busy with all these other projects and they wouldn't take it. And I don't criticize them for that. Other provinces took advantage of it.
Of this launch of programs, I will say that it is ten times better than any infrastructure program brought forward by the federal government at any time in the last 25 years. I'll give you an example. The MRIF program was a very successful program launched by the previous Liberal government. It was in the 2003 budget. In 2003-04 the government spent nothing. In 2004-05 the government spent nothing. In 2005-06 the government spent 0.04% of the budget. So it wasn't perfect.
Building Canada wasn't a heck of a lot better, frankly. So we've moved a heck of a lot faster than has ever been done before, and it takes time to work together. I'll give you an example. Your city of Toronto wanted a program--
:
Sorry, Mississauga--your region.
Mississauga does a lot better, you're right. I concede that point. Hazel has already finished projects, she is not just starting them.
Take the city of Toronto, for example, in your region. It was the only application we got from the entire province of Ontario that was improperly submitted, because they wanted to spend what would notionally be their share over ten years. They knew it wasn't eligible, and they applied anyway. I said to Mayor Miller, you come back to me with projects that are eligible and I will hold money available for you. He did, and we were able to announce that in July. I wish we could have announced it in March, but we were only able to announce it in July. And inevitably, when you have 500 projects he wasn't going to be able to spend the majority.
I will put the public service, I will put the political leaders--federal, provincial, and municipal--and compare them against any single public infrastructure program launched. I'll go even further than 25 years and say since the Second World War and say that we've moved ten times faster. And that's a pretty great accomplishment.
Mr. Minister, my question has to do with the operating budget of The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, which is increasing by about $13 million or $14 million, from $46 million to $60 million.
In your opinion, is this budget sufficient to undertake in the short term repairs to the Champlain Bridge? As you know, it is one of the busiest bridges in Canada. Currently it is also in very serious need of infrastructure repairs. That brings me to my question.
Given the $13 million or $14 million increase in the corporation's budget, do you think this injection of capital is sufficient to finally make the bridge safe?
:
I could also answer the question.
Let me just say that not only is safety important, it is mandatory. While safety is mandatory everywhere, I have to say that Quebec is well aware of safety considerations, in light of what happened during the construction of the Quebec Bridge one hundred years ago. Moreover, the report released by Pierre-Marc Johnson was very clear on this score.
I am not an engineer and my colleague is not one either, but when we receive a request concerning bridge safety, we make it a priority of ours. When we receive a notice that additional money is needed, we comply with that notice. It's very important to us. I know that it's a matter of great importance to Quebec and to our government.
I'd like to come back to CATSA. You have allocated an additional $9 million for safety considerations. My colleague made an interesting suggestion, namely that we should perhaps revert to the old system where we had our own security guards.
Another colleague also mentioned that last December, people were quite frustrated when they had to go through security. It's a known fact that CATSA contracts out security work. It was clear at the time that the subcontractors did not have enough staff to meet needs. The same situation exists today. Does this mean that an additional $9 million will be allocated next year?
Mr. Merrifield, you stated that the savings of 20% or 25% that could be gained by contracting out this work may eventually not be realized. I'm not sure that contracting out the work is a cost-effective as it should be, considering how important security is and the fact that we're assigning that responsibility to others.
I'm also curious about the number of subcontractors in Canada who handle security matters. How many subcontractors were awarded contracts and who are they?
With the minister cutting into my time like that, I'm feeling less love than Mr. Volpe here.
I'm kidding.
I want to ask a question of Minister Merrifield with respect to Canada Post, and then one on VIA Rail.
Picking up on rural mail delivery, as I drive from work to home in my own constituency, which is a rural constituency, I've seen a couple of situations. One is that I still continue to see drivers in left-hand vehicles driving against the flow of traffic in order to easily reach into the mail box. I'm not sure that is a proper situation. Or I've seen what is presumably at least the short-term solution, which is to add a second driver in the right-hand passenger seat to drive with the flow of traffic and be able to easily reach into roadside mail boxes. I'm not sure that the addition of a second driver is likely a long-term solution for what was originally an ergonomic problem of a single driver reaching all the way across into a mail box.
My question is whether you're aware of any analysis being conducted by Canada Post about the implementation of right-hand-drive vehicles with respect to rural mail delivery? If so, when do they expect to complete such an analysis, and is there any agreement with any auto maker or other tenderer, or some sort of agreement to provide right-hand vehicles, if it is deemed necessary to have them?
What can you tell us about that?
With respect to VIA Rail, I recall in Budget 2007 some significant capital expenditures being made by the government, followed up of course in our economic action plan last year with some significant additional resources. I can speak from local experience: I know you were present to announce a new rail station in Windsor.
Can you talk about how those investments are being deployed? More broadly speaking, I've already put on the record that we're getting a new station for Windsor, but how are these investments being deployed in the Windsor-Quebec corridor and more broadly speaking across Canada? Can you give us an update on vote 75, I think it is, as I look at the estimates? Can you give us a better understanding of how that money is being deployed for VIA Rail?
:
Yes, I can. Congratulations on the new station in your riding. It is really a refurbishment of the full lines right from Windsor up to Quebec City.
Actually, I can announce that we are ahead of schedule in that refurbishment. There is $900 million in total, $407 million in economic action money in last year's economic action plan, with 85% actually spent, allocated already. That whole series of changes to that line is taking place at an accelerated rate.
As well, I was in Vancouver, where VIA was showing off one of their newly refurbished cars destined to go on the trans-Canada line, as well as some of the refurbished cars on the Windsor-Quebec corridor. These cars are really significantly improved—
:
Very nice; thank you very much, Mr. Baird. I hope you'll feel the same after I ask you this question.
I want to take advantage of the fact that you appear to be very open about what you think the Government of Canada should do with respect to the Toyota recalls. You've given us an indication that you have a compendium of information, but that you also already have the tools. I think you have the tools under the regulations, under the act, and under the definition that the deputy has already said you understand and have obviously reviewed over the course of the last little while.
Your view of both Toyota and the safety of the product it has been putting on Canadian roads has clearly changed over the last couple of weeks. Two days ago you said you were prepared to take a look at criminal charges. I'm wondering today whether you are prepared to impose definitions for safety-related defects that are going to guide the way that your department looks at things. Are you going to order a restructuring of the architecture of the way that complaints are received, of the process? Thirdly, are you going to take the responsibility for issuing recalls for product that is unsafe on the road?
Are you willing to do that today? You have indicated that you have the tools. Will you do it today?
Welcome, Madam Deputy and colleagues.
As for the question I was asking the minister regarding the whole recall process, Madam Deputy, he indicated, of course, the 1979 court decision on the definition that wasn't included in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I have specific questions that I think perhaps Mr. McDonald will address, but that's up to you.
Last week the head of the defect investigations was surprised and appalled--I think those were two words he used, and Mr. McDonald was here when he was using them--at the fact that Toyota was not aware of the sticky pedal issues. Rather than get involved in the minutiae of what the problem is, the larger issue is that there is product on the road the manufacturer had already identified as problematic. Because Mr. McDonald provided us with some information at committee, information came forward that the department was aware of the problems. What I think we would like to know is whether in fact the safety of the customer is going to be in the hands of the manufacturer, or whether Transport Canada is going to assume some responsibility for actually applying the law. As I heard the minister, he thought there was a role for Transport Canada. I'm wondering whether it is going to be your recommendation to the minister that he act promptly to ensure that he assumes the responsibility for recalling--
I'll just finish off. I don't mean to trap officials into a policy issue--that's not their job--I just wanted to ask, on the basis of what the minister said to us today and the documentation he said he wants to make available to everybody, whether you're prepared to make the recommendation that they move directly into the area where he can act quickly, i.e., the regulations.
Obviously the question of resources--that's money. That's not something you can do. The government has to make a decision whether it wants to put resources to this. Pardon the pun, but at least on the mechanical side of the regulations and the legislation, are you prepared to advise the minister that there is action he could take today, especially since he admits publicly he wants to assume responsibility?
:
Why don't I start not with some of the detailed questions that you have asked, but in terms of under the current law and under the current regulations the onus is on the government to regulate. We have a criminal law power, whereby the automobile companies have to report to us when they become aware of a defect that's related to safety. That's the rule.
The purpose of the law or the intent behind the law, as we understand it, is that for large automobile companies it is in their commercial interest to make sure their vehicles are safe, because this is about consumer confidence. If a car company is not actually putting out safe vehicles, I don't think their sales will work very well.
That's the main logic. The government regulations are there to make sure that the car companies actually take the appropriate action.
In terms of Transport Canada's powers, we feel that over the years we have a very good track record of ensuring that when we become aware of any issues or any problems, we have been able to raise that with the automobile companies. And they do act quickly. That's one thing.
If we feel any change to the regulations is required, we will look at that, for sure, but I believe my minister has said that we welcome any ideas that this committee may come up with. If you feel that there are things we should be doing differently, or that the law should be changed, we would be happy to look at every suggestion you have--the same thing that we will do as a reflection on the Toyota situation to see if there are any changes required. Whether the solution is to pull the recall power directly into the government and that actually will provide a better protection for Canadian consumers, we have to look at that very carefully, and we have to make sure that it will work appropriately.
Regarding resources, because I believe the committee is going to ask us about resources--because it has been asked--we don't have infinite amounts of money. We have the budget we have. We have the budget that Parliament has appropriated. We allocate that money to the best of our ability to manage the risks we deal with. We are a regulatory department. We have regulations on all modes of transportation. We do our best in matching our resources to the risks we're facing.
This is not an apples-to-apples comparison, but if we look at the United States and their NHTSA recalls and investigations unit, I believe they have 56 or 57 people dealing with 35,000 complaints. I'll get you the exact number. We have 16 people in that particular group, dealing with 1,100 complaints, but our system is different because we don't have the numbers like they do in the United States, where we have millions of cars and thousands of complaints.
So we have to go by the substance of the issue. For our investigators, they really take the time. They're professional people. They're engineers. They're car specialists. They look at and examine each case and each complaint we have. So that's what we go by. We believe that they actually.... They are very proud of the work they do.
Mr. Chairman, the honourable member said that Transport Canada was aware. I do not want there to be, in any shape or form, confusion that we were aware of a sticky pedal issue. There is nothing, according to my professional staff, who know these things and who deal with the complaints...that we had any knowledge of “sticky pedal” as being a defect. Our people heard about this from the car company, from Toyota, on January 21. So just to make sure that we correct the record, because it's very important.... Because an alternative suggestion is that we knew about it and did not do anything, which is absolutely not correct.
I'd like to echo what the minister had to say about the way the department has moved out the infrastructure money. We've had some great success in my constituency of Okanagan—Shuswap. As the former mayor of a community, I know that you're only as good as the people who work for you. You've made the minister look very good and I think you've done a great job in that area.
I'd like to ask a few questions about airport security. I know the department wants to make sure that safety and security levels are as high as possible to protect Canadians. But is there a point where there are going to be some challenges?
The focus has been on new screening technology. Has any thought been given to looking at the people who cause the problem, not at the things they bring into airports for the purposes of endangering lives? Are there some challenges to profiling people? Is there a policy or direction from the ministry whereby they're going to start moving away from screening the actual luggage and start looking at the passengers?
I would just confirm what the deputy has said. There is a significant amount of investment under the gateway initiative. As you may know, the province and the federal government have worked closely together with local municipalities and with industry to identify the priority projects that would be the most effective in reducing congestion and improving the efficiency of transportation, particularly in the lower mainland and out to the port, in order to ensure our transportation system supports exports and imports.
When this collaborative work was undertaken around 2005, the New Westminster rail bridge was one of the projects identified as being important and as one that should be on our work plan.
What happened was that we focused primarily on the most pressing projects, the ones that would improve transportation and deal with congestion immediately.
As we speak right now, we're working with Public Works, which owns the bridge, Port Metro Vancouver, and CN Rail, which uses the bridge for a lot of rail traffic, and we're looking at future options. It's very much on our radar as a project that needs to be undertaken in the foreseeable future.
:
I had three questions for Minister Merrifield. Since he's left us, I'll still pose them to you to put them on the record, but you may or may not be able to respond. I'm just going to put them all on the table.
I know this question about Canada Post being in the police and security business during the Olympics came up earlier. There was $652,000 for security of the mail. Can you elaborate on how that was spent? It seems like an inordinate amount of money for Canada Post to be spending on policing and security for the Olympics. That's the first question.
Second, I'm delighted the minister is following our lead on rural postal delivery. Of course safety is the primary concern, but my concern is with the elimination of delivery in rural and remote areas. I'd like you to comment on that. I'm also concerned about the job loss that may ensue as a result.
Finally, I don't think your responsibility is the Royal Mint, although it does come under Mr. Merrifield. You are indicating it is? Good. I understand that $1.4 million was spent on the forensic audit to discover that the $20 million of missing gold wasn't really missing. Can you comment on the $1.4 million and how that was spent, and whether or not that was a good use of taxpayers' money?
Thank you.
:
I'll try to answer the questions as they were posed.
In terms of what Canada Post did specifically to ensure a certain level of security of the mail coming into the Vancouver Olympics area, Canada Post would have that information. We, as a department, don't really have the specifics of how they actually conducted that work. It's more an operational issue. The money here in the supplementary estimates is what they had planned to spend based on what they saw being the level of effort for that period of time.
In terms of rural post delivery, Canada Post is not in the business of eliminating rural post delivery. In fact, as the minister mentioned, there is a service charter that in fact enshrines the continuation of rural mail delivery. What they are looking at, of course, as the minister stated, is a safe way to deliver that mail in rural Canada.
Whether this would result in any job losses would be a question better posed to Canada Post. It certainly hasn't been conveyed to us that this is about jobs. It's really about the security and the safety of those delivering the mail.
In terms of the Royal Canadian Mint, yes, they have indicated to us that they have spent $1.4 million in the context of all those entities that they engaged to help look at that issue. Those included a company like Deloitte & Touche, which probably included other experts, and it also included the RCMP, which looked into whether there was any criminal intent there. So certainly they've been quite forward in saying that it cost them $1.4 million to complete the very detailed examination, which they felt was necessary to get to the bottom of the situation.
:
Basically, you're responsible for all security considerations. This issue always worries me a great deal.
I touched on the various complaints from people about security, about the lack of personnel and about the frustration that people experience. A while ago, I asked some questions about the number of subcontractors. I was told that this information would be provided to me. I would like to know how these contracts are awarded to subcontractors. Do the same rules respecting subcontractors apply from coast to coast?
I'm also interested in how these subcontractors are managed, in terms of security at various locations, not only strategic ones but also on bases across Canada. I'd like some assurances that this information will be forwarded to me as soon as possible.
Finally, I'm interested in body scanners. Earlier, some questions were raised about body scanners. Apparently, an American company was awarded the contract. I'd like to know the name of that company and who runs it. When these contracts were awarded, were steps taken to ensure that there would be some Canadian spinoffs from these contracts? Or, will equipment maintenance also be done by the same American company? What kind of maintenance costs are we looking at? Why can't the maintenance be done in Canada? I would imagine that the cost of servicing this equipment is quite high, if the scanners are not replaced every six months. I would like answers to these questions in writing.
:
Certainly, Mr. Chair, we'll make that available in writing.
I can answer a few of the questions posed. For others, I think the answers should probably come from CATSA itself.
First of all, with respect to the number of companies that are subcontracted to provide screening services, across the country CATSA has contracts with 11 companies to provide screening services at the 89 airports at which they're supposed to be providing that service.
With respect to the contracting, CATSA follows standard Government of Canada contracting rules, and I'm sure they can provide you with more information on their exact processes for the letting of those contracts.