:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the invitation to meet with you and the committee.
I'm pleased to be here with my colleague, Minister Rob Merrifield, to provide you with an update on the transport, infrastructure, and communities portfolio.
I'd also like to extend my thanks for the hard work you've done recently on Bill ; Bill ; and Bill .
With us today are Yaprak Baltacioglu, Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; John Forster, associate deputy minister of infrastructure; and André Morency, assistant deputy minister of corporate management and crown corporations governance at Transport Canada.
Committee members, at our previous appearance, in December, we provided you with an update on the portfolio. I spoke about the funds under my portfolio and how our infrastructure investments are benefiting communities across Canada, as well as our successful and productive partnerships with provinces, territories, and municipalities. I also spoke about aviation security and our borders and gateways.
Minister Merrifield spoke about Marine Atlantic Incorporated.
Today I'd like to update you on our accomplishments to date under the transport and infrastructure portfolio, as well as speak to you about what the future may bring.
In my December appearance, I spoke to you about the four funds that Infrastructure Canada manages under the economic action plan: the $4 billion infrastructure stimulus fund; the $1 billion green infrastructure fund; the $500 million top-up to the communities component of the Building Canada fund; and the $25 million for the National Trails Coalition.
As part of the economic action plan, the Government of Canada accelerated and streamlined existing funds under the $33 billion Building Canada plan announced in Budget 2007. We did this so that our partners could benefit from these funds earlier than originally scheduled.
Across all of its programs since January 2009, Infrastructure Canada has now committed over $10.75 billion toward more than 6,300 infrastructure projects as part of Canada's economic action plan. When combined with the contributions of our funding partners, this means that approximately $31 billion is being committed to infrastructure projects across the country.
Shortly before my last appearance before this committee, the Prime Minister announced an extension to four of the funds under the economic action plan and extending the deadline to October 31, 2011. This extension includes two of Infrastructure Canada's funds—the infrastructure stimulus fund and the top-up to the Building Canada fund's communities component.
We've also been encouraged to see that most projects are still on target to be completed by March 31 of this year. A recent example of a project that will be fully completed by the end of this month are the new sails at Canada Place, which the Prime Minister visited on February 21. It's great to see that project, one of many that will be completed on time and on budget.
Across the country work is progressing extremely well. I know that some proponents who would have completed their projects by the deadline are taking advantage of the extra time for construction, which in some cases is resulting in savings on project costs. This sustained stimulus to the economy is allowing Canada to maintain its strength as we emerge from the recession, while respecting the fragility of the global recovery and without increasing costs for the taxpayers. It's a good win-win-win.
As we move forward in our exit strategy for the economic action plan, it's important to note that infrastructure funding will continue to flow to municipalities across the country. Infrastructure Canada is continuing to play a significant role in delivering long-term funding under the $33 billion Building Canada plan, including the gas tax fund. The gas tax fund was doubled to $2 billion per year in 2009, and the government has announced this funding is permanent so that communities can continue to rely on stable, reliable funding for their important infrastructure projects.
I will turn to transport. We continue our efforts to provide a safe and secure, efficient, and environmentally responsible transportation system. We're proud of this system because it's among the best in the world, and with the input of Canadians, all orders of government, and private stakeholders, we're making it even better.
[Translation]
I am a firm believer that progress can only be made through partnership.
[English]
I guess all of us in government realize that these world-class transportation systems aren't built from the top down. They really require those partnerships to be serious. It requires that we listen to those partners, and it really requires all of us, whether we're in the private or public sector, to work together. It's why I've been travelling across the country, speaking with everyday Canadians and with industry groups, getting a sense of their transportation vision. These groups include, amongst many others, the Chamber of Marine Commerce, the Railway Association of Canada, and WESTAC—I had a meeting a week or so ago in B.C—to name just a few. We've heard great ideas and will continue to dialogue with them as we move forward through the new year.
Today is also about moving forward. I know in the supplementary estimates we're seeking $23.9 million to take action on initiatives that were not fully developed or known when the main estimates were prepared, initiatives such as $14 million in annual funding to support the regional and remote passenger rail services class contribution program. That program ensures safe and reliable access to passenger rail service and ensures that it's provided to certain regional and remote areas of the country by contributing to operating and capital requirements for these important rail services.
The estimates also include $7.4 million for operating requirements related to the ferry services contribution program. This program supports regional and remote ferry services in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec. These services not only provide safe transportation to communities, but they support eastern Canada's regional economy and the transportation network.
[Translation]
This program supports regional and remote ferry services in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec. These services not only provide safe transportation to communities, they support eastern Canada's regional economy and the transportation network.
[English]
Existing agreements for these various services are set to expire on March 31, but on November 30, 2010, the Government of Canada announced an investment of up to $44.7 million to support ferry operations and to maintain the ferry assets.
In previous appearances before this committee, I have discussed the importance of the government's gateways and corridors strategy, which positions Canada as an integrated, efficient, and reliable transportation route. I know there's interest in the committee about the gateways. We continue to make progress on the 47 infrastructure projects that are part of the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative. We're moving forward with great interest and quite a bit of pride in how that has been rolled out. The next phase of the gateway will focus more on issues such as modernizing policy, regulatory issues, and legislative frameworks. This will improve efficiency and reliability through that partnership, which has been enhanced through this whole initiative, while boosting innovation.
I'm convinced it will also lever the benefits that both the private and public sectors gain from the Asia-Pacific initiative, and that's becoming more clear as we move through the process into phase two.
The line item noting the reprofiling of $17.1 million in funding for the Asia-Pacific gateway will help this process continue, and lessons that were learned on the Asia-Pacific gateway, which was first out of the gate, if I can use that phrase, will be applied to the Atlantic gateway and the Ontario-Quebec continental gateway.
You'll notice also, and this I think I should highlight, that within the estimates we're seeking to access $1 million from previously frozen allotments due to the reprofiling of funds for the acquisition of real property for the Detroit River international crossing, which is a key part of the continental gateway. We remain committed to the building of that new crossing. We continue to work closely with the State of Michigan and the United States government to make it a reality. We are monitoring the Michigan legislative process and continue to urge the Michigan legislature to authorize this project, which will benefit workers and industry on both sides of the border.
Now I will turn the microphone over to Minister Merrifield to speak on a specific line item.
[Translation]
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Minister Strahl, and my thanks to the committee for the opportunity to speak on some of these estimates. I want to encourage the committee to continue with Bill . I follow your work closely and encourage you to have that clear very soon so that we can get it into law as quickly as possible, and I know that's the intent of the committee. So I encourage you to do that.
I want to talk a little bit about Marine Atlantic. Marine Atlantic is a line issue that is $4.4 million to the corporation. These funds are covered because of the changes in the specific vessel and the shore-based capital projects included in the 2010-11 budget right up to 2014-15. That's in the corporate plan.
MAI ferry service is a tremendously vital link to Newfoundland and Labrador, the Atlantic region, and Canada as a whole, both for the businesses that work there and for the economic growth of the region. Marine Atlantic serves thousands of travellers each year and it carries over 50% of the goods entering Newfoundland and Labrador. The ferry service also supports the tourism industry in that area and will be able to do so in a much better way as we move forward.
The government has invested almost a billion dollars since 2007 in Marine Atlantic, revitalizing not only its vessels but also its onshore facilities. It will be flowed out over the next couple of years. We have had the opportunity to bring into service MV Blue Puttees, a brand new vessel, and the first of two. This is a tremendous vessel. I had the opportunity to visit and inspect it, and to talk to the individuals who work on the vessel. They're very proud of it, and rightfully so. It's two football fields in length. It's a massive vessel that will have over 40% more capacity than the MV Joseph and Clara Smallwood and the MV Caribou, the vessels it is replacing. We also have the MV Highlanders, which is expected to be in operation on April 1 as well. I can tell you MV Blue Puttees is in operation for the first week this last week and is serving that area very well.
In fact, the most significant change in these supplementary estimates occurred because these vessels actually came in a little bit earlier, and that's why the money had to be advanced. Both are important and needed investments. It's important for Marine Atlantic to have the ability to supply the services to Newfoundland and Labrador. We're working closely with the Newfoundland and Labrador department of tourism, not only because of the increase in demand for capacity for vessels and passengers, but also for tourism in the area. With these new vessels, the opportunity for tourism in that area will greatly increase as we go into the summer.
So with that, we'd love to take any questions you might have on these estimates.
:
Absolutely it does. That's why everyone wants to have a healthy airline industry and a healthy maintenance industry as well. I think both are in good shape, and we should ensure that they stay that way.
When it comes to a collective bargaining agreement between a private sector company and a union, which is two years away, and there's a perfectly good and well-managed and working arrangement between a union and a company, I think we should let them run their business.
What I find a little unusual is that committee members would suggest, when there's a perfectly good agreement between a company and the labour union and it's going very well, that we should intervene and do something to screw that up. I just think that's unwise.
What we should be doing is asking what we can do to make sure the airline industry remains profitable and continues to grow in Canada. You do that by reducing taxes, by reducing red tape, and by lowering tariffs on manufactured imports, as we're doing, to help Air Canada remain competitive worldwide. The unions, of course, will benefit, because a profitable and sustainable industry means that the workers, in turn, get profitable and sustainable jobs.
Of course, the Detroit River international crossing, or the DRIC--and we have to find a better name for that, so we can start to talk about it with some excitement, and I have some suggestions--has seen some good progress in the last few months. We've had an election down in the States. The new governor of Michigan has thrown his weight behind it as one of his priorities. It was in his equivalent of the Speech from the Throne, the State of the State Address, as they started their new session down there with the new governor and many new members of the Congress.
So that's a great story, because not only does it have the support of the governor, but it has made it in as a priority for the government at large itself. That's a good news story. We haven't had that before.
You came with me to meet with the governor and his team during the transition period. I think we had some effect in convincing him that this was a great story on both sides of the border. Since then, I've met with American officials, the American ambassador, Secretary LaHood, Secretary Napolitano, and others to talk about the importance of DRIC, in my opinion, not only for commerce but even for security reasons. It's going to be a great addition to the border given the number of both passengers and trucks that use it. This is a very unique project in that I think every political party at every level is supportive of it on the Canadian side, at both the provincial and I hope federal levels.
When I was in Montreal talking about the continental gateway, they reminded me that the majority of their truck traffic that goes to the United States uses that crossing, so another crossing is going to be a great news story for the whole continental gateway initiative.
Since that time, we've been working closely with the legislators in Michigan to answer any questions they might have. We have information packets that we've given to legislators, committee chairmen, and others. I've spoken to the chair of the transportation committee, the Speaker of the House, and to anybody who will take my phone calls down there.
The response has been very encouraging. Now what's particularly encouraging is what I see as very broad and widespread support from unions, farm groups, and others down stateside who have caught the idea that this is not going to benefit just Detroit but the whole state. We're talking about tens of thousands of jobs during the construction period and the long-term prospects of a continuing and growing trade that's going to be able to count on using both the Ambassador Bridge and the new DRIC crossing.
I think you're right; the announcement we made in Windsor, which I was able to attend, was very well received. It's interesting how sometimes what people think is a niche or a smaller port becomes an essential part of an overall strategy. That was evident in Windsor. The ability to continue in that aggregate business, with all of the things that relate to that--paving, concrete, and all the things that come from it--is no small thing. I know they were very excited to think they had now moved to that next level with that investment.
It's the same sort of thing at Sept-Iles. I wasn't there for the announcement. The Prime Minister was there. I think the port officials said at the time that not only were they very grateful for the investment; they pointed out that it was the leverage they got from the private sector that got them excited. It's a smaller investment from the.... I mean, it's not insignificant, but investment from the federal government is one thing; it also sends a message to the private sector that we're in for the long haul.
So they were able to announce, within short order, the size of.... I forget the exact number--I don't want to give the wrong number here--but considerable private sector investment followed right on the heels of that.
As port officials said at the time, they don't remember--ever, probably--a prime minister coming to their port. The fact that he was there and made the announcement sends a message that I think we want to send in all of our ports. The investment is a sign that.... You know, we are a trading nation and we're heavily dependent on transportation, and these investments in the long run are going to pay off.
The private sector picks up on that right away: if you're in for a penny, then we're in for a pound. And that's nice to see.
That's what's happened in all the gateway initiatives. We make the initial investment. We say we'll be there as a partner. Then the private sector says, well, if you're there, and we know that we have the ear of all levels of government, then we're in for the long haul.
That's been very encouraging.
Thank you to the ministers and the officials.
In order for the main estimates documents to be of value to Parliament and parliamentarians, they need to say what they mean and mean what they say. There's the inclusion here of a particular line, under vote 40c, that I've never seen before, in any main estimates documents, pertaining to Marine Atlantic.
It says the following:
(b) payments made by the Company of the costs incurred for the provision of early retirement benefits, severance and other benefits where such costs result from employee cutbacks or the discontinuance or reduction of a service....
Again, main estimates documents must say what they mean and mean what they say. That says, to me, that there are going to be layoffs and that there are going to be terminations at Marine Atlantic.
Now, notwithstanding the fact that, I could agree, there might be some new hires, 32 engineers and electricians have filed notice that they've been identified by the company, Marine Atlantic, for reduction, elimination.
Are there going to be any layoffs at Marine Atlantic? I want to put this question very precisely. Are there going to be job or labour force reductions for any of the staffing personnel at Marine Atlantic?
I'm not talking about new hires of stewards and so on.
:
Well, let's talk about what happened at Marine Atlantic, then. Is it true that Fleetway and Ocean Engineering Consultants were hired to figure out a strategic model for the fleet configuration?
You talk about life support. I want to ask you a question. Why was the Transport Canada and Marine Atlantic decision to actually build four new vessels in Canada overturned? I'm going to refer to specifics.
On May 24, 2006, the president's report to the meeting of the board of directors of Marine Atlantic reads, and I'm quoting:
Representatives of the Canadian Shipyards were in North Sydney on March 14th to attend briefings with John Lochhead and Alan Leonarduzzi. These representatives of approximately five shipyards in Canada have expressed interest in bidding on our new fleet.
On April 17, 2006, in the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors of Marine Atlantic, Mr. Flood, who was then president, suggested that the board make a recommendation to Transport Canada that Marine Atlantic require four vessels and that these four vessels be identical, 175 metres in length, not two football fields. There was a resolution that reads:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Directors recommends to the Department of Transport that Marine Atlantic Inc.'s fleet replacement consist of four new vessels [made in Canada].
MOTION: Moved by Don Warr and seconded by Robert Sampson. Motion carried.
On August 3, 2006, sir, this is from the minutes of the board of directors again. It reads:
There was then a general discussion about Transport Canada's expressed wish that the refits and the new construction be completed within Canada, probably at significantly greater cost to the Corporation than if performed in Europe. Four shipyards within Canada had been identified as possible sites for this work to be undertaken. It was agreed that this was a public policy decision that the stakeholder was entitled to make and that the Board [of Directors] would be guided by instructions.....
These vessels are not the first choice of Marine Atlantic or Transport Canada. They're the second choice, Mr. Minister. How do you explain that?
:
It has not been a government entity for decades. Air Canada, although “Air Canada” is a crown-corporation-sounding name, is not a crown corporation. It's a private company, publicly traded, that has to adhere to all the rules just like anybody else does in Canada, any other airline in Canada, with the additional requirements that come under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. They know that. They respect that. When I speak to them about it, they have every intention of respecting the act. They want to adhere to it and understand the historical reasons behind it.
But you know, I have every faith. I don't buy into this story that Canadian workers can't compete. I've heard this in many industries, and I just don't think it's true. Time and again the Canadian workers have shown, whether they're unionized or not unionized, that they can go toe to toe with anybody.
Just down the road from my riding at Abbotsford Airport, for example, Conair has put in a maintenance facility. That maintenance facility services 737s from around the world--around the world. They come in there. They do everything from complete rebuilds to whatever work might be necessary. That shop is busy. It's so busy that the local university has put on a full stream to help train technicians to work at that shop. They say the only thing that's holding them back is...they build more and new facilities. The workers compete. They are getting great jobs. As you mentioned, they are great, well-paying jobs, and they woo business. They attract business from around the world to come to Canada to get their 737s...they're very good at 737s, and that's what they do.
I don't buy this argument that we should all run around like Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. We have a proven contractor in Aveos. You might want to bring them in; I don't know. I can't really speak to them and their business plan. It's a private company. But they've been very successful in Canada. They talked in their most recent web posting and press release about the fact that they've actually hired more people. They're not offloading; they're hiring more.
I think the future is very bright. I would be very surprised if Aveos says it's a doomsday scenario.
:
I do think the investments we've made have borne fruit. The investment we made in partnership with the provincial government and the private railroad that heads up there has considerably improved the on-time performance of that railway. I think it's doubled the speed on that chunk of rail line, so that money was well invested. It's a multi-year program to replace ties and to do some work there. That work will never end, because that's a tough piece of territory, with the muskeg and so on.
As well, when I was up there with the Prime Minister we announced funding last year from Transport Canada to resurface the runway. That initiative was not an ISF project but a long-term Transport Canada investment in resurfacing the runway, and, of course, again, in that harsh climate it's also necessary. There have been investments in the port as well.
I think Churchill is a long way out there, but what we've been able to do on rail, the airlines, and the port services--all of them have had investments and all of it has helped.
Also, even in the way we've beefed up the board of directors and so on, on the port up there...I think they're an outward-looking group that's looking to get business to come in there. Their sales pitch is exactly as you described. This is another way to get into Canada that doesn't have some of the congestion problems we might encounter in other ways. You come right into the centre of Canada. If you're doing business in a big part of Canada, that's not a bad alternative to look at.
I think those investments will bear fruit, and already should have in the short term, but in the long term they will as well.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for appearing today. My question is very simple, and then I'm going to pass the floor to Mr. Watson.
My question has to do with exactly what was brought forward by Mr. Byrne, and that is we have in front of us a motion. In fact, Mr. Byrne had a question on the Order Paper and Notice Paper for March 2 as well in relation to the same.... It has 20 bullet points on this particular notice of motion that Mr. Byrne wants to move. I'll just give an example of one of those. He's asking for:
All reports, minutes of meetings or record of meetings held either between the President, the CEO or the Board of Directors or any Committee of the Board of Directors with either the Minister of State (Transport), and/or the Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities held between January 1, 2004 and March 1, 2011;
It goes on with quite a list of other documents that they're requesting.
My question is very simple. I would ask for a written response from the department as to how long it would take to get documents like this in the future. In his motion he's asking that you reply within seven days. From my perspective, as a lawyer for 10 years, to get that much paperwork in seven days, you might as well take all 8,000 employees and do nothing but look for that paperwork.
My question to you is--and I want it in writing, please, if you don't mind--how long would it normally take for a response of this type? I know it has to go through a lawyer for privacy. It has to go through the department. I would say 10 or 15 people have to go through each and every one of these documents. How long would it normally take to be reasonable for you and your staff? Quite frankly, I don't think it's reasonable to expect that kind of mountain of paperwork in seven days.
I don't need the response now because I know Mr. Watson has quite a few questions, but I would like, if we could, to have just the process it goes through, and then what would be normal for a one-page document that's fairly simple, to something like this, which in my mind would take two or three years. But if I could have that as a response to the clerk, I'd really appreciate it, because we do have several motions that are coming in front of us that are of a similar nature. I would like to make sure, and I'm sure all parties would like to make sure, that we don't put your staff under undue hardship and late hours.
Saying that, I will pass the floor over to Mr. Watson.
:
--maybe that's a friendly amendment we could put into it.
“Method of travel for each caucus member”? Mr. Chair, I have been to economic action plan events, and I don't know whether or not there was no new funding or new funding. I've been to these events. I've driven with my own truck. In fact, I think I've driven with my own truck to every single economic action plan event that I've announced, because they're in my constituency, or essentially bordering on my constituency; maybe a few blocks over I did a joint event with another member. What the honourable member is asking is that he be allowed to basically go into my office and start pulling mileage logs, receipts, and stuff like that on how I drove to an event. I just find that sort of silly.
If he is interested in basically finding out how the government communicated its economic action plan, if he did this, I think he should look again at his motion here and figure out how to make it more manageable, shrink off a few items, and bring it to a point where the request could be done.
I personally think the communication has been very well handled. It is important that there's accountability to constituents on issues. That's one of the strengths that the economic action plan has had: we've communicated directly to people the things that we've done. We've been clear that there has been a strategic plan that has been well thought out.
I think of a time when we had the Western Economic Diversification witnesses here, when we were discussing how things were on time, and they noted that the rollout for the infrastructure spending for the government's economic action plan was smoother and better than anything they'd ever seen. It was more on time, costs were more accurate, and projects were getting done. It was just amazing. Frankly, a lot of it appeared to be, from what they told us as a committee--it's in the transcripts--by doing less bureaucracy, which is to be commended.
I'll turn the mike over to other members for comments, but again, as a suggestion to my honourable friend, maybe he should trim down his requests--because five days is just impossible for people to do--and focus on information and ideas that he could actually get from the department or that would be easier to get there. And frankly, he shouldn't ask if each member has taken their truck to events. I find that sort of silly. I mean, I have to report to this committee about how I use my pickup truck...? It will take days to just figure out these events, and there are going to be questions about what qualifies and what doesn't.
That's some friendly advice to my colleague to revise his motion and maybe bring it back at another meeting where it could be worked into a more reasonable and workable form. Then we could have the elements of communication that he's so interested in.
I'm not even sure where I want to start on this.
I think the request that this be done in five days completely undercuts the credibility of the motion. In other words, I'm not sure that the honourable member opposite is actually as concerned with having the information as he is with making a point about asking for the information.
Five business days is not reasonable. There are other means for requesting the same information, which all members of Parliament have at their disposal. They could compel the government to produce documents and papers. The typical government response for something weighty or lengthy is 45 days. It is probably reasonable to expect that civil servants and the resources we put to the function of government aren't unduly diverted, if you will, to meet a request of this nature with only five business days given to compile this kind of information. Clearly, the member doesn't want to wait 45 days. I'm not sure why, other than to make a point.
I'm not sure, Mr. Chair, whether this same information has been requested through the other means, which is to give the government 45 days for a response, and he wants to use an opportunity to force it at committee, when we're in the middle of estimates, with the TV cameras on, to try to make a point about this. If that's the case, that type of posturing is a significant departure for this committee.
I've been on this committee, Mr. Chair, for about four or five years. I can say that the composition of the committee before was extremely collegial. There was the desire of members to work in consensus fashion. We were highly productive with respect not only to studies but to getting legislation through, both government and opposition. That is deteriorating under the new configuration, specifically of official opposition members. I am hoping that it is not going to become the trend that the committee will be used to make a point rather than to solicit information in a responsible manner.
I'm opposed to the motion. It is not responsible to ask the government to commit significant resources to gathering information.
Of course, this is not in isolation, Mr. Chair. This motion, if approved, goes along with a lot of others, and others that are intended to be brought forward and presumably passed, that would compel officials to compile a whole myriad of things within very small and tight timelines. I'm not sure that it is responsible. I don't think this motion should be considered outside of that context. If the member really wants the information to be gathered, waiting 40 extra days isn't going to kill anybody.
I'm opposed to the motion on those grounds.
:
In Barry's Bay, for example, we announced $1,338,333. That project could not have gone ahead. It was to improve the sewage system of the valley, the Madawaska Valley, especially around the park where children play. It was state-of-the-art infrastructure that they never would have otherwise, and given that the province was participating, they were getting the project done for two-thirds off.
Further down in the Bonnechere Valley township, their water purification project was finally under way. They'd been waiting some time for that. We contributed $300,000 at the federal level, and that was matched by $300,000 at the provincial level.
I'd also like to mention that for all these projects, the province of Ontario required that a sign be erected right next to the Building Canada sign and the Canada's economic action plan sign. They felt that it was important for people to know that the government was helping out, especially in this time of economic downturn.
In South Algonquin, they received $186,000 for one project, but they also received half a million for their community centre from the federal government and another half a million from the provincial government. This community centre used to be in a sort of decrepit building. Although it was very homey, it was necessary to bring it up to snuff because the heating bills were costing so much. They hold their community dinners and fundraising there, as well as their church functions because the churches weren't equipped. It is a gathering place, and they use it right now for many community events.
In the County of Renfrew, where there are some very dangerous areas on the roads, they built some new roads, using new technologies--