[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 9, 1996
.0907 
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome, Mr. Minister. Welcome, members.
Mr. Minister, I understand we have the pleasure of your company for about an hour. As always, we'll give you some time to make an opening statement. I know there are a lot of questions members would like to ask.
For the information of members, the minister has to leave at 10 o'clock or so, and the deputy and the officials will be here for another half an hour. Then we are going to go in camera for roughly half an hour to talk about some business of the committee.
Rather than take up any more time on that right now, Mr. Minister, welcome. The floor is now yours, sir.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. Good morning.
Before I start my speech, I'd like first to thank you all very much for the work you've done over the last two and a half years. It's been a remarkably active committee, and I think it's been an extremely productive and cooperative committee. It's greatly appreciated. You've done a lot of hard slogging. The launch of Canadian National's private company, the commercialization of the air navigation system, and the overhaul of the legislative framework governing transportation have all been major events. So thank you very much indeed.
[Translation]
Your deliberations, your study of the key issues facing the transport sector, your recommendations and suggestions have all contributed to the government's success in preparing Canada's transportation system for the future. I look forward to continuing this tremendously productive relationship with you in the months to come. I'd also liked to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Douglas Young, whose leadership was obviously central to initiating major change in the Canadian transportation sector.
[English]
Since I have taken over at Transport Canada I have made a number of public statements about where I see transportation heading in this country. On each occasion, I have stressed that the modernization of Canada's transportation system has begun. But we have much to do and we are continuing with that work.
.0910
We are not, as I have stressed, undertaking this modernization for its own sake. This is not ideologically driven. We're doing it to gain the benefits that flow from a modernized transportation system, and the chief benefits of such modernization, I believe, will be further improvements in our trade competitiveness. I can't really stress too much the connection between transportation and trade competitiveness, between efficient transportation and successful competitiveness.
As we all know, domestic and international trade is the key to job creation in this country, which is, of course, the major agenda not just for the government. I'm sure it is a major concern of every party in the House.
[Translation]
That is why, in all modes of transport, we are moving toward greater efficiency, less reliance on government subsidies, greater say for users, and, where it makes sense, more local and regional autonomy.
Our goal is to free transportation infrastructure to serve as an engine for growth, not as a drag on the economy. At the same time, we will continue to place the highest emphasis on safety.
[English]
The experience of Vancouver International Airport, in my home province of British Columbia, illustrates what this government hopes to accomplish. The federal government ran Vancouver International Airport for many years, and ran it well, but that is all the federal government did. It did not have the mandate to actively promote the unique site-specific opportunities associated with Vancouver International Airport, or to aggressively pursue the business opportunities or, indeed, to take the commercial risks.
The Vancouver International Airport Authority, a locally constituted group, has this freedom, and because it has that freedom it has turned Vancouver International into a major engine of job creation and growth in the region. The major job creator in the region at this time is the airport.
At a time when governments at all levels have to cut back to satisfy the need to reduce deficits, Vancouver International is hiring extra staff, raising the pay levels of people working there, opening a new air terminal building, and constructing an additional runway. It's a hive of activity.
Since becoming Minister of Transport I've also spoken about the relationship between transportation and tourism. More than 600,000 Canadian jobs depend on tourism, and most of these jobs are in the small business sector. Transportation is vital to that industry, both in getting tourists to Canada and in moving them around within Canada effectively. As Minister of Transport one of my top priorities is making our transportation system work for the tourism industry. There are opportunities for constructive work, and the department and my officials have already begun discussions with the tourism industry.
Although the legislative agenda is heavy, if this committee is interested in another important area for policy study I would encourage you to consider the links between transportation and tourism. I've already had some informal conversations on this possibility with the commmittee chair.
[Translation]
To achieve those results across the transport sector will require a great deal of effort. Consequently, our agenda at Transport Canada is a very heavy one. I will provide you with an overview of the major files we will be working on over the next six months.
[English]
Airport transfers: we will continue to implement the national airports policy as outlined.
[Translation]
Under that policy, the government has established a National Airports System made up of Canada's largest and busiest airports. The government is leasing these airports to locally based Canadian Airport Authorities. Airports with fewer scheduled passengers and flights are being transferred to community interests over a five-year period ending in March of the year 2000. The smallest airports are being transferred in a similar fashion over a two-year period ending in 1997. Remote airports, meanwhile, will continue to be operated or financially supported by the federal government for the foreseeable future.
.0915
[English]
We have made important progress since this policy was announced in July 1994. Thirty-one airports have already been transferred to community interests or territorial governments. Negotiations continue with more than fifty other groups interested in taking over airports from the federal government. And we are very close to concluding all the final detailed negotiations to transfer operational control of several major airports - namely Pearson International, Winnipeg International, and Macdonald-Cartier International here in Ottawa - to local Canadian airport authorities. In fact, I am hopeful that all negotiations with Toronto will be completed within a few days. Subject to formal approval by both the airport authority and Treasury Board, this could lead to the announcement of a formal agreement as early as June to transfer control of Pearson International to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.
Mr. Gouk (Kootenay West - Revelstoke): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. With all due respect, the minister is going to be here until 10 o'clock. It's now 9:16, and we're on page 3 of a 10-page presentation. I'd suggest that's not going to leave very much time for questioning. I can read this later by myself. Right now, I'd rather have an opportunity to question the minister.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Anderson: Sure, I'd be quite happy to do that. We'll just take the speech as read if that's satisfactory.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, I've been watching the time rather carefully with that very thought in mind.
Mr. Minister, following on Mr. Gouk's request, if you would like to proceed by summarizing or by moving more expeditiously, that would probably be helpful. However, I am interested in it and am finding it fascinating.
Mr. Anderson: Let me just finish with the airport stuff. There are one or two new items here of which I'm sure Mr. Gouk is already well aware, given his previous experience, but they may also interest him because of his previous experience. There are some elements of this that are not exactly standard text, so if I could just finish off the airport section, perhaps we could then accept Mr. Gouk's suggestion.
I am aware that concerns have been expressed about the transfer of major airports and the ability of smaller communities to take over airports. I have already instructed departmental officials to proceed with airport transfer negotiations in a flexible and sensitive manner to ensure that future Canadian airport authorities and all national airport system sites will be both financeable and financially viable. To this end, I understand officials have had some very positive meetings with representatives of some national financial institutions.
While I think we should continue with our overall policy, I'm certainly prepared to address specific implementation concerns in several ways. First, Transport Canada will show more flexibility in negotiating lease arrangements at major airports with the CAAs, the Canadian airport authorities. For example, rather than pay for airport chattels - the moveable property at an airport - in one lump sum, the authorities may be permitted to make a series of payments over a few years, and the government would not be insisting on interest payments over that period.
For the smaller national airport system sites, it is likely that there will be a rent-free period in the early years after transfer. Transport Canada will also cap the base rent payable by a given airport authority once the specified passenger traffic level has been achieved.
In addition, the government will also factor into the lease calculations increased overhead costs during the first two years of operation, thus helping to offset initial transition start-up expenses on the part of the airport authority.
Additionally, we are streamlining the transfer negotiation process. In particular, we're using the legal documents associated with the Pearson transfer negotiations as the basis for all other transfer agreements for airports in the national airport system. The months of negotiation, detailed legal review and other related work that went into the development of the Pearson documentation can now serve as an excellent template for other transfer agreements.
Finally, for the smaller airport communities, I'll seek greater flexibility from Treasury Board in the conditions for access to the $35 million airports capital assistance program, which is also known as ACAP. Under ACAP, airports may apply for funding toward safety-related airside capital projects such as runways and taxiways. To be eligible, they must receive regularly scheduled passenger service, meet airport certification requirements, and not be owned or otherwise subsidized by the federal government. ACAP funding is, of course, not available to the major airports that are part of the national airport system, nor to the smallest airports that have no scheduled traffic.
.0920
Subject to Treasury Board approval, it is my intention to drop the requirement for recently transferred airports that are continuing to receive the federal subsidy in the short term. These are airports that receive a federal operating subsidy and cannot currently apply for ACAP funding. This will, at the least, allow these airports to make a case as to why their project should receive funding, which is not possible at the present time.
It is also the intention to expand the range of projects that may be funded through ACAP. At the moment, the possibility for funding only comes from airside, safety-related projects, but these would of course continue to receive first priority.
Mr. Chairman, under the new rules that I will propose to Treasury Board, ACAP funds would be available, in descending order of priority, for purchase of heavy airside mobile equipment, such as runway snowblowers and snowplows; for safety-related, groundside improvements, including upgrades to air terminal buildings; and finally, for refurbishing or protecting other assets anywhere on the airport property.
Most projects are cost-shared under ACAP, with the applicant paying a maximum of 15% and the federal government picking up the difference. Under the proposed new rules that I've just outlined, there will be cases where the applicant is expected to pay a greater share of the bill - as much as 50% - when the project is not directly related to safety.
We have spent, over the past year, $8.5 million out of that $35-million ACAP budget. Should the $35 million prove insufficient at some later date, I will then consider approaching Treasury Board for some modest increase in the program.
[Translation]
I want to confirm that Transport Canada will not provide ``seed money'' to groups interested in taking over ownership of airports from the federal government. This includes funding for feasibility studies, economic impact analyses, and so on. Through ACAP, the government is already providing up to $35 million per year in capital funds. We believe that paying for runway upgrades and new fire-fighting equipment in this manner is more constructive than paying for consultants. In any case, many communities across the country have found the resources required to take over their airports without having to turn to the federal government.
[English]
Finally, I should note that two of the original local airport authorities set up by the previous administration are seeking changes to their leases with the federal government - and you've probably noticed something about the Calgary airport in the papers in the last week. The federal government has agreed to consider changes to leases on condition that the airport authorities incorporate the principles for public accountability included in the national airports policy, and as long as such changes do not adversely the long-term financial position of the federal government.
So we are willing to make changes in those leases. We insist upon that financial accountability, however, and these measures will be applied consistently across the country, as well as to those airports that we've already transferred and which have led the way.
Mr. Chairman, the next section is on ANS commercialization, a subject I'm sure Mr. Gouk is far more familiar with than anybody in this room. Perhaps this might be a point at which I could put myself in your hands in terms of whether or not I should continue to outline from the speech or go to questioning.
The Chairman: I wonder, Mr. Minister, if you could make a couple of comments on marine policy, safety initiatives and legislation.
Mr. Anderson: Okay.
In the marine sector, thanks to the recommendation of this committee, we have developed a comprehensive marine policy that deals with the whole range of ports, pilotage, ferry services, commercialization of the seaway and the St. Lawrence system. This policy will help to ensure that shippers have the access to what we believe will be a very efficient and safe marine transport system - and members of this committee are fully aware of the work they did on that, so I thank them again.
The national marine policy also takes into account consultations with shippers, as well as this committee's work. The new policy will ensure that we get business principles put in place and applied to the development and operation of marine transport infrastructure and services. Commercial principles and commercial discipline is what we hope will be extremely important.
.0925
We expect Canada's major ports to become more commercially driven, more competitive, freed up from Ottawa's bureaucracy, and far more responsive to users. Much of the policy will be implemented through the new legislation, the Canada Marine Act, which this committee is well aware of. I hope to introduce this in mid-June and you will have that legislation soon thereafter to examine in detail.
Under that policy, ports deemed to be in the national interest for national and international trade will become Canadian port authorities. These ports are going to be run locally nevertheless, along the lines inspired by the Keyes report, as it's known, which is the report of the Standing Committee on Transport, which you gentlemen produced last year.
The port divestiture fund, which we announced in December, will soon be in place. There will be $125 million available to communities, as well as to other interested groups, to assist them in taking over ports and harbours.
As for Marine Atlantic, the operator in the Atlantic region has been directed to reduce costs, increase its efficiency and explore alternate delivery of services. We have received their business plan for the next five years. It outlines how the corporation hopes to commercialize its service and take those other measures that are needed to meet the objectives.
Where appropriate with Marine Atlantic, we will examine with them the possible transfer of ferry operations to the commercial sector. This, of course, might well be accompanied by some financial compensation.
We will, however, continue all mandated constitutional services required for remote communities under the agreements that were entered into when the various provinces entered Confederation.
In addition, the board of Marine Atlantic has been asked to manage new arrangements with Newfoundland Dockyard. During the next two months, this month and the month to follow, we are in discussions with the employees to determine whether they want to assume responsibility in an employee takeover of that facility. If not, we will look at other alternatives, but at this stage, that's what we hope will happen.
That's marine. As for safety, I assure you that safety is still Transport Canada's fundamental objective and responsibility. We think that all the changes we are making and entering into and that are taking place will, indeed, not affect safety adversely. In some instances, this may improve as our regulatory function becomes clearer.
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Just for the information of members, as agreed upon earlier, we will have five-minute rounds. I think we'll have at least time for a couple.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): It is interesting to note that there are many ongoing projects in the transportation sector. I have four issues that I would like to raise briefly. If I may, I will ask my four questions one after the other, and let you answer them all at once after.
My first question relates to the port policy. You are planning to put in place a new port divestiture fund of some $125 million. In order to make sure that the communities involved won't have to go through unduly long transition periods, would it be possible to establish a strategic positioning? I have especially in mind the Port of Cacouna. If the $125 million fund can only be used in a few years from now, chances are that someone might come and tell us we'd better not undertake upgrading works before the funds are there. That could be detrimental in terms of economic positioning.
I have another point to raise about the port policy. Is there a link between your action and the one of Fisheries and Oceans in the area of cost recovery? The devolution of port management may be interesting, but it could turn out to be problematic if it brings about a significant increase in operation costs.
My second question is about the Quebec bridge. I would like to know if your department has considered the possibility of getting into an agreement with the Quebec government, following its offer, which I find rather generous, to reopen the existing agreement which was made several years ago.
.0930
I appreciated, in your today's address, the new relationship you are establishing between tourism and transport. Could it go as far as granting moneys in order to support initiatives such as the green trail, that network of bicycle paths that we are planning to put in place in Quebec? There must be initiatives of that kind elsewhere in Canada too. Would it not be possible to get some money for that project based on the link you are establishing between tourism and transport?
I will now ask Mr. Mercier to say a word about our last point concerning the future of the Montreal airports.
Mr. Mercier (Blainville - Deux-Montagnes): ADM's decision to transfer all international flights from Mirabel to Dorval is extensively debated. Since that decision was made, many reactions have been expressed. Our party is in favour of neither Mirabel nor Dorval, but we would like to see much more transparency on that matter. ADM, an entity set up by the federal government, is structured in such a way that it can make decisions of great importance for the region and even for the whole country, but also hide behind its status to refuse to make public the information needed, particularly the studies on which its decisions are based. My office has requested those studies, but all we got as an answer was that ADM is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Since then, reactions are being expressed. Again, yesterday, some major companies indicated they would rather stay at Mirabel. ADM could probably answer them that they are free to do so, but given that Air Canada is offering on-the-spot transfers at Dorval, it is obvious that the other transporters will not be able to face such a competition. Besides, a former Quebec Minister has recently underlined some aberrations, like getting into expenses in Dorval while admitting that an eventual return to Mirabel is inescapable.
Since it is extremely important to have a minimum of transparency in dealing with such a matter, would the minister endorse the request made by my colleague Paul Crête and myself that the Standing Committee on Transport hear witnesses before the deadline?
Mr. Anderson: You are raising several issues. As for the port policy and the $125 million divestiture fund, I am sorry to have to inform you that we will have to wait until the enabling law is passed. For now, we must limit ourselves to the inescapable repair works needed to keep the port in good shape and make sure that security is not at risk. Once the Parliament has adopted the bill, we will have those $125 million. The member is right when he says that I don't actually have the$125 million which I am referring to, since we have not got yet the required legislative authority to spend money for such purposes. However, I expect to get it soon. In the meanwhile, we will be making our best to keep the ports in good shape.
Since 90% to 95% of the traffic using the Quebec bridge is highway traffic, that is cars and trucks, the maintenance of that bridge is the responsibility of the Quebec Department of Transport. Most damages to the Quebec bridge are caused not only by vehicles, but also by the salt which is spread on the snow and the ice during winter. So, most damages come from highway rather than railway traffic.
.0935
When the former conservative government gave up that bridge to CN, at the same time it let them have a piece of land which was then worth $30 million. With such a gift, we expected that the repairs would be made, especially since they were supported by the Quebec government. So, we gave up to CN something which was worth $30 million, which is not a small amount, in addition to the bridge itself, and we expected that you would assume the costs of repairs.
CN had engineers make some rather expensive studies. The cost of the review amounted some $700,000, and it seems that the bridge is in good shape. There are no are problems, but of course some repairs are needed on the old bridge. CN is going to pay $1.5 million per year during 15 or20 years for the repairs and the maintenance of the bridge.
Since the bridge is used mostly for highway traffic, it comes under the responsibility of the Quebec minister of Transport. Our policy is clear enough. We think it's for them to talk with CN. If 90% of the damages to the bridge are caused by highway traffic, the onus is obviously onMr. Brassard to deal with that matter, to be conciliating and to pay.
This is a rather basic issue from a constitutional point of view. We would not want to be interfering in Quebec nor in other provinces. Since highway traffic within the province is clearlyMr. Brassard's responsibility, we will leave it to him.
We are ready to assume responsibilities which are clearly of federal resort, but we think it is going a bit to far to suggest that, in this particular case, the onus is on us. When comes the time for spending, we must go by the Constitution. That's what we are trying to do in the case of that bridge, where our responsibility is not involved.
Highway traffic is a provincial jurisdiction. If Mr. Brassard thinks otherwise, he may come and talk with me, but I would not want to interfere in a matter which is essentially his responsibility.
About tourism, we have no policy for the construction of new routes in order to develop tourism in Canada. I wish I could do it. I will tell you frankly that I would certainly like to get a bit more money before considering such projects. If, in the future, your subcommittee can make some proposals to help us, I will surely appreciate it very much.
However, I must say that we are beginning to include tourism in the mix of transportation, and not only in terms of commercial or railway transport. We are also considering new strategies. For example, we are sharing with VIA Rail a significant responsibility, and I am very happy to mention that we are improving the maintenance system for VIA trains. So, I hope that we can play a more significant role in the operation of VIA Rail.
Mr. Crête: I would also like to ask you if some money could be provided for bicycle paths.
Mr. Anderson: For bicycle paths?
[English]
Mr. Fontana (London East): Six-lane, preferably.
[Translation]
Mr. Anderson: I am highly interested in that matter, because I am a cyclist myself. Unfortunately, we don't have any specific program of that type. Transport by muscle power is not yet a big concern in our department, but I hope it will some day. Not only do we do nothing for cycling, but we do nothing either for hiking.
I will now talk about airports, and more specifically about the Montreal airports.
.0940
A regional authority, Aeroports de Montreal, was established by the former government, as you mentioned very clearly, Mr. Mercier.
In full respect of the terms of the Constitution, I would not want to be interfering in Montreal, especially when it is just not my business.
ADM's board of directors includes representatives from cities and municipalities. They made a decision, and it must be said that their analysis was quite acceptable. People in Montreal are now reviewing all that issue more closely.
I wonder if it is a good idea that the federal government interferes in the Montreal area's concerns. The Bloc Quebecois seems to suggest that the federal government has a role to play. I am a bit surprised, because I thought that such decision which is made at the regional level had to be respected at the federal level.
As for the idea of holding a special enquiry here, at the committee level, I will leave it to you.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given the length of time it took us to get to the questioning and the 12-minute first 5-minute period, I hope you won't make up for lost time at my expense.
The Chairman: We'll see, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Minister, I hope you appreciate my frustration at the length of the opening presentation. I could easily take the hour myself, as I'm sure most other people here could, as well.
Mr. Anderson: With your expertise you probably could take even longer, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I'll start with three what I hope are fairly fast points, and then turn it over to you. I have a long list, and I doubt very much it will come back to me again.
I would like to open with one comment. At the beginning of the year, with a change in some of the structure of this committee, a change of minister, I looked forward to it with some optimism. I must say I was rather disappointed with the opening attitudes we got with regard to the National Transportation Act, the implication that came from members of this committee and yourself with regard to one specific subclause, 27(2). I was greatly disappointed in the way that was handled. The clear understanding we got is that it was being seriously reconsidered, and I got the very clear impression when it came time to vote.... It came off the table just like that, which leads me to suspect, true or not, that it was never on the table in the first place.
My second point is on coast guard fees that are now being implemented. There's a crossover;I realize that's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or the Department of Oceans, which is probably more appropriate. I recognize it is their area, but it crosses over very much with what we have done and the work this committee has done, and I believe the implementation of those coast guard fees, which impacts on ports, is extremely premature.
I'll quote one example, using the honourable member for Thunder Bay - Nipigon, that there are ships now going to be transporting grain from his port to Duluth, paying up to 15¢ a tonne for use of navigational aids when they don't use any navigational aids for that particular trip.
As to my third point, you mentioned airports, and I go specifically to your own region, which you mentioned, British Columbia, the lower mainland - Pitt Meadows, Boundary Bay, and Langley, none of which have passenger service. They are pressure relievers for Vancouver, nonetheless, because they take virtually all the private and small aircraft for the entire lower mainland, for the most part, out of Vancouver. If they were to close down, they would get absolutely no subsidy. I would ask, if one of those airports had one passenger service operation, no matter how small, would they qualify for subsidies?
Mr. Anderson: With respect to the first point, I accept your comment with respect to your disappointment. I think, however, as a member of this committee you would understand that legislation such as the National Transportation Act is legislation that compromises the views and interests of many different organizations and users. A compromise inevitably means that not everybody gets what they want, and I think that is certainly true with respect to subsection 27(2).
.0945
I believe, after re-examining this, that the protection for the shippers is extensive. We have to break the psychology of constantly running to government, which is a theme your party has stressed, as well as our own. To do so we have to make sure that we make it clear that we expect the transportation agency not to be constantly pulled into what we believe are essentially commercial disputes between the shippers and the railways. When I say disputes, I mean arguments. Inevitably, one side will want a higher fee and the other will want a lower one.
Our experience and our examination of American experiences suggest that you don't succeed in getting them to act as responsible customer-supplier partners and you don't get that partnership when you are always calling in the referee or the monitor for every dispute that comes down the pipe. We think we have to break that attitude. I apologize if you don't feel that we went far enough, butI still think we had to put in the restrictions that made it clear that the National Transportation Agency is to be used, we hope, rarely and only in cases where there is some special and good reason.
I should also add that the protections of shippers guaranteed in the 1987 act are there in spades in this current legislation. I don't think there's another country in the world that has legislation that indeed provides more protection to shippers of this type.
With respect to coast guard fees, I again hear your plea, as I've heard it from many people. I'd point out that I think the coast guard fees are about 4% of coast guard budget. In other words, we're recovering about 4% of the expenditures on coast guard.
Again, and I say this in all sincerity, examine your own party's position. Do they believe government should not recover for services rendered? We believe we should. We know we can't do it everywhere and in this particular area we're a little embarrassed that we recover so little of the expenditure out there.
I realize that as you introduce a new system with new fees, it can particularly affect those with marginal profit lines. We will look at that and I will promise you that we will also closely coordinate anything we do in Transport with coast guard. In other words, the split of the two departments will not mean that the two departments will totally independently apply fees in the marine area, which might indeed be cumulative or detrimental. Certainly I will do that.
Again, this is part of getting away from saddling the general taxpayer with high taxes when services are used by particular components in our society who should be paying the freight themselves.
Mr. Gouk: I have one thing to clarify, because we're sort of going off.
You asked us to look at our policy. We do believe in user fees; very specifically, you pay for what you use. Use only what you need and pay for it on a commercially fair and reasonable basis. The example I gave was of being charged a fee when you're not using the service. We think it's premature to implement these fees because the coast guard has not properly rationalized them yet and there has not been any kind of impact study to see how to implement this. We say definitely user fees, just make sure it's damn fair.
Mr. Anderson: Certainly we would all agree that user fees should be fair. At least we're at one with respect to policy.
I will say, certainly with no reference to you or your party, that I do find that quite often everybody, including members of my own party, is in favour of this too, as long as it happens in the next millennia, as long as it doesn't happen now. The year 2000 is a favourite target date for bringing in anything.
Of course these are put forward in good faith and I examine these cases, but it's one of these things that sounds awfully good. It's like belling the cat; everybody thinks it's a great idea. The problem is actually doing it. At some point you have to bring it in and it may not fit perfectly. I will agree that inevitably there will be some areas of roughness where you have to work things out. I feel for the coast guard in this regard.
I've heard you, though. We're trying hard to make sure that the representations from you and from other members of the committee with respect to coast guard fees will be fully taken into account by colleague, Mr. Mifflin.
With respect to the airports at Pitt Meadows, Langley, and Boundary Bay, if indeed a passenger service is established - and I'll have this confirmed by the deputy - yes, they would qualify. Yes, you're right that they are to a certain extent relief airports for Vancouver International. In addition they handle general aviation, while Vancouver of course is more commercially oriented. So they're important.
.0950
We are looking at having Vancouver take a management role so we'd have essentially a major airport and some smaller ones in a system. There are some local people who bitterly oppose this, as I'm sure you're well aware, and there are some in the Vancouver International Airport Authority who say the small airports will just bleed them. The situation is not unlike Toronto, where you have Toronto Island Airport not too far away from Toronto itself.
I believe these airports have a great future, in particular for general aviation. I believe they will survive and flourish, but it will take a while, first to work out the relationship with the airport of Vancouver, and then, if indeed that doesn't work out, to establish where their clientele is.
We're back to first principles. If no people want to use them and keep them up, why is the Canadian taxpayer saddled with it? If only a few people have special interests or advantages in these particular airports, why are we subsidizing them from the general taxpayer?
Mr. Gouk: So the passenger service, no matter how small, would qualify them for a subsidy?
Mr. Anderson: Well, no matter how small, if they have the commercial service, that's what we're trying to do. We feel it's not Transport Canada's job to be out there encouraging general aviation sports flying to any great degree, except when it comes in in some other aspect, such as tourism, which was mentioned earlier. Our belief is there are some things better done locally, and running small airports in the Fraser Valley is not a job for Transport Canada in Ottawa.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have three short questions.
First, let me applaud you, Minister, on the announcement of the flexibility with the application of the airports policy as it relates to some airports. I believe flexibility is essential if in fact we move to divestiture or devolution to those airport authorities, which I know will do a very good job.
I know you'll be in London to sign a letter of intent with London airport, but I think this flexibility is important to airports like my own, as well as Hamilton and Thunder Bay, for that matter, when Joe signs his agreement.
I don't necessarily want to talk about a national bicycle path, which the Bloc wants to talk about, but about your comments with regard to perhaps a national highway system. When you're talking about tourism and the movement of goods and services, there's a big public interest and, I believe, a role for the federal government to play in conjunction with provincial governments, which obviously have the ultimate jurisdiction in highways, as to how we can improvement that movement. Now that we've done sea, air and others, we should devote our attention to some of the surface highway programs.
I want to talk a little about VIA. You didn't talk about it in your remarks. I know VIA has done some outstanding things in the past two and a half years, at the direction of this government and your department. That service is absolutely essential and therefore the service has remained intact, even though the subsidy levels have gone down to about $284 million and will continue to drop. They've done a superb job, as opposed to the previous government, which cut the service to Canadians.
I wonder what your feelings are on giving VIA the tools it needs to further progress and provide service to Canadians, and hence some of the commercial rules it would need as a corporation to take advantage of some great opportunities. When we're talking about tourism, there's no one better than VIA to accomplish that.
So Mr. Minister, if you could, please talk about the national highway system as well as VIA's passenger rail and perhaps even a high-speed train, which is also mentioned in the estimates.
Mr. Anderson: Thank you.
With respect to tourism, I guess I should go a little further. Perhaps I didn't answer Mr. Crête's question fully enough. It really is interesting. Tourism and transportation also include muscle power: walking, canoeing and bicycling. I just feel we've missed something in the mix as we've been out there.
The Alexander Mackenzie Trail goes from Quebec City right through to Bella Coola. The first trip across Canada by land was on 20 June 1793; it was made by Alexander Mackenzie, two other Scots traders, fifteen voyageurs and a large number of Indian assistants. That was a great trip, and we should celebrate it. I believe we should have that route established -
Mr. Nick Mulder (Deputy Minister of Transport): It also includes rowing.
Mr. Anderson: Yes, it includes rowing. Thank you very much.
.0955
I think this is something that should be celebrated as part of.... It was more than two centuries ago. I will warn this committee that this is one of my enthusiasms.
Similarly, we have a trans-Canada trail, which I think is being promoted as a hiking trail across the country. Certainly a bicycle route, wherever it may be, is something very attractive. Now fitness has gone back into health from sport. I think there are real opportunities we should look at in Transport Canada, so I'm with you on that.
If the committee has suggestions or the members have suggestions, let's try to work on it - as long as the suggestions are cheap, of course.
VIA Rail is, I think, our sleeping success story. We're not there yet, but Joe, I know it's hard to outdo you in enthusiasm for VIA, but there are others on this committee who are also enthusiastic, like me. We now give VIA about $230 million a year in subsidy. That's down from about$600 million at the height of the folies des conservateurs. We are cranking it down to $170 million, but with current passenger expectations we realize we have a certain bottom point for that subsidy. We do not intend to crank it down and down and down until finally the thing collapses. We're going to have to make some tough decisions.
I think people will start coming back to rail. It's a great way to move in an area such as the corridor from Quebec City to Windsor. It really is good. With some of the adjustments being made and some of the disadvantages of air travel being more recognized compared with rail, I believe that VIA has a good future. I genuinely believe there's a future there. The problem is keeping it alive long enough until the public awakens to that realization. It's costly and we have to borrow money in New York to pay for those VIA subsidies.
Any ideas the committee may have in promoting traffic would be well accepted. VIA's management is doing a good job and I think there's real potential there.
My brother phoned me last night to say he's going to come down to Ottawa, but he's coming by train. He's looking forward to reliving the old days when he and I were much younger. There are people who like travelling by train and we have to exploit that.
High-speed rail is problematic because of the cost. We're looking at something like anywhere...pick your figure, but let's say $18 billion for establishment of a full high-speed system, 300 or 320 kilometres an hour in the corridor. The private sector is looking at this. We are certainly interested. The Ontario government has said no. The Quebec government, the Premier of Quebec, has expressed interest. Fundamentally it's a very big cost. It may come, but we'll do the analysis with Bombardier and with others who are interested, with the Quebec government and Ontario as well, if we can work them in. It may be a great potential travel mode in Canada, but again we have to keep people at least thinking about travelling by train in the interim. That's why VIA is important even if we establish a high-speed rail system.
Those are quick responses to your three questions. I would like to thank you in particular for your support of VIA Rail and rail transportation. We have to keep telling people there is an option out there and it is a great option to use.
The Chairman: Mr. Comuzzi.
Mr. Comuzzi (Thunder Bay - Nipigon): I think my questions have been answered. I assume, Mr. Minister, that the committee should develop a plan for a trans-Canada highway system analogous to the interstate system we see in the States, and come up with a plan to present to you folks on having it implemented and on how to fund it.
Mr. Anderson: Cast your mind back to when the budget came out last year. I know you rolled it around in your mind. It talked about youth in employment; it talked about high-tech; it talked about trade promotion. Those are the three things chosen from the smorgasbord that was out there. If one is examining road transportation and the federal role, it might be possible to work it under the heading of the third, trade promotion. That would also, of course, include tourism.
.1000
Suggestions from this committee would be most welcome, but clearly, at the present time - and the budget did not indicate it - we do not have a clear green light for a national major increase in national involvement in road transportation.
It is a big job generator, not just for the construction but for what follows, like the transportation that follows and the improvements in trade and tourism that follow. I believe this is something that has great potential, but I'm not the Minister of Finance, and we were not given the signal in the budget that the government wished us to proceed with spending money in this area.
Mr. Comuzzi: I thought part of the committee's job would be how something like this could be funded.
Mr. Anderson: There is potential for joint partnerships, for private sector involvement, and for user-pay, and potential with the new technology of transponders and of licence readers, and the ability to bill monthly without having people stopping at the toll - you don't have to pay each time, you just get the bill for what you've used on the toll system. And there is also, I might add, the ability to deny a driver's licence or vehicle licence to anyone who hasn't paid their bill. These are the things that could make a very interesting study.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
I would like to allow Mr. Byrne a question.
Mr. Byrne (Humber - St. Barbe - Baie Verte): I'll be very quick. Thank you very much, Minister, for taking two extra minutes.
You mentioned that you and the department were interested in pursuing a line of investigation as to the integration of transportation and tourism, and I applaud it. Especially in Atlantic Canada, we see the opportunities for tourism growing. We see it as an integral link between transportation and providing access way for tourists.
Specifically, one of the things that I note in the estimates is that the Marine Atlantic subsidies are decreasing and that there is a transfer of some of the coastal ferry systems to the Province of Newfoundland.
How flexible.... In terms of any review or investigation of tourism and transportation, is there any mechanism in place to actually transform or to shape future budgeting processes towards the recommendations and findings of how the department perceives the role of tourism and transportation together?
Mr. Anderson: Yes, there is, and suggestions are most welcome. The problem we now face, of course, with such tight budgets, is that inevitably if you switch you're going to have to cut something else out. We feel that in many instances there's not much room to switch because we're down to the bare bones of the structure of existing systems. Therefore, it's hard to think of something new when cutting out something fundamental.
However, with respect to tourism and Atlantic area tourism - you mentioned Marine Atlantic specifically - I think the potential is very high. The season is limited, which is a great problem. That of course carries greatly increased costs. But we now have big cruise ships calling into Halifax and other areas of the Atlantic provinces. I think we can expand that dramatically. Certainly we have subsidies on these routes and they're extensive. The total subsidy for Marine Atlantic is over$100 million at present, about $120 million....
Mr. Mulder: It's gone down from about $110 million to about $80 million.
Mr. Anderson: Oh, it's going down. Well, we're around that level at the moment. Again, there's a point we can't go below unless we transfer services.
However, we've noticed some very flexible thinking. There was a by-election in Labrador and it seemed that even the Reform Party recognized - and I applaud them for this - the importance of subsidies to transportation systems in Atlantic Canada.
So I think we have a more general agreement than we might have had three months ago, with respect to how to handle tourism and travel and their promotion in Atlantic Canada.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
I noted previously that you have to leave to attend a cabinet committee meeting, I believe, at which we're hoping that you will expand your influence with the treasury. We will attempt to assist you in that throughout the next few months.
I also should note that this is the second time you've been before this committee in a very short period of time, and we really appreciate the time you make available to the committee.
For the information of members, I understand Mr. Mulder will be here for roughly another half an hour. We can clean up some of the questions that perhaps have not been answered.
Thank you.
Mr. Anderson: Thank you.
The Chairman: Okay, Monsieur Crête, une autre question?
.1005
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Concerning my very first question on the port policy and the $125 million fund, we may well agree that devolution is a valuable option, but chances are that we go through a one or two-year period of disruption during which harbour facilities might need some upgrading, not necessarily for security purposes, but to allow us to do things in order to be competitive. Would it not be possible to get an authorization from the Treasury Board to use a portion of that fund in order to avoid that one or two-year period of uncertainties and cuts?
Mr. Mulder: Mr. Chairman, may I answer in English?
The Chairman: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Mulder: As the minister said, as part of the policy we hope to proceed with $125 million reasonably soon. Unfortunately, the $125 million can't be spent all in the first year or two. We've been told by the Department of Finance and Treasury Board we have to stretch this over a period of five or six years. So the best we can possibly do is around $25 million or so per year. It may be a little bit more or a little bit less, year by year.
The other difficulty we have is we're dealing with the transfer of 250 ports and harbours. Some of these are in reasonably good shape and others aren't. So the $125 million, unfortunately, doesn't go very far when you're dealing with 250 ports.
I believe, just in the member's own riding, there are three ports you're dealing with. So there's a demand of almost $30 million or $35 million. This demand is for various things, such as repair, extensions, dredging, and so on. So just in the member's own riding, if we did all three of them, including the wharf for the ferry service at St. Simeon and so on, we could spend a third of the budget.
So what we're going to do is for each port look at what the case is. If it is really a question, as part of the transfer, of something essential that has to be done, as the minister said, we'll try to accommodate. Unfortunately, for anything that isn't essential we don't have the money to do all of that.
The Chairman: I think I'll try to catch you on a second round.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Mulder, I still have a few things, so I'll try to at least catch a couple of them.
As to harbour fees, I wrote to the minister about this some time ago and I'm anxiously anticipating what I am sure is his soon to be received response. I refer to Kitimat. Kitimat is now paying something in excess of $200,000 a year in harbour fees. They built the port. They own the port. There are no government facilities there. The only government expenditure amounts to about $40,000 per year, and that's for a part-time harbour master to collect the fees. Now with the new policy, those fees have been increased at least threefold and perhaps more. And still the only service provided is a harbour master to collect the fees. Could you give me some general idea of what I can tell the people in Kitimat about why their fees should triple from an amount they already believed to be excessive?
Mr. Mulder: I have three quick comments, Mr. Chairman.
First, I think Mr. Gouk has a legitimate concern. How much can we continue to charge people to go in and out of the port of Kitimat when we provide a limited number of services? We do have some services. We have recently been involved, for example, in pollution and a vessel in difficulty just off the port of Kitimat. So we were involved as part of our environmental responsibilities and navigational aids. So there is some service provided, but there's a limit.
Mr. Gouk: You mean rates as a separate piece.
Mr. Mulder: Right.
The second one is that we are dealing with the coast guard, and so on. To the extent they charge for navigational aids and other things, we can't charge for the same functions through our harbour dues and fees. So at some stage in the next six months, we have to sort out where we go with our harbour dues and fees. It is one thing to charge for a wharf if we build it, but it's another thing to charge for harbour dues when there may not be - directly by us anyway - Transport Canada services being provided. So we are dealing with this.
.1010
Third, that is one of the issues we're going to look at jointly with Fisheries and Oceans as part of a study we will launch in about a week or so. Consultants have been hired and we're looking for an independent chairperson to look at all the things the coast guard is doing that impact on the marine sector and all of the things we are doing in the marine sector.
The plans for Mr. Anderson and Mr. Mifflin are that when the report is finished by September, it will be sent to both the fisheries and oceans committee and the committee on transport. This is so that all of you can see the impacts of all the changes we've made, the other things we're thinking about and what their impact will be, and whether or not we really should proceed or make some changes.
Mr. Gouk: I started to take some relief from your opening comments, but the minute you told me the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is getting involved, you terrified me once again.
Mr. Mulder: Well, they do have the coast guard and we are sister or brother departments.
Mr. Gouk: I recognize that. I come from a riding 400 miles inland with no navigable water. When I get a call from one of my 25 municipalities saying that they have problems with a government department, I say ``Don't tell me, let me guess - DFO'', and invariably I'm right. So I trust that it will be something...and I have written the minister on the subject.
Mr. Mulder: Yes, and a reply is on its way.
Mr. Gouk: Good. I thank you for that.
On Pearson airport, the government implemented the cancellation of the redevelopment of Terminals 1 and 2 in 1993. It's still ongoing. However, I don't see anything in the 1996 budget nor have I seen any plan from the Department of Transport as to what plan they have as an alternative, how they are going to rebuild it, or where that money is going to come from. Three years have gone by. Construction would have started in the fall of 1993 and it's now 1996. When is the government going to produce the specifics of what they intend to do to replace specifics that were on the table three years ago?
Mr. Mulder: Again, Mr. Chairman, I have three quick responses. One is on the termination of the previous agreement that was signed in October 1993. As the member knows, this legislation is in the Senate. In the meantime litigations and settlement discussions are going on. So that issue is being dealt with in three different ways. I don't know which one will come out ahead.
Mr. Gouk: That's not the question, though.
Mr. Mulder: I know.
Number two is that we hope, as the minister indicated, to conclude by early June the actual agreement to transfer, and then the Greater Toronto Airport Authority will take it over. They have a very extensive program they want to start, including the rehabilitation of Terminal 2, probably tearing down Terminal 1 and building a whole new terminal and access roads and so on. That will be their responsibility and they have plans on the way, plus they're looking at the financing of that.
Number three is that we have a secret we can't seem to get out. We currently have a $250 million construction program going on at the Toronto airport. We are finishing a runway that will be finished by the Greater Toronto Airport Authority -
Mr. Gouk: I recognize that, but that's not -
Mr. Mulder: We are also making significant modifications to Terminal 1 in the parking garages. We are doing a number of modifications to Terminal 2, and we hope to proceed with NAV CANADA in the construction of a new air traffic control tower at the terminal, which is also needed. So we have big expenditures going on and they are reflected somewhere in the budget.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Hubbard (Miramichi): I was taken up with some of the cuts you've had in spending. In terms of Transport Canada as a whole, within the very near future you're losing thousands and thousands of jobs to various activities not directly related to the government.
Mr. Mulder, could you give us some indication of the number of jobs being eliminated within Transport Canada? I look at page 33 where you talk about corporate management compared with other cuts. Are we cutting jobs at the top of Transport Canada, being able to reduce our expenditure at that level, or is it mainly within the regions? I'm looking for just general comments on what has happened in terms of ADMs and deputy ministers and all these people who might be cut back as a result of the loss of these thousands of employees.
Mr. Mulder: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hubbard has raised a very valid point. I want to disagree with one little aspect of it to begin with. You used the word ``losing'' jobs. We are not losing jobs; we are transferring most of the jobs. There are 4,000 people who have already been transferred from the coast guard to DFO, so those people are still under the government. If we include the legislation for the air navigation side, 6,500 people will go to NAV CANADA. . Most of them will have jobs down the road, and perhaps even more will in the future.
.1015
We have already transferred about 1,500 people to the airport from Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, and so on, and another 2,000 will come when we transfer, for example, Thunder Bay, London, Saskatoon, Ottawa, Toronto, all those. So most of the people will have jobs.
About 3,000 to 3,500 jobs are disappearing. We can give you the details on that, Mr. Hubbard.
Proportionally, the hit is much more in Ottawa and at the top than it is in a region at the bottom. For example, when I arrived we had, I think, a total of eight or nine assistant deputy ministers who reported to me. By the end of next year we'll have only three reporting to me. So we'll have gone from nine to three.
We are really restructuring the whole department and making sure that all the expertise and the jobs are at the local level, at the Transport Canada centres that we're going to have for marine purposes, railway purposes, aviation, and so on, building it up from the bottom, and then the regional heads, and then Ottawa. So proportionally Ottawa is getting a bigger hit than the regions are.
Mr. Hubbard: So, Mr. Mulder, when you add up those numbers, whether they are losing from the government or whatever, it arrives at a 45,000-person cutback in terms of government.
Mr. Mulder: In total 45,000.
Mr. Hubbard: Within Transport Canada alone it seems to add up to about 10,000.
Mr. Mulder: No. Three years ago Transport Canada had 20,000 employees; by the time most of this will be done, probably by the end of next year, we will be down somewhere around 3,500. Of those, by far the majority are being transferred to other entities, within the federal government or the coast guard or outside to airport authorities, port authorities, and NAV CANADA. There are about 3,000 jobs.
By the way, 1,500 have already been done over the last two years; 1,500 jobs have disappeared and there are about another 1,500 to go. Of the 1,500 that have disappeared, a very small fraction, only about 40 or so, have actually been laid off. Most of them have been done by people retiring voluntarily. Some people get early retirement incentives and other people get early departure incentives. So most of the people have been well looked after and very few people are standing in unemployment insurance lines.
Mr. Hubbard: Good.
We've heard questions this morning on the bridge at Quebec City. For the record, we have at least three bridges in Quebec, for which we are paying a goodly amount of money each year.I wonder if the deputy could inform the committee of the amounts. Secondly, for how long will this continue? Is it continuous? I don't think we have any bridges in New Brunswick that are under federal jurisdiction, except the Saint John harbour bridge.
Mr. Mulder: I think that between Public Works and the Department of Transport we are involved in over 50 or 60 bridges, interprovincial.... For example, even the one in New Brunswick between New Brunswick and the Gaspé, through Campbellton and Dalhousie, is run by the Department of Public Works. When the fixed link will be finished, we will also have a responsibility for the bridge from New Brunswick to P.E.I. So there is a lot of federal involvement.
By far the biggest involvements are the two bridges in Montreal, the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges. These were part of the deal of constructing the St. Lawrence Seaway. We have tried - I've been personally involved - at least three times in twenty years to make a deal with the Quebec government to take them over.
The estimate for this year is that we will be spending $32 million on the operating and maintenance of those bridges in Montreal. There used to be a small toll in there, but it was removed. All the operating costs for bridges that are totally used by people within the urban area of Montreal, highway users and so on, are being paid by the federal government. We have dealt and we continue to deal with our officials in Quebec to see if we can't transfer the responsibility of those two bridges to the Province of Quebec.
The Chairman: Mr. Comuzzi, did you have a question?
Mr. Comuzzi: It was on the question Mr. Hubbard was asking. On page 103 I can see that the actual amount in 1993-94 was $35 million for the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges, and those are not interprovincial. They're intraprovincial.
On top of that, we have two or three other bridges right in Quebec and a tunnel whose maintenance is paid for under the St. Lawrence Seaway obligation.
Mr. Mulder: The Valleyfield.
Mr. Comuzzi: Yes, and that's about $3.5 million or $4 million.
Mr. Mulder: It's a part of the operations of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.
Mr. Comuzzi: And we can't seem to get rid of that.
.1020
Mr. Mulder: Depending on how we make out with the negotiations with the seaway user groups and also with the legislation that the minister said would be before you hopefully in June, we hope to separate those entities away from the seaway and then decide what to do with bridges, the tunnel, the viaduct, and so on, to see if we can't enter into negotiations formally with Quebec to take those over.
Mr. Comuzzi: As one final question, Mr. Mulder, is there any other province that has - like the crown corporation that has intraprovincial facilities that are paid for by Transport Canada?
Mr. Mulder: Yes, there are some. There is, for example - and Mr. Hubbard referred to that - the Saint John Harbour Bridge that was constructed about 20 years ago. There's a joint federal-provincial authority that looks after that. It is also incurring losses, and we are trying to negotiate with New Brunswick to see if we can't get out of that one.
Then there are a number of interprovincial bridges, and of course a number of international bridges. For example, all the ones along the seaway, and so on, that are run by varying entities are all paying for themselves grosso modo.
Mr. Comuzzi: Saint John is the only intra-....
Mr. Mulder: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Comuzzi.
I have some indications of interest from members for another quick round here.
Mr. Mulder, it is 10:20. I realize we have to get you out here at 10:30, which we will do. I'm certain you would be willing to come back, should members be interested in seeing you again.
Mr. Mercier,
[Translation]
one short question.
Mr. Mercier: Let us come back to ADM. If ADM did not exist and if the Montreal airports were still managed directly by the federal government, the recent decision about the future of those airports would have been made by the federal government, who could not deny to anyone access to the studies on which such decision was based. Since ADM exists - and ADM is a federal creature - that right for the public to have access to information is being denied.
Given that on May 2 a letter was sent by minister Brassard to his federal counterpart to denounce such attitude from ADM, did the federal minister answer or does he intend to answer that letter in which Mr. Brassard invited him to take advantage of that period ending on May 25 to assess the impacts of ADM's decision and to make public his government's views on that issue?
Mr. Mulder: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the minister answered Mr. Brassard's letter, and they met two weeks ago. They discussed several issues, particularly the future of Mirabel and Dorval Airports.
[English]
To repeat what the minister has indicated, our view is that all the major airports that are set up to run at arm's length from the government have their own responsibility through the accountability principles to deal with the local groups, much the same as in Edmonton, where a decision was made by the local people to consolidate the municipal airport with the Edmonton airport and to put it into one and to change the whole structure. Our view is that is up to the people in Edmonton and the local airport authorities to decide. It's not for us to step in.
In much the same way, it's up to Mr. Auger and Mr. Earle, and so on, and the members of the board of directors of ADM to make a decision as to what the future of Mirabel is. They certainly have a responsibility to release reports, and they've done so.
I believe Mr. Auger has had several meetings with local groups. The board of directors has met several times. They've met with the Province of Quebec. They've met with the chambre de commerce. They've gone through a number of things and released all the studies. It's finally up to that group. And as Mr. Mercier knows, they represent municipal authorities, the local businessmen, the chambre de commerce. It's for them to decide. That's certainly Mr. Anderson's response toMr. Brassard.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mulder and Mr. Mercier.
We'll go to Mr. Gouk for a quick question.
Mr. Gouk: So many questions and so little time.
I have concerns with the NAV CANADA privatization. I do very much support it. I salute the government for going that way, although I believe they have NAV CANADA negotiating with a gun at their head because they have to have it. It's the only logical solution for the users, and I think they paid the better part of a billion dollars too much for it to bail the government out of previous problems, like CAATS.
.1025
The government keeps talking about the $1.5 billion they're getting. They're not calling it a windfall, but something along those lines. Is it not true that if the majority, if not all, of the employees transfer their pension benefits to NAV CANADA, after receiving $1.5 billion from NAV CANADA the federal government has to write a cheque for something in the range of $1.3 billion for the pension obligations, and that money has not been set aside, so therefore they're going to have a net in pocket of about $200 million, not $1.5 billion?
Mr. Mulder: I have two brief comments, and Mr. Gauvin can probably elaborate on the financial details, if you wish.
First of all, they didn't have a gun to their head. This is a free country, and nobody is forced to take over anything they don't want to take.
Mr. Gouk: If you need a heart transplant and the only one costs $1 million, you pay it or die.
Mr. Mulder: As Mr. Gouk knows, because he's worked in that area, while our system isn't perfect, it's one of the best if not the best in the world, and it's worth a lot of money. They are being given a monopoly to run it for an unlimited period of time, and therefore the taxpayers certainly should get a good return for it.
More particularly on the pension issue, it is not a wash, because the pension liability is already booked on the government, so it's just transferring the liability for the 6,500 employees from the government to NAV CANADA. So in terms of accounting - and if you wish, Mr. Gauvin can go into details - one doesn't match the other. One is already on the books; the other one is an asset that we didn't have on the books before.
The Chairman: Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Byrne: Mr. Mulder, you raised the point that you have a responsibility for the bridges in connection with the St. Lawrence Seaway. Marine Atlantic is a sort of similar entity in its responsibilities for transportation in that area. Marine Atlantic operates the ferry service to Newfoundland.
Would you be able to provide details as to how the proposed cutback from $111 million to$39 million is going to affect service?
Mr. Mulder: We can certainly give you the details on that. Right now I don't have the figures for the increase.
Part of it is because of changing levels of service. For example, last winter a decision was made not to run the Bluenose during the winter months. That netted the government money.
Also a factor is that we transferred the south coast services from Newfoundland. We did a buyout with the Government of Newfoundland, so the operating costs of those south coast services are also reflected in the lower figures.
In the next few days I will give you details on why it dropped from $112 million to $87 million.
Mr. Byrne: I was interested in something else. You terminated tolls on the Victoria Bridge, but I understand that fees on the Marine Atlantic service from North Sydney to Port aux Basques are now increasing.
Mr. Mulder: Yes.
Mr. Byrne: Could you give me a breakdown of the fee structure for Marine Atlantic as well?
Mr. Mulder: Yes, we can give you the whole fare schedule. If you wish, we can arrange a meeting between you and Mr. Morrison, the president of Marine Atlantic, to give you all the details.
Mr. Byrne: Great.
Mr. Mulder: You can fire questions at him, including about what's happening in Labrador.
Mr. Byrne: I'll take you up on that.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mulder, Ms Burr, Mr. Gauvin and the others. I appreciate the time here. We'll you let you know when the members wish to go further with the estimates discussion at a later date.
For the information of members, if you wait, we're going to go in camera now and have a discussion about future business of the committee. Those of you who are not captured within the umbrella of an in camera discussion please leave. Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]