[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 6, 1997
.0924 
[English]
The Chairman: Let us come to order.
This begins the 1997-98 estimates. Gosh, time moves fast.
I'd like to welcome our new deputy minister for the Department of Transport, who is here to begin the estimates.
Perhaps I'll let you introduce the other people who are at the table with you.
.0925
Ms Margaret Bloodworth (Deputy Minister, Department of Transport): Thank youMr. Chairman. I have with me Paul Gauvin, the senior assistant deputy minister; Ron Jackson, the assistant deputy minister for safety and security; and Louis Ranger,
[Translation]
assistant deputy minister for policy.
[English]
Unfortunately, Minister Anderson was unable to be here today, but he did ask me to express his thanks to the committee for their considerable hard work on a number of transportation issues over the last few years.
I propose to make a few opening remarks and then just leave you with the deck we have distributed. I don't propose to go through that in detail because I think that would take a considerable amount of time. Rather than do that, I'll leave it with you. It's essentially a summary of the estimates document.
[Translation]
Transport Canada made noticeable progress last year towards achieving its goals in all transportation modes. I would like to mention some of the main highlights of the year.
[English]
First, in air, as you know, last year we transferred the air navigation system to NAV CANADA for $1.5 billion, which was a significant one-time contribution to reducing the country's debt.
The open skies agreement continues to reap benefits for Canadian air travellers. So far, open skies has resulted in about 85 new scheduled trans-border routes, including more than 50 new routes for Canadian carriers.
We've concluded a new bilateral air agreements with the Philippines and Malaysia and with four central American countries: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. We've also updated the agreements with Germany, Brazil, Korea, and a number of other countries.
Under the national airport policy, the department continues to get out of the business of owning and operating airports. We have completed negotiations for the transfer of 29 airports to local authorities in 1995-96 and expect to complete a further 45 in 1996-97.
We also recently announced an agreement in principle to amend our ground leases with the local airport authorities in Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver. These amendments will bring those local authorities closer to the Canadian airport authority model set out in this government's airport policy.
In the marine field, we've been making steady progress in bringing commercial practices to the management of Canada's major ports. Preparations are under way for establishing Canada port authorities for approximately 15 ports important to international trade. Of course, this will take place once the Canada Marine Act has been passed.
A total of 53 letters of intent have been signed with interested groups to take over the operation of smaller ports across the country. Of the 549 ports owned by the department in December 1995, 261 remain, including 46 remote ports that we may well retain indefinitely.
In July, Minister Anderson signed a letter of intent with a group representing the St. Lawrence Seaway's major shippers and carriers. The terms of the letter included establishing a not-for-profit corporation to operate the seaway system. In August, Canada and the U.S. established a new joint working group to examine greater cooperation in administering the seaway system.
In rail, the Canada Transportation Act became law on July 1, 1996, streamlining rail regulation, promoting the formation of short-line railways, and cutting red tape.
[Translation]
In order to preserve passenger services in remote areas, the minister signed financing agreements in 1996 with
[English]
the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway, Algoma Central and Ontario Northland.
Also, in 1996 we transferred the operation of the department's motor vehicle test centre at Blainville, Quebec, to PMG Technologies, under a five-year contract.
As you are well aware, many of these changes have required legislation. The proposed Canada Marine Act was tabled last year, and I'm sure your work on this bill will be well in evidence when it's called for second reading in the House, which we hope will be very shortly.
Proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act were also introduced, as were proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. With respect to the Canada Shipping Act, the first set of amendments is only the first in a series of amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. Over the next couple of years, we plan to overhaul the whole of the Canada Shipping Act, which is a major task, and we are proposing to do it in two tranches: one will come in 1997-98 and the other in 1998-99.
Other legislation includes the Carriage of Goods by Water Act, and some amendments to the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.
.0930
All of these changes have had an impact on the finances of the department. We have made progress in reducing subsidies. As you are aware, the major subsidy reductions include elimination of the WGTA and the Maritimes Freight Rates Act assistance. We have also significantly reduced subsidies for ferry services and for VIA Rail. Payments to Marine Atlantic will decrease to$50 million in 1998-99 and the annual subsidy provided to VIA Rail will be reduced from $311 million in 1994-95 to $170 million in 1998-99. Altogether more than $700 million a year in subsidy payments have been eliminated.
But we're not just expecting other people to become more efficient. We're also reducing costs and cutting overhead from the department. This year we will complete our five-year plan to reduce spending in administrative areas by $50 million and 1,000 full-time equivalent positions. We're working towards greater cost recovery for some of the services we provide, shifting the financial burden from the taxpayers to those who use and benefit directly from the transportation system.
[Translation]
Transport Canada has gone from being a centralized department to being a department with a more regional focus, which means we are now more responsive to local needs as well as more efficient.
[English]
As you can see from the report on plans and priorities, estimated expenditures for Transport Canada in fiscal year 1996-97 are $1.7 billion. These will decline to $1.25 billion in 1998-99, with a further decline to $676 million by 1999-2000.
Let me finish with a few comments on safety. Unlike the old main estimates part III, which really focused on numbers, the report on plans and priorities is designed to tell you where we're going and how we plan to get there. Since the number one goal for Transport Canada is safety, it's appropriate that I make a few comments about that in this session.
On the marine side, accidents and fatalities have been stable for the last decade. The number of shipping accidents in 1995 was at a ten-year low. Canadian aviation is safer than ever, with a three-year decline in the accident rate per 100,000 hours flown. In rail, from 1984 to 1992 main track collisions in Canada were 20% lower than in the U.S. and main track derailments were 28% lower. Accidents at railway crossings fell by 43% between 1985 and 1995. That's particularly significant because that's where the overwhelming majority of fatalities occur - at railway crossings. Canada's roads, meanwhile, have the world's fifth-lowest fatality rate per registered vehicle. Fatalities per 100,000 licensed drivers decreased by 40% in the decade ending in 1994, and we're working to ensure further decreases, obviously in concert with the provinces, who have a major role in this area.
[Translation]
Our track record is good and you can rest assured that Transport Canada will continue to take all means available to make sure the highest security standards possible are implemented throughout the transportation network.
[English]
For the past several years Transport Canada has worked hard to modernize the transportation system in this country, but much work remains to be done. I and the other employees at Transport Canada look forward to working with you over the coming year as we make further progress towards this objective.
I would like to finish my opening remarks by pointing to the last page of the deck, which refers to the new system of reporting to Parliament. In this we would welcome input from this committee, because the intent of these new reports is indeed to provide more usable and more comprehensible data to this committee, and therefore any comments you have on whether we're going in the right direction and what we can do to make them more useful we would certainly value.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Bloodworth.
Now we'll have a round of questions. We'll start with the official opposition and then move to the third party.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to apologize for being late. I was asked to replace a colleague at the last moment.
As I was born on the shores of the St. Lawrence and being member for Trois-Rivières, this is an issue that both interests me and concerns me.
.0935
I am very concerned, for example, by the fact the Coast Guard has decided to charge user fees. Since you must still have ties with that organization, I wonder if you could explain to us why your department didn't study the impact of this policy at the time it was adopted as requested by the official opposition and by the stakeholders which are adversely affected by the decision, namely the St. Lawrence Seaway's users. What is the status of the impact study commissioned by the government? I believe that study has yet to be published.
Mr. Louis Ranger (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Transport): There was in fact a joint study carried out by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport. A lot of time and effort were devoted to this study in the course of which many people were consulted. It is a rather impressive study stressing the good and the not so good sides of the set of measures which were taken. What really counts is the cumulative effect of these measures.
Considering the fact that many people's input was sought, it was decided from the start that the results of the study would be published. I believe this is still the intent.
A number of issues were identified in the study and it will therefore be important once it is published to state how they will be dealt with.
Mr. Rocheleau: Since fees are to be charged for navigation aids, dredging and icebreaking operations - icebreaking being the main service provided - will the government postpone the levying of fees or will it instead go ahead with its plan?
Mr. Ranger: Different options are now being considered. No decision has yet been taken but the government and the departments involved are presently reviewing the set of measures that were planned in the light of the study's results.
Mr. Rocheleau: I hope the government will take into account the comments and the representations made by the users - and that the opposition members won't be the only ones to do so - for it is feared the policy will affect the competitivity of St. Lawrence's ports. It is a serious matter. Thousands of jobs are at stake, jobs that might be lost possibly to the port of Halifax or the ports of the east coast of the United States. I hope that the government is aware of this threat and that it will postpone its decision to impose user fees until the results of its study are known. That was my first question.
My second question is as follows. The government finally decided Trois-Rivières would be considered a CPA after numerous stakeholders requested it, but there seems to be concerns about the board of directors' membership. It appears that the main users of the port will be legally prevented from being appointed to the board of directors. I was flabbergasted to hear that. I suppose the idea is to prevent conflicts of interest from arising but is that really the way to do it?
Mr. Ranger: Without divulging the nature of the amendments that will be tabled, what I can tell you about this already appears in the last documents you have received. As you know, the board of directors will be comprised of seven to twelve members depending on the port. Some users will be represented. The intent was to prevent any potential conflict of interest among users. But users will definitively be represented on the boards. The government won't change its position on this.
Mr. Rocheleau: Will they be directly represented or through a third party?
Mr. Ranger: The challenge is exactly to find a way to prevent conflicts of interest while ensuring that users are represented.
Mr. Rocheleau: Some people might be more familiar with this than I am, but I was given some European ports like the port of Rowen as examples of ports having found a way around this problem through a rotational assignment system. This system ensures that the right persons are at the right place at the right time and that conflicts of interest are avoided. In any case, the directors of theses ports would be legally liable if they were to put their personal interests before the interests of their port. Instead of reinventing the wheel, couldn't we examine these models?
[English]
Ms Bloodworth: It's not an easy question, as I know the committee would be aware. The difficulty is to avoid having someone who constantly has to withdraw because of conflict and yet find a way to represent the users. We've struggled with that, and I think when you see the amendments you will see where the government has come down on that. But it is a difficult question and there is no easy answer.
.0940
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: Maybe you won't be able to answer this question which was put to me by some people from my riding. The new policy will have an impact on the wharves and harbours along the Quebec side of the Ottawa River and along the St. Lawrence River. A lot of wharves on the St. Maurice River in my area used to be managed by Transport Canada. There seems to be a void. This was brought to my attention recently. This question is a bit specific. I have requested some information about the matter. I have discussed it with Mr. Chartrand of Transport 2000. He is supposed to phone me back but if you could answer my question it would be helpful. The whole touristic development of the St. Maurice River is at stake. If I'm not mistaken, nobody knows anymore who they are suppose to talk to.
[English]
Ms Bloodworth: I don't have an answer to your specific question, but certainly about the ports, we are in the business of getting out of ports now. We recognize we will be remaining in some remote ports, but we also recognize that there has to be a transition, and therefore there is a port divestiture fund that will allow for some funds as ports move out to ensure they are in appropriate condition. Those will not be easy negotiations in all cases either, I'm sure.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: Funds will be available even if these wharves are not covered by the new marine policy. There appears to be a void.
[English]
Ms Bloodworth: The funds will be for the Transport Canada-owned ports or harbours we are transferring to local interests, in some cases, in some cases municipalities, and so on.
The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.
Mr. Gilmour (Comox - Alberni): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The minister is not before the committee. When is he planning to attend?
The Chairman: I can answer that one. The discussion with the minister has been that he would come at the end of the first round of hearings. We are going to attempt to expand the estimates hearings a little in this cycle, taking advantage of the new reporting mechanisms, and in discussions with the minister it has been suggested that he come at the end of that process.
Mr. Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't want him to miss the opportunity to address the committee.
The Chairman: He looks forward to his discussions with you, Mr. Gilmour.
Mr. Gilmour: One of my pet projects is the lighthouses. I recognize that destaffing lighthouses went from Transport to DFO. However, I feel it's very much a transport issue, because your comment that Transport Canada's number one goal is safety very much deals with the lighthouses, particularly on the west coast, with the fishing and the floatplane traffic being big. They really require somebody at the other end.
It's a pity the minister isn't here today, because when he was out sailing - I'm sure you know the story - he got into trouble, and it was an alert light station keeper who saved his life. He wouldn't be minister today if it were not for that lighthouse keeper. He pledged all sorts of support. However, his memory seems to have lapsed in this area.
I was wondering what pressure you would bring to bear on DFO to make sure those light stations are staffed. We're talking $1.6 million to $1.8 million a year. This is peanuts in a big budget. It's three days of subsidy for VIA Rail. Yet it's an extremely important issue on the west coast to have somebody in those light stations, somebody at the other end of the radio.
The automated light stations don't work. We had the storm last winter and a great number of them went down. Just when you need them, the automated stations aren't working.
What efforts are you going to make through DFO to bring back...?
Ms Bloodworth: As you noted at the beginning, lighthouses are not our responsiblity. I will follow a wise rule I have of not commenting beyond what I have the ability to have some influence about. I recognize the concern you're expressing - I certainly have read some of the concern too - but it's not an issue in which Transport Canada is involved. It's a DFO issue.
Mr. Gilmour: You said the number one goal for Transport Canada is safety. How can you not get involved? This is very much a safety issue for fisheries on the west coast. I believe from a fisheries point of view and for floatplanes it is a safety point of view. I would really recommend that and encourage you to deal with DFO and get people back in those light stations.
.0945
I'll move on. What is the situation with the port police now? I'm talking particularly about Vancouver. It's the individuals. Will the individuals be taken over by Vancouver or will the Vancouver police just slot in? It's the level of expertise we're losing which is my concern. What is the form of the transition?
Ms Bloodworth: The form has varied. In a moment I'll ask Mr. Jackson to comment in more detail if he has anything to add, but the form will vary depending on the port. Some ports have different arrangements.
In Vancouver we were awaiting a report the province has completed. I believe it was due to be released this week, but I haven't seen it. I don't think it has come out yet. That would obviously play a big factor in how we treat the port police in Vancouver.
We're well aware that there is a need for policing services at ports. We are not in any way intending - in fact the opposite - to ensure the appropriate resources are available for port police, but that doesn't necessarily have to be a separate police force. We are also aware of the individuals. I know in some cases, for example Quebec, the officers are going to the provincial police forces. In other cases many of them are near retirement and prefer to retire.
In Vancouver we're awaiting the report.
Mr. R.A.S. Jackson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Transport Canada): I have nothing to add.
Mr. Gilmour: Could that report be tabled before this committee?
Ms Bloodworth: It will be a public report. It's a Province of B.C. report. Certainly the committee can have it when we have it. We'll have it only when it's made public.
Mr. Gilmour: Fine, thank you.
Are there any department plans to privatize VIA Rail?
Ms Bloodworth: No, we have no plans to privatize VIA Rail. The subsidies are being cut significantly. Going down to $170 million is a significant cut and VIA have to look at their services. But we have no current plans to privatize VIA Rail.
Mr. Gilmour: I believe that would be an opportunity. I was very discouraged to see VIA's attack on the Rocky Mountaineer rail line, where they privatized it and then were going to go back... Rocky Mountaineer bought it and put it in the private sector and then VIA was going to go back into competition. The minister made the right decision. He said VIA was not going to go back in.
I guess it's an opportunity, and it shows where VIA is coming from. I don't believe they should be attacking the private sector. I would like to see VIA part of the private sector, and the Rocky Mountaineer is a good example of what can be done.
On a final question, I'll get back to safety and road safety. This is very much dealing with the Minister of Justice, because it's drunk driving I'm addressing. Again, it's road safety. Every six hours somebody is killed on Canadian roads through drunk driving. Is Transport Canada doing anything to address this, or does it strictly fall into the justice minister's lap?
Ms Bloodworth: It's certainly the justice minister at the federal level, but drunk driving is also dealt with not as a criminal offence but in various other ways at the provincial level. On the motor vehicle side, it is very much a shared jurisdiction, and that's not a part of the jurisdiction we would get involved in. We're involved in national safety code establishment, establishment of vehicle standards, but not in such things as drunk driving, except in promotional campaigns. There we have had some involvement - against it, of course.
The Chairman: Mr. Comuzzi.
Mr. Comuzzi (Thunder Bay - Nipigon): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess this is your first meeting, Ms Bloodworth. Is that correct?
Ms Bloodworth: That's correct.
Mr. Comuzzi: Welcome to the transport committee.
Ms Bloodworth: Thank you.
Mr. Comuzzi: I have two questions. The first has to do with the St. Lawrence Seaway. I know a meeting is convened next week in a subcommittee of the House of Representatives, specifically designed to look at ways to finance any proposed development on the St. Lawrence Seaway system. I know you have an invitation. I'm wondering if you plan to attend that session in Washington.
Ms Bloodworth: I don't plan to attend. I'm not sure whether we have a representative.
Mr. Ranger: We have somebody.
Mr. Comuzzi: Who will that be?
Mr. Ranger: Certainly someone from our embassy will be there.
Mr. Comuzzi: But someone from Transport Canada?
Mr. Ranger: We will consider that, for sure.
Mr. Comuzzi: I'm sorry...?
Mr. Ranger: Yes, we will examine it.
Mr. Comuzzi: I think it's a very important meeting.
Mr. Ranger: I know we have attended most of the other meetings. I just cannot confirm if somebody has actually been planning to go.
.0950
Mr. Comuzzi: Mr. Ranger, could you check that for me? Would you mind advising me of what your intentions are?
Mr. Ranger: Certainly.
Mr. Comuzzi: Okay. That was an aside.
The real question I have... I have been trying to meet Minister Anderson since last October. I think he realizes why I want to see him, and I don't think he wants to discuss the issue, but I'm going to ask you for some help, Ms Bloodworth.
With respect to redistribution, the area I represent in northwestern Ontario is I think the second-largest riding in the province of Ontario and maybe the fifth-largest riding in Canada, and we have some very serious concerns.
And I am not talking about VIA Rail specifically. I am going to talk about passenger transportation by rail. VIA trains go through a very remote area three times a week now and reach Armstrong, with a population of about 500, Longlac, with a population of approximately 1,100, and Nakina, with a population of about 400. It bypasses a whole area of northwestern Ontario that has a population of approximately 290,000.
I just came back from an extensive tour of this new riding in the last couple of weeks and we really are in difficulty. The three airports that service the area are the Nakina airport, which is a non-commercial-flight airport, a tourist operation, and the Geraldton airport and the Marathon airport. The main carrier in that area is an airline called Bearskin, which is in the process of pulling service out of both Geraldton and Marathon. Marathon is a pretty vibrant gold community and a pulp-producing community.
Without regular service from airlines in that area and without any type of alternate transportation other than the highway... And I must confess - and I know that people complain about the highways - that there are certain sections of the highways up there, especially Highway 11, that are extremely dangerous to travel, inasmuch as all of the resources come by way of truck and as a result the passenger vehicles... Having made that point, I think it's very important - and I think it is the responsibility of Transport Canada - to perhaps look at what we are offering to some of the other remote areas in this country.
We already have a Budd service car system that travels three times a week, I think, from Sudbury to White River, where it stops, turns around and goes back.
The purpose of my wanting to meet with Minister Anderson was to explain this dilemma that I think the constituents in that area are experiencing insofar as basic availability of transportation. I'm not talking about frills. I'm talking about the ability to get from A to B in some straight manner.
I've already discussed this issue with the Province of Ontario and I think the province would like to do something or assist in some way in conjunction with the federal government, if I could ever get somebody in the federal government to start to discuss the issue.
I'm asking you if you will start the process to discuss this issue, if it's within your jurisdiction. If it is within your jurisdiction, will you start the process?
That's my question, Mr. Chairman.
Ms Bloodworth: It's certainly within our jurisdiction to discuss policy about transportation services generally, so I'm not saying no to any of that, but let me make a couple of specific comments.
First, with respect to the air transportation, one of the reasons for moving to the air policies that we now have is to allow new services to enter, and that means some will leave. When that happens, it does create uncertainty, but one of the advantages of the current policy is that if some new service does want to serve these towns it is relatively easy to do so compared to what it was like twenty years ago. And the policy certainly encourages that.
.0955
On the roads issue, we have worked with the provinces to identify a national highway system, and there are highways outside that. I think this committee spent some considerable time looking at highways. It's generally recognized everywhere that we have some problems with the conditions of highways in this country. How we address them is not an easy question, because it's a question of money. I don't have an answer for you today. I know we have to respond to that.
Mr. Comuzzi: Let me address those two issues. Sure, you look at highway policy, but I think it's incumbent on the federal government and Transport Canada to provide some alternate means of transportation while we are looking for some ways to rectify the highway system. People fail to realize that the wealth of Ontario is made up of its natural resources, and its natural resources come from that very area of which I speak. The people deserve more than they are getting.
I'm not being political on that thing. I'm just saying, and I'm trying to be as subjective as I can, they do not have a transportation facility. They are a remote area of this country, and we are charged with the responsibility of servicing remote areas.
The other thing, when you talk about airports and accessibility... I understand the policy, but when you get a private entrepreneur leaving a jurisdiction such as Geraldton or Marathon, nobody is going to come in to fill that open space. We used to have NorOntair, which I opposed because it was a government-subsidized airline. But now that NorOntair is not there and Bearskin is pulling out that leaves a void, and there is a very good possibility somebody is not going to fill that void. In fact, it's almost a certainty.
The airports of which I speak have never been a drain on the federal system, inasmuch as they have always been municipal airports. They have not received $4 million or $5 million or $1 million or whatever you guys did when you got rid of the airports. They have just been a service provided by the municipality.
What I'm saying, in essence, is that a bit of short-changing is going on up there. I would like your undertaking to look at that transportation issue as it affects the riding I represent, because it's not a satisfactory situation as it stands.
Ms Bloodworth: I certainly know the area you're talking about. It has many remote areas. Coming from the city of Winnipeg, I've been through parts of northwestern Ontario a number of times. So I'm not unsympathetic to what you're saying.
Mr. Comuzzi: You've been on the good part. You've been in the Dryden-Kenora area.
Ms Bloodworth: I've been north of that as well.
I'm not unsympathetic to the people, and I'm certainly prepared to look at what we do or cannot do. I don't know the specifics of those airports. I'm certainly prepared to look at that and VIA Rail.
In the VIA Rail context, though, they are reducing subsidies.
Mr. Comuzzi: I understand that. That's why I was very specific, Ms Bloodworth, in saying I'm not talking about VIA Rail. I'm talking about transporting people by rail, whether that's by a Budd car system or by some alternate means of transportation, a short line sponsored in cooperation with the Ontario government... I'm sure the Ontario government would want to do something constructive in that area, and I'm saying we need some federal help in order to get the thing going.
But the first thing we have to do is to start talking with the provincial government about that area. That's why I've been trying to see Minister Anderson since October of last year.
Ms Bloodworth: Maybe I could ask Mr. Ranger if he knows anything specific. We'll certainly look at it.
Mr. Comuzzi: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes (Hamilton West): Welcome, Ms Bloodworth, on your first appearance at the transport committee, and welcome to your officials. There are familiar faces back at the table during estimates and on call at any time when we need officials here to come to Transport.
Since David Anderson took over from the Honourable Doug Young as transport minister, I daresay dozens of members of Parliament have come to him with their discussions over the last six months and received cooperation and a hearing for their particular causes, etc. Usually the meeting is preceded by some kind of documentation that lets the minister know what it's about so that there can be some research done on the particular issue. When that research is presented, the member then meets with the minister and gets a good airing of the issue. In many cases, the issues are usually resolved in a timely fashion. So my hat's off to him for that.
.1000
Given the safety standards that remain a priority, it's good to hear that accidents are down and that efficiencies are up. We're moving into a new era of commercialization and privatization. What do you now see as the policy role for Transport Canada? Given the movement and the shift that has occurred at Transport Canada, do you see a swing in the way we carry out policy, or in the role that we have in policy? Is it going to be a shifting somewhat in that direction, or is it going to play less of a policy role in that direction? Can you give me any kind of a sense of that?
Ms Bloodworth: I don't see that the policy role will change dramatically. The policies and their contents may have changed, but the role and the need for transport policy have not lessened.
What has changed with the department is that it's no longer largely an operating department. If we remember a few years ago, by far the majority of employees in Transport Canada were involved in operating parts of the transport system, whether it was the coast guard at that time, or airports, or the air navigation system, or any of the others. Inevitably, when you have a department that is largely operating, the time, effort and attention of the senior part of the department are oriented to a great extent towards solving those operating problems.
From a policy point of view and from a safety point of view, which are the main roles now, one of the benefits is that the attention and efforts of the senior members of the department are now on policy and safety, because we don't have to continue to operate parts of the transport system.
I don't see the amount of policy or the need for policy diminishing in the forseeable future. I think that will continue. We have had dramatic changes over the last few years, but there will inevitably be new circumstances arising that require adjustments to existing policies. We will have to look at new events in the light of new circumstances.
I'll let Louis comment if he wants to add anything to that, since he's responsible for policy.
Mr. Ranger: Thank you. There are an awful lot of new models that have been put in place. Many new things have been introduced in the last few years, including a new international air policy, open skies. Open skies has been doing very well. We're very pleased with it in the sense that you'll recall that for the first two or three years we put ceilings on the Americans. So I'm delighted we've been doing well, but once the whole thing is open we want to keep an eye on how we're doing.
The Canada Marine Act will introduce many new approaches and a new accountability regime. We want to keep an eye on how that's doing.
The Canada Transportation Act introduced a whole new approach to branch-line abandonment. We want to monitor how this is performing.
To me, policy is always sort of a building process. You introduce a new idea, then you keep an eye on how it's evolving and you bring corrections if necessary.
Mr. Keyes: Yes, that's what I'm trying to figure out: whether or not we've moved from an operating system to a regulating or a governing system in transport. If you're not operating any more, if policy is the hope to bring in ideas and change the way you operate things, if you're no longer in an operational role, and if you're not having the say at the end of the day because a particular venture has been commercialized or privatized - you're saying, look, you run your own shops - then how much does our policy really influence airports or ports if they're in the hands of either the private sector or business-oriented operating groups that are formed by the communities themselves?
Ms Bloodworth: It would influence them significantly. For one thing, with airports and ports we're still going to own significant assets for the foreseeable future. The ports and airports we're divesting ourselves of are the local ones in which there isn't a large national interest. When it comes to the national airport system or the national port system, if I can call it that - the Canadian ports authority - we're still going to own the assets, so there will still be a need for significant policy attention to them.
.1005
Our decisions, even for the private sector... If I can turn to the railways for a moment, just because they've been in the private sector for the last hundred and some years, I don't think for a moment that CP Rail would suggest that the policies of Transport Canada don't affect them. They do affect them.
The Chairman: I didn't see anything to be concerned about.
Ms Bloodworth: The odd time, they've been concerned about our policies.
I think what we have gotten out of is operating, which perhaps government is not the best at doing.
Mr. Keyes: No, we know that.
Ms Bloodworth: I think I can suggest that.
Many operations require quick decisions; even if the decisions are right or wrong, we need them quickly. Government is not necessarily the best at making quick decisions in terms of acquisitions or in terms of moving assets, and so on. I would suggest that this doesn't mean we have any less influence; it just means we're going to perhaps put that influence where we can contribute the most in terms of making a better system.
Mr. Keyes: Thanks for your presentation.
The Chairman: I have a couple of things to start off with, because we're going to meet in some form or other several times over the next six weeks or so.
In moving from a provincial system to the federal system, I have found it interesting to note the differences in how estimates are dealt with. There's an old saying in public management circles that a dollar paid is a policy made. Yet in my brief experience here in Ottawa I think the examination of estimates has been pretty cursory. It hasn't yielded the kind of fruit that I think it should. It's a great vehicle for allowing the involvement of members, but it hasn't been used. That would be my personal opinion.
In what we're doing in the next little while, I want to be careful to differentiate between questions and investigations of the activities of the department versus discussions and debates on public policy. If there's a policy question, I think the minister should be here debating it. I don't think we should call upon you to defend the policy.
I am interested in the discussion with Mr. Keyes, however, because there is an interplay, particularly as you move to enhance your role as regulator. Presumably, you have a responsibility to look at the system as a whole, and to identify and propose solutions for deficiencies within the system. There is therefore a bit of interplay between the policy control of the minister in the government versus the problem identification and solution generation by the department.
I want to flag a few issues for you, ones on which I'm going to want to have more detailed discussions with you over the coming weeks. The first is in your outlook on priorities. In this deck, you're virtually - not absolutely, but virtually - silent on the largest mover of people and goods in the country. There are four modes of transportation, not three, yet this whole issue... You define surface transportation as rail, largely. You talk about safety, and safety certainly is an important issue in surface transportation and in truck and automobile travel. But when we look at the four modes of transportation, our national highway system is admittedly a problem that has to be dealt with. I was interested in your comment that everybody accepts this fact, Ms Bloodworth, yet the department is virtually silent about it. Why is that?
Ms Bloodworth: We certainly do have some role in highways, but the role in highways is certainly more limited than the role we have vis-à-vis railways and air - and marine for that matter. I'm talking factually here; I'm not looking into the future or talking about what should or should not be. That's simply a fact.
.1010
Our role in highways has been to make contributions to the provinces. We have some that go out until about the year 2000. Historically, I think we've always had some form of contribution to highways, but we have been basically giving money to the provinces, and it's then up to them to determine what they spend it on. I'm oversimplifying, but I think that's a fair characterization of our role.
So there has been some recognition of a role. Having said that, highways are and have been under provincial... I hesitate to use the word ``jurisdiction'', because I've just said we've spent money, but highways have been run by provinces. Sometimes they've had help from the federal government, but they have largely done the constructing and they've done the maintenance.
In terms of the vehicles that run over the highways, we have certainly had a role there. Again, however, the enforcement role has been played by the provinces, and the direct regulating role has largely been up to the provinces. There are some exceptions when it comes to new vehicle standards. We certainly had a role in the national safety code, and we participate in the main groups - CCMTA and so on - in terms of developing standards.
So that's simply a fact, and I think what you're seeing in those documents is a reflection of the fact of the department: we have a larger role with rail, air and marine than we do with highways.
The Chairman: Where does the department reflect its policy generation, if you like? Does that not get reflected in any of these documents that you brought forward to us? Is there not a vehicle through which the department comes forward and says here are our activities and the things we think we should be doing in the upcoming year, and here are areas of deficiencies that need to be addressed?
Ms Bloodworth: On the policy area, there's certainly an area on the documents on policy, but I'll go back to your comment about policy belonging to the minister.
What you see reflected in there are policies that have been approved by the minister, by cabinet in many cases, and by legislation in many cases, because there is a very clear division when it comes to policy. Of course we have a role to support the minister and bring recommendations forward, but in the end it is the minister who will decide whether those are things we should proceed with or not. It's not that we don't develop them, it's just that what you see reflected in our documents are those things that have been approved for us to work on, because policies are controlled by elected officials - as they should be.
I'm not sure I'm answering your total question, but I think what you're seeing reflected is what we will put in here and what we will and should answer to in terms of policies that have been approved. If we are asked to develop things for or make recommendations to the minister, we will do that, but normally we wouldn't do that unless the minister has asked us to put out a policy paper and so on. Until the minister has decided that it's an area in which he indeed wants to be involved, it would not be appropriate for us to go out to drum up support. It would amount to us lobbying outside the department, and I would suggest that would not be an appropriate role for us.
The Chairman: No, and I would agree with that as a former provincial bureaucrat. But I do think there's a bit of a grey area between picking a particular agenda and going forward to lobby for your particular position and identifying a deficiency within your broad range of responsibilities.
Ms Bloodworth: There's no question about that, Mr. Chairman. There is a grey role. As we say, bureaucrats do not defend policies, they explain them. It's a nice theory, but they do merge at times. I have talked about the theory, and it's one I feel very strongly about. It's more than a theory; it's an important principle of democracy. Having said that, however, obviously there is a grey area in that part.
Indeed, the department has participated with the provinces in identifying a national highway system. Part of doing that is coming up with a highway approach. When you answer questions, however, you inevitably tend to oversimplify a bit in terms of what there is. I do recognize that grey area.
The Chairman: This is my final question on the highways. This committee has tabled a report with a request that the department respond. Can you give us an update on the status of the timing of that - when we might expect a response - or of the process if timing is not within your control? What process is under way that would produce a response?
Ms Bloodworth: The process under way is the one that occurs whenever the committee presents a report. We obviously take that seriously, and it's not just us. When that happens, we are directed by the Privy Council Office to prepare a proposed response and to consult with departments that may be affected. It would then have to go to cabinet for approval once the minister has agreed with bringing the particular process forward. That process is still at a fairly early stage, because the committee report is relatively new.
.1015
That having been said, one part of the report, the reference to public-private partnerships...I think you have already seen the Minister of Finance recognize that the public-private partnerships are important, so you perhaps had a quicker response than many committees would have on at least part, although it's not an official response.
The Chairman: I'm tempted to make further comment, but I'll withhold on that particular one.
Because I chair, I get members coming to me all the time. I have this little file. Some are on local issues, of concern only to a particular member. Others may be representative of a broader concern, although they get represented in a bunch of little issues. One of them is this sense that there has been a great deal of change, as you've identified. In fact, this department has been through an enormous amount in a very short period, and I think the staff have done yeoman service in trying to get hold of what this new creature is going to look like. But with all these private entities, private airports now, private ports, private rail lines, private air navigation, etc., the regulatory environment has to change. You identify that in your role changing as you move. Is there anything that provides for management of the interstices, if you like; the relationships between the various modes?
When you talk to people in the transport industries, people are talking about logistics in terms of the movement of goods from point to point as opposed to from mode to mode, as it used to be - that whole sense that you might be in the air, on rail, on rubber, on water, as you move a product. We heard a lot about that in Vancouver as they talked about the relationship between open skies and the cruise ship industry. Are those all relationships that are left to the private sector to sort out and for you to respond to, or is there some sense of how that system is working?
Is it an issue, for one thing? Are changes in the regulatory environment necessary to address the fact that all the partners now are out there, innovating like stink, we hope; or is this an issue the department is wrestling with? Are problems being identified with that?
Ms Bloodworth: It's certainly an issue. I'm afraid I don't have a definitive answer for you. It has been raised. I recall in January Mr. Anderson co-hosted with Judd Buchanan of the Canadian Tourism Commission a tourism summit in Vancouver. This had a number of senior people in the tourism industry and the transport industry. One of the issues raised about tourism and transport was the links between various modes and the need to make them more efficient. It was at a fairly general level.
There probably are areas that need more work, and I wouldn't pretend we have come to the perfect answers on those. It may well be that given the amount of work that has gone on in the last few years specific to changing the modes, over the next few years we may see more work on that area.
I'm being a little vague because we're not there.
Louis, do you have anything to comment?
Mr. Ranger: I've been in the transportation world for a long time and the concept of intermodality has always been there, but I think it's more relevant than ever. We talk about integration of systems and so on.
On the passenger side, very often the interface is between the nationally regulated modes and the municipally regulated modes. You can get to Vancouver fairly quickly, but if it takes hours to go to downtown Vancouver there is obviously a problem. On the passenger side, most of the time the interface is between the national system and the very local system.
On the transportation of goods it's a bit different. Very often you are dealing with the interface between two modes, rail and marine, and very often it's between the national and the international. More and more there are those interfaces. If we claim our objective is to be worried about the efficiency of our systems, I think it goes without saying that we have to be worried about those interfaces.
So it is very much a concern.
.1020
The Chairman: I think we would be interested in receiving more information on that as those problems arise. I think it is the intention - I don't want to put words in your mouth - that there be changes to allow the various sectors or parts of the system to design the system as their competitive advantages dictate. So it may be difficult for us to predict what's going to happen, but one has a sense of little bumps along the way as we see the various modes trying to interact, trying to work together, and fighting. Trucking is certainly competing with rail, and there is still a certain amount of competitive pressure there.
That brings me to this. Certain things become symbols. One of the reasons why I have any involvement at all in transport is section 27.2. Section 27.2 is written all over the wall of my office and emblazoned on my mind. This is a section of the Railway Act...or no, it was the Canada Transportation Act, wasn't that it? Somebody out there will know what I'm talking about. It's a section that limits access to the agency when there are disputes. Had any concerns been raised about that? Is it still too early in the application of that new act to know whether or not the fears that were expressed relative to section 27.2 have been realized, or are we still just feeling our way down that particular road?
Ms Bloodworth: I think it was the old section 23. My experience goes back to the old act. But it's the shipper remedy. Is that the one we're talking about, when a shipper has...?
I would say it's too early to tell. I have still had it raised with me by shipper groups, although in fairness I must say none of them have pushed for anything to be done. I think we all recognize a balance was achieved in the legislation through this committee process last year. Some still are perhaps not convinced the balance was the right one, but we are only six or eight months into the process. Certainly my answer to them has been let's let it work out now that it has been changed and assess it once we've had two or three years of experience. It is a little early yet.
The Chairman: Yes. I must confess ``balance'' isn't necessarily the term I've heard applied to it, but I definitely heard several. We'll be interested in following that.
In the air policy area, and this is perhaps a more local concern, ``local'' being Winnipeg, but I suspect it's a concern that's going to arise all over the country - I've certainly had discussions with Martin Cauchon about Mirabel - there is the whole question of air cargo. As I understand the situation, when it comes to the establishment of bilateral agreements there is a lag. The legislation that governs the establishment of air cargo agreements is relatively dated.
Perhaps Mr. Ranger can assist me with this. If a company operates a freighter that is strictly cargo, moving it from country to country, from some other country to Canada, and they're hauling only their own goods, there's limited difficulty with that. But if a company wishes, as some increasingly want to do, to run an air freighter service that has four containers from this company, five containers from that, and they assemble a load the same way as you would in a truck, then maybe there's difficulty in doing that, in part because historically that sort of cargo has been carried in the belly of passenger aircraft.
Does this remain an issue? Is this an area where there's going to be a need for new legislation or changes?
Mr. Ranger: I think you've described our problem very well. When it comes to scheduled services, it's governed by bilateral air agreements.
In most cases the movement of parcels is done in the belly hold of aircraft. When it comes to charters, if it's one customer chartering an aircraft to carry one load from A to B, that's not a problem. When somebody tries to assemble parcels from several customers and charter an aircraft to move them, historically it has been seen as entering into competition with scheduled carriers which carry those parcels in their belly hold.
.1025
We are undertaking a review of this whole question. This is particularly being driven by the Winport request to us. So we are launching a consultation. In fact we've been asked to proceed fairly quickly with that consultation.
The Chairman: Thank you. We may want to discuss that in a little more detail when we get a chance for the Winport folks to be here.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I'm also interested in the findings of that stuff too because the Hamilton airport, of course, in competing with Toronto, can't do much in the passenger area, but we've come a long way with a lot of air cargo service. The airport is growing large based on the traffic it receives with the UPS, FedEx, and Purolator traffic. So I'd be most interested in hearing more about that.
The Chairman: I think there will be a lot more discussion of this area. He mentioned that Hamilton, Calgary, and of course Mirabel were interested, as well as others.
Again, there's this sense of moving goods from point to point. Irrespective of the mode you're using, there's a need to coordinate that with all the pressures of adjusted time, inventories and that. It's a critical issue. We would not want to arrive at a point at which we have a new industry or a new competitive opportunity to find that, once again, our outdated regulatory system is the limiting factor.
I'm very encouraged. There are those who would argue that western Canada suffered a very serious hit with the loss of the WGTA. I and others would argue that this has been a big benefit to us. The removal of that subsidy and freeing us from that regulatory control in fact worked in our favour. That did not go against us. I would hate to see some other regulatory instrument holding us back now that we have some of these opportunities. So that's an area in which we will be quite interested.
You mentioned another area though that we may want to have a hearing on as quickly as Thursday. It's this issue of safety. Again, it's a relationship between a federal and a provincial responsibility. What seems to occur is that individual operators, individual problems, get swept aside, ignored, or treated perhaps in a less than... I was about to say that this was done in a less than a professional and respectful manner. That's because they're stuck between the federal responsibility - it says it has to do everything for all provinces and treat everybody the same - and the provincial responsibility, who say they can't act without the federal government acting, which has a small slice of the overall picture. The federal government says it can't act without all ten provinces acting. The result is an individual, or a few small individuals, in one small area of the country getting ignored.
I was personally involved in a case last year. I just found it absolutely appalling that our government, our department, would treat people's legitimate concerns with such cavalier disregard. I'm going to want to look at that question very carefully next week to see what the mechanisms there are for allowing individuals to have their concerns properly heard here. In this particular case, it's trucking safety.
I suspect that as we go further with this question of regulation we're going to find more issues arising. It's the problem of how the small concerns get dealt with by us.
We recognize that we're not good operators. One of the problems with that is this issue of size. We can't let Vancouver do this because it might affect what's happening in Montreal or Halifax, so we decide to get out of that. But we still seem to be doing it in some other areas. I'm going to want to discuss that whole area of trucking safety at some length next Thursday.
Mr. Keyes: Maybe while you catch your breath, Mr. Chairman, I could ask a question.
The Chairman: Sure. We'll let the opposition come in too when they're ready.
Mr. Keyes: Yes. It's unfortunate that none of the opposition members are here.
.1030
You twigged my mind to a question when you mentioned the cruise shipping industry. I had the opportunity to be in Quebec city when one of those big Holland America cruise ships came in, the Westerdam. Boy, it's a big ship! There were thousands of people on board who disembarked and spent their time and money in Quebec City and a number of other ports between New York City and Quebec City on this special trip. Holland America proudly says they make only three two-day stops anywhere in the world, and Quebec City is one of them. That's a real plus for us on that side of the ledger.
A problem, though, that Holland America has made known to many of us is the issue of gambling on the ships. When a cruise ship enters our waters at the top of the Gaspé and makes its way down to Quebec City its casinos have to close. Those casinos generate quite a bit of money - so much money, in fact, that a cruise line like Holland America might have to reconsider entering our waters, our system, and our tourist attractions because of the loss of revenue caused by having to close their casinos.
Other shipping lines have expressed an interest in following the same route to come in through Canada, which would give our municipalities like Quebec City countless dollars in tourist revenues, etc. It would be a big boost for tourism for Canada. I heard at one time that there might be fourteen cruise ships coming in throughout the summertime toward Quebec City.
But with respect to this whole matter of gambling, I understand that gambling is a provincial matter vis-à-vis whether or not they can gamble on a ship at a dock in a particular municipality. I understand, too, that in order to change any kind of gambling law in this country we have to address a Criminal Code amendment, so I've brought this matter up with Allan Rock, Minister of Justice.
Given the simplicity of the issue... We're talking about a ship that comes in that has gambling on it and when the ship stops at a dock and sets its gangplank down, it closes the casino. They understand that completely. You don't want people staying on board and gambling. You want them off the ship. At the same time, you don't want to reduce the revenues of a municipality that might have its own gambling establishment on shore. You want to draw them to it. But once that ship embarks all its people again and the gangplank goes up, why wouldn't we let them gamble? People aren't going to be jumping on board a cruise ship to gamble when it's half a mile out into the river.
I've addressed this, and Allan Rock came back to me and said that it was a transport department matter. I said ``I don't think so, Allan. I think this is a matter of trying to make this amendment.'' But apparently there's another - perhaps cooperative - venture between Transport Canada and the justice department on this matter. Have we done anything with it? Will we do anything with it? Or are we going to leave it completely up to Allan Rock and a possible discussion paper or some damn thing?
Ms Bloodworth: I don't know anything about it. I thought perhaps it was because I was new, but I'm not getting any help from my colleagues either -
Voices: Oh, oh!
Ms Bloodworth: - so we'll have to look into it and get back to you.
Mr. Keyes: Okay. I'd appreciate it, only because -
Ms Bloodworth: We weren't aware it was a transport issue, but -
Mr. Keyes: I guess it's a transport issue because it's happening on a ship that's on the seaway, but curing the problem is a Criminal Code amendment issue.
I just don't understand why there is a complication with this thing. It's a very simple amendment. It would correct things that are going on, not just with Holland America on theSt. Lawrence River coming into Quebec, but also on our west coast in B.C., where cruise ships are coming in to the west coast - the inner passage. And quite frankly, as I say again, sure, they have gambling establishments in Vancouver, etc. Fine: if their gangplank goes down they have to close their casino. It's pretty simple. But when it's up, how is a closed casino on a boat going to make any difference to anyone on land? Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but I'd sure like to know more.
The Chairman: If I may add something here, Mr. Keyes, I think you raise an important issue from a couple of perspectives. Certainly when we went across the country talking about the Marine Act, this issue kept coming up. People kept raising this with us, over and over again, and it is an issue that perhaps at first blush, and even at second blush and at third blush, seems like a fairly simple issue.
.1035
What Mr. Keyes has just proposed would seem to be... If rational people got together in a room, they might sort out a solution like that. Yet in a sense it's not unlike the trucking safety issue. Who is responsible for it? Oh, no, it's over there. Oh, no, it's not over here, it's over there. So people watch us being pawed around, nobody takes hold of it, meets with the interested parties, and actually does something to sort it out.
If it is clearly a justice department issue, as it may well be, then that needs to be clarified. But there has to be issue management.
Ms Bloodworth: We'll certainly look into it, Mr. Chairman, and get back to Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: That's a good point too, issue management. When committees head out on the road - let's take our committee for example - and an issue like this is brought up, not in isolation but in a repetitive fashion throughout the country, is it monitored? Is there an individual or are there a couple of people who monitor the activities of the committee when it hits the road, and when they do, are they making the department aware and how are they initiating action on something that might be repeatedly brought forward at a committee when it hits the road, something that might not be a part of the main focus of the committee at that time?
Ms Bloodworth: There's no question we would monitor the committee proceedings, as would other departments with their respective standing committees. I think, though, there is, as Mr. Chairman has pointed out, a danger of something that doesn't fall within the mandate of the department that happens to be monitoring not being picked up.
But I do plead ignorance on this one, so we will certainly look into it and find out what the situation is and who is indeed responsible at the federal level.
The Chairman: Ignorance is something this committee has a great deal of sympathy with, given the range of issues we have here.
Could I draw your attention to page 19 in your deck? There are two issues here that I think are interesting. The first one is your statement that fatalities per 100,000 licensed drivers decreased by 40% in the decade ending 1994. That's very impressive. To what do you attribute that?
Ms Bloodworth: I'll let Mr. Jackson respond on specifics, but let me just say generally I think there was an awful lot of awareness campaigning during that period, both by the federal government and by the provincial government, about drinking and driving, the use of seat belts. All those things - I'm speaking as a citizen here - I think had an effect. But let me turn to the expert, who can be more specific than I have been.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I think there are three or four things you can attribute the rather enormous decline in fatalities to. One, and perhaps the single biggest factor, is seat belt wearing. Seat belt wearing has gone from a very low wearing rate, probably below 50% ten years ago, to 92% in Canada now, which is quite a phenomenal safety improver.
The second thing is the safety features on motor vehicles generally. Over the last ten years or so motor vehicles, largely because of technological advances but also in large part because of the motor vehicle standards that are there in terms of features on the car tire, the reliability of the parts of the automobile, and so on...it's a much safer vehicle than it was ten or fifteen years ago.
Mr. Keyes: Daytime running lights.
Mr. Jackson: Daytime running lights, the conspicuousness of other features such as the high-mounted rear stop lights - a host of features that improve the general safety of the vehicle.
Probably the third area that has had a very dramatic impact is the one the deputy minister mentioned, all the awareness programs about high-risk drivers, drinking and driving, other activities that are now quite unacceptable simply because the awareness has been raised in the public consciousness - child infant seats...a host of things where I think people's attitudes and behaviours are much different from what they were a number of years ago. In combination that does drive that improvement.
Mr. Keyes: Would there be a fourth reason - maybe highway or road management?
.1040
Mr. Jackson: I was going to say, Mr. Keyes, highways are probably better now than they were, although I'm not sure I would -
Mr. Keyes: But the management of safety on those highways... When you're talking about a highway that goes from the 401 up to Peterborough... What is that called?
Mr. Jackson: The 115.
Mr. Keyes: The 115 used to be an undivided highway where people were making laps into gas stations and coffee shops all the way along the thing. Now it's a divided highway with a barrier. I imagine the number of accidents, never mind fatalities, would have dropped considerably just on that stretch.
The Chairman: Certainly our understanding of highway design, with proper safety considerations... In fact that's one of the arguments under the NHS proposal, that you could further increase safety and decrease fatalities.
It's interesting. I was at a presentation by Michael Walker, from the Fraser Institute, who was going on about how all these safety improvements in cars have simply lulled drivers into a sense of greater security - the seat belts, the crash cages, and all that stuff - and if we really wanted to have an attitudinal change we should put them back in cars with plastic bumpers and a big spike in the centre of the steering wheel. But he also made the case that they were going up. I think this is a very impressive statistic, one we should all take some pride in.
Mr. Jackson: I must also say, Mr. Chairman, this is 1994. The record has improved in 1994, 1995, and 1996. We're moving in the right direction.
The Chairman: There have been a few high-profile cases in the U.S. about the problem with air bags and small individuals, children, and a couple of very gruesome accidents. Has that been as much of an issue here?
Mr. Jackson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have a slightly different situation in Canada from the one in the U.S., because we do have a much higher seat-belt-wearing percentage than they do in the States. But that having been said, there are individuals, because of the design of the air bag, who are at higher risk than others because they cannot... I guess the bottom line is they cannot put enough distance between themselves and the air bag.
As you know, the minister did write to the industry back in the fall, and the industry has voluntarily agreed to depower air bags for the next model year. That will mitigate the risk somewhat. But the concern does remain for small-statured individuals, who by necessity cannot distance themselves. Thus the promotional campaign to put children in the back seat.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. It certainly is an issue we see a lot. I was not aware of the agreement you have referred to. For a father of two young children, it was quite frightening there for a while.
Ms Bloodworth: I think an important point to remember, though, is that air bags still do save lives, and sometimes that gets lost in the focus. There is no doubt an issue that we have to address with this part of the population. With children, part of it is addressed by making sure they are in the back seat. They are not always keen to be there, as they get older, but that's where they are safest. But it's important not to lose sight of the fact that overall, air bags still do save lives.
The Chairman: And may in fact be a contributor to the first statistics here.
I would like to thank you. I appreciate the time spent today. I look forward to spending more time with various individuals from the department.
I do have one other issue to ask about, just to clarify one point. It comes in the same bundle of things. I have asked members throughout the House to come forward with issues they would like to discuss in some more structured way in estimates. In the report to the House I intend, should the committee be willing to support me, to respond formally to the plans and priorities document. Within that we will probably make some specific recommendations on certain policy items, just to give you more things to think about and work with and to be as supportive and helpful to the department as we can possibly be.
There is an issue. One of the issues raised, and I would like advice on it if you feel you can give me some, is that I've had a request that we spend some time on the concerns that have been raised relative to the closure or transfer of certain air services from Mirabel to Dorval and the changing role for Mirabel. I'm informed, however, that the issue is currently before the courts and that there may be limited value in having the committee look at that issue, at least until the court decision in the appeal has been reached.
.1045
It had been my intention to proceed with a morning's discussion on that particular issue in response to... I feel that we have to respond to all members of the House, not just to members on the governing side, and this concern has been raised.
Would you care to offer an opinion on the timeliness of that discussion? It may not be a fair question for you.
Ms Bloodworth: As you know, it's not a court case in which the federal government is involved. Obviously it's up to the committee to determine its mode of operation, but I know that committees of Parliament and Parliament itself have historically always been quite careful with things that are before the courts in order not to come into conflict with the judicial arm of government. It's probably an area in which I would at least advise caution.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Were we gentle?
Ms Bloodworth: Very gentle, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
We're adjourned.