TRAN Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 13, 1998

• 1535

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We'll call the meeting to order.

Thank you very much for all being with us. Mr. Minister, you are always so cooperative with this committee. Any time we've asked that you appear there's been no hesitation, and we appreciate that.

I will proceed to your comments. We don't seem to have a quorum, but the first part of the meeting is information only. We assure ourselves that we will have a quorum if there are any amendments or any motions.

So having said that, Mr. Minister, please proceed.

[Translation]

The Honourable David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport,Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, honorable members. I'm glad to meet with you here again today to talk to you about transportation in Canada.

With me are Deputy Minister Margaret Bloodworth; Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Louis Ranger; Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Ron Jackson; and Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs and Divestiture, Ronald Sully.

As the first year of my term as Transport Minister draws to a close, I'd like briefly to review the developments that have taken place in six transportation sectors during that period. I'd like at the same time to take a look at the big picture and consider some of the outstanding challenges facing us in transportation.

[English]

I'd like to begin by saying I'm appreciative of the role the committee has played, ensuring that federal transportation policies move swiftly. We've worked hard at Transport Canada and we're grateful for your assistance in reviewing and clarifying our proposals.

I'd like to touch on a few highlights. Much of your time has been taken up with the proposed Canada Marine Act, Bill C-9, Bill C-44 in the last Parliament, which you reviewed and improved upon. As you know, it passed the Senate transport committee last night and it is being reported to the Senate this afternoon by the chairman, Senator Bacon. We hope the bill will receive third reading, if not tomorrow, as soon as the break is over in a couple of weeks.

I also want to acknowledge your work, in particular, on Bill C-15 and Bill S-4, which were carried over from the last session.

I also note the report of the committee entitled, “A National Highway Renewal Strategy”, which examined the possible role of public-private partnerships as a creative way to fund highway infrastructure. My department's officials are working with their counterparts in the provinces and territories on an assessment of the approach. I expect a report from them this fall.

I'll be discussing highway renewal in general at the end of the month with my provincial and territorial colleagues at a meeting that will be held in Edmonton.

• 1540

Of course, there is your report on the future of passenger rail service in Canada, which I am looking forward to with great anticipation. I understand it's going to be ready in early June.

We will use this report to help formulate our policies for passenger rail service, which I would like to take to my colleagues in cabinet as soon as possible so that we can begin the restructuring of VIA Rail as soon as possible, even as early as this fall.

It's safe to say that you are aware there's been lots of action in the transport arena: after all, you've been a major part of it. As you know, I'm no stranger to this particular committee, going back to my first election in Parliament in 1974. I know how much hard work is involved in this committee's work. Also, you have done a lot of travelling, which sometimes a lot of people think is fun, but I know it can be quite tedious.

We're dealing with things like safety. We're moving increasingly large numbers of people. We're meeting their expectations in terms of comfort, convenience and reliability and we're transporting everything from raw materials to finished products and fresh foodstuffs with a very short shelf-life around the world, economically and on schedule. We're protecting the environment. We're preserving our natural resources. We're providing all Canadians with high-quality transportation, no matter where they live. And the list goes on.

I'd like to talk about a few issues that we first addressed last October when I came before you. At that time the department had just come through a massive restructuring, divesting its operational functions to community organizations and local governments. The program is not yet complete, of course, but we can see that it's working.

You'll witness the change in our airports all for the better. They're becoming lively and interesting centres with much to offer the travelling public.

Of course, we have the witness of CN, which has gone from a money-losing crown corporation, dependent on the public purse, to an international presence in a very short time. It has now expanded in a major way into the United States by the acquisition of the Illinois Central Railroad.

On the legislative front, we focused mainly on the marine sector in the past year. After a great deal of very hard work, Bill S-4 received royal assent.

Meanwhile, as I said, Bill C-9 and Bill C-15 are before the Senate, and we hope they'll be out in a few weeks.

An issue that has been divisive for a long time is the movement of grain in the Canadian west. It was contentious back in the 1970s when I first came into Parliament. Frankly, nothing's changed in the 24 years since I came here, even into this year. I'm happy to finally be able to report some real progress towards a solution on this ongoing issue.

Last December, as you know, I appointed the former Supreme Court Justice Willard Estey to head a grain review commission. His mandate is to examine all aspects of grain transportation and, by the end of the year, develop recommendations to ensure that Canada has an efficient, viable and competitive grain-handling and transportation system. He has to establish clear roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for all system participants. That is very important.

In the interim I have offered to provide facilitation services to assist in the negotiations between the railways and community groups interested in acquiring viable grain branch lines that might otherwise be discontinued. I'm very pleased to note that all concerned are working together to resolve these issues as quickly as possible.

[Translation]

Underlying fast, efficient transportation, of course, is the right infrastructure—good roads, bridges, rail lines, waterways, airports. And the people and organizations that build, repair, and administer them. We in Canada have been very successful in this regard. But our success has brought congestion and increased air pollution as our roads and major airports rapidly approach capacity. And while transportation isn't entirely responsible for our greenhouse gas emissions, it does make a significant contribution. In Canada, about 27% of these emissions come from transportation sources—most of it from road transportation. Clearly, our target of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels during the period 2008 through 2012 presents a particular challenge for the transportation sector.

• 1545

As you know, we recently tabled our national Sustainable Development Strategy in Parliament, outlining our approach to making transportation in Canada more environmentally friendly. A development of note was the meeting in Toronto of Canada's energy and environment ministers, who approved a process for developing a national strategy on climate change. This process will set up a number of issue tables, one of which will deal with transportation. We will be playing a strong role in the process.

One thing that's clear is that to bring transportation into the new millennium, we need a comprehensive, integrated national strategy. What I want to discuss with you today is a framework for such a national strategy, one that is safe, efficient, affordable, integrated and environmentally friendly.

My framework has four objectives: to sustain strategic investment in transportation; to support trade and tourism: to improve our quality of life by promoting more stable transportation systems; and to promote transportation safety—which will always be Transport Canada's top priority.

Honorable colleagues, the week of May 31 to June 6, 1998, has been designated National Transportation Week. This year's theme "Transportation: Canada's National Resource" seems particularly apt in view of what we've been saying here today. Our national transportation infrastructure is one of our most valuable assets. If we want Canada to be competitive, we need to continuously improve the system. We need to find ways to use our existing infrastructure as efficiently as possible. One way to do that is through what's commonly referred to as "smart" technology or ITS (intelligent transport systems).

Canada is fortunate to be home to some leading companies in this field. We're watching closely to see how this technology advances. We intend to find innovative ways to apply it to all aspects of transportation to make our system even more efficient and cost-effective.

[English]

A moment ago I did mention the need to find ways to encourage Canadians to switch to less polluting kinds of transportation. Passenger rail is one such mode, an excellent solution in my mind to at least some of the congestion and climate change problems.

My often-quoted support of a rail link between downtown Toronto and Pearson International Airport to reduce automobile traffic in that very busy corridor and the redevelopment of Toronto's Union Station are good examples of the kinds of initiatives we should be looking at. I should say that the rail-air links aren't confined to Toronto. Actually, in Dorval and Montreal everyone is ahead of us.

Les Aéroports de Montréal, the St. Lawrence and Hudson Railway, the sub of CP rail, the Municipality of Dorval and la municipalité de Montréal are all working together. I've had meetings with them on a link to Dorval.

On a recent trip to Vancouver, I had a discussion with the chair of the Vancouver International Airport Authority, who believes this should be looked at in the context of the growing congestion problems in the greater Vancouver area. This is not just a Toronto issue, this is an issue for our major airports, and I hope we can do something to move that along within this Parliament.

There are many other areas of passenger rail improvements that can be justified on economic, social and environmental grounds. That is why you have been reviewing the future of both commuter and long-distance passenger rail service in Canada.

I want to thank you for the work you've done. I know you're all working hard to complete the report and I appreciate all that it involves. I understand you've had very interesting meetings with the rail industry.

I was particularly happy to see that you were able to visit the authorities in Great Britain, to talk with your counterparts in the U.S. and, of course, to visit installations in France. This will go a long way to helping you formulate your judgments.

I've met with all these groups and I've found their initiatives very interesting, and I'll be watching for developments in this area. What works in Britain, France, Germany, or the United States isn't necessarily applicable to Canada, but there are elements of their experiences that they can share with us. We can come up with a hybrid solution that would take into account our needs in this country.

• 1550

Our department is committed to supporting the evolution of sustainable development, and as you know, and that means transportation services must be safe, efficient, affordable and developed and operated in a manner that minimizes their environmental impacts. This reality has to be the heart of any credible strategy for transportation in Canada in the new millennium.

Now we come to the most important issue of all, safety, which is and has to be our priority at Transport Canada. That won't change no matter what, because safety leads the list of concerns in all transportation modes.

I would just point to the example last weekend of the FAA decision on the older model 737s, and the subsequent seamless application of the FAA standards as a result of Transport Canada passing them on to the airlines—WestJet and Canadian Airlines—so that those planes are examined and remedial action is taken. This is what has to happen, especially on the air side when so many lives are at stake with these precise pieces of equipment, but it happens in the other modes.

Contrary to an impression that may have been created in some news reports, aviation safety in Canada is better than it has ever been. Our safety record is among the best in the world. Despite unprecedented growth of passenger travel in recent years, the number of aviation accidents has actually declined by nearly 30% in the past 10 years. When you take into account the number of people flying the increased number of trips, that is truly remarkable.

In fact, in 1996 we had the best record for aviation safety in our aviation history, well below the average for the past decade. This kind of safety record does not just happen. It results from a commitment to safety by the aviation community, and by those who operate our airports and our navigation systems, a commitment supported by a solid foundation of federal regulation and effective enforcement of national standards.

To make sure our safety standards continue to be the best they can be, I did take the step of appointing an internationally recognized safety expert, Dr. Vernon Grose, to examine and evaluate emergency response capability at airports in Canada. This was as a direct result of some of the concerns that emerged with the unfortunate accident involving the Air Canada regional jet in Fredericton just before Christmas. I expect to have Dr. Grose's report in the very near future.

[Translation]

Rail safety, too, has been a focus of late. I was happy to note that the Transportation Safety Board's latest report shows that accident rates are down in both the rail and the marine sectors.

I received the working group's report on the Railway Safety Act last January and we are incorporating its suggestions into the proposed legislation. We expect to introduce the revised amendments in the fall. I also want to remind you that we are still working actively with the provinces and territories on "Road Safety 2001", in a bid to make Canada's roads the safest in the world by the year 2001.

In fact, my department continuously monitors the transportation system for safety. An important issue these days, of course, is the Y2K problem. We recognize the potential problems related to this computer glitch and have created a working group to systematically examine the safety concerns. While we are confident that industry will find effective solutions, we will nonetheless monitor the steps the various federally regulated transportation modes are taking to address the issues.

We have adequate regulatory authority under existing legislation to take action if concerns about the safety of air travel continue, and we can and will respond promptly if necessary.

[English]

In conclusion, in my brief I've tried to give you some key challenges facing the transportation system within the country, and outline a framework for a national strategy to deal with some of those issues. That strategy must allow for adequate and timely investment in transportation infrastructure, must support trade and tourism requirements, must facilitate links between modes in a seamlessly integrated system, and must make the best use of technology and the best use of all modes.

• 1555

It must also ensure that whatever we do contributes to an improved quality of life through safe and sustainable transportation. The federal government cannot do it alone. We need to forge new partnerships among government, industry, stakeholders and the public, and that means coming together to merge our visions and goals in a common strategy that serves everyone and everyone's interests.

I look forward to hearing your reactions and discussing the ideas you have come forward with as a result of your activities as members of the committee for the past year. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Minister, you have asked that this committee study passenger rail. I'd like to report to you that the approach has been a team approach and I want to commend my colleagues on all sides. Everyone is working together to get information, and even at this point I know that we have quality information. I look forward to the report that will be produced and I want to give credit to all members of this committee.

You also mentioned the work that we have done since we have formed into a committee, and I think it is known that much of the legislation went back to the House faster than it came to us. I would not want to give the impression that we rubber-stamped any of that legislation. The members of this committee on the government side, and especially on the opposition side, have perused it closely and have done their jobs. As chair of this committee, I can say that we are able to do that amount of work because of the cooperation. But they are doing their jobs as opposition members, there's no doubt about that.

Colleagues, I will send an invitation to ask questions and produce amendments later, but if you wish to present them before, you have the power to do what you want. It would be nice if we could do a round of questioning and then get down to amendments. If you agree to that—

M. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Amendments to what?

The Chairman: Amendments to the estimates. That's what we're here for, isn't it?

Mr. David Collenette: Remind them that we don't want any trouble.

The Chairman: The list has started early. Morrison, St-Julien, Guimond, Cullen, Calder, Bailey and Fontana.

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, you didn't mention the Lynx project and I'm going to surprise you by not mentioning it either. I have other questions that I would like to raise.

With respect to highway funding, you briefly touched on the national highway strategy in your remarks. I wish that someday I would pick up a set of estimates that shows that some of the money that is being taken from the motoring public is being put back into the system.

Last month it was announced that $150 million will be going into a twinning project from Fredericton to the Quebec border, but out in Saskatchewan, where for 10 or 15 years they've been looking for money to twin what they call the death strips on the Trans-Canada, nothing has been coming.

It's a little ironic. An all-party coalition has been shouting at the federal government for the last two or three years to do something. What happened was that the Saskatchewan government yielded to the pressure that we were trying to put on the feds and decided to do it on their own—$132 million worth.

On page 21 of the estimates it says “strategic financial assistance in the form of contributions, loans and loan guarantees to provinces for the construction of certain highways...”. What is the definition of “certain highways”? How do you decide which ones get lucky and which ones are left out? Do you use the Maurice Duplessis system—it depends on who the member is in that particular area? How do you pick these things?

• 1600

Mr. David Collenette: Mr. Morrison, you're really dating yourself with your reference to Premier Duplessis.

I think you've raised a number of very interesting points. We've been in the highway funding business with the province since 1919, from just after the First World War. There have been ebbs and flows in those arrangements. We still have a highway program in Canada. We still have highway agreements with the provinces. Unfortunately, in western Canada all the money was used up by March 31, so those agreements would have to be refunded.

In the case of New Brunswick this was a question of the government deciding that was a priority, both in the context of national objectives and provincial objectives. That stretch of highway was identified by the province as one worthy of funding. When it's completed, you will be able to go all the way from Windsor to Halifax on a four-lane road. It also will encourage tourism from other parts of eastern Canada—eastern Ontario and Quebec—to areas of northern New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.

That was a bilateral arrangement that was made with the Government of New Brunswick, and those kinds of arrangements can be made with other provinces.

The problem, of course, is the availability of funds. There's lots of competition for the surplus funds that we are now generating. There was a modest surplus that was announced by the Minister of Finance in the budget. I hope that surplus will be larger next year, and I hope we would look into getting some funds on highways.

One thing I'm concerned about, Mr. Morrison, is an issue you raised in your reference to how these highways are selected. In 1988 the federal and provincial governments did agree that the national highway system represented 25,000 kilometres of key routes. That's been validated at both levels of government, and I think that goes a long way to obviating the problem you get when certain provincial governments feel it's in their interest to use federal-provincial agreements to pave certain highways before elections. So I think that is one protection.

The other issue I want to mention is that in a couple of weeks we will be meeting with our counterparts, and I want to talk to them about broadening the concept of federal-provincial highway spending should we get the funds to make it a bit more all-encompassing of all transportation. In other words, these rail-air links, the improvement of intermodal facilities, the upgrading of our border crossings to facilitate trade, the implementation of intelligent transportation systems, these also could be funded within these 50-50 cost-shared envelopes. So that's something I will be putting on the table for general discussion with my counterparts.

In the case of Saskatchewan, I assume that province will be interested in 100¢ on the dollar being applied to roads. In the bigger, more populus provinces like B.C., Quebec and Ontario, they may wish to have some of that money applied to other modes of transport, and we have to find a way to give some flexibility to do that.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Okay. I hope one of the things you will be discussing at the conference you're holding at the end of the month is the question of tolls.

Mr. David Collenette: Yes.

Mr. Lee Morrison: This is becoming a considerable thorn in a lot of places, particularly now that they have a section of the Trans-Canada in Nova Scotia where they're putting in a regulation forbidding trucks to use alternative routes to avoid the thing. It's a money trap, one financed partially by federal funds. I think this is something that deserves to be looked at very seriously.

As for the tolls, I'm a little confused as to exactly what is the government's position on this. You have taken a fairly conciliatory position on this question, saying that we have to look into it, that there is a public policy problem here. But your parliamentary secretary has said flatly there's no legal basis for us to interfere with the way the provinces run their road systems, even if we pay for half of it.

• 1605

What is the position of the ministry on this? You say you're taking some of this to the table in Edmonton, but what is the ministry's position on this?

Mr. David Collenette: Both my parliamentary secretary and I are right, because what he was saying was that in the present context of federal-provincial agreements, there is nothing we can do to deal with the application of tolls. That was the basis of Mr. Casey's questions in the House of Commons on this particular point, and that's something we want to address because I think the taxpayers of Canada have to know what the ground rules are for certain cost-shared programs. That's one issue the deputy ministers have been working on, and one issue that we will discuss in Edmonton.

On the particular problem that we had in New Brunswick, I believe that was somewhat dealt with by the fact that the government there chose to not apply any of the federal portion of the contribution in the development of the fee for that particular piece of road. It may be a little uncomfortable and I think I said that in the House, but I think it's an issue we have to get our heads around very quickly.

[Translation]

Mr. Saint-Julien.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Minister, I have two or three brief questions for you, beginning with the subject of VIA Rail.

In remote regions, particularly in the Saguenay-Lac St-Jean and Abitibi regions, passengers today must occasionally wait for an hour and a half or two hours for a train. Frequency of service has been a problem since VIA's merger with CN. A report is to be released shortly. Are remote regions like the Saguenay-Lac St. Jean and Abitibi regions in any danger of being penalized in the future?

Mr. David Collenette: No, as I stated quite clearly, if there are valid reasons for maintaining rail service in regions such as Abitibi and the Saguenay, then it will be up to the government to provide the necessary subsidies to guarantee service. Further to your committee's and to my department's study, I hope that we can create a national rail system that will offer the same quality of service to all regions from coast to coast.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Thank you.

My next question concerns airports. Since Transport Canada embarked on a new strategic direction, responsibility for the management of certain airports, including ones in Quebec, has been transferred to new authorities. Remote, regional and local airports have been affected.

Recently, as Chairman of the native affairs committee, I put a question to the James Bay Cree. They are surprised that you and your Transport Department are not complying with the terms of the James Bay Agreement. As we know, the James Pay Agreement is 640 pages long and the James Bay territory includes Val d'Or. When the Val d'Or airport was transferred to a local authority, your department did not consult the James Bay Cree, even though pursuant to sections 28 and 22, the Government Canada is required to comply with the James Bay Agreement, particularly as regards land transfers.

The head offices of Air Creebec are presently located at the Val d'Or airport. Chief Matthew Coon Come and the other native leaders want to work with the governments of Canada and Quebec to achieve economic development.

Why did your department fail to consult with the James Bay Cree on the land transfer issue? If steps are not taken to consult them, they intend to take the matter to court in an effort to put a halt to the airport transfer process now under way. They want to be consulted.

Mr. David Collenette: In general, the airport transfer process is going smoothly across the country, despite some of the problems we have experienced with native populations in certain regions, in particular British Columbia. The airport in Penticton is another example. This is the first time that I've heard any mention of strained relations with the native population in connection with the transfer of the airport in Val d'Or.

• 1610

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Well, a problem exists today.

Mr. David Collenette: This is news to me. Perhaps Mr. Sully, the Deputy Minister responsible for Programs and Divestiture, could explain the situation to you. However, as a rule, we comply with every agreement that we have signed with natives. I can assure you that in this instance, we will continue to negotiate in a spirit respectful of the rights of native populations in the region. Perhaps Mr. Sully could give you a more detailed explanation.

The Chairman: Mr. Saint-Julien, I will allow you one more question, but please bear in mind that we are here to discuss the Estimates. If there is a problem with one of the department's policies, perhaps this could be addressed in another forum. However, I will let you ask one more brief question.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Thank you. Bearing in mind what the Chairman said, could...

Mr. David Collenette: Mr. Sully could perhaps take a stab at answering your question.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Before hearing from Mr. Sully, I would like to know whether you have allocated a certain sum of money in your budget for maintaining good relations with native populations and for complying with the provisions of the James Bay Agreement, particularly in light of the new direction the department is taking with respect to airport transfers. Have you earmarked any money for discussions of this nature?

Mr. David Collenette: Generally speaking, we do have a budget for the airport transfer process. As for your question, I can't answer it exactly, but I will get that information and pass it along to you in writing.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Thank you. You know, Mr. Chairman, my riding is home to over 25 airports and covers an area of 802,000 square kilometres. That's why I'm looking for some answers. Airport transfers are creating some real problems for us.

The Chairman: This meeting wasn't exactly called to discuss the problems we are having in our ridings.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: I understand that, but... if we are going to discuss the Estimates, we need assurances that the necessary sums of money have been set aside to resolve problems like this.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Welcome, Mr. Minister.

My question pertains to page 40 of Part III - Report on Plans and Priorities.

In 1994, I advised the then Transport Minister, the Honourable Doug Young, that Transport Canada, which had 20,000 or 22,000 employees at the time, should perhaps consider reducing the size of its workforce to 5,900 employees over the next three or four years.

I'm not asking you to be specific, but what is the approximate size of your department today?

Mr. David Collenette: Ms. Bloodworth can take that question.

Mr. Michel Guimond: What was the size of the department last year?

[English]

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth (Deputy Minister, Department of Transport): I believe it was over 20,000 at one time. We usually count from 19,000-something in about 1993-94. At the moment we're at about 4,300 to 4,500, and we expect to go down to about 4,000 because we still have some airports to divest and some downsizing of the corporate services functions in relation to that. So we have not completed going down, but the bulk of it has gone down.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: How many people were employed by the department last year?

[English]

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: Between 19,000 and 20,000.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: No, last year, 1997-1998.

[English]

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: Last year? About 4,800.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: In Vote 1, we note that operating expenditures which totalled $111 million last year will rise to $143 million in 1998-1999. Can you give us the reason for this $32 million increase? These are your Estimates, are they not?

[English]

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: Perhaps I could ask Mr. Lynes to speak to that.

• 1615

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I don't want to push too much, but I do hope that I have some time remaining, as I have additional questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: No, that's a very good question. We need to give the witnesses time to collect their thoughts and then give us an answer.

Mr. Jim Lynes (Director General, Financial Services,Department of Transport): We need to take into account a number of factors when we look at operating expenditures because this is a net budget. In Transport Canada's operating budget, we also include revenues that are collected and subsequently spent. Our gross budget is nearly twice the net amount voted by Parliament.

In the past two years, the department has divested itself of a number of airports which were among its biggest revenue generators. We were authorized to spend this money. Last year, our revenues declined substantially, among other things, because of the transfer of Toronto airport to a local authority.

Operating expenditures are accounted for in Vote 1, while under Vote 5, we find capital expenditures and statutory expenditures to cover employee benefit plans. If you look at the overall operating expenditures, including capital and statutory expenditures, you will note a change.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, we see a decline of $622 million. Spending is down from $1.731 billion in 1998-1999 to $1.109 billion. These figures appear on the last line of the table on page 40, under Spending Authorities.

Mr. Jim Lynes: Yes, I see. I'm sorry.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Perhaps you would like more time. Would you care to take that question under advisement?

Mr. Jim Lynes: Yes, I would.

Mr. David Collenette: That's not a problem. We can come back to it later.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I would, however, like him to get back to us this afternoon. In the meantime, I have another question.

The Chairman: The question has been taken under advisement and we will have an answer before the conclusion of our proceedings.

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Could someone explain to me why, under Vote 1, operating expenditures have increased by $32 million?

I have no desire to second guess my colleagues in the Liberal majority, but I would like to know what you plan to do as far as passenger rail services are concerned once we table our report. What do you see happening this summer and fall? Are you planning to table a bill which the committee would then consider clause by clause? Are you planning to present a white, beige or some other colour of paper?

Mr. David Collenette: To begin with, my officials are currently doing a parallel study of all of the figures and activities associated with VIA Rail and of possible options. Once we get your report, we will scrutinize it carefully. We will consider the work done by departmental officials along with your report and make recommendations to Cabinet.

Right now, I don't know if we will have to amend the legislation or table a new bill to establish a national rail system. However, Cabinet has to authorize any changes or arrangements involving VIA Rail.

• 1620

I was a member of this committee when VIA Rail was created 21 years ago by way of a dollar item in the Estimates. This is not a sound legislative basis for a rail service. Perhaps legislation is needed to set up a new system. In any event, I hope to get the go- ahead from my colleagues in September or October to reorganize the rail system.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, since you are responsible for following up on matters and keeping track of our agenda, I remind you that at the meeting where we discussed VIA's future, I pointed out that rail passengers, the general public, have yet to be consulted about the future of this corporation. I was told by my colleagues and by the parliamentary secretary that the minister was planning to release a white paper containing a number of recommendations and that we would be holding hearings into the matter.

If the minister intends to proceed as he has just indicated to us, then I think we should forget about consulting with Canadians on the future of VIA Rail. The legislative will of the government will have already been clearly expressed.

That's why I stressed the importance of consulting beforehand with the public.

Mr. David Collenette: Mr. Guimond is incorrect. What I said was that enough studies had been conducted over the past decade. What we need to do now is make some decisions about the reorganization of passenger rail services.

I have no intention of releasing a white paper which would have to be studied and followed up with cross-country hearings. That would mean waiting another two years before finally coming to a decision. I've asked the committee to make recommendations on the restructuring of VIA Rail and passenger rail service.

I will examine these recommendations, propose some changes to Cabinet and immediately proceed to implement these changes because we are in a crisis situation. The former President of VIA Rail attended that committee meeting and announced that the Corporation was facing a crisis. In four years' time, VIA would need new rolling stock, he said, and there was no way of arranging financing to purchase that rolling stock. I'm sorry if you got the mistaken impression that a white paper was in the offing. I believe I've kept my word.

The Chairman: I'd like to make one thing clear. As part of its work, the committee decided to consult with a select group. Later on, if legislation was tabled, it would comply with House requirements and hold public hearings. Once we have released our report, if we do decide to consult with Canadians, we will not need the permission of the minister, the department or anyone else for that matter to move forward. We will only need the authorization of the House.

At that moment, the committee will decide if it wants to consult the public. Mr. Guimond was pressing for immediate public consultations, but remaining committee members disagreed with him. Therefore, this option is still open to us if that's what we want to do.

Mr. David Collenette: Mr. Chairman, if the committee wishes to consult with Canadians, then it has the right to do so. However, I want to make it clear that the government wants to proceed without further delay on this matter, as we are facing a crisis situation.

The Chairman: That's why we want to release a report in June.

[English]

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I have a few questions. I'll go as long as the chairman will allow me, and then he can cut me off.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen, we've been around 10 minutes per questioner.

• 1625

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay, sure.

I'd like to pick up on the national highway system renewal, which has become more topical recently. This committee did a study in the last Parliament, as you know, on renewing Canada's national highway system. We discovered that to renew it to a certain standard, it would cost in the neighbourhood of $13 billion to $18 billion. I'm sure you'll be successful in securing funds from your colleague, the Minister of Finance, and other provincial ministers of finance, but it's a very hefty bill.

That's why this committee recommended the exploration of public-private partnerships, which of course go beyond just toll roads. I was pleased to learn from the department that there are meetings with deputies and that progress is being made. I'm just wondering what role you see for public-private partnerships in the national highways system dilemma. What's your timetable in the sense of bringing that to fruition?

Mr. David Collenette: I really can't answer the question in detail because I haven't had the benefit of the report from the deputies yet and I haven't had a meeting with my colleagues. But in general, as recommended by the committee, we want to see if we can get the private sector involved in road building.

That doesn't necessarily mean the building of toll roads like the Highway 407s of this world. I did mention the concept of shadow tolling, which is used in Britain. This is where the private sector designs, builds, and operates the roads for the public sector, for the provinces, and receives a certain fee for doing this based on the throughput on the road.

Those are options that we can look at. So I certainly would be prepared to answer questions on this after the summer break when I have had the benefit of the work that's been done.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you. I would just encourage you to look at it seriously because I think it's a very viable alternative and I think it's a necessary initiative to look at.

Switching gears, Mr. Chairman, I live in a riding that's adjacent to Pearson International Airport, and the flight path goes over my riding. The number of aircraft have been increasing, which is good because it means the economy is in good shape, but noise, of course, is a problem not only in in my riding but in other ridings as well.

One of the things that encourages people in my riding is the fact that there is a rule on the books, a regulation, that says that by 2001 all aircraft coming or going out of Pearson will be required to have what is referred to as a chapter 3 engine. As I understand it, this is about 30% to 40% less noisy than a chapter 2 aircraft or anything else.

I would just like to ask the minister this. In my view, that's an important deadline to keep. I suspect there will be pressures to extend that deadline. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on his position on that.

Mr. David Collenette: I think it's a very good point. First of all, as for the general issue, what's faced at Pearson is faced in Montreal and Vancouver, which are the three busiest airports in the country. It's faced at just about every large airport in the world. In urban planning over the past 50 years, local planners really didn't anticipate the level of growth and expansion at these airports. That's what's happened in Toronto, in particular. It makes it difficult for a lot of people who live close to the flight path of those runways.

But you're right that there is help on the way, because there is a provision that the aircraft make a switch to be quieter. I believe it's to be all chapter 3 by 2001, as you said. That, I think, will go a long way to dealing with the noise issues.

At Pearson right now, as I understand it, unless it's an emergency or other exceptional circumstances, the only regular landings in off-hours, in the middle of the night, that are allowed for certain reasons are chapter 3 aircraft. That's even the case for the time around 6 a.m., when you're allowed to begin landings. So it will make a lot of difference.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you.

Just switching gears again completely, this is a topic that I don't know much about at all, but I've had certain representations with respect to the grain review commission. Mr. Justice Estey is reviewing the whole grain transportation system. At the same time, I understand certain grain branch lines are being abandoned or discontinued or are under discussion. So the question has come up: shouldn't that wait until Justice Willard Estey has completed his review?

• 1630

I appreciate that CN and CP are private companies and that could complicate matters, but I wonder if you'd just respond to that suggestion.

Mr. David Collenette: The timeframe for Judge Estey is very short. He's going to give an interim report by May 31 and a full report by year-end. CN and CP have published a list. I think under the National Transportation Act they're obliged to give, what is it, a three-year notice on what they propose to close. So with a lot of these lines, it's been known for quite a while that they're going to close.

In some cases, those who would advocate a moratorium are doing it because they want to postpone the inevitable. They want to keep these lines open forever. The change in the act in 1996 was really put in because it was felt that it was an undue burden on the railways.

However, there are other cases—we would look at them on a case-by-case basis—where the local community just isn't able to get its act together, but it wants to negotiate to take over the railway; or there is a short-line operator who wants to take it over, but they need time. I found the railways to be pretty reasonable on that.

What I announced a couple of weeks ago was that we would put in place a system of facilitation. We would help some of these local groups and communities, or others, deal with the railways. When a small community in rural Saskatchewan is dealing with CN or CP, it's a real David and Goliath situation. By using facilitators, we can hopefully given them a bit of a break. This was suggested by the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, SARM. We took them up on that, and I think that's been very well received.

I said to a lot of farm groups that they should not expect us to publicly call for a moratorium. The only way you're going to get a moratorium is for us to reopen the legislation and impose it statutorily. But if you want us to talk to the railways, we will talk to them individually. My deputies had conversations and I've had conversations where there have been irritants, and I found the railways to be reasonable in dealing with those irritants.

The Chairman: Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Minister, I'm exceptionally happy to hear that, because Mr. Cullen basically asked the first question that I was going to ask you. So I'm just going to keep forging ahead with that.

Yes, the rail abandonment out west is going to be a big problem. My estimates are that there's probably anywhere from 5,000 to 8,000 miles of surplus track through the provinces out there.

I have a project that I'm working on right now along that same line in my own riding. The municipalities are looking at purchasing the rail line itself. At that point, actually, what they'll do in Ontario is circumvent the Municipal Act, because at that point they will be able to set whatever the property taxes are going to be on the right of way, if any. They could form themselves into a corporation and sublease to a short-line operator. That individual, if they want to, can maybe even purchase a line over a period of time.

The issue, if we're successful with this, is bridge financing. Obviously the municipalities themselves don't have enough money such that they can immediately go out and purchase a line, but if they had, for instance, a loan over 25 years, then that would make it a feasible proposition.

I'd even go a step further. We could maybe incorporate a very successful plank that we had in the 1993 election, which is the infrastructure program. We could have something maybe incorporated that the federal government, provincial governments, and municipalities themselves would each take a partnership of one-third going in. But this would be on a loan basis, not a grant.

I'd like to know what your comments are on that.

Mr. David Collenette: These are interesting solutions to the problem but a little bit outside of my jurisdiction. Obviously, if you apply the infrastructure program, that could really work in the case you're mentioning.

Here's one suggestion, perhaps. I don't know whether it's feasible to try to get into a long-term lease-to-purchase arrangement with the railways so that the annual payments generated out of the cashflow from the lines by the private operator in effect function as a mortgage. At the end of a certain period of time, the municipality ends up with the ownership of the line.

• 1635

I don't know whether the railways want that. The railways would like hard cash in a lump sum, but you don't always get that in life. It's not unusual to have commercial arrangements that are made over a number of years.

On the other matter, unless the government is going to reintroduce the infrastructure program again, I don't know what other means you could have to finance it, short of the railways making some kind of a deal.

The railways are not interested in shutting down lines forever and ripping up track, they're interested in reducing their own costs. I've found they really bend over backwards if they find there's a legitimate buyer or operator out there. Then they're interested because you're going to feed traffic into their system.

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This guy's been reading our notes over there about rail lines in western Saskatchewan and southern Saskatchewan and so on.

I would just like to inform our member. You mentioned a moratorium. You don't have to worry, because this moratorium that's taking place is not just that the railways are anxious to get out of the branch lines; the grain companies, quite frankly, also want that. So a moratorium is a fait accompli.

I'm from an area where we know what's happening. Hundreds of miles of track are going out. That's why I've been so benevolent and have offered to this group that they can have most of the line they'll need for a new passenger service. All you have to do is come out to Mr. Morrison's riding and there it will be. You can have that good, heavy steel.

Let's not fool ourselves on one issue that has been brought up, Mr. Minister, and that is the Judge Estey report. I drove through Saskatchewan in that particular winter, and there was fault on both sides. I'd like to tell this committee that by the time we review this report, this problem should not happen again, because all that's going to be left in the greater grain-growing areas will be the main lines. The branch lines won't be there. In my own particular constituency, I won't have a branch line anywhere by 2001 in the western half of the constituency.

I would like to refer, Mr. Minister, to the top of page 4, which is almost a paradox in your report. You say that Canadians would like to switch to less-polluting kinds of transportation. Here on the prairies, we're moving to more pollution because more of our grain is going to be hauled through the large diesel trucks. There will be more miles and more bushels going to fewer locations. The actual amount of pollution going on in the grain industry is going to increase, and by a great deal.

I'd also like to ask you a question with regard to what is a big problem on the prairies. It's a question that's unanswered. On April 14, Ted Allen, the president of United Grain Growers, made a recommendation. I'm wondering whether you have had a chance to consider that.

He was wondering whether the government would sell the grain hopper cars. That topic has been around so long that the topic itself is in a hopper and it hasn't come out. The grain hopper cars have an estimated value of between $250 million to $350 million.

Mr. Allen's suggestion was that there should be no argument as to where the money would go from this sale. It should go to the infrastructure to help somebody get this grain to the markets, so it should go to the rural municipalities in total. There are about 13,000 of those cars out there. Right now, most of them are sitting empty. On my line alone, more than 200 are just sitting there because there's no grain moving right now.

What's your department's thinking on the suggestion made by the president of UGG?

Mr. David Collenette: First of all, there's no question that this issue of getting rid of the hopper cars has been around for a while. In fact, as part of program review, we are obliged to divest ourselves of those hopper cars because the money is booked against the fiscal framework. Therefore, it's money that goes back to the centre. This would be a budgetary decision of the Minister of Finance and Canada as a whole to say—

Mr. Roy Bailey: That's bad news.

Mr. David Collenette: —okay, Collenette, sell these cars for $200 million and you get to keep it. I love it, but that's not the way the system works. It's booked in program review. We're not going to look at this until the Estey report comes in, because I just don't think it's right to go and make some arrangement with these hopper cars while he is studying all aspects of grain transportation.

• 1640

You make a good point about forcing a lot of farmers to use trucks to the large transfer points. The fact is that you're right, on a kilometre-by-kilometre basis or a load basis, it is somewhat more polluting to use those vehicles. On the other hand, when we try to get people to change to rail, we're looking at it in the dense corridors, where there are high yields, where there is high traffic. That's where it makes sense, both for freight and for people.

We're not proposing to eliminate the private passenger car and to have everybody somehow have a railway. So you have to look at it in that context.

You made reference to the problems of the winter before last on grain haulage in the west. Mr. Estey could look at that as an example of some of the problems that have happened, but his study really is about the entire infrastructure and how to make it work in the movement of grain and how to make recommendations for the future.

What happened a couple of winters ago is in the past. There were operational problems from the railways. Some charge that the railways were negligent. The railways would say it's an act of God by virtue of the heavy snowfalls and other issues that came forward.

I don't think we should look back. We should look at the future, and that's what Justice Estey is looking at.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I have just one final question.

Mr. Minister, do you not think it somewhat strange...and whether it's a pressure or whether it's public relations, I am not particulary pleased with the fact that CN has made some type of a payment to some people. We don't know who's going to get it and how much the amount is. Is that a real amount? Is that guilt or is it PR, or just what is this and what was the guilt?

Mr. David Collenette: This is really a matter for CN to do something about. As you know, they made a settlement with the Wheat Board regarding the Wheat Board's complaint against CN's alleged poor service during that winter. I'm not a party to the details of that settlement; it's between those two organizations. I'm not really privy to any of the reasons for the payments or the amounts of those payments. I should say that the action of the Wheat Board against CP is still before the CTA.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Before I go on to Mr. Fontana and Mr. Casey on the first round,

[Translation]

Someone has just indicated to me that we have an answer to Mr. Guimond's question.

Mr. Guimond, could you briefly review, in 10 or 15 seconds, the gist of your question?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We heard in a previous answer that the number of departmental employees had decreased compared to the 1997-1998 fiscal year. I would have thought that logically then, operating expenditures would decline as well in 1998-1999. However, I note here in the Estimates that operating expenditures, which totalled $111 million last year, are projected to be $143 million this year. I would like an explanation as to the reason for this $32 million increase.

Mr. David Collenette: First of all, we have the answer to the question you asked a few minutes ago.

Mr. Jim Lynes: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I apologize for my somewhat vague answer last time, but in order to understand the question, we need to focus on gross expenditures.

First of all, if you refer to page 43, you will see that the number of employees has decreased from 4,800 to 4,400 in two years.

Now, if you turn to page 51...

Mr. Michel Guimond: On page 43, we have salary ranges.

Mr. Jim Lynes: The figures listed on the bottom refer to the number of employees.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I see. What is an FTE?

Mr. Jim Lynes: It refers to a Full Time Equivalent.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Full Time Equivalent?

Mr. Jim Lynes: That's correct.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Fine.

• 1645

Mr. Jim Lynes: If you would now turn to page 51, you will find the department's gross expenditures. These are expenditures before we deduct revenues that we are entitled to spend again. You will note that personnel expenditures decreased from $304 million to $276 million. Other operating expenditures decreased from $560 million to $442 million. Therefore, from the standpoint of gross expenditures, overall spending has really fallen.

[English]

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): I thank you, Mr. Minister, for your review of transportation and where we're going in the future.

I wonder if I could cover off the national airports policy for a moment because, as you know, that was one of the first initiatives of Transport Canada and the minister.

Certain media reports would indicate that there may be a change or perceived contemplated change with regard to the national airport system and the divestiture to some of those airports. I'm not sure we've had an update on how many transfers have occurred, on how many are yet to be transferred, on whether or not in the initial blush of looking at these transfers these new airport authorities have in fact been a success. I know that London, Ontario, is about to transfer in the next couple of months.

We talked about a totally integrated airport system and essentially about putting some of the decision-making back into the community so that they could use these airports as economic engines. I wonder if you could give us an update on what has occurred in those areas.

Mr. David Collenette: First, Mr. Fontana, I'm one step ahead of you. Last night I signed off on the agreement, on the transfer of London Airport, so that's done.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. David Collenette: That wouldn't have occurred without your intercession, and there were some local issues that had to be resolved, and I want to thank you very much for that.

A couple of weeks ago there was an article in one of the newspapers that surprised us. It talked about the difficulty of the national airports policy and the divestiture. I think all of us at Transport Canada were somewhat amazed about where the reporter got the information from. He didn't talk to anybody in my office, he didn't talk to any of our senior officials, and he left a very wrong impression with the public, because this policy is going ahead, and it's going well.

I am told that 95% of all commercial air passengers use facilities that have been transferred to local entities. There are a total of 88 airports transferred: 7 national airport systems, not including Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Mirabel and Dorval, 48 regional-local, 22 small, and 11 Arctic, which includes Whitehorse and Yellowknife. That means there's only 43 remaining to be transferred. That's real failure, as far as I'm concerned. In other words, most of the work has been done.

What is true is that we are now dealing with the more marginal operations, although not entirely. We think some of them, such as Halifax, St. John's, Regina and Quebec City, can make a go of it and do very well. We should be able to arrive at some kind of conclusions reasonably soon. There are smaller ones where there are more marginal circumstances that require a bit of ingenuity on our part and on the part of the local authorities trying to get those airports. All in all, the program has gone exceptionally well and we certainly are realizing the savings that were anticipated.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I want to thank you on behalf of some of our caucus members. There needed to be some flexibility or some more opportunities and this has in fact happened, even though, as you said, most of what we've set out has been accomplished. There is a certain amount of flexibility, especially, as you indicated, on some of those smaller marginal ones, because every airport is rather unique.

Mr. Chairman, on the marine side of things, especially the St. Lawrence Seaway, you were talking about being at the end of the next week or the week after...the national infrastructure we have in this country. We talked about rail; we talked about airports; we talked about passenger rail; we even talked about highways. There's no doubt that we need to start to do things in creative and innovative ways into the next century if we're going to achieve a national transportation strategy.

• 1650

I believe the seaway is in fact one of the treasures of this country and perhaps the United States. If we're looking at ways of being able to become competitive and integrated, there's no doubt that this jewel of an infrastructure is going to require.... I know our marine policy suggested that we're moving towards a third-party operator. In fact, who knows down the road whether or not it would be a binational organization that runs that?

I want to speak to what we had heard way back when, and I suppose you could tell me that it's probably not your ministry. I'm a little concerned that unless we make it possible for this country to start building ships and looking at our tax policies as they relate to what other countries are doing.... I don't know how many ships are left in the Great Lakes that are using the system, but we were told that in fact, unless something happens, there may not be any ships using the seaway down the road.

I know this gets into the area of industry and taxation and so on. In terms of talking about transportation, it's key for us to look at those other areas of transportation that directly affect your ministry, be it taxation policy on the capital cost allowance of rail or a shipbuilding industry for this country that would make it possible for us to utilize, in my opinion, the St. Lawrence Seaway in a much more important fashion than it is now and it has in the past.

Mr. David Collenette: Certainly we'd like to enhance the use of the seaway by any means. On the specific question regarding the shipbuilding policy of the government, there is one. It is under the responsibility of John Manley, the Minister of Industry. There are general tax implications on this, as you know, and that, of course, involves the Minister of Finance. So I'm sure you would ask more detailed questions of him at the industry committee. From Transport's point of view, we think the seaway has a future and we hope this future can be, as I said, enhanced.

We are close to making a deal on the commercialization of the seaway. This has been going on for some time. The enactment of Bill C-9 will facilitate that particular agreement being put in place. This is where the users come together to manage the operations of the seaway and to bring in all the necessary efficiencies of the private sector in its management.

On the question of the binational agency, this has been of particular interest to a number of people in Canada and the U.S. Indeed, a former member of this committee, Mr. Comuzzi, our colleague from Thunder Bay, has been very active on this file.

There's nothing in Bill C-9 and there's nothing with the commercialization of the seaway that will preclude our moving to an arrangement with the U.S. on a binational agency. We have informed the United States government that this is indeed something that we are prepared to seriously discuss, and they are understanding our position. They have taken the view that they would rather commercialization be looked at after the establishment of a binational agency. We said that this is not our policy. We intend to proceed.

There is an issue of toll fees that has been an irritant for some time. In the absence of an agreement, and it's been published in the Canada Gazette, we have informed them that we are going to move unilaterally under domestic legislation to increase those tolls in a modest amount to allow the users of the seaway, many of whom are American shipping companies, to recover their costs.

Mr. Joe Fontana: We would agree, Minister, and as for what the starting point might be and what hopefully might be the end point, we have to look after our interests.

Just to sum up, I would agree that taxation policies and those other industry policies are not directly related to Transport Canada, but they do affect you. If in fact you want to achieve and accomplish everything that you said in this document, then I support it wholeheartedly.

Whether or not you build new highways to look after certain opportunities in certain parts of the country, whether or not you build passenger rail, whether or not you build marine opportunities, or whether or not you even build new air opportunities, the fact is that certain policies do affect transportation. At the end of the day, I would perhaps like to know whether or not your department takes a look at and has a point of view on some of these tax policies and industrial policies so that we can help you achieve your transportation ends, but sometimes other governmental policies make it impossible to achieve certain transportation goals that we want to support.

• 1655

Have you done some studies or is there some information you can give us? I just pointed out two: the capital cost allowance and the shipbuilding policies of this country vis-à-vis what other countries are doing for certain particular industries. We'd very much like to look at those.

Mr. David Collenette: Well, what you're really getting into with your question is cabinet confidences, because as a minister and with my officials, we make representations all the time. We have difficult discussions with our colleagues, both at the bureaucratic and at the ministerial level. Ultimately a consensus is forged and we live with the policy.

Certainly I am not unsympathetic to enhancing anything that will assist the refinancing of our transportation infrastructure or improve it, whether or not it's highways, and I make my views known. I can't be more specific than that, because then I'm really conducting in public a debate that has to be conducted in private.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Well, maybe we can do the work for you and then we'll take it from there. That's fine. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you mentioned, I've asked questions a couple of times in the House about toll highways. Focusing on the highway from Fredericton to the Quebec border and the $150 million agreement that was recently signed, in response to my questions about the possibility that that section of highway would be tolled, you've said there's nothing in the agreement to prevent it specifically, but, if I remember correctly, your answer said that before the money is paid, invoices are submitted, and there may be some way to prevent tolls from being charged on that highway.

That highway is the main corridor from central Canada into Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., and Newfoundland, and it's critical that we have a free highway there to maintain our competitiveness in attracting investment, industry, and jobs. So can you elaborate on what I'm trying to read between the lines of your answers? It sounds as though you're saying you're not going to allow that highway to be tolled, but am I reading that correctly?

Mr. David Collenette: Well, you raised certain valuable questions in the House about the other parts of the highways in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick where tolls are applied—I think in New Brunswick in particular—where there was a federal-provincial agreement. What I said was this is something we really have to establish a policy on, because we are breaking new ground.

We have made a commitment to New Brunswick to enter into an agreement to finance that twinning of the highway, but no deal has been signed. That's now being negotiated. No payments have been made, because payments are only made when work is complete. So there is plenty of time to factor in what has to be a policy decision on the application of tolls, and that's something the jury's out on.

But I can tell you a lot of people, both within Parliament and generally, do not believe there should be direct tolls on any portion of the Trans-Canada Highway. That's the message I've been getting from not only colleagues here—you and others—but also the provinces. So this is something we want to look at.

But I want to assure you that not a nickel's been spent under this deal yet, so therefore the concern you've raised is still valid. Don't think you've actually missed this one as well. The point's been well made, and we're going to try to come up with a policy framework to answer it.

Mr. Bill Casey: Just to clarify my opposition to tolls, it isn't just a matter of toll highways. Atlantic Canada is a have-not area, we've always been recognized as a have-not area, and one of the biggest reasons is we are so far from markets. It costs us so much to transport our resources and our products to market and to get our raw materials to us.

Charging tolls on the only highway into the four Atlantic provinces effectively moves us further out to sea, which is false economy, because then the transfer payments have to be increased to make up for that. So it's not the matter of the principle of a toll highway; it's a matter of our region being competitive and efficient and able to attract investment and jobs.

Mr. David Collenette: Perhaps I could interrupt and say my deputy just informed me that in the context of the negotiations, New Brunswick has no intention of levying tolls on that particular stretch of road.

• 1700

Mr. Bill Casey: Well, with all due respect, we've heard New Brunswick say that before, on the highway they just announced they were going to charge a toll on. They absolutely, specifically said they would not charge a toll on that highway.

In fact, when they signed the agreement with the federal government, the Minister of Finance wrote me a letter, which I gave to you approximately a month ago, and said that even though they were putting 50% of the cost of the highway in, it was always their intention, from the beginning, to recoup their 50%. So in effect only the feds paid for that highway.

But we'll get off toll highways for a while.

I'd like to talk about the status of Halifax International Airport. When I asked about that in the House, you referred to a study that was coming down, conducted by Deloitte & Touche, to determine whether Halifax is being treated fairly, and you told me to wait for that report. So I did what I was told, and I went to the meeting in Halifax where they reported their report, but I was thrown out of the meeting; they refused to allow me to stay in the meeting. If I didn't leave, they were going to cancel the meeting, and there were about 35 people in the meeting. They refused to allow me to hear the results. And there was a mixture of people in this meeting; it wasn't any great secret or anything.

I would ask that the committee be allowed to see that Deloitte & Touche report. You said in the House that I would have my answer when I.... Good, so could we have that report?

The Chairman: One moment, please; I have a point of clarification. If the committee wishes to request any reports, we'll do that in-house in a steering committee meeting.

Mr. Bill Casey: Okay. Could I have the report?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Collenette: Mr. Casey, we won't give it to you and we won't give it to the committee, and I'll tell you why. This is a report that was commissioned as a result of negotiations, now ongoing, between the Government of Canada and the Halifax Airport Authority.

I know you had a bit of a problem at the meeting. You said you were thrown out; I think you were asked to leave, and they were right in asking you to leave. Despite the fact that you are a wonderful fellow, we can't have an individual who is not a party to negotiations, playing a public policy role, as an MP does, inserting himself into private, confidential negotiations, and that's why you were asked to leave.

On the specific point about Halifax International Airport, I know some in Halifax are a little bit frustrated about this, but all negotiations are tough, and they're not going to get anywhere by negotiating in public or trying to drag in members of Parliament, the mayor, or anybody else. If you agree to negotiate, you negotiate in good faith, and at a certain point in time, hopefully those negotiations materialize.

Mr. Fontana, I know it's because they were pretty tough negotiations in London. Deloitte & Touche are financial advisers who were called in to give an evaluation. They've given that evaluation, and what they have said and what others have said is still the subject of ongoing negotiations. I don't think it's right for us to become involved publicly in that.

The people in Halifax just have to get on with it, and if they can make a deal, great, but if they can't, then they'll have to come to some conclusion pretty soon that they can't. But right now there are meetings going on, I think in the next few weeks, with our department, and I'm optimistic that we'll get it done.

Mr. Bill Casey: In my own defence, you kind of invited me to the meeting with your answer in the House, because that was—

The Chairman: No, that's out of order.

Mr. Bill Casey: Oh, is it? Okay.

But also, the people at the meeting invited me to the meeting as well.

The Chairman: That's out of order also.

Mr. Bill Casey: All right.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bill Casey: Moving right along, then—

Mr. David Collenette: But in a confidential negotiation, if one party invites a third party in, that's just a no-no. It takes two to tango. So I guess you were misled, and that's your defence, and that's fine.

The Chairman: Before you proceed, Mr. Casey, I'd like to clarify why I'm using the gavel. We have 25 minutes before 5.30 p.m. If we don't resolve these issues, we'll have to meet again. If the members want a meeting tomorrow, we can drag this on. This is the reason I'm trying to go faster. Carry on.

Mr. Bill Casey: Okay, I'm going to move now to small ports under Bill C-9. Many of the ports—

The Chairman: Bill C-9 is not at issue here.

Mr. Bill Casey: Pardon?

The Chairman: Bill C-9 is not at issue. Do you have a question on the direction the department wants to take?

Mr. Bill Casey: Well, it's certainly an issue in my riding.

The Chairman: I know, but we're not here for us to deal with our ridings.

Mr. Bill Casey: Oh, aren't we? Okay. I thought that's why we were elected.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bill Casey: Moving right on to page 53—

An hon. member: We're here to talk about the estimates.

• 1705

Mr. Bill Casey: On page 53 of the estimates, it shows under LAA lease payments and CAA lease and chattel payments that one's going from $32 million in 1997-98 to $181 million. These are airport lease payments. Where are the airports going to get that 600% increase?

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: Well, it's not all coming from the same airports. We're in the process of divesting more airports, and as we divest more, we will get more rent because there are more people to get it from. There are also airports we have already divested where we have various arrangements of agreeing, for some of the smaller airports, to defer rent for a couple of years. So the end result is that the rent we receive now is lower than what we will receive when we've divested all the airports and gone through the initial period.

Mr. Bill Casey: So what is LAA and CAA?

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: LAA are the initial five airports. They're local airport authorities that were done under the previous government. They're the two Montreal airports, Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver. CAA is the Canadian Airport Authority. That is the national airport policy of this government. They're different lease arrangements.

Mr. David Collenette: The LAAs were Tory commercialization and the CAAs are Liberal commercialization.

Mr. Bill Casey: Oh, I see.

Mr. David Collenette: And the latter is preferable.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bill Casey: Well, they're certainly making a lot more money.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Including Pearson.

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: There are a lot more airports.

Mr. Bill Casey: The Liberals are making a lot more money.

Mr. David Collenette: Can I have that...? Oh, that's on the record. Thank you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bill Casey: That's okay. I'm done.

The Chairman: This completes the first round. Now we can go to motions for amendments that I've received. I have three from Mr. Morrison. I have another motion on committee work, which we will deal with after.

An hon. member: Do the witnesses have to be here?

An hon. member: No, he can dismiss them.

Mr. Michel Guimond: There's no second round?

The Chairman: Okay, well, I'll leave it to the committee. A good point was made. Do we need our guests to deal with the motions, or do you wish a second round?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Why not?

The Chairman: If it's why not, the answer is yes. If you wish a second round, let's go.

Mr. Morrison was first and Mr. Guimond. Those are the two names I have.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Okay, and I'll really speed it up here.

The Chairman: I will restrict it to three minutes, question and answer.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Minister, when you start to build Mr. Fontana's lakers, I would recommend les chantiers marines de Regina, Saskatchewan. They're very competitive with Lévis.

Mr. Minister, on the question of the viability or otherwise of some of these national airport system airports, you seem a lot more sanguine about this than the Canadian Airports Council. I presume you've read their report on this. I'd specifically point, as Mr. Casey did, to Halifax. There's also Quebec City, Saskatoon, and Prince George. These are airports that have, in modern terms, pretty low volumes, and they have capital costs staring them in the face—big ones. That's why people aren't lining up to take them over.

So I'd like to know, what is your reaction to that report by the Canadian Airports Council and are you taking this seriously? Do you have a plan B if you still have a dozen airports on your hands a couple of years from now? What are you going to do in order to complete your project? Are you going to change the terms under which these airports will be divested? How are you going to handle this?

Mr. David Collenette: They raise some concerns, and we're looking at what they have alleged, but we set up the program and we think it's working, as I said earlier. We think it will continue to work. Just because they've red-flagged some issues, people shouldn't take that to mean we're going to change the policy. We think the policy is viable and will continue to be viable, and anything else at this stage is hypothetical. I think we'll be able to divest these airports.

• 1710

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I had a similar thought. I can appreciate your optimism about the airport transfer process, but I was told that things weren't going very well at the Quebec City airport. You may be optimistic, but the news I've been getting isn't quite as upbeat.

Getting back to Part III of the Estimates, specifically to page 41, I have to say that I'm not satisfied with the answer I got from the Director of Financial Services. Not that I want to give him gray hairs or anything, but I'm not happy with his answer. I'll come back to that.

Could you tell me how many bridges in Canada are federally owned? I'm not talking about the bridges spanning the St. Lawrence Seaway or about the Jacques Cartier and Champlain bridges.

Mr. David Collenette: How many bridges are federally owned?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Does the federal government own any other bridges?

Mr. David Collenette: Yes, it does.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Really?

Mr. David Collenette: I could give you a list, if you like. It is a rather long one.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Could you possibly send that information to our clerk, if the Chairman has no objections? Could you also list the expenditures incurred both last year and this year for all federally own bridges? Could you draw up a table for us? That shouldn't be too complicated.

The Chairman: Is that all right with you? It won't make your life too difficult, I hope.

Mr. Michel Guimond: In any event, they are there to serve us, even if we do make life difficult for them.

The Chairman: They are there to serve the committee.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Their job is to serve Canadian taxpayers. I represent Canadians and I want some answers.

Mr. David Collenette: I'm very happy to hear you say that, Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Minister, my colleague, Mr. Morrison, referred to something in his opening remarks. Why, in your remarks to the committee today, did you make no reference whatsoever to the high-speed train proposal for the Quebec City-Toronto corridor, the so-called Lynx Project? Why is that?

Mr. David Collenette: Because in my speech, I talked about rail policies in general, while this project is a specific private sector initiative. However, if you have some questions about it, fire away.

Mr. Michel Guimond: We won't have time to get into this today, but I will certainly have some questions when I know more about the project. I imagine that its promoters will submit a report to the committee because aside from one press release, we don't have a great deal of information, at least not as much as you have.

Mr. David Collenette: This has nothing to do with me. It concerns private sector companies.

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond, Mr. Morrison suggests that the committee invite this group to come and discuss the proposed venture with us.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Fine. Before we hear from the Director of Financial Services, there is something else that I would like to discuss. Apparently, the CBC reported that airline companies are planning to cancel all of their flights on January 1, 2000 because of the Y2K bug. You seem to be fairly nonchalant about all of this, judging from what you said in your opening remarks to the committee:

While we are confident that industry will find effective solutions, we will nonetheless monitor the steps the various federally regulated transportation modes are taking to address the issues.

I find you somewhat detached from the whole thing. You will monitor the situation, but are you truly committing yourself to this task? Is there a Transport Canada committee in charge of this matter? Obviously, in a five-page document, it is impossible to explain to us every single measure you plan to take, but are Transport Canada officials really concerned about this whole issue?

Mr. David Collenette: Every government department, and ours in particular, is concerned about this. We hold meetings with responsible officials because it is very important for us to have safe air travel in the year 2000. I can assure you and Canadians that we are confident that the airline companies and NAV CANADA have taken steps to ensure the safety of our skies. Quite frankly, though, I can't say the same thing for other countries.

• 1715

I don't think the United States are going to have any problems, because the Americans are working very hard on this issue. Elsewhere in the world, however, I can't say. We are responsible for Canadian skies, that is for flights over Canada and for flights in the North Atlantic. Canada controls half of the air space in the North Atlantic where air traffic is very heavy. I am confident that measures are now in place to guarantee the safety of air travel in Canada.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I will conclude on that note, Mr. Chairman, because I wouldn't want to impose on my colleagues. However, I would like to ask them if they are satisfied with the answer supplied by the Director.

The Chairman: You can ask that question after we have heard from Mr. Casey. We will allow him one final question, and then we'll get back to you.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Casey has left.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, I meant to say Mr. Bailey. Then we will proceed directly to presenting amendments.

[English]

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Minister, I will be very brief on this.

There was much ado, and maybe, as I believe you said in the House, too much has been said as we watched the Canadian media shortly after the establishment of the new ports authorities and the ports police and the criticism that came through our television, our newspapers, and indeed from the United States, saying that our ports were a free and easy way because of the transition. I don't know whether it was because of the transition from the ports police to the new form of policing.

Your response in the House was quite the contrary, that everything was going fine, yet I'm still hearing rumours about the importation of drugs, coming into Canada and then crossing through our ports into the United States. I know that gets into a different department, but I want to get back to the original, where the ports police were part of your department and now they're individual. Have you anything more to add on this? These stories keep cropping up.

Mr. David Collenette: In some cases, I think you have to look at who is perpetuating the stories with respect to the port police. Obviously, many people who were attached to the port police were not happy that it was disbanded.

We believe the transferring of the port police responsibilities to local police forces, in particular, is a better way to do it. I had Mrs. Wayne, the interim leader of the Conservatives, going on about this in the House, and I would pose a question to her: who do you think would be better, the ports police or the local police in Saint John? Is she saying the police force in Saint John, or in Vancouver, or in Halifax can't handle those functions?

The fact is, when it comes to narcotics, immigration, and organized crime, all those matters are the responsibility of the RCMP. The RCMP is still there. If it's a question of the level of policing required by the RCMP to deal with an extra crime threat, then the Solicitor General will deal with that, and he has addressed those questions in the House.

But the whole issue of the allegation that these crimes are on the increase and linking this to the dissolution of the ports police really is not supported by the facts, misunderstands what the ports police's role was in the first instance, and misunderstands the fact that this was the entire preserve of the RCMP, and still is.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Now we will proceed to clarification on the famous question.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I simply wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the Director of Financial Services replied that the number of departmental employees had decreased, as seen in the table on page 43, and that gross expenditures had decreased as well, as seen in the table on page 51. My question, however, concerned the increase in operating expenditures. Was I the only one who didn't understand his answer?

I heard what he said, but what justification is there for a $32 million increase in the department's operating expenditures?

Mr. David Collenette: He's right.

• 1720

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm listening.

Mr. Jim Lynes: I don't know how to explain it other than to say... to understand the department's operations, one has to look at gross expenditures. That's the starting point.

Next, to understand which revenues can be subtracted from this gross amount... that results in changes as well. Numerous transactions occurred when airports were transferred to other authorities. Some airports were running a deficit when their operations were transferred, while others were turning a profit. All of the transactions undertaken altered the gross expenditure/ net expenditure ratio.

I admit that this isn't a very good answer. Perhaps there is a better one explaining all of the transactions which account for these changes. However, I don't have that answer for you today.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, could we ask the Director, or someone else, to send as a written answer to the question? Moreover, if we are not satisfied with that answer, could we possibly call him back? We don't want an overly technical answer, given that we are not accountants. It has to be written in layman's terms. We are simply ordinary people representing other ordinary people. Therefore, don't come back to us with an overly technical answer crafted for experts.

The Chairman: Perhaps you could get together and try and come to some kind of understanding. Then the problem would be resolved. If Mr. Guimond is still not satisfied, he could let the committee know and ask us to call back departmental officials. How does that sound to you?

[English]

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: We can certainly send a written response. I'm not a financial expert, but perhaps I could try my simple explanation and see if that helps. But we'll certainly send you one.

What you see in table A-1 are the net expenses. They take into account that our revenue has already been netted out of that, and the revenue went down more than the expenses. When we talk about gross and net, the difference, the net ones have already taken out the revenues, but our revenues have varied because of the factors that Mr. Lynes talked about.

We'll certainly send you a written response, and if that's not adequate we'd be happy to answer any further....

[Translation]

The Chairman: Would that be acceptable to you?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes. Along with the table, perhaps he could also send us a breakdown of the $143 million in operating expenditures, along with the relevant details, so that we can compare this year with last year.

The Chairman: Okay then. You can send all of that information to the clerk who will then get copies to all committee members.

[English]

We went through it and we talked about everything in your department except the yellow submarines, and that's an inside joke for those who have travelled. It's a favourite song—

Mr. David Collenette: When you talk about submarines, you're treading on sensitive ground.

The Chairman: But this is a yellow submarine.

Mr. David Collenette: But we finally delivered.

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond is a very good singer and we had him singing that. That's why we say that.

Mr. Minister and your colleagues from the department, thank you very much. We appreciated your visit.

Mr. David M. Collenette: Thank you.

The Chairman: Now we will proceed to the motions. We don't want to be impolite, but we're going into it while you are leaving.

A member has requested that the department heads remain while we deliberate the amendments. It makes sense because we may have questions for you. The minister is free to go if he wishes.

TRANSPORT

Department

Vote 1—Operating expenditures $143,098,000

Vote 10—Grants and contributions $347,289,000

Canadian Transportation Agency

Vote 30—Program expenditures $17,568,000

The Chairman: I have a motion before me from Mr. Morrison, and I will deal with amendments in the order that I receive them.

Mr. Morrison moves that vote 30, in the amount of $17,568,000, under the heading “Canadian Transportation Agency” in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, be reduced by $1,756,800, less $4,392,000 voted in interim supply.

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I've had some occasion to deal with this particular agency over the year. At times I begin to wonder why they are there, because in some cases the type of information coming from them seems to be just a rehash of what the industry is telling them. I sometimes get the feeling that they're working for the industry when you file complaints with respect to people who have problems with the transportation sector.

• 1725

We are cutting costs throughout the Department of Transport. I think this is one agency that could afford to be cut just a tad more than has been proposed, and that is why I am proposing this cut that works out to about 10%, with allowance for what has already been run through the supplements.

The Chairman: Does anyone wish to respond to the comments?

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, does Mr. Morrison have a detailed breakdown? Is it a global 10% reduction?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes, and then let them chase their own rabbits inside of that envelope. I don't think we should be trying to micro-manage it.

Mr. Roy Cullen: There's no rationale further than that?

Mr. Lee Morrison: The rationale I gave you, that I don't feel we are getting big value for the money there.

The Chairman: Anyone on this proposed amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison moves that vote 10, in the amount of $347,289,000, under the heading “Grants and Contributions”, under Transport in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, be reduced by $188,000, less $86,822,250 voted in interim supply.

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: This is the funding for the Transportation Association of Canada that I'm proposing we eliminate. This is a lobby group, a special interest group. Why are we giving them $188,000 of taxpayers' money to lobby us? How do you justify this?

The Chairman: Who are you directing the question to?

Mr. Lee Morrison: To anybody who cares to take it on. I don't think this is a reasonable function of the ministry.

The Chairman: If you don't direct it to someone, be it witnesses or members....

Mr. Lee Morrison: Okay. To Mr. Jackson.

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: I'm going to step in first, Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Thank you, Ms. Bloodworth.

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: If it was a lobby group I would agree with you, but the Transportation Association of Canada is not a lobby group. We are a member, as is every province. There are a number of municipalities that have joined it as well, and there are some private sector people who are members. This is an association that does a lot of research on transportation issues, both on the engineering side and on the policy side.

So we are one of many contributors. Every provincial and territorial government and a great many municipalities also are members. It's not a contribution in this case but a membership. It's a membership that is divided in a number of different ways, but the total would be that. So we consider that we get very good value for the $188,000 we put into the Transportation Association of Canada.

Mr. Lee Morrison: What specifically do we get out of it, Ms. Bloodworth?

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: They have such things as a chief engineers council, for example, which works on standards of various kinds, some of them having to do with highways and some having to do with bridges. I'm not an engineer so I can't get too much more specific about standards, but that's one of the examples.

Perhaps Mr. Ranger has some other examples.

Mr. Louis Ranger (Assistant Deputy Minister Policy, Department of Transport): They work on the highways but more on the technical side of things, like new asphalts. Materials for better highways are things that are being looked at in that context.

So it is a membership, but we get research done with that money. It's not just to allow people to lobby. It's not that at all. It's research work that we do jointly.

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: With regard to my colleague's motion, what share of their total cost do you bear? They're being funded by various other groups as well. What cost does the federal government share?

• 1730

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: I can't give you the answer for the total budget. I can say that for things that are split—they have different formulas for different types of things. For the things that are split between us and the provincial governments, normally we pay 35% and the provinces and the territories together split the other 65%. But that is only a partial answer because that only applies to the things that are funded totally by government, and some are funded by the private sector. We could certainly give you a more detailed breakdown of the other things.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Would you do that, please?

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: Yes.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.

The Chairman: Any other comments on vote 10?

Mr. Lee Morrison: I'll withdraw the motion.

(Motion withdrawn)

The Chairman: I have another. I'll read it, but it would have been more effective had the amendments carried. It's just a budget reduction with no rationale, but I will read it unless you wish to withdraw it.

Mr. Lee Morrison: No, I don't.

The Chairman: I did them in reverse order for the reason of....

Mr. Morrison moves that vote 1, in the amount of $88,753,000, under the heading “Operating Expenditures”, under Transport, in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, be reduced by $17,750,600, less $22,288,250 voted in interim supply.

Mr. Lee Morrison: This particular figure is the professional and special services budget. This is the grab-all. This is where you pay for consultants and experts—people who have good connections. I think this is a form of budgeting that we should not have. There's no real detail in there. If we take the hatchet—again, it appears that has been done by the government to some extent, but I think not enough. I don't agree with this type of budgeting. I would like to see this major cut made and let the bureaucrats live with it.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, I'd have to disagree totally. I think that every department needs some funding to allow for consultants on various projects. The alternative is to cut that budget and put the staffing in, but that has proven to be much more expensive because there are one-off projects where you bring in specific expertise. I'm surprised the member would suggest that budget could be cut without increasing staff. I'm not saying that the work being done is not of value. I would disagree with that.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I have some doubts, and that's the problem.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen has the floor.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Sorry.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Whether $17,750,600 is the exact amount needed by the department may be a moot point, but I don't think we have enough data to go for that. But to suggest that whole number be eliminated without increasing staff—that would be a more expensive alternative, so I wouldn't support the motion.

The Chairman: Are there other comments on vote one?

Mr. Lee Morrison: I would like to pursue this a little bit.

The Chairman: You have the final word on it. You're the mover.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I would also like to get a comment from the staff, since we've asked them to stay.

This is a huge percentage of the overall transport budget. Compared to what you would get in almost any field of endeavour in the private sector, it's astronomical. On that basis, I wonder what is going on over there, but unfortunately we can't find out by reading the estimates. We don't know what that money is for. If we are not to be told what they are planning to do with the money, then I think it's equally valid on our part to cut a gross percentage off that and not get into a detailed justification of the cut. It's fair game.

Madam Bloodworth, would you like to respond to what I've said?

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth: This figure includes a number of things. We could certainly provide you with more details as to the kinds of things that go in here, but let me start with a couple of examples.

• 1735

For example, we will have to develop letters patent for all of the new ports. This requires legal expertise not just in administrative law but in corporate law. We have some excellent lawyers in the government, but they're not necessarily corporate experts. So we will be hiring lawyers and have retained law firms to help us. That's the kind of thing that would go in there.

I believe we still operate 43 airports. We have to contract out certain things—everything that's not done by our employees. If we happen to hire people to plow runways, as we do in some of the airports, that figure would go in there. So you're right, it is a global figure. That's how the books are set up that we report.

If it would be helpful, we could provide you with a letter that would give further examples of those kinds of things. Those are a couple of examples that I can think of at the moment. It has gone down and is going down, as you see, because we are running fewer airports.

An hon. member: Maybe if we had some highway construction....

The Chairman: Order, order.

An hon. member: I rather doubt it.

The Chairman: Order, order.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that as you reduce staff this amount would increase? It has decreased.

Are there any other comments on vote 1?

Some hon. members Question.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: This completes the estimates, unless someone presents another amendment.

There have been no changes so there are no motions to pass. Thank you very much.

I have another motion from Mr. Morrison. This is House work. He moves that this committee invite, as the transport minister suggested in his response to a question in the House on May 8, the Lynx consortium proposing an $11 billion project to build a high-speed train in the Toronto-Quebec City corridor.

Mr. Morrison, do you need to debate this? It's pretty clear.

Mr. Joe Fontana: We agree.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Good idea.

Mr. Roy Cullen: What about a date?

An hon. member: It is very constructive.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I deliberately left the date blank because I wanted to get the feeling of the group.

The Chairman: I had a discussion with the clerk. When we return, for the first three days we are embarking on intense work on the report. Within those days, hopefully Monday night, we will wish to invite them. We'll make room so that we can have them as soon as possible on those three days. If we want them to be included in our report, we will have to do it early.

Monsieur Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: There is a possibility that I won't be here in the last week of May. Would early June be possible, perhaps June 2?

The Chairman: A representative from Bombardier had asked whether they could come in June. They approached my office to come without my knowledge of this. As far as I'm concerned, it's too late. The pressure we're going put on—

Mr. Michel Guimond: The second of June?

The Chairman: Remember the schedule we put in. We're going to table this very early in June.

Mr. Roy Bailey: When's the report due? Is it the 5th?

The Chairman: Yes, the 5th, because there was a rumour the House would shut down.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chair, on the basis that the House may not be moving on—

The Chairman: Yes, but we can't risk that.

Mr. Joe Fontana: You can't, but if it takes—

The Chairman: The question is very clear to the committee. Do you wish to invite Lynx the week that we return or in June?

An hon. member: The week we return.

The Chairman: I can't see us putting it off until June. I just can't see it. I'm sorry that you can't be there.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): We'll never be able to get everybody.

The Chairman: We have agreed that we will invite them, and I will try to get them here as soon as we can.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Do we have the timeframe on those days? Do we know what time—?

The Chairman: We have agreed on a schedule, a full calendar until the end. Have you made everyone aware of the decisions we took that day?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, but what timeframe on those days?

The Chairman: The report day. We have dealt with everything.

Mr. John Christopher (Committee Researcher): No, she's talking about the time on those days. What time are we meeting? Is it 9 a.m., 3.30 p.m., etc.?

The Chairman: We're talking three full days.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, starting at 9 a.m.?

The Chairman: I wasn't thinking of 9 a.m. Monday morning, unless it's the only time they can come, because some of you travel.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

The Chairman: We'll have to talk right now and put out the calendar to you.

This meeting is adjourned.