On behalf of the Railway Association of Canada, let me first say thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. Our association represents about 60 railways across the country, which is essentially the whole scope of railways in Canada: the class ones, the short lines, the regionals, the inter-city, VIA, the commuters--some of whom I think you saw earlier this week--and some tourism railways.
More than six years have elapsed since the Canada Transportation Act review panel rendered its report and made a number of recommendations on moving forward with the act. We see Bill as an important part of a response to that report.
We've had a number of opportunities in the past to comment on various proposals to amend the act and we hope, Mr. Chair, that we are seeing the end of a very long and complex consultation process on this matter. Our view is that while there are a number of important amendments before you, there are also major issues facing the industry and the country, and we'd like to get on and focus on some of those in the future.
In a nutshell, the Railway Association of Canada supports most of the provisions in Bill . I'm going to spend my time today speaking on the noise management issues. Some of my colleagues from individual railways do have concerns about some of the other matters in the act, in particular the public passenger service provisions, but since the business interests of our members diverge on that particular matter, the Railway Association itself won't be taking a formal position on that matter.
Let me turn to noise management. The RAC believes that the bill sets out a clear authority for management of noise related to railway operations. Since a 2000 Federal Court decision that affected the ability of the CTA to exercise jurisdiction over railway noise complaints, there has been some confusion out there as to who really has the authority to regulate noise in the national railway system. We are very supportive of this bill because it clearly solves that problem. It says clearly that the federal government and more particularly the Canadian Transportation Agency have the authority to exercise noise regulation in Canada.
We think this is important because the demand for rail services is growing, and with it the complexity of our operations and our interface with communities across the country are growing. The trend toward ever-increasing imports, particularly from Asia and the Pacific, and the rapid increase in exports, both to the U.S. and offshore, are making the relationships between communities and railways more challenging every day. We think this bill helps to make that partnership better over time.
However, I must point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the industry has not been doing nothing in the interregnum. A few years back, we signed a memorandum of understanding with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and other stakeholders to begin a voluntary approach to better management of noise and other proximity issues.
The MOU was signed in 2003 and supported by not only the FCM but also by the Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators. The main purposes of this MOU were and still are to gain and share a common understanding of the current issues around proximity, to improve communications between the parties, to implement a flexible but formal dispute resolution process, and to develop guidelines on such issues as land use, noise levels, and other technical matters.
The RAC and the FCM encourage resolution of issues at the local level. I must say, Mr. Chair, that we're very pleased to see proposed section 95.3 of this act does so in a similar manner. We strongly believe that the best place to solve issues is at the community level, and third parties should only be intervening if in fact we can't find the solutions there.
To achieve these common objectives, I just want to give you some idea of some of the things we and the FCM have done to date. We've established steering committees and three large working groups with equal representation from the parties. We've developed a communications plan. We've developed a good-neighbour video, which is an awareness video.
We've completed and published three case studies on real issues, one here just across the river in Gatineau, that will help to explain how issues can be resolved between the parties, and we've developed a data-rich website called www.proximityissues.ca. I would encourage members or your staffs to go and have a look. There's an awful lot of information there on what's going on between communities and railways on proximity issues.
Since its inception in 2004, the website has grown progressively over the years. We've taken 22,000 visits already this year on that particular website. We've also developed a robust dispute resolution protocol, and this is published on the website, if you wish to see it.
We hope all of this material will be helpful to the Canadian Transportation Agency when it begins its job of developing the guidelines that are called for under the provisions of this act.
Let me stop there, Mr. Chairman. I've left a copy of this document, which is the latest MOU progress report, with the clerk. If you are interested, you can distribute it to committee members afterwards.
We think there are a number of key advantages to the approach we've taken in working over the last two or three years, some of which are very clear already. The agreement we have is encouraging more effective and efficient land use; it's providing long-term cost savings in the resources required to deal with proximities over time; it has reduced land use incompatibilities between railways and adjacent land use, and helped the land planning process; and it has reduced noise and vibration complaints in a number of jurisdictions across the country. A good example is Gatineau. Another is Oakville. There are a number of examples we could give you from across the country.
It is also having an ancillary benefit on public safety, because in addition to talking about proximity issues, it provides an opportunity to talk about issues such as trespass and level-crossing safety, particularly in areas adjacent to schools.
Suffice it to say that we think there have been tangible benefits, and I should say, Mr. Chairman, that we are continuing to work with the FCM and others to advance the MOU, as we go forward.
In the very near future we hope to be in a position to publish a comprehensive draft of noise emissions guidelines and a land use guideline. We're in the final stages of preparing this document. It's been the subject of an awful lot of research and technical study over the last couple of years. It is now before the MOU steering committee for their consideration. I hope we'll be able to make it available to committee and other interested parties in the very near future.
I will stop there, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much for taking the time.
Just to conclude, we are in favour of the noise provisions in Bill . We believe we need this kind of regulatory framework to work within, but we would very much like to continue the kinds of approaches we've been working on with FCM and others. We believe the best solution to this is at the local level, getting the parties involved with each other.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm pleased to be here to address the committee.
[Translation]
I'm delighted to be here today to meet with committee members. I will be speaking in English, but I will be happy to answer your questions in either English or French following my presentation.
[English]
If I could, I'd like to say a few words about the CTA process, about the state of the rail industry, and also give you the details of the comments that we have about Bill C-11 as it stands today. I think having a sense of the process and the state of the rail industry provides good context through understanding to help you make your policy decisions in the right way.
It was about ten years ago that the current legislation of the CTA was put in place. The previous CTA act of 1996 was put forward with a view to bringing commercial forces and an agenda of change to the rail industry, and it's been quite a successful process. The previous legislation introduced, for instance, more streamlined rules for the abandonment and the transfer of lines. It created an opportunity for the mainline carriers in Canada, CN and CP, to significantly improve their cost structure, but at the same time it created a vibrant short-line industry.
There were a number of other commercial initiatives in the previous legislation that have paid dividends in terms of the improvement of the rail industry over the last ten years. At about the same time, the Government of Canada also decided to privatize CN, which was also a very bold agenda of change. That has also been a remarkable transformation, which I believe improved the rail system in Canada to a great degree.
I think the federal government and your predecessors as members of the transport committee should be proud of where we stand today in the rail industry. CN has transformed itself from a laggard railroad ten years ago to a leading railroad in the North American industry. CP Limited has created CP Rail, which is today a focused, lean railroad serving all of Canada. I invite you to look at the hard facts, because too often you're hearing your constituency talk about various specific points of concerns or issues they have with the railway, but not often enough do we hear the broad picture about where the rail industry is and the progress that's been made over the last ten years.
Today the service is better than it's ever been. If I take CN's example, for instance, our transit time and the reliability with which we achieve our transit time has improved by more than 50% over the last ten years. We went from quoting a service, for instance, from Edmonton to Chicago, which was a week to ten days; today we measure our service one trip planned at a time, and our service from Edmonton to Chicago is 102 hours, which is four days, and we achieve it more than 90% of the time.
Efficiency has improved dramatically through cost reductions, through initiatives on asset utilization. For instance, today CN has 800 fewer locomotives to carry more business than it did ten years ago. With efficiency comes the ability to lower rates and share productivity with the shippers, our customers. Rates are lower today than they were ten years ago. Grain rates, I mentioned to your colleagues in the agriculture committee, as one example, are 35% lower in Canada than they are just south of the border in the U.S.
Safety has also improved dramatically. I'm proud to say that the two Canadian railroads today are by far the safest railroads in North America. We are 40% safer than our four peers in the industry, objectively and consistently measured using the same metric. I know it's a topic of interest and I know it's an area we have to continue to make progress on, but the facts are that the two railroads in Canada are the safest in North America. Of course we're also a lot more profitable, and that's a good thing. With profit comes the ability to invest, and we are a very capital-intensive business. CN this year will invest $1.6 billion back into its plants.
So I think it's fair to say, and I'm a bit biased, we have the best rail system in the world, and we should be proud of that. It's 100% privately funded, and it's a key asset for Canada in terms of transportation for a trading nation.
In terms of the CTA review process, it brings a lot of challenges for railroads. I'll tell you, we're a very unique business. Very few businesses touch more than 200 ridings, as CN does, and we touch every one of your constituencies. We understand the challenge. We are two of us, and there are many out there that have specific issues and have a lobbying agenda. I think it's very important that you, as members of Parliament, relay those constituencies' concerns into policy, but at the same time I think as transport committee members you have to take a balanced view and you have to focus on what's right for the transportation sector.
I think the keeping of that balanced view is very important as you review some of the provisions of Bill . I will tell you from the outset that we are in general agreement with the bill.
We agree, for instance, on the role of the agency for mediation, whether it's for passenger issues or for noise. We also agree on the public interest review for mergers that the minister and Parliament should have in case of transactions. We agree on provisions such as the setting of a list for urban area sidings and spurs.
We agree with the broad goals; we have issues with the devil that is in the details, and we believe that in a certain number of areas the bill goes too far and has risks you should consider very carefully.
On noise, for instance, Cliff gave you a good outline. But there are a lot of efforts. Things can improve, but it's not as though we're sitting still and trying to be good neighbours. Often the issues are land use issues. It's about having harmonious co-habitation. When the residential areas are too close to our rail lines, the proximity creates unavoidable difficulties. The reality is we have a steel rail technology that's outdoors. It's a 24-hour operation and it creates noise.
We have to find ways to address that noise, and the fact that there is a court of appeal and a recourse to the agency with powers to enforce specific mitigation is something we agree with. We would very seriously, though, caution you against changing the wording on some of the criteria.
For instance, “unreasonable noise” is the right test. The notion of having the “least noise” approach is very difficult to manage. Least noise would be a rubber railroad, or it would mean taking the yards out of town altogether.
I think you should give a chance to this new system. Nothing exists today. I think the standard is the right one and that the agency has the power and expertise to address issues going forward.
On passenger and commuter rail provisions, we have some concerns too. We agree with the notion that the passenger or commuter could have the right to go to the agency to settle issues with the railroad, but I take exception to some of the comments I read from the transcript of my colleagues from GO Transit, AMT, and West Coast Express. The impression that CN or that the railroads are gouging commuters or passengers is simply not true. The reality is that in most instances—and there are exceptions, but in most instances—we have a fair approach to those issues.
I'll give you a few examples to explain to you where we have the most difficulty. The most difficulty comes with the notion of setting the rate on the basis of the net book value of our assets.
We agree with the concept that the agency could set the rate and also agree with the concept that the agency could set the rate with a view to the public interest and that the public interest includes a notion that does not necessarily address fair market value or highest best use. But to go as far as setting the policy on net book value would be a big mistake.
I'll give you an example from Quebec of an agreement I just recently personally negotiated with the AMT. It's for the Deux Montagnes line that goes into Montreal through the Mount Royal tunnel. The value of the land on which this railroad sits, as it is assessed by municipal authorities, is $60 million across the fence.
If we were charging or if the AMT were paying the CTA cost of capital on the value that is being assessed by municipalities, the access fee would be $5 million per year. I can tell you that the AMT does not pay half of that.
If they were to pay on the basis of net book value, the amount they would pay would be near zero. It would be a fraction of what they pay today, and there's a very simple reason for that. Net book value is an historical concept. The land we own at CN for this property was purchased in 1912. CN paid, in 1912, $225,000 for the land. That's our book value. If you applied the 8% on that $225,000, you would get thousands of dollars for the use of something that municipalities value at $60 million and tax us on using as a basis that same $60 million.
I know a lot of you have experience in the world of the municipal sector. How would you like it if railroads were paying their tax bills on the basis of historical net book value? That concept would not fly a minute, because it is just not a fair concept. So I urge the committee to think about this particular aspect very carefully.
The federal Expropriation Act recognizes the concept of fair market value. The Canada Transportation Act recognizes the concept of net salvage value if a line is to be sold to a government. The notion that net book value at historical prices from the beginning of the last century would guide the rate-setting is just not the right concept. It's not a fair one and it's not one I would encourage the committee to endorse. In my view, net salvage value would not only be more consistent with the current CTA, it would also be a lot fairer and would give a lot of leeway for the agency to decide in the matter with a view to what the public interest is.
I think you should review this carefully, because the devil is in the details. I think at net book value the provisions themselves ultimately will not succeed; they would be open to challenge as unfair expropriation.
So there is a delicate balance. We agree with the concept that a commuter agency should have the right to go to the agency for recourse, but it should not be done on an artificial measure such as historical book value, because it just doesn't work.
Members of the committee, as you can see, we agree with many of the things that are in the bill. We are asking you to consider a few areas that could be improved and we urge caution and balance in your views about the state of the rail industry.
I'm open for questions with my colleague here.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My thanks to both of you for attending today. My question is going to be directed mostly to Mr. Mongeau.
You've done a wonderful job of defending your record as a company, but I believe it was Mr. Mackay who said the rail business is a complicated business. When you have a complicated business, you also need sophisticated ways of dealing with the concerns of residents, with government authorities, and with municipalities. Unfortunately, I think you're in a position where you haven't yet convinced Canadians. In fact, I think Canadians may have lost confidence in your ability to respond in a way that's accountable.
I can only relate to you my own experience, coming from the west coast. We have now had a number of very serious derailments, one of which caused serious environmental degradation and another one of which ended up in the loss of two human lives. Obviously none of us ever wants to see that happen again.
If it was only the safety issue and it was being addressed adequately, I think most Canadians would understand that there are hazards in any kind of transportation. But I look first of all at noise complaints. We had ordinary Canadian residents before us a couple of meetings ago, and we had municipalities in front of us. The general consensus was that the way the railway companies are responding to noise complaints is just not adequate.
The consultation process and the dispute resolution process haven't worked for them. We heard this from residents of New Westminster, of the city of Richmond. We heard this from mayors from British Columbia and from Quebec. That concerns me.
And then we move over to the whole issue of the net book value discussion that we just had. I know CN wasn't involved in the West Coast Express issue, but the general public's understanding of that—and certainly the provincial government's understanding and the local government's understanding—was that CP held the public up for ransom in order to get commuter rail in. Again, it's just a black mark on the industry.
Of course, we then get to the whole safety issue. What puzzles me with respect to CN was that we had these two serious derailments in British Columbia, we had one in Alberta as well, and the minister took a number of actions. He asked you to take corrective action. There was monitoring, direct enforcement, and a series of targeted inspections that took place. And then it all culminated on July 24, when the minister issued a ministerial order that CN had to take the necessary corrective measures to address the deficiencies.
Had that been addressed immediately, I suppose we could say there was at least some good faith there. In fact, the action that CN took was to appeal the minister's order. So you can understand how the public reacts to that and how we, as a committee, would react to that.
To your credit, you submitted an action plan on, I believe, August 14, and it is with the minister right now. I'm assuming you're going to follow through on that action plan. But the point I'm making is that the industry needs to have its credibility restored.
My experience with local government for fourteen years, and now at this level of government, is that typically regulation only happens as a response to some level of non-compliance with publicly accepted norms and behaviour. This bill is presumably a response to a lack of conformity to what the public generally and government in particular expect of corporate citizens.
I would ask you to respond. You're in the hot seat. You knew this was coming. There's a motion that may be coming forward later today requesting an in-depth inquiry into safety, and it does focus on CN in particular. Anything you can do to provide this committee with some confidence that we're moving in the right direction on all of those issues....
:
Can we improve on community relations? Absolutely. Is it a difficult business to be in from a community relations standpoint, though? The reality, as I said, is that it is. Railroads and communities have a love–hate relationship. It goes back historically. It's a challenge always for us to raise up and be more sophisticated in how we do this. We'd be happy to take some of your advice to improve on that score.
I will tell you, though, that part of the issue why you're hearing so many of these concerns is a set timeline for a review of the law. The law is being reviewed as a matter of legislative requirement. This review has been going on for the last five years, so people are lobbying you to make changes to suit their concerns.
On the issue of the noise or the dispute resolution, for instance, the fact is that there is no dispute resolution today. That's a disconnect in the law and you're fixing that.
West Coast Express is an unfortunate file. It's CP in this case, not CN, but the reality is that there was also no recourse at all for West Coast Express at that time. They could not go through FOA and they could not go to the agency. They had no recourse because of a disconnect in the law. Now the law not only allows them to go FOA if they want to, but if you pass this bill, they can soon go to the agency directly to solve any matter.
All we're saying is that we agree with this. But in giving guidelines to the agency, please tell them to do what's in the public interest, what's fair and in the interest of Canada, and not to do it in terms of an artificial historical book value, which would just depress revenues and create more problems than it would solve over the long term.
On your issue of safety, Mr. Fast, our commitment to safety is without any condition at CN. It is absolute. It's a matter of business sense. We are more focused on safety, particularly these days, given the problems that we've had, than we are on any other matter.
We have had very unfortunate accidents, but I think you should be able to recognize that when people are vacationing in the middle of August and you have a rail break that causes a train to dump 800,000 litres of oil in a lake, you have a massive problem. From there, it is just very difficult to manage under any circumstances.
Could we do better? Are there ways to minimize the impact? We're looking for advice on this, but the fact is that if this derailment had occurred only 200 metres earlier, it would have been a very small issue.
The rail break is a problem with the metallurgy of the rail. There's very little you can do except to increase your inspections. At CN, we have increased our inspection frequency by 50% since last year. We do inspections far more than the regulations require in Canada. We are spending $5 million for a new geometry car. We are focused on safety issues like on a dirty shirt.
Transport Canada is on us every day because they read the political tea leaves. They see the pressure out there. They're listening to you relaying your constituents' concerns, and they're keeping our feet to the fire.
On this particular issue of the section 32 from the minister, we did not appeal the minister's order because we disagree. We wanted time to review the request of the Transport Canada officials. The Transport Canada officials were on vacation for a three- or four-week period at the time when we responded. We have said from the get-go in our response to the minister that we would be willing to sit down and discuss and provide the information that he's looking for, which we have done since then. We believe Transport Canada will be satisfied with what we've done, and we will comply with the order.
We only appealed because we had no way of stopping the clock before the deadline of August 14, which was only twenty or thirty days after we received the order and nobody at Transport Canada was to discuss the matter in detail.
So we're not appealing. We're not trying to hide anything. We're not trying to skirt our responsibility. We take safety very seriously. And as you step back, I think you should be proud to look at the facts and realize that the two railroads in Canada are the safest railroads in North America. Those are the facts, and we continue to improve.
If I were you, as a committee, I would let the members of Transport Canada, the experts, continue to grill CN. As we speak, we are having road shows on safety in CN.
We have invited Transport Canada to observe those meetings with our field people. They are doing their work, and we will fix the issues and see a better trend in safety performance. The committee should give it some time, and hopefully you'll do your review or study when Transport Canada has done its work and we've responded to the challenge.
I want to thank both of you for appearing before this committee today. I'm not a regular on this transportation committee. I serve on another committee, but I am a member of Parliament who represents a rural riding.
I can tell you that when I get calls or letters from constituents dealing with rail lines, never are they handing out bouquets to the rail lines. The call is about either an area down by Calgary, or the Carseland area, or the Strathmore area, where now, because of the extra freight being moved to British Columbia through Calgary, rail lines are asking municipalities to close roads so that they can park longer trains for longer periods of time. A lot of this affects agriculture. It affects the farmers. It affects their land values. It affects their ability to resell that land. Never do they call because they're happy about what's going on.
I get calls from Lyalta, from Oyen about grain not moving, about plugged elevators. The rail line blames the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board blames the rail line. The farmer can't deliver his grain. So very seldom do we have a lot of real bouquets that are handed out to the rail lines.
One thing I know is that over a period of time it would seem that if I am an agricultural producer, my elevation and transportation costs are the major components of my input costs to produce grain. Farmers were convinced by governments years ago that getting rid of the Crow would be the best thing for them. We found out that the government was wrong, and that we are less able to see a profit or less able to grow as an operation because of it.
I also realized that after the Crow was taken away, there was an intermediate step put in place for grain transportation charges. That intermediate step was a cap. Since 2000, the rail lines have been free to set rates for moving western grain in response to market conditions as long as their total revenues from these movements don't exceed this cap.
The bill we're looking at here today proposes to allow the Canadian Transportation Agency to make a one-time adjustment to that grain revenue formula, to reflect the current cost of maintaining transportation, and to address the issue of government hopper cars.
I have two or three questions for you. What do you expect to be the ramifications for the farmer when the grain transportation agency allows this provision on grain revenue? That's my first question.
The other question deals with the cost of these hopper cars. You've been charging back to the producer close to $4,000 a hopper car, from what we've been told. Other groups have said those are not the real costs. The real costs are $1,600 to $1,700, and yet you've been stinging the farmer. You've been stinging the producer. You've been stinging those who want to move their grain with this $4,000 per hopper car. Why should we trust you? Why should we as producers trust anything that you guys say, especially if these revenues go down?
Some say that when this one-time adjustment takes place, it may end up saving grain producers some money. In fact, it could be $50 million to $75 million that could go back in per year. Is that correct?
:
We now have a little bit of committee work to grind through.
Mr. Laframboise, I told you that I would get a commitment from Mr. Duchesneau. He has agreed, writing to the committee that he will be here on November 30. We are still waiting for Mr. Cherry to reply, but we have at least confirmed that part. I am prepared to put it on the agenda as per your request.
At the last meeting we talked about bringing everybody up to date on the schedule. I have scheduled two more meetings of witnesses, for October 31 and November 2, at which time, unless there are further witnesses who have expressed interest or who want to come forward--I haven't seen any--we would be able to move into clause-by-clause on November 7. Currently I've designated November 7, 9, and 21.
Again, those dates are subject to the will of the committee, but if there are amendments that any of the members want to bring forward, I've asked the clerk, and he's going to be forwarding by email the legal counsel's address, if you want to run it by them to make sure that the phrasing and the language is correct. I know from the past that it does create a lot of disruption in the committee unless we check to make sure that the wording is legal and right. So I do want to bring that to your attention.
I also want to notify the committee that we have an invitation as a committee to attend a dinner--something a little more social, perhaps--on Monday, December 4. We've been invited by the Rocky Mountaineer Vacations organization to attend a dinner at the Rideau Club. An invitation will be forthcoming, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up for your schedule.
Other than that, unless there are any questions, I want to move into the motions.
Mr. Laframboise.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to move the motion. It reads:
That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities request the presence of senior infrastructure officials including the Deputy Minister and Assistant Deputy Minister with responsibility for the Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Fund and the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund to brief the committee on the inventory and progress of major infrastructure projects now underway.
On my rationale for this, there is enormous discussion in Canadian society at this time about infrastructure funding and particularly the role of the federal government in that funding. There are funds that pre-exist and pre-date the new government, and I believe there are funds that are part of the new government.
There's a lot of discussion in society today. Most recently, our colleague Mr. Laframboise was engaged in a discussion on a TGV train between Montreal and New York City. From what some of us have read, that would have a very positive impact indeed on the Montreal, Quebec, and Canadian economies.
There are at least four major public transit funding agreements in place totalling well over $1 billion in federal infrastructure moneys. There are at least a half dozen major water and waste water treatment infrastructure investments going on. There's increasing discussion about investment in the city of Quebec in a port and a potential deep-water port there versus infrastructure in a Halifax port, where piers already exist.
I think it would be beneficial for the committee to get a better understanding of where this is at, what decisions are forthcoming, and what announcements have been made. There have been ancillary yet related announcements by the government, not necessarily drawing from these funds, but creating confusion in Canada about what is on and what is off the books, what is going forward and what is not going forward.
There was discussion in this city, for example, about a $500-million to $600-million new science and technology museum. Apparently that is no longer the case. There was infrastructure money being contemplated for a portrait gallery, but apparently that's no longer the case. There was $30 million of federal money on the table and being held in abeyance for the Congress Centre in this city, with matching funds--$30 million provincial and $30 million municipal. Apparently that's no longer the case. No parliamentarian was informed of the decision to withdraw the $30 million, for example.
There was recent participation by the President of the Treasury Board in an $850-million infrastructure project here in this city. There are rumours that the Minister of Finance intends to intervene in the TTC $400-million funding. The mayor of Vancouver is expressing concern about the $400 million booked for the RAV line, and the mayor of Edmonton is not sure if $108 million booked and forthcoming for infrastructure is going to make it there.
So with all of this activity and the government announcing and occasionally not announcing, disclosing and occasionally not disclosing, occasionally withdrawing booked money without disclosing it to the Canadian people, and announcing new moneys, I thought it would be very helpful for all parliamentarians here and all parties to get a much better indication of where we're going on this front. We're talking about billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars.
There's not a single member of Parliament, despite what anybody would say in the House, who isn't concerned about value for money and the criteria being used to expend public resources. So I want to table this with my colleagues for discussion and perhaps get this addressed forthwith. I think there are so many projects coming down the line that we ought to know more about them.
Thank you.