:
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting 26 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
The orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), are the main estimates for 2008-09. Today we'll be looking at votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 under Transport, referred to the committee on Thursday, February 28, 2008.
Joining us today is the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Joining him from the Department of Transport are Mr. Louis Ranger, deputy minister, and Mr. André Morency, assistant deputy minister, corporate management and crown corporation governance. From Infrastructure Canada we have David Cluff, assistant deputy minister, corporate services branch, and chief financial officer. Thank you.
I will advise members that we are being televised today. I know there are going to be lots of questions of the minister and the department, so I'll try to keep the timelines as tight as possible. You might want to watch for me to give you the one-minute warning so everyone can have a chance to address the minister.
Mr. Minister, welcome. We look forward to your comments and answers throughout the morning's meeting.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
My officials and I are here today to discuss the 2008-09 main estimates for the transport, infrastructure, and communities portfolio. This is my third opportunity to appear before this committee and to deliver the main estimates. Since my first appearance, significant progress has been made within the portfolio. As you know, it is a wide-ranging portfolio that brings together Transport Canada, Infrastructure Canada, and 16 crown corporations.
In this portfolio we continue to tackle some of the most important issues facing Canada today, including the productivity of our economy, transportation safety and security, environmental sustainability, and the quality of life in our cities and communities, as supported by public infrastructure.
Members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities have made important contributions in each of these areas, and I'd like to take this opportunity at the outset to thank you for your active involvement in the legislative agenda and the number of important policy decisions and questions that have an impact on the portfolio.
Specifically, I'd like to thank the members of the committee for its study of Bill , which modifies the Canada Marine Act. The proposed amendments will strengthen the operating framework of Canada port authorities, helping to build a stronger and more competitive marine sector. Also key was the committee's participation in the study of rail safety and the subsequent amendments to the Railway Safety Act.
I also thank the committee for its consideration of the future role of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the NWPA. We believe that the NWPA, one of the oldest pieces of legislation in Canada, needs to reflect current economic needs and respond to the increased volume and variety of uses of Canada's waterways. I look forward to working with you as we move forward on this and other issues central to transportation and infrastructure in Canada.
[Translation]
Over the past year, this government has made serious investments in transportation and infrastructure throughout Canada. In doing so, we are improving the quality of life of Canadians, and making Canada more competitive on the world stage.
As you know, we are moving forward on Canada's biggest infrastructure program ever. The Building Canada Infrastructure Plan is $33 billion worth of investments in matters that are important to Canadians, such as the environment, the economy and stronger and better communities.
Our plan provides an unprecedented, long-term, predictable investment that will allow provinces, territories and communities to plan for the future. In fact, more than half of the funding—$17.6 billion, to be exact—is going to municipalities through the 100 per cent GST rebate and the Gas Tax Fund, to modernize Canada's infrastructure.
It is expected that Building Canada, with other levels of government and funding partners, will generate at least $50 billion in new investments. Since the launched the Building Canada Plan last November, we have made significant progress in implementing this plan. We have signed framework agreements with eight provinces and territories, and we are well advanced and close to concluding agreements with the remaining provinces.
And, we are investing the gas tax in over 2,000 community projects.
Under Building Canada, we are making early progress through priority investments across Canada. These investments support a more productive economy, such as our $100 million commitment to improve highways in New Brunswick, and a cleaner environment. As you know, we have announced $1 billion in funding for public transit across the Greater Toronto area to reduce gridlock.
We are also making key investments to support the delivery of clean drinking water, such as the $50 million investment in the Huron Elgin London Clean Water Project in Southern Ontario.
We are supporting more liveable communities—such as the $40-million investment in the Centre of Sport Excellence in Calgary, and the $8-million contribution for the cultural precinct, Quartier des Spectacles, in Montreal.
In addition to the Building Canada plan, we continue to take action in each transportation mode. With respect to public transit, we brought investments to $1 billion per year, and in budget 2008 we've set aside $500 million to support capital investments, through the public transit capital trust.
In the rail sector, we passed , protecting rail shippers from potential abuse of market power by railways. We also began a review of rail freight service and signed two memorandums of understanding with the Railway Association of Canada. The first enhances the security of rail transportation in Canada, and the second addresses the issue of railway emissions. Both underscore the central role of railways to trade in Canada.
We are also making significant gains in the air sector. We are very encouraged by the progress that has been made in the year since we launched “Blue Sky”, and the momentum for more liberalized air travel continues to build.
Last June, when Prime Minister Harper met his European colleagues at the Canada-European Summit, the leaders agreed to launch negotiations for a comprehensive air services agreement between Canada and the European Union.
I am very happy to report to this committee that one year after the launch of “Blue Sky”, the third round of negotiations has begun in Brussels. This is good news for travellers and for the travel industry.
In the marine sector, as I mentioned previously, with your assistance we have moved ahead with amendments to the Canada Marine Act. I was also happy last month to announce that the Government of Canada is providing $101 million over five years to help Marine Atlantic Inc. acquire a charter vessel that will address increasing traffic to and from Newfoundland and Labrador.
We've made progress in building a more sustainable transportation system as well, and we must. Transportation accounts for about 25% of all Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. That's why we're moving forward with national fuel consumption regulations for new cars and light trucks. It's also why we're moving ahead in key areas of our ecoTransport strategy, which covers all modes of transportation.
We are also working with our provincial and territorial colleagues to improve our environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by delivering clean water, green energy, and cleaning up contaminated sites.
Honourable Members, this is the work we are currently doing and, as you can see, we have accomplished much together. But much more work yet remains. That is why I am asking you today to recommend that Parliament approve the spending in the Main Estimates that were tabled by the President of the Treasury Board on February 28.
The 2008-2009 Main Estimates for the portfolio, which total $4.544 billion, include $1.032 billion for Transport Canada and $2.456 billion for the Office of Infrastructure Canada. The remainder of the funding is allocated to the various Crown corporations.
Because we don’t have time to go into all the numbers, I would instead like to briefly discuss the two major components of this portfolio—Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada.
For Transport Canada, the 2008-2009 Main Estimates—$1.032 billion—show a net increase of $173.3 million from the $859 million level in the 2007-2008 Main Estimates. The $173.3 million net increase is due to increases of $293.5 million for new initiatives, and changes to ongoing programs that are offset by $120.2 million in decreases in funding for the winding down of programs and government-wide reductions.
Of the $1.032 billion, 9.7 per cent—or $100.1 million—is for flow-through payments, including: $54.9 million for the Confederation Bridge; $41.9 million for the St. Lawrence Seaway; and, $3.3 million for the Victoria Bridge.
The remaining resources of $932.2 million, combined with respendable revenue of $345.6 million, represent a $1.28-billion budget that is available to the department to cover the following expenses: $471.7 million for grants and contributions programs; $382.5 million for personnel costs; $278.3 million for other operating costs; $78.2 million for capital; and, $67 million for employee benefit plans.
Let me now turn to the Infrastructure portion of this portfolio.
[English]
The total funding being sought is $2.456 billion, a net increase of $437.8 million from the $2.018 billion in the 2007-2008 main estimates. The $437.8 million net increase is due to the greater spending on infrastructure programs, and in particular I would like to mention $327.8 million for the provincial-territorial infrastructure base funding program, for the second year of this program, and a $197.5 million increase for the gas tax fund, which steps up in total from $800 million to close to $1 billion this year.
These increases were offset to some degree by decreases in funding for programs where most of the commitments were made in previous years.
Of course the estimates also provide for funding needed for the operations of the department and for the delivery of its programs in the amount of $37.5 million.
[Translation]
As Minister, I have a number of other portfolio responsibilities that do not require any appropriations from Parliament and are therefore not displayed in the Estimates. They include: the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund; the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority; the Pacific Pilotage Authority; the Atlantic Pilotage Authority; the Laurentian Pilotage Authority; the Blue Water Bridge Authority; Ridley Terminals Inc.; the Royal Canadian Mint and Subsidiaries; and, Canada Lands Company Ltd.
Honourable Members, my limited time today does not allow me to go into detail regarding all the items on this list. However, I believe the numbers I have presented today demonstrate the importance this government places on the priorities we have identified under this portfolio.
Mr. Chairman, I welcome the Committee’s questions on our overall approach, or on any of the specific measures contained in these estimates.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, and your colleagues in the department.
[Translation]
I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for acknowledging the work done by members of this Committee. It is not out of the ordinary for a minister to acknowledge the work of committees in resolving government issues, and we are pleased to receive that acknowledgment.
[English]
Even though it gives us pleasure that you would recognize our work, I'd like to ask a few questions.
Realizing that we don't have a lot of time, Minister, I can't let go of the opportunity to ask you about the Auditor General's report on your department, and in particular about the SMS system as it relates to aviation. I do that because members around this table worked diligently and in a most non-partisan fashion to ensure that we would have an appropriate system in place. However, it would appear that the Auditor General confirmed some of the findings of the Canadian Business Aviation Association. Specifically, just to name a few, the system is not delivering in a fashion consistent with the expectations of this committee, at least.
I'd like you to address some of these, Minister, because we still haven't passed that piece of legislation in the House, and some of the support that members around the table have been giving might be conditional upon your answers.
First of all, it would appear that there is insufficient training of your officials in the department for the oversight capacity they were charged with: 15% of the officials haven't completed their training, and another 15% are insufficiently trained or qualified to do their work. And the number of inspectors, which we had been led to believe would remain constant, if not increase, has actually been dropping at a rate of about 8% per annum. So the combination of departmental oversight, plus direct inspection and regulation, plus the auditing of systems that first had to be approved appears to have fallen by the wayside.
I'm sure you have some answers for that, but from our perspective, the effort and energy we have put into trying to fashion a system that would receive public support does not appear to be reflected in the performance or ability of your department to deliver on the expectations of this committee and of the public.
:
Thank you very much, colleague.
When we got here, one of the most important issues was railway safety. We had seen an increase in the number of car derailments, accidents, and environmental problems, and the respect of the regulations that were in place.... We determined that it was important to proceed with a review. I believe all the colleagues around the table here were in agreement with that way of doing things.
We then called upon a former Minister of Transportation, Doug Lewis, to chair that committee. As you mentioned, he did table his report not long ago. Among the things he noted was the need for an increase in communications among all parties who are involved in the field of railway safety. Whether they're from the union labour association--the person who works in that area--or whether they're the boss of the company or his representative, there has to be an advisory panel. I think that was one of the major components in Doug Lewis's recommendations.
We immediately brought together people from all sectors of the industry. All were people who were involved in the issue of railway safety. We brought that board together. As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity last week to sit down with them and thank them for their participation.
I clearly feel that was one of the things that was lacking. It was among other recommendations, of course, but that was one of the sectors in which we needed to be able to be more proactive, so what we have now established is a permanent way of speaking with people on issues that affect their industry. That is extremely important, because it will help us as parliamentarians to move forward with other measures that need to be put in place.
Having said that, I think the general gist of what we needed to do was to be able to look at the regulations that are there and see how to tweak them in some ways, how to modernize them so that they reflect what we want as parliamentarians, as Canadians, in terms of railway safety and how we should go about it.
I think we're on the right course. We're going in the right direction, not only with this advisory panel but also with the recommendations Mr. Lewis put forward in his group.
:
Thank you, Mr. Minister, for the opportunity to ask a few questions.
I'll touch first of all on issues relating to the Asia Pacific gateway, for which I'm the critic for our party. Then I'd like to ask a question on the rail study. That will relate to one of the items that came out of Mr. Lewis's report—that is, the need for Transport Canada to have additional financial resources to deal adequately with the issue of rail safety, and what plans you have for that.
I would like to ask another question regarding air transport. You talked about Blue Sky. I'm concerned about improved destination status not coming to Canada for the more open transportation and tourism arrangements and the air travel between China and Canada.
My final question will relate to infrastructure. I've heard questions in the past from some of the members across the table on infrastructure money that would be available—for example, for community centres. I know I was directed to you. On the north shore of Vancouver, we have a large Persian community, Iranian immigrants who have been asking and there have been commitment statements made by Minister Emerson and others that they were looking for money. What progress has been made on that?
To my main question, which relates to the gateway, I'm noticing in parts I and II of your estimates, the funding contributions on page 24-5 for 2008-09, that for the Asia Pacific gateway you're showing $82 million. You show that for 2007-08 you had estimates of $43 million.
My understanding is that in terms of the comparable for the five-year period when we as Liberals committed to the gateway fund, we had talked about $591 million. You had $552 million, which I realize you've stretched out now to 2014 to hit $1 billion.
But for 2008-09, I was seeing a commitment from you of $158 million. If I add this up and if I go to section 2, part III, page 13, I see another $9,700,000, which would only add up to about $92 million. So you're about $66 million shy, and I'm wondering why.
I'm looking at what looks like projections of planned spending in 2009-10 of $142 million, and only $93 million in 2010-11. It looks like you're falling short of the commitment there, and I'd like you to comment on that.
:
I think that on findings and the 56 recommendations, if I were to give you a sense of where I thought the whole meat and potatoes should be, it is in the partnership between the parties involved in this. I think that Doug Lewis mentioned the importance of strengthening that partnership.
Why do we want to strengthen the partnership? It's because we're talking about safety, and, as you know, we're looking at safety management systems. This committee is more familiar with that issue.
Why do we want to do that? I'll repeat exactly what I said before--that it's an additional layer of security, an additional layer of safety that we're providing Canadians, as well as members of the industry.
The whole crux of where we want to go articulates itself around that partnership. That's the reason, fundamentally, we brought together that panel. We brought together people from the industry to be able to sit down with us. Yes, there are differences. Sure, there are opinions that are different from other opinions that are sought; people have views and they express things differently, given of course their background and where they're coming from.
So it's important as parliamentarians, but also as a government, to be able to sit people down and to ask what are those issues and how can we best address them, and to get communications flowing again, to get the partnership strengthened, and to make sure that the initiatives we're putting forward through SMS are well understood, and well committed to and well engaged in. And fundamentally, I believe we'll answer a lot of the other issues that are there.
So if you're asking me what is the overriding and overarching focus, it's the fostering, promoting, and building of a stronger partnership.
:
Let me say at the outset that Transport Canada is not blocking. Transport Canada's job, so to speak, is to see whether or not the vehicles that go on Canadian roads are safe. Transport Canada has looked at this vehicle. I've had an opportunity of stating this on several occasions. Transport Canada has looked at the safety of this vehicle, and has determined that it falls into the category of being a fuel-efficient vehicle for low-speed services.
As you know, Transport Canada does not tell a province it can or cannot have that car on its roads. Transport Canada determines the safety. Then the provinces individually determine whether or not they want that vehicle on their roads and under what conditions. All we do is say this vehicle is safe at such and such a speed, or it isn't safe at such and such a speed. That's our responsibility. We have a team of experts who work on that. They determine whether or not it is life-threatening or not life-threatening, injury prone or not injury prone. But it is the job of the provinces to issue licences. They're the ones that determine that a vehicle can go on a golf course or it can go in a small residential sector or it can go on a highway. The federal government doesn't determine that. It's the provinces that determine that.
I repeat this, because there is some confusion out there, some feeling that the Government of Canada is deliberately trying to thwart an entrepreneur's attempts to sell his vehicles in Canada. That's not the case. We say whether your vehicle is safe or isn't safe. Then you can go out and convince the provinces where they should run these vehicles. Those are the rules and the regulations--particularly the regulations--that have been put in place by the Government of Canada over a number of years. That's our responsibility.
On fuel efficiency, I think you alluded before to the fact that we brought in a program. As we move towards more fuel-efficient vehicles, we have to be able to, on the one hand--and that was the purpose of coming in with our eco-package--get consumers to look at and change their behavioural patterns in terms of purchasing vehicles that are more fuel efficient.
As you know, we are going to be putting forward regulations that will be the most stringent, dominant North American standard. We're going to be working with the auto manufacturers on those. We'll be working with the interested parties. We'll be working with provincial governments on those issues. We'll be working with retailers. I know that my colleague Mr. Volpe and I, as well as other members, I believe, of this committee, were at the retailers association of Canada, where we were, as a matter of fact, talking about this issue. It's extremely important that the Government of Canada and Canadians speak with one voice on this.
There are, of course, concerns about the environment, but there are also concerns about jobs and job creation, and we're trying to balance both of these issues.
:
On the last question, no, I haven't had the opportunity, but I certainly will look at it with a great deal of pleasure. I'll get back to you on it.
On the transit trust fund, the $195 million, that of course will be complemented, once the joint study is completed, by moneys coming from the Building Canada funds. I'm not saying this project has topped that, but just to reassure you, depending on the results of the feasibility study, or the joint study, we will have access to the Building Canada funds to help promote that project.
In terms of the feasibility studies for the Windsor-Quebec corridor, you're right, there have been numerous studies. My deputy minister--
An hon. member: He's still chuckling.
Hon. Lawrence Cannon: He is still chuckling. He actually started in the department 30 years ago, I think, when they were talking about that project. So he's facetiously saying...you know, kicking me under the table here.
Basically, that study, as I mentioned to Madam Hall Findlay, will be able to give us a general appreciation of what the cost is going to be. It was at $18 billion to $20 billion last time around, I think with the public sector paying about 80% of the amount of money. So that has to be looked at.
Yes, we indeed have invested $692 million, or $672 million or whatever, into VIA Rail. The idea here is to be able to modernize its infrastructure. Some of the locomotives, particularly the F40 locomotives, are old locomotives and need to be refurbished. VIA Rail's board of directors made the case to us that it was extremely important for them to go forward, make these changes, and have the more environmentally friendly type of locomotive that they're putting forward.
Given that fact, as well as the importance of maintaining the reliability of the VIA network, they want to be able to double some of their lines where there is a lot of congestion to assure that inter-city travel passenger services will be at their peak and operate in a proficient way.
On the ecoAUTO rebate program, I'm sorry, I didn't get the last part of the question. Maybe you just want to run it by me quickly.
I'm interested a little bit in talking about open skies and Blue Sky, this government's initiatives in relation to helping consumers across this country.
First, I'd just like to say, Minister, I spoke to the Minister of Transport of the Northwest Territories two or three weeks ago, and he is absolutely ecstatic about this government's participation in the Northwest Territories. He wanted to give me personal kudos about how happy he was with this government. Indeed, I am as well, Mr. Minister, because I've seen the investment in my own riding towards keeping Canadians safer. When this government got into power, one of the first investments was the twinning of Highway 63, which is one of the most dangerous highways in this country.
I want to talk a little bit about the Blue Sky policy, because this government, since the announcement in November 2006, has concluded an open skies agreement with Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, and Barbados. I understand the EU is currently in negotiations. With the Blue Sky policy, we know that consumers will be happy, Canadians will be happy, because there are lower prices, better service, and more selection for them in their travels. We also know that all of the participants, all of the stakeholders, including even unions and airports and airlines, want these open skies agreements concluded quickly and efficiently. So congratulations to the government.
Do you see, Mr. Minister, that we will be moving forward with expanded versions in the future, to have real open skies agreements like the ones we have concluded with these, or will we just continue on with adding some enhancements to the current agreements? Do you see more open skies agreements being concluded in the future with this government?