:
Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is our 40th meeting.
Pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), we're considering supplementary estimates (B) for 2009-10, with votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 17b, 20b, 35b, 40b, 45b, 50b, 55b, 60b, and 65b under Transport, which were referred to the committee on Wednesday, November 4, 2009.
Joining us at the table today are the Honourable John Baird, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; the Honourable Rob Merrifield, Minister of State for Transport; Yaprak Baltacioglu, deputy minister of Transport Canada; Suzanne Vinet, associate deputy minister; and John Forster, from Infrastructure Canada.
We welcome you.
I know that the minister has an opening comment and I'm sure we're all ready and willing to listen. We've asked the minister to be here for one hour. I'll advise the committee that he has another commitment, but he has committed to the first hour.
I'll ask him to open, please.
:
I'm very pleased to be here again, particularly in the presence of the member for Eglinton–Lawrence.
I'm also joined, as you've said, Mr. Chair, by key members of the Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada team. They've done an outstanding job in this past year in dealing with our infrastructure stimulus. I want to congratulate them and all their officials, who have done a fantastic job.
Our meeting today is to discuss the 2009-10 estimates, part (B). Before I address specific line items, I'd like to thank the members for their cooperation and ongoing work on behalf of Canadians. I appreciate the work the committee has done over this past year. I especially want to highlight discussions that took place this fall among committee members with respect to Bill .
As I noted in my last appearance before the committee, our government is committed to creating jobs, stimulating the economy, and supporting Canadian families through Canada's economic action plan. Earlier this year when I was before this committee, I explained how these actions are contributing to a cleaner environment, safer roads, and more prosperous and livable communities. Through these actions, Canada will emerge from this recession sooner than other countries and stronger than ever.
While we are seeing signs of recovery here in Canada, it's important that we continue our course of action and our ongoing work, much of which is outlined in these supplementary estimates. I'd like to highlight a few of the line items of note.
Transport Canada is requesting a net increase of $27 million to the 2009-10 main estimates. This funding is for vital programs and policies that will enhance safety and security, ensure environmental protection, improve Canada's infrastructure, and much more.
For example, we're requesting $10.3 million to strengthen Canada's air cargo security system. This money was announced in budget 2009. We plan to use this to introduce new screening technologies and processes, which will help make air transport safer and more secure. Not only will it improve security and keep Canadians safe, it will help businesses to transport goods more efficiently, which gives us an economic advantage.
[Translation]
Another important project Transport Canada has been working on is the redecking of the Honoré-Mercier bridge in Montreal. I am sure that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois are very familiar with this major project. It is nothing less than the largest redecking project in Canadian history. The project is progressing well. Today, I’m requesting a re-profiling of funds to continue this important work.
[English]
We are requesting $3.3 million under the gateways and border crossings fund for the Blue Water and Peace bridges. These are key elements in the government's efforts to enhance our gateways and corridors.
Turning now to infrastructure, at no other time since the Second World War have investments in Canada's infrastructure been more important or, I believe, more significant. Guided by Canada's economic action plan, almost $12 billion in new infrastructure stimulus funding is now available and is funding projects primarily over the next two years. Our ongoing commitment is reflected once again here in the supplementary estimates.
Infrastructure Canada is seeking $547.3 million to support contributions to infrastructure projects across Canada and to manage its progress. This request will address both new and ongoing funding requirements. For ongoing items, the funds requested are for projects under our existing funds, such as the building Canada fund. We work in partnership with the provinces, territories, and municipalities to match our funds, and our funding is being provided as projects get built—in other words, funding flows in accordance with our partners' construction schedules. As big projects across the country come to life, funds flow.
You will note the $547.3 million in additional funds requested. Infrastructure Canada is seeking $9.3 million in operating expenditures. This funding will go towards implementing new programs announced in the action plan and will continue to ensure appropriate resources are invested for oversight and management of existing funds.
Honourable members, you've seen in your own backyards that we are making good progress on the commitments under Canada's economic action plan. Just 10 months into our two-year plan, our government has already committed 97% of the economic action plan. This adds up to 12,000 projects across the country, 8,000 of which have already begun.
From the $4-billion infrastructure stimulus fund alone, we've committed more than $3.6 billion. We've announced $2.85 billion of federal spending on 96 major projects across Canada, and under the communities component, $1.375 billion in federal dollars has been announced for 1,255 projects.
I'll now ask my colleague, Rob Merrifield, to say a few words.
:
I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to be here. I'm pleased to answer any questions with regard to areas of my specific jurisdiction, and when it comes to stimulus, that would be Alberta and Saskatchewan. I'm pleased to answer any questions you might have with regard to those projects.
There are 280 projects in Alberta, for a total project amount of $3 billion or so. In Saskatchewan, there are 309 projects, for a total of about $1.2 billion. As far as the stimulus funding goes, we have 100% of that allocated, so we're pleased to be able to answer any questions on that.
But with regard to the rest of my portfolio, there is some spending in the estimates, you'll see, with regard to Canada Post and CATSA, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. There's some spending and there are some changes there that you might want to ask some questions on.
Also, I'd be pleased to answer anything about the railway. It's an important day for the railway, because we've just heard the strike is over and 1,700 railway engineers are back to work. That is very, very good news because there is $100 billion a year of import-export rail service to this country. It's a very significant thing that has happened. I think everyone in this room, every party in this House, certainly should take a bow for being able to move that issue along.
When it comes to the railway, it is very important for us to understand that it is what keeps our country competitive. There's a very large land mass in Canada relative to the population, so as raw material is our base, shipping and moving products is very key to our prosperity.
With that, we have had some concerns from the shippers about CN and CP, which are the two main rail lines, with regard to allowing the competitiveness of our shippers in the supply chain. Because of that, we have brought forward and established the rail freight service review. We're in the middle of that. The first stage is over, with a compilation of a lot of the data. That has taken about a year.
We have now moved into the second stage and have announced the panel that will bring forward recommendations to government. That panel's chair is Walter Paszkowski, a former transport minister in the Province of Alberta. From the railway industry, we have David Edison, who's a former CN executive, and from the shippers, we have Bill LeGrow, a former forestry executive. These are very astute individuals. I'm very pleased at that they're taking on this opportunity for the country.
It's an opportunity both for rail and for shippers to be able to keep our competitive edge as we move forward in the 21st century. We wish the panel every success. They will be releasing an interim report in the first half of 2010, a very significant report that will hopefully flow from it some potential changes that will have met with consensus from both the shippers and the rail companies. We look forward to that.
With that, I'll leave my comments there, and we'll entertain any questions you might have on these issues or any others.
Clerk, I wonder if you might produce this for the benefit of the committee and pass it along?
On schedule H, there is the Government of Canada logo, and it asks about jobs and asks about expenditure.
Now, Deputy, if the minister is refusing to answer, are you saying that the Government of Canada doesn't want to collect that data that's to the province and that you don't have any of this data?
:
Just listen. If we accepted the information, we'd have to validate whether it's correct. If you look at the United States, you see that it's been a hodgepodge and very inconsistent and has not had much integrity.
What we have said from the get-go--and you can't say this is a surprise--is that we're not going to say to municipalities to tell us where this steel was made, what the efficiency levels were, and how many jobs were created, or to tell us where this engineering work was done and whether it was three or eight people who worked on it.
That shouldn't be a surprise at all because we've said right from the get-go that we weren't going to do it. If we did accept it, then we'd have to somehow have an army of bureaucrats to validate whether that was in fact the case.
After I told you that, you voted confidence in me 18 times. So you must have been satisfied, because you stood up in the House of Commons 18 times and voted confidence in the government.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the ministers for being here.
Mr. Minister, you are here before the committee, and you want to ask us for $547 million in additional appropriation authority for infrastructure. You know that Quebec had municipal elections on November 1. During the 30-day period leading up to the elections, no political decisions can be made, since mayors and councillors are in the midst of an election. So no political decisions are made.
Afterwards, it is time to prepare budgets. There are a lot of new city councils, and you said it yourself, or at least some of your colleagues in the House of Commons did, no announcements were made in Quebec during the last election campaign because you did not want to interfere with the municipal elections. And that is good. It is just that today, in the fourth report, you are stating that the government's deadline for the provinces and territories to have committed all the remaining funding is January 29, 2010.
Are you aware that in Quebec, since, I would say, at least August, no decisions have been made by cities or municipalities because of the municipal elections, and no decisions will be made. They are in the process of passing budgets. Some have even asked for an extension until the end of January in order to table their municipal budgets. Therefore, a number of municipalities will not be able to submit requests.
You seem to be sticking to the January 29, 2010 deadline at all costs. Are you flexible on that at all, or is it non-negotiable?
:
I am aware of your concerns. Of course, municipal elections were held in Quebec in recent months, and no announcements can be made in the 30 days leading up to the elections.
We have worked very well with Minister Laurent Lessard on this issue. We have asked municipalities to fill in one-page forms by December 15, I believe, and I am certain they will be able to make decisions and announce projects by January 29.
Sometimes, I find it frustrating because we cannot move as quickly as we would like. But we respect the laws that are unique to Quebec, laws that make it not only necessary, but also mandatory to work with the provinces in areas under their jurisdiction. I hope we will receive the applications. The forms are just one page long, and I hope that it can be done by January 29.
:
Marine Atlantic has an obligation to recover 60% to 65%. They're actually not doing that. It's into the low fifties at 52% or 53%, in there somewhere. The chronic problem with Marine Atlantic is the deterioration of the fleet and the lack of ability to have capacity on reserve so they can deal with weather disturbances and problems they actually have with the fleet, to try to catch up.
As an example, the Caribou and the Smallwood, which are two workhorses, were down respectively 22 and 24 days over this summer simply because they're getting older. They're not reliable in the sense of making sure they can keep up with their workload. Because of that it's costing more to keep that fleet in operation.
We have looked at bringing on a new vessel. We did that this last year, in April, with the Atlantic Vision. It has been very much a success. In fact, I was out there about a month ago talking to all of the users of Marine Atlantic. Without exception, they said that if they could make any recommendations it would be to have more of these kinds of vessels, because it added capacity. Actually, even in the middle of a recession, it —
Thank you, Ministers and your departments, for being here today.
As a western Canadian representing the province of British Columbia, I'd like to talk a little about the northwest transmission line project and the $130 million investment in that line. Of course, that is going to help insofar as the collection of run-of-river projects and will limit the footprint of transmission corridors in British Columbia. Another project in Yukon, the Mayo B hydro facility, at $71 million, is going to take a number of diesel generation plants off the grid in Yukon.
Were these priorities set out because of the great initiative as far as greening and making sure they're environmentally friendly are concerned? When you made those decisions, did that have a big impact on these types of projects?
:
I'm a big supporter of both of those projects. Frankly, Premier Fentie was a strong advocate for the Mayo B project. He has spoken to a good number of us around town about the project. I guess that was one of the ideas behind the establishment of the green infrastructure fund. Obviously, those types of projects are more major projects that couldn't be completed in two years and that's why there's a five-year window for that fund.
The one in northwestern British Columbia is another great example. The Yukon will be almost entirely off diesel power in terms of percentage in a big way, so it's exciting to reduce the carbon emissions and to have cleaner air. It will also facilitate economic growth and development.
The one in northwestern British Columbia is a great example as well, though, of getting away from diesel power generation and getting more hydro, of expanding the grid so that there's more clean energy on it. It will also be a great hope for economic development in that part of the province. represents the area. The NDP member represents the area for most of northwest British Columbia.
It's going to be a great win for all of B.C. and, frankly, the country, because if you get the expansion of the private sector and the job creation, it's going to help all of us. Whether you live there or in the Lower Mainland, it's good news for B.C.
I think The northern one also fits in with the commitment and vision for northern Canada. Frankly, it was under Premier Fentie's leadership. He pushed hard for this in the budget and that was the whole idea behind the creation of the fund; now it can do a number of things on the environment. I'm very big on that. It's great. Any chance we have to expand hydro capacity.... Obviously you need it through generation, but also, the capacity to transmit it should be taken advantage of. It is one of the great resources we have in Canada, but there are not unlimited amounts of it everywhere.
:
CATSA is actually doing a very good job of keeping our passengers safe.
There are two pockets of money, for a total, as you said, of $197.6 million. The first and smaller pocket is $6.9 million. It's the re-profiling of the 2008-09 fiscal year capital funding. It will go into the expansion of Calgary airport's hold bag screening, which was behind schedule. It also completes the purchase of the portable screening units at the Olympics and expands restricted identification cards. That's where that pocket of money goes.
The larger pocket of money, $190.7 million, is to carry out the screening obligations that are provided in the 2009 capital plan. It includes replacing a lot of the old X-ray scanners by a multi-view scanner. That's one of our problems: we have these older technologies. The new advanced technologies will allow much more vivid identification in the handbag screening process.
That's where we're going. We're keeping our Olympics about the athletes, as the first thing, and then making sure that the rest of the country keeps up to standards that are changing as we speak in the U.S., Europe, and other countries, so that we don't become a weak link.
:
I think the one positive part of this past year, with the downturn in the economy, has been that every province and territory, without exception, has worked very well with the government. My history with the McGuinty government was not always positive and rosy, but his government has been a great partner, particularly on infrastructure.
My former counterpart—I was his critic four years ago, sitting two swords' lengths across—and I have been able to work very well together. Our staffs and our officials have been able to work well together. When you're dealing with intergovernmental discussions, you never get everything done as quickly as you'd like, but it's been about 10 times faster than previous new infrastructure programs. There's been great cooperation.
Frankly, Canadians don't just want that to happen--they expect it, particularly at a difficult time. That's been the case in Newfoundland and Labrador. The first province in which we allocated all the infrastructure money was with Danny Williams' government. We haven't had problems. There was one noticeable hiccup with it in the City of Toronto, but we worked very well with Mayor Miller. We have more than 500—now 501—infrastructure projects going on in the City of Toronto, some more exciting than others, but we hope they'll lead to job creation in Toronto.
We announced a $60 million project yesterday. They've already started work on it. They've committed to getting it done by the end of March 2011.
:
Minister, we only have you for a few minutes. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you why in fact the number of dollars that you have allocated this year is now changed. This is the book in September and now it's $1 billion less that you say you're going to spend this year. So that's clearly as a result of your failed stimulus program. You're not getting the money out the way you promised you would in the three other reports.
Can you tell us, Minister, did you have any say in this? Maybe it's the Ministry of Finance saying that you're not spending the money and therefore it's gone.
But I think, Mr. Minister, that you have claimed everything is working fine and jobs are being created immediately. You won't table any job information data, but now there's money data saying that you're not going to spend the money this year.
Can you document, can you give us—
:
Well, it's a 24-month stimulus initiative to build infrastructure. Obviously, in every day, every week, and every month of that 24-month plan, more will happen.
For example, the City of Toronto didn't make an eligible application...the only province in the country that made an ineligible application and didn't file it online. We worked with the city—it took several additional months because of that—and came to an agreement for 500 projects that would be funded. For example, we're giving $20 million to Maple Leaf Gardens, which we announced yesterday. They are not going to be able to spend $10 million of that before April 1, so we'll re-profile it to the following year, but it all has to be spent by April 1, 2011.
I think what you'll see is that every month there'll be more money spent than the previous month. A disproportionate amount of the work will be back-ended. Obviously you have to put out tenders, obviously you have to do architectural plans, and obviously you have to get the required permits and project management. That is less expensive than once you get the shovels in the ground. But all the funds are available.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Minister, I want to make sure we understand each other with respect to my last comment. What I want is for all of Quebec's municipalities to have the same opportunity to submit applications under the programs. Obviously, a number of municipalities underwent changes in administration. It is similar to when we change governments, as you know. For at least 30 days, mayors did not make any political decisions because it was against the law. City councils did not meet before the elections, and there are still budget preparations and so forth. All of that delays things. I know that you would like us to discuss it later with your officials, but I just want all municipalities to have an equal opportunity.
I know that in some municipalities, the administration did not change, and so they are able to submit applications. However, you need to understand that in a number of municipalities in Quebec, the administration did change, in other words, governments changed, and, clearly, they have to review all of the files again.
These municipalities run the risk of being penalized. That is why the Union des municipalités du Québec and the Fédération québécoise des municipalités are asking you for more time to submit applications, without having to postpone the project completion date. I know we will look at that later.
I have another question. You asked for supplementary estimates in the amount of $18 million for the bridge corporation, and earlier you mentioned the Mercier bridge. Is all of that $18 million solely for the Mercier bridge project, or is it also being used for other bridges in Montreal?
:
Mr. Minister, there are 1,100 municipalities in Quebec. They are not all cities like Toronto. Most of them, at least 900, are small municipalities with less than 20,000 inhabitants. They do not all have the level of organization, administration and support you assume they do.
I know there are cities saying they will take any leftover money. That is fine. I know there are cities willing to take all the money in order to carry out work, but some municipalities will be penalized because they did not have enough time to review the files, prepare their budgets and submit their requests by January 31. You say it is easy, just a matter of filling out and submitting a form. It is not that easy. The council has to discuss it, budgets have to be prepared.
I know that as we speak, municipalities are in the midst of preparing their budgets; they will table them by December 15. There will be municipalities that choose not to make any requests because they do not have enough time to do it.
I will be sharing my time with Mr. Jean.
I represent a riding where there are probably about 50 small towns and small cities and every single mayor, reeve, and councillor in that riding is a volunteer. They work full time and they have one staff member, and I can tell you that they were thrilled and very pleased with the process of applying for these projects.
They got it done because they wanted to see their communities supported. They've seen a lot of red tape and a lot of paperwork in probably the last 13 or 14 years, when they could not get funding, so they--
:
Excuse me? Could I just speak?
Thank you very much.
I just want to commend my mayors and my councillors in Portage--Lisgar for the great work they did with zero staff. They did it on volunteer time. I'm commending them.
But I do want to ask the minister if he could speak specifically about the fact that a year ago we really did not know what kind of impact this infrastructure spending would have. We knew what we were hoping for and we knew what our goals were, but a year later we are coming out of this recession and it's a fragile recovery.
I'm wondering if you could comment specifically on what the goals were a year ago, on how those goals have been met, and on how we can see those results now, not in a small kind of picture, but the big picture.
:
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities put forward a budget request and presented a very compelling case. They presented an economic report showing that for every billion dollars of spending on infrastructure 11,000 jobs could be created directly. We accepted that.
Obviously, if we had used the gas tax model, demonstrably less money would have been spent. By leveraging money from the provinces.... Every province stepped up to the plate. Liberal, NDP, Conservative, every single province and all three northern territories stepped up to the plate and matched our infrastructure spending.
The municipalities will always say to give them the money directly, to just skip the middleman and send them all the money. If you talk to the provinces, they'll say that the federal government only has to write 13 cheques, so just give the money to them in the form of a trust. If you talk to the colleges and universities, they say they can move much faster than the municipalities, so give them all the money.
We took a balanced approach. We doubled the gas tax money, which was the direct transfer to municipalities. We moved up the first payment to April from July. We kept the promise to double it, we made it permanent, and we advanced the payments by as much as three months. We brought in the new stimulus initiatives. We've literally gone 10 times faster.
In 2003, the Liberal government brought in some new infrastructure programs, and in late 2006 Lawrence Cannon was still signing agreements with the provinces. None of it had been spent in three years.
It's not perfect, and it's not like flicking a light switch, but I'll tell you that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities had their board meeting two weeks ago and they had a party for the staff at Infrastructure Canada to thank the officials for their extraordinary work. If you had said to me that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities would be celebrating the success of the federal bureaucracy, I wouldn't have believed it. The department's done an amazing job of responding to this challenge.
Is it perfect? No. Whenever you have intergovernmental negotiations, it's going to take a little bit of time, but I'll tell you, the George Smithermans and the Danny Williams of the world put aside partisan politics and worked constructively. Darrell Dexter, the new NDP premier of Nova Scotia, is a pleasure to work with, as is his Minister Estabrooks. We're getting things done. We've had good partnerships.
It hasn't been perfect. Do I wish we could have announced every single project in a month? No. We have some due diligence to do on the projects. It's been important. It's been outstanding. I think we wanted to get a lot of federal infrastructure projects going and as quickly as we possibly could.
This is 10 times faster than the last two programs under this and the previous governments and we're seeing things happen around the country. We haven't hired an army of new bureaucrats to ask where the steel was bought and how many jobs were created by a ton of steel. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office is just a joke, because they have no ability to track whether the information is true or is just made up as people go along. I can tell you that if you drive around my province of Ontario you can see construction projects everywhere, because the province has worked well. Every success we've had in working with the provinces is a success of the provincial government as well.
When we came forward with that model, Parliament said yes. Conservative and Liberal members voted not to use the gas tax. They voted for the budget that had this model. I think the FCM and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario are pretty pleased, generally speaking, with the success of the initiatives.
I've already said to them, “Let's look at what we've learned over this past year and what we can do to benefit from it in the future”. I mean, the one-page application form, the improved political cooperation, they've been incredible.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I didn't welcome the new deputy, Madam Baltacioglu, to the committee. I want to correct that oversight.
Welcome, Madam. Congratulations on your appointment.
To either one of the two ministers, on the issue of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, CATSA, I note that you are asking for roughly an additional $190 million for development of aviation security plans and passenger assessment systems.
That's about 32% of the overall budget for the entire year. It represents a 50% increase over what you put in the budget document.
First of all, why is such a huge increase represented in the supplementary estimates? What would have caused you to make such an erroneous calculation in the budget?
Second, what are the aviation security plans and how much is it for each?
Then, number two is the passenger assessment systems. I want to take advantage of the fact you're both here. You're not going to be here for long, but what are those specific plans?
:
When it comes to CATSA, you are right. There is actually $197.6 million on this. I explained that earlier. Part of it is to prepare for the Olympics. Part of it is to do the business of CATSA.
Your question is absolutely appropriate. You're asking why we need that much more money just to do the business of CATSA on the basis of day-to-day-operations as well as to deal with some of the capital costs, including those for the new screening. It is because the base is actually too low. CATSA cannot operate on a budget of $134 million. That's what it is. It has to do with the fact that for the business we ask it to do, it needs a considerable amount more. That is something that has been looked at. It has a year-to-year budget allocation.
To this point, when it comes to what they're doing with the money, they are actually buying capital equipment. They are replacing some of the existing screeners, the older X-ray scanners. They are not the multi-view scanners, which we are now replacing those older ones with in the airports. It's so they can deal with this new equipment and deal with security in a much better way, in a much more accurate way, and in a way that is, let's say, competitive with other countries so that we do not become a weak link for security in our airports.
That's where the money is going and that's why it's going the way it is.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Before I introduce my colleagues, let me say that this is my first appearance in front of this committee as the deputy minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. It's my pleasure to be here. I'm looking forward to working with the committee and hopefully answering your questions for a number of years to come. It's an honour to be here.
I'm sorry for the crowd here. We're representing two separate departments. We have Infrastructure here, as well as Transport.
We have here today Mr. André Morency, who is our CFO, chief financial officer, for Transport. As well, he is the responsible assistant deputy minister for our portfolio. I have introduced my colleague John Forster, who is the dedicated associate deputy minister for Infrastructure. Also here is Mr. Marc Grégoire, who is the assistant deputy minister of safety and security.
You have been introduced to Madam Vinet, who is our associate deputy minister of Transport. Then we have Mary Komarynsky, who is our assistant deputy minister of programs at Transport Canada, and Guylaine Roy, who is our associate assistant deputy minister, policy, for Transport.
I am here as the accounting officer of both the infrastructure and transport departments.
We would be pleased to answer your questions on our portfolio agencies. Although I'm not directly responsible for them, these folks around the table have been working with them and we do report on their activities, so we'll be happy to answer your questions.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Minister.
I wondered if you could amplify on some of those questions that I had started to ask the ministers. I was specifically wanting to get an understanding of just how much money was going into the program for the new—some people would call intrusive—scanning systems for security at airports. Those systems, as far as I can recall, have not received the scrutiny of an examination by any committee, at least not any parliamentary committee, nor has their usage been debated in the House of Commons.
You might wish to say that this is the purview of the subcontracting agency of CATSA, but this involves, in our view, a severe public policy issue, and I'm wondering whether any of this money is going towards the acquisition of some of that technology.
:
Yes, Mr. Volpe. Some of that money is being used to buy some millimeter wave equipment.
That equipment has been tested this year at the Kelowna airport. There is no intention whatsoever to make the usage of this equipment mandatory for passengers. It is only being used for secondary screening. The passengers are being offered the choice of either having a pat-down or going through the millimeter wave equipment.
There is no intention, either, to deploy significant numbers in that equipment, so it will be restricted to only some airports. It has been carefully reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner. In fact, we're pleased to report that just a few weeks ago the Privacy Commissioner endorsed and approved the privacy analysis that was done by CATSA on the usage of that equipment, with the condition that it remain for use on a voluntary basis.
This means that if a passenger is being selected for secondary screening, as occurs once in a while, the passenger is being offered the choice, where this equipment is available, to either go through the equipment or have the pat-down. You would be surprised. but quite a large number of people in the trial have indicated their preference to go through the machine rather than have the physical pat-down.
:
One challenge, Mr. Chair, and all of a sudden I'm a troublemaker.
Thanks very much for coming here today.
I'd like to say, Deputy Minister, that your reputation precedes you. We believe and are hoping that we'll have a long working relationship and many successes for Canadians generally.
First, the minister read in question period today a statement in relation to a quote by the Mayor of Windsor, which in essence was that this Conservative government doesn't just talk the talk, we walk the walk and get the job done. Specifically in relation to what the minister said in cutting red tape and how we've moved 10 times faster than any previous Liberal government, I was wondering if we could have some examples of how we have cut that red tape and how we are actually getting things done more quickly. Could you put some of that on the record?
:
Thank you very much for the question.
Mr. Chairman, I would answer the question, but I cannot answer the political elements of it. I can explain what the department has done in terms of expediting the application process.
The infrastructure stimulus fund has been quite different from all of the other infrastructure programs we have run.
First of all, the application form has been reduced to one page. Only critical information was asked from the proponents. As well, the department has established a dedicated team that was focused on this program and this program alone, which really helped deliver the program at great speed. Also, we have automated our systems and application forms, which does cut a lot of time in terms of processing the applications.
Very importantly, there have been changes to the navigable waters legislation as well as changes to the Canadian environmental assessment exclusion list, which allowed us to move further and faster. In addition, however, we did put in levels of controls. Unlike other programs, we have put in areas where we have quarterly reports in terms of the status and the progress so that we can have a sense if things are slipping, and we can speak to our partners. The partnership element is not new, but it was a special, very active partnership that the department has put in place with the provinces and municipalities.
Those are just examples of how these programs ran. My colleagues, who have been in infrastructure for many years, say that the economic action programs have actually been delivered at a speed that has never been done before.
In fact, I was reading this very exciting copy of “Canada's Economic Action Plan--A Fourth Report to Canadians”. I would encourage all those people listening, all Canadians, to get a copy of it. It's fairly interesting and it gives me a lot of confidence in the Canadian economy.
On page 15, they talk about “Overall Contraction in Real GDP During the Recession”. We actually fare extremely well at -3%, compared to countries such as Japan and Germany, which are up around 7% and 8%. In fact, further on, it talks about business confidence. It appears on page 17 that we are well above the historical average, at some 6% or 7%, in business confidence, just in the third quarter of 2009. It appears that whatever we're doing is working. In fact, real residential investment and renovation growth, on page 19, show an increase of 8% to 12% in the last two quarters.
Indeed, I believe from what I've heard in question period and just generally, and from what I've read in this book, that it appears this government is moving forward not just on infrastructure, but on changing some of the employment programs and other ministries to get people to work faster. On page 60--I know I sound like a commercial, but it was quite interesting to read this today--they say, “The number of Canadian workers benefiting from work-sharing has increased more than sixfold since the beginning of the year”.
I would suggest that some of the moves by this government are in more than just infrastructure and transportation; they're on a multifold ministry. Is that fair to say, Deputy Minister?
:
I won't speak to the Port Mann Bridge specifically, but certainly in our infrastructure programs, whether it's that infrastructure or the gateway programs at Transport, we've always tried to encourage public-private partnerships. Some of those partnerships and consortiums have had difficulty attracting capital during the credit crunch, so that has dampened the appetite for them.
As well, the government has its own P3 fund, called P3 Canada, which is managed by a crown corporation under the Minister of Finance. It's in the process of going through a round of projects that will be announced under that fund.
It's certainly more challenging to try to do P3 projects in the current environment, so you're getting less take-up and interest in it, but there are some that are able to go forward.
Guylaine, do you want to add anything?
:
The $250 million is transferred to the Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Base Funding Program. It is a program that was created in the 2007 budget, whereby every province receives $25 million a year for 7 years.
In Canada's Economic Action Plan, the federal government gave every province the option to allocate those funds over two years, instead of seven. The federal government is ready to release those funds. For instance, we signed an agreement with Quebec in May, I believe, to release all of the funds allocated to Quebec, in other words, $175 million. It was done. In addition, Quebec will use that money for this year's expenditures and next's. The program is in effect as of now.
As I said, every province receives exactly the same amount, $175 million over seven years. And in Quebec's case, the federal government has allocated that money over two years, this year and next.
:
Yes, absolutely. You were asking about funds being asked for through supplementary estimates (B) for the department in support of the Mackenzie gas pipeline project.
When this project was being conceived back in 2004-05, the department anticipated an awful lot of growth in the transportation sector in that particular part of the country. As a result, we were building our capacity to be able to support the growth so that airline companies in particular and other transportation companies could position themselves to get contracts from the oil companies once this project was actually announced.
More specifically, what are the expenses being incurred by? It's work associated with the certification of barges that will be used in the north, and work associated with environmental assessments, and we're certainly working with a joint review panel to help them in that regard. We're participating in surveillance and enforcement activities related to the transportation of dangerous goods.
In our civil aviation organization, funds are being expended to actually support the increased capacity being built by some of the aviation companies there in terms of doing aerodrome certification and maintenance audits. We're doing pilot checks, because some of these companies in fact have bought some new aircraft or are certifying some new pilots to be in position. When a decision is made, an awful lot of the Mackenzie gas pipeline project possibly will be done through the transportation infrastructure that needs to be built within the Mackenzie gas pipeline.
We have funds that have been allocated to us by the Treasury Board Secretariat. They're tracked only for those expenses associated with the Mackenzie gas pipeline. I can honestly say that in this year we're basically asking for the money to continue to support those people we've hired to help build the capacity in that region.
:
Yes. Thank you very much for asking that question.
I received the external auditors' report yesterday from Deloitte & Touche. We're getting it translated for submission to committee, because I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you had asked for that from our minister.
However, because I don't have the document for you today, I note that the bottom line basically is that the auditors are saying it appears that the expenses Transport Canada has charged to the Mackenzie gas project were in accordance with the authorities provided in the approved Treasury Board submissions and other applicable acts and policies.
Based on their review, all funding approved was recorded in Transport Canada's financial system and segregated from normal operating funds. They did not identify any transferring of Mackenzie gas money to other operations. In addition, they did note that Transport Canada has applied a higher level of restriction to the Mackenzie money than was required even by the Treasury Board authorities we had.
We will make that available to the committee when we can get it translated.
:
--quote here from former Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish, who is currently a Mississauga city councillor. She says, “The three levels of government are cooperating extremely well in our city”. She goes on to thank the member of Parliament “for bringing us the largest single infusion of infrastructure money ever received by the City of Mississauga”
One quote that I particularly like, because I am the member for Newmarket—Aurora, came from the mayor of King Township, who is also the Liberal candidate in Newmarket—Aurora. In a letter to Paul Calandra, she wrote:
We really appreciate your dedication and hard work in making this dream become a reality for our township. This project is a great example of the federal, provincial and municipal governments working together to enhance community life by developing a facility that can be enjoyed for generations to come.
That's from Margaret Black, the mayor of King Township.
So here is my question to you. What has been your experience in this process of the three levels of government working together? Obviously the provinces have to come to the table first, but how has the assessment process been for you in your capacity as deputy minister and as staff?
I'll start, and my colleague, Mr. Forster, will continue.
The engagement of our partners is absolutely critical in the management of this program. It is important as well from my perspective; it helps identify the projects where the needs are. Provinces and municipalities come to the table with their proposals. They participate with us at the officials level in terms of project selection and determination of the funds around that. They do come to the table with their money, which means that a lot more than just the federal money gets injected into the economy.
Having worked in federal-provincial areas and joint jurisdiction areas, I must say that coming into infrastructure, it is phenomenal. The working relationship, the seamless working relationship, between the officials across three levels of government is very impressive.
Do you have anything to add, Mr. Forster?
:
First of all, Mr. Chairman, it is important to give a context in terms of management and the management controls both departments have.
When you look back a number of years, even 10 years back, and look at the management systems of government departments, the number of controls and risk management tools we have at our disposal now as managers is quite astounding. I can speak to the actions that we have taken since I have come on board.
In both Infrastructure Canada and Transport Canada we have increased the internal audit capacity. We have established our external audit committee, which is chaired by an external member. All members are from outside government. We have already briefed them concerning all our operations and all our activities. We have shared all our risks, and they are going to be very much part of the activities we will go through over the years to come.
As well, I don't know if members are aware, but Treasury Board Secretariat does assess the departments' management performance. We do get report cards. As deputy ministers, part of our performance depends on how well our departments are being managed.
I must say that Transport Canada, in particular, has been at the top of its class in a lot of management areas, and Infrastructure Canada, for a seven-year-old department, has come a long way in terms of having the right systems and structures. As public servants we are proud of the work we have done, and we feel that we had a role to play in this very important project, especially on the economic action plan.
The workload issues were more on the Infrastructure Canada side; Transport Canada is a big department and it has the capacity.
I'll just leave it there.
:
Let me start. Then I will turn to Mr. Grégoire.
It is very important not to be confused with different languages around the inspection systems. We have not given up our oversight requirements. We have not given up our regulatory oversight. The safety management systems approach that has been discussed--and the committee is very well aware of it because you're doing a study on it--is not in place of inspection; it is an added layer of protection for the industry.
However, as we speak to the industry, the unions, and our own employees, we appreciate that issues are coming up, and the department is actively dealing with that situation. We have taken many steps. Maybe Mr. Grégoire can elaborate.
There was some discussion about relationships with municipalities, but let me ask first about spending.
Last year, the ministry underspent pretty dramatically on programs announced by the Conservative government. Essentially, the Conservative government promised to spend $1.4 billion on its new programs under the building Canada project programs, but only spent $117 million. We're here at estimates today and your main estimates ask for another $979 million. The much talked about building Canada fund was budgeted at $926 million, estimates requested $376 million, and only $56 million was spent. It was only 4% or 6% of the building Canada fund that got spent last year. The rest of it went back to the treasury.
You are asking for more money this year, so I am curious to know what assurances we have that the money is actually going to be spent. You've been underspending to a fairly dramatic extent over the last number of years, and in here you're looking for more money. Where are we going to get some truing to that, some actual action?
The department gets the money in the budgets, usually straight-lined, year after year. The way the infrastructure program is run is that they ramp up, they peak, and then the peak goes down. This means that sometimes for the budgeted amounts we get year after year, our actual spending may lag a year behind.
That being said, the money is not lost. It gets re-profiled so that the spending can happen. If you look at the history from 2002 on, you'll see the department has lapsed on a consistent basis, as you said. In some years, it has been as large as 59%, as it was in 2004-05. In 2005-06 it was 15%. So it's a cycle, but--
:
Last year, Deputy, it was almost 95% of the money, again, for this amount.
The point is that there's a plan that's been in place since 2007, called the building Canada fund. Some of it now is being referred to in the same context as the infrastructure stimulus fund. I understand there are different rules. The public may not know that, but members of the government do say that these are accelerated projects and so on.
I guess I would ask this, then. In order to have greater reliance on those kinds of announcements, are they actually going out more quickly? Is there a list of projects that would support the announcements? Because especially some of the building Canada fund major ones are large projects. Are you monitoring their progress? Can some of that be shared with the committee so that we know you really need the money? Because billions of dollars have been asked for and billions of dollars were pretended to have been spent. At the end of the year, it's not spent at all.
That may be the way of doing things, but when stimulus is inferred and job creation is being claimed by people like the , I think it's important the department make clear where it believes the projects are actually going to take place in the year for which the dollars are being requested. Is it possible to have that information?
:
Once the claim has been verified and is accurate and is complete.
Now, under the building Canada fund, after the election the government came in and as part of the action plan said we need to accelerate that. We went to Treasury Board in February, and we changed some of the conditions and the criteria and cut the red tape around that program so that the approvals could move much more quickly.
Once those projects are approved, the proponents then are responsible for building them. I do not build the Sheppard LRT line in Toronto; the City of Toronto does it. I have every confidence in the City of Toronto that they want that built as fast as we do. Our funding therefore matches the pace of construction of the cities and the provinces and the others. It's a tremendous flexibility in the program that allows us to do that.
As Yaprak said, the money is not lost; it's there to match the pace of construction by our partners. To us, that's a very important feature of the program.
:
That's in terms of how construction project cycles work. We have shared a chart with the government operations committee. Maybe we will share it with this committee as well. You might find it useful.
It does give one an opportunity to look at how infrastructure project cycles work, from the application and funding to the government and the province or territory agreeing and jointly announcing the funding, and then to where the work can actually begin. It then goes into a pre-construction procurement stage, to the construction stage, and then to project completion and the submission of the claims.
The important thing in the infrastructure stimulus fund, for example, is that we have provided opportunities for provinces to submit progress reports to us, but hopefully claims information at the same time, so that when the claims information comes to us, we do an assessment. We have to make sure that we adhere to the requirements of the agreement and hold true to our accountabilities under the sections of the Financial Administration Act. Then, within the 30 days, we get the money out to the province.
It's important to say this, though. While we encourage the bills to come in and the claims to come in, we have many projects either competed or under way for which we have not received any submissions from provinces.