Transport Committee on June 1st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I call the meeting to order. Thank you, and good morning.

Welcome to the minister, and I see some of his staff here today.

Obviously we're here to ask some questions and I know the minister had a longer-running appointment. I've suggested to the committee that he might be prepared, if possible, to spend an extra five or ten minutes of his time with us.

I'm not sure if you have an opening statement, but if you would like to make that, then I think we could get right into the questions.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I do wish to extend my apologies for being late. As a parliamentarian, I know your time is precious, so I'm very sorry for my late arrival. As most of you know, I was with the Prime Minister several minutes ago and we were with Madam Greene, who is the chief executive officer of Canada Post. She will be with us, I understand, Mr. Chairman, a little later on this afternoon.

Thank you, colleagues, for inviting me to speak to you today. I am happy to be accompanied today by Louis Ranger, who is Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and by the deputy head of Infrastructure Canada, Mr. André Juneau. There are also a number of officials in the room today who will lend support for some of the technical questions.

l'm looking forward to working with all of you. Some of you served on this committee in the last Parliament, but for many of us this is a new challenge. And in a way, we're all new to this committee because the mandate of this committee has been expanded to encompass new issues.

As you can expect, I was delighted to see that transportation, infrastructure, and communities would all be included in my responsibilities. It simply makes sense to me that these three areas should be combined because of the way they affect our economic well-being and quality of life.

Mr. Chairman, this committee will be expected to review policies, programs and legislation that will make a big difference to communities, to businesses, and to travellers right across this country.

In the time I have before you today, I would like to do three things. First, I want to tell you about how I intend to fulfil my responsibilities as minister and how I hope to work with this committee. Second, I want to reference some of the commitments that we have already made and legislative proposals that we will be bringing forward in the coming months. And third, I want to give you some opening thoughts on my approach to the work that lies ahead.

I would hope to actively collaborate with this committee as we meet challenges in transportation, infrastructure, and communities during this session of Parliament.

From my previous experience in other levels of government, I know that the key to success is cooperation and collaboration. Working in partnership is the only way to achieve success in a democratic society and the smart thing to do in a minority Parliament.

I do not have any illusions about the process we are embarking upon and I know there will be intense debate over challenges and priorities--and in fact I look forward to those debates. I know that important issues are usually complex, and all sides must be heard if we are going to make smart decisions. That means we must respect the points of view of others and seek common ground to help us move forward.

This committee has, in the past, provided valuable input and direction to previous governments. For example, in one of its most recent reports, this committee had this to say about air Liberalization and the Canadian Airports System. It stated:

The Committee heard from many stakeholders that they favoured an opening up—[of Canada's International Air Bilateral Agreements]—so that they would be more in line with what Canada has negotiated with the United States and with what may be negotiated with the U.S. in the future.

In harmony with those sentiments, we doubled our efforts to negotiate and sign an Open Skies agreement with the United Kingdom, Canada's second-largest market. The agreement has been welcomed by all stakeholders, a tribute to the thinking that went into the committee's excellent work.

I have tasked my officials to aggressively explore opportunities for further liberalization and to develop a new international air policy to guide our future negotiations.

I also read with interest the committee's views on airport governance, and you will find those comments reflected in the airport legislation that we intend to table shortly.

The committee also commented on the need to ensure that unfunded regulations were not downloaded onto small regional airports. I want you to know that the former government's proposed Canada Aviation Regulation 308, or CAR 308, as it's commonly known, which would have required small airports to meet strict emergency response requirements, is being repealed, and the regulation for larger airports revised. Merging the two levels of aircraft firefighting services into one regulation will provide comprehensive emergency response while removing the financial burden from less busy airports.

On another front, comments by past members of this committee on bills attempting to amend the Canada Transportation Act have suggested that former legislation was too bulky, or too omnibus, if you will.

I have listened to, and agree with these concerns. As you are aware, my first bill, which you are currently studying—Bill C-3, the International Bridges and Tunnels Act—is based on clause 63 of the former Bill C-44.

The fact that I have separated out a high priority clause for quick passage is based on comments made in the last Parliament. It shows this government's willingness to work closely with this committee to pass effective legislation.

We have also tabled amendments to the Canada Transportation Act pertaining to commuter rail, urban rail corridors and railway noise that had the support of this committee as well as other members of Parliament.

Bill C-11 was tabled on May 4 and I hope that these amendments will receive expedited consideration.

As you know, Prime Minister Harper has established five priorities for the mandate of this government. This focused agenda reflects the Government of Canada's commitment to Canadians, and like all of my colleagues, I believe that a sharp focus on clear priorities will allow us to get the right things done.

We will work to make real, concrete moves to improve the safety and well-being of our families and communities. The choice of five priorities doesn't mean that we've forgotten the other commitments we made in our platform, or that we will not make decisions in other areas or listen to other needs expressed by citizens or other governments.

Indeed, we will deliver and already are delivering on a number of commitments in this area of transportation, infrastructure, and communities. Our first budget made clear our commitment to these areas, and I want to point out some of the global investments that will have an impact on this portfolio, on this committee, and on the lives of millions of Canadians.

Over the next four years, this government will invest an unprecedented total of $16.5 billion in new infrastructure initiatives. We will provide for more than $8.5 billion in new federal funding for the highway strategic infrastructure program, the border infrastructure fund, the municipal rural infrastructure fund, the Canada strategic infrastructure fund, the public transit capital trust, and the Pacific gateway initiative.

We will maintain an estimated $3.9 billion in current funding under existing infrastructure initiatives and we will maintain the existing gas tax funding commitment under the new deal for cities and communities and the full GST rebate and the federal portion of the HST paid by municipalities.

These tax measures amount to $7.1 billion in support of our cities and municipalities over the next four years.

A strong economy depends in large part on the confidence of both businesses and consumers in the safety and security of the transportation system, as well as the security of other types of infrastructure, including safe and clean water. Consequently, I am pleased that the budget included $1.4 billion for enhanced national security, including over $250 million to improve rail and transit security, improve aviation screening, and begin to tackle the issue of air cargo security.

The budget measures add to what my portfolio is already doing in this area.

We're investing more than $27 million for 41 new projects at airports right across Canada, including our northern airports, to enhance their safety under the Government of Canada's 2006-2007 Airports Capital Assistance Program.

I also had the pleasure of recently announcing that Canada has not only met, but has exceeded, the standard set by the International Civil Aviation Organization to address the risks associated with explosives in checked baggage.

Ladies and gentlemen, there's one thing that is certain—and something, I believe, that Budget 2006 reflects—this government has not been sitting still.

I have spoken to you about our legislative initiatives, and I have outlined budget initiatives that will have a real and lasting effect upon this portfolio. But we have also taken action that will affect Canadians in their cities and towns.

To mention a few, they include, of course, our signing of an agreement with Alberta to launch the Canada-Alberta municipal rural infrastructure fund, a joint initiative that will help contribute to a better quality of life for the people of Alberta. The federal and provincial governments will each contribute $88 million. We have signed an agreement with British Columbia and are providing up to $62.5 million to replace the Park Bridge, upgrade approach curves, and construct and realign over five kilometres of a new four-lane highway east of Golden in the Kicking Horse Canyon. Finally, last month I also proposed a review of the National Capital Commission.

Honourable members, the measures I have been speaking about today represent some of the most important investments the federal government has ever made in the competitiveness and sustainability of Canada's economy and the quality of life in our cities and communities. We will not stop there, because meeting our objectives will require much more than money.

Transportation, infrastructure and communities really are a point of convergence for some of the most important issues facing Canada today. And this portfolio provides a new foundation on which to build new approaches for the long term.

In an era when global supply chain management drives the economic success of nations, integrated and efficient transportation systems are a crucial element in economic productivity. When car parts can be manufactured in several different areas of the world and assembled in another, having smooth-running, reliable and integrated transportation options can be the difference between new jobs and job losses.

Within our borders, we must look at the transportation systems and the infrastructure required to support them as an integrated whole—reaching from the heart of our cities, through corridors and networks that span our country, to borders, ports and airports that link us to the rest of the world—the gateways that support our trade-based economy.

We understand, for example, our responsibility for federal policies and legislation that underpin the national transportation system. Getting them right matters for competitiveness. This government has already begun to make progress on the legislative front. We also understand the need for integrated and coherent policies.

For example, we must do a better job of clearly articulating the connections between the changing world economy, our policy responses, and our various investments in support of those policies. We also understand that Canadians expect much more from their national government on accountability.

Through the budget, the government has also tasked me with leading discussions with provincial and territorial governments that will help define the federal role in infrastructure with a view to putting federal funding on a predictable long-term track, and to ensure accountability to Canadians for infrastructure investments by all governments. To carry out these important tasks, I will need to be very clear about how the pieces fit together, the extensive responsibilities of my portfolio, the considerable new resources identified in our budget, and the opportunities to achieve lasting results.

I'd like to share with this committee my approach to the mandate of this new portfolio and my starting point for moving forward. It has four main elements:

The first element is a firm recognition that the challenges are rooted in the realities of the real world around us, inescapable dynamics like globalization, demographic change, urbanization, and pressures to improve our economy's productivity and its sustainability, while ensuring the security of our citizens.

The second element, in responding to these broad imperatives, is a set of strategic priorities on which action is required and a strong federal role is justified, and for which my portfolio is entrusted with important tools. I am talking about economic competitiveness, quality of life, our environment, the safety of our communities, and accountability to Canadians.

Third, and most importantly, practical and specific measures in the following four inter-related areas: sustainable infrastructure, transportation gateways and trade corridors, transportation security and strong communities.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, all of these new actions, as well as the crucial, ongoing work of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, will be supported by a foundation of sound management, focused and effective government, respect for jurisdiction, and a range of new measures to ensure transparency and accountability.

As I mentioned earlier, I will be seeking input on how to implement these commitments. And I will be seeking to build meaningful partnerships to help us move forward on them. I intend to initiate these discussions when I address the annual general meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in Montreal on June 4.

I look forward to the discussions that will follow and to working with my counterparts in provincial, territorial and municipal governments, with my cabinet and caucus and with all of you.

Over the coming weeks and months, I will have the opportunity to bring forward specific items included in the budget. I will also bring forward legislation to advance the efficiency, safety, security, and sustainability of our transportation system.

We will modernize some statutes and address gaps in others. The common objective will be to build on the vitality of our cities and communities and to use our transportation system to make Canada more competitive in a global economy.

In closing, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the vision I have for this portfolio and the great work that lies ahead for us.

It is my hope that as committee members, we will see your own work and ideas reflected back at you, as this government moves forward on transportation infrastructure and community priorities. We will have many opportunities for concrete improvements. Until then, thank you for listening. I will be listening to you as well.

I would like to now turn to any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Before we go to the first questions, I note that we do have the Canada Post Corporation coming right after you. I suspect there may be some questions to you in regard to general policy, but I think we would try to direct committee members to focus the details on the next witness.

Ms. Stronach.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister.

As this is your first appearance before a committee, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment to cabinet and also welcome you here today.

As you indicated in your remarks, your portfolio is very diverse. You have responsibilities for transportation, infrastructure, and communities. But the issues are not only of critical importance to Canadians, they're also connected in terms of productivity, competitiveness, the environment, quality of life, and, as you reflected, the key role they play in the global supply chains that affect our global competitiveness.

I want to focus on the various infrastructure programs that target components of the national transportation system. Certainly the need is well documented. The Canadian Automobile Association estimates that the road and highway deficit is at about $22 billion. Given that there will always be tough decisions to be made about scarce resources, can you outline the basic philosophy behind the prioritization and selection of specific projects, including your own approach to resolving potential differing opinions among the various levels of government?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, and thank you for your warm comments at the outset. I also want to extend to you best wishes on your new role as spokesperson for your party.

Without disputing the $22 billion amount—you might be right, but I haven't seen that sum of money—what I am told is that over the last year to year and a half, officials from the transport portfolio part of the department were in touch with their provincial counterparts and the previous minister's counterparts. At that point, we were able, as the Government of Canada, to establish a comprehensive network and a plan and approach to identify what actually is the national highway system—its core essence—and also identify a number of feeder routes.

Over the next couple of months, and particularly culminating in September, my plan will be to be in Charlottetown with my counterparts, so that together we can establish the priorities regarding where we spend this money that has been awarded and allotted through the budget, and how we go about strengthening our highway system.

This having been said, clearly my intention following that meeting is to get back to cabinet as fast as possible and determine the criteria by which these amounts of money will be spent and the projects that will be identified as going with them.

I do not expect that there will be large variations from the past experience, although one of the elements or components certainly might be to look at more environmentally friendly and sustainable ways of doing things with our counterparts in the provinces, territories, and borders.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

On another question, Minister, could you provide to the committee the document that reconciles the 2006 and 2007 transport estimates with the new funding announcements in the budget? I think that would be useful for us.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

We do have that document prepared. I'll let the deputy minister, Mr. Ranger, address that issue.

[Louis Ranger, Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Department of Transport]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

The main estimates actually show a reduction of $75 million this year compared to last year. That's due to a number of programs that are either coming to an end or for which a decision on an extension hasn't been made yet. One example is the port divestiture program. It has ended, but there's still unfinished business, so we'll have to deal with that.

Another example is what we call the strategic highway infrastructure fund, which is coming to an end. The fund is coming down, but it will be replaced by what we call the HBIF, the highway and border infrastructure fund. So those moneys will appear in the first supplementary estimates that you will see later in the year.

There will also be a reduction in funding for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Budget 2006 identifies an amount over $200 million for CATSA, which will appear in the supplementary estimates. So there will be a decrease in the main estimates, but that will be compensated for and adjusted in the next three months.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

I asked this third question in the House some time ago. About 100 Canadians are killed annually in rail accidents. Are you prepared to conduct a review of this or hold a public inquiry on rail safety?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

On the rail safety issue, you will probably recall that some work was done a year and a half or two years ago. I'm not sure if we are in a position today to express that the situation has worsened. On the contrary, we believe it has bettered itself. We are monitoring that very closely, not only with officials from CN, officials from our group, but also from Canadian Pacific. My officials tell me that the situation is much better than it was previously.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Are you open to it, or are you not going to conduct a review here?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I don't intend to conduct a review.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I would like to thank you for your presence, Minister. I can see that you've gone over the minutes of past committee meetings from the previous Parliament.

My first question will be straightforward. The committee made a majority recommendation concerning the handover of 11,000 acres of farmland to farmers and expropriated landowners from Mirabel, and this recommendation was backed up by a motion from your party in the House of Commons. This was even one of your promises in the last election campaign in my riding.

When are you going to transfer the 11,000 acres back to the farmers and expropriated landowners of Mirabel?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's quite understandable that you would start with a question concerning your riding. In fact, for several weeks now, indeed for a few months, at my request officials from my department have been meeting the parties involved, especially the Montreal Airport authority, authorities from the city of Mirabel, the Chamber of Commerce, the DLC, the UPA, the 11,000 Acres Committee and the farmers, of course, who have been affected by this issue.

I expect that by the end of the summer we'll be in a position to announce that we have made good on this commitment. Moreover, that was my intention when I announced we intended to honour our election commitment.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

That's good.

Obviously, we don't have much time, as usual. My second question is about the infrastructure budget. You seem to be saying that you will be very open and that you are going to take a look at the infrastructure problems. However, there are some small matters of concern to me.

On the sixth page of the French version of your document, it reads:

[...] with a view to putting federal funding on a predictable, long-term track, and to ensuring accountability to Canadians for infrastructure investments by all governments.

I hope that you're not announcing today the federal government's intention to interfere in all areas of infrastructure some of which fall under the purview, in part, of cities, and to a large extent, of the provinces. The federal government has control over very few infrastructure-related issues. So I hope that you are able to reassure me on that count. Try and give me a bit of an explanation as to your—

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

We need to be very clear on this issue. The person sitting before you, and also the government he represents, believes that respecting jurisdiction is of the outmost importance. I can tell you that under this government respecting Quebec's and other provinces' and territories' areas of jurisdiction goes without saying.

Now, that does not stop us however from working together with the provinces and municipalities. It is in this spirit of cooperation that we hope to be able to work alongside municipal elected representatives, and representatives from other orders of government, with a view to undertaking meaningful projects on behalf of Canadians taxpayers. There will be a spirit of both cooperation and partnership established.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I understand you have extended what the former government announced in its budget. You're aware that municipalities and provinces are asking you for long-term funding for up to the next 15 years.

Do you think you might announce the good news on June 4 for example when you address the Federation of Canadian Municipalities? And tell them that the program will be extended and that people will be able to count on this funding for the next 15 years?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Sir, you're fully aware that in our government's budget speech, the Minister of Finance, in a document dealing with the taxation system, equalization and rebalancing the federation, entrusted me with the mandate to report and make recommendations to the Minister of Finance by the end of the year so that in terms of the infrastructure, we will have a predictable, long-term and stable instrument just like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and other stakeholders called for.

I will consult with municipal authorities on the matter. Of course, we are discussing the gas tax, as well as other issues. And, I intend to make recommendations to the government on this file after consulting with community stakeholders.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

My final question, Mr. Chairman, is about Canada Post, but not on the work of the CEO.

As you are aware, Minister, there is a moratorium on the closure of rural post offices. However, the fact is, Canada Post is still looking at the possibility of closures. Currently, it is even looking at the possibility of closing post offices in some urban areas.

Minister, given that a moratorium is in place, would you be prepared to instruct Canada Post to, effective immediately, cease all studies on the closure of rural post offices subject to the moratorium, and perhaps even consider broadening the moratorium to effectively put an end to all discussions concerning the closure of urban post offices without prior analysis in consultation with community residents?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

In the 38^th Parliament, I think that this committee or perhaps another House of Commons committee, if I'm not mistaken, had sought a moratorium on the closure of post offices.

One of the first things I told the chair of the board of directors of Canada Post was that this was not at all the government's intention. I also understand parliamentarians' desire to see the moratorium lifted.

So, I'd like to reassure you, sir, that nothing has changed and that the same policy is still in effect. And I'd have no problem reiterating it if need be.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

You'll have the opportunity later, because she'll be here before the committee. We'd be pleased to hear that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I'm glad to be able to meet you for the first time. I know that you have a lot of experience and a great many skills.

That being said, I should say to start off with that when you've talked about collaboration--and in my case my office has been trying for two months to have a meeting with you--I believe that collaboration has to work both ways. I also am aware of the marine workers who have been essentially pushed out of a position of collaboration and consultation on changes that may happen in the marine industry. I know that they have written to you on this, and I hope you will receive their concerns and reintegrate them into any changes that may be coming down the pike when it comes to the marine industry.

Those are my comments. I have four specific questions relating to safety, because my impression has been over the first few months in your mandate that safety comes last in terms of your concerns. I'll start off with the issue of the Queen of the North. I wrote to you about the Queen of the North and you did respond--I appreciate that--indicating in terms of any remedial measures that might be taken for ferries on the west coast that:

Until the Transportation Safety Board completes its investigation and arrives at a comprehensive evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the accident, it would be pre-emptive to identify changes to specific processes and/or criteria.

That's the letter you've written to me in terms of the Queen of the North--that we have to await the Transportation Safety Board. Yet when this committee has clearly expressed its point of view that any changes to flight attendant ratios need to wait until the Transportation Safety Board reports back on the Air France accident, the first-year anniversary of which is coming up in August, it seems that Transport Canada and your ministry is moving ahead changes to those flight attendant ratios.

My point is simply this. Given that Transport Canada's own documents indicate that there is a clear difference in safety standards, if we make those changes to flight attendant ratios, will you commit today to not making any changes to flight attendant ratios until we receive that Transportation Safety Board report on the Air France accident? That's my first question.

My second question is around Bill C-6, which deals both with increasing secrecy, exempting airline safety reports from the Access to Information Act, and the fact that now for over a year the civil aviation data reporting systems have not been accessible to the public. Would you not agree with me that Canadians have a right to know if airlines are unsafe, and would you commit today to restoring the civil aviation data reporting system so that the public can be aware when there are safety violations?

My third question is around the issue of the ships out on the west coast--the sinking of the Queen of the North, a single-compartment vessel. What steps has your ministry taken to ensure the safety of the remaining single-compartment boats that are plying the west coast under the banner of B.C. Ferries?

Finally, on rail safety, I could not disagree with you more when you say that the situation has improved. In 2005 we had the largest number of railway accidents that we've had in a decade. We have seen that of those 1,246 accidents, 215 of them involved toxic and dangerous materials. One of them happened in my riding. The Toronto Star has found that Transport Canada, the rail industry's regulator, is either unable or unwilling to prosecute the railways. We've only had seven prosecutions since 1999 under the Railway Safety Act. This is during a period in which we had over 7,600 railway accidents.

My question is very simple. How many Canadians died in 2005 as a result of railway accidents, and how many deaths does it take before this government acts to address the issue? We have called for a public inquiry. I know that other parties have as well. We believe it's essential. Why will you not act on that?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'll tell my honourable colleague first of all that I'm very sorry that I wasn't able to meet with him. At the first possible opportunity I will set up a meeting with you and make sure that's done.

On your questions regarding the Queen of the North, safety, and railway issues, if you do not mind, I will call upon Mr. Gerard McDonald, Mr. Preuss, and also John Forster, who will be able to answer on rail and the other issues.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

It's specifically on the flight attendant ratios.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

We'll get to that too. I'll get you all those answers, sir.

So on the Queen of the North, Mr. McDonald.