Transport Committee on June 1st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

Congratulations on your appointment. Welcome to the committee, and welcome to the officials who are part of the large crowd that has been drawn by the star power or salaries, one or the other.

I would like to explore the comments you made with regard to your interpretation of your mandate, specifically that the government has tasked you with leading discussions with provincial and territorial governments that will help define the federal infrastructure, predictable funding, and so on. In terms of the predictability of funding and so on, that has been a long-sought exercise, and I would be supportive.

However, that plus the reference to respect for jurisdiction causes me to be a little concerned about the question of having a seat at the table. In the modern Canada, there has been a modernization of the relationship between Canada and the municipalities, one that is welcomed, I think, by the municipalities.

Earlier this year, a senator in the other place identified, in fact, the inappropriateness of some of that relationship between the Government of Canada and municipalities, which causes municipalities to be quite concerned that they may lose their place at the table.

I'd like to be reassured that it is appropriate for the Government of Canada to negotiate arrangements with municipalities around a national purpose on the environment and so on, and that it can be done directly with municipalities without being in contravention of the Constitution.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for your question, honourable colleague. It's an important question, and it takes me back. I've spent more time as a town councillor than as an elected official to other orders of government.

You of course get extremely frustrated when you're sitting at the town council level and you realize that your concerns are not listened to, necessarily, and that you have problems putting forward schemes, whether they deal with urban transit or waterways or sewage systems.

A few years ago I petitioned the FCM very strongly, as did many other elected officials, and of course that organization petitioned the government. And I was very pleased to see the openness the Government of Canada afforded municipalities. I think that on a basis of partnership, on a basis of cooperation, we can continue to move forward.

I think that all levels of government are very cognizant of that approach. So I, for one, and I repeat what I said before in French, do not intend to step on anybody's foot to make sure that we are committed and are able to move forward on sustainable communities and are able to get that money to our infrastructure projects, which matter mostly at the local level, yes, but also at the other levels. I do not envisage in any way, shape, or form any problems from that perspective.

My opening remarks do not exclude any possibility of having open and frank discussions with everybody. But of course at the end of the day, the provinces, which have their responsibilities and their jurisdictions, must be able to play out their roles.

You know as well as I do, colleague, that in some provinces, for instance, it is more important for the provincial government to be able to do it. In other provinces, clearly, there's been another way of doing things. For instance, the City of Toronto deals directly with the Government of Canada, and there doesn't seem to be any problem. The Government of Ontario accepts that fully. In other provinces, funds are administered by the provincial associations, by regrouped municipalities. I think particularly of Ontario, also, and I think B.C. is similar to that. Alberta, as I mentioned before, would be in line with that kind of thinking.

Canada is diverse. Canada's way of doing things is a little different, and I am certainly going to respect that.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Do you envision an arrangement with the municipalities on the strategic infrastructure fund? Let me add to that question by asking why the strategic infrastructure fund wasn't renewed this fiscal year.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

It was.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

No, it wasn't for this fiscal year. The money is for next year.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

We're preparing the budget, so it's renewed for next year, then.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Well, we just had one, actually.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I know, and you'll recall this is the third tranche of the infrastructure fund.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I recall very well. The reality is the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund was renewed but there's no funding until next year. I think you've written to the Telegraph-Journal, for instance, in New Brunswick, talking about your desire to do the harbour cleanup, but there isn't any money. That's the decision the government took not to renew this fiscal year the funding for the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund--

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

It gives us the time, colleague, to be able to prepare and to go forward with the discussions that I took a couple of minutes to explain to you. I thought it was extremely important to be able to discuss with the provinces and discuss with the municipalities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Minister. I'm pleased to meet you today.

You said earlier that you looked at the previous Parliament's Standing Committee on Transports work. I was one of its members.

I'd like to come back to a point which, in our opinion, is very important. I'm referring to air safety and security, and more specifically, the ratio of flight attendants, which we discussed in the previous Parliament. On November 22, if my information is correct, we voted unanimously on a resolution that any legislative amendment would be studied by the Standing Committee on Transport before being adopted or published in the official Gazette. I know that your officials are working actively on this file.

Can you assure me that we will have an opportunity to discuss this in committee before anything is made official?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, sir, for your welcome.

I should point out from the outset that consultation on the implementation of regulations is an extremely complex and drawn-out process. In the case of flight attendants in particular, the process was started some time ago and it is ongoing. I don't intend to reappear before the committee. I intend to let this process unfold. The outcome of this consultation will be made known once it is over.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

But before a final decision is made, if it could be referred back to committee so that we can assess—

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

No, sir. I don't intend to reappear before this committee to discuss the matter. The committee has already given its opinion on the issue. This is a far broader consultative process which has been embarked upon now.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

This is an example of a committee decision you don't seem to respect.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

This isn't necessarily flouting the committee's authority. This is a regulatory process. We need to ensure that every regulation adopted under the portfolio for which I am responsible goes through a tried and true process, and I maintain its integrity.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I've noted your response.

I'd like to broach another issue. Bill C-47 from the previous Parliament concerned Air Canada and the whole issue of respecting both official languages. This is important to us given that Air Canada and its numerous subsidiaries were privatized and it's now harder to make sure both Canada's official languages are respected. Many complaints have been lodged on this matter. The bill wasn't adopted.

Do you intend to reintroduce the bill in the near future so that this situation is resolved before it gets any worse?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I was made aware of this issue by the Official Languages Commissioner when I met her a month ago, before her annual report was presented. She told me that the previous Parliament had considered Bill C-47, dealing with this issue, but that it died on the Order Paper. I'm now looking at all the options and I'll make my position known on this issue in the upcoming weeks.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I would like to hear about your department's philosophy with regard to public transit in Canada as a whole, while taking provincial jurisdictions into consideration.

Do you have solution to propose? There is already a sales tax on gasoline meant for infrastructures and public transit. Do you want to find a new solution to improve public transit as a whole, as this is a sustainable development solution?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

You are right to emphasize this. Public transit includes car pooling and all the types of transit that you could possibly imagine, as well as regional transit. I have in mind the Conseil intermunicipal de transport des Basses Laurentides in Quebec—you are familiar with this organization, directed brilliantly by Mr. Élie Fallu, a former colleague from the National Assembly.

The negotiations and measures we are about to undertake demonstrate that public transit is a priority for this government. In the budget, we provided an amount of $1.3 billion for public transit, as a part of our commitment to further decongestion, reduce greenhouse gases, etc.

We are determined to carry on in this vein. Just like you, I represent a rural riding. When, for instance, someone leaves Maniwaki to see a dentist in Gatineau, this obviously requires some flexibility, there must be a commitment from the Regional County Municipality and other public authorities.

I think that I will be able to help develop public transit with the funds that will be allocated.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, we are pleased to have you with us today and to see how open you are in responding to the committee's questions.

In your presentation, you insisted on sustainable infrastructures, and given the fact that the transport industry is a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, we might also, like the other sectors, make an effort to reduce these greenhouse gases. We have a special role to play in this respect.

I represent Lévis—Bellechasse, where the biggest Canadian shipyard is found. For shipbuilding, we need marine transport policies that create a favourable playing field for competition. This is also a means of transportation that helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I would like to know what you think of marine transport in Canada in general. Are you in favour of promoting marine transportation so that it can also contribute to progress in this sector?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for your question.

I know that you are involved in these matters. You represent your riding with great energy.

You raise the issue of transportation over short distances. Whether it be the St. Lawrence River or other navigable waterways on this continent, this is a very useful source of alternative solutions in transportation.

I had the opportunity to chair the first North American Marine Conference—Towards a Shortsea Shipping Strategy for the North American Continent, which was held in Vancouver. Representatives from Mexico were there, as well as the American Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Mineta. We agreed to continue implementing policies and action plans. We believe in the future of marine transport.

I had the opportunity to make these statements again not only before representatives of the Canadian industry but also the Quebec industry. I told them that we intend to go forward with measures complementary to those implemented by the United States and that will also help sustain our national grid.

In 2002, the Quebec government tabled a policy on coastal shipping. Coastal shipping in Canadian waters might be an excellent way to relieve decongestion on quite a few highways.

These are options that we must consider very carefully, perhaps not for the immediate future, but certainly in the middle and long term.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I will tell my people at the shipyard to get ready to build ships.