Transport Committee on June 1st, 2006

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

It might be premature, sir.

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

My second question, Mr. Cannon, also deals with a very sustainable means of transportation, namely the railways.

The previous government went about privatizing the railway network rather abruptly. This privatization created problems for the users of marshalling yards.

In the past, the government made several efforts that never produced results. For instance, the person responsible for my office in Lévis lives in Charny, and she often sleeps alone, because her spouse goes to sleep in the basement so as to avoid the very loud noises.

I would like to know whether you have thought of taking any steps to remedy this.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Well, we are not going all the way down into people's basements!

Bill C-11 has provisions that favour public transit and that help to solve conflicts between railway owners and users. The question concerns those in this room who have most likely already received complaints from citizens regarding train whistles at railway crossings. This is also a part of the bill.

With your support, I think that we can make quite a bit of headway toward solving these problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Minister, congratulations again on your new position. I look forward to seeing you before this committee on issues of interest to us.

I want to address the issue on page 4 of your presentation today. You made reference to providing new federal funding of $8.5 billion for a variety of infrastructure programs. You mention the Pacific gateway initiative. I am particularly interested in that.

You comment on the next page that, “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.” Of course that is what Pacific gateway is about.

My concern is that I am wondering about the details of the moneys that you're going to be putting into Pacific gateway, and whether those moneys will in fact be coming from other infrastructure programs that were targeted for other purposes--for municipal or rural, for example--in the areas. I would not want to see in my case, in the province of British Columbia, that money drawn from other funds when the original intention was that these would come through Pacific gateway.

In the previous government I worked with Minister Emerson, when he was still Minister Emerson, on the issue of the gateway. We committed $590 million over a five-year period, with $190 million for initial programs and $400 million to be determined as priorities were decided by the stakeholders in the area.

Your government's plan for the Pacific gateway is some $239 million over that five years. It talks about $590 million over eight years, but there is a gap there of some $351 million in the first five years.

When I asked this question in the House of your colleague, Minister Emerson, his comment was that, first of all, if more money.... He suggested a lot of these projects may not have been able to go ahead at the same timing--that was their supposition, but that wasn't my understanding when we discussed this initially--and if money was needed, it would be made available. I would like to know where it would come from.

Second, the suggestion was that there was infrastructure money, and I see the reference again in your comments. Where is that money going to come from?

Your comment about the global supply chain mentioned that it is a crucial element. I would point out to you that two areas in particular will make the gateway successful. The gateway is a pan-western Canada initiative; in fact, it is Canada-wide. It is the access to the Pacific Rim for all of Canada, so it is not just a British Columbia or Vancouver or Prince Rupert issue. To make that successful, we need to have the trucking routes to be able to move goods and services. Some the of the gateway money committed by the previous government was for some projects early on. Are those projects still planning to go, in terms of transport? I am referring to the rail grade separations and the Pitt River bridge, for example.

The other issue is rail infrastructure. We need to ensure that rail companies.... I met recently with the Railway Association of Canada. They are concerned about a decision about policies that would enable them to be competitive and efficient. We have to serve both the Fairview port in Prince Rupert and the Port of Vancouver.

We have a problem now: the capacity of new container business growth on the Pacific Rim is such that if we don't provide for the growth in those areas, and the rail systems to connect and move the goods to other parts of Canada and indeed to the United States, we will have that container business bypass us and go to the U.S. ports and Mexico. The U.S. ports are already expanding in anticipation of that. We don't want to lose that opportunity for Canada.

I would appreciate your comments on that.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you very much for your remarks. I find in you another person, part of that brotherhood from the municipal arena, who is very sympathetic, not only to the issues that you've raised, but also to the issues that deal particularly with our communities.

Just to reassure you, the $591 million is new money. It doesn't impinge on any of the infrastructure money announced in the budget. It's new money, and it will be spent over an eight-year period.

The reason it has been set up in that fashion is we feel land claims and environmental assessments might push back the completion of some projects. So it's a more realistic approach to moving these projects forward.

You have mentioned previous projects in your comments. We're reviewing the mix of projects that were there before. In the short term my colleague, Minister Emerson, will be able to announce the details of what is going to occur in this file, and how we're going to go about it.

You're absolutely correct when you mention it's not just a Vancouver or a British Columbia issue. It's a gateway for all Canada to access markets and the gateway initiative is a very fine example of how we can better our skills and better our ways of doing things, so we have unimpeded access to these markets in a seamlessly integrated fashion.

That will also of course include a significant role for the railways in this project. Once again we will be able to have a taste of all this when my colleague announces the details of the project.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Do you have any indication from your colleague when that might be?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

No. I'll leave that up to him. I don't want to get cornered into a response where circumstances might prevail that it's not possible to announce it when I've said it would be announced.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I go back to the $8.5 billion for the Pacific gateway you mentioned in your speech on page 4. Is the $590 million included in that $8.5 billion, or is that $8.5 billion over and above?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

It may be included.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

And I know it's not $8.5 billion for the gateway, but what part of the $8.5 billion is for the gateway?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

My people tell me it might be included in that amount.

Mr. Ranger.

[Louis Ranger]

Yes, in fact the text of the speech itself says it includes the Pacific gateway.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes, and I'm just wondering how much. Of that $8.5 billion it's only the $590 million, and of that we're looking in terms of only $19 million in 2006. Is that correct?

[Louis Ranger]

Yes, but I will check, sir. But I would assume the $8.5 billion would include the full allotment of $591 million, not just the four years shown in the budget, but the eight years.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The eight years.

[Louis Ranger]

It would include the eight years.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

And perhaps you can get back to Mr. Bell.

[Louis Ranger]

Yes, we'll do that, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, in your opening comments you discuss the consultation process with the stakeholders and the need for more air liberalization. Could elaborate on this a little bit and let us know the status of bilateral air relations between Canada and other countries, as well as commenting on any current negotiations and any agreements that may need to be updated?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Yes. Thank you for your question, colleague.

As you know, as a government we are committed to an open skies policy. It's our firm belief the more bilateral or multilateral agreements signed with other carriers, the more that will directly benefit the paying customer. That's our firm belief in an open-market policy, clearly driven by the market.

As you know, we have signed an agreement with the United States. That agreement will come into effect on September 1 of this year. We have signed an agreement with Great Britain more recently, and that agreement will be coming into effect....

That agreement with Great Britain will be coming into effect when?

[A voice]

September 1.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

September 1 also. But I can probably table to the committee a list of where we want to go, who we intend to negotiate with, and how we want to go forward on that basis, if that's fine with you, Mr. Chair.