Transport Committee on May 8th, 2008

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

When we were talking about infrastructure, in your comments earlier you mentioned that half the funding in terms of this--$17.6 billion, to be exact--is going to municipalities. This goes out in terms of GST and gas rebate.

I'll comment that during the break I visited 13 or 14 municipalities in my rural riding and took to them what it actually meant to them in terms of sustainable funding. As you know, that was one of the key issues wanted by not only the municipalities of our regions but also by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities.

I just wanted to tell you that I actually relayed to them that next year the gas tax would be double. It's something that seemed very positive, because I know, as someone who has been a municipal head of council for a few years--as you have been, Mr. Minister--how important it is to have sustainable funding they can count on. That was the message that came back to me: it's sustainable funding they can count on and build on. If they don't do it this year, they can build it up; in fact, they can borrow back on it. That's just a comment I heard in terms of the funding and the flexibility, and I was asked by a number of people to pass on to you how important it has been.

I'd like to shift gears a little bit, if I could, to my next question. This has to do with the Railway Safety Act review that this committee has gone through. I think the committee was very successful at it. It was tabled on March 7 of this year. It contained 56 recommendations; the committee actually took those recommendations, which we endorsed, and then added as an addendum particular issues that we saw.

You've now had close to a couple of months to reflect on it. I would like your comments. What sort of response do you have in terms of that report?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you very much, colleague.

When we got here, one of the most important issues was railway safety. We had seen an increase in the number of car derailments, accidents, and environmental problems, and the respect of the regulations that were in place.... We determined that it was important to proceed with a review. I believe all the colleagues around the table here were in agreement with that way of doing things.

We then called upon a former Minister of Transportation, Doug Lewis, to chair that committee. As you mentioned, he did table his report not long ago. Among the things he noted was the need for an increase in communications among all parties who are involved in the field of railway safety. Whether they're from the union labour association--the person who works in that area--or whether they're the boss of the company or his representative, there has to be an advisory panel. I think that was one of the major components in Doug Lewis's recommendations.

We immediately brought together people from all sectors of the industry. All were people who were involved in the issue of railway safety. We brought that board together. As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity last week to sit down with them and thank them for their participation.

I clearly feel that was one of the things that was lacking. It was among other recommendations, of course, but that was one of the sectors in which we needed to be able to be more proactive, so what we have now established is a permanent way of speaking with people on issues that affect their industry. That is extremely important, because it will help us as parliamentarians to move forward with other measures that need to be put in place.

Having said that, I think the general gist of what we needed to do was to be able to look at the regulations that are there and see how to tweak them in some ways, how to modernize them so that they reflect what we want as parliamentarians, as Canadians, in terms of railway safety and how we should go about it.

I think we're on the right course. We're going in the right direction, not only with this advisory panel but also with the recommendations Mr. Lewis put forward in his group.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for the opportunity to ask a few questions.

I'll touch first of all on issues relating to the Asia Pacific gateway, for which I'm the critic for our party. Then I'd like to ask a question on the rail study. That will relate to one of the items that came out of Mr. Lewis's report—that is, the need for Transport Canada to have additional financial resources to deal adequately with the issue of rail safety, and what plans you have for that.

I would like to ask another question regarding air transport. You talked about Blue Sky. I'm concerned about improved destination status not coming to Canada for the more open transportation and tourism arrangements and the air travel between China and Canada.

My final question will relate to infrastructure. I've heard questions in the past from some of the members across the table on infrastructure money that would be available—for example, for community centres. I know I was directed to you. On the north shore of Vancouver, we have a large Persian community, Iranian immigrants who have been asking and there have been commitment statements made by Minister Emerson and others that they were looking for money. What progress has been made on that?

To my main question, which relates to the gateway, I'm noticing in parts I and II of your estimates, the funding contributions on page 24-5 for 2008-09, that for the Asia Pacific gateway you're showing $82 million. You show that for 2007-08 you had estimates of $43 million.

My understanding is that in terms of the comparable for the five-year period when we as Liberals committed to the gateway fund, we had talked about $591 million. You had $552 million, which I realize you've stretched out now to 2014 to hit $1 billion.

But for 2008-09, I was seeing a commitment from you of $158 million. If I add this up and if I go to section 2, part III, page 13, I see another $9,700,000, which would only add up to about $92 million. So you're about $66 million shy, and I'm wondering why.

I'm looking at what looks like projections of planned spending in 2009-10 of $142 million, and only $93 million in 2010-11. It looks like you're falling short of the commitment there, and I'd like you to comment on that.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

As it relates to those numbers, it is basically cashflow management. The government's commitment has been, and is, quite clear: we're spending $1 billion on the Asia Pacific gateway. Of course, as those projects come on line, as the contribution agreements are signed with our partners, we start spending the money. But there is a firm commitment. Budget 2007 indeed indicated that it's $1 billion that we're putting there. So whether it be the south perimeter road or whether it be other projects, that's the amount of money that this government has committed toward those projects.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

So you're suggesting that the commitment will be there. In the amounts that are shown, although the cashflow is less than this year's, the total commitment—

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I can let my officials respond to that, Mr. Morency or Ms. Burr.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

They can provide it to us, just so I can get—

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I will be more than pleased to provide that information, if you wish.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Could you talk about the rail commitment? Is your government going to be committing additional funds to Transport Canada as requested by Mr. Lewis?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

As I mentioned before, we've already acted on that. The deputy and his team, as well as everybody in the department who is involved in this, are looking at the recommendations. We are quite satisfied with the recommendations, and we are now looking at ways we can implement them.

As you know as well as I do, there are procedures in the government that we have to follow, but I am extremely satisfied with the recommendations that Mr. Lewis put forward.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

What about community centres and funding of their infrastructure?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Yes, and you also asked about the air travel issue.

The deputy says that a lot of parts of that deal with foreign affairs. So if there's a specific question, Mr. Bell, particularly on the Blue Sky policy, I'd be more than happy to answer it, maybe in the next round.

On the recreation and community centres, of course those are components of the Building Canada plan that weren't necessarily categorized. If we lead in from the previous one, there are elements that we've increased. We alluded to this before, and I believe Mr. Shipley spoke about the fact that the transfer of gas tax is now permanent, as determined by the Parliament of Canada and accepted by the government, which we've gone forward with. I think it gives a lot more leverage to a lot of our communities across the country, because, as Mr. Shipley was mentioning, communities and municipalities can now go out and borrow based on the fact that of lot of them now have more stable long-term financial sustainability.

But we haven't closed any doors, so I'm not excluding anything as we move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the minister for appearing today.

I want to commend the minister for the recent announcement in Windsor with respect to the Windsor-Essex Parkway proposal from DRIC. I want to commend him for reiterating the federal government's important funding commitment to that project. The initial down payment of $400 million, and a commitment to up to 50% of the eligible capital costs for, essentially, the extension of a provincial highway, is critical to an end-to-end solution for new capacity at that corridor. It's the single most important piece of infrastructure in Canada, in my opinion, and our commitment represents the largest infrastructure investment in a single project since World War II, if I'm not mistaken. That's going to help transform our economy.

Having said that, I want to shift to one of the more significant areas this committee has dealt with, and that's railway safety. You've indicated that your initial reaction to the report was positive. Building on your initial reaction to the report, this report has 56 recommendations. That's an awful lot of recommendations. My concern is that with so many recommendations, we could wind up engaging in an exercise of checklisting by bureaucrats, without an awful lot of focus.

I want to bring the question back to the issue of our focus in moving forward with that report. My understanding of the heart of that railway safety report—and I think it was somewhere around page 73 or 74 of the report—was in getting to stage five of the evaluation tool, which is full implementation of SMS both for the rail industry and the regulator, Transport Canada. Achieving that would put us in a position of having the highest possible safety in the rail sector. Mr. Lewis agreed with that, when I questioned him.

Mr. Minister, of all those recommendations put forward by the panel, what do you think is the most important? What's the most important focus to come out of this report, so that we can actually get some things achieved? You can't serve two masters, and you certainly can't serve 56 masters. Where do you see the focus of this report going for Transport Canada?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I think that on findings and the 56 recommendations, if I were to give you a sense of where I thought the whole meat and potatoes should be, it is in the partnership between the parties involved in this. I think that Doug Lewis mentioned the importance of strengthening that partnership.

Why do we want to strengthen the partnership? It's because we're talking about safety, and, as you know, we're looking at safety management systems. This committee is more familiar with that issue.

Why do we want to do that? I'll repeat exactly what I said before--that it's an additional layer of security, an additional layer of safety that we're providing Canadians, as well as members of the industry.

The whole crux of where we want to go articulates itself around that partnership. That's the reason, fundamentally, we brought together that panel. We brought together people from the industry to be able to sit down with us. Yes, there are differences. Sure, there are opinions that are different from other opinions that are sought; people have views and they express things differently, given of course their background and where they're coming from.

So it's important as parliamentarians, but also as a government, to be able to sit people down and to ask what are those issues and how can we best address them, and to get communications flowing again, to get the partnership strengthened, and to make sure that the initiatives we're putting forward through SMS are well understood, and well committed to and well engaged in. And fundamentally, I believe we'll answer a lot of the other issues that are there.

So if you're asking me what is the overriding and overarching focus, it's the fostering, promoting, and building of a stronger partnership.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

With respect to the full implementation of SMS on the air side, Bill C-7 talked about a system of non-punitive reporting. Can we expect something similar with respect to the rail industry? Is there some involvement or work by Transport Canada in that direction?

Obviously, the goal of fully implementing SMS is to capture the most information possible, so that we can become predictive about where the challenges are for rail safety. Key to that, as we've acknowledged in our legislative amendments for the air sector, was something along the lines of non-punitive reporting. Can we expect something similar for the rail industry?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

As we move forward, at this juncture, what we fundamentally need to look at, Mr. Watson, is what we could call a culture change. We need to be able to say that the person who has come forward and said we have to fix such and such a thing will in fact do it without any threat or any notion of being punished in some way, shape, or form. That has to be done from the highest levels to the lowest levels in any organization.

I think that comes back to what I was mentioning before in terms of the partnership. We don't want to come forward and punish somebody, because that person is actually helping us promote the system. We want to be able to encourage them to do it; we want to be able to thank them for doing it; and we want to be able to say that we do have an excellent regime in the country.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cannon, welcome to the Committee and thank you for being here. I also want to thank the other witnesses appearing today.

My question has to do with an item in the budget wherein the Minister of Finance included money for a rail line to Peterborough—which happened to go through the Minister of Finance's own riding.

Given this is my first committee meeting on main estimates, I am wondering if you could help me find that, as I didn't see a reference to it and am not sure where it comes in.

I would just add that when it came out in the budget, there were certain concerns about a lack of costing and a lack of analysis in establishing it as an important budget item. If you could elaborate on that, it would be very helpful.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

First of all, I'm pleased to be here and to have the opportunity of conversing and exchanging with you, Madam Hall Findlay.

I'll just point out that you're alluding to the capital trust fund that we put forward, $500 million that was extended across the country on a pro rata basis based on population. The share for Ontario is an amount of money that will be directed to the Peterborough line. What we've agreed to with the Province of Ontario is that a joint study will be undertaken to be able to maximize the data and get the information.

We as a government have committed to put our share of money for that project. We feel that as the Golden Horseshoe area of Greater Toronto expands, there is an increasing requirement to support and foster both intercity transportation and urban transit. In that vein, it's important that we celebrate the amount of money--$500 million across the country--to be able to do that.

It's a budgetary item. We've set up the capital trust. The deputy has worked very hard to set the capital trusts up across the country, and I can report back that all of them have been signed. All of them have been agreed to, and we are going to move forward with the spending of that money.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I have two add-on questions.

One is that in your consultations with the Ontario government, has the Ontario government talked about possibilities other than just the Peterborough line? There are obviously some concerns about whether that is or should be a priority from a transportation and infrastructure perspective. It is important that we have those concerns addressed. That is one question.

Secondly, the Golden Horseshoe is important from a transportation infrastructure perspective, but there is a continuing conversation--and perhaps a need for continued further conversation--about high speed in the Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto corridor. Could you talk a little bit about where the government is in that regard? That would be very helpful.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

As we move forward I can report back to you, as I mentioned in my opening statement. Discussions with the Government of Ontario are going well, so the Building Canada plan will be able to look at components of some of the issues that are raised as priorities for the Government of Ontario as well as priorities for the Government of Canada and the province of Ontario. I believe we are making progress on that level.

On the Peterborough issue, I repeat that it is a joint study that is going to be undertaken by both the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario.

With regard to the issue of a high-speed rail link between Quebec City and Windsor, the Premier of Ontario, the Premier of Quebec, and the Government of Canada, through Transport Canada, will be trilaterally funding a committee whose responsibility will essentially be to go back to see whether there has been a modal shift since the last study was done in 1998, if I'm not mistaken, and the project costing was up in the vicinity of $20 billion. There is an agreement between the Premier of Ontario, the Premier of Quebec, and the Government of Canada to see whether we can update the information gathered back in 1998 so that we can have another determination--have another look at that file, so to speak, to see how it has evolved.

There are, of course, a number of new issues that appear. The climate change issue is extremely important in terms of protecting our environment. For instance, how should we go about making sure that Canadians who generally take one mode of transportation would probably be interested in taking another mode of transportation? Those are the kinds of questions that the premiers, as well as the Government of Canada, want to look at. We've given ourselves a timeline until December.... Deputy, when do we expect...? It's next year. It's approximately a $2 million study.

That's where we are on that one.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Finally, could we have a sense of the timing for when the money will actually be flowing, in terms of getting these agreements signed and actually...?