Transport Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

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

Except that if they are private companies... As you know, tenants are not the ones who will be spending the most on security. That will always be the last of their concerns if they are facing financial difficulties. So that is why we want to ensure that security is complete. I think that we still need journalists to verify that. You probably agree with me. Your entire system must be monitored.

[Marc Grégoire]

Journalists can monitor the system, provided that they comply with the regulations that are in force. A journalist cannot break the law just because he is a journalist. I am making a general statement.

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

For example, if a journalist obtains a CATSA uniform because management or administration at CATSA lets uniforms lying around, the journalist is not committing a crime, he is taking things that are available.

[Marc Grégoire]

A few years ago, there was a problem with uniforms. The CEO of CATSA — who you will meet later this week — put measures in place following the incidents. CATSA exercises very tight control over its uniforms. The uniforms were modified a few years ago, and the uniform that the journalist found recently was from the old series, the first series.

Moreover, it is not a uniform that gives someone access to a restricted zone. You cannot access a restricted zone, even if you are wearing a uniform.

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

Except if flaws are discovered, openings in the fences, and other things like that. That is why I am saying that your monitoring is OK, but... I understand, but what I want to say is that perhaps you do not have enough staff to assess the state of the security system at all times. That is essentially what I want to get you to say.

You are telling me that you have enough staff, but the more you say it, you are digging yourself deeper. I am sorry—

[Marc Grégoire]

No, I do not want to dig myself deeper, nor do I want to tell you that we have enough staff. Look at our record over the past five years. Since the budget of December 2001, budgets for aviation security, like maritime and rail, have increased substantially. No other group at Transport Canada is benefited from such substantial budget increases.

Is that enough? I do not think so. Will there be other requests, other programs announced in the future regarding security? I think so.

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

At the Port in Montreal, employees are asking themselves how the money was spent, because for them, on the ground, nothing has changed. Indeed, until recently, they inspected empty containers, and today, the directive is to no longer do so since the carriers will do it themselves. So for them, more money has not been invested in security, except for the equipment that has been purchased and that they have seen. But for the rest, there has not been more money invested to enforce security, because fewer people are assigned to site inspection.

So I am going to ask you the same question; and you are probably provide me with the same details. Where did the $930 million go that was designed to enhance port security?

[Marc Grégoire]

First of all, that amount is the total amount invested by the government since December 2001. It was at that time that an initial amount of $60 million was announced, followed by another amount of $172.5 million in January 2003. Those sums were invested in maritime security throughout Canada, not just for Transport Canada, but for the entire government of Canada.

So part of that money went to the coast guard to buy new ships for the Great Lakes...

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

Could you send us the details?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Sorry, Mr. Laframboise.

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

We are asking you to provide the committee with the details as regards the $930 million.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to gladly give you another opportunity.

Mr. McGuinty, for five minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You'll forgive me, Monsieur Ranger and colleagues, but Monsieur Ranger, I'd like to go back to the light rail question. This is a pretty important question on which I'd like to help you help us. Maybe you can help us understand and get to the bottom of what took place here.

The Treasury Board President convened a contractor, Siemens, an international corporation, with whom the federal government has no privity of contractual relationship. He convened that contractor to his boardroom offices and met with him personally. He then took details of the contract, a $200 million contract that your department funded, and distributed details of that contract to the media.

I need you to help me understand. In your thirty-odd years, Monsieur Ranger, of working in the federal government, now as a deputy minister for however many years at Transport Canada funding infrastructure projects, have you ever heard of such an occurrence?

[Louis Ranger]

I honestly cannot comment on the details you mentioned, but I can tell you I've been deputy for five years and I've been in the public service for 32 years. Every day, every week, during those 32 years, I have seen the Treasury Board ask an awful lot of questions about submissions they receive, and I've seen many times the Treasury Board, after their own review, turn down proposals.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Have you seen Treasury Board presidents or ministers in the past or your transport ministers ever meet with a third-party contractor?

[Louis Ranger]

I cannot comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would guess that, yes, Mr. Ranger, would be unable--

[Louis Ranger]

I cannot comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

--to make that comment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay, let me try another tack then.

In the interests of transparency, are you now expected to give new instructions to Vancouver or Toronto or Edmonton that they ought to re-examine the contribution agreements between your department, the federal government, and their light rail projects as a result of that decision taken by the Treasury Board president?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, these are questions that the minister should be answering, and quite frankly, Mr. McGuinty had an opportunity to ask that question if he felt it was important to know.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I think you're wrong. I'll wait for the chairman, but I think you're wrong, Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Every one of the questions that have been asked--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

These are estimates questions.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Ranger has been asked to answer questions that really are not appropriate for him to answer, and he's indicated himself that he's not prepared to answer them.

I trust that the line of questioning will not continue in that direction, Mr. Chair, and I would await your ruling on that.