Transport Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon.

This is meeting number 24 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, considering today, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), main estimates, 2006-07.

For the advice of members, if everyone is satisfied at the end of today's meeting, we will be voting on certain parts of the estimates under the Department of Transport referred to the committee on Tuesday, April 25.

We're pleased to have the minister with us today, and I know he's done a lot of shuffling of his schedule and time, so I think we'll start as quickly as we possibly can. I'm told he has approximately an hour here. As a heads-up to the committee, I will try to stay as tight as I can to the seven-minute rule to allow everyone to put as many questions as possible.

Mr. Minister, welcome, and please proceed.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it's a pleasure to appear before you once again. Today, my officials and I are pleased to be here to discuss the 2006-07 main estimates for the new Transport, Infrastructure and Communities portfolio. During my first appearance before this committee in June, I described the responsibilities of this new portfolio that brings together Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada, along with sixteen crown corporations.

As I said then, the portfolio is a point of convergence for some of the most important issues facing Canada today, including the productivity of our economy, transportation safety and security, environmental sustainability, and the quality of life in our cities and communities, as supported by public infrastructure.

This government continues to work in that direction, in consultation with Canadians across the country, with industry and other stakeholders, the provinces and territories, and, of course, with all of you here today.

We have accomplished a great deal together. We have responded to pressure on our highways, borders and communities across Canada by making unprecedented investments in this country's transportation infrastructure.

Likewise, we have made serious investments to ensure that our transportation system — the backbone of the Canadian economy — remains among the safest and most secure in the world.

We have also worked toward a more sustainable transportation system and to help ensure that the air we breathe and the water we drink are healthy for generations to come. We continue to do this through direct program investment and through initiatives such as the Clean Air Act. Together, we are helping to improve the quality of life for all Canadians, but there is much more work to be done. Improving the spending in these main estimates will help us move in that direction.

As you know, the 2006-07 main estimates were tabled by the President of the Treasury Board on April 25 of this year, over six months ago, and reflect decisions taken by the previous government. The main estimates were tabled at that time to secure interim supply.

The estimates process is different this year. This government operated on Governor General warrants for the first 45 days of the 2006-07 fiscal year, and interim supply authority was provided to cover the next seven and a half months.

I'm here today to urge the committee to recommend that Parliament approve spending for the remaining three months of the fiscal year. Although the 2006-07 main estimates are essential for the delivery of key programs, they do not take into consideration this government's priorities that were announced in the last Speech from the Throne, Budget 2006, and reflected in the recently tabled supplementary estimates for 2006-07.

Therefore, the 2006-07 main estimates for the portfolio, which total $3.5 billion, are as follows: $1.4 billion for Transport Canada, $1.8 billion for the Office of Infrastructure Canada, $147.2 million for Canada Post Corporation, $26.8 million for the Canadian Transportation Agency, $91.4 million for the National Capital Commission, and $1.3 million for the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada.

Because we don't have time to go into all the numbers, I would instead like to briefly discuss the two major components of the portfolio, Transport Canada and of course Infrastructure Canada.

For Transport Canada, the 2006-2007 Main Estimates — $1.4 billion — are showing a net decrease of $75.4 million from the 2005-2006 Main Estimates.

They are two primary reasons for this decrease. First, there has been a decrease in contribution payments reflecting the end of the Port Divestiture Program. Second we have reached the final stages of the Strategic Highway Infrastructure program.

The reduction of $57 million for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority reflects the near completion of the original capital program for pre-board screening equipment and explosive detection systems. It also reflects an increase for expansion projects at the Vancouver and Toronto international airports.

In terms of increases, you will see an increase in operating expenditures of $37.3 million. This increase is the result of salary contracts settlements.

There is also an increase of $56.4 million for payment to Marine Atlantic Inc. — this funding is required to offset an operating shortfall.

Finally, of the $368 million in revenues, $300 million of that relates to airport lease and chattel revenues. This is based on the amended ground lease formula and the forgiveness of remaining chattel payments, according to the new National Airports Policy. It also includes repayment of deferred rent from 2005-2006.

Turning now to infrastructure, the renewal of our public infrastructure is one of those issues facing Canadian communities where the portfolio approach makes sense, especially with the act of collaboration and partnership with provincial-territorial-municipal governments and various stakeholders.

With 80% of Canadians living in an urban setting, global and domestic trade and past investments in infrastructure are exerting pressure on existing public infrastructure. Some of this pressure can be dealt with through improving current infrastructure, while in other cases we must begin anew. It means significant investment.

This government has taken the steps through commitments in the throne speech and Budget 2006 numbers, which I relayed to this committee during my last appearance.

In terms of today's main estimates, total funding being sought for infrastructure is $1.8 billion, up from $794 million in 2006-07, an increase of $1.1 billion. Colleagues, this increase is due to the inclusion of the second year of the gas tax fund, for a total of $593 million, and increased spending for existing and new projects approved up to these main estimates—$422 million—under existing infrastructure programs.

These include the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund, the border infrastructure fund, and the municipal rural infrastructure fund.

These main estimates also include a provision for $37 million in funding for the operations of Infrastructure Canada, which will cover salary for approximately 250 employees and related operating costs to ensure oversight and management of transfer payment programs.

The Minister has a number of other portfolio responsibilities that do not require any appropriations from Parliament and are therefore not displayed in the estimates. They include the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund, the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, the Pacific Pilotage Authority, the Atlantic Pilotage Authority, the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, the Blue Water Bridge Authority, Ridley Terminals Inc., the Federal Bridge Corporation, the Royal Canadian Mint and Subsidiary, and Canada Lands Company Limited.

Honourable colleagues and members, my limited time today does not allow me to go into detail regarding all the items on the list.

However, I believe the numbers I have been able to present today demonstrate the importance this government places on the priorities we have identified under this new portfolio.

Mr. Chairman, I would welcome the committee's questions on our overall approach, or on any of the specific measures contained in these estimates.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. McGuinty, for seven minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, thank you very much for attending this afternoon.

It's good to see you, gentlemen.

Mr. Minister, just before going ahead on a couple of fronts, I would like to put it to you now that it was wonderful of you to make it here this afternoon for an hour. I'm just wondering, though, if it's possible for you now to commit to come back to talk about the supplementary estimates before December 15, so that we can have a more fulsome discussion with respect to some of the changes I've just heard you speak about. Can you commit to come back to this committee for a full two-hour session on the supplementaries before December 15?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Likewise, I'm very happy to see you, Mr. McGuinty, and I'd be more than pleased to come back to listen to my colleagues and respond as best I can to the questions they will pose to me. So, yes, I'll do that before December 15, and I'm sure the chair will make the arrangements necessary.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Wonderful. That saves us a lot of time.

Can we dive right in on a few fronts, Mr. Minister? I want to talk to you first about safety and security.

I think most Canadians believe Transport Canada is responsible for the safety and security of air, marine, rail, and road modes of transportation. You've just spoken to that yourself in your preliminary remarks. In your RPP, your report on plans and priorities, which you released four weeks ago, you stated that the number one indicator of progress in this is a “High level of public confidence in transportation safety and security”. That's the number one indicator of progress.

Over the past nine months we've heard report after report undermine that confidence. We've had rail accidents, breaches of security at Trudeau Airport, and consequent threats of criminal attribution to the journalists who undertook those breaches. We've seen changes in regulations that have gone unexplained, to alleged irregular operation of organized crime in our airports.

From our perspective, and with all due respect, I think it's your job to assure the public that in fact safety is increasing, given your own view that it's the number one indicator. My estimation now is that the public confidence in security and safety in transport is low and decreasing.

You've also said you are “developing a comprehensive program for enhancing air cargo and airmail security” under your national security policy.

I have a couple of questions on this front, if I might, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, can you tell us how far along this comprehensive plan is? Will it be made public? When will it be made public? Are there any new major capital expenditures planned to improve aviation security?

My own research, for example, indicates that cargo scanners that are used now to scan everything crossing the Canada–U.S. border by rail could be deployed at our airports at a cost of about $2 million a piece. In the case of a large airport like YVR in Vancouver, they need maybe three or four, according to the president and CEO there, to get 100% screening of cargo that right now goes unchecked.

You've known about this since Senator Kenny's report. You've had almost ten months at the helm as the Minister of Transport, and you are “exploring the expansion of requirements for background checks to a broader range of transportation workers”, according to your RPP, on page 38. Let's be honest here, Mr. Minister. Is this actually a priority of the government? Is security and safety in rail and air and other modes a priority? If it is, can you reconcile what's been happening for the past ten months with your plans to do something in the future?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I welcome your question, colleague. As a matter of fact, I'm very happy and very proud to say that we are doing something about it.

I don't want to berate the colleagues here around the table by saying that for a certain number of years Senator Kenny has indeed been indicating that nothing was done in terms of air cargo security, and we are doing something about it. My predecessor, of course, was well aware of this issue and was unable to secure any funds to do it.

On your fundamental question asking whether we as a government are spending money to be able to shore up safety and security, the answer is yes. We have committed--and I need not go back to the numbers--close to $300 million this year in that sector. We are going to do it not only at our airports to make sure we screen and scan cargo that goes on board the aircraft, but we're also doing it in areas that deal with public transportation.

You are aware, as I am, that the incidents in Madrid and London were extremely worrisome for a lot of people who use urban transit in this country, so we have put together and funded a program--which we'll be announcing quite shortly, incidentally--whereby a large number of our major Canadian transit authorities will be able to access funds that will enable them to better provide safety and security to their passengers or to their ridership; that should be done incessantly. I'm quite proud, as a matter of fact, Mr. McGuinty, to be able to say that we've done something.

I think you also indicated, if I use your quote, that things had been done by the previous government. What we have to be able to do, if we use that as a baseline or benchmark, is say we've done more. I think we're awfully proud of what we're doing. I am still committed to using public safety as the necessary benchmark, because at the end of the day, it's the public that uses the air, it's the public that uses the transit authority, it's the public that uses the marine systems in this country. As parliamentarians, our responsibility is to make sure those people use these services in the proper way, yes, but in a safe manner too.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I think I have ten seconds for a question.

Mr. Minister, is CATSA's budget going up or down?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

If you were listening to my speech, you would understand that the CATSA budget is going down. It's going down from what your previous government had indicated. We are now at the end of the funding projects that enabled CATSA to be set up.

When we talk about that, we're talking about the assets that were there. CATSA now has purchased all those assets. We, incidentally, have given CATSA more money this year, to be able to go and purchase new equipment to accompany airport expansion. Globally speaking, the money is going down from what was there before, because they have attained those objectives.

Incidentally, I should point out, Mr. Chair, that we are in the process of completing a review of CATSA. I will be more than happy to share that information when it is made public so that we can all get onside together and use CATSA for basically what it should be doing--that is to say, the screening agency that has a mandate to make sure Canadians are safe when they get on board aircraft.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise is next.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have four questions. I will try to condense them so that I can get them answered.

I understand that it was the previous government that came out with these estimates and not you. That is why I have been unable to find any mention of compensation for the land expropriated at Mirabel, even though I have looked carefully through the document.

Minister, you promised that this issue will be resolved by the end of the summer, that is, by September 23rd. The liberal budget may not have included money for that settlement. In any case, when will the land be given back to the farmers?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Laframboise, I made a commitment to come back before the committee before December 15th to defend the supplementary estimates that will obviously accompany that document.

The government has a lot on its plate, but rest assured that we are making progress on that issue. I intend to be able to introduce it before the beginning of winter.

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

Very well. We will be keeping an eye on that, Minister.

Page 39 of the estimates indicates that $930 million has been invested toward marine security, including $115 million that was included in the 2004-05 fiscal year. You make that lofty statement that “Transport Canada will enhance transportation security through background checks and improve container security.”

You saw what happened. A Montreal port employee had the bright idea of inviting journalists so that they could see that containers were no longer being inspected and that there was no policy for that. The poor man lost his job.

Minister, this makes no sense, especially since Transport Canada has decided, among other things, to improve container security. Containers are no longer being inspected as they used to be.

Why? Is it because budgets have been cut? Are you going to ask the Port of Montreal to change its decision and to reinstate the employee so as to reassure the public that security at the Port of Montreal is being taken seriously, and especially container security?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I will answer your question in two parts, Mr. Laframboise.

To begin with, the Port of Montreal is responsible for managing its own activities. It therefore has full authority for handling human resources and problems that arise. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities cannot tell the management at port authorities what they should do when it comes to hiring or anything else.

Second, the investments that we have announced are aimed at enabling us to work with both the port authorities and the unions involved, so that port areas are accessible only to authorized personnel. The excellent cooperation that we are getting strengthens our security measures.

Regarding container inspection, I will ask the deputy minister or one of our experts here to speak further to that.

Mr. Grégoire will answer your question.

[Marc Grégoire, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport]

Good afternoon, Mr. Laframboise and Minister.

Each port must have a safety plan approved by Transport Canada, but there are no standards or regulations requiring the inspection of empty containers.

A number of ports do not inspect those containers, including the Port of Montreal, which has stopped doing it. They are not required to do so under the current regulations.

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

Despite the fact that all sorts of things have been found in empty containers over the years, you feel that it is reasonable not to inspect empty containers.

[Marc Grégoire]

We are always looking to improve our practices with respect to containers and port safety. However, for the country as a whole, empty containers are not currently considered to be a security problem.

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

Minister, employees are using the press to solve problems that you and I cannot solve. We cannot go to the Port of Montreal anonymously to check whether things are working the way they should. If people are doing this, it is because it is in the public interest.

You said that it is a question of labour relations, but you should at least congratulate the employee who had the good idea of inviting journalists to highlight the situation. That is what the employees are doing right now. You and I, as politicians, have to be pleased by this initiative that keeps us better informed.

Do you agree with me?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I agree with you, because this is a matter of individual responsibility, in this area or in any other.

I would expect no less of you if you were to see that an offence had occurred when you got home tonight. I trust you would report it. The employee would be free to do the same. I assume he decided that it was important to report the situation. We would all do the same if we found out that something irregular, immoral or illegal had occurred.

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

That leads me to talk about air transportation safety.

You conduct inspections under the CATSA system, the Canadian Air Transport Safety Authority. I know that this system does not always work well, because employees call me to say that although Mr. Duchesneau thinks he has got the best system in the world, that is not always the case in practice.

What percentage of your budget goes to these famous inspections? I know that the reports on these inspections go directly to the Minister, that they are not made public and cannot be obtained under the Access to Information Act. Nevertheless, do you have a budget, and how many employees...

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I must say at the outset, Mr. Laframboise, that we look at transportation safety generally by means of risk management. In other words, we ask questions about the likelihood of one event happening rather than another.

I will illustrate what I mean by giving you an example from public transit. If, as a terrorist, you are thinking of a particular target, it is very likely that your intention is to produce the maximum effect. The event will happen in a major centre rather than in a smaller one, where fewer people live. You would probably want to advertise what you are doing by making some grandiose gestures. The same reasoning applies to risk management. We invest in those sectors that are the most likely to be the target of an attack.

Inspections are carried out at irregular intervals to avoid having them become routine for the organizations in question. We proceed by sampling, but it does produce results and allows us to make corrections if necessary.

I will ask Mr. Grégoire to give you some more information about the inspections.

[Marc Grégoire]

There are 140 safety inspectors throughout the country who look at all aspects of the system. Some of them are assigned to marine transportation.

In the area of air transportation, for example, inspectors do infiltration tests. That means they try to get through search points with prohibited objects, and carry around passes to check how the airports intercept people with false passes or they check on the security aspects of the various tenants in airports and the access points to airports.

I should mention that since the fall of 2001, the number of people working in the area of safety at Transport Canada has gone from 165 employees to 400, 140 of whom are field inspectors.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Minister, The Globe and Mail today said that your government is going to roll out a major plan to fund key public projects across the country that will hand a very central role to the private sector. You're going to place private partnerships at the centre of funding arrangements. Are future infrastructure funds that are to be transferred to municipalities and communities to be tied to partnerships that have often proven more expensive and not always successful? Would you confirm here today that future funding programs will not be conditional on such an unproven mechanism?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Good afternoon.