Transport Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

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

That could be sent to us later. It is a technical detail.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Yes. That is not a problem, Mr. Carrier.

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

I have another brief question to ask you. You stated earlier that the estimates were decided on by the previous government. I would like to talk about the year 2008, an important year in Quebec, for Quebec City especially, because it will be 400th anniversary of its foundation. The previous government decided to repaint the famous pont de Québec, which is currently in a state of deterioration and is completely rusted. I believe there was a shortfall of approximately $30 million. During the election campaign, your own party promised to deal with that issue, which is a problem for the city because there will be visitors coming from all over the world.

Do these estimates which, as you said, were decided on by the previous government, provide for that funding?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

As far as I am concerned this is a priority. I spent a good part of my life in Quebec City. I am very familiar with this bridge because I have taken it many times. People were saying a while ago that the bridge was dangerous because the paint was flaking off. That is not the case. My colleague, the member for Lévis, Mr. Blaney, has been working very hard on that specific file. He has been very involved in his other files, but he has focused particularly on this one. As you know, the bridge belongs to Canadian National. It took over the bridge when it was privatized. The company therefore also bears responsibility for it. I have had the opportunity during a few meetings to discuss this issue personally with the president of Canadian National. I informed my colleague, Michel Després, about this. Moving forward on this issue is a priority for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Blaney.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I am pleased to see that you take to heart issues that affect the Quebec City region because the pont de Québec leads to the beautiful riding of Lévis—Bellechasse. I would also like to tell you that your bill, bill C-11 — we're wrapping up our hearings — also affects many communities throughout the country. I think that many of these communities look forward to seeing it passed. We will soon be moving on to clause-by-clause study of the bill, and we truly realize that this bill has been a long time coming and that it meets the need.

That said, I would like to come back to some questions that were asked about infrastructures. This committee has discussed safety to a great extent, to date. Admittedly, the committee's mandate is rather broad. In the last budget you also significantly increased subsidies for infrastructures and you had indicated your intentions in that respect. For example, the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund is of particular interest to me. This fund involves $200 million for 2006-2007 and $332 million for 2007-2008. That is a much appreciated increase, given the needs of Canadian municipalities and communities.

I have an administrative question. I think this funding is much appreciated. In terms of its management, as you know this is a federal-provincial fund. Currently, the provinces are responsible for managing the fund and they decide on the provincial and federal allocation of funds.

Could you tell us how the federal government's investments are prioritized, and describe the decision-making process for the municipal-rural infrastructure fund? What do you think? Is the current situation satisfactory? Do you have any ideas or suggestions for managing these funds?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

First, allow me to thank you for your comments on bill C-11, which, obviously, deals with noise levels. I know that Mr. Laframboise spoke about it recently and I'm pleased to hear that he will be supporting this bill, which is extremely important for our communities, especially in urban areas where noise is a source of problems for our taxpayers. We were the ones who brought this legislative measure in.

With respect to the MRIF, the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, the title implies that this is a partnership with municipalities and small communities throughout the country.

It is my opinion that people living in these municipalities and small communities know what their priorities are. As partners, we work with them, we follow them. We are very happy to work in that manner and, obviously, according to conditions that set out terms of good management and healthy administration. I have always believed that municipalities are capable of making their own decisions. The elected members of city councils are capable of making their own decisions. They are accountable before the same taxpayers you and I are accountable before. As far as I'm concerned, in those circumstances municipalities are on the same footing as the provinces.

Obviously, decisions have to be made in terms of amounts and allocation of funding, however I feel that the municipalities are full-fledged partners in terms of the choices of projects that will be funded.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I will intervene right there. We're on the hour, and I know you have another appointment. The officials are staying with us.

We thank you, Mr. Minister, for your time and wish you a good day.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Chair, and I'll see you soon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Once the minister has left, our plan is to continue with a round of questioning with the officials from Transport Canada, if that's suitable.

We'll suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I didn't officially welcome our other guests before. We have Mr. Ranger, Mr. Morency, Mr. Cluff, and Mr. Grégoire. Welcome.

You see how the process is going.

We'll continue, and I'll ask Mr. Bell if he'd like to resume questions.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to share my time with Mr. McGuinty.

Basically I wanted to follow through perhaps with Mr. Ranger on the question I wanted to ask the minister.

Perhaps you can tell me—regarding rail safety, which we're talking about, and the inspections, which are going to be undertaken—whether the ministry is now in a position to release the audit that Minister Lapierre under the previous government said would be released.

The original order came in August 2005, the targeted inspections, followed by that November-December four-week audit of the safety management system, which I gather was received by the government but not made public.

Then after the minister met with the CEO of CN, Mr. Hunter Harrison, for the first time in May, the section 32 order was made. We know there was a section 32 order from the Railway Safety Act, which was unusual, and that it was a ministerial order as opposed to a departmental order under section 31.

Are you in a position to tell us more of the details of what that is?

[Louis Ranger, Deputy Minister, Transport Canada]

I'd like to clarify that on an ongoing basis we do audits of all railways. We were discussing this as late as yesterday. We do audits of CP, of VIA Rail, and of course we did special audits of CN because of the trends that were obviously going in the wrong direction.

As a policy, we do not disclose the results of those audits because they consist of third-party information. What we do, however, is act on those results. I guess it's quite clear that if we had to invoke a section 32 provision, it's because there were difficulties in acquiring the necessary information. But we've made very significant progress since then, to a point where we will not have to invoke such measures, because all the information has been coming in. We're in the middle of analysing that information now.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Ultimately, this committee, based on the history of derailments, and particularly the increase in 2005.... Although it's reduced in 2006, I'm led to believe it's still at substantial levels. We've seen loss of life of rail workers. We've seen environmental disasters. Certainly both the rail workers and the environmental community are very concerned. That's why this committee is taking the interest it is taking in it. I would hope we'll be able to get more information in the near future.

I'll share time with Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Ranger, thank you for joining us again.

I have a very specific question about light rail funding across the country. Is it your department that's funding Vancouver for $450 million, Toronto's TTC for $350 million, Edmonton's light rail for $108 million, and Ottawa for $200 million? Do I have that right?

[Louis Ranger]

That's correct.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

Your department signed off on a $200 million contribution for the O-Train project in this city. Is that correct?

[Louis Ranger]

That is correct. We signed off on a submission to Treasury Board, yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Your minister had a meeting with the mayor of Ottawa and promised him that the money was forthcoming. Are you aware of that?

[Louis Ranger]

I'm not aware that he would have said it was forthcoming. I understand that he confirmed that he had signed off on a submission to Treasury Board.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

Months later, after the $200 million sign-off was approved, the President of the Treasury Board stepped in and said that your department had not done its homework with respect to value for money. Since that time, has the President of the Treasury Board told you what you have failed to do in terms of meeting apparently new criteria for value for money?

[Louis Ranger]

Can you remind me when he actually said that? If it was earlier this summer, perhaps, but we have in our—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It was two and a half weeks ago.

[Louis Ranger]

To the best of our capacity, we did a due diligence exercise on all the material we had and advised the minister accordingly. On the basis of that advice, he signed the submission to Treasury Board.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Has the Treasury Board president told your department or your minister, or have officials at Treasury Board told you, what you have not done in your department to warrant the release of the $200 million pending the outcome of the municipal election campaign?