Transport Committee on May 7th, 2007

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Those are recommendations, Mr. Bell, that could come from this committee as well as from the other panel. I'm not against that. I'd have to look at it in terms of the legislative impact. As parliamentarians, I think we're all committed to railway safety. There's no doubt in my mind on that.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I have a quick question. I'm jumping now to Western Economic Diversification Canada. I'm interested in the possibility of funding for the National Maritime Centre for the Pacific and the Arctic, which is to be located in British Columbia, particularly my riding of North Vancouver. This is the movement of the existing maritime museum into a maritime centre. It is an expanded program. Some of the initial funding came from the WEDC. It helped prove that the site in North Vancouver was the best site in the lower mainland; Victoria was also considered. I'm wondering, within the funding you talked about, do you see any funding going that way?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I'm sorry, I'm not cognizant of every project.

As I mentioned before, we are committed to sitting down with the provinces, because they are partners in this. We're committed to sitting down with large municipalities as well as the small ones. We've made that commitment.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I'll get the information to you.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I'd be more than pleased to look at it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you very much for coming today, Minister. It's good to see you again.

I want to acknowledge the leadership that you and your department have taken on some of the safety issues. You addressed hopper cars early on, which is very important to our western farmers. Of course, Bill C-11 and railway noise are some things you have taken an active role on and that this committee has worked on. And I look forward to seeing your continued lead on shippers' issues, which will inevitably be coming up soon. I wanted to get my plug for that one in.

I know we've talked about the open skies policy and the lead you have taken on that, but I'd like to get your impression of the positive aspects I'm hearing from the airport authorities I deal with, particularly on issues like Edmonton. There is an enthusiasm for this agreement that they've not seen in years.

I'd like your comment on that, to start.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I think there's a general tendency, clearly in North America but also in large parts of this world, to more open skies policies. What it does is it reduces all the obstacles and at the same time enables the consumer to have the best price possible to be able to fly. It gives the airports more traffic. It fundamentally is a winner, I would say, for the economy.

My discussions last week with the U.S. secretary of transport, Ms. Peters, as well as the Mexican secretary of transport, Mr. Téllez, were extremely interesting in that sense. We have committed to looking at opening, through our trilateral agreement...to opening all our skies in the next 10 years. Discussions will be ongoing on that.

As you know, we have an agreement with the United Kingdom. The European Union, as I mentioned to Mr. Zed, is interested. They've already sent out feelers in that regard.

So I think there is a tendency that way, and Canada is stepping up to the plate. We literally are part and parcel and an important actor in that regard.

Last week I also had the opportunity to go to Hamilton to welcome the first Globespan aircraft flight from the United Kingdom; it had one stop either in Ireland or in another destination and then to Canada. It is a competitive carrier. The prices are low. I believe that is going to stimulate clearly the Hamilton airport over the next coming years. That's important, because it will then become the hub for a very busy carrier, not only in North America...because Hamilton is now, for that carrier, the North American stop, its privileged and first stop.

So this clearly will stimulate economic activity in Hamilton.

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

Of course, one aspect of the increased traffic to our airports is the need for increased security. When it comes to airport security, once again you've taken a very strong lead on many of these issues.

I notice that within the estimates, it's one of the areas receiving some increase in funding from this department. I wonder if you could comment a bit on the necessity of this and the effectiveness of this increased funding.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

The increased funding goes not only to CATSA but also to our marine operations as well as transit operations. I had a chance to discuss this before, and Budget 2006 put more money into these operations.

Once again, security is uppermost. It has to be uppermost in our world, where there are constant threats. We have to be extremely vigilant. We have to make sure that the equipment we use and the areas we cover are state-of-the-art.

I use the example of the restricted access identity card. That's something that is now in place. People who are not authorized to go into these restricted areas will not be able to do it. They won't be able to do it because a new way has been developed in terms of technology that will prohibit somebody from entering this place. That is an example of state-of-the-art technology.

As I alluded to before, we are working with pilot projects in terms of air cargo. We've done something that has never been done before in terms of our ports and restricted access areas. We are quite proud of what we're doing in this area. It's something that wasn't done, that was neglected previously, and we're doing it.

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

As a final quick question, Mr. Minister, when I was going through the estimates, I noticed $26 million in the budget for the Saint John harbour cleanup.

I wonder if you would comment on this briefly, on how that's going.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I will let my officials talk to you about the day-to-day of the project, but the government committed to that. It's a partnership between the community and the provincial government. We invested an amount. Roughly, the first tranche was in the vicinity of $8 million. That was done some months ago, and we announced the other tranche so that we can get ahead on that.

Incidentally, that reminds me that pretty well all these programs that we're running in terms of CSIF and MRIF...I was looking at the statistics, because I asked my officials where we were going in terms of the environment. Actually, on the projects from coast to coast to coast that are MRIF projects—COMRIF in Ontario, and in Alberta it's different—60% of the amounts of money that are dedicated to these projects are to projects that are environmentally friendly. In terms of the CSIF projects, it's waste water management projects and of that similar sort, so 35% of the amounts that are dedicated to the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund are projects that are environmentally friendly.

Yes, we are turning the page, and yes, we are getting things done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will go around one more time, with about four minutes for each. Mr. Volpe and Mr. Bell both have questions, so I'll start with Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much.

Actually, I do appreciate the fact that the minister is staying for the duration of the meeting.

I want to go back to a couple of issues that have been raised, first of all, to one by Mr. Jean, who has referred again to the allocated inspector positions that I referred to earlier on.

Mr. Jean noted that over the course of the last 13-odd years the number of inspector positions had actually increased. I thank him for seeing that. However, the question I had asked was whether there was a reference--and I know I'm repeating myself, so Mr. Grégoire will probably provide us with this information later on--on whether these numbers of inspectors have kept pace with the increase in the number of flights and flight miles.

I'm being non-partisan here. It is important for us to address an issue that's been raised on many an occasion, and that is, if the safety management systems that you are proposing, Mr. Minister, are going to add some validity, they have to be measured against the inspectorate's abilities to get the job done for Canadians under Transport Canada's mandate.

If you would be so good as to tabulate those figures for us so that we have a good sense, I'd appreciate it.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Okay.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Secondly, I'd like to go back, if you don't mind, Mr. Minister, to something I said a little while ago. It wasn't to be partisan. I was just looking at the facts about the railway crossings, your--initiative. I've indicated that whenever public safety is of concern it's always a welcome issue. However, I note here in your press release that the department finances up to 80% of the total cost of the improvements, with the balance provided by the railways, municipalities, provinces, and territories.

Was the $10.4 million a reflection of your 80%, or do you expect that this is the total amount, with the Government of Canada picking up 80% of that? Is that contingent on the other partners coming forward with their moneys before it is expended?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

The deputy minister will respond.

[Louis Ranger]

We're one of several parties involved. It's conditional on the others committing their share.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

This is the total amount of the Government of Canada commitment.

[Louis Ranger]

It is $7.1 million, yes.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

No, it is $10.4 million.

[Louis Ranger]

Yes, that is correct. In the coming year it is $7.145 million.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you.

You know, Mr. Minister, lest you think we were inventing things--as I said, I could read the list where all of these things exist. There are 55,000 crossings across Canada, according to your initiative. There are 103 projects, and all but four of them are in ridings where you have representation. I applaud members for making representation on behalf of their constituency, but I wanted to make the connection with rail safety and how that fit in with what we have been talking about all along. That is, about every three and a half days you have a primary track derailment, especially with CN. We've been trying to get at that, and we wondered why your department--it says here “leading department”, so the responsibility would be yours--wouldn't be acting on a report that had already been commissioned by your predecessor and that was available to the department and to the public.

I just want to clear this up, and I want to be fair, because in the past I've said that this draft report from the Lapierre inquiry was available. You, on national television, said you weren't permitted to make it public. Just a few moments ago you said it appears that CN has changed its mind.

I'm going to give you an opportunity to clarify it, but just let me put it in place for you. CN has said they never had any objection to having that report publicized. In fact, what they did was they dealt with your department on the draft so that the final report, which was then subject to audit to ensure that they complied with that report, was the one that we would be judging. All of the questions that we've been raising are subsequent to the publication of that audit that took place about a month ago. So our question, my question specifically, is why we don't use the legal mechanisms, the regulatory mechanisms that you have at your disposal, to ensure compliance by CN with a system that they participated in putting in place. After all, they tied your hands--by your definition, not by theirs--by saying “We want to have input, so until we have input, please don't judge us.” You complied, and then on their final paper they're not complying. So what's going on, Mr. Minister?