Evidence of meeting #49 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
It is probably a one of a kind situation. I will send the information to you.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
That is fine, because I do not want you to stop at going to court, I want the Quebec bridge repaired.
I am sure you want the same, Minister. Is that not so?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
The bridge does not require fixing. It is important to be clear about this, Mr. Laframboise. The bridge does not need fixing and does not constitute a public danger. Apart from the time I have spent here in the Ottawa Valley—a region that I love—I have spent all my life in Quebec City. Year-in year-out the Quebec bridge has always needed a coat of paint, etc. It has been like that all my life. Contrary to what some might claim, the bridge is not in a state of advanced disrepair. Far from it. If that were the case, the bridge would have been closed.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
The fact remains that the last incident was cause for concern. Even your parliamentary secretary was concerned. The witnesses from CN told us that we had ordered an engineer's report. That is nothing to be sniffed at, given CN security. Obviously, if they are the only ones looking after the Quebec bridge—
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
A $60 million maintenance agreement was reached, that included painting. It was an agreement between the CN, the Quebec government and the federal government. It was a 10-year agreement. What is at issue is the year 10 contribution, our last contribution to the program.
That is the matter before the courts. We know that the bridge was not fully repainted. It is the last year, the year 10 payment that is at issue.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I want to follow up very briefly on Mr. Bélanger's question about the arrangement with the Queensway-Carleton. I know of some lands the Civic Hospital uses, for example. Would a similar arrangement fall from that if the Civic Hospital used NCC lands? That could be arranged through--
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Okay, thank you.
I want to move on to your comments on P3s and the P3 fund, on a desk in the federal office for P3s. You have mentioned here in your comments $1.3 billion for a new national fund for public-private partnerships, plus $25 million for a new federal office for P3s.
The first question is this. Why do we need to have these arrangements if in fact government can presumably go to market and get money for a better rate than, often, corporations can? A value-for-money argument....
Secondly, what happens when you get into a P3 and the company goes south on you? In other words, are taxpayers going to be left holding the bucket here for arrangements that are made? Presumably we're all hoping that an arrangement with a P3 goes well, but what happens if a company goes bankrupt or overextends itself? Presumably the taxpayer then has to foot the bill, because there's a contract to build, whatever, a bridge, etc.
My question, then, is, why do we need these? Everyone knows that when a government goes to build a bridge, you don't have people in your department go out in trucks and build a bridge. You contract that from the private sector. So it's not like we're talking about the private sector not being involved; it's how they're involved. I know many people are concerned about this P3 arrangement.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Specifically, on the last part, Mr. Dewar, in terms of eventual apprehension as to whether or not the private partner will not honour its obligations, the process in the ones I've been involved with, the process to select a private partner, is a long and extensive one. There is a chronology that's respected. In many, many issues where this has gone forward, that provision, or at least that contingency, is taken care of in the way you ramp up to it.
In the P3 office there is an amount that's dedicated to public-private partnerships. We feel, for instance, there are a lot of funds in Canada that invest abroad, and they would want to invest here in Canada under conditions that are similar to the ones they're already engaged in.
I'll give you an example. Not too long ago, the Ontario teachers' fund purchased 20%, if not 30%, of the Confederation Bridge. That is something they now possess, and that will give that fund a return for its money. That is an example of being able to take Canadian savings and capital and put them to the use of the Canadian economy.
The question of the office.... Clearly, because we are going to need additional staff, we're going to need personnel to run this office, and that's the reason why there's $20-some-odd million for the office, Mr. Dewar.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I want to set the record straight and I want to get it on the record. Has this government any intention to reduce, or has it reduced, the number of safety inspectors under aviation?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
The government doesn't intend to reduce the number of inspectors. Government, as a matter of fact, is using the safety management systems as an additional layer.
You've had, I understand, people who have come forward to this committee to indicate that this is one of the ways of ensuring and adding on additional safety measures. The safety management system is not a system that is dedicated for the purpose of deregulating; that's not what we're doing.
We will not--and that is quite clear--allow aircraft to fly if they're not safe. That has not changed, and it's not going to change, under us. I'm sure that in years to come, in 20 or 30 years--I think somebody talked about 2016 here, as to when we're going to change--it's not going to change then either. So we're dedicated to that purpose.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
My final question, very quickly, Minister, is on the safety management systems that you referred to. I always get a kick out of Liberal righteous indignation, but the reality is this safety management system was actually proposed by the Liberals in a previous bill, was it not?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Yes, it was, and of course we're getting rave reviews from a lot of officials who are saying this is the way to go.
It's much the same as when we talk about our program to upgrade level crossings. It's not driven by political considerations; it's driven by risk, the number of vehicles that use those crossings, and proximity to urban centres. Years ago maybe there weren't very many people there, but with urban sprawl that issue has arisen.
When we are taxed with the idea that we're going forward and not doing anything in terms of criteria, there's nothing further from the truth. Mr. Jean, we can table here the criteria for the program and the parameters that guide the people who make those decisions, and believe me, it's not politically motivated. On the contrary, it's motivated because we want to save lives.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, will we receive from the officials
the breakdown the minister mentioned for the $318 million transfer. I would also like confirmation that there will be an increase after 2013. I would like to know the exact amount.
Will we receive that confirmation?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I would ask that you forward it to me through the clerk.
Thank you for attending, Mr. Minister and members of Transport Canada.
We will have a very brief subcommittee meeting after this.
The meeting is adjourned.
