Transport Committee on Feb. 10th, 2009

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

As well, when we look at moving ahead in the future, we can't simply look at...and it's something that I'd say we should take very careful interest in when we look at how we're constructing infrastructure programs, how we're moving ahead with stimulus packages, not to move us into a situation where our economy is less green rather than more green.

Clearly we see that across the country, the demand that we move our economy in a direction that can leave us, when we come out of the recession, in a position to have a better and stronger country. Whenever we think of standing back on our ability to protect our natural environment for the development of economics, we are taking a step backwards. There are many projects that we can go ahead with in this country that don't have environmental characteristics attached to them, that don't need those types of changes to environmental laws to get them in place.

Quite clearly, this is a direction in which we need leadership. Certainly by putting this bill forward in the fashion your government has, it doesn't allow us an opportunity to put forward those arguments. And by not putting forward those arguments, we're failing in our duty as parliamentarians.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

If I could respond, obviously we're putting forward changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, a piece of transport legislation.

With respect to the environmental assessment, we're looking at using existing authorities and not making any changes to law. One of the things that have become very clear to me from my experience, both as environment minister and now in this position, is that we have established over many, many years a lot of laws and regulations to stop bad things from happening, but have very little to facilitate good things happening. I think of waste water treatment; I think of public transit. So I think there are many areas where there's going to have to continue to be a full federal environmental assessment, but if the provinces have already done one, I think we have to be more streamlined in that.

The NDP and Mr. Layton have long advocated for the gas tax as a way to fund infrastructure. When those gas tax moneys flow, there's no obligation for any federal environmental assessment with them. If we spend $1 under Building Canada, a full federal environmental assessment is required.

I think it's one in which we have done a lot of listening to municipal leaders. I listened to Premier Doer, I listened to Mayor Miller, I listened to all the premiers, and I think there was a broad spread of consensus that this was the best thing.

The changes proposed by regulation using existing authorities will be for two years to deal with this economic challenge. There are many projects that will require it; I think they should. When you look at the South Perimeter Road outside of Vancouver, there should be a full federal EA for doing a four-lane highway through a national park. There should be a federal EA.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

There was one other question I had on that topic. You're putting money into air transport security in a rather large fashion in this budget. I'm curious about this; I'm curious about whether our air transport security at airports is adequate. If it's not adequate, what types of directions are we going to take? Are these going to be more intrusive to passengers? Are we looking at body imaging in the equipment we're going to be putting into airports? What's going to happen here with the investment that you're proposing in the budget?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll make some opening comments, and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Grégoire.

I can tell you that we're making some significant new investments in air security, both in terms of volume and obviously in terms of technology. They're ones that have been recommended and that I'm comfortable with. Like any issue before government, they're not going to be cheap, they're not going to be free, so we have come forward with a request to Parliament for additional resources. I'm satisfied that they're fair and reasonable. We'll be keeping a close eye on them.

I can give my assistant deputy minister an opportunity to be specific.

[Marc Grégoire]

Thank you, Minister.

The majority of these funds are not for new security projects or things, but are actually to sustain CATSA. When CATSA was first implemented back in April 2002, it was given a base budget for five years, but at the end of the five years, it was not renewed at the full height of this budget. For the last couple of years, and in the budget last year, for instance, which you will see in supplementary estimates (B), a significant amount of money was given to CATSA, not for new things but to sustain itself. So the majority of the funds for this year are for the same thing: they're for the sustainability of CATSA.

But there are a number of new things, and they are mainly to keep pace with the other countries. We are in constant talks with the U.S., our European Commission partners, and Australia, and to stay at par we do have to introduce new things. One of the things we have to do is to change the equipment that was put in place in the last seven years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister and his officials for appearing.

I want to continue for a moment with the topic of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the proposed amendments. First, allow me to say that I think it actually honours the work that was done by this committee. We spent a number of weeks working very diligently and, I would suggest, with a high degree of consensus on the direction in terms of informing the government of suggested changes to the NWPA.

I think the inclusion of this in the budget implementation act accentuates the priority of expediting the funds quickly for projects. I know that members in the House from various parties have stood to urge the government to move the stimulus forward quickly. I think this actually achieves that, so I think it's actually right to have it in the budget implementation act. I wouldn't want to hive it off now and delay it further.

I know that Mr. Bevington wasn't here for the committee at that particular time during some of that work. I don't know if you want to comment, perhaps for his benefit or for that of any of the new members here, on some of the recommendations the committee made that have now turned up as NWPA amendments.

I don't know if you want to handle that, Minister, or the officials.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think I'll say a number of things.

Obviously what we heard in our pre-budget consultations, particularly with provincial and territorial municipal governments, was a significant concern about this issue. I think we've done our best to retain every recommendation made by this committee with respect to navigable waters, and I think we come forward with reasonable positions. I'm certainly very pleased, as I mentioned earlier, to provide briefings to anyone.

We are facing some pretty significant economic challenges around the world, and Canada is not immune from them. I'm not satisfied that we've done everything we can do to speed up these investments. Failure to do so has been one of the problems identified to me, and we're responding. I suppose in a perfect world we could have a year or two to study everything up and down ten times, once over, twice over, three times over. Certainly when I talk to people, whether in my constituency or across the country, they want to see action. I think this is one of the vehicles with which we can do that.

Do the officials have anything to add?

[Louis Ranger]

Marc could add some details.

[Marc Grégoire]

As you mentioned, we spent several hours here at this committee testifying with other experts as well as those from other departments. Your colleague Peter Julian attended all of those meetings.

We took the SCOTIC report, which this committee did, and we turned it into legislation. So what was tabled last week we thought had the consensus of all the parties, given that it was made from the recommendations of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'd like to put on the record that it was Mr. Masse, not Mr. Julian.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering if you can comment a little bit on the fund for colleges and universities for a moment. Clearly, from where I'm sitting, there have been major investments in labour market agreements. I think it was $3 billion in 2007, and there were additional measures in the economic action plan of, I think, about $1.8 billion toward retraining. We need places to put people, so we need expansion on our campuses, for example. Talk a little about that for a moment, if you will.

The idea of construction jobs for today laying some foundation for knowledge jobs for tomorrow through this type of fund, as well as any details about the fund you can share with the committee at this particular point, would be helpful as well.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think in the budget the minister laid out investments both to rehabilitate buildings and to build new buildings on college and university campuses. He certainly singled out that a certain minimum must be used for colleges. The Department of Industry is going to take the lead with respect to delivery of that. We have a significant amount on our plate. I think it does show that learning and economic development are key.

One of the projects highlighted in the budget was for Algonquin College here in Ottawa, which has a program to train more of the skilled trades. I think that will be absolutely essential in our long-term infrastructure proposals, so the industry department could probably give you some more specific answers. I think we did a lot of listening, though, in the pre-budget process and adopted a number of the recommendations that we received. I think everywhere we went, people said we should just spend the money on hospitals or just spend the money on municipalities or just give it to the provinces. Certainly we heard that there should be a significant amount for colleges and universities and responded as part of the economic growth package.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Regarding that, I did run into some information this summer at a conference in the United States at which they were talking about their educational problems. Believe me, they're far worse than Canada's. They actually had a person from Standard and Poor's who was talking about some of the data around the world and comparing educational systems.

You'll be pleased to know that they said to us there that as far as post-secondary education went, the country that had the number one best record in the world was Canada, followed closely by Japan. The United States was far down the list. Not to say that we're there, but this money will go a long way to keeping us competitive internationally. I think the importance there is that our youth are our future, and it's important that we have good infrastructure for them for a long time to come.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just briefly here, in budget 2006, I believe it was, we set aside $2.1 billion in a borders and gateways fund. In budget 2007 there was a $400 million line item for what is now called the Windsor-Essex Parkway to connect Highway 401 to a new international border crossing between Windsor and Detroit. These are clearly some steps toward improving international border crossings. Can you talk about how the economic action plan builds on this or expands on our commitment to international border crossings beyond just the Detroit-Windsor corridor?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll start.

Obviously it is going to cost substantially more than $400 million for that initiative. We will be there as a partner with the Government of Ontario on that. Our relationship is excellent there. Clearly we have some struggles with the Ambassador Bridge and legal issues. We have a good relationship with the State of Michigan. I've already spoken to the new Secretary of Transportation in the United States and highlighted that. Certainly for Canada it is undoubtedly our most important infrastructure project in the country; $130 billion of trade goes over the border between Windsor and Detroit. This is a significant priority. It can also have a substantial benefit in economic growth if we can get the project started. It's not an easy one. It hasn't been an easy one for this government or the previous one, but I think we're making some substantial progress.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Kennedy.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, it's good to have you here on estimates again.

I also want to welcome the bureaucrats who are here today.

I'd like to focus my questions on the underlying actions that the ministry is capable of. You're here to get more money for estimates. For the last couple of years that you got supplementary estimates you didn't spend the allocations that were given to the ministry. Last year $1.1 billion was returned and $300 million the year before. You have specific line items and so forth, but particularly in the context of what's being promoted for the next stage, which is a stimulus-inspired spending--you had $9 billion allocated in the 2007 budget--can you tell us to date, as best you can see with the end of the year now in sight, what you will have spent in those two years? What will you have spent this year, actually out-the-door moneys spent? You are here seeking more dollars, and the record so far has been to leave dollars behind and let them lapse. I am wondering if you could give us a sense of where the ministry is headed on infrastructure in terms of getting dollars out the door by the end of this year, compared to the plan you published in 2007.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

As of today, I understand all our invoices, 100%, are paid. Any one that was more than 30 days ago has been paid. That includes the entire gas tax transfer, the GST rebate, that goes to municipalities for infrastructure. Some of the initiatives we pay on reimbursement, as we get an invoice from provinces.

One of the challenges we have, for example, is on the base funding. There is $25 million available to each province. They can request it this year, or they can request it next year, or they can request it in 2014. One premier gave me the required one-page letter. It was the premier for Mr. Bevington's riding. He gave me his request for approval for his base funding. It was approved within three hours and the cheque forthwith issued.

In many provinces we have not got that request; for example, our home province of Ontario. They have not put in the request, so we haven't funded the money.

Many of the initial projects--I'll use the example of the Spadina subway--have a significant amount of engineering work, a significant amount of environmental work. They weren't able to proceed right away. They took two years. I understand they are about to break ground, so the invoices will all be paid within 30 days. That's our commitment.

We have come forward with an action plan to get at some of the regulatory burdens. We're also reducing some of the bureaucratic burdens so that projects can proceed. In most cases we're not holding the shovel. Obviously, having said that, we wouldn't be bringing forward a five-point action plan to speed this up if we were satisfied with the progress we're making today. This year we'll have spent a record amount in Canadian history on infrastructure. That, in my judgment, is not enough. We'll be spending even more next year.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

You've mentioned a record amount. That means you know the amount. How much is it?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

It's more than we spent last year.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

That's not good enough, with respect, Mr. Minister. We are being asked to allocate to you an extra $443 million here today. This committee is supposed to acquiesce and say that we know everything is in good order, and we're supposed to be basically sending you on, in a budgetary sense--the vote there--with $9 billion to spend this year. Good intentions aren't going to cut it. I think it is fair for you to share with the rest of these parliamentarians where you are at. We'd like to know more than the generalities, and if there are problems, which ones should we anticipate in terms of getting dollars out the door, stimulating the economy, and the double grace of having them actually do some good in terms of structural help for the economy? Are there no numbers and is there no list that you can share? Surely, given the amount of emphasis the government is putting on infrastructure, you must have the information systems in place. Can you not tell us where you are headed?

You want extra money. Is the $2.9 billion you've already been allocated going to be fully spent this year? Can you give us that assurance?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Every province that submits an invoice will be paid 100%. We can't pay for invoices that we don't receive. I'll give you an example.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Minister, I have to interject because I know our time is very brief. You were saying that the only reason for delay is provinces or other entities not submitting invoices, and these are the only dollars that are delayed. Is that correct?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

If we haven't got an invoice, we can't make the payment. So each project requires an approval and requires a contribution agreement, and then the invoices can be sent by the provinces and they're fully paid.