Transport Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2009

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

I have to ask whether or not--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I just have to just let him answer the question.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

That answers that question, but while I have the floor I do want to clear up the one question that was asked here on the Mercier bridge, because I think it is important. It is $39.2 million that has been reallocated from the 2008-09 budget. What you see in these supplementary estimates is $18.8 million for 2009-10, and for 2010-11 it is $20.4 million. This explains in detail that question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

With that, I will thank the ministers for being here. I know the staff is staying, so I'll take a two-minute recess while our ministers excuse themselves, and then we'll come back to questions and answers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you and welcome back.

We have some new faces at the table. I'll ask Ms. Baltacioglu to introduce them, please, and then we'll continue with Mr. Volpe's three minutes of questioning.

Please go ahead.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Before I introduce my colleagues, let me say that this is my first appearance in front of this committee as the deputy minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. It's my pleasure to be here. I'm looking forward to working with the committee and hopefully answering your questions for a number of years to come. It's an honour to be here.

I'm sorry for the crowd here. We're representing two separate departments. We have Infrastructure here, as well as Transport.

We have here today Mr. André Morency, who is our CFO, chief financial officer, for Transport. As well, he is the responsible assistant deputy minister for our portfolio. I have introduced my colleague John Forster, who is the dedicated associate deputy minister for Infrastructure. Also here is Mr. Marc Grégoire, who is the assistant deputy minister of safety and security.

You have been introduced to Madam Vinet, who is our associate deputy minister of Transport. Then we have Mary Komarynsky, who is our assistant deputy minister of programs at Transport Canada, and Guylaine Roy, who is our associate assistant deputy minister, policy, for Transport.

I am here as the accounting officer of both the infrastructure and transport departments.

We would be pleased to answer your questions on our portfolio agencies. Although I'm not directly responsible for them, these folks around the table have been working with them and we do report on their activities, so we'll be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Volpe, you have three minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Minister.

I wondered if you could amplify on some of those questions that I had started to ask the ministers. I was specifically wanting to get an understanding of just how much money was going into the program for the new—some people would call intrusive—scanning systems for security at airports. Those systems, as far as I can recall, have not received the scrutiny of an examination by any committee, at least not any parliamentary committee, nor has their usage been debated in the House of Commons.

You might wish to say that this is the purview of the subcontracting agency of CATSA, but this involves, in our view, a severe public policy issue, and I'm wondering whether any of this money is going towards the acquisition of some of that technology.

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

Yes, Mr. Volpe. Some of that money is being used to buy some millimeter wave equipment.

That equipment has been tested this year at the Kelowna airport. There is no intention whatsoever to make the usage of this equipment mandatory for passengers. It is only being used for secondary screening. The passengers are being offered the choice of either having a pat-down or going through the millimeter wave equipment.

There is no intention, either, to deploy significant numbers in that equipment, so it will be restricted to only some airports. It has been carefully reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner. In fact, we're pleased to report that just a few weeks ago the Privacy Commissioner endorsed and approved the privacy analysis that was done by CATSA on the usage of that equipment, with the condition that it remain for use on a voluntary basis.

This means that if a passenger is being selected for secondary screening, as occurs once in a while, the passenger is being offered the choice, where this equipment is available, to either go through the equipment or have the pat-down. You would be surprised. but quite a large number of people in the trial have indicated their preference to go through the machine rather than have the physical pat-down.

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

What was the percentage?

[Marc Grégoire]

It was in the 80th percentile. I hesitate to give you the exact number. If I remember correctly, it was 85%, but we could provide you with the exact number.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson,

Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

One challenge, Mr. Chair, and all of a sudden I'm a troublemaker.

Thanks very much for coming here today.

I'd like to say, Deputy Minister, that your reputation precedes you. We believe and are hoping that we'll have a long working relationship and many successes for Canadians generally.

First, the minister read in question period today a statement in relation to a quote by the Mayor of Windsor, which in essence was that this Conservative government doesn't just talk the talk, we walk the walk and get the job done. Specifically in relation to what the minister said in cutting red tape and how we've moved 10 times faster than any previous Liberal government, I was wondering if we could have some examples of how we have cut that red tape and how we are actually getting things done more quickly. Could you put some of that on the record?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Thank you very much for the question.

Mr. Chairman, I would answer the question, but I cannot answer the political elements of it. I can explain what the department has done in terms of expediting the application process.

The infrastructure stimulus fund has been quite different from all of the other infrastructure programs we have run.

First of all, the application form has been reduced to one page. Only critical information was asked from the proponents. As well, the department has established a dedicated team that was focused on this program and this program alone, which really helped deliver the program at great speed. Also, we have automated our systems and application forms, which does cut a lot of time in terms of processing the applications.

Very importantly, there have been changes to the navigable waters legislation as well as changes to the Canadian environmental assessment exclusion list, which allowed us to move further and faster. In addition, however, we did put in levels of controls. Unlike other programs, we have put in areas where we have quarterly reports in terms of the status and the progress so that we can have a sense if things are slipping, and we can speak to our partners. The partnership element is not new, but it was a special, very active partnership that the department has put in place with the provinces and municipalities.

Those are just examples of how these programs ran. My colleagues, who have been in infrastructure for many years, say that the economic action programs have actually been delivered at a speed that has never been done before.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you.

In fact, I was reading this very exciting copy of “Canada's Economic Action Plan--A Fourth Report to Canadians”. I would encourage all those people listening, all Canadians, to get a copy of it. It's fairly interesting and it gives me a lot of confidence in the Canadian economy.

On page 15, they talk about “Overall Contraction in Real GDP During the Recession”. We actually fare extremely well at -3%, compared to countries such as Japan and Germany, which are up around 7% and 8%. In fact, further on, it talks about business confidence. It appears on page 17 that we are well above the historical average, at some 6% or 7%, in business confidence, just in the third quarter of 2009. It appears that whatever we're doing is working. In fact, real residential investment and renovation growth, on page 19, show an increase of 8% to 12% in the last two quarters.

Indeed, I believe from what I've heard in question period and just generally, and from what I've read in this book, that it appears this government is moving forward not just on infrastructure, but on changing some of the employment programs and other ministries to get people to work faster. On page 60--I know I sound like a commercial, but it was quite interesting to read this today--they say, “The number of Canadian workers benefiting from work-sharing has increased more than sixfold since the beginning of the year”.

I would suggest that some of the moves by this government are in more than just infrastructure and transportation; they're on a multifold ministry. Is that fair to say, Deputy Minister?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

I can speak for our ministry. Whatever was in the fourth report to Parliament is what we have put in as the progress we have made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're going to go to another round of questions, but during the comments to the minister, they talked about the increase in funding for CATSA. One of the concerns that I have had expressed to me throughout Canada is that when we're adding that kind of funding, are we doing a review before we actually put the funding in place to verify, first, that we have the right employee mix?

The biggest issue I have heard raised by travellers is that when they go through an airport, there will be twenty people standing around servicing five people, while in other airports there will be three people trying to serve a thousand people. More than anything, I just want to raise that issue with you in the sense that I understand the need for more funding, but I also understand the need to put it in the places where it's most needed. I don't know if you want to comment on that, but I think it's something that I would like to hear about.

[Suzanne Vinet, Associate Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Transport]

I'll answer this from two angles. One is that CATSA's core base is very small; it doesn't quite meet all the requirements that CATSA has to deliver even the basic program. The other complication is that the funding has been renewed on an annual basis for at least the last three years, so CATSA has had difficulty in renegotiating contracts and streamlining things.

However, this year they were part of the government's strategic review and there has been a thorough review of all its operations. As we move forward with CATSA, there will be a lot of changes to the approach they're taking. They're very cautious because they have a limited amount of resources due to the strategic review and the general economic circumstances. But if they were given an opportunity to have longer-term funding, they certainly would have a keen interest in bringing efficiencies to addressing the kinds of issues you're raising.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

We're going to go to five-minute rounds.

We'll start with Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair

I would like to welcome the panel members.

My question is in reference to the public-private partnership projects, particularly with regard to a situation close to my home: the Port Mann bridge. That P3 model failed and the provincial government has to come on board to fill in the gap. When we look at the Asia-Pacific gateway, those projects are based on those models. How does the department see these projects going ahead during this economic downturn?

[John Forster]

I won't speak to the Port Mann Bridge specifically, but certainly in our infrastructure programs, whether it's that infrastructure or the gateway programs at Transport, we've always tried to encourage public-private partnerships. Some of those partnerships and consortiums have had difficulty attracting capital during the credit crunch, so that has dampened the appetite for them.

As well, the government has its own P3 fund, called P3 Canada, which is managed by a crown corporation under the Minister of Finance. It's in the process of going through a round of projects that will be announced under that fund.

It's certainly more challenging to try to do P3 projects in the current environment, so you're getting less take-up and interest in it, but there are some that are able to go forward.

Guylaine, do you want to add anything?

[Guylaine Roy, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Transport]

I just want to echo what John said on this matter: it's obviously more challenging in the current economic situation to attract financing with a P3 model.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

There are problems during these times, so what alternatives are you paying attention to in order to deal with those situations? Is it a gas tax model type of funding?

[John Forster]

Well, for most of our large projects, initially, before the recession, we had actually put in place a kind of P3 screen for very large projects; the proponent had to demonstrate why a P3 model couldn't work. Because of the recession, we suspended that kind of test for big projects just because it was very hard for corporations to get capital.

Right now we're not doing a lot of P3 projects; we're doing a much more traditional kind of procurement and financing through the various infrastructure programs. Hopefully in another 12 to 18 months the credit markets will have recovered enough that there will be more of an interest in pursuing those.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Are you familiar with the South Fraser perimeter road project? In and around where I am, in the Delta area in particular, there are a lot of people who are opposed to that project.

It's not because they don't want the highway to go through; it's that they feel that the proper environmental studies, noise abatement answers, and alternate routes have not been explored. The provincial government has taken a “my way or the highway” type of approach. Has the federal Department of Transport taken that into consideration?