Evidence of meeting #41 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ncc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Everybody was happy with Quebec and Ontario maintaining the transportation jurisdiction, and here we're turning transportation, through the bridges, to a federal government—
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
No, no, we're just switching from one department to the other within the Government of Canada, sir. We're not saying that the Government of Canada is taking over a provincial part of a bridge. We're just saying that instead of it being operated and maintained by Public Works, it should be under the National Capital Commission. That's all. It doesn't change anything with the provinces. I wouldn't dare impose a federal decision on the provinces.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
What about the part the Province of Quebec owns? The Province of Quebec manages one-third of the--
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
There are agreements between the Government of Quebec, the Government of Ontario, and the Government of Canada. Instead of having the snowplow from the Quebec government go to halfway on the bridge and then pull up the blade, the Government of Quebec has an agreement with the Government of Ontario and Canada. The Government of Quebec plows one side of the bridge, let's say going southbound, and the Government of Ontario maintains the other side, going north. It's an internal agreement.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
There are two points that should be made.
First of all, from Mr. Proulx I would need the amendment in his text so we may support it.
Second, there are five bridges which fall under federal jurisdiction, apart from the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge which is a shared Ontario, Quebec and Government of Canada jurisdiction. In this case, the federal government, instead of splitting the responsibility between Public Works and Government Services Canada and the NCC, would hand the issue over to the NCC. Quebec has nothing to win or lose from this, nor does Ontario. Except that with respect to bridge management, there would only be one agency, the National Capital Commission.
According to a representative from CREDDO who appeared before this committee, in this case, the NCC may have greater interest in the esthetic improvement of the federal capital, ensuring that bridges are painted and kept up in keeping with the rest of the landscape, rather than handing over this responsibility to departments like Public Works and Government Services Canada that has a great deal else to do. It would be a transfer of funds and the federal government would have everything under one umbrella organization. That is how I understand it, and in that case, we would be in agreement.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have two questions.
First, in my opinion we're trying to infringe upon provincial jurisdiction. If they did reach an agreement with the federal government, they have that agreement in place and they have the prerogative to make that agreement different from what it is currently. They certainly considered all the aspects of that when they did that agreement.
The other thing is that the NCC has a limited budget. Although it may seem simple to transfer money from one federal department to another to maintain bridges, I would suggest that based upon the snowfall in this area since I've been here--six years now--it's going to be quite a budget to maintain. It would have to be quite an enhanced budget, and I don't think we have the capability to do that at this stage.
I would like to hear from the officials if they recognize the budgetary constraints of this particular motion. From my perspective, it would be quite onerous on the NCC. I'd hate to see a situation where all of a sudden the parks suffer as a result of the cost to maintain bridges and to maintain something that has already been taken care of.
André Morency Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management and Crown Corporation Governance, Corporate Services, Department of Transport
It's certainly quite possible that for the NCC to take on maintenance and ownership of those bridges we'd first have to come up with funds. We all know that bridges are expensive to maintain. If they do that, then the National Capital Commission may have some issues with respect to how they use the existing funding and what priorities they set for themselves, because obviously maintaining a bridge for safety is going to be a top priority all the time. It certainly would impose an obligation on the NCC that it doesn't have today, and it doesn't have the budget to do that today.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Does this public snow removal, etc., fall within the National Capital Commission's mandate? Is that what the NCC was intended for? It just seems odd. I utilize the parks in the Outaouais, and the different areas there. It doesn't seem like clearing snowfall on a major artery is part of the NCC's mandate.
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
They would do it on their own assets or contract it out. Obviously, they don't do it for the assets that they don't own or if they don't have a contract with the owner for doing any maintenance such as snow removal.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Is it possible that the other mandate of the NCC would suffer as a result of this? Certainly, you can't speak for something in the future, but it would seem fairly likely that other parts of the NCC mandate would fall behind if the financial encumbrance of this were so much.
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
If you add new responsibilities and don't add new funding, obviously then you work within the existing envelope and you make choices.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chairman, for clarification regarding the vote on this amendment, I would like to know whether the consequential amendment on the transfer of funds introduced by our Liberal colleagues is in order. If so, it would have an effect on the vote.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I've been listening to some false arguments here, Mr. Chair. The notion here is not to transfer any responsibility from one jurisdiction to another. It is to transfer responsibility within the federal jurisdiction so one party has the responsibility for whatever is the federal portion of the bridges the federal government owns. So there's no added or subtracted responsibility or liability from the federal government here. It maintains what it has. If this is accepted, it would be administered by the National Capital Commission instead of by Public Works and perhaps some other bridge authority.
As a citizen of this region, I would feel the National Capital Commission is a tad more responsive to the needs of this community than, say, Public Works, for reasons we've heard, first, that Public Works is a fairly large portfolio compared to the NCC.
Second, the responsibility for maintenance, whether it's snow removal, painting, or maintaining the integrity of the bridges, rests currently with the federal government willy-nilly. So whether it rests with Public Works or the National Capital Commission, it will continue to rest with the federal government.
I can't for the life of me imagine the federal government walking away from its responsibility to maintain the bridge in safe condition. It's unthinkable. Also, the NCC does have maintenance responsibility for some roadway now, whether it's the parkways or others. They are free to maintain it themselves or enter into an agreement with the local municipalities, which they do from time to time. So the ability to remove the snow from the bridge is unchanged, whether its responsibility is within the NCC element of the federal government or within the Public Works element. And the budgets would have to flow wherever the responsibility is located.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Before I recognize Mr. Bevington, Mr. Nadeau asked about the Liberal amendment. I'm presuming you mean the Liberal-8 amendment?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The only question I have is for Monsieur Proulx. Is this asking or instructing whoever is that authority to construct or renovate a new bridge? That's if.