Transport Committee on March 18th, 2010

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

You would have done that in cabinet as well. I noted that one of your cabinet colleagues almost at the same time applauded and lauded Toyota for not only its performance but for coming forward and telling us they were at fault.

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

I think we've had a tremendously good relationship with industry. All Canadian manufacturers, and generally speaking all importers, were results focused. That's always been the thrust of the efforts of the department.

I think the number of fatalities on our roads in the last 25 years has declined, and they've declined considerably. I think police officers, law enforcement, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving can take the big credit, but I think the manufacturers and government have also done the same thing.

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

Minister, that isn't the issue. The issue is that you have one minister of the crown applauding a company that's currently involved in international investigations on the way it is putting product in the marketplace. I asked in this committee whether the Government of Canada has a definition for safety-related defects. I even asked Toyota. Your department must have a definition for safety-related defects that would apply to all that data you're going to give us. If you have that definition--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson, on a point of order.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I understand that the minister has introduced the idea of documents with respect to Toyota. I think we're now conducting a hearing about additional questions beyond documents, and I would like the chair to enforce relevance at this point.

We are also here to talk about the estimates. If he wants to continue Toyota hearings, let the committee consider that as different business. Or, if he wants to ask questions with respect to the documents that are being prepared to be tabled, because that's what the minister opened up in his statement, I think that's relevant. But if we're conducting an additional hearing, let the committee do that at a different point.

I'm asking you to enforce relevance at this point, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Volpe, on the same point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think the minister introduced that himself. He wanted us to talk about Toyota. He wanted us to--

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

I'm very happy to respond.

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

--deal with the documents that he's going to present.

All I'm doing is asking a question of relevance to the documents, and it surrounds the issue of the definition. The definition of safety-related defects is relevant to the question I asked him whether he and his government are prepared to lay charges and whether that is a reflection of a government position or it is his personal position.

To me, that's relevant.

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

Mr. Volpe, I can tell you that estimates hearings traditionally have a pretty wide scope. I don't disagree with you on that at all.

My deputy can answer the specific question with respect to the definition that you requested.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu, Deputy Minister, Department of Transport]

You are correct that “defect”, as a word, is not defined in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, under the department's guidelines for enforcement and compliance policy, which is available on the web, we have criteria that outline what a defect is.

As well, Mr. Volpe, we had a court case in 1979, the crown versus Ford Motor Company, where the judge articulated a very coherent definition of “defect”. This is widely known by government and by all the auto companies.

I don't want to read it here, but if the committee wishes we will be happy to supply what our guidelines say and what the courts have said in terms of what a safety-related defect is.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Our time is up.

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

We will table that for the committee so that all members can have it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Absolutely--through the clerk's office, please.

Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good day, Ministers.

Mr. Baird, I have a question for you that has been asked before.

Regarding the December 30, 2010 and March 31, 2011 project deadlines, would it not be possible to grant a short extension to Quebec municipalities?

As you know, problems arise when municipalities are in the midst of elections. In 2009, a general election was held in all municipalities. Many saw a change in administrations. The same thing occurs when a new government is elected to office. As you observed when you replaced the Liberals in office, it took you a certain amount of time to get used to the new rules and to put your new vision in place.

For that reason, I'm asking you if you might possibly agree to give Quebec municipalities, the urban as well as the rural ones, more time to complete their work and their projects.

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

I am mindful of the fact that the needs of the municipalities vary from region to region, or from province to province. In the case of our Economic Action Plan that was first introduced 13 or 14 months ago, it was very clear that the deadline for projects was the end of March, for two main reasons. This was fairly well-known before the elections in Quebec, perhaps 10 months before the elections were held.

Let me outline these two reasons. First, the goal is to stimulate the economy as quickly as possible. That is a priority. In the past, in the case of our government and the Building Canada plan, or of the previous government and its various programs, sometimes, three years passed before the first grants were available or before an agreement was negotiated with a provincial government. Many of these investments are associated with areas under provincial jurisdiction. We must work with the provinces, not only with Quebec, and we respect that. In the case of the Economic Action Plan, we felt that it was important to move forward and to stimulate the economy as quickly as possible. We do not want to see those who are out of work wait one, two or three years, as has been the case in the past.

The second reason is that we want to return to a balanced budget situation as soon as possible. A project in Niagara Falls was announced. There were funds in a budget that dated back nine years. Billions in infrastructure program funding dated back to 2003, to the previous government.

There have been some municipal changes in Nova Scotia and throughout government as well. They are prepared to spend all of their money. All of the municipalities that requested funding under the stimulus plan maintained at the time they applied that projects were shovel-ready and that they could complete the work by the end of March. I realize that everyone would like to have more time, but we need to stay on schedule with the program. I think that I have answered your question clearly.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I agree with what you are saying about Nova Scotia, but that province has a milder climate than Quebec. Even though we did have a milder winter this year, normally temperatures are below zero. It is harder to work in Quebec than it is in Nova Scotia. However, I do understand what you're saying.

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

The situation is the same in Manitoba, in British Columbia and in Northern Ontario.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I do not want you to grant a three-year extension. A five or six-month extension would be acceptable. Back home, March and December are winter months.

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

We asked that projects be shovel-ready. For instance, we concluded an initial agreement with Danny Williams in Newfoundland and Labrador and all of the money has been spent. The process was protracted in Quebec and in a few other regions, but all of the municipalities that applied for funding told us, when they submitted their request, that they were ready to go. I took their word for it. That way, my department and the municipalities could avoid any bureaucratic delays. They told us that they were good to go and could complete their projects within the planned timeframes and I took their word for it.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Merrifield, it was noted earlier that at the end of 2005, the government invested $9 million in airports to counter the threat of terrorism. Why did you hire subcontractors instead of Transport Canada employees? You paid for subcontractors, but I get the impression that they are short-staffed. The lines at Montreal's Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport during the holidays were very long. Why didn't you hire Transport Canada personnel instead of relying on the services of agencies?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

When it comes to the CATSA employees, they're subcontracted out, and this is actually much more efficient. It's actually deemed to be somewhere between 20% and 25%.

When I talked to Tom Ridge in the United States, he suggested that our model is much better than theirs. Really, CATSA is a product that came out of the 9/11 attack. We had to react very quickly. If there's one thing our American counterparts are saying, it's that they wish they'd taken on the Canadian model.

We regulate it. We have CATSA, which our government employees are monitoring and watching. This is one of the recommendations of the Auditor General. We have changed that to make sure it is done as efficiently as possible.

Now, we're not satisfied yet, because what we did announce, the $1.5 billion of extra money into CATSA over a five-year period, is to make sure that we do a complete review of CATSA, making sure that we are doing it as efficiently as we possibly can. We're not satisfied yet that we are getting not only the best procedures but also the best value for money. Perhaps we'll even look at the structure of it.

We're launching that review now and we're very serious about it, but your concerns are understood. We understand that Canadians are prepared to pay but they want an efficient system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci, Monsieur Gaudet.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to you, Minister, for coming in today.

I'm interested in talking about aviation safety, of course. You made an announcement yesterday that you're taking back the responsibility that was assigned to the association that represents the business jet industry. You've also delayed implementation of air taxi and helicopter SMS.

I worked very hard to get some witnesses in front of this committee to talk about the larger issue of aviation safety vis-à-vis major carriers. Since we've seen that in a number of areas the system is not working as well as you thought it would, and as well as this government and the Department of Transport thought it would, are you now considering actually doing a review of aviation safety vis-à-vis SMS for large carriers?