Transport Committee on March 18th, 2010

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

I don't really know; I can't really answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would ask, too, that anything that's requested by committee members come through the chair.

Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to echo what the minister had to say about the way the department has moved out the infrastructure money. We've had some great success in my constituency of Okanagan—Shuswap. As the former mayor of a community, I know that you're only as good as the people who work for you. You've made the minister look very good and I think you've done a great job in that area.

I'd like to ask a few questions about airport security. I know the department wants to make sure that safety and security levels are as high as possible to protect Canadians. But is there a point where there are going to be some challenges?

The focus has been on new screening technology. Has any thought been given to looking at the people who cause the problem, not at the things they bring into airports for the purposes of endangering lives? Are there some challenges to profiling people? Is there a policy or direction from the ministry whereby they're going to start moving away from screening the actual luggage and start looking at the passengers?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

As you said, airport security is not an easy subject. We have to be vigilant at all times and in many cases. We are looking at additional measures. For example, on behaviour observation, our colleagues at CATSA have been looking at a program on that. They have offered or are about to offer a contract to design this particular program, which will look at situations and focus on the people who might actually pose a danger to aviation security.

Are we not going to scan suitcases or are we not going to scan people? I don't think it would be wise, given that we live in high-risk times. As to whether we can do this in a more efficient way, a more effective way, and a more thoughtful way, I think the committee agrees. We are all open to that. The review we will conduct on CATSA is actually meant to do exactly that.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, when reading some of my notes here, I was interested to see that Marine Atlantic provides and pays for ferry service from Cape Breton to Newfoundland. I know it's an obligation under the Constitution. But as a British Columbian, the thought that came to me was why doesn't the Government of Canada have the same type of arrangement with the ferry service from Vancouver to Vancouver Island, for instance, when we know the Trans-Canada Highway ends in Victoria? Is there a particular policy that has made a difference in how both of those services are provided?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

There is actually a longstanding agreement with British Columbia. We provide federal funds.

I'll ask my colleague, Kristine Burr, to answer.

[Kristine Burr, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Policy Group, Department of Transport]

Thank you. Mr. Chair.

We actually provide an annual subsidy to the Province of British Columbia for the ferry from the mainland to Vancouver Island. It's partly a longstanding arrangement and it is in fact, as you suggest, in recognition of the importance of the connection between the mainland and the island.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Could you provide me with the formula for how you determine that number?

[Kristine Burr]

I'd be happy to provide additional information, but it is based on a longstanding agreement between the federal government and the Province of British Columbia. There are provisions in the agreement for annual adjustments to reflect inflation.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

About 200 kilometres of the Trans-Canada Highway goes through my constituency, and it's of very great importance to me. I'm really happy to see all the investments that are happening through the Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada to upgrade that highway. After the stimulus money and the Building Canada money has been spent, is there a program for capital for nationally upgrading the Trans-Canada? Is there an annual figure that is normally spent every year by the Government of Canada?

[John Forster, Associate Deputy Minister, Infrastructure Canada]

With respect to the investments in the Trans-Canada Highway, they come out of the infrastructure funds and programs. At the moment, there's work being done through stimulus and work being done through Building Canada. That was a seven-year fund that runs until 2014-2015. After that time, at this point there's no money beyond the Building Canada fund for that.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

But it does go until 2014.

[John Forster]

Yes, it's until 2014.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Madam Deputy Minister, welcome to you and your associates.

I will be focusing my questions on British Columbia only. In British Columbia, when we talk about the largest coming investment in rail infrastructure, it is the New Westminster swing bridge, where a whole bottleneck happens. Could you update me on the status of that particular project, please?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

I'll ask Kristine Burr to answer your question, but we have made significant investments in British Columbia as part of the gateway initiative. Federal dollars have been leveraged with industry money. It is actually making a difference already.

[Kristine Burr]

Thank you.

I would just confirm what the deputy has said. There is a significant amount of investment under the gateway initiative. As you may know, the province and the federal government have worked closely together with local municipalities and with industry to identify the priority projects that would be the most effective in reducing congestion and improving the efficiency of transportation, particularly in the lower mainland and out to the port, in order to ensure our transportation system supports exports and imports.

When this collaborative work was undertaken around 2005, the New Westminster rail bridge was one of the projects identified as being important and as one that should be on our work plan.

What happened was that we focused primarily on the most pressing projects, the ones that would improve transportation and deal with congestion immediately.

As we speak right now, we're working with Public Works, which owns the bridge, Port Metro Vancouver, and CN Rail, which uses the bridge for a lot of rail traffic, and we're looking at future options. It's very much on our radar as a project that needs to be undertaken in the foreseeable future.

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

You mentioned a specific gateway project. Are you on track to finish that project on time?

[Kristine Burr]

At this point, we're still at the preliminary stages. We've got a study under way looking at the engineering questions and also at whether this piece of infrastructure should reside with the Department of Public Works or whether it would be better handled as part of Port Metro Vancouver, perhaps, because it's really transportation infrastructure and not the kind of infrastructure that Public Works generally deals with.

We're also looking at whether this would be a good project for a P3 and getting private sector expertise in to work with the players to replace the existing bridge.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mrs. Crombie.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I had three questions for Minister Merrifield. Since he's left us, I'll still pose them to you to put them on the record, but you may or may not be able to respond. I'm just going to put them all on the table.

I know this question about Canada Post being in the police and security business during the Olympics came up earlier. There was $652,000 for security of the mail. Can you elaborate on how that was spent? It seems like an inordinate amount of money for Canada Post to be spending on policing and security for the Olympics. That's the first question.

Second, I'm delighted the minister is following our lead on rural postal delivery. Of course safety is the primary concern, but my concern is with the elimination of delivery in rural and remote areas. I'd like you to comment on that. I'm also concerned about the job loss that may ensue as a result.

Finally, I don't think your responsibility is the Royal Mint, although it does come under Mr. Merrifield. You are indicating it is? Good. I understand that $1.4 million was spent on the forensic audit to discover that the $20 million of missing gold wasn't really missing. Can you comment on the $1.4 million and how that was spent, and whether or not that was a good use of taxpayers' money?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

And could you do it in a very brief time?

[André Morency]

I'll try to answer the questions as they were posed.

In terms of what Canada Post did specifically to ensure a certain level of security of the mail coming into the Vancouver Olympics area, Canada Post would have that information. We, as a department, don't really have the specifics of how they actually conducted that work. It's more an operational issue. The money here in the supplementary estimates is what they had planned to spend based on what they saw being the level of effort for that period of time.

In terms of rural post delivery, Canada Post is not in the business of eliminating rural post delivery. In fact, as the minister mentioned, there is a service charter that in fact enshrines the continuation of rural mail delivery. What they are looking at, of course, as the minister stated, is a safe way to deliver that mail in rural Canada.

Whether this would result in any job losses would be a question better posed to Canada Post. It certainly hasn't been conveyed to us that this is about jobs. It's really about the security and the safety of those delivering the mail.

In terms of the Royal Canadian Mint, yes, they have indicated to us that they have spent $1.4 million in the context of all those entities that they engaged to help look at that issue. Those included a company like Deloitte & Touche, which probably included other experts, and it also included the RCMP, which looked into whether there was any criminal intent there. So certainly they've been quite forward in saying that it cost them $1.4 million to complete the very detailed examination, which they felt was necessary to get to the bottom of the situation.