Evidence of meeting #54 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vessels.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Are you saying we have to stop at 5:15 when the bells start?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Would it be possible to have one round each, and then deal with the motion?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I don't know if we'll be done our questions within that period of time. But what if we do one round, see how the line of questioning goes, and go from there?
Is that all right with you, Mr. McCallum?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Okay.
I only have one question, and then if one of my colleagues has one, I'll defer to them.
Has your department ever been directed, requested, or encouraged to use the term “Harper government”, rather than “Government of Canada”?
4:40 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
I have personally not been directed to use that particular terminology. If you look at the press releases out of our department, out of infrastructure Canada, I think most of our wording is “Government of Canada”. A few press releases or media reports might have that particular wording. I cannot really tell you exactly how that got added on. As you would appreciate, the communication products go through many layers of approvals, including at the political levels, PCO, and PMO.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Thank you to our witnesses.
The Minister of State for Transport indicated that the plan developed by Captain Sid Hynes and approved by the board of directors and Transport Canada--according to my records of minutes of the meetings of the board of directors of Marine Atlantic--was a disaster. The Fleetway--and that's exactly how the minister categorized the fleet renewal plan--would have been a disaster.
The plan was approved by Marine Atlantic. The draft of it was prepared by Captain Sid Hynes and became a template. Then it was developed by Marine Atlantic and Transport Canada. Do you categorize it as a disaster, dating back to 2004, 2005, and 2006?
4:40 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
I'm hoping I'll be in the hands of the chair, but I don't think that is a particularly fair question to ask government officials right after the minister has made a comment.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Thank you, Madam Deputy Minister.
There was a study conducted by Fleetway consultants and Oceanex consultants. It was commissioned by either Transport Canada or Marine Atlantic. It gave specific technical requirements--best options for the fleet renewal. Other logistical issues were dealt with, and it provided specific recommendations.
Can you tell this committee if the conclusions of Fleetway and Oceanex consultants indicated that the best fleet configuration was three European-built, second-hand vessels that were 201 metres in length, or four made-in-Canada, 175-metre-long vessels? I'm considering the circumstances of Port aux Basques, the crossings in the gulf, and those technical issues.
4:45 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
First of all, we want to make sure that Marine Atlantic provides good, safe service to Canadians. I'm going to ask my colleague Ms. Burr to comment, because I was not around in 2006 when this report was done. I was at Agriculture.
4:45 p.m.
Kristine Burr Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Policy Group, Department of Transport
These are technical matters, and I think what we'll have to do is commit to provide a response after we've gone back and checked the report and verified the information.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
As deputy minister, would you be aware that Transport Canada directed Marine Atlantic to seek out four Canadian-built vessels in 2004, 2005, and 2006? I have copies of the minutes of the board of directors of Marine Atlantic. Mr. Flood, who was the president at the time, suggests that the board make a recommendation to Transport Canada that Marine Atlantic acquire four vessels, that three vessels be identical, 175 metres in length, and that these vessels be requested immediately for on-time delivery.
That motion was approved. The minutes go on to elaborate that Transport Canada instructed Marine Atlantic to have the vessels built in Canada. They convened meetings of all the shipyard owners in Halifax on March 14, 2006. This was a fairly in-depth advanced plan. This is not something written on the back of an envelope.
Will you provide us with specific commentary about what happened to that plan in 2004 and tell us why a Canadian-built response to Marine Atlantic's fleet renewal strategy would be such a disaster? Why were Canadian shipyards not able to deliver on time, as the minister stated in this committee? The minister stated the best result for Marine Atlantic and for the people of Atlantic Canada would be to get European vessels seven years after the fact. This, to my mind, is completely ridiculous.
I'd like to know what's going on here. Why is it that Canadian shipyards, in the point of view of the Minister of Transport, are so incapable of delivering on-time performance for purpose-built ships for the Canadian transportation industry, and why does our own Minister of Transportation feel the best option to produce ships for Canada would be a made-in-Europe solution?
4:45 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
I believe that the honourable member might have asked for a quite elaborate list of documentation from the department. I remember reading that request a couple of days ago. We are in the process of compiling this documentation, which is quite extensive. I believe that some of the questions about the study you asked for are in one of the papers that has been requested. We are working to the best of our ability to compile this documentation for the committee.
That's the long answer. The short answer is no. I can't tell you those things, because I'm not briefed on that report or those minutes of Marine Atlantic.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
The minister said there will be no job action. There will be no labour force adjustment whatsoever at Marine Atlantic. There will only be new hires. There will be no early retirements, no severances. They will not be required. The president of Marine Atlantic, Wayne Follett, said exactly the same thing to everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador through the public airways.
Are you confirming to this committee, while we study supplementary estimates (C), that a provision allowing Marine Atlantic to engage in severance, early retirements, and other measures, costed measures, which reduce the quality of service and the number of personnel at Marine Atlantic, was an unnecessary inclusion in the main estimates of Transport Canada? Are you saying that, because it's not even being contemplated, that particular inclusion under vote 40c is really unnecessary?
4:50 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
While I am a portfolio deputy minister who ensures that all these pieces work together, I'm not responsible for the operations of Marine Atlantic and I cannot comment on their staffing plans. As Minister Merrifield mentioned, there will be no job losses for engineers. That's what I heard. I cannot give you a more detailed answer. If you would like, I can get the person who's accountable for the operations to answer your questions.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As you know, ministers come and go but the officials and the deputy ministers stay.
I want to go back to the question I asked you earlier. Can you tell me what the chances are that the Air Canada employees in Montreal, Winnipeg and Mississauga will still be working after 2013?
4:50 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
Well, as the minister has said, Air Canada is subject to the Air Canada Public Participation Act, so I can only repeat what he has said and what we have to do from the government's perspective to ensure that the Canadian aviation sector remains competitive. We support the sector with appropriate regulations, trying to reduce the burden on them in terms of the regulatory burden and trying to make sure that good, competitive companies survive in Canada. And that's what the minister's answer was.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
I am repeating myself. Others may wish to answer.
As I was saying to you, ministers come and go. First, it was Mr. Baird and now it is Mr. Strahl; later on, it might be someone else.
This situation really frightens me. From what the minister was saying earlier, we can see that the company has no ties to us. I agree that, now the companies have been privatized, they may make money. Do you believe that we will be safer? I don't think so. Do you think prices will be lower? Again, I don't think so. How many companies have moved to Mexico, to Asia or elsewhere? Have you paid any less for their products? I for one have not found any cheaper products yet. I am not sure that Quebeckers and Canadians will come out winners. They may well be losers, with the 60,000 direct and indirect jobs at stake.
Personally, that is what I fear the most. I respect the minister and I understand his point of view. However, if we do not think of the future, we will be the ones to pay the price.
