Transport Committee on March 8th, 2011

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, I'd say that one thing industry and unions want is consistency from the government. If this is the law, then the spirit and intent of the law are going to be upheld.

You mentioned the need to improve the economics of our airline industries. I see that in the main estimates you have a $334 million increase for aviation security. How much of that is going to be taken up with the new charges that are going in place?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

No, they're actually not new charges. But your question is what is the difference, and it's a legitimate question: what's the difference between the A-base funding of last year and the A-base funding this year? If you add last year's A-base and supplemental estimates dollars together and compare them with those of this year, you'll actually find that there is $20 million less money in airport security this year. Most of that money is actually for the millimetre wave scanners we bought last year. So really, they're virtually the same. It's just that they didn't show in the main estimates as A-base and supplemental together.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

What's your plan to reduce the cost of aviation security? Whether it's from two years ago or from this year, what's your plan to reduce these costs so that we're competitive with many of the other countries in the world?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

When it comes to security, we're not going to compromise safety. That is for sure.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

If it's security, then wouldn't it be in the hands of the government rather than in the hands of the passenger? If it's simply a question of security, then should that not be part of the expense of all of us rather than the expense of the travelling public?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Your question was how are we going to make it sustainable, how are we going to make sure we get the best bang for the dollar. Whether it's the travelling public or the general public paying for it, we want to make sure those dollars will be spent in an efficient way and not compromise safety in the process. So we're going to target real risk issues, and we're going to be much smarter about how we do that.

Actually, Minister Strahl and I made an announcement just recently with regard to how we're going to do that, rolling that out over this next year. We're going to increase productivity on security lines by 30%, which is no small task, by doing a number of things in a much better way than we have in the past.

We went through a review, which was actually announced in the 2010 budget, over this last year. It was a very thorough review. We had all of the interest groups in, we took their advice, and we revamped how we're doing security, in a much better way. So I think that's going to lead us to a place where we're going to be competitive internationally and nationally, and there's going to be less hassle at the airport. I know you go through the airport a lot, and so do most people in this room. They can look forward to appreciating that kind of increase in productivity.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

On the green infrastructure fund, you see a $70 million reduction. What's the process there? Has there been consultation with the provinces and territories, your partners, in this to see that reduction?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Maybe John Forster could answer.

[John Forster, Associate Deputy Minister, Infrastructure of Canada, Department of Transport]

The item in the supplementary estimates (C) in terms of the reduction in the green infrastructure fund is just a re-profiling from this fiscal year to future fiscal years, to match the rate of construction and the rate at which the provinces are building the projects.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So this is money that wasn't taken up this year.

[John Forster]

Right. Exactly.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Why is that? Why in this day and age should we not be getting the green infrastructure fund?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

John can answer the technical....

The green infrastructure fund, unlike the stimulus funding, doesn't end on March 31. This is a multi-year plan—so the fund is there, spent over many years. The money hasn't all been allocated out of that fund, nor has it all been used. So it doesn't wind up on March 31 of this year. It will spread out. There'll be more announcements and more projects allocated as time goes forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll have to stop it there.

Before I recognize Mr. Watson, at the beginning of this meeting I was asked and I allowed a community television group to come in and take some pictures and some video. I've since been advised that the rules of the House state that when the gavel comes down, they are to quit filming. But they continued for a few minutes longer, so I want to apologize to our committee members and to the parliamentary press gallery for any problems I may have created with that mistake.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'll just have to dock your pay, Mr. Chair. No, I'm kidding. You're doing a fine job.

Ministers, thank you for appearing—officials as well.

Minister Strahl, you made some mention, of course, of work on the Ontario-Quebec gateway initiative. I can think of no singular infrastructure project more critical in that gateway than the Detroit River international crossing project. For the benefit of the committee, and as well for Canadians who are looking in, can you explain some of the measures being undertaken to maintain the government's momentum behind that project, any update with respect to our engagement with our American partners?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

Of course, the Detroit River international crossing, or the DRIC--and we have to find a better name for that, so we can start to talk about it with some excitement, and I have some suggestions--has seen some good progress in the last few months. We've had an election down in the States. The new governor of Michigan has thrown his weight behind it as one of his priorities. It was in his equivalent of the Speech from the Throne, the State of the State Address, as they started their new session down there with the new governor and many new members of the Congress.

So that's a great story, because not only does it have the support of the governor, but it has made it in as a priority for the government at large itself. That's a good news story. We haven't had that before.

You came with me to meet with the governor and his team during the transition period. I think we had some effect in convincing him that this was a great story on both sides of the border. Since then, I've met with American officials, the American ambassador, Secretary LaHood, Secretary Napolitano, and others to talk about the importance of DRIC, in my opinion, not only for commerce but even for security reasons. It's going to be a great addition to the border given the number of both passengers and trucks that use it. This is a very unique project in that I think every political party at every level is supportive of it on the Canadian side, at both the provincial and I hope federal levels.

When I was in Montreal talking about the continental gateway, they reminded me that the majority of their truck traffic that goes to the United States uses that crossing, so another crossing is going to be a great news story for the whole continental gateway initiative.

Since that time, we've been working closely with the legislators in Michigan to answer any questions they might have. We have information packets that we've given to legislators, committee chairmen, and others. I've spoken to the chair of the transportation committee, the Speaker of the House, and to anybody who will take my phone calls down there.

The response has been very encouraging. Now what's particularly encouraging is what I see as very broad and widespread support from unions, farm groups, and others down stateside who have caught the idea that this is not going to benefit just Detroit but the whole state. We're talking about tens of thousands of jobs during the construction period and the long-term prospects of a continuing and growing trade that's going to be able to count on using both the Ambassador Bridge and the new DRIC crossing.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

In fact, Governor Snyder would characterize it as more than a priority. I think the State of the State Address put this piece of infrastructure at the centre of an entire economic strategy. So that is a major step forward.

In terms of suggestions about renaming it, there are a number of thoughts from our community. One, which I might support, is some consideration around whether this new bridge reflects some sort of honour with respect to veterans who have served in both countries. We'll submit that for consideration on behalf of something that seems to be growing in the region.

As we are progressing through the stimulus period, obviously the economic action plan and the infrastructure investments have been significant. They've had enormous impact either in improving quality of life in communities or in repositioning local and regional economies for economic recovery. I know, for example, that investments in the Windsor port facility have not only positioned that facility to be competitive as a Great Lakes port but have prepared us well for the increasing demands from aggregate and other things like that, to support not only current infrastructure but the DRIC as it moves to the construction phase at some point in the future. Having said that, I know there have been additional port investments. I understand the Port of Sept-Iles has had some important benefits. Can you describe the economic impact of the ISF investment, for example, in the Port of Sept-Iles?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

I think you're right; the announcement we made in Windsor, which I was able to attend, was very well received. It's interesting how sometimes what people think is a niche or a smaller port becomes an essential part of an overall strategy. That was evident in Windsor. The ability to continue in that aggregate business, with all of the things that relate to that--paving, concrete, and all the things that come from it--is no small thing. I know they were very excited to think they had now moved to that next level with that investment.

It's the same sort of thing at Sept-Iles. I wasn't there for the announcement. The Prime Minister was there. I think the port officials said at the time that not only were they very grateful for the investment; they pointed out that it was the leverage they got from the private sector that got them excited. It's a smaller investment from the.... I mean, it's not insignificant, but investment from the federal government is one thing; it also sends a message to the private sector that we're in for the long haul.

So they were able to announce, within short order, the size of.... I forget the exact number--I don't want to give the wrong number here--but considerable private sector investment followed right on the heels of that.

As port officials said at the time, they don't remember--ever, probably--a prime minister coming to their port. The fact that he was there and made the announcement sends a message that I think we want to send in all of our ports. The investment is a sign that.... You know, we are a trading nation and we're heavily dependent on transportation, and these investments in the long run are going to pay off.

The private sector picks up on that right away: if you're in for a penny, then we're in for a pound. And that's nice to see.

That's what's happened in all the gateway initiatives. We make the initial investment. We say we'll be there as a partner. Then the private sector says, well, if you're there, and we know that we have the ear of all levels of government, then we're in for the long haul.

That's been very encouraging.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the ministers and the officials.

In order for the main estimates documents to be of value to Parliament and parliamentarians, they need to say what they mean and mean what they say. There's the inclusion here of a particular line, under vote 40c, that I've never seen before, in any main estimates documents, pertaining to Marine Atlantic.

It says the following:

(b) payments made by the Company of the costs incurred for the provision of early retirement benefits, severance and other benefits where such costs result from employee cutbacks or the discontinuance or reduction of a service....

Again, main estimates documents must say what they mean and mean what they say. That says, to me, that there are going to be layoffs and that there are going to be terminations at Marine Atlantic.

Now, notwithstanding the fact that, I could agree, there might be some new hires, 32 engineers and electricians have filed notice that they've been identified by the company, Marine Atlantic, for reduction, elimination.

Are there going to be any layoffs at Marine Atlantic? I want to put this question very precisely. Are there going to be job or labour force reductions for any of the staffing personnel at Marine Atlantic?

I'm not talking about new hires of stewards and so on.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Let me try to give you as accurate an answer as I possibly can, because you particularly have followed Marine Atlantic from a bit of a distance.

You were in charge of it at one time, left it on life support. We picked you up by the boots and fixed Marine Atlantic from the ground up.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Minister, could you answer the question for me?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I'm going to answer some of the questions, because you're wrong on everything you've speculated about Marine Atlantic in the last year. You're wrong on the vessels we brought in. You're wrong on the naming of those vessels. You're wrong on last summer's service. You're probably going to be wrong on this one too, so let me help you out on what is happening.

We're bringing two new vessels in. Those new vessels are going to need fewer staff.

When it comes to the engineers who run and operate these ferries going across the bay, there will be no job loss.

In fact, what is happening right now is that the engineers they have...they're at a shortage. There is a tremendous amount of overtime, actually; we're overworking these individuals with the previous two vessels.

So there will be less of them needed, but none of them will lose their jobs. There will be no job loss.

I hope that's as accurate and as clear as I can make it so that there will be no speculation on your part or anyone's part around the table.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Okay. So there will be no labour force adjustment whatsoever at Marine Atlantic. I appreciate that.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

There will be no engineer loss.