Transport Committee on March 27th, 2012

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

Only in a parliamentary committee would any organization be criticized for not being expensive enough, but that's what you've been hearing from our opposition colleagues today. You've demonstrated how you're able to provide the same services with the same quality but do it at a lower price, and the opposition is saying they want you to be more expensive. I would very much like to be the restaurant owner who hosts Mr. Sullivan as a guest, because when the bill comes he would certainly say he wanted the bill to be higher for exactly the same thing.

On this side we congratulate this department. It is one of the leanest and most effective departments—

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Sullivan on a point of order.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

I did not say that I wanted it to be higher. I did not. I asked for an explanation of how the money was to be saved. That's what I got. I did not ever say that we wanted the department to spend more money on administration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That's not a point of order, but a point made.

Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I guess we have agreement now that we're all happy that you're able to save costs.

This is one of the leanest and best-run departments in the government. You continue to make improvements in the operations, and to provide the same high-quality service to the Canadian taxpayer at a lower price, and we congratulate you for that.

Ms. Chow was asking about the municipality's ability to finance water treatment. I have in front of me some statistics about federal funding for provincial, territorial, and municipal infrastructure. It shows that 15 years ago the federal government provided almost no funding whatsoever for municipal, provincial, and territorial infrastructure. The federal dollar contribution has now risen to $9 billion in the year 2010. It was an absolutely massive increase in transfers for provincial, municipal, and territorial infrastructure.

Can the members of the panel today comment on whether municipalities can use any of that money for water treatment?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

First of all, you are correct that the infrastructure spending, especially in the last five or six years, has grown. It was after a long period of not that much expenditure in the infrastructure, so this, as well as things like the economic action plan, gave a big bump in terms of the structured spending.

The municipalities have a number of tools available to them. One of them is the gas tax. If they choose to, they can spend it on waste water, fresh drinking water, or whatever priorities they have for that municipality.

I don't have the exact numbers, but I will be happy to provide them to you. A lot of activities and a lot of projects in the water area have been a priority for most of our municipalities, either be it on the waste water or the drinking water side.

As Ms. Chow has pointed out, drinking water and waste water is a real challenge across the country, but there are pots of funds available, and the gas tax fund is one that is continuing, so they can use that in order to rectify some of the issues they are having with water, or any other infrastructure issues they have.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

One of the measurements for the renewal of our infrastructure in this country is its average age. In 2001 the average age of a piece of infrastructure in Canada was 17 years. In 2010, which I believe is the latest year for which we have accurate statistics, it was 14.5, which means that we've reduced the average age...or I should say that the average piece of infrastructure is two and a half years newer than it was a decade ago.

Do you agree that this is a concrete measurement of the renewal of our infrastructure?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Yes, it's very concrete.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Literally.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll stop it there and go to Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'd like to thank our guests for attending today, with apologies that we did not spend as much time as I know we would have liked to with all of you, but thank you for your participation.

As a broad comment, I feel compelled to say that Canadians have an expectation of their governments. Probably just in the way that individuals run their households, they're asking government, which has a unique role to play, to be more efficient, to be effective, to do things that don't compromise public safety, and to do things that will provide key service levels.

To try to get a sense of expectations from them, I've asked my constituents in London West about this through the questions that I provide weekly to them in surveys, and I think the idea of doing things efficiently, with safety and key service components in mind, is very much in some of the feedback I receive. So I'd like to ask you a couple of questions.

I don't know if it's a direct yes or no, but in terms of VIA Rail, do you feel that the estimates you're providing will compromise safety either for the employees or for the passengers involved at VIA Rail? Can I ask that as a yes or no...?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

No.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Is that a simple yes or no?

[Anita Biguzs]

Well, VIA basically ensures that.... I mean, everything it does in terms of safety is not compromising safety. I think that for any of the measures the organization has taken—and it has taken measures in terms of the lean initiative, which is to reduce management structures—they have not compromised their ability to make sure they're actually providing services that are safe to Canadians in terms of rail service in Canada.

Of course, they also actually have to be.... We do actually as a department ensure as well that there are regulations railways have to follow to ensure safety and integrity. In that sense, any efficiency measures are not affecting or impacting safety on the line.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I will take that as a yes.

The question with that, then, is from an efficiency standpoint, staying with VIA Rail and expectations. Through the model of financial support the federal government is providing VIA Rail through the information you've given us in regard to the estimates, do you think they are being efficient?

[Anita Biguzs]

Yes.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Next, do you believe they're still providing key service levels to their customers?

[Anita Biguzs]

I think VIA basically has said itself that in the markets it operates in it tries to ensure that it has predictable and reliable service, and it's trying to actually increase the customer experience. It has service standards that it sets, and that's a key priority that they've identified in terms of their strategic planning. As I say, I think they're very committed in terms of trying to provide the best service they can for Canadians with the resources they have.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I'll take that as a yes.

[Anita Biguzs]

Yes.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to switch over to Marine Atlantic. I have some interest in this because of my Cape Breton roots, with most of my family being born in the east. What's going on there truly matters to me.

Again, I was looking at the main estimates. I know there were increases in some areas and decreases in others to come up with a budget that's fairly comfortable in regard to where it was this past year.

I'd like to ask this question as it relates to Marine Atlantic. On the support we're providing, which you've indicated through the main estimates, is there any issue you have through what you're proposing here that they are compromising the safety of their passengers?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

No.

[Anita Biguzs]

No.