Evidence of meeting #64 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
We'll call our meeting to order.
I want to welcome Minister Fletcher, Minister Lebel, and Mr. Lévesque and Ms. Lemay from the department. Thank you very much for being here.
Mr. Fletcher or Mr. Lebel, who's going to go...?
Mr. Lebel, I'll turn it over to you.
Denis Lebel ConservativeMinister of Transport
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation to meet with the committee today to address our main estimates, and update the committee on the transport, infrastructure and communities portfolio.
As you mentioned, I am joined by my colleague, the Honourable Steven Fletcher, Ms. Lemay from Infrastructure Canada, and Mr. Lévesque. Many members of our team are here, as well, sitting behind us. They are a skilled group that does great work at the Department of Transport.
I wish to thank the committee for its input over the past year relating to various issues, and I look forward to continuing our collaboration.
The main estimates we are addressing today will allow our portfolio to continue to address transportation- and infrastructure-related matters and services.
This work includes new regulations and legislation, projects to improve our transportation networks and our infrastructure, and programs that ensure the safety and security of transportation in Canada.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating: Canada needs safe and efficient transportation to achieve our government's goals of promoting growth, creating jobs, and supporting the long-term prosperity of Canadians. The economy is our priority, and we remain focused on it.
Given the important role that transportation plays in driving and attracting international trade, it is essential to ensure our economic competitiveness in the world. The funding we seek through the main estimates will help us to achieve this goal.
Mr. Chair, I know the committee is now very familiar with Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, as you are currently studying this important piece of legislation. I would like to thank all members of this committee for your work on this bill over the past number of weeks. Bill C-52 is a very important bill for our government because it strongly supports our economic agenda by ensuring that Canada's rail freight transportation system is well-positioned to support future economic growth, particularly in the resource development and commodity export sectors.
As you know, Bill C-52 will amend the Canada Transportation Act to create a backstop that will support commercial negotiations between shippers and railways with respect to service. This will enhance the reliability and predictability of our entire supply chain. The bill gives shippers the right to a service-level agreement with the railways that will define the terms of service a railway will follow to move shippers' goods. If a shipper is unable to negotiate a service contract with the railway commercially, it will be able to trigger a fast and flexible arbitration process through the Canadian Transportation Agency to have a service contract imposed. The bill also provides a strong new enforcement tool, an administrative monetary penalty of up to $100,000 to hold the railways accountable for their service obligations.
It is important to note that almost everyone agrees that since our government started looking into this issue back in 2008, the quality of rail freight service in Canada has improved. Bill C-52 is about solidifying and building upon these important gains. As a backstop, it will ensure that shippers have the leverage they need to negotiate service contracts with the railways. The goal is not to replace commercial negotiations; it is to provide the remedy for shippers in the event that commercial negotiations are not successful.
As we draft the bill, we worked very hard to listen carefully to the views of all stakeholders on what is a very complex issue. We have truthfully considered their proposals and we have tabled a bill that strikes the right balance for the entire Canadian economy. That's always been our goal, and I believe we have achieved it.
As I have heard support from all parties around this table for Bill C-52, I encourage this committee to proceed quickly with the conclusion of your study and refer it back to the House of Commons.
Moving on to another legislative initiative, this week we announced two significant measures to ensure that Canada has a world-class tanker safety regime through our safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.
First, we have introduced legislation to amend the Canada Shipping Act of 2001. Some of the amendments would require certain facilities to submit plans for pollution prevention, emergencies, or any proposed major expansion or conversions to the Minister of Transport, and to empower Transport Canada inspectors to direct facility operators to demonstrate their compliance.
Second, I'm appointing an expert panel to review Canada's current tanker safety system, led by Captain Gordon Houston, former president and CEO of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. The panel will review Canada's oil spill preparedness, examine our capacity to respond to spills, and develop a plan for future response.
Finally, while the panel will develop a plan for the future, there are other steps we are taking to strengthen our tanker safety system. We are increasing the number of tanker inspections and aerial surveillance. We are investing in research on marine transportation risks of oil sands products. We are assessing our laws and regulations regarding marine spill liability. And we are engaging communities and first nations on their local emergency response plans.
The Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act is a good bill, and I am confident it will receive support from all members of Parliament.
Moving on from sea to surface, when I appeared before this committee last November, I noted that plans were proceeding to build a new bridge over the St. Lawrence, in Montreal. With some 60 million vehicles and $20 billion worth of international trade crossing it annually, this bridge is important to both Montreal and the country.
What I can confirm at this time is that the environmental assessment will be completed by the end of 2013 or early 2014. This year, we will move ahead on property and public utilities work to begin building the Nuns' Island temporary causeway, which we will need in order to construct the new bridge.
We're also working on the Detroit River international crossing. With more than 8,000 trucks per day, the region's Ambassador Bridge is already the busiest land border crossing between Canada and the U.S. The new crossing will provide much-needed border-crossing capacity to handle the anticipated growth in commercial and traveller traffic.
To begin implementation of the project over the next year, Transport Canada will establish the Canadian crossing authority. The department will also start property acquisition in the United States and complete property transactions in Canada. We will begin to reallocate utilities and prepare the Canadian site around the crossing for construction.
Investing in Canada's infrastructure is also a key element of the Government of Canada's plan to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.
Since 2006, we have made unprecedented investments in thousands of infrastructure projects across the country, despite the systematic objections of the opposition parties. The biggest source of support for these investments has been the Building Canada Fund, which we established in 2007. While most of this fund has been committed to projects, it is important to remember that this funding will continue to flow beyond 2014, as construction continues on major projects we are supporting across the country.
In addition, we doubled the Gas Tax Fund, at $2 billion a year, and in 2011, we made it a permanent source of funding for municipalities. Thanks to our government, communities across Canada will be able to count on stable, predictable funding for their infrastructure needs.
In terms of other infrastructure funding, we are now looking to the future. But we are aware that any decisions must be made in the context of the Government of Canada's current fiscal situation and the capacity of Canadian taxpayers.
We have accomplished much through our investments in infrastructure projects across the country.
For example, residents in Nipigon, Ontario, recently celebrated the completion of upgrades to their wastewater treatment centre. In Pictou County, Nova Scotia, residents are taking opportunities to get fit and stay active thanks to the recent completion of the Pictou County Wellness Centre. And working together with the Government of Alberta, we have completed 12 important highway infrastructure initiatives that will support economic growth across the province.
Beyond local investments, we fund transportation infrastructure that contributes to trade and economic growth in Canada through our Asia-Pacific Gateway and Trade Corridor Initiative. By ensuring that trade supply chains can move people and goods efficiently, safely and securely between Canada and the rest of the world, we are improving incoming and outgoing North American trade, as well as our competitive advantage in global markets.
Since 2007, we have announced 39 strategic infrastructure investments in nine provinces under the $2.1 billion gateways and border crossings fund. This includes important initiatives in Atlantic, continental, and Asia-Pacific gateways.
We will continue to advance our gateway and corridor initiatives in partnership with other governments and stakeholders to improve our transportation system's ability to support international trade.
Unlike the opposition parties, we are focused on the economy.
You will note that these estimates indicate that planned operating expenditures for Transport Canada have decreased from 2011-12 to 2012-13. This reduction is mostly the result of savings announced in Budget 2012 and reflects measures the department is implementing to deliver more efficiently on its mandate.
Let me make something very clear. Transport Canada will continue to regulate, inspect, and oversee Canada's world-class transportation system, and it has taken measures to ensure that its core services remain properly funded and aligned with departmental priorities. These adjustments will not compromise the safety or security of travellers using any modes of transportation in Canada.
Transportation safety and security will remain a core part of Transport Canada's mandate. Canada has one of the safest transportation systems in the world, and the facts demonstrate it. The number of aviation accidents has decreased by 25% since 2000, while air travel has increased significantly.
And since 2007, the number of rail accidents has decreased by 23% and derailments by 37%. Transport Canada continues to emphasize the central importance of safety and security across all modes and to clarify the need for industry to create a culture of safety across air, marine and rail modes of transportation in Canada.
With these main estimates, we are moving forward with planned reductions in spending from our 2013 expenditures. But we will continue to ensure that the Canadian transportation system remains safe and secure, efficient, and environmentally responsible.
Over the past year, the departments under my portfolio have changed to meet the reductions announced in Budget 2012. We are working to modernize our programs and improve the efficiency of our workforce. Our employees take this challenge seriously and will strive to build greater innovation, efficiency and accountability in the portfolio.
That concludes my remarks.
I will now invite Minister Fletcher to speak to you regarding our portfolio's crown corporations.
Conservative
Steven Fletcher ConservativeMinister of State (Transport)
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be here today.
Mr. Lebel, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak about the main estimates requested of the three crown corporations in our portfolio.
I will focus on VIA Rail, Marine Atlantic, and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, and I welcome the opportunity to explain how these organizations are evolving and how they continue to best serve the interests of all Canadians.
Let's start with VIA. Passenger rail service plays an integral part in our country's economy and transportation system, and our government remains committed to providing Canadians with safe, reliable, and sustainable passenger rail service. We have invested close to $1 billion in VIA to renovate trains, improve accessibility, upgrade tracks, and upgrade stations. Some of those projects have ended, which is reflected in the decreased funding in the main estimates.
These estimates have addressed urgent infrastructure needs. They've helped to improve VIA stations and equipment and to provide faster, more reliable service for travellers across the country.
We have supported improvements in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, and we have contributed to projects that improve the facilities and preserve the heritage features of both Pacific Central Station in Vancouver and Union Station in Winnipeg.
Beyond upgrading the infrastructure, VIA has also introduced innovative new services. Just weeks ago they launched a project that will provide free Canadian entertainment from the CBC and the National Film Board on VIA trains.
As well, we are supporting VIA programs to renew its equipment. In December VIA announced the launch of upgrades to its fleet of F40 locomotives, which are essentially the workhorses of the service. The new engines promise to be both environmentally sustainable and cost-effective, important factors in our transportation system.
VIA is meeting customer demand in the Ottawa-Toronto-Quebec corridor by introducing four new trains per weekday and four more on weekends, for a total of 28 new departures per week. In addition to these changes, there's a direct service between Quebec City and Ottawa to encourage more travel between the two capitals. This new service, which began this past December, could possibly attract 200,000 new passengers annually.
Moving from rail to sea, let's look at Marine Atlantic, which provides the constitutionally mandated ferry service between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Given this company's value to Atlantic Canada and the role a strong infrastructure in transportation plays in the region, it is absolutely critical, and our government continues to invest in it. In fact, I took both routes on Marine Atlantic not this summer but the summer past, and it was a thoroughly enjoyable trip on some huge ships. I heard nothing but praise, especially when people compare the new ships with the old ships and the docking, the new infrastructure at the ports versus the old infrastructure. So that's good.
Since 2007 we have supplied funds to support its programs, renew its fleet, and improve its services and facilities. As a result, as I've already mentioned, Marine Atlantic is receiving positive feedback from customers, complimenting both its staff and improved facilities.
With continued support from the federal government, we are confident that Marine Atlantic will continue to improve its efficiency and improve the experience for its customers. This will in turn support growth, job creation, and prosperity in the region.
Just before I conclude, I will talk briefly about the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. CATSA is responsible for screening air passengers and baggage and for controlling access to restricted areas in our airports. In doing so, it's always looking at ways to improve its service.
This past January, I travelled to Regina to announce a new initiative that is taking place there and in other airports. It will allow those who have NEXUS cards, or people who have joined the NEXUS program for trusted travellers, to pass through air security screening faster and more conveniently. This initiative demonstrates how CATSA and its partners are working to ensure that Canada maintains, as Minister Lebel has already eloquently noted, one of the safest and most secure transportation systems in the world.
Mr. Chair, the three crown corporations I've noted all provide essential services to Canadians and support our world-class transportation system. We are committed to ensuring that they continue to carry out their mandates, and we have taken measures to ensure that core services remain properly funded and aligned with departmental priorities.
We support the efforts they're making, along with the government, to support growth, create jobs, and promote prosperity for all Canadians.
I'd be happy to take any questions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thanks very much, Minister Fletcher.
Ms. Lemay and Mr. Lévesque are here to answer questions.
We'll move right into that, beginning with Ms. Chow for seven minutes.
I understand you're splitting your time with Mr. Sullivan.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Yes, thank you.
Good afternoon, Minister Lebel. Welcome to the committee.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has proposed “cut my commute time” funding, asking for a direct transfer to municipalities and provinces for public transit. As you know, this is a top priority for the Big City Mayors' Caucus. Mayors, whether they be from Calgary, Vancouver, Quebec City, Montreal, Halifax, or Toronto, are all asking for help to cut the commute time.
Within I think two days after they made the request, you were in the media saying, no, you do not support dedicated transit funding. My question is, why?
I'll ask my second question, and then you can answer both.
The second question has to do with our competitiveness. Canada loses five million passengers—Canadians—who go to the U.S. to fly out of the U.S. because they find that the cost of flying in Canada is too expensive. One of the reasons for it, the airlines have been telling us, is the high airport fees and all the funds that are being charged to the airports and to the airlines. As a result of this, airlines in Canada are not as competitive as those in the States, which means we lose millions of dollars of tax revenue and thousands of jobs.
What is your plan for dealing with that lost revenue and Canadians having to drive south in order to fly anywhere?
Conservative
Denis Lebel Conservative Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I know transit is important for big municipalities in this country—we understand that—but our government respects jurisdictions in cities like Montreal or Toronto. I know many people are interested in these cities. We think that at the municipal level they know what the best choice is for their populations.
We have invested more than $5 billion in support of transit projects all across the country. That's our record. That's very impressive. Some provinces decided to use mostly their gas tax fund for public transit.
We understand how important these cities are for the Canadian economy. We will continue to work with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and municipalities in all provinces and territories to try to find solutions for that.
These are the facts: no other government has invested more than ours has in the infrastructure of this country, including transit. We will continue to work to fix that with them, but not on their behalf. We will not replace them; we will do that with them.
With regard to aviation, for sure we have a user-pay system. We're the neighbour of a country with over 300 million persons. We have close to 34 million in Canada, with a large land mass to cover. That's not easy for airlines. It's always a question of l'offre et la demande. That's not easy for companies. We're working with them. We're trying to find solutions with them, but now, in the U.S.A. with their economy, there are choices they have to make. We have made difficult choices in Canada, and we will continue to apply the user-pay system, because we think when you use a service, you have to pay for it too. It's the same thing in aviation.
We continue to follow the issue with them. I organized some meetings with all the stakeholders involved in aviation in Canada, and we will continue to work with them to find solutions.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I have a supplementary question, and then I'll go to Mike. Do you prefer a direct transfer like a gas tax program for transit, or do you prefer a grant program, in which you have to apply and you never know whether you're going to get it, and sometimes you get it for a few years and sometimes you don't? What do you think works better?
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
If you want to respect municipal jurisdiction, then you do want to do a direct transfer and let them decide. Why ask them to do a grant program?
Conservative
Denis Lebel Conservative Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Because in many provinces, like Quebec, we can't intervene directly with municipalities. In Quebec we have to go through the province. That's an obligation. We signed an agreement with them, and in the future I hope we will sign another agreement with them for a new infrastructure plan.
In Quebec we will have to transfer all the money to the province. They choose their projects. When they have prioritized a list, they send it to the federal government. We have planned at the beginning, before the signature, what kinds of programs will be on the table. We have to respect the fact that we have to invest through the Province of Quebec.
As a former mayor—I know some expect to become mayor, but I'm a former one—I want to have the right tool to help mayors and provincial ministers. The tool we use depends on what is important for each person, but in the end we need a good infrastructure plan to fix things for the population.
Conservative
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
I know. I have two quick questions.
Ms. Chow and I wrote to you to ask if you'll attach conditions to infrastructure spending to include real apprenticeships in order to create employment, ease our skills shortages, and put our youth to work through such programs as the Hammer Heads training program in Toronto. Will you respond positively to that request in the upcoming budget?
The second question has to do with the air-rail link in Toronto. It's the subject of much controversy because of the province's decision to use polluting diesel trains. Canada will be the only country in the world running diesel trains to service an airport. The community wants it electrified before service starts. Has the Province of Ontario actually asked for federal funding? If they did, would you consider this environmentally responsible help?
Conservative
Denis Lebel Conservative Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
We will respect the province and their choice. We will continue to work with them, for sure. We know they have a lot of challenges. I've already had a discussion with the new premier about different subjects. We will continue to work with them, but we will not decide on behalf of them. You have to continue your job to tell them what kind of transit you want for Toronto and the greater Toronto area. We will continue to work with them with the money available. They already made a lot of choices in the past.
And the first question was...?
Conservative
Denis Lebel Conservative Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Yes, we work on transport issues, for sure. For the workers, I transferred the information to the minister. We'll have to decide how the skills program will be applied and what kinds we will have. We're very concerned about the fact that we need good workers, and workers all across the country.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. It's great to see you.
Funnily enough, you're both here two days before the budget comes down. I imagine there won't be any bad news in Thursday's budget. If there is, you won't come under fire today. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
There is never bad news. I have been there: I know that.
Mr. Lebel, we agree with the infrastructure program, given that we created it. As a minority government, we even urged the Conservative government to continuing moving it forward. I see, however, that for the program ending in 2013-14, the main estimates have gone from $5.1 billion to $3.9 billion. That's a decrease of nearly 23%.
Given how important the situation is—and you'll bring up the bridge, which we are very glad about, even though we'd like it to come sooner—there are still issues to keep in mind.
First, I would like you to tell me the reason for the decrease.
Second, I would like to know whether you have initiated talks with the Quebec minister regarding the renewal agreement.
Conservative
Denis Lebel Conservative Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I met with the president of Quebec's treasury board a few weeks after he was appointed. I told him that, as a partner, we wanted to respect the current rules for every province and territory. We have to respect how the system works. We don't have a specific system for the provinces, aside from Quebec, which we must deal with directly.
There is no doubt, when it comes to infrastructure programs—and we'll have to see what the budget brings in the days ahead—that we want to continue solving a number of problems across the country and stimulating economic development.
I will let Ms. Lemay or Mr. Lévesque answer that question. In any case, it clearly has to do with managing the budget and funds. I'll let them answer, and then I'll take over.
Louis Lévesque Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
As far as the current infrastructure program goes, keep in mind that the amounts we are asking Parliament to authorize represent what we believe our partners—the provinces and municipalities—will be able to claim as their projects move forward. The differences can be significant, but we need Parliament's authorization to ensure that we are empowered to make the payment when a province files a claim, under the contribution agreements.
The fluctuations are not indicative of a desire to reduce spending or cancel projects. They strictly reflect the timetable that the provinces, territories and municipalities follow in order to access our funding. That is the reason for the decrease.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Might that also mean that some projects were not completed last year, leaving you with unused amounts? Is that the case?
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Minister, I see that there is also leftover funding for the Old Port of Montreal Corporation. To some extent, that comes under your authority. It involves payments and grants.
As far as the new body is concerned, the fact that it was placed under the umbrella of the Canada Lands Company is offensive to me.
Do you foresee, if necessary, a possible transfer of the Old Port of Montreal Corporation?