Transport Committee on March 6th, 2014

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

As I said in my opening remarks, that's an excellent question. Our role in Transport Canada is to be able to underscore and enforce our government's responsible resource development plan, and that includes what we currently have in our logistics chain. We expect and we want our logistics chain to grow to make sure that it can handle the prosperity that we want to build for our country. That's what we do every day in government; we try to build jobs and growth and long-term employment through our resources and through our agriculture, and we can't have that step in the middle that doesn't allow us to act on what we have been planning for.

The deputy has some numbers, though, that he was going to provide to you.

[Louis Lévesque]

I want to go back to what the minister said at the beginning, to put things in context for the committee. A typical crop over the last five years in the Prairies has been around between 50 and 55 million tonnes in total. Last year's crop was 76 million tonnes. Of the crop typically—it depends on year over year—it's about 30 to 35 million tonnes actually going for exports. Obviously, all the additional crop is not going to get consumed in North America. That's the goal for exports.

It's just the size of the increase of around 20 million tonnes to the size of what's actually getting done typically, which is between 30 and 40 million tonnes; that's a massive increase. But it's very clear that the capacity of the system has to be increased. The rail companies have announced significant investments into new capacities in terms to increase over time, but really the issue we're facing is the speed at which these things can come online versus the simple fact of 20 million more tonnes harvested last year than they are typically. This is definitely a huge challenge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Minister, it's not very often I ask a question from the chair, but I'd like to follow up on the discussion about capacity. You may or may not want to comment on this.

I know yourself or Minister Ritz can't tell farmers or shippers where to ship their product, obviously, but I've had it pointed out to me a couple of times by people who I would say are in the know that basically the port of Thunder Bay and the Great Lakes are maybe not being utilized to their best. It's fairly close for wheat out of Manitoba or maybe even the eastern part of Saskatchewan to go towards Thunder Bay and out through the Great Lakes.

I don't know whether you want to comment on that, but is that an option that's worth looking at?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

We have to maximize whatever way we have to move the grain, there's no question. But you're right; farmers want to sell to where they want to sell in terms of market so that's important.

What we have right now are certain corridors we can use. It seems to be felt that the easiest corridor to move, the fastest corridor to move, is of course going to the west coast, Prince Rupert or Port Metro Vancouver and all the terminals that have been built out there.

We also have other ways. We have Churchill, which is utilized sometimes. We have a U.S. route. We can go to the east coast directly into Halifax and along the way there. As well we have Thunder Bay. We utilize marine mode of transport in order to move it out of the system. Ideally all of these modes work. Ideally that allows us to move as quickly as we can as much grain as we can.

One of the things that wasn't mentioned yet is the way the markets work this year. What became clear as well is that it's one thing to plan for what is a normal crop, but it's another thing to plan to exceed it in whatever percentages you can talk about, but when all the orders come in at the same time.... Normally you can run about 4,200 cars per railway to the west coast. When an order comes in for 7,200 cars, you can see there is a discrepancy in terms of what's possible and what's not.

You know what? I'm not here to be apologetic for the railways. Our role in Transport Canada is to ensure that we understand the chain and that we do as much as we can to ensure that we balance that relationship. What we want in the government is for economic prosperity for everybody and getting to move our product to market. That's what we're going to continue to work on.

I'm glad you mentioned Thunder Bay, Mr. Chair, because it is a viable alternative, and it is a place.

Now, the Great Lakes are frozen right now, so it is a route that is limited by weather. It's great to be in Canada, but absolutely, utilization of all our modes, and just continue to do what we're doing well in the world.... We're number eight in the world in terms of wheat. I'd like to move up on that list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson, for seven minutes, please.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for mentioning the H₂O highway through the Great Lakes. There's record ice this year actually. Requests for icebreaking are up almost 25% on the Great Lakes.

Mr. Chair, I have a couple of brief comments and then I'll be splitting my time with Ms. Young.

First of all, with respect to Mr. Mai and the issue of Canadian content on the project that we're responsible for, which is the DRIC, Detroit River international crossing, we do have a waiver from buy American provisions that will allow both U.S. and Canadian steel on a very important project between our two nations.

It's rare that I find myself agreeing with Mr. McGuinty, but following the money is very important. In fact, I think there is a committee and an auditor general in Ontario who are following the money on the cancellation of two gas plants there, but I digress for a moment.

Mr. Lévesque, the airports capital assistance program, which is really critical for small airports particularly to ensure they are up to a high level of safety as per what they are regulated to do, if we were to follow Mr. McGuinty's narrative, that program was eliminated entirely.

That's not the case is it, Mr. Lévesque?

[Louis Lévesque]

No.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

No. In fact, it's being accounted for under transportation infrastructure rather than under the aviation safety rubric. Is that correct?

[Louis Lévesque]

Correct.

I can ask Helena to answer that.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Well, I have the answer to that, which is “yes”.

That's important, because we're dealing with infrastructure improvements that include everything from runway and taxiway improvements to important lighting investments and aircraft firefighting equipment. The list goes on and on. In fact, aviation safety with that program is being entirely preserved.

I know that doesn't fit the opposition narrative about cuts, but in fact, overall spending in the estimates is up for the department 9.5%, almost 10%. Is that correct?

[Louis Lévesque]

[Inaudible—Editor]...correct.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That is correct. Okay.

Mr. Chair, my questions are done. I'll defer to Ms. Young.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Ms. Young.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you so much, Minister, for being here today, and thanks to the department representatives.

I come from British Columbia. I want to talk about some things that are important to us out on the west coast. That includes the world-class tanker safety system. On top of that, I have a couple of other questions. I just want to give you a bit of a heads-up in case we don't get there and you want to do some prep. The second question I want to ask is around the clean water from transportation program. The third one is about the gas tax.

Regarding the world-class tanker safety program, in my constituency many people come up to me and ask me questions, for example, what is it, and how can you assure us that this is a world-class tanker safety program and that these aren't just words? I'd like to give the minister and the department staff an opportunity to answer these questions.

Why is this program needed? Why do we know that Canada needs this program? What are the changes being made to assure British Columbians and other Canadians that this is a world-class tanker safety program?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Absolutely, thank you for the opportunity.

It's something that our government took seriously. It was announced actually last year by Minister Lebel and Minister Oliver. We've been talking about it in the context that we're recognizing the fact that we're going to see increased shipping on the west coast.

The reality, however, is that shipping happens on all of our coasts, and it's important to ensure that we have the rules, regulations and systems in place in order to protect if there is an incident. You start with prevention. In prevention you just make sure that you inspect a vessel as it comes in, a foreign vessel coming into waters, to make sure they are seaworthy, that they're not going to have an accident, that they're not going to spill. We also ensure that they understand where our markers are, where our channels are, that the coast guard has a mapping and they understand what's going on there.

The second piece of it is that if there is a spill, or if it is leaking, or if it is not seaworthy, we can see it quickly. That's where NASP, our national aeronautics security program, comes in. It's really important to know when something is happening so that you can respond to it quickly. I think a lot of British Columbians worry about that, because the coast is beautiful and they don't want it spoiled. We know that if we get to it quickly and are prepared to deal with a spill, this will make us world-class as well.

The other things that have to happen within the safety initiative are things that are not necessarily involved with Transport Canada. They're things like doing some research on non-conventional petroleum products to make sure that we understand what it behaves like in the water so that we have the appropriate spill response there as well too.

With the increased shipping that will be coming to the B.C. coast, it's important to show Canadians that we have a great system in place, but we can make it better. The tanker safety panel studied it for us and gave us recommendations, and those are the recommendations that we're working towards.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Our committee recently passed the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act with no amendments. I understand within that act we actually increased the number of inspectors. Is that correct? Can you address that issue and why the number increased?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

We increased the national aerial surveillance program, or NASP as I call it. As I said, I'm very happy that the committee passed Bill C-3, because it allows this program to get a doubling of their funds. That allows them more time in the air and more time to be able to....

Most recently I can tell you that they spotted a sailboat that was in distress and they rescued people who were out of water and out of food. They were able to call in to the coast guard to tell them that they had spotted somebody.

Having eyes in the sky is really important in terms of looking for spills and looking for leaks, but it's good for safety in general too.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Turning to the clean water from transportation program, I understand there is a 686% increase for that particular program. Can you explain to us what that is about?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Yes, certainly.

[Helena Borges, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport]

That amount is actually attributed to the world-class tanker safety system funding. There's a total of almost $60 million of increased funding. Of that, there's about $15 million for operating resources such as the national aerial surveillance program, as well as the increased inspections that you were referring to, and some capital money that is required to equip our aircraft to do this kind of surveillance.

It's all additional new money that was given to the department because of the world-class tanker safety system.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Can we be assured as Canadians that with these changes and with the increase in funding our system will be world-class?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Absolutely, that's the intention, to make sure that what we have in place is world-class. We're working with the recommendations that we have received and we're discussing them with industry. We'll continue to strengthen our system and that is absolutely the goal.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Sullivan, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here.

VIA Rail estimates are very difficult to fathom because most of them, last year at least, were in the supplementary estimates as opposed to the main estimates, so we have a main estimate that's $4 million less than last year's main estimate.

I want to approach it from the notion of the spending on capital that the federal government did in 2007 to 2009 that has extended into this year and is continuing to be spent a little bit. There was $501 million of capital expenditures over the past six years, all of which was in Ontario.

Madam Minister, when the communities between Miramichi and Bathurst are threatened with the removal of their passenger train service as a result of CN abandoning a line and the federal government apparently doesn't have $10 million to help out New Brunswick, why is the federal government willing to help Ontario but not New Brunswick?