Transport Committee on Nov. 17th, 2016

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

We agree to somewhat disagree on that point.

That said, I would like to turn to the topic of airports. That's entirely in your jurisdiction.

Do you think it's appropriate to commission a study to a company—Credit Suisse, not to mention any names—on the potential privatization of airports when that company itself is a private company with shares in airports? Don't you think that's a breach of ethics or, at the very least, an inappropriate commission?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

That contract was awarded by the Department of Finance. I'm sure the officials did their homework before they decided to award it to Credit Suisse.

Our government is still new. We are looking at all sorts of possibilities to stimulate the economy. Our priority is to make decisions that are in the best interests of Canadians when it comes to airports and ports or other areas under federal jurisdiction. I think we have to do those exercises. That is a good thing. That is actually one of the recommendations in the Emerson report, which was commissioned by the previous government.

Let me reassure you that this does not mean that we have already made the decision. That's not our priority right now. We are just doing an exercise. We are studying the situation.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you. I hope you will wield significant influence in cabinet on your colleague, the Minister of Finance.

Last week or the week before, Michael Sabia, who is well known, said that he was expecting a 7% to 9% return from a potential infrastructure bank in which people with various pension funds and large companies would contribute to the private funding of infrastructure.

We know now is the time to invest, because the interest rates are low. That was even your government's argument that we repeatedly heard during the election campaign. I fail to understand how the public could accept that their government, with the option of borrowing at a rate of 1.3% or 1.5%, decides, or even thinks about the possibility, to privatize public infrastructure, which will cost five times as much.

Could you explain that to me?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I cannot speak for Mr. Sabia. He has a mandate from the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, which is to make money, of course.

However, I can assure you that we have created the concept of the infrastructure bank with a view to having more funding to improve our infrastructure.

As I mentioned yesterday, according to the studies by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, there is a shortfall in infrastructure. Some studies mention a shortfall of up to $1 trillion. We all agree that our infrastructure needs to be improved.

Although the government is making an unprecedented investment of $182 billion over 12 years, as I mentioned, it will not be able to address all the infrastructure needs. We feel that the creation of the infrastructure bank is a good thing for committing funds from the private sector.

That said, I can assure you that, in carrying out this initiative, we will comply with the conditions set by the federal government, and they will be acceptable for both parties. That's how it will work.

I think the government is very considerate of taxpayers' money. I personally believe that Canadian taxpayers and people want modern infrastructure in their country, and that they are in favour of the initiative we have taken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Minister Garneau.

Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Minister, thank you for being here with us this morning.

We know that the vision behind Transportation 2030 is to have an efficient, green, innovative and safe transportation system in Canada.

What role do waterways and coasts play in this important strategy?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

In my mandate letter from a year ago, the Prime Minister told me that I needed to improve maritime safety. In other words, we recognized a year ago that the situation was unacceptable and that additional measures were needed to increase maritime safety.

Canada is a trading nation, as you know. However, people may not know, particularly within the country, that much of our trade leaves our ports and crosses the oceans that surround us, including the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. The initiative we have taken is to recognize that there will probably be even more trade in the years to come.

Therefore, it is all the more important for us to ensure that the mechanisms for maritime safety are in place. We are talking about detecting a problem such as a spill—even if we do not want it to happen—or a ship in distress, which happens from time to time. We hope to be there to react. First, we must realize that there is a problem right away, and then react in the most effective way possible. We think it is absolutely essential to make that improvement.

To do so, we decided to involve the coastal communities. This includes first nations who want to play a role and are able to do so. They are often first on the scene. I just came back from Bella Bella, where there was a spill recently. I can tell you that this is a big concern for the people there and they have a lot of expertise to offer.

There are also the abandoned vessels, which can pose a problem for navigation but also for the environment if there's still fuel in the ship.

We also want to take into account the fact that marine species and mammals thrive around our coasts, and they are extremely important.

In terms of fisheries, many people make their living that way.

All of that has led to our oceans protection plan. We think it is important, as transportation increases, to make this environment even safer.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

In your Transportation 2030 strategic plan, you also mentioned the transportation corridor.

Could you elaborate on what a transportation corridor is and the role it could play in the regions and communities as well as in Canada's economy?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Of course.

Our trade with the U.S. amounts to just over $2 billion a day. The railways cross our borders in 23 places. There are roads that trucks use to cross the borders, the most important of which being the road connecting Windsor to Detroit. Those are transportation corridors. For example, say a truck or a train leaves the city of Montreal to go to Chicago in the Midwest. We want to make that transportation as efficient as possible, whether it be for trains, trucks or vessels that use the St. Lawrence, then the Great Lakes.

Sometimes there are bottlenecks in those transportation corridors, and it is in our best interest to reduce them. If our transportation is not efficient and reliable, the people with whom we trade will turn to other partners. The delivery of goods is a very competitive area. That's why it's particularly important to make Canada's corridors efficient.

Another major corridor is the one for our trains in the west loaded with grain, potash, wood, or containers heading to Prince Rupert. This is called the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor. It is particularly important that this corridor be as efficient as possible. There should be no slowdowns during the trip, when the cargo arrives in the port or before it is loaded on vessels heading overseas.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

Do I have any time left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have thirty seconds left.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

We have already invested $62 million in electric cars. I know it's a bit early to give a definitive answer, but has anything positive come from this yet?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

It's a start. The process will take time. People want networks of charging stations in Canada, which would eliminate their concerns about buying an electric vehicle. More needs to be done, but it will take time. We will see the results as more and more people buy electric cars.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, Minister Garneau. It's great to have you out again this morning.

I have a couple of questions.

First, I have to preface my comments by saying how happy and excited I am about your announcement on November 3 in Montreal. It's been something that this whole horseshoe has been very much interested in. I know that member Berthold was always interested in trying to establish his strategy that you spoke about, and in particular the five pillars that you announced, so it's great news for the future of Canada's transportation and economic future.

With that being said, Minister Garneau, moving forward is something that we're very much interested in now that you've made that announcement. It was mentioned earlier that we've set regions that we want to visit, the first being the north for the very reasons you outlined. The second is western Canada, followed by the Prairies, then eastern Canada, and central Canada.

Moving forward, where do you see this committee helping you to bring this vision for 2030 to the forefront, through our travel and our efforts, and through bringing in witnesses and the partners, to really make it an all-inclusive process to ensure that this strategy is relevant to transportation and logistics and also ultimately, to ensure that it is an economic strategy for the country?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I agree with you that it's ultimately an economic strategy. I welcome everything that the committee chooses to look at. Although I made a speech on November 3 about Transportation 2030, it doesn't mean that the work is done, that we've decided what we're going to do, and that now we don't need to do any more work, other than legislating, of course, to put this into action, or write new regulations and those kinds of things. It's a continuously evolving subject area. It's a complex one, and there are a host of areas in which this committee can be of very significant use.

By the way, I asked the Senate transport committee many months ago to look at automated and connected vehicles. I felt that was something the Senate could provide valuable advice on. There are a host of areas related to transportation, because it's changing at a very rapid pace. This is not the 19th century in which things moved very slowly in the evolution of transportation. This is a period of time in which we are changing transportation and the technologies that are involved. We are taking into account our environmental concerns, and we are being much more careful about safety, because people are aware of safety as they previously were not. They now say this is particularly important.

There are a host of areas in which you, as a committee, can be useful. I understand that you may be looking at UAVs. I think there's an embarrassment of riches in potential areas you can look at. Whatever you choose to do, I'm sure, will be very useful.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

On the economic side, do you find it prudent, as well, that we include a binational forum and that we talk to our neighbours, especially to the south, in the States? I know, for example, that they're moving forward with the Continental 1, which is a highway coming out of Miami and then going through the eastern seaboard into western New York and into Ontario. Rail, as you mentioned earlier, is another area in which we see binational trade happening on a daily basis, and of course there's shipping. We are noticing some challenges with regulations on the water, on rail, and with interswitching, and the list goes on. It's all the more reason, as we're moving forward with the strategy for transportation, to attach it to the economy.

Would it be, in your opinion, prudent for us to do it in a binational forum?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I think you raise a very good point. Because of the sheer amount of trade we do with the United States, we are linked through an umbilical cord with the United States in a way no two other countries in the world are. It is our primary trading partner. It is in our interest to harmonize as much as possible on regulations. Of course, you know there is the Regulatory Cooperation Council between the two countries.

I'm glad to say that in the area of transportation, we are very close in terms of being on the same wavelength, because we realize that our trains cross each other's boundaries. We realize that our cars, our trains, our trucks, and our ships, through the Great Lakes, for example, work in each other's backyards.

It is in our interest, when it comes to safety regulations, when it comes to anything that could potentially cause a problem when you arrive at the border.... “Sorry, you can't cross because you don't conform to some of our requirements.” There can be some very esoteric things, but it's in our interest to harmonize as much as possible.

I can say that I had a very good relationship with Secretary Anthony Foxx, the Secretary of Transport. Of course, there will be a new administration. One of my first acts, when the new administration is put in after January 20, will be to seek a meeting with the transportation secretary to continue the work of harmonizing as much as possible. We vitally need to be working together.

It applies to other things as well. Our airplanes cross each other's borders. UAVs are being developed, and it's in our interest, with the FAA, to have the same standards with respect to safety wherever possible. It doesn't mean that we're always going to do exactly the same thing.

Anything you can do to advance that would be very valuable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I hope to share my time with my colleague, Mr. Berthold.

Right off the top, I just want to say how troubling I find it that both the members on the opposite side of this table and you yourself, Minister, continue to purport the whole idea that this committee is here to serve your purposes, as the minister, when in fact, committees are the masters of their own destiny, and it is up to the committee members to decide what should be on their agenda. I find it interesting that you would even suggest that the Senate committee is there to serve your purposes as well.

But I want to get on to something—

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

May I say, because I'm not going to let you get away with this, that this is a gross distortion of anything——

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

That wasn't a question, Madam Chair.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

—that I have ever said here. I welcome—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

That wasn't—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block, let Minister Garneau take the opportunity to respond, but please make it short—