Transport Committee on Nov. 17th, 2016

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the Standing Order 108(2), we are doing a study of the Canadian transportation and logistics strategy.

We are joined today by the honourable Marc Garneau, our Minister of Transport; Michael Keenan, the deputy minister; and Ms. Young, the parliamentary secretary.

Thank you very much for being here today.

I'm going to open it rapidly to you so that we can have you answer as many questions as possible this morning before we have to break.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First of all, before I make a few remarks, let me thank the committee for its work on the Navigation Protection Act and for the work that I know you're doing on Bill C-30. I understand you'll be looking at drones fairly shortly. Thank you very much for the work that is being done by this committee.

Thank you for inviting me to appear and talk about the Transportation 2030 strategic plan that reflects the government's vision. I will first make a few remarks, after which I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

It is my great pleasure to provide you with an overview of Transportation 2030, a strategic plan for the future of transportation in Canada, that I announced on November 3, 2016, in Montreal.

With the significant body of work and inputs from Canadians in the report of the Canada Transportation Act review as a starting point, last April 27, I asked Canadians for their feedback on priorities and initiatives.

Transportation 2030 is a balanced reflection of, and response to, what we heard from Canadians.

A key recommendation of the Canada Transportation Act review was to envision Canada's transportation system 20 or 30 years from now and invest today to build that future.

Our vision for Canada's transportation system in 2030 is of an increasingly electrified system, supporting alternative fuels like hydrogen, increasingly using rail and renewable fuels in more efficient planes like the C-Series.

We also know that trade in 2030 will have shifted significantly to Asia and other developing regions. We must have access to gateways with advanced logistics and integrated infrastructure and be able to get Canadian products, services, and people to key markets safely and efficiently while protecting our environment. These changes are happening today, and if we're not ready, we're going to be left behind.

Transportation 2030 is based on five themes that were validated by Canadians as being the right framework for directing immediate and future actions to encourage trade, boost economic opportunities, and support a growing middle class.

The first of these five themes is the traveller. Under this theme we will work to support greater choice, better service, lower costs, and new rights for travellers. Near-term actions to support this theme include pursuing legislation to provide greater transparency, clarity, and fairness for Canada's air traveller, including clear standards for treating and compensating passengers under specific circumstances; pursuing legislation to change international ownership restrictions from 25% to 49% of voting interests for Canadian air carriers; and working with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, CATSA, to ensure that travellers at Canadian airports go through security faster while maintaining the same high security standards.

The second theme, safer transportation, focuses on building a safer, more secure transportation system that Canadians trust, including in the near term, by, first of all, moving up our review of the Railway Safety Act from 2018 to 2017 in order to further improve railway safety; and second, amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to allow us to compel vehicle manufacturers to recall defective and unsafe vehicles.

Under the theme of green and innovative transportation, we will look to reduce air pollution and embrace new technologies to improve Canadians' lives. We are looking at two ways to accomplish that. First, we look forward to working with provincial governments on a pan-Canadian framework that includes a strategy for transportation to reduce carbon pollution by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. Second, we want to support the development of a modern and agile regulatory framework for emerging technologies, including connected and automated vehicles and drones, that is to say unmanned air vehicles.

The fourth theme, waterways, coasts and the north, will build world-leading marine corridors that are competitive, safe and environmentally sustainable, and enhance the northern transportation infrastructure.

The $1.5-billion national oceans protection plan announced by the Prime Minister on November 7—last week, in fact—in Vancouver represents a significant, concrete step forward under this theme. The plan will protect our coasts in a modern and advanced way through four main priority areas: first, creating a world-leading marine safety system that improves responsible shipping and protects Canada's waters; second, restoring and protecting the marine ecosystems and habitat, including using measures to address abandoned vessels; third, strengthening partnerships and launching co-management practices with indigenous communities, including building local emergency response capacity; and fourth, investing in oil spill cleanup research and methods to ensure that decisions taken in emergencies are evidence-based.

As the Prime Minister noted in his announcement of this initiative, these strong measures are urgently needed and long overdue. This represents the most significant investment ever made to protect our oceans and coastlines.

The fifth theme is trade corridors to global markets. Actions under this theme will improve the performance and reliability of our transportation system to get products to market to grow Canada's economy, including, first of all, by investing $10.1 billion for transportation infrastructure to help eliminate bottlenecks and building more reliable trade corridors; second, establishing a new data regime to support sound investment decisions by government and make sure that data is available to all who operate, oversee, analyze, and use the transportation system; and third, pursuing greater transparency and reliability for the rail transportation supply chain and supporting a more competitive and efficient rail sector that invests in much-needed capacity improvements.

I wish to emphasize that in the weeks and months ahead, I will be outlining our major undertakings in greater detail—so all Canadians are aware of the improvements we plan to make, and the benefits they will bring.

Madam Chair, the launch of this strategic plan is only the beginning of our work. We must now turn our efforts to implementing the initiatives we have announced and defining further actions to come, in close collaboration with governments, industry, and Indigenous partners, to benefit all Canadians.

This concludes my opening remarks. I would now welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Minister Garneau.

Our first questioner is Ms. Block, for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here this morning, Minister Garneau. We really appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the supplementary estimates (B). I want to thank Mr. Keenan for being here as well.

I note in the supplementary estimates that there was an amount of $1.6 million scheduled for community participation. It would appear in these supplementary estimates that you're asking for an additional $475,000. I would make a couple of observations before I ask my questions. Your department held what would appear to be a very quiet online consultation on the B.C. oil moratorium that ended at the end of September.

I have submitted an ATIP request for the results of this consultation, and to date I haven't received a response, which, as you can well imagine, is somewhat frustrating. Again, in your remarks on Tuesday evening at the reception hosted by the Port of Prince Rupert and the Port of Vancouver, you didn't mention the B.C. north coast tanker moratorium in a speech that was largely about B.C. marine issues. I find it rather interesting, as well, that that didn't find its way into your remarks when you were talking about marine safety.

As you are aware, I oppose this moratorium, because it doesn't make any sense to single out a specific resource. We know the Queen of the North sinking resulted in the largest oil spill in that area's history, but we aren't talking about banning ferry traffic as a result of that.

I also believe that if a company can prove they can operate safely in the northern B.C. environment, then they should be able to do so.

I have a couple of questions for you. Mainly, what is the additional $475,000 for in community participation for consultations on an already $1.6-million budget, and what single incident can you point to that would justify the tanker moratorium?

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

Thank you for your questions.

Let me speak about the tanker moratorium, because there's no secret here. I was given a very clear mandate, and it's public. The Prime Minister gave it to me over a year ago. That was to formalize a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic for the north coast of British Columbia.

I've been to British Columbia five times in the past year. I have consulted with the shipping industry, with environmental NGOs, and with a great number with coastal first nations. I think those meetings have been well advertised. There's been a great deal of dialogue. There's a cost associated with organizing these meetings, of course, because there are a lot of people who have to come together for them.

As I said, I started this process last January. I have also said publicly that we will be formalizing that moratorium before the end of this year, so there has been no secrecy on the issue of the moratorium. The reason we have decided to formalize a moratorium is that we believe the north coast of British Columbia, which includes the Great Bear Rainforest, is an extremely valuable ecological area of British Columbia, and that is the primary reason behind this.

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

Thank you very much. I then look forward to the results of the ATIP request that I've put in outlining exactly what you have here and seeing exactly who was consulted.

I also note in the supplementary estimates that there is a request for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block, we will have the departmental officials here, as far as the supplementary estimates go, for at least an additional half hour after the minister is gone.

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

Thank you. I also note that in the supplementary estimates....

Just on that, it's my understanding the minister is here to speak to us on the supplementary estimates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

He's here to speak to us as the minister. The departmental officials traditionally, as you know, speak to the estimates.

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

Okay, I'm going to ask my question—

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

If I may say so, I would be very happy to answer questions on Transportation 2030. I'm here for only an hour, if you want to focus on that, but it's your choice.

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

Yes, I recognize that, so I'm focusing on the estimates.

I note that there's an additional amount of $842,582 for the Navigation Protection Act consultation. As you know—and you thanked us for all the work that we're doing on that—we've heard from many witnesses who have come before this committee who have said that on this point they haven't been consulted.

I'm wondering if you would be able to identify what that funding is for. Is there an overlap of that funding with the community participation fund that I've already identified in my questioning?

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

Thank you for your question.

On the Navigation Protection Act, again I would like to thank you. I asked the committee if they would add to the process of reviewing the Navigation Protection Act, because we felt that it was important to do so. I've also said that other consultations are ongoing as well. As you probably know, we recently also announced that two rivers had been put back on the schedule of the Navigation Protection Act, which is a clear indication that a consultation process has been ongoing and will continue, always, to be ongoing.

Yes, the committee is looking at the Navigation Protection Act, and we are very much looking forward to your recommendations. I won't go into the background of why we asked for this. I think you're very familiar with why we asked for it.

We put a very important emphasis on making sure that the Navigation Protection Act is a balanced act that properly reflects the need to address issues of navigation on our waterways. Your input is very important, but we have also said very clearly—and I can pull it out of a letter that I sent to the Chair—that we are doing other consultations as well, and some of those involve us meeting with people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garneau.

Mr. Sikand.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

Once again, I know your time is valuable, so we appreciate your attendance.

I asked Mr. Emerson about foreign ownership, so I'm very happy that you made that announcement. I'm kind of curious about the difference between 25% and 49%. Whether it's a single owner, a foreign owner, or a combination thereof, they're still capped at 25%, so what difference allows the ownership to be 49%?

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

We wanted to recognize that the airline industry is a capital-intensive industry, and that in order for us to stimulate competition it would be a good thing for us to allow a greater pool of potential investments, potential money sources, to be available for companies in Canada that wanted to start an airline. A couple that you know of course, Enerjet and Jetlines, are examples.

A little while back there was a company called NewLeaf, of course, that went into operation as well, so there is a desire for carriers to get into the business here in Canada. We think that is a valuable thing, but they have all indicated that one of the challenges is accessing capital. Some of that capital can come from international sources as well. We felt that in making this change from 29% to 49% it was in fact important to retain Canadian control, as we say.

The primary considerations were making more capital available but still keeping the companies under Canadian control.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you. I did see that it was 49% and I was pleased about that as well. Keep it Canadian.

I'm probably on the record a couple of times asking about CATSA and service standards. I've compared Pearson to Heathrow, and I was actually surprised that there is no universal processing time or standard. I'm curious to know whether CATSA would adhere to a service standard.

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

Thank you.

One of the elements I've just outlined and that I outlined in my Transportation 2030 speech was that Canadians have very clearly said to us that they would like waiting times to be reduced when they go to the airport. We've all had the experience of going to the airport, seeing a very long line, and often wondering why not all of the stations were being manned for passing through security.

There's no question, at this point in time, that in this year to date—2016, in the first ten months of this year—the statistics are that we have an 84% waiting time to get to the beginning of the line within 15 minutes. Airports such as Heathrow and Gatwick and others have a target. There is no universal time—it's chosen by individual airports—but there are other airports that have a higher target, in the 90% range, and a lower period of time, 10 minutes, which is a significant difference.

If one looks at how we perform in comparison with the rest of....

By the way, Pearson is a very busy airport, with more than 40 million passengers last year. There are some airports that have quicker passing. The average is 84%. I think Pearson is at 81% at the moment. We have eight big airports, and some of them are in the low 90% range in terms of performance. We monitor these things.

I said in the speech that we need to do better. It's my intention to come forward at some point with measures that will...and some of them are technological. We have been evaluating a system called CATSA Plus, in which instead of one person going after the other in a line, four people arrive at the same time. It allows frequent passengers to jump the queue and be processed much more quickly. I've seen it myself at Montreal's airport.

By the way, the Calgary airport's international terminal now has six CATSA Plus lines. We're looking at it, and it appears to be a more efficient way of doing it. That's part of it, but there are other things as well. It's my intention to try to find a way that we can do better, because it's almost, I would say, the primary irritant for air passengers, and we need to do better.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you for that. That's great.

Our committee is entertaining the idea of travelling to the north. You mentioned earlier that the north is important to you. I wonder whether you could speak to that and say whether that is perhaps a worthwhile exercise for us.

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

I think it's a very worthwhile exercise. I found my experience up in Iqaluit to be very valuable. That was in a round table as part of the theme “Waterways, Coasts and the North”. I say the north: we met at a round table in Iqaluit with people not only from Nunavut but also from the Northwest Territories, from the Yukon, from northern Quebec, and from Labrador—many northern communities.

There's no question that in terms of infrastructure, the north is in need of more. There are 82 runways in the north, but only 11 of them are paved; there is a lack of weather services for some of those places; there's a lack of proper lighting. Some of the runways are pretty thin in terms of their width. There is a need for infrastructure on that side.

We were in Iqaluit. Iqaluit does not yet have a deep-water capability. When a resupply ship comes in, they have to work with the tides, take the stuff off, and put it on barges that come in to the shore.

Those are just two examples. If we go further than that, the north also wants to develop resources. The issue of resource development is a challenge up there because of the lack of roads for moving the resources, if you have a mining operation somewhere.

I think you'll find going up there very useful. I commend you for doing it. I think we need to shed more light on the lack of infrastructure for the north, a place that is in transition because of environmental change and because it has resources. I think you going up there is very timely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garneau.

Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being here with us. Six minutes between the two of us is too little time. So, if you don't mind, I'll dive right in without further preamble.

You are familiar with the VIA Rail's high frequency rail project since I heard you say, in an interview in La Presse on November 21, 2015, that you were looking at the project. Ten months later, on September 9, 2016, you told the Canadian Railway Club that you were still studying it. In response to my question, your parliamentary secretary told me, on October 29, 2016, that the study was still under way.

In my view, this project is probably a tangible illustration of stepping into the 21st century with a type of public transport that would make it possible to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and to serve a corridor along which the vast majority of Canadians live.

The question is very simple: do you support it? If so, when can we expect to see a commitment from the federal government?

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

Thank you for your question.

Yes, we are studying the project. We set aside $3.3 million in budget 2016 to review the plan proposed to us by VIA Rail. If we move forward, there will be federal involvement. When it comes to taxpayers' money, we must to do the study right.

VIA Rail is proposing a high-frequency rail project. You know the details. With a project of that magnitude, it is important to ensure that all the projections have been made properly in terms of costs and the increase in passenger numbers. The prediction is that people will decide to leave their cars at home and take the train because it will go faster—it is not a high-speed train, but it is faster—and there will be more routes.

We have to do our homework well before we move forward. We plan to complete this work in the first months of 2017.

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

Thank you.

There is also an additional $886,000. I don't really know what it will be for, but I will ask your officials about it later.

Is the slowness of the process likely to be a problem, in light of the Réseau électrique métropolitain project in Montreal? Will the VIA Rail project and the REM project both use the route through the Mount Royal tunnel? Can the slowness of the process jeopardize the VIA Rail project?

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

I don't think so. We did our homework on the VIA Rail project. Of course, the REM project has its own timeline but the two parties are talking. I don't think there's a risk.

You talked about the slowness, but I don't agree with you on that. We are doing it as quickly as possible. Sometimes, a lot of work needs to be done. We must do our homework before we make a decision.