Transport Committee on May 9th, 2017

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

Do you think Transport Canada's regulatory oversight and inspections are effective and adequate?

[David Clark]

What we say to this is that the reliance on SMS is a portion of it. It's a portion of regulation, but it is not a stand-alone system. Many places in the federal sector that are using SMS are not actually compliant or need to be SMS compliant. The problem that Transport Canada has at the moment is that they are treating everything they're overseeing as SMS-compliant. We have zero problem with Air Canada and WestJet, who are larger and have experience, doing that. We have concerns that it's being used at other levels. We say that it needs to be maintained today and that there needs to be more than just that.

There is a change in the fact of....

I'm sorry. I lost that one.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Monsieur Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to our two guests.

Madam Chair, just before we start asking our guests questions, I have a request for you. When my colleague Mr. Iacono acts almost as a witness, by telling us about some major investments that have supposedly been made in aviation safety, could he table a document that shows us that? I think that would be useful for all members of the committee.

Personally, when I look at the budgets for 2016-17, I see some cuts to the tune of $7 million, some of which, it is true, started when the Conservative government was in power. When someone makes statements almost as a witness, as he did, it would be useful to have a supporting document.

There. That's my request.

Mr. Clark, your presentation was, to say the least, alarming. When we undertook this study on aviation safety, I already had a very long list of problems that I wanted to address, and now you have added to that list.

I was particularly intrigued by the examples or problems related to fires at airports. I will try to connect two questions by asking if you can give me one answer. When the government agrees that an airline can move from one flight attendant per 40 passengers to one flight attendant per 50 passengers, does that make a difference in working with firefighters who have to intervene in the event of an accident?

[David Clark]

To understand the difference between Canada and the U.S., our emergency response is to get product to a location on a runway and to create an egress, or an escape route, and to protect the escape route. The responsibility in Canada for the removal of passengers, or any toxics or any fire in an aircraft, is the responsibility of the flight attendant. The flight attendant must be the one who removes people, bodies, anything in there. It is not a responsibility of the firefighter in Canada. We do not have the capabilities for it. We don't have the manpower. That is under CARs.

When you're talking about 50:1 and the changes there, the 50:1 alone is a ludicrous number when we have a system in which the flight attendant removes the flying public. To extend that is even more ludicrous. How in the world can there be the idea that the flight attendant, who is actually involved in the crash, who is also a victim, now has the responsibility of taking people out?

At the Toronto airport, when the aircraft went in the ditch, they were lucky they got the people off. Well, there have been lots of situations, including the Air Canada DC-9 in Cincinnati that burned up, where they weren't lucky. We have had many instances—not in Canada, fortunately—of flight attendants not being able to, and this is with firefighting capabilities that could enter the aircraft. In Canada our firefighters can't enter an aircraft.

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

Thank you.

I have another question about the fire department that came to mind when I was listening to you.

Does the same fire department intervene both in the case of a burning aircraft and in the case of a fire in an airport building? In other words, is there a possibility that the employees are working at one location and cannot go to another location, or are there two different fire departments?

[David Clark]

At an airport that has over 150,000 movements, they could have one truck. That would be one truck, one individual, for firefighting. They wouldn't have the training for structural firefighting. My understanding is that in Canada, we have that capability at the Edmonton airport and I think at Pearson also. We don't have that capability. Those are resources that are given.... While the travelling public is in the terminal, it's the same thing as a house. The municipalities would have to respond.

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

Thank you.

Madam Chair, do I have enough time to ask another question?

I have two minutes left? That's very good.

We have heard a lot about inspectors working less and less on the ground and more and more on paper. Could you tell us about the training of inspectors?

What is the actual frequency and nature of training received by inspectors?

[David Clark]

As I said, in the earlier time, we went out to the actual airports, to engineers and such, to get technical experience from the industry. Today, we are moving away from that. Funnily enough, with our inspectors today, we have gone through two or three versions of new inspection procedures and our inspectors are not trained on those new procedures—for the last three.... So we're working on the basis of about the three previous procedures. It's just just that someone has done the paperwork.

I'm sorry, was the other part of your question about what the new training is?

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

I was talking about the actual frequency and nature of the training that inspectors receive.

[David Clark]

It's really left to the inspectors to interpret the new changes without being trained in them. There is no standardization across Canada of training. Every region has its own way of doing it. The only standard training is delegation, which is roughly every five years. We have a word for it. Inspectors receive “drive-by training”: an incident occurs and hits the public attention, and then suddenly Transport Canada requires all of the inspectors to receive that training.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Clark. My apologies. I've allowed you to run over significantly here.

Thank you very much to our witnesses. My apologies that our meeting was cut short, but that's politics and votes. Thank you very much. We appreciate that.

We will suspend momentarily while our ministers and their appropriate staff come to the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

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

We will now continue with the main estimates, along with the investing in Canada plan.

A number of votes were referred to the committee on Thursday, February 23, 2017, namely vote 1 under Canadian Air Transport Security Authority; vote 1 under Canadian Transportation Agency; votes 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 under Department of Transport; vote 1 under Marine Atlantic Inc.; vote 1 under The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited; vote 1 under VIA Rail Canada Inc.; votes 1, 5, and 10 under Office of Infrastructure of Canada; vote 1 under The Jacques-Cartier and Champlain Bridges Inc.; vote 1 under Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority; and votes 1 and 5 under PPP Canada Inc.

We are delighted to welcome the Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport, along with his officials: Mr. Michael Keenan, deputy minister, and Mr. André Lapointe, chief financial officer. Welcome. It's nice to have you back with us.

We also have the pleasure of having the Honourable Amarjeet Sohi, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, along with his officials: Mr. Tremblay, deputy minister; Mr. Fortin; Ms. Boileau; and the others who are joining us today.

Welcome, everyone. Thank you very much for coming. As you are aware, we have only an hour, and then, no doubt, many questions.

I shall start the discussion by calling vote 1 under Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

Mr. Garneau, it's over to you for five minutes.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair and honourable members, I am pleased to meet with the committee today to talk about the main estimates.

Joining me today is Michael Keenan, Deputy Minister of Transport, and André Lapointe, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer of Corporate Services.

I would like to take a moment to talk about some of the key initiatives that Transport Canada is going to implement this year.

In addition to the funds included in the main estimates, budget 2017 proposed investments for transportation-related initiatives that would provide additional funds for the department in future estimates. These initiatives would help the department improve marine safety, enhance and develop new regulations, and support investments in transportation infrastructure.

For example, the $1.5 billion investment announced for the oceans protection plan represents the most significant investment ever made to protect our oceans and coastlines. It is a robust national plan that will protect our oceans and coastlines from the potential impacts of marine shipping and ensure the health of our oceans for generations to come.

Transport Canada will work closely with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada to deliver the various initiatives of the plan. We will also continue to develop stronger relationships and partnerships with indigenous and coastal communities.

The budget also proposes funding to enable Transport Canada to develop regulations for the safe deployment and integration of emerging technology such as unmanned air vehicles and connected and autonomous vehicles.

In addition, Transport Canada would be provided funding for a trade and transportation information system, initiatives to support clean technology and greenhouse gas reductions in the transportation sector, and a national trade corridors fund to support investment in trade-related transportation.

Funds for these initiatives would be added to our departmental budget in due course. These initiatives are all critical elements for delivering on our transportation 2030 strategic plan, which represents a major renewal of transportation policy in support of trade and economic growth, a cleaner environment, and the well-being of Canadians.

The plan is focused on five themes. First is the traveller, in order to provide them with greater choice, better service, lower costs, and new consumer rights, Second is safer transportation, in order to build a more secure transportation system. Third is green and innovative transportation to reduce air pollution and embrace new technologies. Fourth is waterways, coasts, and the north to build world-leading marine corridors and enhance northern transportation infrastructure; and finally trade corridors to global markets to improve our transportation system to get products to market and grow Canada's economy.

Over the coming weeks and months, I will be bringing forward other key elements of the transportation 2030 plan. I hope I've circulated a placemat for your reference to help situate the various initiatives under the respective themes. I look forward to future discussions on how we are progressing in delivering the plan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Minister Garneau.

Now we move over to Minister Sohi, for five minutes.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I have a bit of a sore throat, so I hope you can understand me.

I've been asked to appear today to speak about Infrastructure Canada's main estimates and what my department is doing to deliver on the government's commitment to invest in Canadian communities through its long-term infrastructure plan, called “investing in Canada”.

Madam Chair, you introduced some of my staff members. I'm also joined by Glenn Campbell, executive director of the Canada infrastructure bank transition office, as well as my parliamentary secretary, Marc Miller.

Colleagues, the Government of Canada has an ambitious plan and vision for infrastructure funding in Canada.

We have been making great progress in delivering projects. Since November 2015, we have approved over 2,200 projects across the country, with a total value of $20 billion. These projects are now rolling out in communities large and small.

These investments are making real, tangible impacts in Canadian communities. This means that 864 public transit projects have been approved to date, including over 200 projects that will make public transit more accessible for people with disabilities. The investments made will expand 132 transit systems across the country and help communities acquire more than 1,000 new buses, among other improvements. Together, these investments will deliver faster, more reliable service, and will help reduce traffic congestion and pollution.

To date, 908 projects under the clean water and wastewater fund have been approved. These investments will give more Canadians access to clean drinking water and will reduce pollution in our lakes and rivers.

Over 2,000 projects to retrofit or renovate social housing have been approved to date, helping improve energy and water efficiency in almost 90,000 existing social housing units.

There are 182 arts and heritage facilities in 109 communities that are being improved.

Nearly 6,000 housing units on reserve have been built, renovated, or planned, along with 125 projects aimed at building and improving schools.

There are 251 projects under the post-secondary institutions investment fund that are under way to enhance and modernize research and commercialization facilities on Canadian campuses.

With budget 2017, we have formalized the commitment we made through the fall economic statement. The budget showed how we will invest more than $180 billion in federal funding over 12 years. It showed how these investments will create long-term economic growth; build inclusive, sustainable communities; and support a low-carbon, green economy.

Our plan focuses on five key areas: public transit; green infrastructure; social infrastructure; trade and transportation infrastructure; and rural and northern communities infrastructure. It also features two new initiatives, the smart cities challenge and the Canada infrastructure bank.

The Canada infrastructure bank will be responsible for investing at least $35 billion over 11 years, using loans, loan guarantees, and equity investments, and attracting private capital for public infrastructure. The bank's funds will be over and above the commitment we made to double infrastructure funding. Most importantly, it will offer our funding partners a new way to help meet their pressing infrastructure needs.

The second initiative I mentioned is the smart cities challenge.

It is vital that our communities are at their best, that they be responsive to the needs of citizens and be nimble in adapting to the increasingly complex challenges they face. Smart cities will do this by being better connected to their citizens, by using data to make decisions that impact quality of life, by helping to drive and attract innovation, and by fostering positive change in our communities through social inclusion.

Budget 2017 announced $300 million for the smart cities challenge to “encourage cities to adopt new and innovative approaches to city-building” by focusing on innovative, measurable, and outcomes-based solutions. And most importantly, it will be delivered it in full partnership with all sectors of Canadian society while drawing on similar experiences in the United States, India, and other countries. We will be sharing more detailed information about the smart cities challenge in the coming weeks and months.

I would now like to address the department's main estimates and speak briefly about how our funding flows to our partners.

Infrastructure Canada's total authorities for the new fiscal year are $7 billion, which is up $3.1 billion dollars from what was requested last year. On that note, the authorities in the main estimates do not include funding for the new phase of our program, but they do include nearly $2.7 billion in contribution funding for the public transit infrastructure fund and the clean water and wastewater fund. It is through these two programs that we have announced over 1,760 projects to date.

At my previous appearance, some of you raised concerns about funds flowing to projects across the country. It is important to note, however, that Infrastructure Canada's funding matches the pace at which our partners submit claims for reimbursements. Most partners submit claims throughout the life of the project, although some wait until the project has been completed. When projects are approved, funding is available for reimbursement even if projects are delayed or funds are not spent as forecast.

Through budget 2017, the Government of Canada is showing how it will support Canadian communities in the years to come. Infrastructure has a great many challenge ahead of us. We are ready to meet them and to support other communities to build the infrastructure they need.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sohi.

Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister Sohi, my questions are for you, and I am particularly interested in the Canada infrastructure bank. You know how interested I am in this matter, because I am constantly asking you questions about it in the House.

In 2015, Infrastructure Canada published a document stating that no provincial or territorial government had requested the creation of such an institution. Has that changed since 2015?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Thank you so much for that question.

Madam Chair, we consulted with a wide range of stakeholders, including big city mayors and municipalities, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Urban Transit Association, and other stakeholders who build infrastructure.

As we have identified, regardless of the historic investments we are making in infrastructure, there will still remain an infrastructure deficit, particularly for very large, transformative projects, or projects for which traditional funding models aren't working effectively.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Let me stop you there, Mr. Minister. My question was whether or not any provincial, municipal or territorial government had asked you to set up an infrastructure bank, yes or no. Have you received such a request? If so, can you name a Canadian province or a Canadian municipality that told you that such a bank was needed?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

The proposed Canada infrastructure bank is a mandate commitment that we made during the campaign. We consulted with other partners, and they are very supportive of our proposed Canada infrastructure bank to deliver more infrastructure.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Great. Thank you.

I have yet to receive the name of a province or territory, but that's fine.

In your mandate letter, you are asked to establish an infrastructure bank so that the federal government can use its strong credit to more easily provide loans to municipalities to finance their many infrastructure projects. By the way, municipalities borrow at a maximum of 2% right now. We know that this infrastructure bank must be of financial interest to private investors. Even Mr. Sabia said that projects should be funded at a rate of about 7% so that it is profitable for the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec to invest in this bank.

Can you tell me what the minimum amount of a project will be for this infrastructure bank to accept it? According to the data that we were given in the various discussions and the figures that you have quoted to the House, if I'm not mistaken, the projects should be at least $100 million or $500 million to make it attractive for investors.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Through you, Madam Chair, first of all there is no limit on the size of the project. It could be a small project. It could be a large project. On your first question about the rate of return, it will vary from project to project. It depends on the nature of the project, the risk that the public sector and private sector are willing to absorb and share. The goal of the bank is to look at each project on its own merit and then determine whether that project should be funded through the bank, whether it serves a public interest, or whether the project is needed to promote growth in the economy or serve the needs of our community, so the rate of return will vary based on the nature of the project.

I also want to make it absolutely clear to everyone in this room that the vast majority of the infrastructure funding will still be delivered through the grants that we provide to other municipal and provincial sectors. Less than 10% of the total commitments we make will be delivered through the bank.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Very well, but I want to come back to that. I am really talking about the Canada infrastructure bank. You say that all municipalities could have access to it, whether for small, medium-sized or large projects. I'm not worried about big projects. The governments of large cities will indeed be able to resort to this bank if they see a financial interest.

Having said that, the last time you appeared before the committee, I asked you the following question. I even challenged Mr. Tremblay.

Can you name a project for which a small or medium-sized municipality outside the major centres would benefit from requesting funding from the Canada infrastructure bank and that investors might be interested in funding?

I am referring to funding other than that normally provided by municipalities, which is under 2%.

Can you name a concrete project through which the Canada infrastructure bank could help communities outside major centres across Canada?