Transport Committee on Nov. 9th, 2017

[Mike Saunders]

We receive our budget and our funding from Parliament. If we have more money, it will obviously change the waiting time.

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

So you're telling me that you have not been asked to increase your 85% target. Based on your calculations, $25 million is enough to meet the 85% target. Is that right?

[Mike Saunders]

For this year, yes.

We are working closely with Transport Canada to see what our options will be in the future.

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

Okay.

You expect to reach a service level of 85% with $25 million, while last year it cost $29 million to reach the same service level. What has changed in relation to how you do things?

[Mike Saunders]

Our model's margin of error is 3%. So it can be included in this 3% of the calculations for this year.

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

Thank you.

I'm finished, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a few questions for everyone seated here. Thank you for being here.

My first question has to do with your budgeting and, of course, your over-year budgeting when it comes to managing your assets. I'm hearing that your forecasts and the actual work you're doing are becoming more volatile. I'm assuming that one of the reasons you're asking for less year after year is that you may have had surpluses in reserve that you can now apply to capital projects.

Have you established asset management reserve accounts looking after the life cycle and therefore the repair, maintenance, and ultimate replacement of your assets? Have you established those accounts to therefore be more consistent and sustainable with respect to the financing you're requiring to look after the management of those assets?

[André Lapointe]

In terms of capital budgets, we have a yearly base of about $56 million or $57 million for capital renewal and investment. We have a five-year investment plan that is renewed periodically, where we map out our needs and investments and look across the system for what we need to invest.

We don't have reserves per se, but we have a regular influx of capital investment money. That goes to airport supports. It also goes to our IT infrastructure within the department.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Especially as it relates to your five-year or ten-year forecasts, instead of coming back year after year in this environment asking for capital funding, would you find it more advantageous, for the sake of better, more sustainable, and smarter planning, to ask for or to create in your operating budget a contribution that would otherwise go to capital accounts, so that therefore that work can be done?

[André Lapointe]

In addition to the base budget that we have every year, we've had, as you'll see if you look back, a number of periodic influxes of infrastructure money above and beyond. That permits us to accelerate the renewal or the construction of some of our assets on the ports and airports side. That has been extremely helpful. We've had two influxes in the last five or six years, which has permitted us to accelerate some of our renewal.

In terms of planning ahead, I think our investment plan does a good job of forecasting what we'll need and when. In addition to our regular capital, the additional capital that comes in is sufficient for our requirements.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I have a comment on that before I go to my next question. This is just my opinion, and what do I know compared to what you folks who are in business every day know? It may be advantageous to look at that forecasting being the basis of your operating contributions to a capital reserve. That would then create a discipline to be strictly focused on what contributions have to be made, versus not made and then having the assets crumbling and of course not being sustainable, thereby driving against revenues that can be foreseen to offset the ultimate cost through that forecast five or ten years down the road.

An example of that is the St. Lawrence Seaway. Look at the condition of the St. Lawrence Seaway today. If a proper asset management plan had been disciplined and had been followed in the same fashion, it might have driven a lot more revenues to help offset the overall costs of the asset itself in terms of capital, as well as bringing down the cost of operating for those using the asset on an annual basis.

To that end, in 1974, as you may know, a bridge came down in the Welland Canal, which is a portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway, dissecting a community, the city of Thorold. When that bridge came down, they started a ferry service. I won't say that it ultimately took care of the challenge of having to cross over the canal in one city, but it helped. Right now, that ferry service is being looked at. Although there has been a one- or two-year extension to the ferry service, I believe, they're looking at taking it out after that and/or at least funding it for the folks down in the city of Thorold.

Is this something that Transport Canada is looking at or should be looking at? Ultimately, the request of t part of my constituency is to maintain this service well into the future, albeit it has been running since 1974, so that this community could be closer together rather than being dissected apart, with the Welland canal being a part of that city that is, again, dissecting it right down the middle.

[André Lapointe]

I have to say that I'm not familiar with that service. Is it provincial? I'm pretty sure it's not federal.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

It's federal.

[André Lapointe]

It is?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Yes.

[André Lapointe]

Okay. That's news to me.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

In fairness, Mr. Lapointe, what I can do is get you some information on it. Ultimately, the intent here is to sustain that funding so that the service can be sustained and they can have an easier time travelling throughout the community, versus having to travel—especially if they're pedestrians or cyclists—around a loop that is miles long instead of simply crossing the canal, which is in their backyard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.

We'll move on to Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you very much.

The first question I have—and forgive me if this has already been brought up—is on the $25.3 million. I'm not sure if you mentioned it, and I didn't see it in your notes, but what exactly will that money go towards?

[Mike Saunders]

The $25.3 million would be devoted to our pre-board screening, which is essentially what most people are familiar with in terms of CATSA services when they go to a security checkpoint. That would be operating funds that would augment all the checkpoints across the country.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

That's the money goes into funding the staff who are there. Is that the idea?

[Mike Saunders]

The labour, yes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay.

Let's take the example, the case of Pearson airport and Vancouver. I think Ms. Block mentioned that they are now paying for labour as well as what is already provided. Will any of this $25.3 million go back into Pearson and Vancouver, or does it go to the other airports?

[Andie Andreou]

The appropriations we receive are received so that we can maintain an 85-15 service level, which means that 85% of the passengers will be screened in 15 minutes or less.

In the case of the GTAA and Vancouver, they'd like a higher service level, so they come to us with what they would like, and they pay for additional screening services.