Lisa Raitt

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, with respect to the tripartite agreement, one fundamental part of the tripartite agreement is that there will not be an extension of the runway. The Toronto Port Authority knows that. It does not have the ability to build that. It does not have the agreement of the other parties, the federal government and the City of Toronto, on that matter. For it to do an environmental assessment is one thing; the ability to build that extension is quite a different one, and that issue has not been decided.

With respect to the Toronto Port Authority and Waterfront Toronto, my former colleague, the former Minister of Finance, was a great champion of Waterfront Toronto. He left a great legacy on our waterfront with respect to ensuring that there were funds available to do the revitalization of that part of the world. I am very proud of the work that Jim Flaherty did down there. I am proud of Sugar Beach. I am very proud of everything that Waterfront Toronto has done, including all of the changes with respect to transportation. He was a driving force in this matter, and no matter what the hon. member says, no one can take that away from him.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, as the hon. member knows, I have experience with the tripartite agreement in Toronto. What I know from that information is that the Toronto Port Authority is responsible for the operation of that facility. It is allowed to undertake the actions for the operation of that facility, as has been recognized in the past.

I will point out to the hon. member that going for a tender in order to perform an environmental assessment is one thing, but the environmental assessment is the basis of consultation with the surrounding community. The consultation has to happen through that process, and frankly, it should happen in that process.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, under the Canada Marine Act, it is noted that the port authorities should have consultation and they should actually be there to ensure they are furthering local needs, taking into consideration marine users as well. Their obligations are to ensure that the port services are there to support the port, but as well they do it in consultation. That is the reason we have port authorities set up, so they can have that direct co-operation with their local communities in consultation.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, with respect to aviation safety, going back to the hon. member's previous question, it is important to note that any decrease that he may see in the main estimates with respect to aviation safety is predominantly attributed to the movement of an air capital assistance sub-program to reflect a new administrative structure. It is not a decrease in safety.

He cannot stand in the House and say that cuts in safety that are not happening are causing more accidents. That is completely irresponsible for the member to say such a thing as that. He should know better.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I can appreciate what the hon. member is trying to drive at. I can tell him this. In rail safety, no government has contributed more in financing this area than this government. We have demonstrated that from 2009 until currently, putting over $100 million in rail safety areas.

In the marine safety area, the kinds of work that our inspectors do and as well the kinds of work people do with respect to safety and security is extremely important, and we have to ensure that we continue to do the right things. In fact, as I mentioned in my speaking notes, we increased marine security and marine safety through world-class tanker funding by 686%. That is going to be significant and will have significant—

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I will take the information from my parliamentary secretary. Overall, the number of accidents increased by 3% from 2012, with respect to marine, pipeline, railway and aviation occurrences. That is a significant number of transportation occurrences that are reported, 3,395. Compared to the five-year average, the number of incidents increased, yet the number of accidents actually decreased by 4%.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, what we have seen is that those companies in the Canadian federal jurisdiction that had fund benefit plans in the past number of years have experienced difficulties with respect to their pension not being sufficient to pay the obligations they have amassed.

The minister of finance has dealt with that matter with respect to Canada Post. There have been some various abilities given to Canada Post with respect to that.

That aside, what is important is that it has a plan operationally to ensure there will be a continuous self-sustaining basis going into the future, taking into consideration all of its obligations, including pension obligations.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I can only refer to the news release that Canada Post has put out, because it is its five-point plan. What it says in the title is that the plan will return system to financial sustainability by 2019 and ensure continued role of enabling trade and commerce.

It is looking at areas of growth. The hon. member mentioned those, and one of them, of course, was parcel delivery. As indicated, with the increase in the amount of addresses Canada Post has to deliver to and the lack of letter mail that is delivered, it does have to do other things.

In its five-point plan, it lays out certain things it would like to do. The main initiatives are these: over the next five years, convert the remaining one-third of Canadian households that receive their mail at the door to community mailbox delivery; that it has a new approach to pricing letter mail to take effect, which has happened; that it expands convenience through postal franchisees; that it streamlines it operations; and that it does address the cost of labour.

As was pointed out by the hon. member, it is worthy to note that the average age of a current employee of Canada Post is 48 years old, almost my age today. Canada Post expects that nearly 15,000 employees will retire or leave the company over the next 5 years. That is more enough, in its view, to allow for the reduction of between 6,000 and 8,000 positions, mainly through attrition.

It is taking a legacy company and turning it around for the future, meeting the needs of Canadians and doing so in a financially self-sustaining manner.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for his insight into a topic that we certainly must understand better.

In 1981, Canada Post was set up as a crown corporation. In its documents, it was done so to ensure that postal services, financial security and independence continued. That is exactly what we are trying to do today by accepting Canada Post's five-point plan for moving into the future.

The reality is twofold. First, Canada Post has to actually deliver to more mailboxes or to more addresses than before. It is increased by 1.2 million. Second, Canada Post, as well, is delivering fewer letters. In fact, most Canadian families only buy two stamps a month. That is significant.

It is clear that the five-point plan is something Canada Post has researched, has consulted on, has studied and has indicated is its best path forward for achieving financial self-sustainability along with the continued service provision that it needs to do.

I appreciated the words of my hon. friend when he talked about the costs associated with community mailboxes. In terms of trying to ensure that we have a delivery system that is efficient and cost-effective, it is important to note that the door-to-door service to one-third of Canadian households is $298 on an average annual cost per address. However, delivering to a community mailbox is $113 on an annual cost per address basis.

That is a significant savings. It is one of those kinds of savings that Canada Post has looked at to ensure Canadians will continue to receive mail on a daily basis, which is what it said it wanted to do. At the same time, what it also said was it wanted to ensure it was not relying upon taxpayer dollars. That is what Canada Post is attempting to achieve.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, first of all, I want to clarify that once the bill is passed, of course, consultations on the regulations will commence.

When I was talking about the Canada Transportation Act review, I was talking about the bigger picture with respect to grain, and that too will happen as well.

With respect to the specific question regarding reciprocal penalties, it is an issue that has come up, which we have studied in the past. We came up with an act last year in order to deal that, the fair rail shippers act, which we passed.

In this case, we will be looking at the regulations and going to consultation on the same issues, and we will be prepared to give our feedback on that when those consultations are concluded.