Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, that's a very good question. This was done as part of the evaluation of the airports capital assistance program. We did one round and we took the information that we received, but we did not chase those that didn't reply. I think it's a fair statement that they fell into the two camps you're describing.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, I think it's important to distinguish that this number came from a survey the department did as part of its evaluation of the program, which is different from the actual programming applications. In the case of a survey, you fill out the answer. On the programming applications, we tend to get more information—I think it's fair to say—in terms of the actual capital plan and in terms of the needs, etc.

Public Accounts committee  I think the sense is this. First and foremost, it's the view of the Government of Canada that there's an infrastructure gap in the country, which is why the Government of Canada has made such a big investment in infrastructure writ large. Second, it is the view of government, and I think the assessment shows, that there's a deeper infrastructure gap in northern Canada and in remote communities for all of the reasons we've been discussing here this morning.

Public Accounts committee  I'm happy to do that. I would just like to reiterate that the way the Auditor General clearly framed this is exactly the way we see the challenge in terms of this infrastructure. With regard to paragraph 6.54, in northern and remote locations, the owner-operator is often a provincial or territorial government.

Public Accounts committee  There are a number of questions, and I'll try to work through them in turn. On the matter of safety versus efficiency, there are two things. They are separate, and they are both important. I would say that the operating principle of Transport Canada is that safety is more important.

Public Accounts committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an important question, and I would say that no, in our experience at Transport Canada, local communities, I think, intuitively.... I should back up one point. In the development of the current transportation 2030 policy agenda, Minister Garneau and Transport Canada held extensive consultations over the course of 2016—dozens and dozens of round tables in every part of the country.

Public Accounts committee  Again I would say it's a problem that we have not encountered, but if we were to encounter that problem, I think there are two principles that would be at play. The first is that Transport Canada would defer to the owner of the airport—in this case it's usually a provincial or territorial government—because they are the ones who are accountable and responsible.

Public Accounts committee  Certainly. I think we have been working with airports as partners, for example, through the airport capital assistance program. They identify needs, and we work with them to help fund those needs to ensure the safe capacity to operate. In fact, the study the Auditor General is quoting—the 2015 or 2016 study to identify the capital needs of airports—and that identification came out of the operation of this program.

Public Accounts committee  It's a great question. I'd say there are a couple of parts to answering it. The first is that, of the 117 airports that were in the scope of the Auditor General's study, the vast majority—I'm guessing 80% or more—were owned by the provincial or territorial government that had jurisdiction where the dot is on the map.

Public Accounts committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable members, as the deputy minister of Transport Canada, I'm happy to be back in front of the public accounts committee. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the Auditor General's report on civil aviation infrastructure in the north. We welcome this review as an opportunity to strengthen our efforts to maintain safe and efficient air services in the north, a key priority for the Government of Canada.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, Mr. Ross Ezzeddin is director general of programs.

Transport committee  In respect to the budget for aviation security, was the question from 2016-17 to 2017-18, or—

Transport committee  From 2015-16 to 2016-17, I'm going to turn it to.... I apologize, for one second.

Transport committee  I was actually looking up.... I thought the question was for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Was it for CATSA or the department?

Transport committee  For the department, the level is about the same. From 2016-17 to 2017-18, the level in terms of aviation safety and security is about the same, I believe. It's actually a bit higher. It went from $179 million in the 2016-17 main estimates to $185 million in the 2017-18 main estimates.