Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and
Communications
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 2, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill S-4, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (marine liability), met this day at 4:35 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: This afternoon we have the pleasure of having with us the Honourable David Collenette, Minister of Transport, and Ms Margaret Bloodworth, the Deputy Minister of Transport, and their staff.
Please proceed.
The Honourable David M. Collenette, PC, MP, Minister of Transport: Honourable senators, as this is my first appearance before a Senate committee, I felt it would be useful not only to talk about Bill S-4, a largely technical bill on which my officials can respond to many of your questions, but also to answer questions on the overall direction of the department, given the fact that I have now been six months in my position.
I should like to spend a few minutes talking about some of the challenges facing Transport Canada, which has been a leader in re-engineering the role of government in the last few years. We have invented new ways of funding transportation infrastructure and the department has moved out of the day-to-day management of transport operations. I think the time has come to turn our attention to the future and focus on the new long-term challenges facing the department. Rather than defining our role in terms of what we no longer do, we have to define a new positive role for the federal government in transportation.
One long-term challenge is the impact of the telecommunications revolution. The developments in technology and telecommunications, such as the widespread use of the Internet, will not curtail the demand for transportation services. Quite the contrary. Our economy and our people will be able to interact much more easily and over longer distances than is now possible, but only if complemented by greater physical mobility through transportation.
As I have said in rather heated debates with some of my colleagues, you can have all the Internet and all the communications technology you want, but unless you have a means of conveying goods or people from point A to point B, a lot of that communications technology is simply wasted. So transportation developments and technology complement the new communications revolution.
The second challenge that concerns me is urbanization. Approximately half the population lives in urban areas with the growth concentrated in such cities as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, but both the national capital region and Calgary are also seeing incredible growth. Perhaps one of our greatest challenges is dealing with this almost exponential growth in urban areas. The congestion we are getting is serious.
I would emphasize that urban transportation issues fall under municipal and provincial jurisdiction. When I made that point in Montreal one week ago, a newspaper there accused me of intruding into provincial jurisdiction. Unfortunately, I only give the speeches; I do not write the reports. I pointed that out in the House of Commons. Obviously, we know that most of the issues do fall within municipal and provincial jurisdiction.
It is my submission that congestion in urban areas does have a direct and measurable impact on the effectiveness of our national and international transportation systems. For example, access to ports and airports and the connections between modes and between transportation systems are often hindered by urban congestion. There, I believe, the federal government does have a role to play.
The third challenge, one that is closely linked to urban congestion, is that of meeting the environmental agenda, and it is rather timely, given the fact that this week we will be discussing global warming at the Kyoto talks. Ensuring that we have transportation that meets the needs of today's Canadians and those of future generations must be of paramount importance to us and it necessitates our linking economic, environmental and social considerations in our departmental mandate. Human-induced climate change is just one by-product of transportation, but it is a real and growing threat to sustainable growth and is one of the world's most crucial issues. Therefore, as I have said, meeting environmental standards will be a huge challenge for the transportation sector, because our sector is responsible for about 27 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in the country.
The fourth challenge, one linked to both congestion and pollution, is what appears to be an irreversible growth in highway traffic. Current trends suggest that private vehicle traffic will grow by between 50 and 100 per cent over the next 25 years. Clearly, the building of more highways cannot be the only solution. We can hardly sustain them, let alone build them or afford them. That is particularly true in the area I represent, greater Toronto, where the population is now 4.5 million people and is expected to double early in the next century. We just cannot afford to rapidly build more and more roads. We have just opened Highway 407, which has relieved some congestion, but it is physically impossible to take more land in order to make Highway 401 any wider. It is now 16 lanes wide at most points throughout the heart of Toronto.
[Translation]
What can we do now? We must be able to move goods and people quickly and economically if we are to compete.
To achieve this, we need a broad strategy leading to an integrated, intermodal transportation system. Intermodal transportation means safe, efficient, affordable transportation by the most appropriate combination of modes.
It means ensuring that the modes are linked, so that the whole system works together harmoniously. And it means recognizing the impact each mode has on the environment.
[English]
We are pleased to see the transportation sector developing more efficient multi-modal transportation technologies, but more is needed on the passenger side. For one thing, we need to integrate intercity transportation networks with those operating within cities. We also need appropriate transportation infrastructure for road, rail and marine transport in both the east-west and the north-south corridors.
As I said earlier, the greatest pressure is on our highway system. Highways are a federal responsibility, but the federal government contributes to them through cost-sharing agreements with the provinces.
In just two years, we will mark the 30th anniversary of the completion of the Trans-Canada Highway, one of Canada's greatest achievements. But also within that time, most of our federal-provincial highway agreements will expire. We need to keep our highways in shape for economic and national unity reasons.
[Translation]
The question, in my view, is not: "Should we have a national highway program?" as some provinces have proposed, but rather: "How should we structure it, and how much federal money will be available?" I believe continuation of the program should involve acceptance of some common national principles and provide provinces with flexibility. Partnership with the private sector should also be part of the solution.
The question of money is a difficult one. Highway investment has to be considered in the context of other government priorities. As the need for investment is real -- the challenge to sustain the system must be met.
[English]
The rail industry faces a number of pressures. Canada now produces more industrial goods, which are often carried by truck, and a smaller amount of the primary goods that are traditionally carried by rail. Meanwhile, Canadian industries are pressing rail carriers to reduce rates to help them stay competitive, and manufacturers are adopting "just-in-time" production and delivery, and are looking to carriers for support.
Rail still ships 95 per cent of Canada's bulk and resource commodities. With transportation costs so critical to the competitiveness of these commodities, Canada must have efficient and cost-effective rail freight to succeed in world markets.
The railways have responded to the ever-increasing need for productivity and competitiveness. In fact, the Canada Transportation Act has already benefited rail transportation by encouraging the transfer of uneconomical branch lines to shortline operators, as one example. The shortline industry is flourishing as never before. While approximately 800 kilometres of largely uneconomic track have been abandoned, over 3,700 kilometres have begun operating as shortline railways since the new legislation came into effect.
Other challenges remain, however. The grain transportation system needs to be fixed and we are working with industry to identify what can be done there. Improved technology and better logistics management will definitely be part of the solution. Already this year, some of the problems we have had in the past seem to have been obviated, because we have exported over 1.7 million tonnes more grain than during the comparable period last year. There is a lot more to do, but at least we are moving in the right direction.
I have met with various stakeholders in the grain industry, such as the railways, port representatives, farm representatives, including elevators and the like, and the provincial ministers. We have agreed on a course of action. The federal government is mandated to conduct a grain transportation review by 1999; we are about to announce an eminent person to lead that review. Much of the preliminary work has already been done.
Like the other sectors, the marine sector must adapt to the challenges of the next millennium. It must keep up with changing markets, competition and a changing commodity mix. In order to ensure that our maritime system would be able to adapt, our government re-introduced the Canada Marine Act as Bill C-9. The legislation was originally introduced as Bill C-58 in the House of Commons by my predecessor in September of 1996 so I know that senators are familiar with the content of this bill. Unfortunately, it was presented to the Senate rather late in the last parliament and there was not much time to consider it before the election. To make up for that, I promise that, with any luck, you will have it back early in the new year. I hope to get to the report stage and third reading before Friday in the House of Commons.
The proposed act will cut red tape and make it possible for ports to respond more effectively to the needs of their customers. The legislation will also allow us to commercialize the seaway and streamline delivery of pilotage services. In addition to rejuvenating the structure of the marine system, the department has also made a strong commitment to updating the legislation which governs the shipping industry.
Bill S-4, now before you, and Bill C-15, both deal with the modernization of the Canada Shipping Act to ensure that the statute reflects the shipping realities of today. I should like to take a few minutes to talk to you about Bill S-4, which is the reason we have met today.
Bill S-4, focusing on maritime liability, proposes to increase the compensation available to Canadian claimants, particularly for claims related to ship-source oil pollution damage. In contrast to the current regime for oil spills, these amendments to the Canada Shipping Act will establish shipowners' liability for environmental damage and will allow for the cost of preventive measures taken in anticipation of a spill.
Bill S-4 amends Part IX and Part XVI of the Canada Shipping Act. Part IX deals with the global limitation of liability for maritime claims while Part XVI deals with liability and compensation for oil pollution damage.
The amendments to Part IX of the Canada Shipping Act are based on the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims and its Protocol adopted in May of 1996 under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization.
During my recent visit to Europe, I had the pleasure of visiting the IMO headquarters in London and had occasion to sign, on behalf of Canada, the 1996 Protocol. Canada will be in a position to ratify this important treaty when Bill S-4 is passed.
As I stated earlier, the proposed legislation will increase shipowners' limits of liability and will improve considerably the amount of compensation available to claimants involved in maritime accidents. Those limits are calculated on the basis of the ship's size and apply to all claims arising from the same accident. That enables shipowners to assess their potential liability, which is an essential condition for commercial insurability.
The regime of global limitation contained in Part IX of the Canada Shipping Act applies to all ships, including pleasure vessels. The current limit of liability for loss of life or for personal injury for owners or vessels below 300 tonnes, which includes most pleasure vessels, is only $140,000. I am sure you will agree that that is a totally inadequate limit for that particular class of ship. The new limit for vessels below 300 tonnes has been set at $1.5 million, which is more in line with the liability levels long established in the automobile sector.
The convention also sets out special provisions for the liability of shipowners to their passengers. That will be a new feature in our legislation that will apply to passenger vessels, ferries, tour boats and other vessels where passengers are carried on a ship under contract of passenger carriage. Concerns were raised in the last Parliament that such a provision might not cover all passengers travelling by ship in Canada -- specifically, those carried without a contract of carriage. In response to those concerns, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport proposed an amendment to Bill C-58 to ensure that "...persons, other than crew, carried on a ship without a contract of carriage" will benefit from the same regime of liability.
We believe that that is of particular importance where, for example, passenger ships are hired by individuals or organizations for special-occasion use by their clients, guests or employees, or where carriage of passengers by water is provided as part of land-tour or hotel packages.
Bill S-4 also modifies some provisions of the Convention in order to better meet Canadian requirements, particularly in respect of the application to all ships and the application to any person in possession of a ship. These modifications have been done in conjunction with the definition of "shipowner" to ensure that the new regime will continue to apply to all vessels, seagoing or not, and also to people who have possession of a ship -- for example, ship repairers.
The act currently establishes limitation of liability for owners of docks, canals and ports. This regime is strictly domestic in nature and provides a reciprocal balance to the regime applicable to shipowners in the sense that both shipowners and dock owners can limit their liability against each other.
The regime has been maintained in Bill S-4 with the following amendments: The limits of liability have been increased; the right to limit liability has been extended to servants and agents of the owners of docks, canals and ports in order to achieve uniformity with a similar provision respecting the agents and servants of shipowners; and, finally, we have removed any reference to nationality of the largest ship for the calculation of the limit of liability in order to achieve a more flexible application of this provision, which currently uses for this calculation the "largest British ship in the area of the accident". That is certainly an old reference point.
Before I turn to the second issue presented in Bill S-4, the regime of liability and compensation for oil pollution damage, I should like to address the issue of the economic implications of the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act with respect to the global limitation of liability.
With respect to commercial vessel owners, those who are insured in mutual "protection and indemnity" associations, generally known as "P&I clubs", will not likely see any substantive change in their insurance rates since the coverage already provided by these associations is unlimited. Some commercial shipowners who are not currently insured in P&I clubs may experience an up-front increase in insurance costs as a result of the revision of the limits proposed in the bill. In most cases, the actual impact will depend on actual claims experience under the new limitation regime.
The same thing applies to pleasure vessel owners: the vast majority of them are already insured to the level of liability proposed in the revision, while others will have to seek additional insurance to be fully protected against the new limits. The adjustments that are likely to occur in the pleasure vessel insurance market under the new regime are not expected to raise the cost of pleasure vessel insurance to a level that would approach the level of other types of personal insurance, especially automobile insurance. Most pleasure vessel owners already carry liability insurance in the range of $1 million, so they should not expect any increase in their cost of insurance as a result of the new legislation.
On the second issue presented in the bill, the amendments to Part XVI of the Canada Shipping Act, the provision of the existing regime of liability and compensation for oil pollution damage is of particular interest. The regime was last revised in 1989, when Canada implemented and acceded to the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and the 1971 International Fund Convention.
The 1969 Convention established the liability of owners of laden tankers for oil pollution damage, while the 1971 International Fund Convention provided complementary compensation to the extent that protection under the 1969 convention was inadequate.
In addition to participating in the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, Canada has its own domestic compensation fund called the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund. This is a fund of first resort for all claimants for oil pollution damage in Canada and in waters under Canadian jurisdiction. Canadian contributions to the international fund are paid from the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund.
The 1969 and 1971 Conventions were updated in 1992, when Protocols were adopted under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization. Under the 1992 Protocols, the amount of compensation available for pollution damage caused by oil tankers was increased from a level of $120 million per incident to $270 million per incident.
A number of other important changes were made in 1992 in the Protocols to improve the original Conventions. Shipowners are now liable for the costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement where oil pollution from a ship results in damage to the environment. The geographic scope of application of the Convention will now include the exclusive economic zone of Canada, which extends to 200 nautical miles from shore. The Protocols also extend the Convention to claims for preventive measures taken before a spill to prevent or minimize pollution damage. Finally, the Convention will now also apply to empty tankers, with specific reference to the voyage subsequent to the voyage during which it was carrying oil.
[Translation]
Bill S-4 will implement the provision of the 1992 protocols, thus increasing the level of compensation available to victims of pollution damage caused by oil tankers in the future.
The proposed legislation will enable Canada to follow many other countries which have terminated their membership with the old regime and moved rapidly to the 1992 regime. Until Canada follows suite, we will continue to be exposed to higher contributions to the International Fund due to the reduced membership in the old regime.
As my final comment on Bill S-4, I would strongly urge you to consider this important legislation expeditiously. The sooner Canada can exceed to the new regime, the better.
[English]
Honourable senators, the changes I have outlined for the act would not have been possible without the continued support of our stakeholders. During your consultations, my departmental officials have spoken at length with shipowners, passengers, cargo owners, the oil industry, the marine insurers and the marine legal community.
I should like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the industry groups for their participation in this reform. Their strong support for this bill has been extremely gratifying. I believe that such cooperation demonstrates the importance of partnerships in many initiatives, including our national strategy on transportation.
[Translation]
We need to work together to define our goals and policies for the future, by creating new partnerships that make the best possible use of federal expertise and resources.
[English]
I apologize for going on at great length on the bill, but I cannot make a speech in the Senate because I am not a member of the Senate. Had I been in the Senate, that is what I would have said in introducing the bill.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Senator Roberge: Thank you for joining us here today. I have a general comment on what you have said.
There are great challenges facing the transportation industry today. I hope you and your officials will keep an eye out for safety in all transportation modes. One of this committee's subcommittees has its focus on safety and security in transportation, and these days we are finding out about some scary things. We will be making an interim report soon, and we will probably want to meet with your officials in that respect.
I do not think there will be much opposition to this bill; at least, I do not foresee any. However, why did it take so long to bring these amendments forward? As well, are the liability limits high enough when one looks, for example, at malpractice, car accidents and oil spills. You say the maximum liability for oil spills is now $270 million. I do not know the cost of the Exxon Valdez spill, but perhaps you could make a few comments in that regard.
Mr. Collenette: First, I wish to say something about safety. I will let the deputy minister answer the question as to why this took so long. I am not blaming her, but she has more of a corporate memory, since I only came into this portfolio in June. Mr. Rysanek will answer the other question you raised.
Safety is a matter which concerns us all. In fact, safety is our top concern at the Department of Transport, in all modes of transportation. Most of us now fly weekly; I know that senators do. When you consider the miracle of flying people over great distances in adverse weather, you know that safety in the air, safety of the planes, is crucial. Even though we are devolving a lot of our authority over airports, we are certainly responsible for safety, and we maintain that very religiously.
I am concerned over the number of railway accidents in the last year or so. In fact, since I have been Minister of Transport we have seen some accidents, and that is of particular concern. That is why I asked my officials to delay coming forward with the Railway Safety Act amendments, which we were to bring in in October when the House reconvened. We will be bringing those in in February, because that issue is one of growing importance.
Perhaps Ms Bloodworth could deal with the specific question of why it is taking so long.
Ms Margaret Bloodworth, Deputy Minister, Department of Transport: There are a couple of answers to that. One answer relates to trying to pass legislation in the last year or so before an election; that is always risky for governments. The bill was tabled in September of 1996 and we ran out of time. There is no question that that delayed matters, because we are here only now. Perhaps it would have been preferable to have had the bill tabled earlier than that.
The second issue relates to the whole international area. The process for negotiating changes internationally and then for bringing them into effect is time-consuming. I hope that we can make some changes in that regard, particularly in the marine area. The problem is not entirely international; some of it has to do with us. That is why we need some changes to the Shipping Act. This is one lot of changes, but there are bigger changes coming.
I agree with you that the bill has been a long time in coming, but we will try to see what we can do to improve that in the future.
As to your question about the limits, Mr. Rysanek will deal with that issue specifically; however, there is provision in the legislation not to be fixed with a limit that was set in 1957, but to have more flexibility.
Mr. Jerry Rysanek, Chief, Marine Insurance, Department of Transport: The question of the level of limits is also partly related to the question of the time it has taken to prepare this legislation. As you can imagine, it involves a number of groups that must be brought together to reach an understanding and consensus on what is an adequate limit, and on whether the limit is insurable or insurable at an economic cost.
At the lower end of the scale, the limit is being increased from $140,000 to approximately $1.5 million, and that will have an impact on our pleasure vessel industry. It has taken time to present and to develop a consensus by the various groups. It was considered to be adequate and responsive to the needs of victims involved in pleasure vessel incidents, and it was considered to be insurable at an economic cost. I can say without hesitation that the vast majority of the industry affected by that particular limit is supportive.
At the other end of the scale, when you refer to major oil pollution incidents, the change from $120 million to $270 million per incident is a massive change. It certainly would cover all claims that we have experienced so far. Subscribing to those limits allows us to participate in international conventions and regimes.
I hope that answers your question concerning the levels of the limits and how they arise.
Senator Roberge: That answers the question with respect to oil spills, but on the other aspects are there some checks and balances? Will you have to make amendments to this bill again in, say, two years, if the increases that we are experiencing world-wide rise substantially -- for example, if someone is killed in a truck crash and there is a law suit in Canadian dollars?
Mr. Rysanek: The deputy minister alluded to this. There is a provision in the bill, which did not exist in the previous legislation, which allows for much more rapid and flexible updating of the limits. It would not require an amendment of the legislation; it would require an Order in Council that would quickly adjust the limit to a level that would be considered appropriate at the time. We experienced that problem with the legislation in the past; the limits were eroded by inflation over 50 years.
Senator Roberge: That answers my question.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Minister, I realize that you could not cover all of the different modes of transport in detail, but you said that one of the major challenges ahead is the protection of the environment from the effects of traffic congestion, because, as you say, traffic might increase by 100 per cent in the next 25 years. Then you said that more needs to be done on the passenger side.
Do you see any solution to the problem of pollution from passenger traffic in the use of a passenger railway system? Can we devise a policy to alleviate that doubling of traffic on highways? As you say, we cannot sustain more highways, we cannot build them, we cannot afford them. Is a passenger railway system in some areas of Canada a solution? Can we make it profitable so that it will not be a burden on the taxpayers, as we have seen in other modes? Or is it too early to tell? Do you see a solution there?
Mr. Collenette: Rail is part of the solution. In fact, we are seeing a renaissance of rail. It is rather ironic. As we went from the 19th to the 20th centuries, Canada was built on rail; yet rail diminished in importance for much of this century, and for the last 40 years in particular. However, the changes to the Canadian Transportation Act, the permission for the railways to reorganize themselves in more effective ways, and the encouragement of the shortlines, has given flexibility to this particular mode of transport, which is one of the least polluting modes.
We have gone through approximately 50 or 60 years of rapid development of conveyance of people by car, bus and truck. In effect, we must thank two individuals in particular for leading that development. One is Robert Moses, the architectural planner for New York City in the 1930s and 1940s, who essentially created modern suburbia. Ever since then, we have had to deal with the dispersal of individuals over wider and wider areas, with the difficulty in giving adequate transport to them, while providing very nice lives in those communities. The other, of course, is President Eisenhower, who embarked in the United States on a massive highway-building program in the interstate system; that has dictated the whole notion of land-use planning in an urban context. We were affected by virtue of being interlocked with the U.S. and we are now even more interlocked with the U.S.
In effect, we have had to get that 40 or 50 years out of our system. It has almost "maxed" out. We have come to a point where we do not have to talk about transportation priorities in the context of favouring one mode over another. In the U.S., the trucking companies are trying to work cooperatively with the railway companies. They are finding that rail capacity does not always meet their expectations.
In this country the same is true. Both CN and CP have developed systems of intermodal usage whereby whole trucks go on the trains and do not just piggyback the way trucks did in the 1960s and 1970s; now whole trucks go on the train. CP calls it the "Iron railway". One driver takes the truck to one point, say, in Montreal, and another driver gets in, say, in Chicago and takes the truck to the U.S. midwest. We must do more of that to encourage the interfacing of truck with rail.
The same is true for passengers. Busses will have to become more and more of a feeder for rail. One thing I am particularly concerned about is the reorganization and revitalization of the passenger railway system, not just for the transcontinental and intercity routes, but also in the suburban and urban context.
I realize that in some cases we then start coming up against provincial jurisdiction. For example, I believe the federal government sold its interest in the commuter transit system in Montreal in 1980 for $50 million. However, in the greater Toronto area I have been having discussions with my counterparts at the provincial level and with GO Transit about cooperative measures for moving people. VIA Rail, in effect, is the outer suburban service and GO Transit is the inner suburban service to a region of 4.5 million people in the greater Toronto area, with another 1 or 1.5 million people not too distant from that region.
Although we may not delve into that discussion too deeply today, I will ask the House of Commons committee to look at ways of revitalizing the passenger rail system; perhaps we could introduce some kind of franchising arrangement with private-sector operators for the national service. It would not be a case of selling off the railway or the company as we did with CN, but of involving the private sector. Otherwise, we could not raise the necessary capital to finance the rolling stock.
The question is a good one. The solutions are there. To some degree government money will be needed, but given the state of our finances today we must try to ensure that money is available form the private sector. We can use the private sector by organizing our priorities carefully.
Senator De Bané: My second point is more of a representation. I received some feedback that there is a malaise at NAV CANADA, that the airline industry is in a dominant position in that corporation. Of course, they should have an important position, but there are other stakeholders, such as the department, the public, the air traffic controllers, the different cities where they land, et cetera.
I wish to make a representation to you to ensure that the airline industry, although it should play an important role in NAV CANADA, is not seen as the only interest in air traffic control, but that the other stakeholders should be part of it.
Finally, I have a question about this bill before us today. What path has the U.S. taken in regard to oil spill liability? I understand that they have taken a completely different approach from ours. What are the philosophies behind the different approaches to oil spill liability?
Mr. Collenette: I will ask my official to answer that, as he is much more knowledgeable on that topic. I will talk about NAV CANADA in a minute.
Mr. Rysanek: While the United States actively participates in the work of the International Maritime Organization, at the end of the day they have pursued a different policy and adopted legislation on all pollution liability in what is known as the 1990 Oil Pollution Act. In many ways their legislation is similar to the international regime, but there is a major difference, in that the limits of liability are much greater than we know and than are contained in any international law.
Canada considered that option; we considered following that model and it was also laid out at the policy stage. However, all of the stakeholders involved in those consultations agreed and recommended that Canada should pursue a policy on oil pollution liability in accordance with international conventions adopted pursuant to the IMO. I hope that satisfies your question.
Mr. Collenette: On the question of NAV CANADA, the senator is right to have some concerns, as that is a new organization. However, judging from the experience we have had, there has been a seamless transfer to the new organization. It certainly appears to be operating up to and beyond our expectations.
Naturally, there will be tensions between various stakeholders; however, on the NAV CANADA board there are government and union representatives, there are members chosen at large as well as direct representation from the airlines. The government's interest and the interest of other stakeholders does balance off the interest of the airlines.
Of course, the airlines are the ones that are most concerned. It is their pilots who deal with the air traffic controllers. They must be absolutely sure that the right level of equipment is in place, that the right number of personnel are in place and that specific procedures are followed. I am confident that this experiment that we have undertaken will continue to be successful.
In fact, when I was in the U.K. in September, the civil aviation authority there was quite amazed at what we had done. We have broken new ground. I met with the board of directors who had been experimenting for eight years with a form of privatization. They have come to the conclusion that the only viable alternative to government ownership, as we used to have and as the British have now, is to follow a not-for-profit model as we see in NAV CANADA. That is a pretty good compliment.
Senator Spivak: It is a great relief to see that perhaps the emphasis is swinging from privatization of various modes of transportation to a look at the impact of modes of transportation on our society and our quality of life.
I visited Europe some time ago and even though their population configuration is quite different from ours, they seem to have rationalized different modes of transport.
My first question relates to the rail and trucking industries. First, some time ago, when various kinds of captive shippers appeared before us, they outlined the various ways in which rail was not favoured in terms of subsidization and in terms of tax. I understand that some of those taxes are provincial. They also mentioned other financial considerations which put rail at a disadvantage compared to subsidies for highways.
In Manitoba, my home province, because of the Crow rate and all of the changes that have taken place, country roads are being subjected to the use of huge trucks, and they were never built for that. Not only was there a very serious accident recently, but they are now asking for subsidization of those highways to pick up those roads. What is government policy vis-à-vis this favouring of the whole question of subsidization and tax policy towards railroads versus the highways?
My second question is this: Whereas in the United States trucking is covered by the federal authority, that is not the case with the National Transportation Board. In your opinion, what are the barriers towards oversight by the federal authority, having now delegated the barriers towards implementing that to the provinces? Are you looking at that in terms of government policy?
As you know, various rules are applicable, but I would repeat that those huge trucks are a menace to the safety of the roads. They make driving on Trans-Canada Highway a perilous act. My colleague will acquaint you with what is happening in the Maritimes, if you need to be acquainted with that.
Mr. Collenette: You raise some excellent points.
In 1954, the Supreme Court of Canada gave a ruling that interprovincial trucking and highways are within the federal jurisdiction. At the time, Minister Howe did not want any more authority. The federal government turned around and delegated everything back to the provinces. It has worked reasonably well since that period of time. In fact, I was quite amazed when I took over and went to a federal-provincial meeting, having lived through a lot of constitutional battles in the late 1970s and early 1980s when I was elected before, to find out that the ministers of Transport from all provinces, including Quebec, worked cooperatively.
Although we have the constitutional authority for many of these areas, we have delegated it to the provinces; we are working cooperatively with them, especially in the development of a new national safety code, in dealing with truck weights and all of those other issues which everyone is concerned about. We must let this kind of consultative and cooperative approach continue, because it is in the best interests of the country. Certainly, we will have better safety standards on interprovincial trucking.
As to subsidies, that is a tough question and you get two different answers. The road industry says that rail is subsidized, and rail, of course, says that road is subsidized. We cannot deny that, from a tax point of view, the cost of capital is treated differently in Canada and in the U.S.; it is not in the railways' favour in Canada. They want a change in the capital cost allowance and that is something worth looking at. The question is whether the government can forgo whatever it will cost per year, about $50 million or $75 million per year. That is a lot of money.
We are just about to balance the books. The question is whether we can afford that kind of taxation measure in order to help the railways to be more competitive, not only with the road industry but with their U.S. counterparts. The railway system now is totally integrated. Canadian National is the sixth largest railway in North America. If you added CP and CN together, as a combined company they would be almost in the top four. We are talking about big organizations competing in an integrated market with the U.S. There is, therefore, some argument for harmonization of the tax regime.
The railways also have a problem with fuel taxes. In Saskatchewan the tax on fuel is inordinately high. In most of the other provinces it is reasonably within range, with some differences. Rail is very important in Saskatchewan in the haulage of grain and there are still many branch lines, and the railways would argue that this tax inhibits them to some degree. They also argue that the road system is financed out of the public treasury and, therefore, truckers, motorists in general, get a hidden subsidy. The motor vehicle industry comes back and says: "Wait a minute; we pay $4 billion in fuel taxes and we should have some of that back."
In the U.S., there is a dedicated tax. We have not gone along that route, although it becomes tougher and tougher to argue when you tax a certain mode that there is no correlation between tax and what is ploughed back for maintaining that network.
You get these arguments and I will let you debate that at another time. These are key issues which must be addressed.
Senator Spivak: Some organizations have put the subsidies of highways as high as $11 million.
Senator Oliver: I, too, would like to add my welcome to the minister both to the Senate and to this committee. I have a question about highways and one question about marine issues.
On page 3 of your address you said that, in just two years, we will mark the thirtieth anniversary of the completion of the Trans-Canada Highway, one of Canada's greatest achievements. Also within that time most of the federal-provincial highway agreements will expire.
Where do you see the future of this "greatest achievement"? Would it be in going to toll highways? Where will the money come from to maintain the highways and to expand them? What is your personal view with respect to having tolls on our national highways?
Mr. Collenette: We are today locked into approximately $2.3 billion worth of highway agreements which will be lapsing over the next three years. That is exclusive of the Newfoundland railway compensation, which is a special case.
My provincial counterparts argue for a national highways policy; well, we have one. We have had one since 1919. The federal government has contributed. The real question is how much we can afford to contribute as these agreements run out. We recently extended the New Brunswick agreement; we did so for a very good reason. It is not just pro-New Brunswick; it is pro-Atlantic Canada, to permit the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway from the Quebec border into Fredericton. This is good for both passengers and freight, not just for New Brunswick, but for Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland.
As to how we use the private sector, we have retained an advisor in the department to assist us on particular methods for implicating the private sector. Most of us think about toll roads in terms of just putting a quarter in a slot or having an automated ticket. Ontario is taking a more electronic approach with the use of transponders and the electronic gauging of distances travelled. However, there are other ways, and we are examining one in particular that is being used in Britain. I refer to the whole concept of designing, building and operating roads where the private sector takes on the project, manages the project and is compensated on a through-put basis, like a tariff paid by the government. They call it a "shadow toll".
Senator Oliver: Is that where you see us going?
Mr. Collenette: It is something we can examine. The beauty there is that you take off the balance sheet the need to finance those roads, but you still have to pay out a public subsidy, federally or provincially, or combined under agreements. You get the efficiencies of the private sector in building and operating this kind of structure. The P.E.I. bridge is a little different because you pay a toll going across, but that is the type of case where the government recognizes that it will have to spend, for example, $200 million on a particular highway but that it can be done better, more cheaply and more efficiently by using the "shadow toll" route.
That is one way in which we are considering the use of the private sector for road building.
Senator Oliver: Do you envisage that in the future Canadians, when they want to travel with their families on Canada's "greatest achievement" from sea to sea, will be paying tolls all the way across the country?
Mr. Collenette: That would not be the case if the kind of mechanism I have described were put in place. Personally, I think most Canadians do not feel comfortable with paying tolls, except for specific projects such as the P.E.I. bridge. People are prepared to pay for a new structure; they are prepared to pay the toll when they can see that it is for a new bridge or a tunnel. However, I am not sure that they have the same feeling on getting onto a stretch of highway. That is a personal observation. Perhaps there are other ways that we can do it.
In your own province, there is a bit of controversy over Highway 104, where there is the traditional tolling arrangement, and I think New Brunswick is looking at that as well. We cannot tell them how to operate, but it may be something that we should look at from the standpoint of a federal-provincial cooperative arrangement in future. If we were entering into a new agreement, we could say, "Wait a minute. What is the best way of tolling? Is it direct tolls or charges, or is it through the shadow toll mechanism?"
Senator Oliver: I was in Sydney Mines the other day; people there are a bit paranoid about what will happen to their jobs. They feel that Marine Atlantic will be closed down and many valuable and important jobs in Sydney Mines will leave Nova Scotia and perhaps go to Newfoundland. What will happen there? I understand you have been in direct negotiations with them.
Mr. Collenette: I do not negotiate with them. They report to us. We are supposed to call the shots.
We have had a number of discussions with Mr. Morrison, the head of Marine Atlantic. He has done a good job of reducing costs and transferring some of the routes to the private sector, and he has been doing it with a fair degree of harmony with the employees.
We are looking at a stabilized service from North Sydney to Port aux Basques and some summer service over to Saint John's or Argentia, but essentially it is the lifeline to Newfoundland and is protected under a constitutional arrangement. Obviously, most of the employees for that service will be in North Sydney or Port aux Basques. What will happen to the headquarters in Moncton is the question at issue now. Everyone agrees that it is probably not right to continue having the headquarters in Moncton. Consequently, we are looking at approximately 40 jobs and the symbolism of having a town or city designated as the headquarters. I think it will end up being a net gain for communities in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia rather than a net loss. Most of the job losses or rationalizations have gone through the system by now.
As to the apportionment of those jobs or which city or town will be designated as the headquarters for Marine Atlantic, those decisions have not been taken.
Senator Oliver: When do you expect that decision?
Mr. Collenette: We are getting a great deal of input from the provinces involved. In fact, the House of Assembly in Newfoundland passed a resolution the other day. Perhaps the House in Nova Scotia will do the same. Given that there is so much interest in that debate, we do not want to truncate it. We will perhaps let the representations continue. That will allow us to have a better informed decision. However, to answer your question, the decision will be made some time in 1998.
Senator Perrault: This has been an interesting and educational presentation. Everyday we read in the newspapers about the environment and the greenhouse effect and what we will do to prevent massive climatic changes. Scientists said a few years ago that, unless we changed our policy with respect to carbon dioxide emissions, the world's climate would be changed unalterably by 2010.
I am sure you are aware of that, Mr. Minister, because you have made reference in this paper to that issue. You say that there is a huge challenge for the transportation sector, which is currently responsible for some 27 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. It seems to me that railway transit would pollute far less than diesel and gasoline transit.
Mr. Collenette: Rail is certainly more efficient than road from that point of view.
Senator Perrault: There were reports in the newspaper this week to the effect that we have pledged to reduce our emissions in Canada less than they have pledged in the United States. Would you care to comment on that? There has been some critical press on that.
Mr. Collenette: There are enough ministers with this responsibility that I hesitate to talk in detail about it.
Senator Perrault: But you have mentioned it in your paper.
Mr. Collenette: Yes, so I will be very careful with the specifics.
The Government of Canada does believe that global warming is a problem that must be addressed, and that certain limits and targets must be set. As you know, the Prime Minister has said publicly that we want Canada not only to do its best but actually to do better than the United States.
Senator Perrault: He made some very heartening statements.
Mr. Collenette: The full dimension of our policy will be in evidence at Kyoto, when my colleagues Ralph Goodale and Christine Stewart take part in the overall negotiations.
Senator Perrault: So we can look forward with some anticipation to the meeting in Kyoto?
Mr. Collenette: Yes.
Senator Poulin: Thank you for the excellent presentation. As you heard from the comments of my colleagues, we all appreciate the fact that, with your team, you took the time to give us an overview of the department and its challenges in addition to looking at Bill S-4. As you can see by the number of senators in attendance here, we take Bill S-4 seriously.
I should like to ask a question of representation concerning railway passenger travel. I recently returned from a fact-finding mission in Japan, where the identification of trade facilitators' barriers was one of the key objectives. It was mentioned during our meetings with different industries in Japan.
We were told that the major barrier here is the insufficient space on the national train service during the high season. We were told that Canada could substantially increase the tourist industry from Asia during the high season if travel agents in Asia had more packages to sell that included train travel in Canada, mainly in Western Canada.
What is the problem, and what are the solutions?
Mr. Collenette: One of the reasons that there is so much demand in Japan is that we almost underprice ourselves for the quality of the trip. The Japanese and the Europeans as well think we are crazy to charge so low a fee on our transcontinental services. It is one of the world's best bargains. It does not surprise me that we run out of space. VIA just does not have the capacity. That is why we must find a way to use the private sector to finance new equipment. There just is not the amount of capacity available to take all of these people.
I suppose one answer would be to raise the price and, therefore, reduce the demand. You might even make more money on the service in that way. However, the real answer is to increase capacity, but they do not have the equipment to do that.
This whole question of capacity is of concern to me, because tourist services on rail can be a real money earner if the capacity is there. That has been demonstrated by the Rocky Mountaineer Service, which was given a franchise for approximately five years by the previous government. They have made good money, financed new equipment and refurbished it, and have given excellent service.
There is great potential for new rail services. It is one area where we could involve the private sector more, again not selling off the railway but perhaps entering into franchise agreements on tourist services, with tourism segregated regionally or perhaps taken as a national service. When you consider some of the beautiful terrain through which the rails go in this country, we should be able to do a much better job on behalf of tourism. Part of that is giving the rail organization, whether it is VIA or other operators on behalf of VIA, the ability to acquire new equipment to meet the demand.
Senator Poulin: Have there been discussions with VIA regarding the possible options for solutions as between the department and VIA?
Mr. Collenette: VIA knows the problem, and they have worked at it. Frankly, I am amazed at how well they have done given the scarcity of resources. That organization has had its subsidy level reduced since 1989 from $685 million to a steady state of $170 million next year. That is an incredible reduction. The management have done an excellent job. They have had to cut routes, but they have maintained the core of the service. However, they do not have money left over for new equipment. There was an accident out in Biggar, Saskatchewan, which left two or three cars as write-offs. I believe they have some extra shells that they can re-equip; but VIA just does not have the equipment. In the last few years, in order to re-equip, they have searched out 40- or 50-year-old stainless steel equipment discarded by old passenger systems in the U.S. and have completely rebuilt them. That is all they could afford to do.
The real answer to the problem of capacity would be to buy new equipment, but they simply do not have the money to do that because we have been cutting the subsidy to them.
The problem is not unique to Canada. In Britain, they have the same problem. By involving the private sector, and through franchising, we have found that new locomotives can be purchased. Private companies can borrow money on the private markets pledging their revenue streams over the life of the franchises. That is the route we have to take.
VIA is not the problem; the problem is the way we have organized things. It all comes back to the choices government has made, but I believe we can find some solutions. With regard to the ideas I have asked my colleagues to come forward with, I hope senators will also respond.
Senator Perrault: Amtrak shares many of the problems that VIA experiences in Canada. Do you know whether they work closely together? I understand they have a ticket like the EuroRail pass that can be used anywhere in North America. Are ideas like that being developed here?
Mr. Collenette: That is right. There is a good operating or working relationship between the two railways.
There is some debate over the suggestion that if VIA were given $1 billion, or Amtrak were given $10 billion, they would do all these wonderful things and would not need subsidies. I do not believe that. In my opinion the passenger railway service will always require some kind of subsidy. The question is how to use that subsidy to the best possible advantage. Perhaps by involving the private sector, we can maximize the use of the money that the public sector puts in while getting the benefits of private operation and private-sector borrowing for the equipment.
Amtrak has just been bailed out by the U.S. Congress. I am not sure that that will be a lasting solution; nor do I necessarily want to follow in that direction. I believe we can do it in a different way, in a better way and in a more sustaining way. Perhaps I am wrong. That is why we need a lot of advice on this matter, both from members of the House and from the Senate.
Senator Johnson: Minister, you said in your remarks that the grain transport system needs to be fixed, which is true. Of course, I have Winnipeg in mind with regard to that, as well as what is happening with CN. You referred to technology and better logistics management. Could you expand on that for me?
Mr. Collenette: I am not an expert on western grain transportation, although I was vice chairman of the House committee which dealt with that topic for four years in the 1970s. It seems to me that we have the same problems today as we had when I was first elected 23 years ago, when Senator Forrestall was a colleague of mine in the House. The fact is we have not really done much to address this issue.
It seems to me that the problem is one of logistics. Surely, with today's sophisticated computer technology, with high performance equipment on both rail and road, and with our experience, we should be able to organize the movement of this commodity from the farm to the market. That is why I am excited about the grain review we are about to embark upon. If we do it properly, we should come up with some answers. Perhaps some tough solutions will be required. However, it is a problem that can be solved, if governments, of whatever stripe, pursue it in a fruitful way, in the way, perhaps, it should be examined. I guess that was the rationale behind the National Transportation Act in 1995.
Senator Forrestall: I am a little chagrined, to tell you the least. We are here to consider Bill S-4, entitled An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (marine liability). I have heard about trucking and interprovincial problems; I have heard about pollution, and so on, but I have not heard a thing about the bill.
The bill is a good one, and we probably will give it to you fairly quickly. However, I want to ask a few questions about it before we do.
If this bill is passed before the end of the year, may we extrapolate from that an intention on the part of the government to move to ratify some of the international treaties? While we are very much supportive of those treaties, we are not actually partners in them.
I am thinking about real enhancement. We have had problems with respect to our incapacity to obtain a realizable or sufficient claim on marine incidents on several occasions. Will we be able to get ourselves into some of these treaties?
Mr. Collenette: We cannot ratify any of the treaties.
Senator Forrestall: They were ratified in 1992. I am talking about international Conventions.
Mr. Rysanek: As the minister said, we cannot ratify the 1992 Protocols to those Conventions which were adopted at that time until the legislation is passed.
Senator Forrestall: I was not asking you about that. Will you not deal with it hypothetically? My question was hypothetical.
Mr. Rysanek: I think it is a legal question to some degree whether or not one could adopt the regimes.
Mr. Alfred Popp, Senior General Counsel, Transport Canada: From a legal point of view, you cannot ratify those treaties without the implementing legislation. I suppose, theoretically, you could do it.
Senator Forrestall: When we give you back this bill, can we anticipate its being dealt with expeditiously in the House of Commons? Once it becomes law, will the next step be ratification?
Mr. Collenette: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: That is what I want to know.
Mr. Collenette: I give you my word publicly.
Senator Forrestall: Let me put it to you in this way: Knowing now that "soon" in Liberal government terms means at least one year in one instance and 62 days in another, what would you mean by "soon"? Will you give us a time parameter?
Mr. Collenette: If I receive the same cooperation in the House that I am receiving in the Senate, it will be very soon.
The Chairman: Does that answer your question, senator?
Senator Forrestall: We heard from the vice-president of a technical air control association last week that there continues to be an excessive use of overtime in air traffic control towers in Canada. He cited specifically Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and others. He said that to his knowledge that condition has existed throughout the 11 years of his employment, first at Transport Canada and, latterly, at NAV CANADA.
By way of background, we were all somewhat aware of the high level of overtime when the transfer was made. These questions were asked of NAVCAN and there was certain satisfaction derived from their reply that they were aware of it and would correct it. Indeed, they have received ongoing training, which continues to this day.
The fact of the matter is that the use of overtime is excessive. There is a fear that it is being driven to this extent as a direct result of the seven or eight years of freezes and a desire on the part of some people to use overtime as a way of augmenting their income.
Mr. Rushton, in his professional capacity, used the term "excessive". When that term is used with regard to the safety of air transportation in Canada, it is not acceptable.
Are you aware of this? Have you been briefed by anyone in your department on it? Has anyone worked up possible solutions, or will we just continue as we are?
Mr. Collenette: I have to be rather careful, because the air traffic controllers are negotiating with NAV CANADA right now.
Senator Forrestall: I am aware of that. If you would rather not deal with the question, that is fine.
Mr. Collenette: I do not want to use that as a cover for not answering your question, senator. Of course we are concerned about safety. In any line of business, there is a concern about the ability of people to do their job properly if they work too many hours. It is the function, I believe, of a collective agreement to monitor that. Overall safety standards are monitored by us, but we do not regulate the hours of work. If senators are suggesting that we should, then we shall certainly take that under advisement.
Beyond that, it would not be wise to go too far down this road, given the discussions that are underway now between employees and managers at NAV CANADA.
Senator Forrestall: Is monitoring done? If so, who does it?
Mr. Collenette: We have inspectors who monitor safety standards, and an audit is done.
Senator Forrestall: Do you believe that when a man works nine days in a row he is working safely?
Mr. Collenette: That would depend upon how many days off he has afterwards. There are many industries in which people work a large number of hours and are then compensated for it by getting other time off.
Ms Bloodworth: We do regulate NAV CANADA. The air navigation system was transferred just over one year ago. We have commenced auditing all aspects of the work, but we have not regulated hours of work at NAV CANADA. We have regulated hours of work on other types of aviation -- pilots, for example. I cannot say that we will not ever do it; we just have not done it. Our practice, when we do regulate, is to consult all parties before doing so.
There are ongoing negotiations with the air traffic controllers. I know that there have been problems and issues related to their level of compensation. We have not seen any serious safety problems arise under NAVCAN that did not exist when we ran the service. They have continued rather seamlessly. That is not to say that we should lessen our guard. Obviously, one must be vigilant. People can slip into ways that are not the best. We have not seen any evidence of that, but we will continue to be vigilant for it.
We certainly have not ruled out any particular form of regulation in the future. We are prepared to look at any issues that arise.
Senator Forrestall: I am not terribly impressed with that. Nine days at work is excessive. I think you would agree with that.
Mr. Collenette: I am taking your comments as a representation, senator; I am not offering an opinion.
Senator Forrestall: Then do something about it, because the representation is that that is simply unsafe, and you know it. Something must be done about it. We cannot continue to have people wanting to work overtime because they do not have enough money to put food on their tables. That is ridiculous, but that is what it amounts to. It is not a matter of income. We all know people who have good incomes but are very poor because of other commitments.
I do not think it is being monitored or checked closely enough. I do not think anyone has bothered to look at it. It has not come up, it does not seem to be a problem, and it is not on the table per se, according to Mr. Rushton; otherwise he would not have talked about it. I can only assume that it is not on the table because you do not talk about things that are on the negotiating table, particularly before a Senate committee.
I assume it is not on the table. Will you please put it on your table and tell NAVCAN that they have to get more trained people at work?
Mr. Collenette: We will give you a detailed reply to your concerns by letter.
Senator Forrestall: I do not want that. I want you to fix the problem.
Mr. Collenette: We will respond to your concerns and representations.
Senator Forrestall: And then let me know what you have done.
Mr. Collenette: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: Senator Angus spoke on our behalf in the chamber when the bill first came before the Senate. Generally, we subscribe to his remarks and endorse the amendments. I would hope that you would not use your rambling all over the barnyard today as excuse not to come back to us because you have been here before on another matter.
Mr. Collenette: If I rambled, senator, it was perhaps with enthusiasm for the questions I received.
Senator Forrestall: Has anyone briefed you on the language of the representations coming out of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island about toll roads? Why are Atlantic Canadians the ones being hit? Where toll roads have been used to raise capital, either through public money or through a mixture of public-private financing, there has always been a quit clause. When the road is paid for, the tolls come off. We took them off the Victoria Bridge before someone got killed. Motorists had to go from eight lanes down to two to get off the bridge.
The agreement with respect to Highway 104 in Nova Scotia allows $150 million in profit, and they can renew it. There is no way they can lose. There are three different ways they can increase tolls without reference to the government or the legislature. There is no end to it. It goes on and on forever. Quebec used tolls very successfully in building those magnificent accesses to the north, but they took the tolls off when the work was paid for.
The next time you get involved in diverting money from the Trans-Canada Highway to the Fleur-de-lis Highway in Cape Breton, or the resort highway, before you do anything wait until you have in writing precisely what they have in mind.
Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Senator Spivak: They have a program called "Rails for Trails" in the United States, which is funded by the federal government. Given all the rail lines that have been abandoned in Canada, and the fact that not all of them have been bought up, is anything like that being suggested by your department?
Mr. Collenette: The answer is "no". We have so much of a call on our revenues that that is not a priority.
When rail lines are abandoned and the tracks are taken up, local communities often get together and, sometimes with private-sector help and sometimes through the provinces, they make trails.
Transport Canada is in the business of dealing with the haulage of goods and people. We are not involved in the recreational aspect of trails, although I think that would be a great use for some abandoned railways.
Senator Spivak: It has been a popular program in the United States.
Senator Johnson: It would be great on the prairies.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Minister, you said that you cannot envisage how the railway passenger system can be operational without public subsidy. I believe there is a good basis for that observation.
Let us suppose that you do not invest in the railway passenger system. You will then have to increase the number of highways. You will then have more pollution, and so on. If we had a popular railway passenger system, we would not have to incur many of the costs we now face, such as the cost of building additional highways. However, the only way to induce people to take the train is to increase the frequency of the trains. If you had 10 or 15 train departures every day between Montreal and Toronto to compete with the 40 or 50 airplane departures, you would see people taking the train. When there are only one or two departures a day, it is not feasible.
I agree with you that the railway passenger system will always need some support, but if it was effective it could also reduce the other expenditures to which you have alluded.
The Chairman: Before we adjourn, Mr. Minister, I want to thank you and your officials for appearing today. You have been most informative.
The committee adjourned.