Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 1 - Evidence, February 17, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 17, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day, at 6:45 p.m., to study emerging issues related to its mandate and ministerial mandate letters.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Madam Minister, I want to begin by thanking you for being here.
[English]
It's the first time that ministers have been invited to come in front of committees to talk about their mandate letters. It's also the first time that we know about the mandate letters and what's in them, and I thought that was important. This is an initiative of the committee, and it is being followed by most of the other committees. It gives an opportunity to the new ministers and to the committees to develop a relationship since we will be spending four — or, in my case, I hope eight — years together.
I will start by introducing Senator Plett from Manitoba, Senator Leo Housakos from Montreal, Senator Art Eggleton from Toronto, Senator Pana Merchant from Saskatchewan and Senator Michael MacDonald, deputy chair of the committee, from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Madam Minister, the floor is yours.
Hon. Mélanie Joly, P.C., M.P., Minister of Canadian Heritage: Thank you, senator. I am pleased to be here with you this evening and to begin this new relationship between your committee and myself, as Minister of Canadian Heritage. I am accompanied by my deputy minister, Graham Flack.
I also wanted to congratulate you on your work, as I have had an opportunity to see what you have done over the past few months and years. As members of this committee, you study subjects that affect Canadians, whether we are talking about broadcasting, the media, production of Canadian content or culture. These are subjects that I have the pleasure and privilege of dealing with on a daily basis and that I am passionate about, of course.
Since I took office, I have had several opportunities to speak about current challenges and possibilities for the Department of Canadian Heritage, especially when it comes to culture, but also when it comes to the media. I would like to take advantage of our meeting to explain how I see cultural and media possibilities, and how I plan to meet these challenges and capitalize on those opportunities over the course of my mandate.
[English]
Before I proceed, I would like to underscore the importance that our government has given to cooperation and transparency. These are two important pillars on how we perform our role and assume our responsibilities.
Indeed, one of the first actions of this government was to publish, as Senator Dawson said, the ministers' mandate letters. Also, I was actually the first minister to be extremely proactive and also publish my briefing books online. If you haven't had the chance to look at and read them, please go ahead. They are on the Canadian Heritage website.
In the mandate letters, the Prime Minister asked us to work together to change the way we do things, by respecting the values of inclusion, honesty, hard work, generosity and sound financial management.
Of course, I believe in these values. I was inspired by that letter, and I am honoured to be responsible for putting this department in a strategic position in this area of change.
For many years now, digital technology has been significantly changing our societies. Technology has had a major impact on the way we communicate, as well as on the way we create, share, distribute, see and listen to Canadian's works of art.
[Translation]
Let us put this in perspective. Among young people aged 18 to 34, nine out of ten have a smart phone, 90 percent of people in that age group have used social media, and 73percent have created online content.
In 2014, 18 million Canadians used mobile applications. That same industry already accounts for over 64,000 direct jobs, and it generates $1.7 billion in Canada. In this context, I believe that support for arts and culture has never been so important. Culture already brings $47.7 billion into our economy — twice as much as agriculture, fisheries and forestry combined. Culture also accounts for 642,000 jobs in Canada.
Investment in culture is precisely what will bring development to our society and our economy. Programs like the Canada Media Fund — which, this year, injected more than $375 million in the creation of audiovisual content — promote this growth.
[English]
We will also reinvest in CBC/Radio-Canada to help them successfully make the digital shift and adapt to the new realities of the market place. Our public broadcaster is important, and we want to respect our commitment to it by cooperating and consulting with it and with the artistic and cultural communities.
To be able to meet the challenges of the digital shift and digital economy and create growth, we need innovation. The cultural sector is the right fauna and flora of the ecosystem that creates innovation and that ultimately will create growth.
I have already met several stakeholders, and I'm counting on meeting more. I will continue to promote arts and culture with my colleagues and on many other platforms. This is a stated priority in my mandate letter, and it is a task that is very close to my heart.
[Translation]
There are many other ongoing areas of action that I would like to mention. As we approach the 150th anniversary of Confederation, the Department of Canadian Heritage is in charge of the celebrations. I am working with a number of departments on adopting a government-wide approach to prepare for the anniversary. We will create partnerships with the provinces and territories, the municipalities and a number of stakeholders, especially in the private sector, to ensure that initiative's success. In the area of official languages, I plan to draft a new multi-annual plan, and a new roadmap to promote English and French in minority situations. We will also hold public consultations in order to create that roadmap.
Finally, there are programs and expertise in my department aimed at encouraging young Canadians to develop their potential and to support the promotion, preservation and protection of indigenous languages and cultures.
[English]
In the coming months, I'll continue to work on these issues while cooperating on other priority issues for our government. For an example of other priorities, as Canadian Heritage Minister I've been involved and also in charge of inclusion, diversity and multiculturalism, very much working closely with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, John McCallum, in the welcoming of 25,000 Syrian refugees.
I've been also working closely with my colleague at Indigenous Affairs, Minister Carolyn Bennett, on the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. I'm honoured to support them in their efforts.
I intend to carry out my mandate in the spirit of openness and transparency that marked the first months of our government, and I hope to strengthen the cooperation with this committee and all parliamentary committees in order to contribute to the democratic process.
Thank you for your attention. Of course, I'm ready to answer any questions you may have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister.
[English]
One of the studies we did was on a digital plan for Canada, which puts emphasis on the fact that — and this is not the past government; it's not the government — we have not, as a country, been up to par when compared to other countries, whether it's broadband, digital literacy, digital government, the whole gamut of issues. We used to be in first place in the world of the telephony. We used to be in first place in the world of television for many years, and today we are a player. We deserve to go back to being one of the big players. This is not a short-term issue; it has been the last 25 years.
[Translation]
Senator Plett, go ahead.
[English]
Senator Plett: I certainly want to echo those comments.
Minister, thank you for being here. Congratulations for being given the opportunity to work in Heritage, and I'm sure you will do a great job. Your predecessor, a very good friend of mine, Shelly Glover, did a good job, and I know you will continue along that vein.
This committee also did an extensive study on CBC/Radio-Canada in the 21st century, and I know you are at least aware of that. We heard from 107 witnesses. We met with 177 people during our fact-finding missions, including site visits to, and consultations with, the public and private broadcasters. Our report contains 22 recommendations. Are you familiar with the report and have you read the committee's recommendations?
Ms. Joly: Thank you for your question.
First of all, I had the chance to go to meet Mrs. Glover in Winnipeg because I thought it was important to understand the reality of the former Heritage Minister. I really enjoyed our discussion, and she was really open. You can certainly say hi for me.
Senator Plett: She's now keeping the streets of Winnipeg safe.
Ms. Joly: Yes, I know that.
To echo the question of the digital shift and how Canada was and what we could be, as I said in my opening remarks, I certainly see Heritage as extremely strategic right now. Why? Because we are at a time where there's a new digital era and we should be forward looking. We certainly see our era in an optimistic manner.
Going back to the CBC/Radio-Canada, yes, I have read the report. Yes, I've seen the recommendations, and I've also seen the report from Senator Eggleton, so I'm well briefed.
There are different things in our platform and also in my mandate letter regarding CBC/Radio-Canada.
We will be investing new money in our public broadcaster, and we will also be looking at the question of the nomination process for the board of CBC/Radio-Canada. We want to make sure that there's an open and transparent process in order that we have the right governance.
As a country, we took the decision years ago that there would be a governance model for CBC/Radio-Canada, which is different from other countries and other public broadcasters. We need to make sure that we take that governance model, and in that context we ought to keep that governance model in mind and better it. That's why I'm talking about the nomination process.
We also believe that the new money sent to CBC/Radio-Canada is money that should be given to help CBC/Radio- Canada undertake the digital shift and so that CBC/Radio-Canada has the right money to support la relève, to have new arrivals in order to have a strong public broadcaster that will be able to face the challenges of our time.
CBC/Radio-Canada is a priority for our Heritage, and we certainly envision the future of the public broadcaster in a very optimistic way.
Senator Plett: I want to continue with that a little bit, and you've already answered some of the questions that I didn't yet ask.
Nevertheless, I have also read your mandate letter. I want to quote just a part of that mandate letter from the Prime Minister. It says:
If we are to tackle the real challenges we face as a country ...Canadians need to have faith in their government's honesty and willingness to listen. I expect that our work will be informed by performance measurement, evidence, and feedback from Canadians.
The letter further states that you are reviewing the process — and you've spoken to that — for the CBC board of directors and how they are appointed, so I won't go into that in great detail. It's something that I support. I support your review process and possibly having a different way of doing this.
Then it states that you will "Restore and increase funding for CBC/Radio-Canada, following consultation with the broadcaster and the Canadian cultural community.'' This means that before you have even consulted with the cultural communities and the CBC, you are committing to additional funding.
In our extensive study, indeed, there was only one report from the committee. There was one report from an individual senator, but only one from the committee. Before you have consulted with the communities and CBC, you are committing to additional funding. Our study did not suggest in any of its recommendations that an increase in funding was necessary for CBC to fulfill its mandate but rather better management of their resources.
Minister, on what grounds can the government justify an automatic increase in funding to the CBC before doing any meaningful consultation? Why not simply review whether additional funding is required, as you are doing with the appointment process?
I have one more question after that, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I'm always generous with first questions.
Ms. Joly: Thank you for your question.
I think that the ultimate public consultation was the last election, when we presented a clear program to reinvest in the arts and culture and to support our public broadcaster. It was clearly stated that we would be reinvesting in CBC/ Radio-Canada. The platform commitments were also clear in terms of the money in year one, year two and year three. Of course, there would be other investments for other agencies that are within Heritage Canada. We have a clear mandate to reinvest.
Also, in order to understand how we will help the entire industry eventually, we are looking at launching public consultations to understand exactly how we could seize the opportunity of the digital shift. That includes CBC/Radio-Canada as well as other stakeholders in general. I'm working very hard with my team to have the right model in terms of public consultations. As I said before, we believe in the importance of hearing different voices and in the importance of community output. At the same time, our platform commitment was clear.
Senator Plett: Thank you, minister. We can go round and round on why certain governments get defeated or elected. No government gets defeated or elected on a single issue. It's a combination of things. I would hope that people voted for you for more reasons than just what you would be doing for the CBC.
That's not a question, just a comment.
Ms. Joly: That's a fact. I agree with you on many things, but CBC/Radio-Canada was an important part of our platform.
Senator Plett: I find a little suspect the automatic increase in funding. Justin Trudeau announced in the election campaign that the Liberal government would restore the $115 million that the Conservatives cut from CBC. That happened to be exactly $115 million.
Why would we be restoring the $115 million and not the $440 million that the previous Liberal government cut? Did your government somehow calculate that CBC needs exactly $115 million to fulfill its mandate, or was this promise, as I would suspect, purely political?
Ms. Joly: Our platform was clear. There would be investment in year one, year two and year three. It was based also on the importance that the Liberal Party gave to CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate and value. We believe that a public broadcaster is key to our democracy and to supporting Canadian content in terms of information, public affairs, and support of broadcasting cultural institutions' content. All that together, it was clear for us that we ought to invest and that we needed to empower CBC/Radio-Canada.
Senator Plett: That amounted to exactly $115 million.
Ms. Joly: That amounted to the numbers that were part of our platform.
[Translation]
The Chair: Madam Minister, I would like to introduce the three senators who just joined us. We have Senator Runciman from Ontario, Senator Mercer from Nova Scotia, and Senator Boisvenu from Quebec.
[English]
As I mentioned, I'm always generous to the first representative from each side; so, Senator Eggleton, I will be generous to you. I want you to remember that in 40 minutes we have another minister coming, and the time you will be consuming is time you will not be sharing with your colleagues.
Senator Eggleton: Contrary to Senator Plett, I'm delighted you have made this promise that your government is going to reinvest in the public broadcaster, which is a valuable part of this country. Witness after witness, when we did our study last year, came and told us how important it was for pulling the country together and for telling Canadian stories. I'm also glad you've seen my minority report with respect to that.
It's quite obvious that the CBC is starved at the moment and needs further reinvestment, as you've recognized. One statistic bears repeating: The CBC gets approximately $29 per capita, whereas the average that's invested in public broadcasting in other industrialized countries is about $82 per capita. A number of people, including my report, have recommended that the CBC should go to at least $40 per capita.
I'm not going to ask you specifically about the numbers, although $115 million is appropriate at this time. In consideration of CBC/Radio-Canada having the ability to plan ahead instead of having to live from year to year when the budget comes out, could we not have five-year numbers so that they have predictable funding for some five years and be able to plan ahead better?
They're in a new age, as I think you pointed out. As important as they are as a public broadcaster, they're in an age where there is a lot of convergence in other parts of the industry. For example, there's greater use of the Internet and streaming services like Netflix, etcetera. It's tough in this environment to plan on a year-to-year basis. Could we see some predictable, five-year periods at a time?
Ms. Joly: Thank you for your question, Senator Eggleton.
Certainly, we see that as important, and we've raised that. Actually, it's in the mandate letter as well. At the same time, we want to make sure that while we will be reinvesting in CBC/Radio-Canada, the conditions to seize the digital shift and support new arrivals are met. We want to give more money, but an important transition will happen.
Ultimately, it's all about how we can seize that opportunity of the digital shift. Rather than see it as a threat, how can we really empower CBC/Radio-Canada to be the right platform and to be at the core of the development and generation of new Canadian content? We also understand that technological changes are so important and rapid that we have to do that reinvestment quickly.
I hear you.
Senator Eggleton: That's terrific.
I'm glad we had this opportunity to talk about your mandate letter. I had the privilege of having three of them in the 1990s under the Chrétien government, but they were never made public. This is public, which I think is a great step in the right direction.
I want to ask you about something that came out subsequent to our study. We've talked about our study and the minority report. The CRTC has been conducting a series of consultations under the title "Let's Talk TV.'' I think most of the attention has come over the pick-and-pay system and people being able to decide what they want to subscribe to with the various providers.
Also in that is apparently a recommendation from them that outside prime time, broadcasters would no longer be required to air predominantly Canadian programs. That would 50percent or plus Canadian programs.
An independent economic forecast was co-authored by Nordicity and Peter H. Miller this fall suggesting that there could be economic and employment-related consequences from all this. They suggested as much as $400 million lost in Canadian programs spent annually and that it would affect over 15,000 jobs and, they estimate, $1.4 billion of the economy. Those are their estimates. Have you considered this report from the CRTC and what is your government's position on it?
Ms. Joly: Yes. Since I got into the job, I've been hearing a lot from different stakeholders about the impact of the CRTC's decision making over the past years. That is why we want to launch public consultations, because ultimately we're all talking about the same phenomenon, which is the digital shift that is happening. While that is happening, how we can elaborate the right model? How can we ease the transition in order to support the industries that are content generators and creators to facilitate that transition? As governments, we have levers to do that, the CBC being one of them, but we want to work with stakeholders and partner with industries to really facilitate that transition.
Societies throughout the world are facing the same issue. Not a lot of countries have the same geographic and geopolitical position that Canada has. If you go back to the roots of CBC/Radio-Canada and why it was created in the 1920s, it was clearly created to develop information that was purely Canadian. We want to make sure that we do the public consultations that will present recommendations not only to develop that new model but also to support the transition.
I had a chance to discuss this with Fleur Pellerin, the Minister of Culture of France, who has been dealing with the same issue in France. These are questions she is asking herself and her government is asking. We also want to look at what other countries are doing to look at all the levers that we have.
Senator Eggleton: One final question: You're committed also to merit-based and independent appointments to the board of directors. I applaud that. I think we all agree that that's a good idea. There is also the question of who selects the president. In the past, the president has been selected by the Prime Minister. Would you consider that the president should be a person with expertise in business and broadcasting and be selected by the board itself?
Ms. Joly: Well, we certainly value expertise, and we especially value digital expertise. That being said, we will develop a nomination process that will be merit based, as you said, and open, as our government has committed to do in general with all appointments for the government. We will look into issues of merit-based appointments and also the right process so that when you look not at the president but at the board, we can ensure that we have a gender-balanced board, that we have representatives from different communities and that there is the right expertise. That's very important.
As I said at the beginning, there's a governance model in place for the CBC which is different from other public broadcasters in the world. That governance is that the board is in charge of decision making in terms of operations. That is why we want to make sure that we have the right process in order to have the right expertise and the right representation of Canadian society.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much. Good luck.
Senator Housakos: I don't want to dwell any further on the CBC issue. I want to remind our colleagues and the audience that this committee spent a lot of time and energy and did an outstanding report on the CBC. I'm glad to see the minister has read it.
For the record, I want to remind my colleague Senator Eggleton, as I have in the past, that he was a minister of a government that cut well over $200 million over the 1990s in CBC/Radio-Canada, and at that time he wasn't that compelled to rip his shirt in indignation. Of course, 15 years later, he thinks the solution is to reinstate half of what his government cut at that time. I don't want to dwell on the CBC study. Like I said, the report speaks for itself.
[Translation]
My question for the minister is about another very important aspect of her mandate, and it pertains to the two official languages.
In theory, our country is bilingual. It was established by two founding peoples, and English and French have always played an important role here. For your department, defending the two official languages is paramount.
However, as a Quebecer and a Canadian, I am very worried about the fact that, when I travel outside Quebec, I see Canada slowly becoming more anglophone than francophone, even nearly unilingual English-speaking. We also see that Quebec has become unilingual French-speaking.
In the long term, we are a bilingual country in theory. However, in practice, we have two solitudes, two territories: a unilingual francophone territory, and a unilingual anglophone territory. Therefore, the federal government must develop a strategy to address that issue.
I would like to know whether you have a plan to resolve that problem, and whether you see it as a problem. What is your perspective on the issue and your strategy for dealing with it?
Ms. Joly: First, I am responsible for official languages. I share that responsibility with Scott Brison, President of the Treasury Board, when it comes to implementing official languages in the public service. I work with Mr. Brison to ensure that our public service is bilingual and that Canadians have access to quality bilingual services.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the Prime Minister give me the mandate to draft a new plan that could meet the needs of minority communities.
I have had an opportunity to meet with a number of community members and leaders — some of them francophones in a minority situation, some of them anglophones in a minority situation — and I feel their anxiety and their concerns. I have met with major players in the defence of minority communities' rights, including Judge Bastarache, to try to find contemporary ways to support the various communities. I also had an opportunity to meet with Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, to hear his concerns.
Our plan will certainly be related to the new roadmap, but it will once again take into account the reality of the digital universe, which gives access to new tools. That brings me to another aspect that is part of my mandate letter. I am talking about an online tool for second language learning — either French or English. That was an idea of my colleague Mauril Bélanger. We are working on that matter actively and upstream to help as many Canadians as possible learn their second language easily online, and thus enhance bilingualism.
This is a new tool that will help us develop a new plan and will be preceded by a public consultation, as we want to make sure that the various current disputes related to the recognition of linguistic minorities' rights could be resolved. We are working very hard on that issue.
Senator Housakos: I am not just talking about defending the rights of francophone minorities outside Quebec or the rights of anglophones in Quebec. I am talking about the fact that, when French-speaking Quebecers travel to the west or to Ontario, they currently feel like strangers, as do anglophones travelling in some francophone parts of Quebec.
Do you agree with me that we are, in theory, a bilingual country? We can take all kinds of initiatives to ensure that Canada's public service is bilingual. I am not talking about the federal government, but rather about the private sector. For instance, things are difficult for unilingual francophones in Toronto. The situation is the same for unilingual anglophones who have to work in Sept-Îles or in Quebec City. It is very hard for those people to function as Canadians in their own country because they are not sufficiently bilingual.
That is what my question is about. Do you not agree that, in general, Canadians are less bilingual than they should be in a bilingual country? This issue has more to do with practicality than politics, and I know that the solution is not simple, Madam Minister.
Ms. Joly: No. First, I think it is up to the federal government to play a leadership role, but I still want to reframe the debate by presenting a few statistics, especially those indicating an increase in the rate of bilingualism.
According to the latest statistics, Canadians' ability to speak both languages has increased. That is good news. Another development we are seeing is that some francophone schools in Ontario and in other provinces are running out of space. New parents are showing a strong interest in enrolling their children in francophone schools. So that is good news.
However, I do understand your point of view. That is a concern and a constant challenge. As the minister in charge of official languages, I am engaged in that battle and I will not give up. I want to clarify that this is truly a priority.
We have a Liberal government — Trudeau 2.0. The elder Trudeau, along with his government, was one of the instigators of implementing official bilingualism in Canada. So that is a legacy we do not intend to let die.
[English]
Senator Housakos: Minister McCallum stated that several of his Liberal colleagues, some of whom have stated it publicly, are urging him to eliminate the language proficiency requirement for people applying for Canadian citizenship. Under the current law, of course, people between 14 and 64 must demonstrate adequate knowledge of one or the other official language, French or English.
Minister, your mandate letter states that a Minister of Canadian Heritage has an overwhelming goal to implement your government's plan to, amongst other things, safeguard our official languages, as you adequately pointed out in your responses earlier.
My question to you is: How does dropping the requirement of new Canadians to be proficient in one of two official languages do anything to safeguard our official languages, and what message are we sending to the cultural communities in Canada where we're trying to strengthen bilingualism and Canadian culture?
Ms. Joly: Certainly the question of respecting the official languages law is important, and that's why we're looking at developing new tools. I was talking a bit earlier about the new online service that we will be developing that will give access to French and English to every Canadian. That is certainly an innovative way that we are working on developing to offer to all Canadians.
Also, I had the chance to talk Graham Fraser on different subjects, including the integration, in French or English, of immigrants, especially in light of the 25,000 Syrian refugees. So we're looking at how communities are developing programs to make sure that, for example, refugees arriving in Manitoba are able to speak French and be integrated into Canadian society in French, and that's the same in New Brunswick. We are partnering very closely with different NGOs that are working in the field to enhance these capacities.
When you look at the Syrian refugee file and the project, we are now at the most important phase. We were able to organize everything to get the Syrian population that were the most vulnerable and that posed no security and health risk to Canadians here. More than 20,000 Syrian refugees that have arrived since November4, and we will be achieving the target of 25,000 by the end of February.
The housing issue has been the main priority of Mr. McCallum, as well as finding them jobs, but the question of language is at the same time as finding jobs. So that's why we are working very closely together to make sure that there is the right support from communities in terms of language capabilities.
Senator Merchant: Congratulations, minister. You're very enthusiastic and you've embraced the mandate letters, so we look forward to you doing great things.
You're a new MP and a new minister. Many of you are new, and the whole government really is new. You have some people who have been in government previously.
I don't know how these mandate letters came about, because even the Prime Minister came from a position of being the leader of a third party. You didn't have the experience; maybe you could be idealistic but maybe not too pragmatic.
Is there any mechanism where some of you can go back to the PMO or PCO and say, "Maybe these are not achievable or realistic'' and change a little bit? Can you influence the parameters of your mandate?
Ms. Joly: That's a good question.
I see the fact of being a rookie minister, especially in light of the digital shift, as extremely important and actually a strength because we shouldn't be seeing what's happening at Heritage through the same lens of past decades.
I profoundly believe that Heritage is at the most strategic point of its history because of what's happening with digital, and I think that my mandate letter is just the beginning of what could be done with Heritage in terms of supporting creative content. Canada can become a leader in embracing the digital shift even before many countries throughout the world. That goes back to what Senator Dawson said at the beginning. We once were this great country that was supporting our telephone companies or telecoms. We were very strong in terms of filmmaking in the past — our documentaries, etcetera. We can be that.
My department was cut by 40 percent over the past 10 years. What has been lacking is vision, to a certain extent. This is not an attack on my predecessors. It's a question that is asked everywhere around the world: How can governments adapt to what is happening in digital? What is lacking is vision. The fact that we're a new government with a lot of us being new, understanding digital is what we need.
I completely understand the importance of experience and of having some knowledge about what was done in the past, the good and the bad, and of being very humble towards the fact that, of course, this is the first time I've been a minister — and a lot of us are first-time ministers. That's why we have good deputy ministers and also very good people in our political offices and in PCO and PMO.
We have a whole-of-government approach. An example of that is being able to work on the Syrian refugee file with Minister John McCallum, combining the experience. I see that in terms of innovation and digital at this time, Heritage needs a breath of fresh air.
The Chair: I have to have discipline with the minister as well as with the members. We have 10 or 12 minutes left and four senators that want to ask questions. We'll need brief questions, my friends, and, minister, brief answers. Everybody will have the chance to ask at least one question.
Senator Runciman: Minister, my brief question deals with your mandate letter. I think the first item listed as a priority is to "Review current plans for Canada 150 and champion government-wide efforts to promote this important celebration.'' Prior to the election, a significant number of commitments were made under the Canada 150 community infrastructure program in southwestern Ontario. There were some 380 infrastructure projects approved by FedDev. I think there are a few nervous folks, at least in the province I represent, with respect to where that stands, and I wonder if you could clarify that today.
Ms. Joly: When I first arrived in this position, one of the first subjects I looked into was the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary, which is arriving very soon. We wanted to make sure that four important themes would be supported in the context of these celebrations that were not necessarily present. The four themes are youth, indigenous reconciliation, the environment, and inclusion and diversity. These are the four themes that have been added. This doesn't mean there's nothing in terms of sports and arts and culture, as they're already present. We also want to make sure that we have an international component to the anniversary.
Senator Runciman: I'm not sure where this is going.
Ms. Joly: We have an international component — Canada is the number one destination in 2017. In order to be that destination, we are supporting community programs. We haven't done any announcements yet in terms of community programs and initiatives.
The infrastructure was under regional agencies, so was not dealt with through Heritage but through Innovation. My colleague, Minister Bains, has this responsibility. Any demands in terms of community projects, which are much more about programming, they're under Heritage, but nothing has been announced yet. If it's infrastructure, then it's under Minister Bains.
The Chair: To be sure that the last three senators get their questions, I'll ask them to ask their questions and you can answer them and wrap up at the same time.
Senator Mercer: Minister, congratulations. I'm thrilled that you're here and thrilled, obviously, with the election results as well. Now on with the hard work.
I want to ask a couple of questions together about CBC and the recommitment to CBC, which I applaud. I would like to underscore the feeling in my region of Nova Scotia that there needs to be more emphasis on regional news. The numerous cutbacks have affected the ability of CBC to provide local news as opposed to national and international news.
Second, we also have regional artistic productions that have gone by the wayside because of the cuts. I would hope that you would show some recommitment to those.
My final point is on the pick-and-pay system. I had the unfortunate experience of having a year off because of an illness, which has forced me to be in front of a television a lot more than I ever planned. I discovered the value of a pick-and-pay system, if I had a good one. It is a very frustrating thing for people whose options are limited by their lack of mobility or their health that we are forced to pay for a system. I pay for things on my television system in Nova Scotia that I have absolutely no interest in because it's part of the package. I want to get rid of that stuff and concentrate on the things I am interested in. Some of those things are artistic and some are sports. It would be helpful if you could make a comment on where we're going in terms of developing a proper pick-and-pay system for Canadians.
Senator MacDonald: Minister, this question may be more appropriate for your deputy minister in that he may have a little more information on this because of the way it occurred.
Speaking about Canadian history, from Ellesmere Island in the North to the tip of Tierra del Fuego in South America, every country in the mainland of the Americas is a republic except Canada. Canada is a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy. Gus Cloutier was a long-time Sergeant-at-Arms and Canadian Secretary to Her Majesty the Queen. When he died in 2005, for almost four years Heritage Canada refused to fill the position of Canadian Secretary to Her Majesty the Queen. They just would not deal with it. I don't know why. There may have been an agenda over there, but they did not want to fill that position. The position was eventually given to the Black Rod of the Senate.
One thing I noticed — and it was hard not to notice — right after the government was sworn was that this position was shifted from the Privy Council Office back to Canadian Heritage.
Since Canadian Heritage had such contempt for the position previously, I'm curious why one of the first acts of this government was transfer this position back to Canadian Heritage and who gave the directive? Why was this done?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Good evening, Madam Minister. Congratulations on your appointment.
I will continue in the same vein as my colleague, Senator Housakos, on the bilingualism issue. I was a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages during my first years in the Senate. At the time, we carried out a study on the situation of minority communities, particularly in western Canada. Clearly, francophone communities that use their mother tongue are fewer there. We also see a progression in terms of single usage of a language, especially when it comes to the second and third generations. A major concern for me is the mass arrival of immigrants and their attitude toward bilingualism. A survey conducted in Quebec showed that nearly 40percent of immigrants refused to learn French or did not see the use of learning it. That raised some concerns among Quebecers about the massive influx of people who are not familiar with bilingualism in Canada — it may be a problem at that level. Aside from the strategy focussed on the possibility of learning French and English online, do you intend to implement a more ambitious strategy to maintain the association of bilingual character with Canada's image internationally and to make it possible for Quebecers and Ontarians to speak both languages when receiving government services and in stores when they travel from one province to the other?
[English]
Ms. Joly: I'll start by answering Senator Mercer's question.
In the context of the public consultation, we will be looking at local content and how we can support local content. Actually, I think that there is a true opportunity to have a lot of local content, so that's interesting.
In terms of pick-and-pay, it goes to the important shift in terms of information and content consumption, which is based on personalization. That's certainly the case in how you search and use content through digital platforms, but it brings expectations when it comments to television. At the same time, while that is happening, we really have to look into how we can help the industry transition to one that is completely personalized and the impact on the support that we as a society give to Canadian content. That's very important. That's why public consultations are so important.
That was in answer to Senator Merchant's question, namely that we have an opportunity right now. That's the first thing.
Concerning the secretary to the Queen, I'll let Mr. Flack answer.
Graham Flack, Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage: Machinery decisions are the prerogative of the Prime Minister, but I have a personal interest in this one because I first worked as a summer student at the then Department of the Secretary of State with Kevin — so we have a long history. As you know, the Secretary of State Department and Canadian Heritage plays a key role with the sovereign. For me, it's been a homecoming of Kevin come back to the department to join those functions together and be able to unify them together. At a personal level, it's been a delight to see Kevin back and be able to work with him again.
Senator MacDonald: I will speak to him privately.
The Chair: You're welcome to do that.
[Translation]
Do you have an answer for Senator Boisvenu?
Ms. Joly: To answer Senator Boisvenu's question, when I talk about developing a multi-annual plan, that means developing a strategy. To establish that strategy, we have to organize consultations. Our objective is to develop and implement that initiative in 2018, when the current plan will be expiring. Usually, our roadmaps cover five-year periods, and the latest one came from the former government.
As for the immigrant issue — I am the member of Parliament for Cartierville, and my riding has 55 cultural communities and is 50percent francophone. The integration mainly happens thanks to the children. Language is learned and values are passed on through education. Generally speaking, Canada is a model when it comes to the integration of immigrants and the valuing of diversity.
The Chair: Madam Minister, we are happy to have had you in our committee. This is a first step. Once we have the bill before us, we will be happy to welcome you again. Your colleague Marc Garneau, will follow you. Tell him that the experience is not painful and that it is even a pleasure to participate in our discussions. Thank you. I would like to introduce the members of the committee you may have not had an opportunity to meet.
[English]
I will start with Senator Plett from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec, Senator Léo Housakos from Quebec, Senator Runciman from Ontario, Senator MacDonald from Nova Scotia, Senator Mercer, also from Nova Scotia, Senator Merchant from Saskatchewan, Senator Eggleton from Toronto, and myself, your humble servant, from Quebec City.
[English]
I had the honour of receiving a congratulatory call from the minister when I was re-elected chair of this committee. I took the opportunity to offer him to come in front of us. That is where the idea of having ministers appearing in front of committees to discuss their mandate letters occurred. It is through that exchange that I think a lot of committees have adopted our model and will be meeting with their ministers, which gives the committees an occasion to get into a dialogue and exchange with the new ministers and give them an opportunity to say, "We're here to cooperate with you and we hope we will get the same cooperation from you.''
[Translation]
Minister, you can go ahead with your presentation. I will then give the floor to the senators.
Hon. Marc Garneau, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport: Good evening, honourable senators. I am happy to be here this evening. Thank you for the invitation. I have a few remarks. They will be brief, so as to give you more time to ask questions.
[English]
Mr. Chair, honourable senators, thank you for inviting me to meet with the committee today.
[Translation]
I appreciate the committee's interest in transportation and I know you have recently studied several aspects of Canada's air transportation sector.
[English]
The past few months have been a time of firsts for me personally and this is another: my first opportunity, since becoming a member of Parliament, to appear before a Senate committee and my first opportunity to appear before any parliamentary committee since becoming minister. I will remember this evening.
I hope to talk a little bit but mostly to listen to you. To quote an old pilot's saying, "You can't propel yourself forward by patting yourself on the back.''
[Translation]
I would like to go over a number of issues today. I will begin with rail safety.
[English]
The priority of transportation is safety.
[Translation]
As a Quebecer, I saw the accident in Lac Mégantic in 2013 as one of the most tragic moments in Canadian transportation. I was recently there to meet the mayor and help open a new downtown reconstruction office.
[English]
In his mandate letter to me, the Prime Minister directed me to propose measures to reinforce railway safety. In response to this, Transport Canada is working to further strengthen the safety of rail, specifically in transporting dangerous goods. This includes developing better information on the production, storage and transportation of dangerous goods in Canada, and it includes examining how this information is shared with communities that could be affected by the transportation of dangerous goods.
[Translation]
At a later date, I would be happy to communicate more about the specific steps the government plans to pursue.
Next, I would like to note the approach we are taking to the government's response to the Canada Transportation Act review.
[English]
The arm's-length Canada Transportation Act review examined how to ensure that the national transportation system continues to support Canada's international competitiveness, trade and prosperity.
I received the report from David Emerson, the review of the Canada Transportation Act, in December, and expect to table it soon in Parliament. This is a sweeping review that covers essentially the last 15 years.
Following the release of the report, we will want to engage with stakeholders on the findings of the review and on potential initiatives to strengthen the transportation system and its contribution to the economy.
Collaboration with key partners is essential to effect real change and ensure that Canada's transportation system is positioned to capitalize on opportunities and to meet the evolving needs of Canadians.
Our approach to the CTA review demonstrates our overall commitment to strengthening collaboration and transparency in the federal government.
[Translation]
To effect real change, we need to work with provincial and territorial governments, the private sector, and communities, on initiatives that will strengthen that system.
[English]
This is why, for example in January, I travelled to British Columbia to meet with indigenous peoples and other stakeholders to hear their perspectives about how to implement my mandate commitment to formalize a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic along British Columbia's north coast.
On a broader scale, we discussed how government investments in transportation need to support the economy while also working to reduce their impact on the environment. Achieving this balance is important to me.
[Translation]
Achieving this balance is important to me.
[English]
I see Transport Canada very much as an economic department, and I see its job as one to promote research and innovation to make transportation safer and more efficient.
Since the transportation sector is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in this country, I also want to explore ways to reduce its impact on our planet.
[Translation]
Supporting new technologies is one way to ensure that we are making progress in achieving safety, efficiency and environmental gains in the sector. In this respect, the emergence of connected vehicles and automated vehicles holds real promise for the future of transportation.
[English]
The emergence of connected vehicle technology and automated vehicles holds real promise for the future of transportation. Connected vehicles use wireless communication, GPS and digital maps to exchange information with each other and provide road users with safety and mobility information. Automated vehicles use sensors, cameras and controllers in the vehicle to help them operate and navigate.
[Translation]
To replace what humans do behind the wheel, we need both technologies to achieve fully self-driving vehicles.
[English]
We need connection, in other words, vehicles communicating with other vehicles and with information systems along the road so they have enough information to navigate and operate safely. We need and automation as well, in other words, technologies to actually control the vehicle and keep passengers informed about its operation. Think of vehicles without a brake pedal, if you can imagine that.
The technology I'm talking about is not science fiction. In its development today, it has the potential to improve safety, efficiency and the environmental performance of transportation in Canada and other countries.
[Translation]
Recognizing this, Transport Canada helps to support the Canadian connected vehicle test bed, which is based at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton. You may know that Ontario is currently conducting pilot projects on the use of automated vehicles.
[English]
The department is working with domestic and international bodies to harmonize standards and regulations for automated vehicles. This past September, transport ministers from G7countries committed to establish a working group on automated vehicles. There remain, however, many questions that we need to address about these vehicles. Some are technical, but others involve legal and jurisdictional issues that we might start considering now, so we are working to regulate this technology as it is developing and not after it is ready to introduce.
Today, I would like to make a request to you, and that request is that this committee launch a study on connected and automated vehicles.
[Translation]
So today, I would like to request that this committee launch a study on connected and automated vehicles.
[English]
The aim would be to highlight the regulatory, policy and technical issues that Canada needs to address to successfully deploy these technologies. It would consider the long-term implications and challenges of these technologies, such as impacts on privacy, energy, land use, transportation demand and employment. I'm confident that your work could help to set standards for the development of these vehicles in Canada and other countries.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair and honourable senators, if it is the pleasure of the committee to undertake this study, I pledge to you both my and my department's full cooperation in establishing the terms of reference for the study as well as potential areas of examination, in order to ensure the study benefits as many Canadians as possible.
[English]
I believe these initiatives and others demonstrate the direction we are pursuing to keep transportation in Canada safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible. I welcome input from this committee, and I look forward to working with you to strengthen our transportation system and build a strong future for Canada.
[Translation]
I welcome input from this committee and I look forward to working with you to strengthen our transportation system and build a strong future for Canada.
Thank you.
[English]
I now welcome your questions.
The Chair: I told the minister that was here before to keep her answers short because we want to have each senator get his time for questions.
When the minister phoned to congratulate me, I asked him to offer us subjects. We obviously have other issues brought up by committee members that we will be studying, but we have a few months ahead of us before legislation appears, so we can certainly consider it. The steering committee and will be looking at it in the future.
Senator MacDonald, deputy chair the committee, will start.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you, minister, for being here. You have lots on your plate starting today, so I guess we'll start with Bombardier. There was a mixed announcement today: big job losses, and good news from Air Canada.
I want to go back a few months when you were sworn in as minister. I thought we had great news from Porter when they wanted to purchase 30 jets to fly into the downtown airport. There isn't a city large or small in the world that wouldn't want the advantage of a downtown airport. It's a great financial advantage for any city. The new C series planes have a lower carbon footprint, are quieter, more fuel efficient, and they only require a 400-metre extension to the runway, but you never even waited for the environmental assessment to be done.
Bombardier, which produces a great product, is a great company that I want to see succeed. Why would you cut Porter and Toronto off at the knees like this?
Mr. Garneau: Thank you for your question, senator. The answer is simple. We had made an undertaking to the people of Toronto during the election that if we were elected we would not open the tripartite agreement, and we kept that promise. The tripartite agreement opening would be necessary in order to lengthen the runway.
I fully agree with you that the C series is a quieter, cleaner airplane. It's about much more than lengthening each end of the runway. One of the major concerns is that with the projections of increased passenger traffic at Billy Bishop Airport, we would be dealing with approximately 5 million people a year getting off the island and essentially entering into the foot of Bathurst Street. That, plus the lengthening of the runways, plus the effect it would have on the water spaces beyond the length of the runway that are used by people who enjoy their waterfront, are some of the factors that we were informed about and are the reasons why we decided to make that undertaking and kept that promise.
I very much want to see Bombardier succeed. I'm very, very delighted with the announcement made today. I think it is excellent news that Air Canada has recognized the importance of the C series. It is, in fact, the best plane in the world in that class.
Senator MacDonald: I'm not particularly convinced that you spoke to everyone in Toronto on this issue. I think there may be a few MPs that have more influence than others. Bombardier cut 7,000 jobs today. Thirty planes for Bombardier — I'd rather $2 billion for Bombardier coming from Porter than the taxpayers of Canada, which seems to be the direction we're going.
Again, why not at least wait for the environmental assessment? It's a tripartite agreement. All three parties have to agree to it. Why would the federal government unilaterally say no? Why not sit down with the other partners and discuss this?
Mr. Garneau: Again, senator, this was a promise we made during the election to the people who live on the waterfront of Toronto and want to, if I can put it this way, regain their waterfront.
Senator MacDonald: The Toronto waterfront, like the Montreal waterfront, is a working waterfront; it's not the Riviera. I don't understand why this type of decision was made; it doesn't make any sense to me.
Looking at your top priorities, I notice there is no priority in regard to the safe transportation of crude oil across this country. One of your priorities is to formalize a moratorium on crude oil traffic on British Columbia's north coast. We have crude oil traffic on the Alaskan Panhandle, which is north of there. We have crude oil traffic in the Lower Mainland, and on the East Coast of Canada, in Nova Scotia, where I'm from, we have half a billion barrels of oil a day going through our waters to Quebec refineries. I don't understand why we say nothing about the importation of Saudi oil to feed Quebec refineries, yet we'll do nothing to expedite the movement of Canadian oil to these refineries or to export facilities.
Mr. Garneau: I'm not exactly sure what the question is there, but I will say that in addition to the moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on the West Coast, we are, as part of my mandate letter, putting a great deal of priority on rail safety, because rails are carrying more and more oil. That is also part of our priority. Those are two areas where the transport of crude oil is a priority concern for me as transport minister. Those are in my mandate letter and I intend to fully address those two issues.
Senator Eggleton: I think you gave the right answer about expansion of the island airport. I'm one of the original signatories to the tripartite agreement when I was Mayor of Toronto. I think what we have now is good, but further expansion would be wrong.
I will ask you about the safety aspect of your mandate, and I'm going to focus on the air. We have been hearing a lot about the proliferation of drones and the challenge that can be faced by the travelling public in the air. More recently, there have been a number of stories and some alarming statistics about the use of lasers, which is illegal but is, again, a threat to the safety of passengers and aircraft. I wonder if you might comment about those two matters.
Mr. Garneau: I will start with the laser pointing. We heard about the recent return of a Virgin aircraft in London to its runway after the pilot was illuminated by a laser from the ground. It's an extremely serious offence when somebody does this. There is not only a question of education here; there is also an important issue related to how seriously this is viewed. If you either blind temporarily or disable temporarily the pilot who is bringing in 200 or 300 passengers on an aircraft, the results can be potentially catastrophic. I think we all understand that, but there is clearly a segment of the population that does not understand this and that may even think it's a fun thing to do. I don't know if you're aware of it, but under the Aeronautics Act, somebody who is caught doing this could potentially face a fine of $100,000 and/or up to five years in prison.
Senator Eggleton: If you catch them.
Mr. Garneau: If you catch them.
I am finding out more and more about this particular activity. There were over 500 laser pointing incidents in Canada last year, the majority being at Pearson airport, and I am certainly very concerned about it. I will be exploring anything that can be done, in cooperation with our police services, to either catch or deter people from doing this because it is such a dangerous activity.
On the question of UAVs, or drones, you're quite right. As somebody said recently in the United States, I think there were about a million small Christmas presents under the trees of Americans that were drones for recreational purposes. Of course, there are bigger drones as well, and we arbitrarily have a transition above 25 kilograms. Those drones are typically used for very useful purposes, such as spraying crops. They could be used for inspecting power lines. They could be used for police work. They could be used for monitoring pipelines and those kinds of things. There is an industry building there.
But there is a huge proliferation of recreational drones. It is important for us to make sure we put in place the regulations necessary to regulate all of these new objects coming into our airspace. There is not only a question of education, but there's a question of putting in place the regulations about how close you can be to an airport; how high you can go; if it's a line of sight drone, the fact that you must not let it go beyond your line of sight and shouldn't operate it at night time. These are regulations for small recreational drones, and we are actively putting together the rules and regulations surrounding that.
We think that here in Canada we may be taking the lead compared to other countries. I spoke to the Secretary of Transport in Washington last week. They're also very much looking into this, and of course it's in our interest to harmonize our rules on it. This is one of those situations where the rules and regulations are playing catch-up with the technology.
You're quite right to point out that it is hazardous. We've already seen incidents where they've failed and landed out of the blue on somebody. Lord forbid that they should go into the engine of an aircraft on final approach.
Senator Eggleton: Are there any timelines on the regulations you are talking about?
Mr. Garneau: We're working as quickly as we can. I can't give you a precise date, but it is a priority for us.
Senator Eggleton: I want to ask you about your involvement in the infrastructure program. First, thank you very much for suggesting how this committee could be of some assistance to you. I think all of our committees of the Senate are in a position to do studies with a lot of expertise being brought before us and lot of expertise on behalf of the members as well. It's good to have a minister — I don't recall ever hearing that before — come in and sit down and say, "I'd appreciate if you could give me some advice on this.'' We're one of best consulting firms in town, and we're at a good price. Just ask.
Mr. Garneau: Absolutely.
Senator Eggleton: I want to ask you about the infrastructure program because you do have some of that in your mandate letter as well. Mr. Sohi, the minister, is unable to be here tonight, but I want to ask about the start of an infrastructure program in terms of the municipalities. I remember, back in 1993, that I was the first minister of infrastructure in the Chrétien government, and the program we put in place was one where the municipalities would put forward their ideas. There would be some minimal criteria they'd have to meet with the province and then minimal criteria they'd have to meet with the federal government, all in the name of good accountability of taxpayer dollars. It was a third, a third, a third kind of thing.
There are different divisions of this infrastructure program. Will some of it — public transit or housing or roads — be municipal driven, and how much would they would put forward? How much is going to be bottom up as opposed to top down?
The Chair: Before you answer, Mr. Minister, I want to confirm that the Minister of Infrastructure will be appearing. He could not come tonight, but he will be appearing before the committee in the next few meetings. I want to say that so that we don't go off on the tangent of infrastructure. I don't want you not to comment, I just wanted to say that we will be talking about the issues directly with the minister.
Senator Eggleton: That's my only question on infrastructure, and we can compare answers.
Mr. Garneau: I'll be brief since Minister Sohi is going to come.
As you know, the Liberal Party, during the election, made a strong commitment to spending money on infrastructure. We will, in fact, go into deficit in order to do this. That's how strongly we feel about it.
It is a third on what we call social infrastructure; that is, affordable housing, social housing, recreational facilities, infrastructure for seniors, those kinds of things. There is a third on green infrastructure, and that can be for things like making water cleaner before we put it into our water systems, helping with flood mitigation, putting in place, possibly, recharging systems for electric cars, that sort of network. Finally, there is public transit infrastructure. So a commitment of $20 billion to each of these areas over 10 years.
There's a clear understanding. We've heard it loud and clear from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that there is an enormous deficit in terms of infrastructure in this country. Depending on whose study you look at, we're still talking in the hundreds of billions. This is an important program to modernize the infrastructure. As well, it will have a stimulative effect on the economy. It will create jobs. We want to do it intelligently, but there is a certainly a great deal to be done with infrastructure. I will defer to the minister so that he can provide more details.
Senator Plett: Thank you, minister. Congratulations on your appointment.
I don't want to beat this horse to death, but I do want to go back to Senator MacDonald's first question and make a couple of comments, then ask one brief question on that and one brief question on something else.
You said that you had made a commitment during the campaign, and I appreciate that. I always appreciate when politicians can keep their promises.
However, you made other commitments. You made the Robin Hood commitment of taxing the rich to give to the poor or the middle class; that isn't happening. You promised that you would run modest deficits of $10 billion. It is certainly not looking like that will be possible. You made a promise to have 25,000 refugees in by Christmastime. That, of course, didn't happen. There was a promise to pull out the CF-18s almost immediately, and we're still waiting. At least we're waiting. The decision is being made the way I believe it should be made, not just immediately pulling them out.
I would agree with Senator MacDonald; maybe we should have at least talked to others. Sixty percent of the people in Canada didn't vote for the Liberals, and I'm sure a lot of those were in Toronto. They also need to be represented.
I'm making those comments, and I respect your answer. You don't need to comment on them further if you don't want to.
My question is this: You talked about Air Canada and their purchase. I also applaud Air Canada for making that purchase. How much do we need to applaud the Minister of Transport and the Liberal government for Air Canada making that announcement? How much pressure was put on Air Canada by this government that they go and buy these airplanes?
Mr. Garneau: The simple answer is that Air Canada, which is a large airline, makes its own decisions about what aircraft it's going to buy. We're talking about billions of dollars, senator. They make their own decisions about it as a function of what they consider to be the best aircraft for their purposes.
I can assure you that the Government of Canada had no role to play in trying to, in any way, influence Air Canada. Air Canada recognized that this is a very good airplane in its class — 100 to 150 passengers — and decided that they were going to make a commitment today, which they announced, for potentially up to 75, but at least 45 firm orders. They made that decision based on their own needs for the future.
Senator Plett: Fair enough, if you say there was no involvement. It's not what some of us have been reading today, but I will respect your answer. Hopefully, you will reconsider your decision so that Porter can buy another 30.
A pipeline like Energy East is very important to many people in this country — it seems like to almost all people in this country except Denis Coderre. Now the fact that all these municipalities are supporting Denis appears to be somewhat exaggerated. This particular pipeline would transport the equivalent of 1,600 rail cars of crude oil per day travelling across the country.
Minister, could you assure those of us in the western part of the country that the transportation of their crude oil is as important to you as it is to us and that maybe it is safer to have it underground than in rail cars?
Mr. Garneau: Certainly, we would like to see here in Canada if there's a way to get our crude oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to tidal waters. That would be good for the economy. At the same time, there is an environmental consideration that must come into play, and that is why we have a process — the NEB. The NEB is supposed to look at the viability from a safety point of view and an environmental point of view of building a pipeline. It is a process that is currently underway.
We feel that it's important to look at evidence-based findings before making a final decision. Various people have expressed themselves. You mentioned some of them. There's total freedom for everyone to express themselves who feel in any way affected. In the end, a series of recommendations and decisions will be made by the NEB. We'll wait for those results before making the final decision. We do believe that it is also important to take into consideration scientifically based environmental evidence before we proceed.
Senator Plett: Thank you, and hopefully this will be very high on your agenda.
Senator Housakos: Thank you, minister, for being with us today.
A couple of my colleagues have expressed concern when it comes to transporting crude oil in this country via rail. I appreciate your due diligence on this minister because you're right. We have to weigh the pros and cons from an environmental and safety perspective; but it seems to me rather difficult to comprehend how transporting tonnes of oil through our cities and towns by rail right now can be safer than having a pipeline built with all the various technological capacities that pipelines can provide today and also with the capacity to monitor those pipelines with the due diligence required. The answer is evident to me, and I appreciate the fact that you're quite concerned with taking the right answer on that.
I want to ask a question with regard to VIA Rail. Can you share with us your vision for high-speed rail for this country? I know that VIA has expressed an interest in building dedicated tracks in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor, which would make sense because it's a big challenge for them to move people in a timely fashion as they share existing tracks with CN rail. Could you share your vision with regard to passenger rail?
Mr. Garneau: You're quite right that VIA has made that proposal to the Government of Canada for what they call high-frequency trains, meaning a reasonable speed in this case — I believe we're talking about 110 miles per hour — on a dedicated track and at greater frequency. They made this proposal, presented it, and, as you point out, it's for the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor. We're looking at it from the point of view of a business case. They put this forward as public-private partnership and are looking for a portion of it from the federal government with the rest coming from the private sector.
We're looking at it in terms of how solid that business case is. Their projection is that they can increase passenger traffic from the current 2.5 million to about 7 million over time. Before we decide to invest taxpayers' money, we need to look at it, which we are doing at the moment. I congratulate VIA for bringing forward a proposal such as this one, and we are looking at it. It's certainly one of the busiest corridors in this country. We'll look at it based on our best assessment of how solid the business case is.
The high-speed rate issue has come and gone over the years. It comes down to making important decisions about how to invest Canadian taxpayers' money, which has to be taken into account. Whilst its technically feasible, there is a price tag attached to it, so we need to look at that carefully as well.
Senator Mercer: Minister, welcome. You said this is your first meeting before a Senate committee since you've been a minister. I'm going to ask a very political question, and I expect my colleague Senator Plett will agree with me on this.
Thirty-two seats in Atlantic Canada, minister, are Liberal seats. I want you to tell your colleagues at the table that they should get a history book out and look at the 1997 election campaign. We had 32 Liberal seats going into that campaign as well. We did not come out with 32 seats. If you want to be political around the table, decisions need to be made that Atlantic Canadians want. Atlantic Canadians want the pipeline. Minister, we need to know when the decision will be made on the eastern pipeline.
I warn you, a newly free, independent Liberal senator, that the political ramifications of a decision to say no to the eastern pipeline will be grave for those 32 MPs who represent the Liberal Party. I am privileged to live in one of those ridings represented by one of your colleagues, Mr. Scott Brison. I continue to be a great supporter of the party, but let's be realistic; we need some leadership here. Could you tell us what the timelines are? When are we going to get a decision, because we can't wait much longer?
Mr. Garneau: Thank you very much, Senator Mercer, for your comments. I will certainly relay them to my colleagues. I will try to make it as verbatim as I can.
The NEB comes under NRCan, so I would defer to Minister Jim Carr on that. I can tell you that we are conscious of time being a factor, but we want the NEB to do its work properly.
I should finish by saying that I am 50 percent Maritimer. You need to know that. My grandfather is from Bedford, Nova Scotia, and my grandmother is from Sussex, New Brunswick. I am very of my Maritime roots and very proud that Liberals received the endorsement from Maritimers in this election, without being more political than that.
Senator Merchant: Minister, welcome. You know that I come from Saskatchewan. I know that you are very familiar with that part of the country.
You have touched on the movement of crude oil, so I won't ask more questions about that. You did speak about the economic prosperity of the country with regard to the mandate letter, which is important to us.
There are many other issues, one of which is the movement of our grain, which became a pronounced issue about two or three years ago when we could not move any grain because of transportation in this country. At the time, I think the rail cars showed a preference to moving crude oil, so there was a shortage of rail cars for grain.
How do you see improving that situation for Saskatchewan farmers?
Mr. Garneau: Thank you for the question, senator. One of the items in my mandate letter is to look at the grain transportation system.
You're quite right in that 2013 was a year where, due to a bumper crop and a difficult winter, grain was not moved as efficiently as it was in the past.
I'm glad to report that things have improved since then. There is not the same record amount of grain, but nevertheless large yields of grain in the past couple of years, including in this past year, and the system has been working much more effectively.
Part of that is there's a certain irony because there are other commodities whose prices have gone down and, therefore, there may not have been as much demand for those other commodities. The true test is when there is a strong demand for potash from Saskatchewan and pulses and lumber and all of those others, when the system is tested to its maximum.
There was a special mandate within the review of the Canada Transportation Act to also put a focus on the transportation of grain. I will be tabling the CTA review shortly and I will then be consulting on that. Certainly Mr. Emerson and his team of five people did use some ink in their report to talk about that. I'm not at liberty to talk about the details at this point, but I will be working with my ministry, with the railways and with the shippers and consulting in order to try to make our grain transportation as efficient as possible.
Again, from my point of view it's an economic portfolio that we're talking about here. It is all very good for Canada to have great commodities and products to sell to the world. It is a great thing for us to have great trade treaties with other countries, but if we can't efficiently and effectively get our products through our corridors or across the border into the United States, we are handicapping ourselves from an economic point of view. So I very much regard the efficiency of our transportation infrastructure as being of critical importance, and that includes the transportation of grain.
Senator Runciman: Minister, I'm making an assumption here. I could be dead wrong, but you have responsibilities for the St. Lawrence Seaway. There's something called Plan 2014. I don't know if you've been briefed on that or not. It has to do with controlling the water levels in Lake Ontario and throughout the St. Lawrence Seaway. It's the result of 15 years of study, consultation and compromise, costing about $20 million.
The plan has been recommended by the International Joint Commission. I was meeting with U.S. environmental groups a week or so ago. There's a lot of frustration. The recommendation from the IJC was made two and a half years ago, and they are being told that this is stalled at Washington currently because of Canada making an amendment to Plan 2014. They're hearing this as based on lobbying from shipping interests.
This plan has unbelievably positive impacts on the environment. Has your ministry been involved in this, since you're responsible for the St. Lawrence Seaway? Have you had any input and is there any truth to the fact that the Canadian government is a stumbling block?
Mr. Garneau: Thank you for your questions.
I was in Washington last week. I met with the Secretary of Transportation, Anthony Foxx. We raised a number of issues but that one did not come up. It is one I that am aware of. There are different opinions about the regulation of water levels. I happen to come from Montreal, and the port there is very concerned about water levels for obvious reasons.
Senator Runciman: The Quebec government supports the plan.
Mr. Garneau: Yes, but I cannot give you an update or answer your question directly at this point. It is something that we are discussing with the United States, trying to take into account all of the factors involved in establishing water levels. There are a variety of different reasons for doing it.
I will have to defer in giving you my answer at this point.
Senator Runciman: Is that a commitment to giving me one at some point?
Mr. Garneau: I will get back to you with an answer, senator, on the current situation.
Senator Runciman: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator MacDonald, final question. The minister has had a long day and I'm sure he would appreciate a short question.
Senator MacDonald: Concerning the Quebec City bridge, the cantilever bridge, the previous government had made arrangements to put up $75 million, the provincial government $20 million, and I think $5 million from the municipality. They're negotiating with CN which now owns that bridge. It carries rail, car and truck traffic. Can you give us an update on the status? Are you negotiating with CN? I would like to have an update on that situation.
Mr. Garneau: Senator, we held a meeting almost a month ago in Quebec City with two provincial ministers, the Mayor of Quebec City, the Mayor of Lévis, CN — the vice-president Sean Finn was there — myself and Minister Jean- Yves Duclos. This was historic, because never have we brought the whole group together before.
That meeting established two things: One, which may sound very mundane and obvious, is that the bridge is very secure. I say that because some people associate painting it with making it more secure. It is very secure. CN spends millions of dollars every year to ensure the security because it owns the bridge and is responsible for it; 32,000 cars cross it per day as well as eight VIA Rail trains and four freight trains.
That was the number one conclusion: It is very secure and it will be secure for decades to come. It was well built in the end, when they finally got it right. My grandfather lost some money in the first attempt.
Senator MacDonald: At least he survived.
Mr. Garneau: He survived; he did.
The second question was how much it will cost. That was central to our meeting. Under the previous government, Mr. Lebel talked about a potential $200 million price tag. However, CN had different figures. They hired a company called Roche and their estimate was $350 to $400 million, potentially twice as much. That is a lot of money. We decided to put a team of experts together to look at the CN data, which they made fully available to us. We looked at that to see what a realistic price was so that we could at least start from a common point and know the costs. That process is under way at the moment.
I will add one thing: CN made it very clear that it was not going to put money into it. We've said since the beginning that we would put $75 million into it. That was a commitment that we made.
Previously, the provincial government had said they would put in $23.5 million and the two cities a total of $1.5 million. That brings it to $100 million.
We'll find out what the experts believe to be the true cost, and then we'll have to decide what to do at that point.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
Mr. Garneau: You're welcome.
[Translation]
The Chair: Minister, thank you for being here. This is a historic meeting, seeing as it is the first time that we have organized this kind of meeting, and it's somewhat thanks to our discussion.
In addition, we would like to thank Terry Thomas.
[English]
He has been the analyst for this committee for many years, and this is his last meeting. I think it is also an historic meeting because this is the first time that Senator Mercer and Senator Plett have ever agreed on anything.
We will be meeting next Wednesday night to talk about terms of reference for the studies we will be doing. There will be no meeting Tuesday morning, but we will have an in camera meeting Wednesday night, which should be a short meeting.
[Translation]
Again, minister, thank you.
Mr. Garneau: It was an honour to be here this evening. Thank you for inviting me. I hope to be able to come back soon.
(The committee adjourned.)