Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
Issue 13 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 2, 1996.
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 5:15 p.m., to examine the Main Estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.
Senator David Tkachuk (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this is the fourth meeting of the committee on the Main Estimates for 1996-97. Our hearings began with witnesses from the Treasury Board and we will now hear from witnesses from the Department of Transport.
With us today from the Department of Transport are Mr. Paul Gauvin, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister; and Mr. Jim Lynes, Director General, Financial Management.
Please proceed.
Mr. Paul Gauvin, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Transport: We have distributed a summary of our estimates. I will go through it fairly quickly.
Transport's mandate is to operate a safe and efficient transportation system. However, within that mandate, Transport Canada is changing drastically. No longer will the department own, operate or subsidize large parts of the transportation system as a result of many of our commercial and other initiatives. This is, mainly, the result of the exercise of program review which the government conducted within all departments.
As you can see on page 3, our estimates are rapidly decreasing. In 1995-96, the total in the Main Estimates for the ministry was $2.5 billion. In 1996-97, the figures is $1.7 billion. In the past, an air transportation tax was vote netted against our estimates. As a result of a change in accounting, it is no longer vote netted. Approximately $600 million of that $1.7 billion represents air transportation tax. If that were deducted, we would actually be down to about $1.2 billion.
By the year 1998-99, we will be down to approximately $1.2 billion, and the reason for that is that there have been some major changes from 1995-96. For example, the Coast Guard is now part of Fisheries and Oceans. It is no longer part of Transport.
We hope to transfer the air navigation system to a new non-profit corporation called NAVCAN on October 31, 1996.
Subsidies for the truckers in the east, from ARFAA, and the subsidies for grain transportation in the west, WGTA, have been eliminated.
A national airports policy is to be implemented. Many of the airports across the country will be commercialized. We have introduced an overflight fee for people flying over, but not landing in, the country. This represents a substantial amount of approximately $160 million.
We have also announced a national marine policy. Legislation in that regard will be introduced shortly.
As well, our Estimates are somewhat newly tailored in that we were a pilot department for reporting to Parliament.
The major changes are listed on page 5. As I mentioned, we hope to transfer the air navigation system on October 31. NAVCAN will take on that responsibility on November 1. We will make a contribution to NAVCAN equivalent to the ATT for the first two years in order to give them time to introduce user fees.
The port divestiture fund amounts to about $125 million. We are working towards pilotage authorities being self-sufficient. In the past, if they ran up a deficit the government would cover it. That will not happen in the future.
We are negotiating the sale of hopper cars. We are at the early stages of our discussions that are ongoing.
On page 6, as I mentioned, the Canadian Coast Guard has been transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. What we have left in our Estimates is about $60 million that is mainly for the regulatory part of the marine industry. In 1995-96, the figure was $582 million.
The national airports policy is dealt with on page 7. We will be transferring the 26 national airport system airports. However, they will all be leased and we will retain ownership. We will also be transferring ownership of regional and local airports. The objective is to have more community input and to shift the costs from the taxpayer to the users. Transport Canada will continue to be responsible for the safety aspects, that is, the regulatory part. From general revenues, we will save about $100 million and 2,500 person years, or FTEs, by the year 2000-01. Our 1996-97 Estimates reflect a $27 million savings.
When we prepared the Estimates, Bill C-20 had not been passed. It has now been passed. It received Royal Assent on June 20. On November 1, when the government will receive a cheque from NAVCAN, a non-profit organization, we hope to transfer the amount of $1.5 billion. They will raise debt to the equivalent of this amount. That is the sum they will pay the government to take this over. Transport Canada will continue to be responsible for monitoring compliance and safety regulations. Approximately 6,400 employees will be transferring to this new company. They will cease to be public servants and become private company employees.
The Chairman: Is the $1.5 billion going from NAVCAN to the Government of Canada?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
The Chairman: Where will they get the money?
Mr. Gauvin: It will all be borrowed from the market.
The Chairman: Supported by what?
Mr. Gauvin: It will be supported by the monopoly they have to operate the system.
The Chairman: In guaranteed revenue?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
In the past, the air transportation tax was vote netted against our Estimates. In 1996-97, there was a change in accounting. When we prepared the Estimates we were not certain when the transfer would take place. It was suggested that the money would go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund but that the equivalent amount would be put into Transport Canada's Estimates. Therefore, for 1996-97, the amount is $689 million. For 1995-96, it was $620 million.
As I mentioned, in order to get NAVCAN going, Transport Canada will turn over the equivalent of the ATT for the first two years. That is because NAVCAN will take some time to determine what their user fees are to be so that they can collect an equivalent amount from the carriers. After that, the ATT will be eliminated and replaced with those user fees to be collected by NAVCAN.
The overflight fee was announced in the 1995 budget and implemented on November 1, 1995. It is for aircraft using the air navigation services in Canadian airspace but which do not land in Canada. It is a new fee which will involve many foreign carriers who, in the past, did not pay to fly over the country and use the services. As a result of the imposition of this fee, the government will collect $165 million on a full-year basis.
In terms of subsidies, we have eliminated the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act and the Maritimes Freight Assistance Act. That was also announced in the February 1995 budget. The acts were repealed in July of 1995. There is, therefore, an annual reduction of $99 million which was in the Canadian Transport Agency budget which was formerly the National Transportation Agency. As part of that settlement, Transport Canada is administering a transition program of $326 million over six years. In these Estimates the figure is $78 million.
Also eliminated was the Western Grain Transportation Act which was repealed in August 1995. That is a reduction of $559 million to the Canadian Transportation Agency. In the settlement, there was a $1.6 billion payout to prairie land owners. There is also a $300 million adjustment fund which is in the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture. What was left of the grain transportation agency, that is, the regulatory part, is now part of Transport Canada. It has been downsized considerably.
With regard to VIA Rail, there is lesser reliance on government through greater route flexibility. In these Estimates there is a $40-million decrease in their subsidy from $288 million to $248 million. It is planned that, by 1998-99, the subsidy will go down to $170 million.
Port divestiture was announced in December 1995 as part of the national marine policy. The financial impacts are not reflected in the Estimates because the bill has not been passed. The Canadian Port Authorities will be established for ports important to international trade. Basically, all the large ports that reported to Canada Ports Corporation will now report directly to the minister and will be operated locally. Regional and local ports will be transferred to provinces, municipalities or communities. In order to do that, we have set up a fund of $125 million over six years.
I now turn to ferry services. Our payments to Marine Atlantic are being decreased in these Estimates by $25 million, from $112 million to $87 million. Our savings within Marine Atlantic reflect vessel and crew rationalization, improved productivity and increased revenues. There will be further decreases to $40 million by 1998-99 as a result of the opening of the fixed link.
The Newfoundland dockyard will either being sold or leased.
Pilotage is dealt with on page 16. We have no requirements in the 1996-97 Estimates. In the past, because of rising pilot costs and delays in tariff adjustments, we often had to come forward with Supplementary Estimates during the year. The bill, if passed, will change the pilotage system. We will retain four regional authorities, the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Great Lakes and the Laurentian. A review of pilot licensing, compulsory pilotage situations, and exemption criteria will take place. By 1998, they will be required to be self-sufficient.
The Canada Transportation Act was proclaimed on July 1, 1996. It modernizes rail regulation, especially short-lines. It eliminates unnecessary regulatory and places emphasis on greater commercial decision making. It renames the National Transportation Agency to the Canadian Transportation Agency. It eliminates restrictions on new carriers in the north and imposes minimal financial requirements on new entrants in the air market.
The sale of hopper cars was announced in the March 1996 budget. The government will sell or lease 13,000 hopper cars in 1997 or 1998. This is part of our commercialization effort. Hopefully, the sale will improve the system's efficiency.
We have reviewed the motor vehicle test centre. It will also become private in this fiscal year. Basically, it will be a government-owned but a contract-operated facility. A company will operate it for us. The company which won the contract is PMG Technologies Inc. They have a five-year contract. Transport Canada will continue to monitor the results of testing. This will provide better opportunities in the private sector. There will be no large financial impact either way.
In terms of reporting to Parliament, we have revamped what we call our Part III. Transport is one of six pilot departments. We have financial data for three future years. We think it is more strategic and results oriented and, hopefully, for members of Parliament and senators, more user friendly. We are one of 16 pilots reporting to Parliament in the 1997-98 estimates.
Mr. Chairman, that is a brief overview of our estimates.
Senator Forrestall: Are there any financial obligations or implications for Marine Atlantic with respect to the fixed link that Parliament may not have considered?
I know very little about how the transition will take place. Could you shed some light on that? When will the money start to flow? How will the transfers be made?
Mr. Gauvin: Currently, we pay around $40 million to Marine Atlantic as a subsidy for the ferries. With Confederation Bridge supposedly opening on June 1, 1997, our contribution would then be paid to the operators for 35 years.
Senator Forrestall: How will that happen? Presumably, on May 1, Marine Atlantic will apply for its last subsidy.
Mr. Gauvin: Yes. We are still working out the details. Theoretically, if the bridge opened on June 1st, the operators would get the subsidy from the day it opened.
Senator Forrestall: Have they asked you for any upfront money?
Mr. Gauvin: No.
Senator Forrestall: Would you consider giving it to them were they to ask?
Mr. Gauvin: We have not contemplated that. The funding was done completely through the private sector.
Senator Forrestall: As a principle, then, is the subsidy we pay to them, as we have done with Marine Atlantic, for services rendered, not services to be rendered?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes, that is right.
There is one other point. The subsidy is being paid by Public Works, not Transport. However, it is all within the government.
As well, some money went into that project through some of the regional development agencies. For example, ACOA put in some money for some of the access roads. However, in terms of the total cost of the project, it was relatively small.
Senator Forrestall: The project is massive. Does ACOA have a means of recovery?
Mr. Gauvin: No. That was just a contribution by the government to assist in improving access to the bridge.
Senator Forrestall: From the government of New Brunswick and the government of Prince Edward Island?
Mr. Gauvin: That is right, from both sides.
Senator Forrestall: Moving to Marine Atlantic, what is the status of privatization?
Mr. Gauvin: On Marine Atlantic, we have a call for tenders out right now for the two ferries crossings, one between Yarmouth and Bar Harbour, U.S., and the other from Saint John to Digby.
Senator Forrestall: When will those tenders close?
Mr. Gauvin: I believe it will be within the next two or three weeks. I do not have the exact date, but it is imminent.
Senator Forrestall: Will the call for tenders on both ferry routes close at the same time?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: How long do expect it will take to review the tenders?
Mr. Gauvin: I would say the process will be completed within the next two or three months at the most.
Senator Forrestall: Will the government subsidize those operations?
Mr. Gauvin: Those are out to tender. They will be completely commercial operations. The government will be entirely out of the business.
Senator Forrestall: What will happen to the capital assets? Will they be bought? Who owns, say, the terminals?
Mr. Gauvin: I guess the government owns the assets. I do not have all the details, but I would suspect that the tender would include the purchase of the assets.
Senator Forrestall: That could amount to a lot of money.
Mr. Gauvin: I do not know.
Senator Forrestall: Once a decision is made and the contract is awarded, will they be totally on their own?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes, completely.
Senator Forrestall: What about the personnel?
Mr. Gauvin: There will be an agreement that the personnel will go with the new owners.
Senator Forrestall: Together with all of the safeguards vis-à-vis language?
Mr. Gauvin: That is the way we have done all of our transfers so far.
Senator Forrestall: We have basically followed the same pattern with airports.
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: Does that seem to be working well?
Mr. Gauvin: We have done it with all the airports and we are doing it with the NAVCAN deal which involves over 6,000 people. The employees and the union seem to be quite happy with the transfer.
Senator Forrestall: That is good to hear.
The Chairman: Is any severance paid?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
The Chairman: When a person is transferred in the course of a privatization deal, is severance paid to an employee moving to a new job?
Mr. Gauvin: To take the ANS as an example, which I know more of because I headed that file, we are transferring 6,200 people and they will all receive severance pay.
The Chairman: How much, one year or six months?
Mr. Gauvin: They will get severance pay as if they were leaving the public service. They will be paid one week for each year of service. I believe there is a maximum of 26 weeks.
When a transfer like that is made, in accordance with the Staff Relations Act, it is basically a severance from the government. Severance pay must be paid in accordance with that legislation.
The employees receive their severance pay upon transfer, however, with NAVCAN, we negotiated that they would continue to have the same benefits as they received as government employees. They would then start accumulating severance from that day on, but they would not receive again what they had already been paid. It is a one-time payment, an accrued liability to the government. Had that employee retired or left, that severance pay would have gone with him. It is an earlier payment.
The Chairman: It goes into the pockets of the employees?
Mr. Gauvin: It is paid directly to the employees, yes.
The Chairman: If, two years later, NAVCAN lets that person go, is that particular severance taken into consideration at that time?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes. If the employee is let go two years later and if NAVCAN has the same benefits, that employee would receive two weeks' severance because he has already received a total severance from the government at the time of the commercialization.
Senator Forrestall: Are these savings reflected beyond the 1996-97 Estimates? Is there any reflection in the 1997-98 projected Estimates?
Mr. Gauvin: Our estimates for 1995-96 were about $2.5 billion. That was for Transport and National Transportation, the Civil Aviation Tribunal and the Grain Transportation Agency. The majority of it, obviously, was Transport.
With everything I have talked about and the savings which are reflected for the three years, we will go down in 1998-99 to about $1.2 billion. Part of that is a transfer to Fisheries and Oceans for the Coast Guard, but much of it is attributable to the elimination of the subsidies, the transferring of airports, and the transferring of the air navigation system. That system alone took about $150 million out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on an annual basis. It will be based totally on cost recovery from the carriers, from the users.
Senator Forrestall: There is one basic shot and that will be shown in next year's Estimates.
Mr. Gauvin: There will be a big one next year, but we are still looking at other areas, one of them being airports. Our estimates respecting airports will come down. Estimates for ports and harbours will also come down. If everything goes according to plan, we foresee, in 1998-99, an estimate of $1.3 billion.
Senator Forrestall: How much of this reduced estimate is reflected in reduced spending as opposed to write-off of costs?
Mr. Gauvin: Everything except the Coast Guard will mean reduced spending by the government. The Coast Guard is about $600 million.
Senator Forrestall: Has the Department of Transport saved any money? These operations will cost someone a roughly equivalent amount of money to deliver the services.
Mr. Gauvin: You are right.
Senator Forrestall: For the economic benefit of Canada, what has the Department of Transport contributed to the poor taxpayer? I did not want to get into all the details. I had hoped you would volunteer that information.
Mr. Gauvin: Over the last couple of years, within government, we have done a lot of work to reduce costs in every way possible, especially overhead costs. That has been a direct savings to the taxpayer. In Transport, our approach has often been to commercialize. Many entities which are being commercialized were also being subsidized through either direct or indirect subsidies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. For example, we were putting about $200 million per year into the air navigation system, over and above what we were recovering from users. There is a saving to the government.
Some of that cost, through other means, like the commercialization of ANS through NAVCAN, will go to the users. It is not all savings but, to the government itself, it is a saving. To the taxpayer as a whole, it is a saving. Individual users will be hit with user fees.
The Chairman: Actually to the taxpayer, it will be more expensive because the taxpayer will not see a reduction in taxes to reflect the reduction in services.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Chairman, the cost will go from the taxpayer to the user. The user will pay more.
The Chairman: The user is a taxpayer. In case we have not figured it out, right now the general taxpayer is paying for the airport facilities, for example. You say that you will save the taxpayer money, but you are really saving money for the Crown by transferring a payment obligation to someone else, that is, the taxpayer, one more time.
Pearson International Airport in Toronto and other airports charge a user fee for a service which used to be provided. There is no reduction to the taxpayer, is there? Is that a public policy issue?
Mr. Gauvin: All of these efforts are aimed at bringing costs down. We hope, through these privatization efforts, that costs will come down. Admittedly, they are not obliged to do some of the things the government must do in terms of, say, regional development.
In the long run, you can argue that regional development is good and contributes to economic development. However, I believe there will be some direct savings as a result of privatization.
The Chairman: The Crown will spend less money but take in the same amount. Hopefully, in the end, there will be some recovery to the taxpayer in the form of a decrease in taxes.
Mr. Gauvin: NAVCAN, for example, will pay the government $1.5 billion upon transfer.
The Chairman: But NAVCAN is a non-profit organization made up of whom?
Mr. Gauvin: The carriers.
The Chairman: Am I correct is saying that the carriers will borrow $1.5 billion and give it to the government?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
The Chairman: Is there no guarantee of revenue by the government?
Mr. Gauvin: No, there is no guarantee. They take the system and hold a monopoly over the operations.
The Chairman: It is a guaranteed monopoly, right?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes, but there is no subsidy from the government per se.
Let us follow that $1.5 billion through. That income will go against the deficit or the debt. The interest on $1.5 billion is quite substantial, even on a debt that is so high. There is a saving to the general taxpayer per se.
Senator Forrestall: At some point in time, Mr. Martin will have an enormous bank account. Already I see $1.5 billion and I have just turned to the first item. I would like to know how Nova Scotia could be the beneficiary of some of that money.
[Translation]
Senator De Bané: I see here, for example, that for the transfer of port facilities, a divestiture fund of $125 million has been established. I assume the money in this fund will be distributed over several years?
Mr. Gauvin: The money in the fund will be distributed over a five-year period.
Senator De Bané: What is the listed book value of these port facilities?
Mr. Jim Lynes, Director General, Financial Management, Department of Transport: In terms of expenditures, they represent approximately $50 million per year at the present time.
Senator De Bané: Therefore, over a five-year period, if you were to keep these facilities, they would cost approximately $250 million, that is in indexed dollars. Now you are prepared to offer the different municipalities $125 million. Do you have some idea of what it cost the government to build these port facilities that you are planning to transfer?
Mr. Lynes: No, unfortunately I do not.
Senator De Bané: You have no idea. Have you set up a similar fund for the transfer of airport facilities?
Mr. Lynes: The listed book value of airport facilities is approximately $1.5 million. Once the transfers have taken place, we will operate an annual fund of around $35 million to assist the smaller airports that are unable to renew their infrastructure in light of current fees.
Senator De Bané: Do you not think that if the government has already spent $1.5 billion to build these port facilities and that you are prepared to contribute only $35 million for their upkeep, these facilities will gradually be abandoned. I think that Senator Mercier will have some questions for you about this later.
Mr. Gauvin: The divestiture fund that has been established for ports will apply to the smallest port facilities. The larger ones such as Montreal and Vancouver will recover costs with user charges. The $35 million will be for the smaller ports. I have no doubt that in the long run, some of these smaller ports will shut down. There are probably too many of them across the country. We feel the $35 million fund will enable us to help those that will remain open.
Senator De Bané: I understand clearly that the solution to your problem is to transfer ownership of the property. What if the municipality in question does not have the means to assume the charges related to this port or airport. What happens then?
Mr. Gauvin: A negotiation process kicks in. The airports have been operating for some time and a number of them have already been transferred. However, we are talking mainly about the largest ones. There is still a great deal of negotiation to be done for the smallest airports. We are only starting the process as far as the ports are concerned. We will see how things work out in the long run. In cases when problems do arise, we may have to invest more money.
Senator Mercier: Let me give you the example of the Sherbrooke airport. The city wants to take over this facility. To be cost effective, the airport would need $1 million worth of repairs and you are offering the municipality $50,000 to take over the airport.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: The airport is located in East Angus, not in Sherbrooke.
Senator Mercier: I am talking about the Sherbrooke area. You are offering the municipality $50,000 to take over the airport. I do not understand. What is going to happen? The East Angus airport is an important facility. I could give you several other examples, such as the airport in Saint-Tite and a number of other facilities in Quebec and in Canada. Closure means a certain loss of jobs. The $50,000 that you are prepared to pay will not be enough for the needed repairs. The facility will never be profitable. Are you aware of these problems?
Mr. Gauvin: We cannot speak about one case in particular.
Senator Mercier: Well, I can tell you about four or five different cases.
Mr. Lynes: There are three components to the airport transfer program. The first involves cutting operating expenses so as to make the facility more efficient and less bureaucratic. The second component is to bring about an increase in revenues: each year, landing fees and terminal user fees have increased.
We hope that by the year 2000, revenues will completely offset operating costs. We believe that this will be possible in the case of most airports. Some of the smaller airports may not be able to renew their infrastructure. For example, a small airport forced to spend $1 million for a runway will never be able to bring in enough revenues. The $35-million fund -- perhaps this should be increased to $50 million -- specifically targets small airports that cannot hope to cover operating and infrastructure costs.
Senator Mercier: That is your analysis.
Mr. Lynes: Yes. That is the intent of the policy.
Senator De Bané: Let us take, for example, the Ottawa region. The capital region is not considered a poor region. I know that the Canadian government tried for years to transfer the National Arts Centre to the City of Ottawa for $1 -- it was giving it away -- while the city maintained that it could not afford to operate the NAC.
When you tell a small village in the Gaspé that from now on, they own the seaport and they must ensure the annual upkeep, I am concerned that the billions of dollars Canadians have invested in the construction of these facilities will slowly erode. I am not certain that you will save money in the long run.
I understand that the Transport Department's budget is shrinking. However, because it is in Canada's strategic interest to see that all of the space is used, will people not be inclined to say that the government's policy is driving them to all move to the large urban centres because that is where the investments will be made and because our villages and municipalities will not be able to support this infrastructure.
Are you aware that of all western countries, Canada has the fastest rate of urbanization? Canadians are no fools. They realize that the government is investing in a few large cities, and so they will pick up and move to these centres. Are we not ensuring through our actions that these facilities will be abandoned? We will have resolved the Transport Department's problem, but I am not certain that it is such a good thing for local communities.
Mr. Gauvin: The future will decide the outcome. For the moment, we have a negotiation process underway. We are trying to reduce costs. We have established a $125 million fund for five years to help small ports. Just as we did for the airports, we have started with $35 million and we will probably increase this amount to $50 million.
If we find that we have not put in enough money to support the larger ports, we will then have to increase the amount of the fund.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: What distinguishes a large port from a small port? Is it the tonnage that it can accommodate? Along the lower St. Lawrence, there are a number of small ports, such as Kamouraska, Cacouna and Rivière Ouelle. There are small ports everywhere. What distinguishes a large port from a small port? I can understand that the Port of Montreal is larger than the port of Rivière Ouelle.
Senator De Bané: According to the department's definition, all of the ports that you mentioned are considered small ones.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: How would the port of Rivière-du-Loup be classified?
Mr. Gauvin: I do not have the criteria with me. A combination of factors are considered, including the number of ships that use the port, tonnage and so forth. A number of criteria come into play.
Senator De Bané: If it is profitable, the government will keep it, if not, it will transfer it over to the municipality.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: The fact remains that during the warmer season, the port provides jobs.
Senator De Bané: That is what Senator Mercier argued.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: These small ports represent jobs. Consider the ports in Rivière-du-Loup and Cacouna.
Senator Mercier: There will be job losses.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Yes. On page 10 of your submission, you refer to the overflight fee which generates: "$165 million annually on a full-year basis." Have you considered charging a fee to truckers coming from the United States? Canadian truckers who travel to the United States must pay fees in the United States, while the opposite is not true. However, US truckers use our roads and we must pay for the upkeep. Have you examined this situation?
Mr. Gauvin: We have not looked at that, but I can provide you with an answer. I will go back to the department and discuss the matter with the people concerned and then you will have an answer. Right now, all we have looked at are overflight fees.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Obviously, this is not an immediate concern of yours since you make no reference to it in your submission.
Mr. Gauvin: No, we have not mentioned it in our submission and we have no plans to take action in this area this year.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: In Quebec's case alone, this would bring in $10 million which could be used to upgrade our highways. Perhaps you have not thought of this.
Mr. Gauvin: I have taken note of your question and we will get back to you with an answer.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Speaking of VIA Rail, a number of trains are slated to be taken out of service and there are private interests who have expressed an interest in buying them. Could you explain this operation a little more to us? Is this a positive development or will people be unable to come up with the financing given the number of people who travel? Where do things stand?
Mr. Gauvin: Last year, closing a small line was a time-consuming process. In future, with the new legislation, the company will have to wait three years in order to give notice before closing the small routes. The goal is to privatize several of these small lines. To date, only two or three lines have been privatized, one of them being in Cape Breton. I am thinking about Truro, Nova Scotia where the outcome has been excellent. Costs have fallen and the route is profitable. Whether or not this experience can be duplicated in other parts of Canada will depend on the circumstances.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: However, for now, can you not give us an idea of the number of groups or persons interested in a similar experience?
[English]
Mr. Gauvin: I am confident that we can obtain this information from the department. This is not our area of responsibility.
The Chairman: On the subject of airport policy, I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the LAA in Toronto will be taking over Pearson as of December 1 of this year as stated by the government. Is that correct?
Mr. Gauvin: That is the plan, yes.
The Chairman: Is there an item in the Estimates to show the lease revenue that would accrue to the government between December 1 and March 30 of this fiscal year?
Mr. Gauvin: It is within the airports activity, yes. With respect to Pearson, the government would spend about $112 million in 1996-97.
The Chairman: Does the $112 million include the lease payments by the Greater Toronto Airport Authority to the Government of Canada between December 1 and March 30 of this fiscal year?
Mr. Gauvin: No. When we did the Estimates, we did not know when it would be taken over. We assumed a full year of operation under Transport.
The Chairman: You would know that by now. It is already October 2.
Mr. Gauvin: We have negotiated. I am sorry, but I do not have the details.
The Chairman: You are here to discuss this year's Estimates.
Mr. Gauvin: When we did the Estimates, which was some time ago, we did not know when Pearson would be privatized or commercialized.
The Chairman: I think the minister announced some six months ago that December 1 would be the takeover date. Surely with a takeover date, you would have an idea of the revenue that would accrue to the government on the lease between December 1 and March 30 of this fiscal year, which is what we are talking about.
Mr. Gauvin: I vaguely remember that the figure is around $20 million that we would recover from lease payments.
The Chairman: The lease payment between December 1 and March 30 will be approximately $20 million?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
The Chairman: That is for a period of four months or quarter of a year. Next year, therefore, will we expect to see lease payments four times that amount? Should we expect to see $80 million?
Mr. Gauvin: I would have to confirm that.
The Chairman: We are not talking about next year's Estimates, we are talking about this year's, and you have a responsibility to help us. This is no great surprise to you.
Mr. Gauvin: As I said, in our Estimates we have included revenues of approximately $112 million.
The Chairman: Does that include the revenue you receive from Pearson.
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
The Chairman: It has to be broken down because you are splitting the year. December 1 to March 30 is when the airport authority will have responsibility for Pearson International Airport. On December 1, they should be writing a cheque to the Government of Canada for lease payments, should they not?
Mr. Gauvin: You are quite right. Our estimate is that our projected lease payments from December 1 until the end of the fiscal year would be $19 million or $20 million.
The Chairman: About $5 million a month.
Mr. Gauvin: Yes, but I would have to look at the agreement to confirm that. I do not want to mislead you.
The Chairman: When was this agreement signed?
Mr. Gauvin: A couple of months ago.
Mr. Lynes: It was approved by the Treasury Board in July.
The Chairman: They are preparing to take over on December 1.
Mr. Lynes: That is right.
The Chairman: Has there been an Order in Council yet?
Mr. Lynes: I believe so, yes.
The Chairman: When was that done?
Mr. Lynes: The day after it was approved by Treasury Board.
The Chairman: Obviously a contract has not been signed because we do not know what the lease payments will be. Has a contract been signed and all the documents issued?
Mr. Gauvin: No. We did not say we did not know what the lease payment is; we said we did not have it here.
Mr. Lynes: We do have forecasts for what the lease payments will be in 1997-98.
The Chairman: What will they be?
Mr. Lynes: I am sorry. I did not bring that information with me.
The Chairman: Do you have an approximate figure?
Mr. Lynes: Approximately four times the number mentioned, which is $80 million.
The Chairman: You are telling us that $80 million a year is the revenue the Government of Canada with receive for the whole of Pearson International Airport next year.
Mr. Lynes: Approximately, yes, and I will confirm that number.
The Chairman: How long will that number apply?
Mr. Lynes: That number will increase every year with the volume of traffic and with inflation.
The Chairman: What is the volume of traffic now?
Mr. Lynes: I do not have that figure with me.
The Chairman: Is it 24 million or 23 million? What is the capacity at Pearson?
Mr. Gauvin: I am sorry. You are getting into details where we would have to either bring the experts here or get the answers to you. We are financial people. We put the Estimates together, but we do not make the policy or do the negotiations.
The Chairman: Were memoranda written within Treasury Board and the Department of Transport as to the lease income the federal government will obtain from the Greater Toronto Airport Authority? Did you think it was enough or too little?
Mr. Gauvin: We would have to get our Airports Group here. They could give you all the details.
The Chairman: What does Terminal 3 pay in lease payments now? I am sure you would know that because that contract has been in place since 1987.
Mr. Lynes: The information is available, but we do not have it with us.
The Chairman: Please help me with an approximation.
Mr. Lynes: I am sorry. I have no idea of an approximation.
The Chairman: Would it be more than $80 million?
Mr. Gauvin: We just do not have the information.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: They do not want to guess.
The Chairman: Surely you knew we would be asking questions about Pearson airport.
Mr. Gauvin: If you want to get into Pearson or other airports, we will bring some experts here who can answer your questions, but we are not the people negotiating the deal. Basically, we are responsible for finance and the Estimates. We can tell you what is in the Estimates.
The Chairman: That is what I am asking about, but it appears you cannot give me any information. Since we are discussing the Estimates, would I be fair in estimating that the Government of Canada will receive $80 million next year from Pearson?
Mr. Lynes: I just found the information that was in the Treasury Board submission. It said it would be $105 million for lease payments for 1997-98. The total concession revenues from Pearson up until the time of transfer for 1996-97 -- Terminal 3 being one of the concessions, if you like, -- that is, everything that exists at all terminals, whether they be restaurants, bookstores, parking lots or whatever else, is $40 million up to the period of transfer.
The Chairman: That is the total concession; that is not what Terminal 3 pays to the government.
Mr. Lynes: That is right. I do not know how much of that is attributable to Terminal 3.
The Chairman: They have their own deals with their concessionaires, so they would receive money from them and pay the Government of Canada lease payments; is that right?
Mr. Lynes: Yes. I am estimating, but if Terminal 3 carries one-third of the traffic, proportionally, that would mean one-third of $40 million which is somewhere around $10 million to $15 million.
The Chairman: Did agreement include airports other than Pearson such as Buttonville and the Toronto Island Airport?
Mr. Lynes: No, it is only Pearson.
The Chairman: We have given the lease to the Greater Toronto Airport Authority. With whom do we have a contract?
Mr. Gauvin: It is with the local airport authority.
The Chairman: I know that, but who are the members of the Greater Toronto Airport Authority?
Mr. Gauvin: We do not have that information, but we can send it to you.
The Chairman: Could you provide us with a list of the members?
Mr. Gauvin: Definitely.
The Chairman: Do we know who is on the board of directors?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
The Chairman: Could we have that?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
The Chairman: Could you outline what expertise the board has in running the airport?
Mr. Gauvin: We can provide you with the background of members.
Senator Forrestall: Are you referring to the business plan?
The Chairman: Yes.
You are spending a lot of money on the airport now.
Mr. Gauvin: We are building another runway, yes.
The Chairman: How much has been and will be spent in the fiscal years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97?
Mr. Gauvin: About $65 million.
The Chairman: Will that $65 million take us to the end this fiscal year?
Mr. Gauvin: It will bring us to the transfer date, yes.
The Chairman: Was that for the runways as well as Terminals 1 and 2?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
The Chairman: Could you break that down?
Mr. Gauvin: I am sorry, we do not have it broken down.
Mr. Lynes: There is a capital list on page 82 in Part III of the Estimates which gives a list of the major projects. The largest expenditure by far is the third runway. Twenty-three million dollars of the total capital expenditures forecast for 1996-97 will be for the new runway. You have the list of other projects there.
The Chairman: Is the contract between the Greater Toronto Airport Authority and the Government of Canada public? Can I get a copy?
Senator Forrestall: We cannot even get the business plan.
The Chairman: It is a reasonable question.
Mr. Gauvin: I am not sure whether it is public as the negotiations are ongoing. While there is an agreement to transfer, we have not actually transferred.
The Chairman: Let me get this straight. The Treasury Board has passed it. An Order in Council has been passed. The documents have not all been signed, but they are taking over on December 1. However, as far as you are concerned, we have a contract?
Mr. Gauvin: We have an agreement to transfer, yes.
The Chairman: It will be done. They have already hired a manager and they are moving right along?
Mr. Gauvin: That is right.
The Chairman: On what legal basis are they doing that?
Mr. Gauvin: We have not transferred yet. They are doing it on a risk basis because we still have to agree on the transfer of assets. There is a lot of work to be done on the land, the leases and that sort of thing. They are doing it on risk.
The Chairman: Right. An Order in Council has been passed, Treasury Board has approved it, but the contract is not yet complete?
Mr. Gauvin: No. Assuming that all the loose ends are straightened out between now and December 1, the transfer would take place, but there is still work to do.
The Chairman: We do know the number. About $20 million of revenue is coming in. That part has been decided, but the contract has not yet been completed.
Mr. Gauvin: In an effort like this, a lot of work must be done to make it happen. We have to agree on every asset that is to be transferred. Some assets belong to the air navigation system, some belong to the airport. You have to do inventories of everything and reach an agreement.
The Chairman: When did this start?
Senator De Bané: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, it is certainly your right and your duty to study, comment on and criticize any contract that the Government of Canada has entered into.
The Chairman: Thank you for that.
Senator De Bané: That being said, the contract has not yet been signed, and I think we must wait for it to be signed before we consider other steps. As they are still negotiating, I think we should wait until a contract is signed and sealed between the parties before probing into their negotiations.
The Chairman: I will ask a couple of other questions on the contract. Since it is still being negotiated, we can change it. Maybe we can help them out and solve a few problems before they sign it.
Has the Greater Toronto Airport Authority made any commitments as to the redevelopment of Pearson Airport, either Terminal 1 or Terminal 2?
Mr. Gauvin: I believe there are some commitments in the contract but I cannot tell exactly what they are. I do not have the contract here.
The Chairman: Do they propose to rebuild them?
Mr. Gauvin: They will certainly enhance them, yes.
The Chairman: How will they finance that?
Mr. Gauvin: They will finance it through user fees. In the end, they have the flexibility to bring in other things such as a passenger facilitation fee if they need it.
The Chairman: Will it be their decision whether to institute a passenger facility fee?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
The Chairman: They can make that at any time?
Mr. Gauvin: That is right.
Mr. Lynes: I understand that they have, however, said that they will not do that; that they will rely on existing fees for landings, air terminal charges, rents and concessions to raise the money.
The Chairman: My kids always say, "I promise you, Dad, I will never do that."
Mr. Lynes: The public reaction to the Vancouver fee was not entirely positive and they do not want to be in the same situation.
The Chairman: But they have it the contract, so they can impose one if they wish.
Mr. Gauvin: There is no restriction from the government.
The Chairman: If they wish to, they can impose that fee. What are they using for cash now?
Mr. Gauvin: Bank loans.
The Chairman: On what basis would they get a bank loan?
Mr. Gauvin: On risk, I guess.
The Chairman: A bank would give a non-profit corporation money without any guarantee whatsoever except that they may get a contract?
Mr. Gauvin: The government is not putting any money into it at all. They are getting money from the banks on a borrowing basis. Some municipalities may be involved. I do not know.
The Chairman: Did the government have to sign a letter of intent?
Mr. Gauvin: Everyone knows what the intent was.
The Chairman: Yes, to sign the contract. Did they send a letter to that effect to the bank?
Mr. Gauvin: I do not know.
Mr. Lynes: It is public information that the transfer has been approved by cabinet by Treasury Board, and by the Order in Council. The asset that they have is the cash flow of the airport over the 60-year period of the lease, and that is a considerable asset.
The Chairman: So they are acting as if the contract is complete.
Mr. Lynes: Yes.
The Chairman: But it has not yet been signed.
Mr. Lynes: All the terms and conditions have been agreed upon. It is the legal rendering of that contract that remains to be done.
The Chairman: That was helpful.
Senator Forest: As a westerner, I have an interest in hopper cars. The announcement was made that they would be sold. How far along are we on that? What can we expect by way of revenue from them? Are they putting it out to tender?
Mr. Gauvin: It is still in the very early stages of discussion, but revenues are expected.
Mr. Lynes: The original plan for revenues assumed that the boxcars would be sold. Since then, there has been much discussion at various levels, with the Minister of Agriculture and others, and whether they will be sold or leased or whatever is still being debated. We do not yet have a firm plan. It was agreed, however, that they would not allow the railroads to increase rates to cover the cost of the sold boxcars until August of 1998.
Senator Forest: That is at 75 cents a bushel?
Mr. Lynes: Yes, so the possibility of receiving revenues, whether it be for a sale amount or a lease, is put off until 1998. We are studying a range of options but no decision has been made.
Senator Forest: I imagine the Minister of Agriculture will be making an announcement when the time comes.
Mr. Lynes: He is very involved, yes.
Senator Forest: I also wanted to respond to Senator Lavoie-Roux's concern about the railroads. I know that with the selling off of the short lines, one of the ways in which the new operators were able to make a go of it when the big ones could not was because they were no longer held to the union agreements. I served on the CN board, so I am aware of that. There is the hope that short line operators will pick up some of these lines. The history in the United States and in Eastern Canada is that short line operators have been able to make a go of them. They are local entrepreneurs and are not bound by the union contract. We are hoping that that will happen in much of Canada so that these lines will not have to be abandoned. The regulations in order to do that have been loosened up by changes to the Transport Act.
My other question is with regard to Confederation Bridge. How much will the final cost be on that? Does anyone know?
Mr. Gauvin: I think it is estimated at slightly over $800 million -- again, all funded by the private sector, except that the government will provide a subsidy for the next 35 years of $42 million per year, to increase with inflation.
Senator Forest: But that will be less than what they would have paid for ferry service.
Mr. Gauvin: It is about the same amount of the subsidy, but the government would usually provide the capital for the purchase of any new ferry which may be needed. With the bridge, there will be no capital requirement.
Senator Forrestall: I hope Premier McKenna and Premier Callbeck and her successor hear this loud and clear: The travelling public do not want to see those access roads, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, turned into toll roads. Can you do anything to prevent that?
Mr. Gauvin: There are no plans for that.
Senator Forrestall: It never even went through your mind?
Mr. Gauvin: Actually --
Senator Forrestall: I am being deadly serious, although perhaps my comments are for another venue and another time.
The Chairman: Some minister will make that decision.
Mr. Gauvin: The money has been provided for those roads. They are paid for. Whether tolls are introduced later, the roads are already in place and paid for.
Senator Forrestall: Are you admitting that you did think about it?
Mr. Gauvin: No, we never discussed tolls. It was a contribution from the government.
Senator Forrestall: I would like to deal with NAVCAN. Just recently, the Dominion Bond Rating Service gave this corporation a double-A rating, which is not bad, to say the very least, because they are getting into a risky business.
Why can we not see NAVCAN's business plan? What is so secret about it that the Canadian public cannot have their representatives in the House of Commons or here in the Senate take a look at that business plan? What we want to know in part stems from this absolute assurance that, as long as NAVCAN is in place, it will always have a double-A rating or better, because, Mr. Chairman, of the statutory right of NAVCAN to adjust user fees as required to meet its financial obligations, subject to fairly minor constraints that affect the methodology of the charges, not their real total amounts. How could you go wrong with a guarantee that you can adjust user fee rates without a cap? At some point in time, a couple of million Canadians will have to pick up the cost that today is being borne by 30 million. Only a couple of million Canadians fly annually. Apart from representatives of corporations, not that many private individuals actually fly.
Against that guarantee and that protection, how are we to know what the cap will be in the absence of a business plan?
Mr. Gauvin: Let me say a couple of things about NAVCAN. First, NAVCAN is a public corporation. It is non-profit. Therefore, they will have to publish their financial statements and their plans, and they will also have to have one public meeting every year. The public will be invited to attend.
Second, the representation on the board is such that the carriers have the largest representation. The reason that the carriers were so interested in this is because they felt that, by making it a private corporation, they could bring their costs down. Therefore, on the board of directors there are representatives of the carriers, the largest segment, representatives of the unions, and also three representatives from the government.
Senator Forrestall: They have this protection, do they not? The carriers, of course, are the major players. They are going to insist on competitive rates.
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: Competitive with European and other North American rates.
Mr. Gauvin: They also want to bring the costs down as much as they can because they are going to be paying those rates.
Senator Forrestall: The Government of Canada has guaranteed, unequivocally, to pay the difference.
Mr. Gauvin: NAVCAN is a non-profit corporation. It cannot make money to distribute to anyone. Therefore, all they will do is recover their costs.
Senator Forrestall: The Government of Canada is a non-profit corporation as well. It handles billions upon billions of dollars, increasing the amount ad infinitum. When I first came to this chamber, the total federal budget was $6 billion. It covered everything, including the Armed Forces and the Post Office. How will we protect the Canadian taxpayer against that kind of clause?
Mr. Gauvin: First, they cannot make money to distribute to anyone. Second, the carriers are the big players on their board; therefore, they will want to bring their fees down as much as they possibly can. Therefore, with respect to accountability and the way they function, the costs will come down.
You mentioned that all of the cost is based on 2 million passengers who use the airlines. Another part of NAVCAN's recovery will be from the overflight fees. Those overflight fees are not usually Canadian. They are for airplanes that fly over --
Senator Forrestall: That is miniscule.
Senator De Bané: It is $165 million.
Senator Forrestall: For the privilege of flying across Canada.
Mr. Gauvin: They plan on increasing those fees. They want to make that a fairly significant part of their revenues.
Senator Forrestall: How do you justify the statutory right given to NAVCAN to increase its fees? There is no end to it.
Mr. Gauvin: How else would you do it? If you read all the legislation, they can only recover their costs and some reserves.
Senator Forrestall: It is not the case, then, that this is the only way they could sell the group and take it over?
Mr. Gauvin: Since they are non-profit and it is total debt, there is no equity in this.
Senator Forrestall: If you set me up in a company like this, I would pay myself a quarter of a million dollars just for openers.
Mr. Gauvin: They had to have strong guarantees that they would be in the business and that no one else would get into it. They have to raise all this money on the markets.
Senator Forrestall: What is to stop the board from giving their corporate chairman $1 million a year in bonuses because he is doing such a good job? I am just saying there is no cap.
Mr. Gauvin: Hopefully the carriers would not put up with that.
Senator Forrestall: It does not matter to the carriers, because the government is guaranteeing the deficit.
Mr. Gauvin: No, the government is not guaranteeing anything.
Senator Forrestall: Is it not?
Mr. Gauvin: There is no guarantee on this. This is totally non-profit. They must totally recover all of their revenues and pay all of their costs and keep their bond-holders happy. There is no implicit government guarantee in any way, shape or form in this, and there are no subsidies.
Senator Forrestall: Are you suggesting to me that that statutory right did not affect Dominion Bond Rating Service's granting of a double-A rating?
Mr. Gauvin: No, the statutory right is that they have a monopoly over the service. No one else can get into the service.
Senator Forrestall: That is why they got the double-A?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: The statutory right to increase user fees did not have anything to do with it?
Mr. Gauvin: Only to recover their costs.
Senator De Bané: Are the revenues of NAVCAN from the airlines and the passengers, or just from the passengers?
Mr. Gauvin: No, it is only the airlines. They recover all their revenues from the airlines.
Senator De Bané: Is the fee that the airline has to pay to NAVCAN based on its number of passengers?
Mr. Gauvin: No, it is based on the size of the aircraft.
Senator De Bané: So there is a vested interest for the airlines to reduce the cost as much as possible, because they are the ones paying it. It affects their bottom line.
Mr. Gauvin: That is right. That is why they were so supportive of this initiative. This whole initiative was led by the airlines. On the board of directors, it is the airlines, the unions and --
Senator De Bané: Does the amount that the passenger pays as tax on his airline ticket go to the airport authority or to NAVCAN?
Mr. Gauvin: In the past, it was called the air traffic tax. It went to the government to operate the air navigation system. In the future, that tax will not be there any more, but there will be user fees that the airline will pay. It would not be on the passenger's ticket. The airline will pay the user fees, but they will pass that on, obviously, to the passengers. It will be part of their operating costs.
Senator De Bané: Your argument is that, as that non-profit organization cannot distribute dividends, and as it is the airline that pays and not the passenger, there is a mechanism here of restraint.
Mr. Gauvin: There is an incentive on their part to reduce costs. Any cost that is reduced from air navigation will affect the airlines' profits.
Senator De Bané: It will affect their bottom line.
The Chairman: Was there a publicly tendered contract for NAVCAN?
Mr. Gauvin: No. ATAC, the Air Transport Association of Canada, led the initiative. There was consultation for about a year. In the end, they set up a non-profit corporation, which included on the board of directors people from the unions, the airlines, the government and then some members at large.
The Chairman: Does NAVCAN have a management contract with someone to manage NAVCAN?
Mr. Gauvin: No. They will take over all the employees that the government had -- about 6,200.
The Chairman: Will there be no management contract for the administration and management of NAVCAN?
Mr. Gauvin: They have taken over all those employees, and so far they have hired themselves a CEO and two vice-presidents, one VP finance and one VP human resources.
The Chairman: For the benefit of all of us, a non-profit corporation is only non-profit for the purposes of taxation.
Mr. Gauvin: It is non-profit. There are no shareholders and no dividends.
The Chairman: That is right, but they have to make a profit.
Mr. Gauvin: They do not make any profit. They have to recover their costs.
The Chairman: How do they replace equipment?
Mr. Gauvin: That is all part of their costs.
The Chairman: What about the depreciation of equipment?
Mr. Gauvin: That is all part of their costs.
The Chairman: Of course it is, but that is what profits are used for, too.
Mr. Gauvin: My interpretation of profits is that they are distributed to shareholders.
The Chairman: If a company operated by totally distributing all of its profits to shareholders, there would not be any money left to recapitalize, to grow, to fix equipment, to expand, or to do any of those things.
Mr. Gauvin: We are into semantics.
The Chairman: No, we are not into semantics. When you say "non-profit," all that means is that you may have particular tax advantages and you do not have to pay shareholders. That does not mean you do not have to make profits so that you can show you operate efficiently. Air Canada is a non-profit corporation when it does not make any money.
Mr. Gauvin: If you look at an income statement, it has a revenue line and operational expenses and some capital investments, and then hopefully it has made some money after all of that, and then it distributes something to shareholders.
The Chairman: Exactly. It takes a percentage as retained earnings to help them through bad times. They will have to make some profit. They just will not call it that for purposes of taxation.
Mr. Gauvin: They will call it a reserve.
Senator Forrestall: If we were so certain of this arrangement, why did we give them a statutory right?
Mr. Gauvin: It is the only way they could raise this kind of money. They would have no other way to raise this kind of money if they did not have a statutory right. This is a lot of money. We are talking about $1.5 billion. They have to pay back to the government $1.5 billion.
Senator Forrestall: That is why I should like to have seen the business plan.
Mr. Gauvin: The prospectus has a lot of information.
Senator Forrestall: We have been through the prospectus.
The Chairman: I made a mistake when talking about Pearson airport. When you said there was $20 million coming in this fiscal year for Pearson airport, for the remainder of this fiscal year; I said it was $80 million, but really it should be $60 million.
I think I made a mistake there. Is that right? It is $60 million?
Mr. Lynes: Yes, using what you have said.
The Chairman: I want to clarify a couple of things. The rent you are talking about is for the whole airport, including the runways, T1, T2, T3, industrial lands and everything; right?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
The Chairman: Do you have a breakout for T1 and T2?
Mr. Gauvin: Not with us, no.
The Chairman: Is there a passenger-diversion protection clause in the agreement?
Mr. Gauvin: We would have to get back to you on that.
Mr. Lynes: I am not aware of one.
The Chairman: Could you write back to us on that?
Mr. Gauvin: Yes.
The Chairman: I have one last question. I submitted a whole bunch of written questions to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Have you received those questions yet? They are in the Order Paper. They are dated April 25 and April 26. That is a long time ago. I have not received any answers. I thought I would take this opportunity, since you are here, to see whether you have received those questions.
Mr. Gauvin: I have not seen them.
The Chairman: Could you check around the department? They may have been filed, inadvertently, in the leader's office. I want to remind the leader that they are still percolating out there. If you have not received them, who would have received them?
Mr. Gauvin: It depends on the questions.
The Chairman: They deal mostly with Estimates, and other financial matters.
Mr. Lynes: If that is the case, we would have seen them. What was the date, sir?
The Chairman: They were dated April 30, April 25, April 26 -- last spring. They were Order Paper questions. A lot of the ground we are covering now we would not have to be covering, if I had had the answers to those questions.
Mr. Gauvin: We will check to see if they are in the department.
The committee adjourned.