Transport Committee on May 4th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I concur with Mr. Jean, because in the last Parliament, even though infrastructures were tied to the Environment Committee, the latter never met to discuss the matter.

You're quite right about this. We should call the minister to testify and the committee should look more closely at the infrastructure issue. As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee should be able to set some study parameters.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I think the point Mr. Scott raises is a very valid one. We have some major safety issues to deal with—air safety, rail safety, and marine safety. I'm concerned that the infrastructure element, just by the sheer weight of work, would be lost.

In the last Parliament we had within human resources a subcommittee that dealt with people with disabilities, because of course there is a wide-ranging group of issues among people with disabilities at the same time as there are larger issues within human resources. One of the ways to accomplish all of that work was to have a subcommittee.

I understand Mr. Jean's point as well, but with respect to the work we have to do—we have an incredible amount of work to do—I think a subcommittee is one effective way of doing that and making sure the work that's done at that subcommittee comes back here. So I think it is a very valuable point that Mr. Scott raises, that we should be looking at the possibility of a subcommittee to make sure that all the work we need to do gets done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Everyone else has had a comment.

Again, I guess what I'm taking from this is that we will establish the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Are we asking for a second subcommittee to deal with infrastructure, or one committee that will report?

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

That may be the way to do this. I'm not suggesting it. I might support it; I haven't decided. All I was saying is that because this is the transport committee, and the corporate memory is transport-related and there is lots of business to do, I would be fearful that something critically important to the country might not get this.... I mean, just the fact that this is the transport, infrastructure, and communities committee and that we might consider a subcommittee for infrastructure and communities suggests in and of itself something—that somehow that's a secondary piece of this. I'm not suggesting it's more important, but it's equally important.

I would agree with Mr. Jean that perhaps it hasn't been given the kind of attention, even in the past, that it should have been given, but that's behind us now. I just wanted to make sure that the importance of this to communities, for instance, is critical.

There are debates on the question as to what is transport and what is infrastructure, and what is the difference. Those debates need to be discussed here too. I think it's important to the country.

I'm not saying it should be a subcommittee, as long as it gets appropriate attention in the main committee. Either way is fine by me. If it isn't getting appropriate attention in the main committee, perhaps we have to do something else. But I think the fact that we would consider infrastructure and communities as the thing that would automatically go to the subcommittee alerts me a little bit to the fact that people still think this is a transport committee, and that's the other thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, please, Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Just very quickly, Mr. Chair, I would like to say that I call it more of a fear. I am afraid that's exactly what will take place. From my perspective, we have a regional imbalance across the country right now in transport, infrastructure, communities, etc., and I think the government has shown how important infrastructure is because they've linked it with transport.

I would like to see, on a regional basis, a subcommittee being short, sharp, and to the point, to investigate specific things, whether they happen to be in Quebec with border crossings, or Windsor, or British Columbia with the Pacific gateway. We would form a subcommittee on those bases, on those very important issues that are going to tie the whole country together, and would have the subcommittee meet for a very short period of time, maybe four meetings, depending on the case. And within a one-week or two-week period--and it would have to do double workloads, and I think we're all going to have to do so on this committee—it would come back to the committee regarding particular regional issues or particular general issues they can task on, and deal with them.

I don't see how we can separate transport and infrastructure. I always wondered how that could be done. I don't think it was done effectively in past governments, to be frank.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Further on that, Mr. Chair, what is the definition of infrastructure? The previous government defined infrastructure, going back to 1993-94, as being our relationship between the provinces and with the municipalities. Now the parliamentary secretary seems to give a different definition. For the record, it might be good for us to have his definition of how he sees our committee.

The heading on our committee is transport. I guess that was issued, but are we talking about transportation infrastructure or is that communities business that also seems to be floating around part of his definition of infrastructure?

Brian, maybe if you could just....

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

The first thing is that I am not in charge of the direction of the committee. The committee is in charge of the direction of the committee, and whatever the committee wants to study is certainly what I will study with them.

There are very few things that are infrastructure alone. Usually transportation is tied into it, and every community is tied in some way on one end or the other. From my perspective, I think infrastructure, transportation, and communities are tied into just about everything we deal with.

Certainly, on the basis of allocation of funds and a general overview on where this country is going.... For instance, in Pacific gateway and borders, right now we have problems in both areas as far as transport of goods goes. I don't see it that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott, go ahead, please.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

This isn't mutually exclusive. No one has mentioned water treatment. A large amount of the infrastructure program was environmentally based. There were some cost-sharing agreements with provinces on highways and so on, but a big, big piece of it had to do with water treatment, sewage treatment, building in communities, supporting communities in their local infrastructure needs. If you look at the list of projects that were undertaken in that area, it was more often environmentally based.

I'm not saying that it necessarily means it should be that way. I'm not saying that at all. All I'm saying is that we need to recognize that here so we don't think of infrastructure as simply transportation or transport, which would be the way the committee would emerge, because that's what the committee has been. Windmills are eligible under the infrastructure program. I don't think they're going to get picked up easily in transportation. As long as we're deliberate in wanting to include them, I'm quite satisfied we will.

We'll have to be deliberate because it's not going to come naturally. I think the nature of the discussion so far has demonstrated that we're thinking of this as being transportation, and there's a lot more to infrastructure than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, go ahead, please.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I think you're right, but when you want to change sewer lines, you usually tear up a road to do it. When you want to put windmills in, you have to look at where geographically there's going to be competitive advantage, where you're going to have delivery of service, where you're going to find the people to do so.

I'm not at all saying this is just transport. What I'm trying to say is I think all of them intermingle among themselves, and they're all going to deal, sooner or later, with transportation, just like transportation is going to deal with communities and infrastructure and water and sewage treatment systems. But I think to put them together and look at them in one package means that we're going to be more efficient, we're going to get better use of the money we invest, and have less bureaucracy, which I think is what we all want to get to, sooner or later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

After we have our first subcommittee meeting, taking the conversation we've had, we'll identify the priorities and how they work together. I don't think anybody would be opposed to other people.... Obviously we want to listen to everybody on the committee, to what their interests and concerns are, and try to prioritize it so that we can get some things accomplished. Is that a fair comment?

Okay? Great.

We're back to number 4.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

On item number 5, the motion to receive and publish evidence in the absence of a quorum, we have two choices, (a) or (b). I don't believe I have to read them.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I'd like to propose (b) for quorum. Yes.

Given the importance of the issues we'll be discussing, having the higher quorum would be a more effective way of ensuring we're actually getting our work done. All of us, of course, are pledged to attend these meetings and to work as hard as we can on the committee. A higher quorum I think assures that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Comments?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I second Mr. Julian's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We are addressing item 5(b).

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Item number six deals with allocation of time for questioning. What we have there is the history of the committee.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I'd like to propose that we change the final line to read, “between each party”. In other words, we'd have a time allocation of seven minutes for the first questioner of each party, and then five minutes rotating among the parties. This is the same type of format we adopted yesterday in the Standing Committee on International Trade. It allows for more collegiality and allows for more input from each of the parties. I think it's the most effective way to proceed. Other committees are adopting this kind of format. I think it would be effective for our functioning as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

With respect, I disagree.

I would like to see many members from different parts of the country. Unfortunately, under that particular system, we will not hear from each and every party member because of time. I would like to see an opportunity for everyone present at the meeting to be able to give an opinion or to ask particular advice to the witnesses. I could see it allocated after that on the basis of parties, but certainly I would like to hear from my friend from Quebec, for instance, on particular issues the witnesses might bring forward, or my friends from the Bloc, or my friends from the NDP, etc.

I found that in the last committee, in environment in particular, which of course you are aware of, there just seemed to be no time for everybody. Everybody was scrambling. I would like to hear from each and every member. They represent 80,000 to 120,000 people, no matter which party they are from, and each and every one of us brings a different perspective. I would like to see something in the range of five minutes for each person, and after have it allocated on the basis of parties. That would be my proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Hubbard.