Evidence of meeting #19 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was westminster.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Colin Wright  General Manager, Engineering, Township of Langley
Peter Fassbender  Mayor, City of Langley
Jim Lowrie  Director, Engineering Services, City of New Westminster
François Picard  Second Vice-President of the Executive Committee, City of Quebec
Jean-Pierre Bazinet  President, Chutes-la-Chaudière East Sector, City of Lévis
Alain Lemaire  Member Executive Committee , City of Lévis
André Demers  Municipal Consellor, City of Quebec

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

There is a dispute as to whether it was allowed. It has been flying from the island airport for many years. The questions of whether the port authority conducted a proper competitive tendering process to allow one airline versus the other airline to come in, or whether allowing just one airline, Porter Airlines, to operate out of it constitutes a monopoly are subject to a court debate.

The dealings of the port authority are subject to a lot of controversy. I believe Jazz have now taken the port authority and also Transport Canada, I think, to court. I'm not 100% sure, but certainly that lawsuit is quite recent.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Laframboise, go ahead, please.

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

I do not disagree with the idea put forth by Mr. Julian and Ms. Chow. Here is my only problem: the minister said that he would make it public. It is just that. I agree with studying it. Once it is made public, let's study it. I would move an amendment that would say once it is been made public by the minister, we study it. I do not have a problem with that.

If that is not the case and Mr. Julian's intention is to force the minister to table it more quickly and he tables it by next week, why adopt this motion right away? I am asking myself an existential question.

I recommend that Mr. Julian leave it on the agenda and that we deal with it next time, once the report has been made public. Then we will automatically invite at least Mr. Tassé, so that he can disclose the content of his report.

But I really do not know, I too am wondering about the urgency. In fact, the minister did say, unless I missed something, that he would make it public. That is what you were saying, Mr. Jean. Is it more complicated than that?

Go ahead.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Yes, Mr. Jean.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

It's not more complicated than that. In fact, the minister did say he was going to make it public very shortly.

But once it's out, we're all going to have an opportunity to review the report. We understand that there are a lot of important issues here. We understand that there were some payments made by the previous government and some of those payments are questionable, or at least there are some contract violations, and there are so many lawsuits.

The reality is that it's before the courts. We can't comment on those, as a committee or as a government, but once it's out in the next couple of weeks, let's review it as individual people. I'm sure the NDP and Mr. Julian will know it forwards and backwards. Once that happens, if the motion comes back before the committee, then let's deal with it on that basis.

At this stage, however, we know what our agenda is over the next three or four weeks, and we're not going to be able to push this into the middle, and certainly not before Monday. There is not going to be anything done, and the committee is not going to come out with any recommendation before Monday even if we get it tabled before that time.

So although we understand some people in Toronto are very upset about this, and it's a very major issue and has been for many years, to be blunt, as Mr. McGuinty has said, why don't we wait for it to be tabled and take a look at it? At that time we can deal with it as a committee, because then we will actually know what the report contains. Right now we're speculating, and really we've got a very ambitious agenda. We've got a lot of legislation coming forward that is going to help a lot of other people in Canada as well.

So once it is tabled and once it's made public, which should be in the very near future, let's look at it then and see if we can do something about reviewing it and see whether or not it would be advantageous and constructive to do so.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Scott, go ahead, please.

October 19th, 2006 / 5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB

Given the date of the notice of motion and given the date of the minister's comments, is it fair to assume that the notice was given before the minister made his comments?

Consequently, what this is about is that the notice, to some extent, became redundant. I don't mind the intervention, Ms. Chow, and I know how important this is. However, I think for the committee, now that the first piece of this motion has been satisfied, and since we know the report is going to be made public, we have to have the maturity and the responsibility to look at the report and make a determination as to whether this is what we would wish to do.

Bringing to the attention of everybody how important everything else is that we're doing is not meant to belittle the importance of this. I think we will make a better judgment once we've seen the report and can decide whether it's worthy of pushing something else aside.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Ms. Chow.

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Yes, may I ask a question? I heard “one week” thing. Certainly the minister didn't say that; there was no commitment of time, and there was a worry this could drag on for many months or many years. I certainly hope not. I don't think that would be the case. So would it be appropriate to have this dealt with in a week's time or two weeks' time, for example, and we would come back to see whether the report has been made public or not? I've heard a lot of discussion about its being one week, which was not what I heard, and I wasn't sure there was any timing involved. It is true it was written prior to the minister's statement.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Scott.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB

I don't think there's anything to preclude Mr. Julian from bringing back the same motion at some point when we feel the minister has not lived up to what he's suggested he's going to do. That's the appropriate action, I think. If we assume the worst, then we're going to be having ministers here all the time, because nobody will have anything to say.

Consequently, I suggest we give the minister the chance to do what he said he was going to do, and if he doesn't do it, I'll be the first to support Mr. Julian in saying, get him here.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Would it be a fair comment to ask Mr. Julian, as the mover, and Ms. Chow to withdraw the motion for a period of two weeks until we see what the minister does? And then it can be presented back to this committee, if you're not satisfied with the results.

Ms. Chow.

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

As long as you don't mind, I will be back here in two weeks' time. I'll come to visit again.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

You'll always be welcome.

Fair enough?

(Motion allowed to stand)

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Thanks very much.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Are there any other comments? If not, this meeting is adjourned.