Transport Committee on April 21st, 2009

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

That is not what is stated in the motion moved by Mr. Kennedy today. His motion calls on the minister to appear for two hours, but it does not specifically state that we will be discussing planned expenditures, Bill C-7 or infrastructure. It calls on the minister's appearance for the full two hours of the meeting. The motion will have to be amended to reflect that.

I agree that we have to discuss infrastructure. As for Bill C-7, I have no other questions to put to the minister. However, if I did have any questions, I would like to be able to raise them with him. I therefore do not object to discussing Bill C-7 for a half-hour at the start of a two-hour meeting. If we wish to talk about planned expenditures, we will have one hour and a half to do so. I have no problem with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

When I read the motion, I too was under the impression that the request was to have the minister here for two hours, as opposed to one hour, regardless of what the content of the discussion was, but again we'll take direction.

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

As far as any member is concerned around the table, they can ask the minister anything they want. We all agreed here on our side from our party that we really wanted the minister here for two hours. That's why I asked Mr. Jean whether in fact the minister was coming here for two hours. If that's what the minister said he was going to do, I think it's mission accomplished. We're interested in a two-hour time slot.

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

Indeed, Mr. Volpe, the minister did say he was prepared to come for two hours.

I would like to, if I may, speak very briefly in relation to the process. This particular motion came forward, and obviously each and every member of this House and committee has the right to do so, but when I had a review of when the minister has appeared, I saw that this is our twelfth meeting today. Is that correct, Mr. Chair? And he has appeared seven times where Mr. Kennedy has asked questions.

On February 12, he appeared for financial priorities of the federal government. On March 5, it was the economic stimulus package, where Mr. Kennedy asked questions. On February 10, it was supplementary estimates; on February 24, Bill C-9; and on March 24, Bill C-3. April 21 was for Bill C-7 and April 23 was main estimates. Those were two that he was going to appear at and was scheduled for except that he was sick.

What I'm suggesting, Mr. Kennedy, is that he has been here every time this committee has requested him to be here. I would suggest to you, sir, and to all members of this committee, that if they simply put the request in during the subcommittee or during the committee itself, he will try everything he possibly can to be here.

It's at just over half of the meetings we have had that he has been available to come forward, and some of them, agreed, are not transport; one was OGGO, another was finance. But indeed, if you have specific questions, and if you would like to have him appear in relation to infrastructure or other matters, certainly just bring it forward and we would be happy to make that request. You have the right to do it any way you wish.

My difficulty with this whole situation is...we've been working well together as a committee—different parties with different views and different priorities, and it's been working extremely well—and I would hate to see that change in any way, shape, or form.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I certainly wouldn't want to do or say anything to get in the way of the amicableness or the feelings of goodwill between committee members, but we may share a difference in terms of the relative accountability that's been achieved by the minister in his time here. Most of the time he's been called forward on bills chosen by him and his ministry to appear on.

I think there is a change that I believe is probably shared by everybody on this committee. It is now past April 1; there is new money that's been authorized. There is a new circumstance that this committee has not seen before in terms of the sheer volume of infrastructure moneys that the government intends to put forward. There are new processes and new accountabilities that have been talked about in various motions, and so on. I believe this committee is the only place that is going to be able to come to terms with that. There is no implied disrespect to say that the minister's valuable time is required for more because of that circumstance, that it's not a cursory visiting of those issues, but that we have some time.

What I really am glad to hear from the parliamentary secretary is that we should not see that there's any artificial limitation on the minister's time, that he is prepared to be accountable, as the committee sees fit to put forward, and in fact even as individual members of this committee may feel fit to exercise. I will take that in the spirit in which it's intended. When the minister is better, it sounds like we will have a two-hour discussion. If there are things that are unresolved at that time, then perhaps we can look to further cooperation from the government. I appreciate the implication of that from what the parliamentary secretary is saying. That's certainly what we're seeking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

I want to extend a hand to the other side because I have known Liberal ministers who were much less available than the current Minister of Transport. It must be acknowledged that he has made himself very available. I would like to invite him and ask to meet with him for two hours, if that would be agreeable to him. I repeat, some Liberal ministers were much less available than he has been. If we can meet with him for two hours, all the better. I would like for him to know ahead of time the reasons why we are inviting him, i.e., to discuss planned expenditures for one hour and a half and Bill C-7 for the remaining half hour. If he agrees to that, that would be fine, but I would not want to browbeat him, because he could revert to the habits of the former Liberals. That would complicate things somewhat.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci.

Monsieur Galipeau.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of everything I've heard so far, I wonder if Mr. Kennedy would agree to second a motion from this committee to wish the minister to get well soon.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Sir, I'd be happy to move that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It sounds positive.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Chairman, since the motion has been duly moved and seconded--actually, moved and moved--maybe we can call it carried.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are we all in favour?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Same vote for the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to ask about the motion.

Do we want to have a vote on it, or do we want...?

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

You already have consensus that we've accepted the minister's willingness to come before the committee for a couple of hours. I see our Bloc colleagues are in agreement. Government members are giving us assurances that the minister is coming.

As I said earlier on, mission accomplished. We just wish the minister a speedy recovery, and we'll see everybody on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

What we'll do is we'll express our best wishes to the minister. We'll also make a request for the minister, from this committee, for the two hours that he had been prepared for and had talked about before.

We do need something for Thursday. I guess I look to the committee on that. I do have one more piece of new business, but I'm trying to get this wrapped up first.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Could we move whatever we had on Tuesday to Thursday? If we can move it up, let's do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The challenge is to get the witnesses to come in on a day-and-a-half's notice. That's our real problem.

You know what? At the wishes of the group, maybe I'll call a one-hour subcommittee and we'll do a little more future planning. We will have more witnesses for the witness list anyway....

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if indeed the clerk could make a request to the witnesses to see if they would be prepared to move from Tuesday to Thursday. If that's not possible, then we can have the subcommittee meeting. We can leave it at his discretion in relation to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Fair enough. All right. Well, then, the notice....

We do have one more piece of new business.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to update you and the committee members on a meeting that took place approximately two weeks ago in Surrey. Attending were concerned citizens and members of Parliament from Fleetwood--Port Kells; Surrey North; South Surrey—White Rock--Cloverdale; myself from Newton—North Delta; and the representative for Delta--Richmond East, John Cummins.

The concern is that around maybe 2007, the flight path to the Vancouver airport was changed. It resulted in a lot of noise in those ridings, particularly in Dona Cadman's and Nina Grewal's.

There's a lot of resentment. I've been receiving hundreds of calls and thousands of e-mails from those fellows. I suggested to them that instead of just talking to us, maybe they should talk to the committee. They were willing to come out as a delegation. I wanted to give this to you as an information item, just so that you're prepared if and when they write to you.

I personally am concerned, as this concern is very general. All of the local political representatives, including mayors, and all the organizations and community groups were there. They had one voice: something has to be done. Of course, they understand that Nav Canada is at arm's length from the transportation ministry.

That's the end. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe, then Mr. Laframboise.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to say that even though we accept all of those concerns as legitimate, and of course they should receive the attention of this committee, the members that my colleague mentioned are all members of the government side. I think it would be perhaps best dealt with if it came forward as an item for our future business--I imagine that's what my colleague has done right now--and was discussed then, in future business.

If we're going to go into a steering committee on Thursday, perhaps we could discuss it then. Mr. Dhaliwal and some of the members of the government side might have some suggestions as to how we would proceed along the way.