Transport Committee on June 18th, 2009

[Robert Paddon]

I believe that study was the city's initiative. It was sponsored by the International Gas Association and looked out 100 years. Yes, we have reviewed that documentation, and we stay in touch with many of the stakeholders that have participated in its development.

Our horizon at this point has been very focused on the next 30 years. We're working very closely with the metro Vancouver regional district, which is also developing, concurrent with our transportation plan for the region, a land use plan and a growth management strategy that will match. It's also looking out 30 years. I believe these are very complementary in terms of where we could be going in the future.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Dhaliwal, you have the final question.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Paddon.

As Mr. Mayes mentioned, the cruise lines are moving out of Vancouver to Seattle just for $300 a passenger. When we talk about the second train that you mentioned from Seattle to Vancouver and CBSA, this government is going to charge $1,200 a train. Amtrak is putting a lot of money on their side. What is your opinion? Do you think that $1,200 should be waived to encourage that second train goal?

[Robert Paddon]

It's not my place to comment on how government agencies should do their cost recovery.

Having said that, it is clearly an obstacle from Amtrak's perspective today. Many years ago we were able to bring some interest to the table. The BNSF Railway invested its capital into the Colebrook siding, which was the first step in terms of making it possible even to have a second train come into our region. There was some other support from the provincial government into that project at that time.

I will leave those negotiations between the border service and others, but I just think for a cost of that level to be a barrier to being able to put in place a train service.... We would very much like to have that service for the Olympics next year. We would like to minimize the number of automobiles coming into our region, as we hope to make these the sustainable games. We know if there isn't an alternative, people will bring their cars, and once they bring their cars, they will use their cars. They are going to have a hard time using their cars in this region during the Olympics. We would like to see that second rail service in place.

Again, sir, I can't speak to and I would not want to comment on how those negotiations are going. I hope they can be resolved, but clearly it seems to be a challenge for Amtrak to be able to address that financial challenge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Iacobacci, do you have you any final comment?

Okay. I thank you both for being here and being there. We appreciate your input to our committee's deliberations, and we look forward to studying it continually and hopefully coming up with a resolution that serves all Canadians.

Thank you very much.

For the committee, we are going to take a one-minute break while we clear the room, because we're going to go in camera to finish our discussions from Tuesday.

Mr. Volpe, on a point of order.

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

I have a motion on the table that I would like to have raised. I gave notice of it last week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We need the attention of all committee members. We have a motion on the floor.

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

It's a motion that I raised last week about our dealing with the Mint and officials and the minister from the Mint. I think you are getting a copy of that motion as we speak, and while you are getting it, I'd like to read it to you.

Given that over the course of the last week, the integrity of the Royal Canadian Mint and Canada's international reputation has been damaged by inconsistent and contradictory information by the Royal Canadian Mint...

It sounds as though it was written by a lawyer.

Are there any lawyers present? No. Okay, nobody took the bait on that.

Let me continue:

...the chairman of the Royal Canadian Mint, and the minister of state regarding the apparent loss of a significant amount of gold, silver, platinum and palladium; be it resolved that the minister of state, the chairman of the board of directors of the Royal Canadian Mint and its president and CEO appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity to clarify the state of the investigation and the directions going forward.

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

Was this motion presented now?

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

No, that's the one I gave you about a week ago.

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

I just wasn't sure if it was the same motion or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll advise the committee that the motion is out of order in the sense that a motion should not contain any objectionable or irregular wording. It should not be argumentative or written in the style of a speech. We can, with agreement from the committee, eliminate the preamble and move from “be it resolved”.

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if the mover of this motion would be prepared to leave the motion tabled with the committee and make changes as necessary to conform with orders. However, at this stage there is an RCMP investigation ongoing in the Mint, and I would suggest that any evidence we would receive from those people would in fact be out of order, given the nature of the RCMP investigation. Why don't we let the RCMP do the work they're hired to do and that they're so competent at doing, and then deal with this matter in the fall?

My issue is twofold. The first part is that, quite frankly, there's an ongoing investigation, so what we would find would be limited if nothing else. Secondly, we have a short period of time in which to discuss how we would like the analyst to finalize this report, being that it's extremely likely this is the last meeting we will be having before the session ends. That is my concern.

I know Mr. Volpe has to leave right after five, and it would be my desire to have his input during the entire discussion just because he has been one of the few committee members—in fact I think the only Liberal member sitting on that side today—who has been here for every single meeting except for half a meeting one day. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Dhaliwal, and of course Mr. Rae is not here full-time, but certainly Mr. Volpe's participation in that discussion would be very helpful.

I would suggest that we move to deal with this motion at the end or deal with it at the next meeting or when we reconvene in the fall. Maybe it could be written in the proper order at that time to conform with the rules. Then we can get on with the purpose of this meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I just have to say that the debate cannot continue until Mr. Volpe determines whether he wants to remove the preamble to the motion. If he does, then I'll open the floor up for debate; if not, I will rule it out of order.

Mr. Volpe.

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

I suppose just to keep it going, I would say I would remove the argumentative part, but I accept the argument that we won't be able to meet until September, so I'll defer my decision until then. I'll keep it on the table until the first meeting in September and make my decision about what adjustments I'd like to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That sounds good. So we'll move into other committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]