Transport Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'm from the province of Alberta, and with the cities I'm familiar with, if there's a development proposal in the jurisdiction where another business is located, there's an opportunity for consultation and general comment by adjacent landowners or business owners. Is that currently applied across the country generally? Is there usually a requirement for local consultation whenever there's an application for a building or a change in use, or that type of requirement?

If so, is it simply the railways being lazy in wanting to be notified separately? With the laws and bylaws that are currently in place, wouldn't the railways already have an opportunity to be involved in the consultation on future development generally?

[Karen Leibovici]

You would think they would. I'm also from Alberta—Edmonton, actually—so I'm well aware of the way the public hearing process works, the notification process. But depending on the capacity with the municipalities, the smaller municipalities may not go through the same consultation process that a large municipality would go through.

What is the same is that there is a notification and there is the ability for the public to come. The public would include businesses and entities like the rail companies, who could make a presentation.

But again, to have a blanket...across the country I don't think will work when you look at the differences between provinces and territories.

[Merrill Henderson]

Could I also say that in the province of New Brunswick everybody is required by law to publish any zoning changes in the local newspaper.

As I said earlier, we have gone beyond that in our municipality. We notify each individual or business or homeowner in writing of any changes if they are within 100 metres of that area.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Henderson, in your municipality do you consider the railway as an adjacent business or landowner, so if there were an application to build next to the rail line, the company would be notified anyway?

[Merrill Henderson]

Very definitely.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

They would be. If it's anywhere along that corridor, they're going to be notified. If that were generally applied, I don't see that there would be a significant difference in municipalities across the country.

But you're saying it's best that it comes from the provincial level rather than the federal level.

[Merrill Henderson]

Yes, land planning is a provincial responsibility. As I said earlier, the requirement by our province is that we must provide notification in the local newspapers of any zoning changes. Our municipality has gone beyond that to notify each individual, in written form, of any zoning changes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

It sounds like for FCM this is more a matter of principle. Land-use jurisdiction is provincial and not federal, and therefore it should be negotiated in that context.

It's not necessarily the difficulty based on the differences from community to community. It has more to do with the principle of the application of what you perceive is a constitutional division between federal and provincial powers.

[Merrill Henderson]

Exactly.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Would you have any difficulty if the federal government, through an initiative, were to consult with the provinces? All provinces would then make a determination as to how they could apply a common application when dealing with railroads.

Would that be a more appropriate avenue, possibly?

[Karen Leibovici]

With municipalities at the table as well, of course.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Right. Okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

To our guests--I see no further questions--thank you for taking the time. You're in a beautiful part of the country; I hope you enjoy your weekend.

Don't let Mr. McCallum spend too much time with you in the afternoon.

Thank you very much.

[Karen Leibovici]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Members, we'll take a short recess.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back, everyone. We're moving into the business part of our committee meeting.

I've had a discussion with Mr. McCallum. He has agreed to defer the last two motions until the meeting on Tuesday, but he does want to present the motion that he brought forward as of February 24, 2011.

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

They would be deferred until Tuesday morning, correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes. You have the last hour of the Tuesday morning meeting.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

I would like to present this motion about the limousine drivers, but I'd ask my colleague Ruby Dhalla to both propose an amendment--the time proposed for the meeting on this motion no longer works--and say a few words about the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Before I ask for the amendment, we actually have to read the motion into the record and have it on record to do a change. You could also move the amendment yourself, since you're doing it for the first time--whatever is suitable for you.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would ask committee members to listen, because I suspect that some of the dialogue will be different from the printed word.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I move the following:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities hold a meeting on Thursday, March 24, 2011 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. to study the current situation with regard to airport limousine drivers at Pearson International Airport, that representatives of the drivers, the limousine companies, and the GTAA be asked to appear, that the Committee report its finding to the House, and that no motions, dilatory or otherwise, be entertained by the chair at said meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Does everybody understand that, with the changes?

Maybe I'll ask Chad to read it one more time. He has the changes as well.

Basically, the parts about dilatory motions and the time have been added.

Go ahead.

[Chad Mariage, Procedural Clerk]

As I understand it, Mr. Chair, the motion would read as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities hold a meeting on Thursday, March 24, 2011 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. to study the current situation with regard to airport limousine drivers at Pearson International Airport, that representatives of the drivers, the limousine companies, and the GTAA be asked to appear, that the Committee report its finding to the House, and that there will be no votes during this meeting, and that no motions, dilatory or otherwise, be entertained by the chair at said meeting.