Finance Committee on Nov. 17th, 2014

[Dr. David J. Scott]

Leaving aside the question of additional resources, even with existing resources, I think we could have richer and deeper scientific understanding and enhanced knowledge by better sharing the information that's already out there.

My colleague Dr. Hik certainly referenced that even if we were better at planning our approaches to future knowledge creation campaigns, research in the field for example, we could probably create more knowledge with the existing resources if we used our resources collectively a little more efficiently.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

How good are we at communicating that message of the north to the rest of Canada?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Make just a brief response, please.

[Dr. David J. Scott]

We're pretty good. We're trying to be better. I think with the revolution in social media, we're starting to take some baby steps in sharing it much better and much more broadly, in a much more open way.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Doctor.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Adler.

I'm going to pose a few questions here.

I wanted to follow up with Mr. Gooch on your presentation, and I appreciate your presentation very much.

Similar to Mr. Scarpaleggia I have an airport in my riding, Edmonton International Airport. I'm very proud of it. It's an outstanding airport, an outstanding organization.

In terms of why the minister is introducing these new authorities, the briefing book that members have been given makes a couple of statements:

Canadians are becoming increasingly frustrated by the absence of formal consultation requirements prior to aerodrome development and are concerned that they do not have an opportunity to raise their concerns.... Furthermore, the Aeronautics Act does not provide for the express authority to develop regulations to require aerodrome proponents to consult land use authorities and affected stakeholders. The proposed amendments would address these issues.

Further to Mr. Allen's point, if there's a way in which you can see the amendments going forward, but in language that comforts you more....

I'll describe a situation in my area. The airport is expanding. It has two runways. It wants to add a third runway. Adding a third runway puts it across Highway 19 in my area, which is a highway that the provincial government is going to twin because the highway has had an awful lot of accidents resulting in death. It's a very serious issue. It also goes through an awful lot of landowner property. So you have the landowner property, you have the provincial government, you have the third runway, you have the noise regulations, which then inhibit any future development, and a lot of farmers have been counting on that, so a lot of people come to me, as a federal MP.

The airport has been very good with me, in including me in any discussion, but further to Mr. Scarpaleggia's point, the airport could say there's no federal requirement here for the minister to respond, so it's up to the province and Leduc County and the municipalities to sort this out. Whereas I think residents in that area look to their federal member of Parliament, look to the federal government, and say that airports are federal, that I, as the MP, and the Minister of Transport should have some role in resolving this, especially in ensuring that some formal consultation is done on an issue like this.

It seems to me this is exactly why these legislative amendments are being proposed: to deal with the situation I have in my riding. Again, full respect to the airport and the way they've handled themselves, but I think residents in that community would very much agree with what's being proposed here.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I assume, when you are referring to change, you're referring to the Edmonton International Airport. When our members make major infrastructure development decisions, there is a consultation process in the community, as well as with the users of the airports. Those are designed locally by the airport authority, and a lot of the parameters for it are set out in the ground leases between the airport authorities and the federal government.

Certainly, for the minister to be brought back into the decision-making, there may be an interest in making such a change, but that would represent a significant departure from the national airports policy. So what we're saying is, first of all, that is not what we understood to be the basis for these amendments.

If there is an interest in amendments by applying these to the types of decisions and projects that national airports embark upon, that would entail a renewal of the national airports policy. We understand that is not the current intent of the department, but certainly, if that is the intent of either this government or another government, amendments to the Aeronautics Act, put into an omnibus bill, would not be the best way to go about making such a fundamental change to airport policy in this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

But do you disagree with the rationale that I read to you from the briefing notes?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

For the private aerodromes for which we understood this to be intended, it sounds like a reasonable rationale.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you want it restricted to private aerodromes? If we restrict it to language like that, would you be okay with the amendments?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Unfortunately, my time is up.

Mr. Van Kesteren, there is time for a brief round and I think we have bells at 6:30.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for coming.

Ms. McIntyre, the measure that you're referring to, that you find objectionable, is actually—and I just want you to maybe clarify if you're in agreement with this—the Canada Health Act of 1985. It provides provinces and territories with the ability to impose minimum periods of residence up to three months before a person becomes eligible.

Would you agree with that? Currently, the health care act gives the provinces three months to supply health care before a person is eligible.

[Jenn McIntyre]

We're not talking about the health care act here—

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I'm just asking, would you agree with that?

[Jenn McIntyre]

The difference is that refugee claimants are covered for health care by an alternative, or they were until those were cut. I don't really think that this is a necessary comparison.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Let me clarify. As it stands now, the federal government can, I guess, enforce what the provinces need to enact as far as health care. Would you agree with that?

As it stands now, the federal government is in a position to say to the provinces—the way the current legislation reads—that this type of health care has to be provided for.

What we're basically doing, and I'll go to the second stage, is giving the provinces the right to administer health care as they see fit. Would you agree with that? Are there any provinces that have said that they will withhold health care for refugees?

[Jenn McIntyre]

Well, we're not talking about health care—

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

But it is health care.

[Jenn McIntyre]

No, social assistance is paying for rent—

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Of course, social assistance comes out of the transfer payments, so it's health care and social assistance, yes.

[Jenn McIntyre]

Yes, those two things are very different, though.

When health care was enacted to have the three-month residency requirements in Ontario for OHIP, for example, there was an alternative provision for the interim federal health care program, which provided health care from a federal level to refugee claimants.

If you're asking if this residency requirement is going to be allowed if the federal government steps up with a federal program to provide social assistance to refugee claimants, then I would—

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I guess what I'm asking is whether you're seeing any indication from the provinces that they're saying, “Oh, great; once you've withdrawn that, we're not going to provide that service to refugees”.

[Jenn McIntyre]

The provinces have confirmed that they haven't asked for this.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

So in essence we've just pretty much established that, as it's part of the health care act, they have that power. Nothing is really going to change; they just have that power.