Transport Committee on Oct. 26th, 2006

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

Does the amendment need unanimous consent? I'm just curious. I have no idea, so I'd like to know for the rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

No, it doesn't.

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

The first thing, as Mr. McGuinty would say, is that at this point in time it's very important. People are dying right now in rail accidents. We have some issues with security at airports. My main issue, and the government's issue, is the timing of this. We have some legislation before us. Safety is a primary purpose for which this committee has suggested we look at this as the most important issue, and security is certainly one of those issues. Mr. Laframboise has a motion that we want to support in getting that.

My concern as well is that we have, of course, citizen groups, and this Conservative government is moving forward with legislation to deal with tens of thousands of citizens' complaints on rail noise, fumes and environmental concerns, and even traffic congestion in Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, and Vancouver that affects the health, sleep, and sanity of so many Canadians. Why are these other parties blocking that legislation from happening?

I think those citizen groups are very concerned with that happening. We've heard from many citizens here who are very concerned. They can't sleep. Their health is affected. I'd like to know what the timing is.

Speaking for Mr. McGuinty, he wants to interrupt this legislation to bring this forward now. We have three to five more meetings, and I think we should get it done. If that happens, certainly we'll have no difficulty with the motion after that time, as long as Bill C-11 is dealt with first, and, I would suggest, Mr. Laframboise's motion immediately thereafter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I do have a list. Before I entertain any more, just for clarification, I didn't see any timeframe, Mr. McGuinty. Are you suggesting that it just become part of our agenda as time permits, similar to what Mr. Laframboise was so gracious to do, as far as deferring it until the bill was dealt with, or actually, until Mr. Duchesneau advises he could attend?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Sorry, I didn't address that question--Mr. Duchesneau. I admire Mr. Laframboise's courtesy in that regard, but if we could go back to Mr. Duchesneau for a moment, I find it very disrespectful of the president and CEO of a crown corporation for not attending here forthwith. Apparently he was available to meet with the minister on 24 hours' notice. We are a group of parliamentarians, MPs, and I cannot understand it. I will send my wife to pick him up. She can drive to Montreal in two hours and bring him back--if he's not available and can't find a driver or a car--to attend this meeting for two hours.

I find that actually very disrespectful to the committee, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

And I have advised the committee that I will be contacting him to try to speed up the process.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

With respect to this notice of motion, I think we should get to this earlier rather than later, because of the rumours circulating, because of the regular media reports now about infrastructure being on or off, because of the unprecedented involvement of a crown minister in a particular infrastructure project. There is a lot of uncertainty in Canadian society about what's going forward and how it's going forward.

The Minister of Transport said just this morning in a speech in Gatineau at the Hilton Hotel that the federal government has no intention whatsoever of getting involved in municipal matters. It was seriously challenged by the audience and by the media as a result of a comment. I think this is causing some uncertainty.

I'd like to get a better sense. It would very much help the committee forthwith--that is the word I'm looking for--to be able to hear on these projects, these applications, because I think it would help us dispel some uncertainty in Canada.

I'm not sure about other members of the committee, but I'm also hearing from P3 proponents who are now concerned about political risk costs associated with bidding on large infrastructure projects if indeed there will be a new degree of federal involvement once contracts are signed. This is now making it more difficult for some cities even to get the consortia they want to bid on their projects. I'm thinking chiefly now of the TTC and of Vancouver, the RAV line.

So I thought those would be important reasons for us to look at this within the next two weeks and to get some better indication.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think it's incorrect to suggest that this is inconsistent with the speedy passage of Bill C-11. The only thing we're doing on Bill C-11 now is listening to witnesses. Everybody submitted names for the witness list. We're doing this in due process. I can't see any holdup.

As to as dealing with urgent matters deserving of our attention, Kevin would know as well as anybody that the sitting time of this committee is not unusually onerous. When Kevin was a member of the justice committee with me, I can remember sitting five, six sessions a week. So if we want to deal with this, we should find the time to deal with it as an important matter. I don't think it's a reasonable objection to say we can't consider it because we're too busy doing what we're doing. There's time to do this, and I think it's worth it. We should do it quickly.

The infrastructure programs, big programs, important programs to Canada—I'll acknowledge that some of these have been extended. The municipal rural infrastructure, the border and highway infrastructure, have been extended by the government. But they're making policy decisions on these programs without our having any say in the matter. These are important public policy issues. Large amounts of money are being committed and uncommitted without any parliamentary oversight at all.

So I think we have to do this. We should use time that is not currently committed to dealing with Bill C-11, so nobody can charge that this is getting in the way of Bill C-11. I think we should do it forthwith. In our absence, there are important public policy decisions being taken on significant programs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm moving another amendment to include the word after “inventory”—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm sorry, we cannot move another amendment until we've dealt with this one.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

You haven't dealt with that one yet?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

No.

Mr. Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chairman, I simply want us to be on the same page. I don't think there is any urgent need to debate the motion. I tend to agree with Mr. Jean, in that we have adopted a work plan and now we must deal with Bill C-11, as quickly as possible. The motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities request the presence of senior infrastructure officials [...]

It doesn't specifically say at the next meeting or when exactly.

Getting back to my motion, I'm starting to run out of patience. I've been very nice and civil with Mr. Duchesneau, but my patience is wearing thin. I want to hear from him before we examine this matter, simply because the motion was tabled first. Therefore, I'm asking my colleagues to support me on this. I have no objections to discussing my motion after that. I might even have a small amendment to suggest later, but I have no objections at this time.

However, I do want us to have a debate. Mr. McGuinty, you mentioned earlier that according to Conservative members or to the Minister, municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction. That is consistent with the Bloc Québécois' position. Therefore, I can't fault the Conservatives for saying that constitutionally, municipalities are a provincial responsibility and that that the provinces must be included in the discussions. I don't want us to get off track. However, I would like to know the substance of these programs.

I'd like to suggest one small amendment -- I've spoken to you about it -- a little later, but right now, we need to focus on Bill C-11 first, hear from Mr. Duchesneau and then consider the motion. I don't have a problem with that. I'm prepared to hold a special meeting, if necessary. We made a promise to the public in so far as this bill is concerned. Therefore, I want us to adopt the legislation as quickly as possible and get on with matters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

In light of our timeframe, I'd like to make a suggestion.

I sense that there may be a willingness to organize some extra meetings. Perhaps we can deal with Mr. Duchesneau in that forum, rather than trying to fit him into this schedule. I would ask that we defer the decision on Mr. McGuinty's motion until the next meeting. In the interim, I will contact Mr. Duchesneau to see if we can reach him earlier. I will also provide the committee with the working list of the schedule that's coming up in the next three to four weeks. I will also provide options on bringing Mr. Duchesneau before the committee. Would this be acceptable?

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

It's just a question. When do we get the work plan? Did you actually say when?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll get it to the clerk by the end of today. We'll get it formalized and sent out to you by e-mail, along with the definition of how we can bring forward witnesses who don't seem to be appearing to cooperate with us.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I would agree with Monsieur Laframboise in terms of the order in which we would do this, with the possible exception that if we don't get our witness here in a timely fashion for some reason, I don't think we necessarily have to wait. The deputy minister for infrastructure can be here tomorrow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Right, and what I'm understanding is that we want to continue these regular committee meetings to deal with legislation. If necessary, we're then prepared to have second or third meetings to bring forward Mr. McGuinty's and Mr. Laframboise's issues.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I agree with you completely and I agree with Monsieur Laframboise completely, and to assuage the concerns of my colleagues on the other side, I don't want to hold up Bill C-11. I think Mr. Scott's suggestion of holding additional meetings—one for Monsieur Duchesneau—as soon as possible and moving immediately to begin looking for a time and place to deal with this motion and to convene infrastructure officials can happen contemporaneously with Bill C-11 discussions. I don't think anyone wants to delay the passage of Bill C-11. We have lots of meat to chew on and lots of amendments to consider, I'm sure.

But it would be unnecessary to delay it until next Tuesday, Mr. Chairman. We can probably move on the motion and continue the debate or put it to a vote. Perhaps we could then work with staff and the clerk to find additional times. I don't know if evenings are doable or not doable in terms of being able to convene. I just think this is of such import that we need to get some clarity around what's happening with booked, unbooked, and future projects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm just suggesting that if I can put together this schedule for the committee, I am asking for the committee's approval to move it to the next meeting in order to bring it to a vote, rather than trying to continue the debate tonight.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

We need the work plan to make an informed decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Would that be reasonable?

I'm not trying to defer this. I'm just trying to provide the committee with a work plan.

[An hon. member]

Why not just vote on it? Just vote.