Evidence of meeting #27 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Right. That would include pipeline, for example.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Yes, pipeline. So this is cleaner, and on that basis I'm satisfied. I'm very concerned, obviously, about the port. I have one in my riding, but I feel it's covered effectively and more transparently by this
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you.
On amendment G-2, I need a show of hands. All those in favour of G-2, please raise your hands.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This is something I guess we'll have to deal with at the report stage, Mr. Chair, but essentially we've made some amendments that help to restore some of what had been taken out of the former national transportation policy, but we haven't done so uniformly. And that's unfortunate, because in the end I think clause 2 could have been much more effective. As a result of that, unfortunately, I will be voting against clause 2 as amended.
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 3)
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We will move to the NDP amendment number 7, on page 9 in your program.
Mr. Julian.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We now move on to the whole issue of the transport agency and amendments to that. The issue is whether or not it is wise to reduce the agency from seven members to five members. Given the additional tasks that we are giving to the agency, it would seem to be prudent public administration to ensure that we continue to have the same size of agency. But one weakness that has obviously been identified is the fact that the agency doesn't necessarily have the representation from across the country that's required.
When we talk about things like railway noise or other issues of that nature, they're very regional, and we believe it would be important to have representation from right across the country. That's why we're proposing here that we would continue with a transport agency of seven members, one of whom--the chair--would be in the national capital region, and the other six of whom would be within the six regions of Canada, in the Atlantic provinces, of course,
in Quebec, in Ontario, in the Prairies, in British Columbia and in the territories. Representatives would be on site and would actually be able to do the work in their respective regions. That would allow for better representation and greater capacity to fulfill the mandate given to the Agency. That is why we are proposing to increase the number of Agency members to seven and spread them right across the country.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Very simply, I want to speak against the amendment proposed by Mr. Julian. First of all, the agency itself has been effectively operating with five members now for two years, and it's actually working. Second, this provision is actually intertwined with clause 5. If you want to take a quick look at clause 5, it is essential to improving the agency's efficiency. We're going to deal with that in a moment.
The other situation is that the act also allows, when specific expertise is required, for the appointment of up to three temporary members, and indeed, that the full members.... We can deal with that part in a minute.
This is the transportation industry. How do you decide what person represents what region? These people move around a lot. They go from job to job in different areas, because that's the nature of the business. The reality is that we have five members. There's an odd number. They won't be a stagnant board that's confronted with different issues from different regions, and indeed, it opens up a whole series of other complications that could only lead to an agency that's not going to be effective.
Their mandate, Mr. Chair, is to represent all of Canada and to represent all areas and regions of Canada. It would be, quite frankly, very cumbersome and confrontational to suggest that they should specifically represent one particular region. Their job is to represent all regions and to make sure that the job is done for all Canadians, not just specifically one or two regions.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
We put questions to the man in charge of the Agency. He told us the number of members was sufficient to do the job. We’re in agreement with the proposal tabled by the government and we will be voting against Mr. Julian’s amendment.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
I actually like the motion by Mr. Julian, and there is a follow-up motion on the issue--since Mr. Jean referred us to clause 5, which is on where the members shall reside. There is a proposal to change that to say that the chairperson shall reside in the national capital.
The idea of having representatives who come from the various regions, such as Quebec and Ontario, such as the Atlantic, such as British Columbia and the prairie provinces, ensures that the concerns of those areas are brought to the table. Many of us have served in other elected bodies, as we do, in fact, as members of Parliament. We reside in our ridings. Although we may think we reside in the national capital, we actually reside in our ridings, and yet when we come here, we are not supposed to vote only on what's of interest to our riding. We vote on what's good for Canada.
Whether it's a member of a municipal council who lives in a particular part of a municipality or members of a provincial government--a legislative assembly--who represent different parts of a province, when they come together, they vote in the interest of the larger body. In fact, part of the swearing-in ceremony for each of those levels is that they will take into account the interests of the corporation or the body to which elected.
I don't think there would be a problem. It would result in more focused representation. It would be recognized that there may be a cost difference, but a greater number is better, and representation by the areas is better.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Very quickly, I'd just like to respond to that.
How do you decide in this kind of industry where they come from? Does that mean they had to be born there? Does that mean they had to live there for two years? The problem is that this is a business operation where people travel from place to place, from city to city. In this particular case, we have Vancouver, Montreal, and Windsor, which are major nodes of transportation or places that we put people through. Does that mean that because we have one person who is excellent on the board from Montreal we can't appoint anybody else from Montreal who may add a lot to this agency?
What we are doing is tying our hands, and it's going to lead to a series of problems. This is not an elected body. This is an agency appointed by the government to make sure that the transportation issues that Canadians have are dealt with and are dealt with well.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'm a little surprised that the parliamentary secretary, basically, is saying that he doesn't think anybody from British Columbia would qualify for something like this.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
No, because right now what is contained within this bill that's before us is that all those members will reside in the national capital region—all of them. So there's no representation from British Columbia or Atlantic Canada or the Prairies.
Now, we live in one of the most geographically complex nations on earth, with probably the greatest transportation challenges on the planet, and we're putting everybody in Ottawa, assuming, essentially, that the folks who would be applying for these positions are people who are interested in living in the national capital region. I would profoundly disagree with the parliamentary secretary that people from British Columbia aren't qualified, people from the prairie provinces aren't qualified, and people from Atlantic Canada or Quebec aren't qualified.
What we would be getting would be the most effective, best possible people for the job, and those people would be in the regions. They'd actually know what's going on, on the ground, with the various transportation modes in British Columbia being substantially different from the transportation challenges in the north or in Atlantic Canada.
Or even in Quebec.
My motion offers people the possibility of living at home, in Quebec, in Montreal, in Vancouver. They’re in the industry and they understand the needs and challenges in terms of transportation and they are able to respond to them.
This is a reaction we’re seeing more and more often in the regions of Canada. People are tired of seeing decisions being made in Ottawa, in a limited way, and often solely in Ottawa’s interest. My proposal is aimed at strengthening the work and the mandate of the Agency in the regions, by putting its reliance on a solid understanding of regional realities. I don’t think that’s a lot to ask.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Before I recognize Mr. Laframboise, I'm going to ask Ms. Borges to comment on that, if you might, please.
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
I think there are two issues here. There's the number of members. Currently, we have seven, and we have had seven since the bill was introduced in 1996. You may be surprised, you may not be, but the members, since 1996, have come from all regions of Canada. In fact, the chair, who just left this year, was from Vancouver.
Alain from the agency has joined us at the department. Among the members right now, there's basically a member from each region, right?
Why we are proposing to reduce the numbers and have them reside in the national capital region after their appointment--they don't have to reside in the national capital region to be appointed, it's to have them here once they are appointed--is an efficiency measure. Right now, when they are hearing a case--we know this for a fact, and I think the agency told you this when they came here--we are having to fax papers and documents out to the regions, wherever these people are, and often, when it's a very complicated matter, sending paper and doing things by phone just doesn't work.
So the government is prepared to have them move here, once they are appointed, for the five years and pay the expenses for moving them here, and to then gain the productivity benefits of having them here and working. They still travel. They go out and hear cases all over the place. They do that today. They will continue to do that. The way the government normally fills these kinds of positions is that they look throughout Canada for the expertise, and the expertise is based on knowledge of transportation and expertise in transportation, and then they look at people coming from different parts of Canada.
But we don't need to include that in here. We don't include it in any of the other places. And all of them have representation, I think you would agree, from most parts of the country. We've had that since 1996.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
My comments are along the lines of Mme Borges’. When we asked the question, we were told that the members of the Agency can come from all over Canada. Once they’re appointed, they have a “pied-à-terre” here, they reside here for efficiency’s sake. I think it’s easy to understand. It’s just to be more efficient and save money; I hope we all understand that. Maybe in the long term, by saving, we’ll manage to fix the fiscal imbalance.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
I think there are certain inefficiencies that are inherent in the country. To some extent, if you go too far to try to deal with those inefficiencies, I think you do some damage to what is inherently the country. I think in this case, this is one of them.
I want to disassociate myself from the suggestion that this suggests or that the government would suggest that there weren't competent people. I don't think it's about that. I do think there is a certain inherent value in having people who are located in different parts of Canada on a permanent basis. You said yourself that there's a lot of travel involved. So the reality is that where it is you call your base, it might be better to have that be something other than just here. I don't think you necessarily have to compromise competence to get that. But I do find it wildly ironic that I'm arguing for the regions against the government across the way, and they're invoking comments of the law society in support of their arguments. The world is coming...anyway, I'll....