Transport Committee on March 21st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Perhaps before you answer that, Mr. Maurino, I would say to Mr. Fast that I think the witness may have an opinion as to how it should be done, but I don't think he should necessarily comment directly on this legislation.

You're here as an expert in the SMS field, Mr. Maurino, not necessarily an expert in government law.

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

The reason I wouldn't like to comment is not necessarily because I want to bail out, but because I have not had the time to read the act in detail. I was only told last Friday that I would be coming here.

On a superficial reading, it doesn't indicate anything to me one way or the other. I don't see anything obvious that would lead me to believe one thing or the other.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Typically, would you expect SMS to be integrated into a regulatory framework?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your attendance here. From my perspective, and I'm sure the committee's, we've gained a lot of knowledge from your presentation today and we appreciate it, Mr. Maurino.

Thank you.

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The committee is going to take a five-minute recess, and then we'll come back to deal with Mr. Julian's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and welcome back.

The second part of this afternoon's agenda deals with committee business and Mr. Julian's motion.

I do want to acknowledge that I have submitted a report of the subcommittee, which you've received. I don't need a motion or anything. I just wanted to make people aware of what was discussed at last night's committee.

Mr. Volpe.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I was really offended by the unsociable manner in which you treated me, a colleague of yours in this committee, yesterday in debates. After being such a nice guy and trying to be so cooperative, you went after me with a vengeance. I almost thought you were a member of the Conservative Party.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

You did a great job, Mr. Chair. You stood up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Well, I would draw the honourable member's attention to my opening comments, where I paid him one of the nicest compliments I could possibly give.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Now we'll all expect compliments, Mr. Chair.

I will quickly go to my motion. I don't think it will be controversial at all.

There's a National Marine and Industrial Council, as many members know, which is comprised of deputy ministers of Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, and Transport Canada; an associate deputy minister from Industry Canada; and nine industry representatives selected from the chief executive officers of Canadian companies only. This National Marine and Industrial Council advises the government on marine policy. There is about $140,000 a year of taxpayers' money that goes into supporting the NMIC. Very clearly we have a committee that advises the government on policy--a very important, high-powered committee--and it doesn't involve workers from the industry itself.

The motion is simply to rejig the National Marine and Industrial Council so that it will include labour, a broader base of marine and industry stakeholders, and will provide an inclusive forum for Canada's national maritime transportation policy development. It's simply a way of giving better, more inclusive advice to government.

As I say, given that this is funded by our government, it really needs to respond to the stakeholders within the marine industry. I hope it will get support from all four corners of this committee table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I have done some inquiries with respect to this. One of the questions--and we don't really have any staff here to comment--is just how effective this committee has been. I'm referring now to the existing committee. I know we have CMAC, which reports I think twice a year, and then this committee, which meets more often.

Some of the members I spoke to suggested that in fact Mr. Julian's recommendation--and whether it's a replacement committee or an expansion of the existing membership, the concept is to perhaps add more stakeholders, labour in particular--would be appropriate. These were informal comments; nobody really wanted to go on the record. But in the discussion I had with them, they felt this would benefit the discussions by having a greater range of input.

From a pragmatic point of view, I don't know whether the recommendation is to simply expand rather than replace...in effect by the portion of Mr. Julian's motion stating “labour, a broader base of marine and industry stakeholders”, or to do as he suggests, which would result in a name change from National Marine and Industrial Council to the National Marine Policy Advisory Council. The feedback I've had from those involved is that the concept of expanding it would be good.

If there's no one who has any particular suggestions, I'm prepared to support the motion the way it is, or a variation that would simply expand the existing NMIC to include the recommendations in Mr. Julian's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you.

First of all, I am curious as to who you had the discussions with. I'm not asking for names, but what do they do for a living? Are they on this council?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes.

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

They are members of the council?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes.

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

That's interesting. How many people were affirmative on it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, I think we should deal directly with Mr. Julian's motion.

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

Certainly, I would like to comment on that anyway.

The objective of the council, I understand, is to promote the benefits of the Canadian marine industry as an economic generator. Certainly, I think that's important.

The thing to recognize as well in this particular case is that they meet a couple of times a year. As Mr. Julian said, taxpayers are footing the bill for a portion. All the time of the industry people is voluntary. I understand the wage component is simply staff from the government, not any of the marine industry stakeholders. This council was put in place because of a request by the stakeholders, the marine council stakeholders, and it was a Liberal initiative to do so.

I'm curious as to why, if labour is a component they want to put in now, it wasn't included at the time. Certainly, the government at that time responded to the request of industry and didn't include labour, and why they'd want to change that now, I'm not really sure.

I did some research. It does have transparent reporting of all its activities on its website. They've stated they've seen a considerable improvement in the exchange of information between the government departments and between government and industry in particular.

Finally, the membership itself was determined by the people who asked for the industry council to be set up, and that is the stakeholders. That's why I was wondering about what Mr. Bell said, because they're the ones who asked for the membership to not include--or at least they didn't ask for labour or union representatives to be included, so why are we now getting a conflicting message? That's why I was asking Mr. Bell, because I just don't understand that.

I wonder how they would feel about that representation being made now, if indeed they may feel it would work contrary to the purpose of what we're trying to do, and that is a better exchange of information between the government and industry, which they say is very effective, to date.

So I think the motion is a good motion, depending of course on what the council will bring forward. I'd like to hear from them, either as a group or informally, as to whether or not they want this motion, because they're the ones who asked for it to be set up. A Liberal government supported it to be set up. It seems to make sense that if we're hearing contrary opinions today, we should wait to hear from the horse's mouth to find out whether they want it to be. Very possibly, it would hinder the continual good exchange of information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're not often in a position where we take accolades for actions done in the past, while we were wearing a different hat.

The motion is really quite inoffensive. It says this committee would make a recommendation, and government is always free to say yea or nay. In the wisdom of this committee, perhaps the decisions made in the past with respect to the composition of the council, to which the government would be going for advice, might not have been as inclusive as the start-up members expected it would be when they looked around the table and saw themselves and said they should be the council and we said fine. A lot of things have happened since then.

The suggestion that you might have another interest at the table or at least another dimension of the industry at the table is not an offensive one and it's not one that's negative or takes away from anything. All in all, I think the motion really says, from the perspective of the committee, from what we've learned over the course of the last year, the last two years, whether we have had ongoing conversations with every one of the council members or whether there are people who now see that council is having an impact on public policy and would like to be a part of that dynamic, it's secondary. The motion really says, why don't we as a committee recommend that the government expand the horizons of the composition, and then the government can make whatever decision it wants?

So I think as a motion it fulfills a good initiative, and I'd support it.