Transport Committee on Feb. 28th, 2008

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's meeting.

This is meeting 14 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I apologize for starting a few minutes late.

We've set aside the first 15 minutes to do some committee business, and I have a little bit of a list here. We'll maybe go through it, and then if there are other comments, we can add to it.

The subcommittee met and made a proposal that we actually do the study on navigable waters. But as a collective group, we needed to bring that back to the committee as a whole for approval. I put that out there as the first thing we have to do. So I would ask the committee as a whole if there are any comments on the subcommittee's report.

It was agreed that officials from Transport Canada would appear today with respect to navigable waters, and it was also agreed that we would invite the Minister of Transport to appear before the committee with respect to supplementary estimates B. I can give the committee an update on that. The minister is, at this point, unavailable to attend, but I can advise the committee that the main estimates of the government are to be tabled no later than March 1, which would be today or tomorrow. And then the committee will have until May 31 to study them. I would hope that the minister would make himself available to appear before the committee to discuss the main estimates.

Are there any comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

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

Very quickly, I wanted to make sure, after Mr. Masse commented last time.... My understanding is, and I've been informed, that first of all, it's less than $3 million. The estimate is a rounding up. The $3 million is actually a rounding error. That's what your questions are going to be centred on. Three million dollars, in the overall budget, although it's a lot of money to taxpayers, is not a very large amount. And quite frankly, it's not additional funds for any specific project or a change in the government's agenda. It's simply a rounding error. That was my understanding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll go to Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am glad the government has finally admitted that it's not perfect. It took two years. Nevertheless, it's a start.

I'm comfortable with that if we have time for the main estimates, but I will retable my motion, just so I'm not differing from what we agreed at subcommittee we were going to do up until the recess. I will retable my motion so it'll be on the table for consideration when we come back from the recess.

Thank you.

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

I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chair. I never said we weren't perfect. I just want to make sure that's on the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think this is where the chair says that's debate, not a point.

With the agreement of the committee, I will ask that we approve the subcommittee's agenda, and that way it will allow us to proceed today.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you. The subcommittee's recommendations have been accepted by the committee.

I just wanted to let you know, too, that the guidance document provided by Mr. Grégoire on February 12 has been distributed to us. They modified page 3, which deals with applications received and approved from 1999 to 2007. I just want to make sure you have that in your packets.

Mr. Jean.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to steal the thunder, but I wanted to make sure I dealt with some issues.

I'm worried about the agenda. We've been very successful as a committee, and I'm just worried we're running out of things to do. I'd like to propose at the earliest possible time, which is right now, a list of some of the witnesses that we might hear here in Ottawa before we get on the road, if indeed that's possible. I thought I would propose a list that I was going through this morning.

I did have a chance actually to look at the information provided by the department, and quite frankly, I found it very helpful. There was a study of five or six different jurisdictions around the country. If you haven't had a chance to read it.... It really gave me a good synopsis of what's happening in the rest of the world and what our problems are here.

For some of the witnesses, I was going to propose that we start off with the departments, because I think they would be most readily available and easiest to get to. I thought, subject of course to any greater wisdom than mine, that we would have to talk to DFO, Natural Resources, Environment Canada, and indeed Infrastructure, because of course it is a separate department. Those are the ones that I saw as most seriously connected to navigable waterways as far as what's taking place with them.

And then I also thought, at the same time, while we're listening to those witnesses, we could send out an invitation to all the provinces. I know that Alberta would like to have some input. I believe that Quebec would as well, because of some issues that are going on there, and I know Ontario would. As well, I thought that the FCM would be a good witness to bring forward, because it deals with the bigger municipalities, as well as the smaller provincial municipality organizations such as SARM, AMM, and AMO in Ontario.

Those were some of the ideas that I had, but certainly I'd like to banter it around as much as anybody wants. I thought what we could do is listen to more or less the organizations, the governments, and the departments here at this level, and then when we go around the country, if that is indeed possible, we can get input from stakeholders on the ground that aren't really department- or government-organized.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

My recollection from the subcommittee meeting was that we weren't going to go that far down the path and look at travel and so forth. We were going to do a review and then get a proposal back to us, because I do have a motion that I actually think is important committee business that needs to be considered, especially if we're now going another step.

My interpretation of our subcommittee resolution was not that we would start getting travel and so forth going prior to getting a report back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

What I was suggesting at this stage.... I just knew that it's going to take a couple of weeks to organize everything, as far as any travel that's going to be done or as far as our agenda. In the meantime--and I'm not saying whether we do it or don't do it, as I think it's obviously up to all the parties' whips and whether or not we're in a situation of confidence votes or whatever the case is--we're running out of an agenda here. So my thought is just to move forward on these that we can do at this stage and that we know are important and then go on to the other.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just before I recognize Monsieur Laframboise, I know we sent a letter to the department asking them basically to identify the low-hanging fruit and how we could move. I think that there's some reluctance to do that, simply because it may change the way we're looking at things and I don't think we want that to happen.

I think we want to take a hard look at this and make our recommendations as opposed to just accepting what the department.... I know the discussion at the subcommittee was to make it happen so things could happen faster, but I think there's probably some concern that the department doesn't want to be seen as leading this recommendation as opposed to accepting the recommendations of the committee.

Mr. Masse, I do have Mr. Laframboise, but did you want--

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'll wait in line.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I just want to ask this. By tabling your document again today, did you want that to become an item to be discussed today before we move on?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, I do. I was waiting to hold that back, but now it sounds like we have a different set of circumstances today from when we had at our subcommittee meeting, and I wasn't aware of that. We also have the rail study as well. So now I think we perhaps need to have another subcommittee meeting or something to discuss about future committee business if we're going to be departing from what was agreed upon in the subcommittee.

I don't think we're running out of--I mean, we may right now be running out of things to do officially, in terms of having no bills in front of us and so forth. I'm offering something. I know I'm getting a lot of calls and letters of support to have the motion that I've prepared examined, and amended, if my colleagues have improvements to it, and I see that as a greater priority than the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chair, according to what I understood from the subcommittee's discussions, we asked Mr. Masse not to withdraw his motion and to present it again when we were in a better position to discuss it. But there is one urgent matter: the discussion on navigable waters. Are we going to decide to deal with the question in Ottawa and summon witnesses? We could discuss it after having asked the department some questions.

I am hoping that my colleagues agree with me that the navigable waters file is so important that we will be able to deal with is as quickly as possible. If amendments can be made quickly, let us make them. As you said, this is about the low-hanging fruit. Then we can go on our tour of Canada.

Mr. Masse's file is important, but if we tour Canada, we will be able to use the occasion to deal with matters other than the one that Mr. Masse has tabled. I do not want him to change the agenda today. Let us deal with the navigable waters, and then we can deal with his motion. That is what I want him to do. If he wants to present his motion right away, I will vote against it and that will be that. It will depend on what the government decides. If it wants to work with us, let us deal with the navigable waters matter and then we can make a decision about our tour of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

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

Well, Mr. Chair, I don't want to engage in this particular debate, other than, as Mr. Jean said a few moments ago, we're running out of things to do. We're not. I just want to clarify that, because we rely on the government to do something, some initiative, and we respond to the initiatives that come before the House, unless we generate some of our own.

I think there are a couple of things still in the House that were left in abeyance. Now that the rhetoric about a potential election seems to have quieted, at least momentarily, I'm going to ask Mr. Jean whether, for example, the Pilotage Act is coming back, whether Bill C-14 is coming back, and given that the minister has made several announcements regarding infrastructure—and this committee is part of the infrastructure portfolio of the minister—whether we are going to be looking at any issues that relate to some of his announcements, specifically one that relates to Mr. Masse's motion, for example, the investments and transport capacities and security issues, bridges, etc. Do we in fact have an opportunity to go deeper into the issues related to transport?

The minister has made several announcements regarding automobiles and the efficiency standards associated with fuel consumption. All of these are part and parcel of the mandate of the minister. He's not just a transport minister, he's the minister for several other things. I'm just wondering whether he'd give us an indication of the directions we're going to pursue over the course of the next little while, given that we're just anxious to do more than what is normally asked of us, to ensure that the government functions in a capacity that would make Canadians feel comfortable that they eschewed the opportunity to go to an election.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

First of all, I want to say that I think the reality is two things. The first is that I think this committee is working very efficiently and pushing through a lot of legislation and being successful. That's one of the reasons that we are well ahead of expectation. That might be as a result of this Conservative government's being so efficient--I'm not sure on that, Mr. Volpe.

But all that election rhetoric aside, I think the long and the fast is that on Mr. Masse's motion.... I think navigable waterways is critical to the motion, and I would argue that. I'd like to talk about the $33 billion we've allocated that is going to be rolled out soon. That money, as you know.... The application for navigable waterways is directly connected to just about all infrastructure in this country. One way or the other, any road that's going to be built is going to go across water or is going to in some way be impeded by water or involved with it.

I think the most important thing we can do.... I know that with Mr. Masse's motion, if we go to these things.... If I were in one of those cities and listening to people, I know what I would hear and I know what I would say. I would say, “Give me money, give me money, give me money.”

Well, money is not the answer. What we're suggesting as a government is to say here's part of the problem, and here's something we can fix. Here's something we can work on as a committee before the $33 billion starts to be rolled out in big numbers.

There is an eleven-month average wait for a navigable waterway application. So this is something that holds up a lot of investment in the country and a lot of efficiency in the country, and here's something, before we get too close to throwing the $33 billion wherever it may be invested across the country.... And you know, the $130 billion that we have as a deficit now in infrastructure across this country.... Here's an opportunity to speed up the process and to do something that Canadians are going to see good results on. That's why I think this is so important.

In terms of our agenda on the other items that you've asked about, Mr. Volpe, it's really beyond my pay grade. I don't know what's happening with those particular pieces of legislation at this stage. I know that we did our work on it, and I'm not sure when it would be coming back or whether it's a priority of the government.

But I would agree with Mr. Laframboise. I think the major priority for this committee at this stage is navigable waterways, because it's so directly connected to infrastructure investment across the country. It's an issue of a 130-year piece of legislation that needs to be updated. And maybe, just maybe, we could get consensus among this group, which I think we can, with some basic changes that are going to get us really good results.

To point directly to Mr. Masse's constituency, I think it's absolutely critical to solve the issues with navigable waterways in order to speed up the process and be more efficient. I really think it's important.

Did that answer all of your questions, Mr. Volpe?

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

No, but at the risk of sounding a little bit too concise, I'm going to reflect on the issue that we discussed when we met as a steering committee, and that was that yes, we were going to go ahead with navigable waterways after we had listened to the department, and that we would make an additional decision on the extent to which we would engage the time and energy of this committee.

So I'm still in that vein. I'm not suggesting that we don't do it. I'm simply looking at where we would go from there. You're asking me to speculate on what's going to happen after we listen to the department today and what kind of timetable we'd put forward. Because you asked me to speculate, I've responded by saying that we have other issues on the table that we can now address, simply because it appears that we are going to be afforded the time to do some valuable work.

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

I would like to respond, if I may, because I didn't answer one of his questions, and actually a comment made earlier. Mr. Bell is here now.

My understanding is that before Easter, the railway review will be tabled. So I think that's the other thing--we have maybe two weeks in which we can deal with navigable waterways, and then I would suggest that after we've had probably a week to review that when we receive it, you know there are going to be other questions. It may be possible that the committee will say we have to put navigable waterways aside for a little while, and now let's concentrate on the rail study.

That's the sense of urgency that I have. I know we have some things coming back. We may have that legislation that you speak of next week or the week after that. I would just like to fill our agenda, because we have at least next week where we could fill our agenda and certainly get correspondence out to the provinces, and we could find out who wants to make a submission. Maybe they want to make it in writing or in person. That way we can keep the agenda going for at least two weeks, and then probably the rail study might be part of the agenda, or indeed some of the legislation that you've suggested or something of an emergency nature that would come up.