Transport Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

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

I just want to make two points. First, we have two national carriers. One is very profitable and competes in the same environment as Air Canada. That's WestJet. It has had a huge growth rate and has no competitive advantage. In fact, it has competitive disadvantages. I just want to make that point.

This is an issue of management, in my opinion, and that is maybe why we had a resignation. The issue is about people who are unemployed, in my mind, or are soon going to be, and their pensions and ability to continue to live and subsist on something they carried forward. I just want to make that point.

I also want to say something else, which is that there are other things we can study. In terms of the high-speed rail study, if we have high-speed rail just from Quebec City to Toronto, what's that going to do to the airline industry? These are two competing industries. If we put in high-speed rail, we're going to cut the throat of Air Canada in many of its major profitable centres. Let's be clear.

Just be aware of some of the things we're asking for the same study, which is actually a competitive--

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

Nobody's prejudging the outcome, so I wouldn't draw that conclusion. I'd still like to have the study.

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

I understand that, but I'm drawing the conclusion that if it is successful, it's going to change the airline industry again. That's what I'm suggesting, Mr. Volpe. With respect, I'm just saying that these are the issues.

We have some other things that I would like to see studied. For instance, during my time on this committee, short sea shipping is something we could look at--the port of Montreal, the St. Lawrence, Windsor. I mean, these are things that can actually create a competitive advantage for us versus the Americans. That's something I would like to see studied that we could actually make some legislative changes on.

What happens to Air Canada won't be changed in terms of regulations and what happens in the country for two or three or four or five years, after we're well and gone, or out of this committee, I would suggest--although I might still be here, carrying a cane.

Let's look at some things that.... For instance, Air Canada is going to be falling out by that period of time, I would suggest. Short sea shipping is something we could see changes with. We could do something. There's also brownfield redevelopment. Let's look at that. Broadband Internet in smaller communities across the country--how would that change the face of rural Canada?

Those are some things on which we can actually make recommendations to the minister. They are things we can change, rather than just react to. Air Canada, to my mind, is a reaction to a competitive industry in which one company is thriving and one is in a bad state.

With respect, Mr. Bevington, quite frankly to me it's not logical, because anything we find in our study we can't change anyway. Ultimately, if the industry is going to change, it is going to change dramatically, and we won't be there to carry the bucket. There are some other studies I'd like to get involved with, things on which we can actually make a difference as a committee and on which we can make recommendations to the minister and make recommendations for the budget.

We've been successful on navigable waterways and rail safety. We've done great things in this committee. Let's not just react to something that's happening and really do nothing that's going to have any impact on the future. I don't think it will. With respect, I don't think it can, just because of the narrow window.

I could see that we could do something about pensions because we could make recommendations, but Air Canada? This issue has been studied to death in terms of the kind of model we should have for our airline industry in Canada. Maybe things will change as far as Air Canada goes, but I'd like to see us study some of the things I've proposed, such as brownfield redevelopment. How many people would like to change the scope of Montreal and Toronto? I would like to see those things happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'm concerned with the same thing. Being a new member on the committee, I think there have probably been a lot of issues that have already been studied—maybe over-studied—and my concern is that there are things that are happening right now in our communities that we can have an impact on. Mr. Jean mentioned broadband expansion in rural areas. With the economy in the state it's in, we need to be looking at issues we can actually have an impact on.

I'm not really sure what the process is, Mr. Chair. Maybe you can advise me. I'm on other committees where there's a process for determining topics. We actually vote on it. I'm not sure, Mr. Chair; what is the process?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That is actually what the subcommittee does. I've made it a collective group today. I think we've probably run into....

We can't come back to the committee, because we all have an opinion. I think it creates a difficulty. I probably created that one myself.

Mr. Volpe.

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

With all due respect, we have already agreed by consensus on a timetable that includes Bill C-7 on April 21, estimates on the 23rd, Bill C-7 on the 28th and the 30th as well. But we've built in flexibility for two other issues: high-speed train travel on the 5th, the 7th, and the 12th.

We have not filled out the rest of the timetable, and that doesn't preclude us thinking about those things today, but we've also said we would have a possibility of a subcommittee that would flow from further study. The parliamentary secretary has just proposed at least two other areas of study, so there are at least two, and we have three days before the summer recess left for this committee.

I propose we leave those three meeting dates open until we have come, at the very least, to the conclusion of Bill C-7, whereupon we can have another steering committee to fill out the rest of the timetable. We would take into consideration some of the issues that have been raised.

I acknowledge the fact that the parliamentary secretary has accepted that the Canadian government—Transport and by extension this committee—still has oversight responsibility, regulatory responsibility, for the airline industry, and we ought to leave ourselves with a little flexibility in the event that we might be engaged. We have that with those three days.

I like the idea of short sea shipping. That's not a problem. But why don't we look at filling out the rest of the timetable after we have concluded Bill C-7?

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

Mr. Chair, might I suggest this--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I am going to go to Mr. Laframboise.

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

I partly agree. In fact, Mr. Chair, I like your proposal to write to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance asking for the report on the pension fund study. We would then be able to have those people appear and to hear what they have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good.

Everybody is comfortable, then? We basically have the next six to seven meetings determined. I would ask that members get their witness lists put forward for Bill C-7, which we will be dealing with on Tuesday the 21st with the minister and staff. We would like to give those people a heads-up.

Mr. Jean.

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

I would like some response in relation to my proposals on those studies, or at least keep them in the slot.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Absolutely, yes.

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

No disrespect to high-speed rail, because I think that's important, but short sea shipping is something that.... And I'm fully prepared to do it--even in other meetings, to put it bluntly--but from my perspective, short sea shipping could change the face of our transportation industry in the country and our economy, and brownfield redevelopments could change what happened yesterday to a new future.

Those are things I would like to see move forward instead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll keep them on the list for future discussion by the subcommittee.

The meeting is adjourned.