Transport Committee on June 8th, 2010

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're going to record the vote.

The motion is on the floor by Mr. Bevington that this committee engage in a study of the federal government's oil spill response planning and capacity, with particular interest in the response to a spill caused by offshore drilling along all three coasts, report the results of the study, and make recommendations to the House of Commons.

A recorded vote has been called, so I'll turn it over to our clerk.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The motion is defeated.

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm glad to see the coalition of common sense is still working well.

I want to let Mr. Bevington know that once the results of the studies from NRCan and the Senate—which are obviously duplicitous studies, and we have a lot of things to do in Canada—have come forward in a report, I would be happy to look at it and make a decision with the steering committee on whether we want to go forward or try another angle. I'm interested in protecting Canada's coastlines. Whatever else we can do to accomplish that, I'm keen to try.

I want to let him know that I've received worse insults from better people than him. But anytime he wants to enlighten me on something based on fact, I'm prepared to listen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Volpe, I believe you have a point of order.

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

In listening to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, I'm wondering whether he misspoke or whether he was being deliberate when he said he was waiting for some of these “duplicitous reports”. Did he mean “duplicative” or was he sincere about “duplicitous”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I always think that as members of Parliament we should be efficient and not duplicate resources. In this case, the natural resources committee and the Senate are studying what I understand to be exactly the same motion, which was put forward by one of Mr. Bevington's colleagues. So it's coming from both ends in two different houses. I have faith in the natural resources committee. I believe they're going to get to the bottom of this. If Transport Canada and this committee have some issue that is germane to the motion being studied, then we could decide whether it's necessary to carry it forward. We could see whether it is something that Transport Canada might be responsible for.

Mr. Bevington, according to my research, you're not correct in your assertions that Transport Canada is responsible for all oil spills. I want to be clear on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to interrupt. This is debate. After the decision has been made, if you want to have a discussion outside this meeting, I'd be happy to let you do that.

Mr. Kennedy, I believe you have a point of order.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I raise a point of order concerning the upcoming hearings, to do with the deadlines impacting the efficacy and the workability of infrastructure programs, particularly with respect to municipalities.

The point of order I am raising is about the implementation of the hearings: whether or not it is following the committee's wishes, but also fairness with respect to a variety of municipalities who have asked to be heard urgently because of the situation affecting them. They have not heard from the committee as to whether they'll be able to depute here so that their concerns can be heard.

I know it would not be the committee's intention to be disrespectful of municipalities, such as the Town of Ajax, which has three projects at $3.3 million that have a need for some flexibility, or else those projects will run into extreme costs.

Small communities, such as the Town of Lakeshore, for example, have asked to be here and have not heard back from the committee. They only need about three months of flexibility, but otherwise their entire project, which is about $3 million, will not be able to go forward. So they need to hear urgently. They've applied to the committee and have not heard anything back.

The City of Owen Sound, which has a $30 million project, has also asked to be heard. The mayor is willing to attend. They don't need a tremendous amount of flexibility, but they need to put themselves in front of the committee, because they hope they can inform the committee's deliberations.

The City of Côte Saint-Luc, in Quebec, is having problems with its aquacentre. This is a project of approximately $18 million. To address the intentions of the municipality, the government has to show some flexibility. Côte Saint-Luc officials have already informed the committee of their willingness to testify, but they have not received a response. People from the Town of Shelburne, in Nova Scotia, are also in a similar situation.

People in Shelburne, Nova Scotia, also want to participate, and from the Town of Canmore, Alberta.

I would say, Mr. Chair, that we have dozens and dozens of examples across the country, but a number of them have asked specifically to be in front of the committee, have responded to the intention of the committee to hear about this problem. Either the committee is going to bury the problem by only hearing from secondary sources or they're not afraid to hear from these communities.

I would also respectfully suggest, Mr. Chair, under this point of order, that the committee, on the days it has set aside, do as other committees have done and have video links available for municipalities. This is about keeping costs down. They would find, I believe, that they could get a good diversity of people addressing them about the unfairness of the March 31 deadline. It is vital, I think, for the integrity of the committee and its study that it hear from everybody.

Mr. Chair, we've tried to speak with the clerk, and we understand that this is at the direction of the chair, following the will of the committee. But I think it's really quite important that this not be a point of disrespect between the federal government and communities. They entered into partnership; they have their own money at risk; these are real things affecting real communities in terms of their ability to do these projects.

Again, Mr. Chair, I hope the committee will hear from these witnesses, will find a way to accommodate them in the deliberations, so that what this committee is actually able to understand is the reality of how these things are being worked out in different parts of the country.

I would hopefully, under this point of order, appeal to the chair to cause such arrangements that people could be heard, pursuant to the motions of the committee, and more importantly, I think, because I believe everybody here spoke to this at different times, the intent of the committee to understand this problem. We shouldn't be waiting until the end of the year when we have failure after failure.

The committee must hold an appropriate discussion as soon as possible. That is the only place where such a discussion can be held within the federal government. We cannot limit ourselves to information from federations or associations.

So, Mr. Chair, again, my point is to get a final sort of determination to permit individual municipalities to participate here directly, those that have applied and given their indication to the committee, some of them weeks and weeks ago, that they'd like to be here to address the members of the committee; and secondly, the consideration of the committee to do what is normal for committees, to hear by video conference some of those other communities that wouldn't be able to bring themselves here on the short notice available but would like this committee to consider directly and to hear and to go back and forth with them in ways that written submissions simply do not permit.

I would submit, Mr. Chair, that it is impossible for this committee to do its work if it denies individual municipalities the chance to speak here. I hope that is adequately clear to Mr. Jean. My appeal really, Mr. Chair, is to you as the individual in charge of carrying out the committee's will in this respect. I hope this may be possible so that the hearings have the credibility needed for the municipalities across the country.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Kennedy 's comments are of some concern to me.

I have asked the Quebec Union of Municipalities to survey its members and inform us of concrete cases. In theory, when officials from the Quebec Union of Municipalities appear before our committee, I will ask them whether the Town of Côte Saint-Luc has raised the issue with the union.

If not, I hope this is not political partisanship. In fact, I could easily write to the representatives of Quebec's 1,100 municipalities in order to ask them whether they would object to appearing before the committee. That would be very simple to do, but I do not want to get into any political games. I am doing so because I want to show the government that there is a certain problem, but this has to be done without any partisanship, or else our attempt will not succeed.

I therefore hope that Mr. Kennedy's request is not partisan, in the sense that he would like to see appear before the committee the municipal representatives he contacted and who spoke to him. Before I agree to that, I would ask that we hold a meeting on June 10 with the Quebec Union of Municipalities, which will explain the steps it has taken in Quebec to gather specific cases from its member municipalities. We had an agreement on the issue: there had to be specific cases.

I would prefer to proceed with the municipal unions rather than the municipalities directly. It is a matter of lightening the committee's workload. We should never lose sight of the fact that some deadlines are set for December, and others for next March. Therefore, if we are to start playing political games as Mr. Kennedy wants to do, then we will have to hold meetings every day until next March, and at the end of the day, we will not have made a decision.

In short, I would like to draw the government's attention so that a decision is made as quickly as possible. I would like to wait a bit before agreeing to Mr. Kennedy's request.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Monsieur Laframboise.

Colleagues, we have another committee scheduled here.

I will advise Mr. Kennedy that the chair takes direction from the subcommittee and the committee and this was what they agreed upon. If they choose to change that direction, I'm willing to....

I'm sorry. I have to adjourn the meeting. The other committee is waiting.

The meeting is adjourned.