Transport Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just for the information of everybody who has provided names of people to be invited, we're down to five left that we haven't invited. We've basically advised the people we're contacting that we are on a timeframe, and if they can commit, please do so, and if they can't, they have the option of sending a written report to the committee.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I would suggest as well, Mr. Chair, that you will need some time for amendments on this bill. You'll need at least one session for amendments. There will be a number of them, obviously, coming forth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes.

I would also ask the committee--it's been brought up by Monsieur Guimond--that if we do want to have the minister on estimates, it has to be done by December 2.

[An hon. member]

It has to be done by December 2?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It has to be done by December 2 so that e can report it after the weekend.

One, we need agreement to do that; and two, we have to make sure that.... The minister should come; obviously, for estimates, I think it's important that he be here.

Mr. Jean.

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

I think now that we have flexibility as far as our times go, the minister could probably find an available time slot that's convenient for all of us. I think the 3:30 idea is great.

I do want to make sure in relation to this December 1 meeting—again, I'm not trying to avoid it, but I don't see what else we're going to get out of the infrastructure study. We've studied it for three or four meetings. I'm not saying that this is not the right thing to study. I understand why the opposition wants to study it, but things are not going to change between now and the end of December, or now and February, in relation to the government's position. The stories from the people who are coming forward with information aren't going to change.

My biggest issue is this. The opposition wanted two meetings, and we've had three or four already. I'm not trying to limit the number of meetings, but we have the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which is a big issue that Mr. Guimond wants to study, and quite frankly I think it would be good to study. We have the issue of airport noise that we want to study. We have a number of issues that have come forward. I just want to make sure that infrastructure is not the priority we're going to deal with on December 1, because I don't think we're going to learn anything more. If there's something that the witnesses are going to come forward with that's going to be fantastic and new, that's great, but they're going to come forward with exactly the same things we've had up till now, and we've already studied those for four meetings.

I would like to do noise and deal with it because it's been brought forward. I'd also like to deal with the Air Canada Public Participation Act before we deal with the issue of infrastructure. So if you want to schedule three or four meetings per week, I'm okay with that, and then we can get the infrastructure.

My point is that we have noise, we have ACPPA, and we have some other issues that need to be dealt with at the outside meetings. Let's deal with those issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I don't think we've had four meetings, and we have had no meetings to which we have called municipal officials who are impacted by this deadline, and that is what we want to do. I think all the opposition parties are in agreement with that. I've asked for only one meeting: the one on December 1. We want individual mayors.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I don't think that's what the motion said, in the first place, but we had three or four meetings—four, according to what the chair has said. We've had four meetings in the space of—I think we've had a total of nine meetings so far. We've spent 50% of the committee's time on an issue that's not going to change. We've not heard from municipalities, but how many municipalities do we have across the country?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

We disagree on this. If we don't have a consensus, maybe it's better if I bring a motion.

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

Mr. Chair, I thought I had the floor. I have to be clear--we've had municipal organizations that represent every community from Quebec, I think from Ontario, and from Manitoba. We've heard different views. I don't see what new information's going to come forward. I just don't know what other information can come forward. If individual municipalities have issues they want to bring forward, why don't they bring them forward in writing? They have the option to do that. Then maybe we could see whether there is new information.

But we have noise as an issue. We have ACPPA as an issue with 4,500 employees and 20,000 indirect jobs. I think those are issues that we can deal with today, whereas the issue of the infrastructure deadline is not going to change between now and March.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

It's clear that the Conservatives aren't happy to hear mayors coming in saying what a devastating impact this deadline will have on their cities. So I'm not surprised. I think we will learn a lot in this one meeting. But if there isn't consensus, Mr. Chair, maybe I'll bring a motion, and we'll see what the will of the committee is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think that would probably be the best approach. If I remember correctly, in the original motion that was put forward, we were requesting that provincial and municipal organizations represent themselves, simply because we didn't.... At that time there were ongoing elections in certain provinces. I think a motion probably would be the best approach.

Mr. Jean.

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

I just want to let Mr. McCallum know that I am not objecting at all to the meeting. I'm just suggesting that he's asking for a meeting on December 1, which is only a week away, and we have other issues that are really pressing. If we want to have three meetings in one week, we could probably cover the noise issue in one, ACPPA in one, and then infrastructure in one, or even do it over a two-week period.

I'm just suggesting that since we were asked to pick our priorities and we've already had four meetings on infrastructure, let's deal with the issue of noise and the issue of ACPPA, and then deal with the issue of infrastructure. That's what my suggestion is. I'm not saying we shouldn't—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think, before we go around this circle too many times....

Mr. Dhaliwal has a comment, and then I'll make a suggestion as to where we should go.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me an opportunity.

The way I see it, and as Mr. Jean said, noise is an issue in my part of the world, but it's been there for many, many years and months. Certainly, I have talked to the people in the Vancouver area and they're willing to come in the new year to make presentations.

Right now, if we look at the March 31 deadline, it's approaching and there are many municipalities that might be scrambling. So I think it's a good idea to accommodate one meeting on that now, as Mr. McCallum said—because we can't make hypothetical or imaginary decisions or deliberations here, Mr. Jean. As you said, it's not going to make a difference. The only way it can make a difference is by listening to people, by having input from the people.

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we accommodate Mr. McCallum's request, because he has always been a very reasonable man and I think it's a very reasonable request.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've now passed the time in which we originally we thought we would have a meeting. We're losing members currently and now we're going to potentially get into a motion to debate one particular item of future business.

I'm not sure that's going to be practical, so I'm going to move that we adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You can do that.

I think what I'm going to ask the committee to do is to submit the times they are available and their priorities as to what they want discussed, and then we'll make that decision and start booking

Okay?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

All right. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.