Evidence of meeting #39 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was list.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to commend the motions brought forward by my colleague, Mr. McCallum, even though they were actively opposed by the Conservatives, particularly by Ms. Brown, as I heard in the last meeting, who said that extending the deadline was not a fair process.
But in fact it was, and the government has finally listened to Mr. McCallum's great idea and has adopted it, and I would request that Mr. McCallum withdraw this motion now, because it has already been implemented.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I do just want to say, Mr. Chair, that if you look at the record in the House of Commons, you'll note that I was speaking on oil tankers at 10:50 this morning, which actually went over to past 11. It was not my intention to do so to strictly avoid the meeting, but I will advise and I do want to let Mr. Guimond know that, first of all, I did extend an olive branch on the basis of what I understood at the time, which was, in essence, to delay this particular motion as to what was happening. But to be blunt, I'm not a minister, and I'm not privy to all the information. I just receive instructions, and for the most part I follow through with those instructions as to what I'm supposed to do.
But I will tell you one thing that I have done in my six years here--that is, never filibustered. I am not somebody who believes I should take up all of your time by sitting here and giving a 40-minute or two-hour speech if indeed it can be dealt with in some other way. Because I value your time too much, the same as I value all the members of this committee. We have a lot of things that we can do and a lot more important things than listen to somebody filibuster, which I don't like. Bluntly, I disdain it.
So from that perspective, Mr. Guimond, I understand that you have to take a position, the same as when I extended an olive branch and you refused it because you did not believe that was in the best interests of the people you represent or your party. It's the same as what I have to do because it's not in the best interests of the people I represent or my party, and I have to do that basically because I'm ordered to do it, but indeed, I would do it anyway, because I think it's best for the country. In this particular case, what was done was done, and I can't go back on that, but I can tell you that I did it out of respect for all the members here, because of their time. I really did that. Notwithstanding that, you have to do what's best for your party and the people that you represent, just like I have to do the best for the people I represent, and I will continue to do that.
I hope it doesn't sour relations between all of us. Bluntly, I think what has happened is that it was a motion of politics, not a motion of sustainability. The Bloc obviously asked a lot of questions over a long period of time in relation to this deadline. The Prime Minister has listened and the cabinet has listened, and we have not just extended it six months: we have extended it seven months.
I think that speaks to the volume and to the quality of this Prime Minister wanting to get things done in the best interests of Canadians. Whether that deals with a good relationship or a bad relationship is not really my issue, but I do hope that we can continue working together.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I guess Mr. Jean doesn't personally filibuster, but he instructs his colleagues to do so, as happened at the last meeting, so I think it's a fine distinction.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I said I disdain it. I didn't say I don't do it.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. McCallum.
Mr. Bevington, you have the last comment.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I didn't really want to speak on the motion, but since we've seen now the action of the government, I think it's incumbent on us to consider what that action has meant to the municipalities. The failure to move forward with this extension has probably led many municipalities into a situation where they're in winter works now, where they're going to be spending more money than they would normally have had to in order to accomplish the work.
If we'd had some indication of this a little earlier.... I think that's the problem that has been created with this delay in this announcement, which I was confident that at some point in time we would see, because at some point in time this government would have to act logically. I'm glad to see that it's finally caught up to that. But that still doesn't mean the municipalities have not suffered through this process. I think that's the case.
Mr. Chair, I first spoke about this issue in February 2009 in the House of Commons, when I questioned Minister Flaherty on the deadline. The issue has been around since they put the program in place. I think this government's reaction has been very slow. It has been very difficult. I have to commend this committee for the work it has done, because it has recognized the importance of this and has helped to put the pressure on the government to make this change.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you.
Is there further discussion?
I think we'll take a one-minute recess, invite our guests to join us, and move into clause-by-clause.
Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I was just wondering, in the spirit of collaborative unity, we have another motion with Mr. McCallum. If Mr. McCallum wants to address it, I can address it now and provide him with some information.
I did some research based upon what I saw the motion to be, and I know that all members, including the Bloc, of course, are interested in that motion. That would be the motion in respect of expenses. I think it was originally motion number one.
I think we need unanimous consent to go ahead with it at this stage, but if we can, Mr. Chair, I promise you, from the government's perspective, anyway, that it would be very quick--in fact, two minutes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Is everybody okay with that? All right. We'll proceed to this motion by Mr. McCallum:
That the Committee request the Department of Transport to provide the Committee with all documentation, both paper and electronic, related to the $32,885 that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities' office spent on professional and special services in the fiscal year 2009-2010, and that this information be provided to the Committee in both official languages within five business days.
Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have a breakdown that I can give to all members. It's in both official languages. They can review it, and we can deal with the motion at a later date, just to save time, because there may be more questions coming out of it. I have that right here in front of us.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We will need to have Mr. McCallum's approval to defer the motion now that it's on the floor.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, it's up to him. There might be further information. It might be more instructive for him, but whatever he wishes.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I have two points. I'd like to leave the motion on the table so that we can return to it, depending on what we are about to receive here. Second, the third motion, I would withdraw.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you.
The information is being circulated on the second motion that I just read. It will remain on the table for future discussions after the information has been digested by all parties.
Now I will invite our guests to join us at the table, please.
While you're moving to your chairs, I'm just going to introduce you.
Obviously they're here to give us some advice and input if there are questions from the committee. Joining us from the strategic policy branch, we have assistant deputy minister Kristina Namiesniowski, and Caroline Fobes, executive director and senior counsel. Also, from the Department of Transport, we have Isabelle Desmartis, director of security policy.
Welcome.
If everybody has the bill in front of them, we will move to clause-by-clause. We will postpone clause 1, the short title, and move to clause 2, where we are sitting with several amendments.
(On clause 2)
The first one is amendment NDP-1 on page 1 in your package.
I will open the floor to Mr. Bevington.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Chair, this amendment deals with the countries that are involved in this information transfer and it clearly identifies the country that is involved in this information transfer. What the clause does, of course, is ensure that the information we have had ample evidence on within this act...it has considerable privacy concerns. The experts who have testified on this have indicated to us that this is something they do not recommend in this bill. So what we've done with this is limit to simply the one government that is making this part of demands upon the Canadian public in the overflights, and that's the United States government.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. Bevington.
Taking the advice, as I do almost all the time, I have to suggest that the amendment is inadmissible. It runs contrary to the principle of the bill. The limitation of the provisions in Bill C-42 with regard to its application to only one foreign state is contrary to the principle of the bill and therefore inadmissible. If there is disagreement with my decision, you can challenge it, but other than that there is no debate.
