Evidence of meeting #24 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was support.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I call the meeting to order.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is meeting number 24.
Our orders of the day include committee business. At the end of the last meeting we had a motion on the floor from Mr. Nicholls.
We have our guests here, so I apologize, but we will be, I hope, very brief on this matter.
Go ahead, Mr. Nicholls.
8:50 a.m.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am presenting this motion because it is an opportunity for all parties to come together and accomplish a concrete goal. This motion is the result of work done among the parties. I know that the parliamentary secretary is a fan of the book The Art of War, by Sun Tzu, a classic on strategy. This is an opportunity to avoid confrontation and adopt a collaborative approach. So I extend my hand to the parliamentary secretary and his party, as well as to Mr. Coderre and his party.
Without further ado, I would like to explain the reason for my motion.
The Government of Quebec has formally asked the federal government for financial support for the western train. It's clear that renovations to the Turcot interchange, the Champlain bridge and the Bonaventure highway will cause significant traffic problems, which will hinder the productivity and competitiveness of the Montreal economy and the flow of the road network, and as a result, commercial transport will be compromised.
I would like to point out that traffic congestion costs $3 billion a year. We see that the cost of traffic congestion in Montreal is increasing drastically each year. In 1993, it was $550 million; in 2004, $780 million; in 2009, $1.5 billion. These figures need to be doubled to include the delays caused by construction and accidents. That's how we got to $3 billion.
The demand for public transportation is increasing dramatically on the West Island of Montreal. For each block of 370 passengers currently, there will be 74 more passengers in the next 15 years. The percentage of trips using public transportation has increased by 36% since 1998.
I will also point out that this initiative is supported by all the parties. I know that Senator Smith said that…
he wants to see “our own trains, our own tracks, and doubling the frequency of the volume of trains”.
He said, “I want to bring”—
8:50 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if there's anything in the Standing Orders that indicates this committee has the authority to provide financing for a project of this kind.
Could you check with the clerk on whether a vote in this committee would be able to provide the millions of dollars in funding that the honourable member requests?
8:50 a.m.
Conservative
8:50 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
On that basis, is there any reason to continue the discussion?
8:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It's a motion that's been put forward before the committee.
Go ahead, Mr. Nicholls.
8:50 a.m.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I will continue.
Senator Smith said, “I want to bring all of the parties together and be able to negotiate the access to land, consolidate the money and prioritize a time frame.”
He noted that the recent closing of the Turcot West exit lanes as well as the long-term reconstruction of the entire exchange will be serious challenges to motorists. He also said, “The benefits will give more options for commuters, employers will be attracted to the location, and hubs will grow around the expanded frequency. This would bring growth and jobs to the West Island, which is part of our national platform.”
Mr. Chair, I've heard similar comments by members of the Liberal Party. I think we can all agree that this project deserves our attention and would help the regional growth of Montreal in a significant way.
I'd like to underline the fact that my constituents lose a lot of time in traffic. A transit that should normally take 45 minutes sometimes takes an hour and 45 minutes, even up to two and a half hours, because of traffic problems.
This is money lost for my constituents. I could go through a more detailed explanation of how my constituents lose money and what that means in terms of lost revenue for the Government of Canada, but as we have important witnesses today, I'll cut my discussion short.
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
A motion has been put forward to adjourn debate. Such a motion cannot be amended or debated. The motion that we adjourn debate is on the floor.
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
8:55 a.m.
NDP
8:55 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Chair, your previous ruling, as I recall, was that when there is a calling of the question or adjourning of debate.... My understanding of the rules is that a member has unlimited time to speak to a motion, and any motion requires 48 hours' notice.
Can you point out to me the standing order that allows a motion to terminate debate at any time? Terminating debate, as I recall, is against the standing orders.
The reason I put this in front of you, Mr. Chair-—it's not necessarily that I support or don't support this motion, and I'm not going to debate the motion—is that this sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If I may, Madam Chow, I think we are getting into debate. I will read the following concerning motions:
A member who moves “That the debate be now adjourned” wishes to temporarily suspend debate underway on a motion or study. If the motion is carried, debate on the motion or study ceases and the committee moves on to the next agenda item.
I'm going to call the vote, based on that information.
8:55 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Just so I'm clear, you just said “temporary”, so next Tuesday we could come back.
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
A recorded vote has been requested.
(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
We will continue with the motion.
Go ahead, Monsieur Coderre.
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
The debates are starting to be as relevant as the season for the Montreal Canadiens, Mr. Chair. Yes, I am a Montreal Canadiens fan. It's painful this year.
We won't play the recovery game. We were all at the same meeting. I was there, as was Larry Smith. We had a meeting with my colleague Francis Scarpaleggia from the Lac-Saint-Louis riding. He has worked on this file for a long time. Larry Smith and all the mayors were there. Isabelle was there too, I believe. It was very clear during that meeting that everyone was in agreement on this issue. The people of Montreal West and the region need this western train. We most certainly support this motion, Mr. Chair.
I think it would be a positive thing for our committee to send out a clear message that it believes in the strategic projects. Given that this project has the support at both the municipal and provincial levels, we need to go forward. I would also like to mention the involvement of former Liberal MP Clifford Lincoln, who is apolitical on this issue and who has been doing an excellent job on this committee. I applaud the motion of my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges, and I support him.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
We have here a motion that does not even include a dollar figure in it. Basically, what we have is a request that a group of politicians vote to spend an unspecified number of dollars on a project that the motion describes in roughly 40 words, without hearing a single witness or being provided with a shred of background information.
By the way, you've indicated to the committee, Mr. Chair, that this body has no power to fund it in the first place.
Regardless of what one thinks—it might be the best project ever, or the worst project ever—all of these facts about the nature of this motion and the place that it's being brought suggest that it is nothing more than a media stunt. It is not designed to produce a result, but rather to produce a headline.
If every member of this committee were to come forward with a popular local project and introduce a motion with regard to it so that he or she can score a quick headline in the local newspapers, there would be absolutely no time to do the committee's real work, such as to listen to the witnesses who are here right now.
We have witnesses who are of an extremely high calibre in the public service and who are being paid by taxpayers to provide information here. They're not able to provide it, because we're debating a motion over which we have no authority and about which we have no specifics.
The reason I wanted to get this on the record now is that this is becoming a pattern with this particular member. He's on a pattern of introducing one of these motions basically every week. If every member of this committee were to introduce a localized motion every single week, we would have no time to discuss any of the pertinent matters over which we actually have some authority.
By the way, I should also point out that the Province of Quebec has not filed an application on this project, according to officials at Infrastructure Canada. He wants a committee that has no power to provide funding to authorize an unspecified amount of money for a project that the proponents have not even applied for—with five minutes of debate, no witnesses, and no background information. That says everything that needs to be said about the real purpose of this motion.
Obviously, we will be voting against it. With that, I'd like to move adjournment on the subject.
9 a.m.
Conservative
9 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Can we move an adjournment motion on and on, even if we vote against the same thing?
