Evidence of meeting #20 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was north.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Okay, fine. We'll stay in open session.
We now have to deal with the challenges of discussing what we're going to do in the fall and try to get a few things under way so that when we come back in September, we can immediately start our committee meetings and not lose valuable time.
We have a lot of things to consider. We wanted to do something on the drones, because we know that regulations are going to come down from the minister. We'll have Bill S-2. We have this review. We have an awful lot of things that we will have to do, so we need to spend the next half hour or so trying to make a bit of a plan.
Mr. Badawey.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
I don't think this is going to come as a surprise to anyone, based on past comments and past desires, not only by me but by many members of the committee on both sides of the table. I think for the most part Mr. Dee validated earlier what the next priority should be, especially as it relates to the Canada Transportation Act review.
With that, Madam Chair, we all recognize that Canada is the second largest nation on this planet, spanning six primary time zones, three oceans, with a sparse population scattered unevenly in both rural and urban pockets throughout the country, and a geography that includes permafrost, near-tropical growing zones, mountains, prairies, open inland lakes, and pack ice. Canada's diversity, Madam Chair, is simultaneously a source of strength and of challenges, in no place more so reflected than in transportation, as was validated once again by Mr. Dee.
In this context, Madam Chair, it's my feeling that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities should conduct a comprehensive study on the creation and development of a Canada transportation strategy. This would be with a focus on strategic transportation corridors, using a gateway approach. To permit maximum flexibility, I propose we focus on a strategy, a development, into five regional gateways—and this is in random order, Madam Chair—northern Canada, western Canada, the Prairies, eastern Canada and, of course, central Canada, although this is up for discussion. All I'm trying to do here is put a focus on direction. That way, we can proceed in such a fashion.
Madam Chair, finally, within each gateway, the proposed strategy examination should include, in my opinion, four distinct areas and phases: one, seaports and aquatic-based transportation; two, air travel; three, rail; and four, of course, non-rail, ground-based transportation such as roads. Madam Chair, that strategy would be multi-modal and intermodal in scope.
I'm not going to say any more, because I think, for the most part, Mr. Dee wrapped it up quite well when I asked him about the need for such a direction.
Madam Chair, what I'm looking at doing is asking the committee and gaining consensus from the committee to undertake a comprehensive study that's designed to research a Canada transportation strategy with a focus on strategic transportation corridors, using a gateway approach, as I mentioned earlier, and that you, Madam Chair, be empowered to arrange and coordinate, in consultation with all committee members, all resources and witnesses needed for the study, and that the study launch as soon as possible after the House returns in the fall.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Do we need Mr. Badawey to read that out again? Is everybody clear on the motion that Mr.—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
It's not a motion, but a suggestion that he's put on the table.
For discussion purposes, Ms. Block.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
I thank my colleague for putting some thought into this study. I think he's right when he talks about Duncan Dee's comments and how he framed this for us. I know that we've wanted to get to the Emerson report; I think this does that.
However, I know that members on both sides of the table were concerned that we get to some discussion and study of infrastructure. So my only question would be, does this also include infrastructure as it pertains to transportation?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Kelly, that's a great point, because we are going to embark on a roll-out of dollars for infrastructure.
I would just comment that one of the things I've always maintained with regard to any dollars that might be spent is the outcomes of those dollars spent, and of course the returns that are attached to that. What that means for transportation, especially as we embark on a strategy, is that more than likely—I think it goes without saying—we're going to need capital dollars spent in certain areas, in different methods of transportation.
You would expect that before those dollars were spent they would have a strategy attached to them, so that the dollars could be spent appropriately, and the outcome would be the returns that would be expected from those transportation infrastructure dollars that would otherwise be spent. Otherwise, you're just throwing money into the wind.
I think it's incumbent upon us and any government that when we do expend dollars for any infrastructure-related project, they should have a strategy attached to them, and this is no different as it pertains to transportation.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
I have one follow-up question.
We also had a number of motions that we passed at the beginning of the session. You mentioned the need to deal with Jones. Are all of those things still on the horizon, and we'll get to them as we can after this study and whatever else comes along?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
The problem is that if legislation comes down, that will stop one thing while we try to move forward on another. Yes, those are still issues that we want to address. Many of them are tied to the Emerson report and the work that we're trying to do.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
If I can comment, Madam Chair—and that's a great point, too, Kelly—I think for the most part we have to recognize—and I'm sure you can relate to this as a former mayor—that often things come at you and you're drinking out of a fire hose, so to speak.
But I think we have an opportunity here to look at this as a jurisdictional project, going from coast, to coast, to coast. That was why I was deliberate in mentioning the gateway approach, by prioritizing, looking at areas throughout the nation that do have those strengths, concentrating on those areas so that if we have to jump to something else during that time, we can do that conveniently, yet come back to those gateways as they relate to the priorities that we put forward.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I think it's pretty clear what Mr. Badawey is tabling. Usually the steering group, which hasn't met since the first time, would take a look at all the proposals for topics, and then we would prioritize them. What I find troubling is that we're only looking at Mr. Badawey's proposal. We're not looking at all the ones that were tabled previously.
What I would prefer is that Mr. Badawey's proposal be in the hopper. It may well be the one people prefer to go with, but I think that as a committee, we should be deciding which of these we want to proceed with.
My second concern with this one is that it's essentially Emerson all over again. We know this two volume report. This is going to take our committee two to three years. I need to have more information on what we're planning, considering this, and how we're going to constrain this review to make it of any value. Emerson worked how many years on this? There was a whole team, with full-time, paid researchers. I remain totally puzzled about what we as a committee can do with very few resources. I don't know if we're going to use Emerson as the framework or use the same headings. Are we going to do what Emerson didn't do?
That term “hubs” is to me very much for corporate trade. If it's corporate trade routes, we want to make sure that infrastructure and transportation needs are addressed. We can probably deal with that. We talk to the main trade sectors. We talk to the main transportation parties and maybe the provinces. But that's where there's a rift.
We now have a Prime Minister who's saying that the municipalities are going to be able to tell us directly where the money is going to go. Then you have the provinces saying that they have priorities, and quite often they are these hubs.
I need more clarity in order to throw out names of witnesses. If this is going to be somewhat circumscribed and not go on for many years, I need to have a clear idea of the exact focus of what we're looking at that is above and beyond what Emerson has already done. If the main interest is looking at the corporate trade interests, it helps a bit, but that excludes a lot of other things. I just need to be clear in my head if I'm supposed to start proposing witnesses.
What exactly is our end objective? Whose needs are we serving who could potentially speak to the committee? Then we could consider that and then possibly make some recommendations.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I had some thoughts similar to yours, Linda, and obviously had a chance to ask Vance or to at least propose a few ideas.
What I take out of this proposal is a focus on the economy and economic growth. When you talk about corridors and hubs and trade, that's basically what it's all about.
We have the Emerson report that's set out a framework, or at least things we should be thinking about. At the same time, it's concurrent with the forthcoming phase two of the infrastructure rollout.
It occurs to me that with one layered on top of the other, we can have a bit of a focused look at maybe some best practices. Or it can inform some decisions either at a municipal, provincial, or federal level as to how best to apply that infrastructure program in a way that maximizes the benefits to the economy. And it's not just the economy we have today but the economy we expect to have as we develop innovation and green and all those aspects that'll reboot our economy, because the old manufacturing jobs may never come back.
There's a good opportunity here, but going to a comment you made very early on in our process, Linda, there has to be some focus. If it's too broad, we'll spin our wheels and not get anywhere.
This is where, in Vance's proposal, I saw a focus specifically on the economic benefits of an infrastructure/transportation strategy whereby, to use Vance's words, we're not wasting money; we're applying the money where we're going to generate the optimum value.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would like to discuss a few points concerning Mr. Badawey's proposal.
First of all, in light of the fact that the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities has already announced that he is currently working on phase two of the infrastructure investment plan, I think it would be very important to adopt a schedule for our work. We have to see to it that our work serves those who will pay according to what we will recommend. Since sums of money come from one pocket and the ideas will probably come from another, the ideas have to be ready when people are ready to spend. I think it would be important to draw up a timeline or, at least, make sure we complete the first part of this analysis as quickly as possible.
Secondly, I wonder if Mr. Badawey would agree to amend his motion slightly in order to align our work expressly with the infrastructure projects and the infrastructure plan. We should mention that all of this is being done in the context of that project, to send a clear signal to government authorities that we are doing this work quickly because we want transportation to be a priority consideration in investment projects. If that could be included in the motion, I could support it more easily.
Thirdly, Mr. Hardie, you had proposed that we approach this sector and this study in light of the country's economy. However, we must not forget that in developing the country's economy, we can help grow the wealth of Canadian citizens. We can also enhance growth on the social side. We are basing our work on the economy, but we should not forget that there are also repercussions in the regions and not only in the large centres.
It is like the question I put to Mr. Dee. We should not only focus on the big network. How can the small network and small communities be integrated into this potential national transport strategy?
To begin this study, I think it would be important to see what has been done elsewhere. It would be interesting to see how a national transportation strategy can inflect infrastructure investments. As Mr. Dee said, a national transport strategy must continually be changing. We want to avoid what Ms. Block identified: establishing a strategy every 10 years means a static strategy.
How can we ensure that we use past experience to see what was done well and what was done poorly? We should not redo the same things poorly, or redo the same things, period. As Ms. Duncan mentioned earlier, we should not redo things that have already been done. I think it is important that our first meetings on this topic allow us to clarify the direction of our study and the work of the committee.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
I think Luc and I are on the same page as well as most of us around the table with respect to aligning the strategy with infrastructure investments, and therefore contributing to our overall economic performance globally.
This is not a motion. I'm just looking for consensus to start the process, but I can, for the sake of the minutes, be very clear and tie in everything that's being stated here. If you don't mind, Madam Chair, I can do that. I've been jotting something down because I do want to capture everybody's thoughts on this because I do think it's important.
Before I get to that, just going to Linda's comments, this is something that we're all going to be part of, with respect to a vision for the future when it comes to transportation. Yes, it may in fact be a process that might take some time, but for the most part we do have some time and we should be taking that time to make it right.
In the past century, we saw a railway going from coast to coast. That really set the economic performance of this country. Really, everything after that was just sort of patchwork with respect to different methods of transportation. We never took the time, regardless of how much time it would require, to really integrate those transportation methods.
That's our strength. We are a country that contributes overall to the global economy and our performance is dependent on our ability to integrate our modes of transportation, not only here in Canada but to join with the United States who are next to us, to ensure the further integration and then enhance our economic profile when it comes to our global performance.
With that preface, Madam Chair, I'm going to attempt to say this for the record and hopefully tie in everything that has been said: That the committee undertake a comprehensive study designed to research a Canada transportation strategy with a focus on strategic transportation corridors using a gateway approach, and aligning with infrastructure advancements which also contribute to economic global performance, and that the chair be empowered to arrange and coordinate, in consultation with committee members, all resources and witnesses needed for the study, and that the study launch as soon as possible after the House returns in the fall.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I'd like to go back to the request made by Ms. Duncan.
It would indeed be interesting to have a discussion on the other motions Ms. Block mentioned, to determine in what order we will study the files. I agree that given the large infrastructure investments that are coming, this plan may appear to be a priority, but it could be relevant to reassess the motions adopted at the beginning or our work, so as to decide in what order we will insert these files into our calendar. I think that Ms. Block and Ms. Duncan made a good suggestion.