Transport Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2016

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

I'll be like Alex Trebek today. I have a quick question. We have this inequity between grain producers and other commodities in terms of things like interswitching and maximum revenue entitlement. I sense that you would rather see the grain producers move to the same level playing field as the other commodities, and not the other way around. Is that correct?

[David Emerson]

Correct.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Okay, good.

I have another quick question. The St. Lawrence Seaway was a transport corridor that received an awful lot of attention back in the 1950s and into the 1960s. Is it time that we had a good look at that and expanded it? Is the market there? Is the rationale there to do that?

[David Emerson]

I think when you have the option of improving rail linkages to tidewater on the east coast or in the St. Lawrence, the likelihood that you're going to solve your icebreaking and scale problems in the seaway any time soon and in an affordable way are pretty low. I think you can improve that as a niche part of the system, but I think there are better investments in terms of the long-term, high-velocity, high-speed corridors.

Murad might have a different view on that.

[Murad Al-Katib]

I think the seaway is a very important element. We should be looking at it. Definitely with respect to moving short sea shipping, it's still very cost effective. I think that we should look at both. The high-velocity corridor takes a lot of money, a lot of time. I think there are improvements in the seaway that can be done fairly immediately, and that will have a big impact.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Aubin, you have the floor.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I feel that I’m wrapping things up again, but I will take this opportunity to ask the witnesses a very simple question.

Mr. Emerson, earlier, you quite clearly demonstrated that it is possible to obtain international financing for airports, for example, by increasing the ceiling from 25% to 49%.

Could it also be interesting to get international financing for railways, especially for the development of passenger rail, and for marine transportation?

[David Emerson]

I think the railways are already benefiting from access to foreign capital through public markets. The question would really be around passenger rail, and I think, yes, there is a possibility there. I should emphasize that there is a huge amount of Canadian long-term capital that would like to be deployed in Canada and in Canadian investments. We shouldn't just think of opening up to more private investment as a foreign investment exercise. There's a lot of Canadian institutional money looking for a home in Canada, but there are no vehicles to invest in, so they're putting it elsewhere.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Thank you very much, Mr. Aubin.

Mr. Hardie, I don't know whether, just now, you paid me a compliment or not. I don't know Mr. Trebek. Since I watch television in French, it is more difficult for me to know, but if it's a compliment, thank you. If not, I'll get back to you.

Thank you, former minister Emerson. Mr. Al-Katib, thank you for being here with us as well. My colleagues and I enjoyed the quality of the answers you have provided to us; they will help us in the future work of the committee. Again, I congratulate your entire team for the report we read with great attention.

Minister Emerson, would you like to say a final word?

[David Emerson]

Thank you very much for inviting me and showing the interest and dedication that you're showing. I want to thank Murad Al-Katib for getting up at four or five o'clock in the morning, whatever you did, Murad, to participate.

Thank you very kindly.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Block, I think you asked to have the floor.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I am. I recognize this portion of our meeting is over, but I didn't want you to adjourn before I was able to ask a question about next week's meetings. What is on the schedule for next week's meetings?

I want to also register my concern that the committee hasn't met to discuss what's coming up on the agenda, and I would like to ask that perhaps Thursday's meeting, for which I understand no witnesses have been scheduled, we could perhaps set that aside for a committee meeting to discuss committee business.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Mr. Badawey, we are listening.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I respect the comments from Ms. Block. I'm sure she's referring to the navigable waters discussion that we're going to be having and/or to moving forward with some direction with respect to the committee's next meetings, and of course the agenda set within the same. We're having a meeting on Monday with the steering committee, and I believe that's what that meeting is actually for, to set that agenda. Of course with that, we don't have to take any time away from the meetings scheduled both on Tuesday and Thursday.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

I now have a request to extend the duration of the meeting. Mr. Badawey said that we do not need to extend it. So I'm asking the members around the table what they want. Do you want the sitting to be suspended for a few moments then resume, or to be adjourned?

All those who want us to continue the meeting to discuss the one for next week, please raise your hand.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I would clarify that certainly if the subcommittee meets, it will put forward any kind of recommendation to the whole committee in terms of what the schedule is going to look like for the fall session. That would be my understanding. Since we don't have witnesses scheduled for Thursday yet, we may want to schedule some time for the subcommittee to report to the whole committee so that we can confirm what the session is going to look like, not particular to any one study, but the entire fall session.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

My understanding is that Ms. Block is proposing that we take some time during the committee's next meeting to talk about the planning of our fall agenda. The question could be submitted first to the subcommittee on Monday. We could talk about it then.

Mr. Badawey, would you like to add something to that?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem with that per se. What I mean by that is we have a two-hour allocation for our meetings. If we can do it as part of an extension of that meeting, I don't have a problem with that, but as part of that meeting within that two-hour allocation, I do have a problem. This is simply because we're going to be discussing the very issues we discussed this morning with the Canada Transportation Act review. I'm very hard-pressed to take away from that discussion.

I would ask that, if in fact Ms. Block wants to go in that direction, which I don't have a problem with, we do it beyond the two-hour allocation, so that we don't take away from the discussion with respect to the Canada Transportation Act review.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Ms. Block, do you have a final comment to make?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I think something that's being ignored is the fact that, typically, committees meet at the beginning of a session to talk about the agenda, so that all members of the committee have an opportunity to provide input as to what a committee is going to study. Typically, you might schedule a meeting for the committee at the beginning of a session to talk about what's going to be on the agenda and what they would like to see take place. We've launched into this study without any discussion by the committee about the fall session. We had many conversations in the last session. There are a number of motions on the floor, so I think it behooves us to take the best time at the beginning of the session to talk about it as a committee.

While I recognize that we are now in a study, the committee didn't talk about the fall agenda, which is what would normally happen.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I think that for the most part we did talk about the agenda back in the spring. We passed the agenda, except for one issue with the navigation protection program. I don't have a problem discussing it at the first part of the session. I have no qualms about that, just as long as we don't take away from the current work we have already agreed upon, that being rail on Tuesday, and of course, the review of the Canada Transportation Act on Thursday.

I do not wish to be repetitive, Mr. Chairman, but my recommendation, once again, is in fact to look at extending the meeting, whether it be the Tuesday meeting or the Thursday meeting, with whatever time we feel is appropriate, to discuss the issues that come out of the steering committee on Monday.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

There is a motion to extend the next meeting.

Does anyone want to comment on the motion?

Ms. Block, go ahead.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I know that in the last session we developed a habit of extending our meetings in order to accommodate a fairly aggressive agenda. I'm not opposed to extending meetings for that purpose.

If the government members are not willing to schedule a time during committee to have a conversation with members of the opposition to determine what the fall session is going to look like, regardless of whether or not we talked about extending a study on interswitching, for example, on the provisions that were being phased out in Bill C-30....

Yes, we agreed to do that. We put that extension in place until August 1, 2017. We said we would report back by that time. There was an agreement to do the study, but we didn't sit down and say that it's going to happen at the very beginning of the session, that we're going to take this many meetings to do it, and that we're going to launch into another study.

I think it's a sign of disrespect to members of the opposition not to plan to have that conversation at the beginning of a session. While you say you're reluctant to do that unless we extend the meetings, I think there's an expectation that it should be one of the first things that happens during a committee meeting at the beginning of a session.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Mr. Badawey, do you want to take the floor or are you done?