Transport Committee on June 1st, 2017

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

You're starting to see now the ability as an enabler to invest in infrastructure.

Madam Chair, if I may, I would like to keep us focused both on transport, as we are now, and infrastructure. Although some might feel their shoulders are getting a bit heavy, I think it's incumbent upon this committee to take on that responsibility. That's just the nature of this committee and I think we should keep rolling in the fashion we are now.

Madam Chair, I did put a motion forward earlier and I would like to table that motion right now. I'll leave it to your discretion when you want to tackle this. The motion doesn't say exactly when, but it does state:

That the Committee resume its study on Smart Cities by holding an additional 4 meetings, with specific focus on synergies that the Federal Government's infrastructure investments couId provide in order to support other levels of government, as they undertake integrated land use planning, asset management, and sustainable funding projects, and that the Chair shall be empowered to coordinate the necessary witnesses, resources and scheduling to complete this task.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

All right, we'll have Mr. Bratina, Mr. Berthold, and Ms. Block.

Mr. Bratina.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Chair, I'm not sure whether my brief comments will relate to my colleague's motion or not.

On May 8, the Ottawa Citizen reported, “The almost 1,000 federal workers at the former Nortel campus on Carling Avenue can now drink the water.” Since April 27 tests found that unacceptable levels of lead and other chemicals have been in the water.

The important part of this is the comment by the Department of National Defence reassuring employees. It says:

Short-term exposure to drinking water that contains levels slightly higher than the Health Canada guidelines for drinking water quality is not expected to have health effects since the...guidelines are based on a lifetime of exposure....

That is false.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to raise a friendly point of order.

Mr. Badawey has moved a motion. For his part, Mr. Bratina wants to discuss his proposal for an hour. However, I would like us to deal with the motion first.

This is a friendly comment. I do not want to prevent Mr. Bratina from speaking, but, since we are dealing with the motion, I think it would be appropriate for us to finish that before we go to Mr. Bratina's proposal.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'm not finished.

My question is—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

What is the relevance, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm listening for the question.

Do you have a comment specific to the motion that's been put on the floor, Mr. Bratina?

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Badawey's motion involves infrastructure. I'm wondering whether the committee would consider incorporating into his motion the infrastructure issues relating to my motion. I just put that out for discussion now. I don't need to get into a two-way....

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, thank you.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I can answer that very quickly, Madam Chair. The answer is yes. One of the reasons I brought it up now is the comments made earlier about bringing up Mr. Bratina's motion. They go hand in hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Berthold, then Mr. Rayes, and then Mr. Aubin.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Since we agreed to devote one hour to Mr. Bratina's motion, I do not understand why it would be added to the other motion. I think his bill deserves the committee's full attention.

Second, I will give the floor to my colleague Mr. Rayes to address the content of Mr. Badawey's request. That being said, whenever the government moves a motion, it says that the chair is empowered to coordinate the necessary witnesses, resources and scheduling. However, we have a subcommittee, and I would like us to take that into account. I would also like the subcommittee to meet whenever we undertake or continue a study. That way, we could discuss it. Subsequently, once you know our opinion on how it works, you could make a decision. That power ultimately comes back to you. However, to include those words in each motion is sort of like saying that the motion before us is being organized for us.

I suggest that, in order to demonstrate goodwill, we agree on having the subcommittee meet whenever we undertake or continue a study. Following that meeting, you could consider the views of both opposition parties and the government members, and then set the schedule. I am not opposed to that. At least, we would have an opportunity to lay out our expectations and to specify the number of witnesses we want to hear. I think that would help the committee operate more smoothly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I certainly, as always, reach out and ask you for your witnesses and your direction. For Mr. Badawey's motion, the date, and the times, I will be reaching out to both of you to have a discussion on that before it's finalized. I attempt to do both, to work with my vice-chairs and other members of the committee, as we move forward and make these decisions.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

However, I think accomplishing it in subcommittee, in the presence of the clerk, gives us all momentum. That is why I am insisting on this part of the work that we will be doing in the coming weeks, if I am still with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We try to work well together. Actually, most of the time we work well together.

According to my clock, we have one minute left. Mr. Rayes, Mr. Aubin, and then Ms. Block are still on the agenda. That clock completely throws everybody off. Check what the time is, folks. We have a couple of minutes left.

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I see no problem with Mr. Badawey's motion. I think we all agree that smart communities are important and that it would be desirable for everyone to talk to each other, be it at the municipal, provincial or federal level.

In the motion, it says: “...other levels of government, as they undertake integrated land use planning...” I do not know whether it is a translation problem, but in French, the term “aménagement des terres” is used. I just want to understand what is meant by “aménagement des terres”. Actually, land use planning is ongoing. All communities work on land use planning.

I wonder whether I missed something. Could we just clarify that? However, I completely agree on the substance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I think it's an issue of translation in the way that rolls itself out.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

If I may say, Madam Chair, Alain you're absolutely right, but at the same time we want to respect that the municipalities will in fact be partners in this process. Here we are today, for example. We have six mayors sitting here. It's almost like an alumni session of FCM. When we were mayors, we appreciated it when the federal level or any upper level of government respected our official plans, the land use policies that we had in place, while at the same time articulating the investments that would be needed for that land use. It could be industrial, it could be open space, or it could be residential, which all have to do with infrastructure investments.

It just gives credibility to the ask, to then bring infrastructure up to par based on that land use planning.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, if you agree, I would like the translation to be revised. What Mr. Badawey is saying is perfectly correct, but it is not reflected in the French version. For the rest, I agree on the substance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Do you have an amendment to try to improve the—

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I don't think it's necessary. We agree on the principle, but if you are in agreement, I would at least like it to be translated correctly according to what was mentioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Aubin, and then we have to close.

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

Madam Chair, I'll be quick.

First of all, I fully support my colleague Mr. Berthold's comments. If we make our approach a little more formal, it will have a direct impact on our collegiality.

As for the motion, it deals with an old study that is already under way. Mr. Berthold, we have not necessarily changed our rules.

What I find most interesting is that, with this motion, I feel that we are finally giving direction to the study. Our study on smart cities was a little all over the place when we started it. It is now much more focused. So that's very nice. As to the number of meetings, that depends on the number of witnesses we still have to meet, but I'm in favour of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

A vote.