Evidence of meeting #64 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 report.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Alexandre Lavoie  Committee Researcher

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

All right.

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

I agree that there's no rush to deal with the matter, but does it have to be included? That's a question I think we should ask ourselves.

I realize that it's tied to infrastructure, but as far as smart cities are concerned, it's more a matter of infrastructure management. Perhaps we could mention the piping, the way it is managed, and the need to know what the current inventory is. From the comments we heard, we learned that we have no idea as to the inventory across the country, so I don't think using this element as an example poses a problem.

What I wonder about, though, is the reason for incorporating the motion into our study on smart cities. We could simply include all the elements affecting all cities and mention that particular aspect. Does the issue merit a report? I don't really have an opinion on that yet.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Okay, M. Aubin.

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

I'd like to pick up on what Mr. Rayes said.

Nothing I have heard so far during the smart communities study would suggest a clear connection between that and Mr. Bratina's motion.

That said, we still have four meetings to go, so I'm not closing the door on the idea. If, however, we want to merge the two files, it would probably be beneficial to find a witness—if such a witness exists—who could tell the committee how their municipality's water system has a smart component and explain how the connected software runs the system, ensures water quality, manages failures, and so forth.

At this stage in the game, I find it tough to connect the two, but we can think about it. If that's what we want to do, I think we should find a witness who can speak to that.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

I agree with my colleague's sage advice. I think we can hold off on deciding whether to include it in the report. You just said we have until December. That gives us enough time to think about it. Let's not rule out the possibility. I just think we should wait to hear what the witnesses have to say during the next four days of meetings in order to figure out whether we really can connect the two in a meaningful way. I think we can work towards that. We shall see.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Okay, thank you. That's a good idea between them all.

Yes, Mr. Badawey.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

With respect to what Bob's coming forward with, quite frankly that's something we can discuss and debate, but it's not up to us, and it's twofold. One thing is that it's becoming a request from the municipalities, because there is a gap there to look after these laterals. Therefore, point number two is that it's up to municipalities if they want to fund those laterals. It's not our decision.

Sorry, guys, I don't mean to offend you, but it's not your decision.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

It's the House's decision.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

If I may, I have the floor, Ms. Block. Thank you.

What I'm getting at—and this is why I want to roll out the community investment plans—is that you're actually putting a funding envelope in place that's will help fund something that's been established by the municipalities, which is their decision. What they then do with that money or prioritize doing with it is up to them, and if they happen to take a funding envelope, as a municipality, because they know best....

Sorry, guys, it's not you. They, as municipalities know best.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

“We....”

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

Sorry, it's not “we”, but “they” who know best. And we are empowering them to make those decisions. That's the whole crux of the infrastructure funding. If they happen to make a decision that they want to take a certain funding envelope under a smart cities initiative—which it aligns with, by the way—and put it toward collaterals, that's their call, not ours.

Thank you.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

I didn't get that we were going to be dictating to anyone. The question was how to deal with Mr. Bratina's motion.

Mr. Rayes said he didn't quite see where the direct connections were but we should go along with our four extra meetings and then figure it out at the end of that, because we still have to do two separate reports.

Mrs. Block, go ahead.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

I do not understand the intervention by Mr. Badawey, because there was support to include the content of Mr. Bratina's motion into his smart cities study, but the House will definitely vote on Mr. Bratina's motion. It's not about anybody deciding anything. It's about the fact that a motion that's been put on the order of precedence has been studied by a committee and will now go back to the House and be voted on.

My intervention was simply to find out when that needs to happen and how it is reported back to the House. I think you've completely misunderstood the intervention.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

That does happen sometimes.

Mr. Berthold, go ahead.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Ms. Block just beat me to the punch. We have to report back to the House on Mr. Bratina's motion. I think agreeing to discuss the motion as part of another study would show the committee's willingness to be co-operative. I have no problem with that.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

That's great.

Mr. Rayes, go ahead.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

I agree with my two colleagues. I have no objection to that idea. What we will need to think about during the next four meetings on smart communities is whether to deal with it fully in that report, merely take it into account, or devote another report to it.

We have no problem discussing that. I see no reason why anyone would think the opposite.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

The direction from the clerk is that ultimately it has to be a separate report to the House. We can gain information as we move forward and incorporate it, which is what I think we are all saying we want to do.

Mr. Hardie, go ahead.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Congratulations to my friends across for the shocking amount of clarity. It's very good. Yes, you are correct—

11:45 a.m.

An hon. member

It's always done with clarity.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

I know. We have the best committee on the Hill.

11:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

June 8th, 2017 / 11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

We do.

I do want though to turn our attention to the whole issue of what we're talking about with smart cities. So far we've heard of a lot of gee whiz technology, cars that can go sideways and all kinds of stuff, but what we really have an opportunity to do here is to then start to see how this is applied to cities in a way that not only makes those cities work better, but at the same time particularly complements the infrastructure investments the government is prepared to make in those cities. Using superclusters as an example, we could designate a supercluster in Elk's Mistake, Saskatchewan, if we wanted to, but if they have dial-up Internet service there, we're going to have a problem.

As we go forward and think about this, let's see where we take our cities because some cities are not ready to be smart yet. They are perhaps intelligent and have the potential, but what can we do in our study of smart cities that will help those cities align their planning and their investments to make them ready for the bigger investments that could come? What can we do through the current infrastructure program to help them with that alignment to get them prepared to take the next step into, if you like, the smart city sphere?

I've had the benefit of working very closely with the regional plan in Metro Vancouver, which has a long history that goes back the better part of 50 years of really sound decisions that positioned Metro Vancouver to take advantage of things like the gateway program, which opened up access to our ports. To make that kind of gateway investment in a city that's not ready, that doesn't have the complementary systems in place, is a waste of opportunity and quite possibly a waste of money.

We have an opportunity with the smart cities to take a step back and look at some of those fundamentals that need to be in place for a city to move to the level of being a smart city, and for a city to take full advantage of what could be significant infrastructure investments. My group and I have put together a list of witnesses we could bring in who can speak to the experience in Metro Vancouver, and it probably could be enhanced by the experiences we've had in the regions where we come from.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Mr. Rayes.