Evidence of meeting #2 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 43rd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subcommittee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
I'd like to take issue with what my colleague on the left said.
I would like to point out that municipalities have expressed many concerns and requests regarding the federal Gas Tax Fund to me, not only in terms of the amount but also in terms of the criteria. All the more so since there has been a tightening of the criteria for access to this fund, for which city halls and fire stations are no longer eligible. This can have a major impact, not so much on large municipalities as on villages and small municipalities, which are very concerned about this issue.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
This is just a suggestion going forward. I know the subcommittee met, and these are all excellent points to bring up. Generally in my experience from the committees I've been on, the subcommittee meets, and especially if there is consensus—and I don't know if there was—a report comes up, and it is adopted. We seem to be going over very technical points of the study, which are excellent for the subcommittee. I appreciate their valid concerns, and you're right to bring them up, but this is why we have the subcommittee.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
The challenge, Mr. Bittle, is that these were tabled at the subcommittee and the whole committee did not have a chance to have a conversation about the motions that are here.
They were agreed to at the time with the subcommittee members, and they agreed to bring them forward at this meeting to have further conversation.
Mr. Rogers was kind enough to say that he was simply bringing them forward for discussion at that time.
I do want to mention something on this, so forgive me, committee members. I believe it was this committee last year that studied the gas tax fund, or perhaps it might have been another committee. It was very interesting for me that first nations communities did not have access to the gas tax fund and that, consistently, many of the first nations communities didn't even know that they had to apply for it, whereas other communities and municipalities simply get it and it's bankable. They can count on that information.
It would be interesting for us. That would be an interesting aspect of this study, I think.
For the preservation of time, do we as a committee agree ng that we want to push this or study it, or not study it at all? I think this is something that we need to move forward with as we are now at 4:30. We have another hour left to go and we have some other things we need to talk about.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Thank you, Mr. Doherty.
Before I go to Mr. Davidson and then Mr. Bachrach, the question was asked of Mr. Bachrach about more specifics. I'll add a few of my comments and then I have to go to Mr. Davidson.
We are a committee not just of transport, but of infrastructure and communities. That's number one. And, of course, the last time around in this committee we were consumed by transport issues. We never really got into infrastructure or communities, which I look forward to doing, by the way. It's up to the committee.
Mr. Doherty touched on one thing. The gas tax fund was introduced in 2005 and it's now 2020. Is there a need to update it, especially when it comes to indigenous communities and their access to that fund?
The second part of it is the collaboration with the municipalities. That can then get deeper into the weeds in terms of the need for that gas tax fund.
Lastly are the criteria, and I've heard a lot of that. With your coming from a municipal background, I'm sure you have a lot of opinions on that.
Ultimately it's going to be up to the committee, as well as the witnesses, to determine what those discussions are going to be.
Mr. Davidson.
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I would echo your comments. I hope we can move forward on this. I think it's an important topic, and as the vice-chair pointed out regarding first nations, this topic came up with the Chippewas of Georgina Island.
This came up in my riding, especially with climate change. We made a request. We had a creek washed out in my riding, and we didn't meet the criteria for the gas tax fund, so I think it's important that we look at this.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I appreciate the conversation, Mr. Chair, and certainly the points raised around the table are good ones. I believe the previous question was about the broadness of the motion. Unlike the other motions, it doesn't necessarily speak to those points. Now that we've had the conversation, I have a better sense of where people are going with their interest in the issue.
I wanted to speak briefly to Mr. Bittle's comment about the confusion between the work of the subcommittee and the work of the committee. My understanding is that every committee functions somewhat differently.
I was wondering if we might, as a committee, come up with a shared understanding of how those two function and an agreement that perhaps the motions should land at this committee and then go to the subcommittee for discussion and prioritization, or vice versa, but that we agree on one so we're not duplicating our efforts and confusing ourselves.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Thank you.
You wanted some clarification on that. I'll put my neck out.
I think the intent of the subcommittee is simply to discuss the topics at hand. In this case it's committee business. As I said earlier, the intent is to get everything on the table, so that way we can bring recommendations to the committee. There's no question that there is an expectation that the committee does have a dialogue with respect to the recommendations, as we are having today.
I guess there is an expectation that those who participate in the committee meeting would bring forward the recommendations. Although other comments may be made at the committee meeting, they would be consistent with what was said at the subcommittee meeting. But things do change, and I get that. Of course, from there the decision is ultimately made by the committee itself.
Mr. Doherty and I did have a small chat today about being a bit more, for lack of a better word, sympathetic to some of those comments that may come forward versus what's recommended at the subcommittee, because ultimately, a subcommittee is just a subcommittee. As I said earlier, it's in the purview of the committee, moving forward. As the chair I want to be very staunch that things may change, things may be amended, things may be added or things might be deleted. That's up to you folks. Although it might go to the subcommittee first, again, changes can happen at the committee level and the debate would be expected to then make that ultimate decision in what direction it would be taken.
Mr. Doherty.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
To answer Mr. Bachrach's question, the normal procedure would be that a motion would be brought forward at the time of the committee. At that time, we would either adopt it or go into a subcommittee or go in camera to have a further conversation. The subcommittee is the one that would then decide whether we're moving forward, similar to what we did yesterday.
What happened yesterday was an anomaly. That's why the question was brought up earlier today. Mr. Rogers did mention that as discussion points, the motions were table-dropped at subcommittee, but normally what would happen is that.... That's why a number of times yesterday comments were made that we need to give others around the committee an opportunity to make comments regarding these motions.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I appreciate the clarification. I understand from Mr. Doherty that what happened at the subcommittee, where all of these motions got dropped, was an anomaly.
My simple request is that we have a shared understanding that, in future, the motions will drop at the main committee and be sent to the subcommittee, as opposed to vice versa. We've heard around the table a frustration with the lack of notice. People are reading them for the first time, especially if they're not a member of the subcommittee. In the interest of working together in a co-operative way, where we don't get frustrated with each other.... We now have in front of us 42 meetings of work, all dropped at the subcommittee. It's my desire that we have a clear.... We had a discussion about how the subcommittee was going to work. Then it worked in an anomalous way, as Mr. Doherty said.
It's frustrating, that's all.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
To go back to the motion in front of us, when I read it for the first time today, I was really struck by the breadth of it and the need to zone in on what we really want to talk about. Is it possible to refer it back to the subcommittee, at this point, for some amendment and some clarification? Or is anyone prepared to try to do that right here and now?
It strikes me that we need a lot more clarification on what exactly needs to be studied.
Liberal
Maninder Sidhu Liberal Brampton East, ON
I agree with you, Mr. Davidson, that every municipality is different. You were saying there were some qualifications that didn't...fall for the creek. I know that in my riding, there were some projects that did not; you know, there were different types of projects that didn't fall through.
I think leaving it wide would help a lot of the members here to get some support and some guidance on how we can make this program a little bit better.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
You could amend it to say “and examine criteria for eligibility for the fund”, just as an example.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Are there any more questions or comments on this?
I will go to the motion.
All those in favour? Opposed?
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Yes. I had a proposal to postpone it, to rewrite it. This is what I asked before.