Transport Committee on Feb. 20th, 2020

[The Clerk]

It depends on the context of your amendment.

If the committee has already made a decision on the item in question and has moved on to something else, for example, when we are in a meeting and there are witnesses, 48 hours' notice must be given, because it does not relate to the matter before the committee at that time. However, if the debate is in progress and you have an amendment to move, you can move it immediately, without notice, because it deals with the business before the committee.

The same applies to motions before the committee. At your first meeting, you adopted routine motions that specify that if the item is related to the subject matter before the committee, such as business before the committee, the notice period is not required. However, if it relates to something else, notice must be given.

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

For example, today I could give notice that I am proposing to amend any motion and we could discuss it in 48 hours.

[The Clerk]

You could discuss it immediately.

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

Today, yes. However, if it's Tuesday and I've had time to study the motion and I want to propose some changes, I'll send you a notice and we'll discuss it later, is that it?

[The Clerk]

Exactly.

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

That could change this motion without any problem, correct? In other words, nothing prevents me from moving a motion to amend another motion.

[The Clerk]

Precisely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Mr. Sidhu.

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

Perfect.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

As my colleague, Mr. Bachrach, was saying about studying Internet or cellphones, we're having an issue with both in rural ridings. I think it's important to look at both issues and leave it broadly based.

When we have witnesses here, we can zero in on what needs to be done to help these rural ridings, because there's an issue with Internet connectivity for studying and education, and there's also an issue with first responders in terms of cellphones. I think we should leave it as is and then we can zero in depending on what the needs are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Are there any further questions or comments?

Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Just to complement Mr. Sidhu's point very quickly, in Eastern Ontario, which is made up of several ridings, 40% of the area does not have access to high definition services that allow streaming and HD services. You might say, “Someone can't watch Netflix. What does that do to their quality of life?” It also affects education and working from home. There are lots of home-based businesses and rural-based businesses. It also affects delivery of federal and provincial services electronically.

Twenty percent of the area does not have access to standard definition video, typical mobile app use or video app calling. Most smart phone services are not operable in 20% of the region, and 10% of this region has no voice call service at all. You can't even use a cellphone. That goes to the heart of the issue.

To your question on the broad umbrella that digital infrastructure covers, there's the high-speed Internet access that's covered by laying fibre optic cables or over-the-air Internet, but the cell gap also needs to be closed. “Digital infrastructure” is how it was characterized by both the Province of Ontario and the federal government in addressing it last year, and so it's been helpful to use that all-encompassing term, in my opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you.

Are there further questions or comments?

All those in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

We'll move on to the next motion.

Mr. Rogers.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

The next motion reads:

That the Committee commit to undertake a study on the Gas Tax Fund. And that, in consultation with the Committee Members, the Chair be empowered to coordinate the resources and scheduling necessary to execute these studies in 6 meetings or fewer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Are there any questions or comments on this motion?

Mr. Berthold.

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

How do you want to approach this subject? This is about the federal Gas Tax Fund. It's a large study.

What questions do you want to address? Do you want to discuss infrastructure?

I find the terms of reference really very broad, and I think, therefore, that the analysts will have difficulty determining the exact subject matter of the study. The study falls under several sectors, including finance. I think we need to be more specific.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Mr. Rogers.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

The intent is to work with organizations and municipalities across the country and to question people like the FCM about the value of the fund to all of these municipalities that receive the gas tax fund, and for what intended purpose they want to use it.

They keep asking and requesting that we double the gas tax fund. We want to try to get a good appreciation of why they're requesting that doubling. What's the value to municipalities? We're trying to get at the value of that particular fund.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Mr. Berthold.

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

Would it be appropriate for you to submit something more detailed to us?

I totally agree with the angle that is proposed, namely the municipal needs, but I find it too vague.

Could you submit a new proposal?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Yes, and we'd be open to your making suggestions on specific things related to a gas tax fund that you'd like to see covered. We could be open to that. It's something that we could bring to the subcommittee and have a look at it and bring back to the committee. I invite all the members here to offer suggestions to make this more specific to where you want to see it go.

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

Are we going to defer the motion?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I share Mr. Berthold's concern about the broadness of the motion. Compared to the other motions before us, which all speak directly to pressing issues in our country, it seems to me, as someone who worked for several years in local government as a mayor, that the gas tax fund was recently broadened considerably. The criteria were almost entirely eliminated and this fund can be used by municipalities for most of their infrastructure needs.

The concerns I hear coming forward from the municipal sector are not about the application of the Gas Tax Fund but only that it is not big enough. I don't know if we need to study whether or not it needs to be bigger. I would rather allocate that effort elsewhere.

It's clearly an important fund for municipalities, but the key message I'm hearing is that they want an increase and I'm not sure that.... In my view, that's clearly justified, but what are we going to be studying exactly?