Transport Committee on April 15th, 2021

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thanks, Chair.

I agree with what Mr. Rogers has said.

I would just note that this appears to be a complete list of service providers, but if we're going to go ahead with this, I would like to add Viking Air as well. If I could, I'll propose an amendment to add “Viking Air” to the list, and if Mr. Rogers did not propose the amendment that the April date be replaced with “as soon as possible, taking into consideration other committee business”, I'd like to propose that amendment too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

I'll take that amendment into consideration.

With that, I will allow Mr. Barsalou-Duval to speak, as it's his motion that's been brought to the floor, and then I will go directly to the amendment, asking members if they have any questions. Then there's the voting on the amendment and, of course, with that, depending on the outcome, the main motion.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor. Go ahead.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm quite comfortable with the amendments proposed by my colleagues, but with one reservation on one point.

In terms of adding Viking Air, I'm fine with that. In terms of removing the April 30 date, I understand that it is close. However, the idea behind having one meeting is precisely so that we don't replace and delay the studies that are under way.

It would not be appropriate to hold the meeting at the end of all the studies, because we should hold it quickly. The situation is quite difficult and urgent for the outfitters, for the Northern Inuit and also for the Cree. I think we need to hold this meeting quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

I have just one comment. I'm trying to expedite this because we have witnesses who are here and I want to respect their time.

Members, I mentioned this at the last meeting. We've done numerous studies, most of which—if not all—were studies that were proposed by the opposition parties. To complete those studies, we need to have reports come back to committee, be ratified and be presented to Parliament. We have yet to do that, and that's going to take time. I know that time is the problem here, unless folks want to work through the summer, which, by the way, I have no problem with. To meet a lot of the requests for further studies past what we agreed upon will be challenging. That's point number one.

Point number two is that I am attempting to schedule a business planning meeting. That within itself is challenging, because we have scheduled meetings with witnesses attached to those meetings in the upcoming week or two, so we probably won't get to that business planning meeting until after a week or two. At that time, when we do enter into that discussion during that meeting, we can then discuss a reprioritizing if members of the committee wish and, with that, try to fit into the queue a lot of your desires with respect to existing as well as future studies.

I want to re-emphasize my earlier point: Doing studies is not too productive if you can't finally get a report to Parliament. We can do all the studies we want, but if we can't finalize them by having a report to present to Parliament, then it's all for naught. My intention, my priority, as the chair of the committee, is to in fact attempt to steer committee to getting to that point with the studies that have already been completed. With respect to bringing those reports to Parliament, we're looking at bringing at least two before June, hopefully, and then from there, we can continue on with the studies we establish during the planning session and that would then, therefore, be re-established in the queue.

With that, if anybody has any further questions....

Mr. Clerk, I'm going to accept those amendments as friendly and add them to the motion just as a matter of respecting time. The motion has had some flexibility added to it with respect to Mr. Fillmore's and Mr. Rogers' interventions.

Mr. El-Khoury, I see your hand up. Do you have a question?

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honestly, you just said what I wanted to say. Also, since we are running out of time, our agenda is quite packed and our responsibility is to produce reports, I am interested in discussing Mr. Barsalou-Duval's motions. I would also like to hear the opinion of our Conservative and NDP colleagues on these subjects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Are there any further questions or comments?

The clerk is telling me that I cannot, by the rules of the House, accept the friendly amendment, so I will have to ask for a vote on that. To that, are there any further questions or comments on the amendment made by Mr. Fillmore?

Go ahead, Mr. Sidhu.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to intervene here.

I think what you mentioned is important. We need to get the reports completed, and I understand the urgency of different matters that colleagues bring up. However, we do need to present some reports to the House. In my mind, bringing all these witnesses out, studying something and then not producing anything from it.... We can go on about this every week and something new will come up, but I think there should be some type of agenda that we should follow as a committee to produce some good results and reports that we can pass along to other colleagues in the House.

That's my input, but I would like to hear from my other counterparts among the Conservatives and the NDP on Mr. Barsalou-Duval's point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Sidhu.

Are there any further questions or comments on the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

We'll now go to the motion as amended.

Members, are there any further questions or comments?

Mr. Bachrach, you had a question.

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

I'll be very brief, Mr. Chair.

I haven't weighed in yet, but I have spoken with Mr. Barsalou-Duval and reached out to the guide outfitting industry in northwest B.C. This is an issue of interest to them, so I support the motion as amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval and members of the committee.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, the floor is yours for another five minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Clearly, my first question is for Mr. Demers.

Mr. Demers, during your opening remarks, and even in response to the questions from my various colleagues, you strongly emphasized the importance of having a flexible federal gas tax fund.

What actually surprised me initially, when we talked about the gas tax amendments, was the denial that there had been any change to the federal gas tax fund. However, after careful reading, we realized that there had in fact been a change. Although the change was relatively minor on the surface, it made a major difference.

Let me give you an example. Saying that a program has priority items, but that the money can still be used for other purposes, is the difference between saying it's exclusive and it's non-exclusive. We see, for example, city halls, fire stations, municipal garages and warehouses that cannot be built and cannot be supported by the federal gas tax fund because of these changes.

We, on the other hand, fully support that approach. We have had the opportunity to speak to Minister McKenna about this on many occasions, but each time we came up against a sort of non-answer.

Could you tell me how important this is to you?

[Jacques Demers]

It is very important and we have been talking about it for a number of years now.

The change to the federal gas tax fund is about the use of the funds. The wording has not changed.

Previously, municipalities could use the federal gas tax fund for a number of projects. In Quebec, a minimum of 20% of the fund came from the province and could be used for various projects. Now, that is no longer the case. We cannot use it for anything other than what is stated.

Right now, we want to reopen Canada's economy. We have an opportunity to invest money, as the government is doing.

This is a fine grant. I certainly don't want to criticize it. It is predictable funding already in place. However, it needs to be improved. It is important to allow municipalities to use it for other projects once they have dealt with drinking water and roads, for example. It is important to ensure that the roads stay in good condition for 10 or 12 years. If they stay in good condition only for one year or two, there will be problems a few years later.

There have been high water flows in various locations, particularly in Quebec, and some dams need to be upgraded. That's a municipal responsibility. Why can't we use the money for that? This is what I'm objecting to.

Earlier, I said that we had permission to use the fund to design a fire station that we were going to build. When it came time to build it, we were told that the program had changed and that we could not use the fund for that purpose.

That needs to be corrected. We would like to see more flexibility. We are not asking for more money. We are asking to be able to use that money without having to return it or impose a property tax on people.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I would like to ask you another question.

In my riding, there are as many medium-sized municipalities of 20,000, 30,000, or 40,000 people as there are small municipalities of 1,000 people or less. I find that small municipalities make these kinds of claims much more often than large ones because the large municipalities have so many projects that they can use the money to do other things. Am I wrong in saying that?

[Jacques Demers]

You are mostly right. Large municipalities often employ engineers. We often learn about a program or a grant a few days before the deadline. Smaller municipalities do not have the flexibility to sign up for these programs, whereas the federal gas tax fund is predictable. The tax is paid for five-year periods. We know how much money we will receive and that allows us to manage it better. That's the distinction between the federal gas tax fund and other programs.

That's why we want to make sure that all of the programs are not just about getting projects done quickly. We need predictability. The danger of funding the same types of projects at the same time is that there is a lot of work for certain trades, which drives up costs. The government wants to see more investments, but that's not what ends up happening.

When you build a fire station or a city hall, you bring in other trades. Our construction projects go beyond roads and allow us to have and keep a diverse workforce in our regions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Demers and Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

I very much appreciate it, Mr. Demers. You raised a good point about the sustainability of the gas tax fund, especially when you're entering into larger projects that you're going to debt finance. To have that guaranteed revenue stream coming in every year makes it a lot easier to plan well in ahead. That was a good point.

We're now going to move on to our second round, for five minutes.

Starting us off, with the Conservatives, is Mr. Baldinelli.

Mr. Baldinelli, welcome.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for appearing today.

I'd like to begin, if I could, with regional chair Bradley—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think you may have missed me in the lineup there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Did I miss you?

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

I won't read anything into it. Don't worry.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You have my apologies, Mr. Bachrach.

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

It's not your fault, Tony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Mr. Baldinelli, hold off for a second.

Mr. Bachrach, you are correct. Go ahead.

You have the floor for six minutes. I'm sorry. I'll even give you a little extra time.

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

You'll give me an extra 20 seconds? Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Go ahead, Taylor.

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

I appreciate the accommodation.

I appreciate that the study is starting. It's such an important topic. I thank Ms. Jaczek for allowing me to amend it to include a particular focus on rural Internet, an issue that is so germane and so critical for northwest B.C.

I'm really happy that we were able to hear from Coastal First Nations, from Mr. Kariya. I'm sorry that Ms. Smith-Martin wasn't able to connect. I hope we get to hear from her again in the future.

Mr. Kariya, I have a few questions to expand on what you told us about the situation facing indigenous communities on B.C.'s north coast. I wonder if you could start by describing the current state of connectivity for indigenous communities. What Internet speeds do coastal communities currently receive?