Evidence of meeting #137 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
If you're talking about the Liberal motion, it concerns a study on tourism, if I'm not mistaken.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Yes, that's right.
So we have a motion for a tourism study to consider before mine. So we'll have to wait another round before we can come back to my motion.
I maintain that the main players who should testify as part of this short study are toxicology experts and representatives from the department that is responsible for environmental and climate change issues. I think they are the key players who will be able to answer all of our questions properly, not to mention the members of the Métis nation, who are directly affected by this.
The list in the motion already includes the main players. I think we should stick to those witnesses. I don't see what a minister could add to our data, for the good of this committee.
Liberal
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
If I understand correctly, we have only so many hours to deal with this. What are the agreed-upon hours?
Liberal
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Then the second part is the amendment by Mr. Lawrence to bring in the ministers.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
The problem I have, having gone through this in my former life when it came to contaminated areas—and I say this with all due respect—is that I don't want to waste my time with ministers. I want some time with the technical people, because I've gone through this in the past with my community. We dealt with contaminated soils, phytotoxicology reports, reports on human health, risk assessments having to do with habitat and risk assessments having to do with the community. How are these contaminants affecting or adding risk to the community, in all aspects? That's my first point.
My second point is that once you find that out, you have to align it with the established parts per million levels. What's acceptable? Most times when provinces or territories put a PPM level in place, it's not based on anything because there's no science to back it up. It's not until you put the science and the process to establish that science in place that you have a better handle on what the PPM levels should be based on the assessments of risk.
The third point is about remediation. How are you going to remediate the site, and based on those risk assessments, what PPM level are you going to remediate it to?
The fourth point is about cost.
Quite frankly, there are many more points to this; I'm just trying to be quick. Ultimately, the point I'm trying to make is that getting all that done in four hours is next to impossible.
If we want to do this right, let's not waste time with ministers. Let's take the valuable time of the people who actually know about this and can answer the questions we're going to ask and give testimony that's pertinent to this very serious situation. I would suggest that we concentrate those four hours on individuals who are in the business versus playing politics with two ministers who are going to be here adding really no value to the discussion that we're going to embark on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.
I now give the floor to Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, there's one thing I don't understand in the debate we're having right now. Everyone is saying that this is an important issue, and everyone seems to be saying that we need to deal with it quickly. So I don't understand why we don't want to move on to this study quickly, in the order of studies. Instead, we seem to want to put this study at the end, after all the other studies already on the list. However, that would mean that we would carry out the study in a year. If this is an important and high-priority topic, I think it would be preferable to conduct the study sooner rather than later.
Second, I must say that this is a subject that I have not really explored much. It must be said that the dock in question is not in Quebec. However, given what I'm hearing from people around the table, I'm wondering whether two meetings will be enough. Would we need to add meetings, to be able to satisfy everyone?
Those are the two points I wanted to raise.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
I think Mr. Bachrach even suggested pushing back his own study so that this one could move ahead.
Next is Mr. Lawrence, followed by Mr. Bachrach.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
First of all, thank you, Mr. Bachrach. I'm not at all surprised to see you—knowing the importance of this study—putting the NDP's interest behind indigenous issues. Given your character, I'm not surprised at all.
Mr. Badawey, I agree with you that it's incredibly important to get technical information. Having now been around Parliament for five years, I've sat through a lot of testimony from officials. That testimony is often enlightening and critically important, but officials can only go so far. If you do not have the ministers, you never get the full story. There's always a policy element. Our civil servants work very hard, but they have a limited box they can operate in. If you want to get the full story, you need a minister.
I am interested in Mr. Bachrach's amendments and what his motion would look like. For Conservatives, the bare minimum would be to have three ministers, because this touches on a number of different files. It is, of course, about Transport Canada, so we need the Minister of Transport. It has a significant environmental impact, so we need the Minister of Environment. Finally, this is primarily an indigenous issue, so we need the Minister of Indigenous Services here as well. For Conservatives, that's the baseline.
The other part I would point out is that it says a minimum of two meetings. Of course, we are the masters of our own process, so we can, if we need to, extend the study if the evidence shows it merits additional discussion. I can't think of many things more important than the health of indigenous children who are swimming in potentially contaminated water, and perhaps knowingly so. At least, those are some of the allegations that have come out in the media.
Let's do this right. Let's get the full story. Let's get the ministers here, even if it's just for an hour apiece. We can zip through that pretty quickly to get the full story so we can at least do our small part on the walk towards reconciliation.
I'm not sure if Mr. Bachrach wants to move his amendment, but I'd be very interested in hearing it.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It seems to me that, if we have two meetings, we'll get four hours of testimony. Usually, we have one-hour panels. That's four panels of witnesses available to us. In my view—and I'm sorry if I'm stepping over the clerk's and analysts' roles here—there are four groups of witnesses whom I feel are most appropriate. First nations are first and foremost, and then it's ministers. I agree with Mr. Lawrence that it's vital to have them here, because ultimately they're accountable. One aspect of this that is particularly frustrating to the community is that they repeatedly wrote to the ministers, asked them to address the issue and did not receive adequate responses. I think those are very important questions that this committee, in its accountability role, should pursue. The third category is independent experts and the fourth category is government officials.
If we can invite witnesses for those four panels, I think we can do a condensed study in two meetings, write a strong letter to the government and table it in the House.
When it comes to the amendment, the version I have is as follows. I can have my staff provide it to the clerk if the committee wishes. It would read—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I'm sorry to cut you off, Mr. Bachrach, but for clarification, is this another motion you had access to, or does this have something to do with the two different versions sent out by our committee? The clerk and I want to make sure we haven't—
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is a proposed amendment. I believe it's to Mr. Lauzon's motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach. We just wanted to clarify that.
Go ahead.
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
It is, yes. The motion is on the floor with no other amendments. You're the first to put forward an amendment.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The amendment would strike some words after the first phrase. I'll just read the preamble, as amended:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and following the news of inaction on the part of the Government of Canada with regard to a contaminated Transport Canada dock located in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, putting the health and safety of indigenous communities at risk, the committee invite the following witnesses....
There's a list of witnesses here. I think it reflect the witnesses in the four panels that I mentioned. The witnesses who are mentioned are Mikisew Cree First Nation chief Billy-Joe Tuccaro, Fort Chipewyan and Métis Nation president Kendrick Cardinal, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Other ministers are included as well: the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.
Given the extensive list of witnesses, we're not going to have enough time in two meetings to address all of that. I would move to amend the first part of the body of text, and then the committee can invite witnesses as it sees fit within the frame of that motion.
Liberal
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Okay, let's start from there.
It's not really clear to me right now. I think it's a good idea to begin with. Of course, the person most directly concerned, among the ministers mentioned, is the Minister of Transport. I'm prepared to add her to the motion, but not the other ministers.
Mr. Bachrach should send his amendment in writing to the clerk, so that we can analyze it. He went back on his word a little. When we read a motion in committee, we read it in full so that everyone would understand its content. We don't give explanations or add ideas while reading the motion, as Mr. Bachrach has just done when reading his amendment. I think it's important to have the text of the amendment in both official languages so that everyone can read and analyze it. We should take the time we need.
Mr. Chair, as we are past the time to end the meeting, I want to make sure that interpreters are still available. Can we check with the clerk?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.
We have resources until 6:21 p.m. So we have eight minutes left.